Speeches

Mr President, I applaud this report by MEP Chloé Ridel of the S&D Group because it brings to the attention of this European Parliament that human rights are a direct source of European law and bind the European institutions and, therefore, it is an obligation of the European Union to defuse any form of transnational repression against human rights and their defenders, but actively, not only with diplomatic instruments. We are not talking about remote or third countries that we can think of, even some giants, physically very far away, but countries that are on the European continent: Belarus. But, in addition, there are also, not coincidentally from the former influence of the defunct Soviet Union, in the concentric circle of European supranational integration that is the Council of Europe; countries where abusive extraditions and criminal prosecutions and criminal proceedings are practised, not only against human rights defenders, but against human rights which are a direct source of our European law.

Mr President, Mrs Virkkunen, a while ago in this European Parliament we were discussing the Gender Equality Strategy and now we are discussing how to combat these absolutely abusive, intolerable, illegal and punishable practices of digital platforms that trade in sexualised doll products that directly incite paedophilia. And the answer is clear: impose European law, strictly speaking. We have regulated a whole legislative package that subjects major technology platforms – whatever their format – to European law. And what is needed is a Commission absolutely committed to taking it to its ultimate consequences, because in doing so the European Union is not only going to be inclusive, equal and therefore protective of consumer rights – which are also fundamental rights protected by the Charter – but also to be a fairer and more decent European Union.

Mr President, Vice-President Fitto, 50 years of illegal occupation in a Member State of the European Union, the Republic of Cyprus, which is the only State legitimately recognised in the international community, and the European Union cannot rest until its territorial integrity has been restored, on which the integrity of the democratic representation of its national Parliament and the integrity of the democratic representation of the people of Cyprus in this European Parliament depend. But this is a matter that cannot and should not be spoken only in Greek and that should not be spoken only by Cypriots, because we care about all Europeans. I have had the honour of being, for two legislatures, the standing rapporteur for the identification of missing persons and the exhumation of graves and, therefore, the return of remains to their loved ones in Cyprus. The European Union had invested considerable resources in that effort, since it had to invest all its diplomatic energy in ensuring that Turkey complied with international law and that the territorial integrity of a Member State of the European Union could finally be restored.

Mr President, Mrs von der Leyen, three very clear ideas. The first is that under no circumstances is a multiannual financial framework acceptable where Europe's raison d'être is not recognisable: not only agricultural policy, but also cohesion policy, interregional solidarity and the European Social Fund. The second idea is that it is by no means acceptable for innovation and defence to be financed at the expense of the social pillar or interregional solidarity. But the third is that, if there is one point that, in addition to being unacceptable, directly violates the primary law of the European Union, it is that relating to the outermost regions and their participation in the governance of the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund, in addition to the specific items for the maintenance of the agricultural sector. Because the outermost regions have an exclusive legal basis: Article 349 TFEU, which would be violated not only if the adaptation of any European policy or budget that does not protect its specificities is not contemplated, but also if specific measures are not adopted precisely to preserve them in the face of the accelerated changes we are witnessing.

Madam President, Commissioner Brunner, the presentation of this first Commission report setting out a first annual solidarity plan is positive, but above all it is a fulfilment of an obligation, clearly set out in our Pact on Migration and Asylum as a binding law for the Member States. It is no surprise that this report points out that Italy, Spain, Greece and Cyprus are under migratory pressure and therefore immediately require such an offer of solidarity, which must consist of binding plans for the relocation or relocation of persons irregularly arrived after rescue and rescue operations at that external border, which is the European Union as a whole, while pointing out that it is in the radically opposite direction to fulfilling the obligations of being a Member State of the European Union who pretends that returning to the national response box can help in something; It is an absolutely doomed response to failure. In addition, I would add that it is imperative that the relocation and funding programme of the internal solidarity plan and the Asylum and Migration Fund, which can help Member States meet those obligations, be complied with for irregular, not illegal, people, Mr Brunner, because irregular is the word used by our legislated European law and our European Parliament resolutions when talking about those people rescued at sea. No one arrives illegally in the European Union, but irregularly, precisely...

