Speeches

(Start of speech off mic) ... one of the Rules of Procedure, which is exactly the observance of the Rules of Procedure when it comes to making the combination of the catch-the-eye and the blue cards. We have seen more than 20 blue cards in this debate and all of them granted – even for people who were on the speaking list that have taken the floor after having a blue card, and then there is no time for catch-the-eye. There should be a formal announcement so that you know which rules you should be sticking to. But no improvisation and no arbitrariness when it comes to applying the Rules of Procedure.

Mr President, Commissioner, the National Security Strategy dictated by Trump is offensively aimed at weakening the European Union. And it does so in a particularly aggressive way in its support for the giants in the network (the so-called techno-oligarchy of Silicon Valley) in its resistance to submit to European law, which exemplify fines such as the 3 billion euros imposed on Google by the Vice-President responsible for Competition of the European Union or the 480 million euros imposed on Meta by a court in Madrid on November 19 for breach of its obligations with European law. And he is telling us clearly that the path is not appeasement - that is, the dismantling of European standards, both the regulation ('Brussels effect'!) of the digital society and the digital market and the European data protection standard, which is the highest in the world - but precisely the demand for such subjection to European law. If necessary, defend it before the courts of law.

Mr President, I would like to raise not only the opportunity but also the content of this report by Ms Jalloul Muro regarding the relationship between the European Union and Saudi Arabia, which has proved to be a relevant regional actor. The European Union should actually fulfil its commitment to become a globally relevant actor – if Saudi Arabia is a relevant partner for the US, for Israel, for the Islamic Conference, for the Arab world, how could it not be relevant for the European Union? But I would especially like to praise the strong message of the European Union's diplomatic commitment to human rights, empowering equal rights between men and women and, of course, fighting the death penalty – that is the number one priority for the European Union. But in order to enhance that message to a relevant actor, as Saudi Arabia certainly is, it takes enhancing the bilateral relationship between Saudi Arabia and the European Union. So I can only thank Ms Jalloul Muro's report on this relation between the European Union and Saudi Arabia.

Madam President, Commissioner Hansen, once again, the European Union degrades a plausible objective with obscure and incomprehensible language: Why call bus the reasonable objective of incentivising defence investments and coordinating the efforts of the European Union and its Member States with all the instruments at its disposal, such as the Digital Europe Programme, the European Defence Fund, the Connecting Europe Facility or Horizon Europe, which has a predominantly civil nature of innovation and research? Yes, we accept that it is essential to act together and not fragmented and dysfunctional, but, above all, we affirm that this cannot go against either cohesion or agricultural policy, for which you are responsible, or regional policy. Investing €800 billion also requires a financial innovation effort, with common indebtedness and own resources that are able to finance this final maturation of the European Union, if it really wants to acquire a globally relevant stature.

Mr President, the EU Drugs Action Plan and the Complementary Strategy have as their first obligation to draw the lessons from the work of the European Union Drugs Agency, which it is for, and which tells us that, first of all, it is necessary to adapt with agility to changing methods and routes; but, above all, to exchange information, including not only law enforcement agencies, but also Frontex and Europol, precisely to try to prevent this growing recruitment of minors for drug trafficking. And that also requires being able to invest in innovation and scientific research regarding precursors and synthetic drugs, which are wreaking havoc. And finally, the complementary obligation is not only to act repressively on the criminal dimension of this activity that is so harmful to the values of the Union, but, above all, to act in the field of prevention and education; and to teach that it not only causes stratospheric damage to the financial interests of the Union and causes corruption, but also wreaks havoc on the health of 450 million European citizens who are exposed to this drug penetration by European ports.

Madam President, this is the last plenary before Christmas of this European Parliament, and I take this opportunity to draw your attention to the relevance of Rule 181 of our Rules of Procedure, which gives you full power to prevent or curtail the misuse or abuse of false points of order – disguised political statements which belong rather to the one‑minute speeches, the last item on the agenda in plenary on Mondays. So stop misusing points of order, please!

Mr President, as S&D coordinator of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, in which this report has been discussed, I would like you to consider the following oral amendment: 'Recalls that subsidiarity and proportionality are fundamental to the Union's democratic functioning; stresses that these principles must not be misused to obstruct necessary EU action, nor invoked by political forces seeking to weaken or delegitimise the European project; expresses concern at the growing normalisation of far-right and other extremist narratives that challenge the values enshrined in the Treaties and hinder effective European solutions'.

Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union's objective of decarbonising its economy is unobjectionable. Includes air and sea transport. But you have clearly heard the message that draws attention to the need to adequately finance this transition to the decarbonised economy in the outermost regions, such as the Canary Islands, which have no alternative by road, but depend exclusively – not only for their connectivity but for their entire quality of life and for the equal opportunities of the citizens residing in them – on the just green transition. We marked that message when we negotiated the green transition in the European Parliament last parliamentary term and it is heard again clearly and resoundingly in this plenary session of the European Parliament because it is absolutely necessary given that there are no alternatives. It's not just about competitiveness. It's about connectivity. But the exclusive legal basis protecting the peripheral northern region is also invoked and I do not have to remind you, Portuguese Commissioner, because there are two outermost regions of Portugal, six of France and one of Spain, the Canary Islands, which require such special treatment – Articles 349 and 355 – which make it possible not only to modulate the application of European law, but also to adopt specific measures to ensure equal opportunities for citizens residing in outermost regions.