Madam President, Commissioner Jørgensen, with or without a Commissioner specifically dedicated or dedicated to equality, a joint statement by Council and Commission committed against all forms of violence against women and against the exploitation of motherhood is important. But even more important than a declaration is legislation. We did this – working hard in the last legislature – by finally putting into force a criminal directive on violence against women, to which I made a strong commitment, covering forced ablation, motherhood and marriage. But it also sends a clear message that it is not only committed to consent as a basis for defining all forms of aggression against women, but also orders States to incorporate into their criminal legislation the punishment of consumers of prostitution of victims of trafficking. That is legislating in commitment to equality. I want to end by saying that equality does not destroy families, as we have heard here. Equality undoubtedly reinforces them in their integrity and diversity.

Madam President, Commissioner Jørgensen, this is a particularly fortunate debate. Not only because it is a closed and firm defense of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, but also because there is unanimity in all interventions in the defense of what we have called "European cultural sovereignty", so it is rejected that there is a threat from the Trump Administration to impose a 100% tariff on European cultural productions; At the same time, we welcome the fact that the July 2025 agreement between the European Commission and the Trump administration, of which we are not at all proud, specifically excluded cultural production. Because we must know that the European Union is not only a commercial superpower and in development aid and humanitarian cooperation, but, above all, a cultural superpower, and so we must understand, preserve and defend it. We are talking about a highly dynamic sector in which the European Union is first in the world: culture.

Madam President, as Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I chaired several fact-finding missions. Parliament in Hungary and I personally experienced hostility towards a European institution, forcing me to remind myself that the European Parliament is no external spacecraft, no spacecraft flying over Hungary, but represents directly democratically ten million Hungarians. And Hungary has been under the focus of this European Parliament, Article 7 has been activated for violation of the values enshrined in Article 2, for being reluctant to comply with European law and rebellious against the judgments of the European Court of Justice. And now we know that he has been spying from the REPER, no less Hungarian, in Brussels, on the European institutions, as revealed by the journalistic sources worthy of all credit that have raised this point in the debate. The options are clear. For starters, President von der Leyen has a tool – Article 16 of the Treaty on European Union – to force the resignation of a Commissioner who does not show up. Because not only the competence for a portfolio is examined, but also the probity and moral integrity to exercise it and answer to this Parliament. In your case, it could even be imposed by the Court of Justice. But really the question, the key is: Can the European Union afford any longer a government in a Member State that thinks the European Union is a hostile territory to which it must infiltrate by espionage? This is yet another case in which it becomes clear to what extent Hungary, inviting Putin, a rebel against European law and against the judgments of the Court of Justice, has become a systemic problem for the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, we have put in place a rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy framework, which encompasses all of the 27 Member States in the individual country reports. And six years in a row we have learned lessons. The first lesson: we have to tell the difference as to those cases in which there is a serious, clear risk of a serious breach and violations of the values enshrined in Article 2, and then leading to sanctions, according to Article 7 – that was the case of Hungary, it was the case of Poland right after, but then Poland was brought out from this sanction procedure, but Hungary stays – and those cases in which there are matters to be worried about, to keep an eye on, which do not indicate a clear risk of a serious breach. That's the case of Bulgaria. Yes, we know that Mayor Kotsev is under arrest and pre-trial investigation. We have to let the judicial procedure carry its own way. But having said this, we see a situation of political instability, that has been mentioned, that prevents the supreme court to be renewed. The prosecutor general has just expired, and the mandate is also to be renewed. And more than that, we have to tackle foreign interference, Russian interference, making an impact, a negative impact on a country that has won its access, not only to the euro, but also ...

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, two requirements are necessary for the Council's commitments to be credible. One is unity. The one that was missing yesterday – as seen – to mobilise Russian assets and finance reparations for Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine, or to ensure that the Sharm el-Sheikh agreements are not peace and therefore sanctions and the fight against impunity for war crimes are maintained. But, in addition, resources are needed. Because, if rights are worth their guarantees, the Council's commitments are worth their budget support and the Multiannual Financial Framework to finance the €300 billion Affordable Public Housing Plan, or to maintain solidarity in the Pact on Migration and Asylum. And, of course, also to ensure that cohesion policy and regional policy are maintained, threatened by an absolutely unacceptable multiannual financial framework. Therefore, Mrs von der Leyen, it is imperative that the Commission withdraw its proposal for a multiannual financial framework and re-establish regional and cohesion policy, which are the raison d'être of the European Union.

Mr President, the European Parliament is the budgetary authority under the Treaties. But he's not alone. There is also the Council, decorated as never before towards conservative and biased positions, which make the mistake of thinking that more can be done with less. And, therefore, this budget declines in relation to the expansive budgets that we knew last legislature. And yet the Social Democratic Group has striven for funding to tackle social and economic challenges, such as housing – absolute urgency; and the funding of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme, which underpins the European idea of the rule of law; in addition to the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, which allows attention to the Pact on Migration and Asylum, and the Southern Neighbourhood, which also includes an offer to make it mutually interesting with countries of origin and transit. But the story doesn't end with the budget: is part of a multiannual financial framework. And it must be said that the Commission is threatening an unacceptable multiannual financial framework for the years 2028 to 2035, which makes regional and cohesion policy unrecognisable. And we can't afford it.

Madam President, Commissioner Dombrovskis, this European Parliament has supported all the sanctions packages, starting with the freezing of the assets of the Russian Central Bank, up to the sum of three hundred billion Russian euros frozen in the European Union in successive sanctions measures. And it is sad that at this point we are discussing the feasibility of a legal solution and the coverage that a United Nations resolution can provide to repair the responsibilities contracted with Russia, with the victims and with the destruction caused by its war of aggression. But even more worrying is our lack of unity, that we have to see a European head of government, Viktor Orbán, ready to receive Putin in the European Union, in violation of our commitments to the International Criminal Court and his still in force. And, of course, it is even more worrying that we have to endure the future of Ukraine being decided by making the European Union irrelevant, placing it completely off the scene, and not even listening to Ukraine. That the future of Ukraine can be decided between Putin and Trump is absolutely unacceptable.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in this plenary session we commemorated Daphne Caruana, a murdered journalist. Not the only one! We have also seen it in Slovakia, Greece, the Netherlands, even Spain, during the years of ETA terrorism: Journalists who fell under criminal bullets. And at this moment we pay tribute to Sigfrido Ranucci, threatened many times, among hundreds of Italian journalists who are also threatened. It has been said that free information and information pluralism are protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and this Parliament has done everything, the European regulation on media freedom and the anti-SLAPP directive, that is, the directive to protect journalists from reckless lawsuits and intimidation. But this work will not be completed until there is criminal justice against those responsible for this attack against Sigfrido Ranucci, that is, an exhaustive investigation and, of course, a criminal trial and an exemplary condemnation against this attack on free information and information pluralism that affects not only Sigfrido Ranucci, it does not only affect Italy, it affects Europe as a whole.

Mr President, Commissioner, President von der Leyen has proclaimed aEurope's independence moment» This requires above all unity, which we cannot display when Viktor Orbán receives Putin in Budapest the same week we debated in this European Parliament the use of Russian assets to finance Ukraine's defence effort. He also spoke about the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which clearly requires unity in its implementation, but also requires it to strengthen returns, because the only way is to negotiate mutually interesting agreements with the countries of origin and transit. It also requires unity to combat the business model of illicit trafficking on which Mrs von der Leyen has elaborated, because it is essential to link it with the opening of legal avenues to which I have referred. It is the only way to deter the business model of illicit trafficking and to incentivise returns. If we offer legal and safe pathways, we will have an incentive for countries of origin and transit to agree to negotiate and agree with the European Union on dignified returns that respect their fundamental rights.

Mr President, President von der Leyen, Vice-President Virkkunen, for eight years in a row we have paid respect to the memory of Daphne Caruana Galizia regularly every year, and rightly so. But it's not fair to use that commemoration and pay tribute to Daphne Caruana to attack Malta, because Malta has not challenged the rule of law framework. Malta has not challenged the ruling of the European Court of Justice. There has been an investigation, there have been prosecutions, there have been indictments and there have also been convictions. The Venice Commission and the European Commission have certified that Malta has endorsed the Media Freedom Act and rules on SLAPPs – strategic lawsuits against public participation – in order to better protect journalists. So all respect to the memory of Daphne Caruana and all investigative journalists – including Sigfrido Ranucci, who was subject to an attempt just yesterday – and, of course, full speed to the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy framework of the European Union.