Mr President, Vice-President Virkkunen, the last parliamentary term came to an outstanding conclusion and it is regrettable that the pieces of this legislative acquis are currently being dismantled under the pretext of simplification, realism, lightening of burdens or competitiveness: the just green transition, the Pact on Migration and Asylum and the Digital Agenda, which aimed exactly to bring the big digital platforms and their business model under the regulatory power of the European Union. And it is impossible not to think that when you invoke small and medium-sized companies you are reproducing the same pessimistic forecast that was hovered over the General Data Protection Regulation, which is the one that sets the highest standard in the world for guaranteeing the confidentiality of personal data and privacy, and that small and medium-sized companies incorporated with the same success as public administrations. That is why we have to affirm that simplifying is not deregulating or degrading our standards, much less subjecting ourselves to blackmail or pressure from the big technology platforms or the Trump administration that protects them. In this matter, therefore, the European Union has not only its regulatory power, but also its authority and credibility, Vice-President Virkkunen.

Madam President, Commissioner McGrath, Mrs Schaldemose, in the face of an extensive social and citizen demand, this Parliament cannot fail to respond. The European Union has a duty to do so, because Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires the protection of minors. But, in addition, our legal basis is the same that has allowed us to regulate the business model of large digital platforms: Addictive algorithms that subject our children – regardless of the time spent by parents – to cognitive, emotional, eating, self-harming and even self-destructive disorders. It is therefore a duty to intervene, particularly in the realm of dark patterns, their indiscriminate exposure to pornography, violence, recruitment for crime or online sexual abusers. I believe that the challenge is indeed age verification, in which the European Union must put order: You have to establish a range between the ages of thirteen and sixteen. Because it is only from the European Union that a common response can be established to the challenge of preventing our children from being exposed to risks that are far beyond the scope of parental responsibility and that require the action of the European legislator.

Mr President, Commissioner McGrath, the bad news is that defending democracy against its threats and its internal and external enemies - which exist on both fronts - has become such a politically and ideologically divisive issue in this European Parliament. But the good news is that there is still a majority in this European Parliament who understand that the Commission's proposals are reasonable. That is, of course, my experience in my work in the Special Committee on the European Shield of Democracy, because we are ready to strengthen algorithmic transparency and accountability of digital platforms where extremist and polarising discourses circulate; because we are ready to strengthen digital literacy – digital leadership – and education to prevent exactly the damage done by the penetration of lies, hoaxes and foreign interference, thus strengthening the integrity not only of our media and its information pluralism, but also of our electoral processes, also in the face of artificial intelligence. In addition, we are willing to discuss that center of resilience or defense of democracy, as long as it is a tool to share intelligence in the face of bad experiences of intrusion and foreign interference in the integrity of democratic processes. Go ahead, Commissioner.

Madam President, Commissioner Kubilius, you will surely have noticed that there is broad consensus and broad agreement in the interventions, in sustaining this commitment to a European defence programme, which translates into the commitment to strategic autonomy and for the European Union to take charge of its defence. Yes, we agree that we need to invest better, and that means doing it together, with plans to purchase joint armaments, to produce joint armaments and to stockpile together as well. But that is not enough, because in addition it is necessary for the European Union to acquire at once an audible and respectable voice wherever the future of Ukraine is decided, in which the future of the European Union also goes. And the second caution you have heard is that this cannot take the soul of Europe ahead of you: the arms industry cannot take ahead of social policy, regional policy, solidarity and cohesion and, therefore, it requires own resources and common indebtedness so that strategic autonomy means growth and maturation of the European Union and not an unacceptable change.

Madam President, honourable Members, it's been 46 years that this European Parliament has been the only directly democratically elected institution in the Union, and the European electoral act that made it possible stems all the way back to 1976, when this European Parliament was not this big, not this strong. So it obviously needs to be updated. Actually, this European Parliament has voted twice for reform proposals which are pending of the Council to make up its mind – not an easy task, as it takes unanimity and then transposition to 27 national legislations. But today we have a chance to adopt an urgent, limited, targeted response to a long-standing demand. Thanks to the pragmatic approach of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, we are to finally make it possible for pregnant Members of this House to exert their parliamentary voting rights before and after giving birth. It's a step in the right direction. It's the right thing to do. It's long due, so let's make it! I ask you kindly for your support and positive vote.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, the raison d'être of the European Union is summed up in one word: solidarity. And solidarity now hangs over the fact that there is, in the multiannual financial framework, sufficient funding for an affordable housing plan. It is the priority of progressives because it is for the European Union, for the working class and for the emancipation of the younger generation. But solidarity also depends on the effective implementation of the obligations of the Member States under the Pact on Migration and Asylum, and certainly under the first solidarity plan, which is implemented through relocation plans and financing of the Internal Solidarity Fund and the Asylum and Migration Fund, to alleviate migratory pressure in the countries of the southern border of Europe, which are not by chance marked by their name: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Spain, the latter on the Atlantic border, on the most dangerous migration route to the European Union, which is the Canarian route. It is therefore urgent to implement this solidarity plan, which will mean a commitment on the part of the Commission to an obligation on the part of this European Parliament, legislation which is binding on the Member States.

Mr President, Vice-President Virkkunen, last week the meeting of the outermost regions called the Eurodom Conference took place in Brussels, with the participation of regional governments and the productive fabric, but also of Members of the European Parliament born and living, like me, in the Canary Islands, an outermost region. And the message was a choral polyphony but very consistent. It is unacceptable, intolerable to remove the regional governance echelon in cohesion policy, regional funds – the European Regional Development Fund – and the European Social Fund. But it is also illegal when it concerns the outermost regions because they have a specific legal basis. It is not tolerable for regions to be forced to compete with each other in order to be able to access the funds, which, from now on, would be administered exclusively by national governments in the so-called "national envelope". And, in the case of the outermost regions, it is a direct violation of their legal basis, which is what allows the outermost regions to be exempted from general policy, but also to take specific measures such as POSEI or the OR funds, which must be preserved at all costs in the multiannual financial framework.