The history of the European Union is the history of its growth, of its enlargements and – therefore – it is a fact that enlargement has made the European Union stronger and – moreover – shows that it is still alive. It shows that, despite its crises, its paralysis and – sometimes – its impotence, it continues to be a pole of attraction for its virtuous combination of rights, freedoms, correction of imbalances and opportunities for prosperity. But in order for enlargement to continue to have that driving power, it is imperative that the lessons of this report of the Constitutional Commission be heeded. First lesson: the costs of non-enlargement are unbearable because the European Union contradicts itself. For enlargement to be coherent, it is also essential that institutional reforms take place while overcoming the dynamics of cross-vetoes and, of course, the demand for unanimity. The second lesson is that it is imperative that gateways and enhanced cooperation be used. The third is that we are able to choose those reforms of the Treaties that are essential to welcome new members. The key is in the specific modifications, not in an indiscriminate reform or in entering the mixer of a great convention that loses control of the situation. It is necessary to know exactly what the messages are because it is essential that the European Union continues to provide its own resources, reform the multiannual financial framework and, above all, strengthen its commitment to the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights so that no further enlargement deteriorates – as we have already seen – the European standard of respect for the rule of law, democracy, fundamental rights, the promotion of pluralism and the protection of minorities.

Mr President, Commissioner Brunner, yes, freedom and security go together in Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. And there is no freedom without security. As there is no security without freedom. And this European Parliament makes that bet when it renews the internal security strategy so that the European Union is a global actor against organised crime and terrorism on that new front posed by hybrid threats. And the European Parliament also wants to be part of the renewal of Europol's mandate - which you promised by 2026 - because we have worked on strengthening Europol's technological capabilities. But there is also a need for information exchange, intelligence exchange and effective cooperation between all European security agencies, in addition to public-private cooperation in ensuring the security of Europeans. But the message is not complete if we do not say that freedom is also represented in parliamentary scrutiny, in the scrutiny exercised by national parliaments and this European Parliament, on internal security, also fulfilling the mandate of Article 12 of the Treaty on European Union.

Mr President, the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement is not a peace agreement: undertakes the neutralisation of Hamas terrorism, yes, and opens the way to the exchange of hostages and prisoners; but it does not under any circumstances guarantee the two-state solution, which is the only way for the two peoples to live together within secure borders and to recognise each other; let alone Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories of Gaza, to begin with; but also from the West Bank. This debate, which talks about the role of the European Union – and has been described as irrelevant – is not, however, the last word. The European Union can still deliver on its commitments made in the State of the Union debate: suspending the trade part of the agreement with Israel – as demanded by the resolution adopted by a large majority in this European Parliament immediately afterwards – as well as sanctioning ministers and settlers and, of course, ensuring that there will be no impunity for war crimes perpetrated in Gaza. Because under no circumstances does the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement mean impunity for these crimes.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President Séjourné, the new multiannual financial framework for the coming years, announced by the Commission, is an unprecedented threat to agricultural policy, cohesion policy and regional policy as we have known it. But it is particularly unacceptable for the outermost regions, such as the Canary Islands, which should move you, as the French representative in the Commission, as we do for Spaniards and Portuguese. Because it completely ignores the exclusive legal basis of Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; because it eliminates historical programmes such as POSEI or ERDF in relation to the ORs. And above all because, by eliminating the regional governance step of these funds, it forces the regions to unfair, if not fierce, competition to participate in the so-called "national envelopes". That is why, from this rostrum, parliamentarians resident or born in outermost regions urge respect for Article 349, to maintain the unique programs guaranteed by the legal basis of Article 349. But, in addition, we call on regional governments and economic and productive actors and civil society in the outermost regions to mobilize to prevent this threat from being consumed in the next financial framework.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President Séjourné, I never agreed that in the last parliamentary term the Vice-President responsible for fundamental rights was at the same time responsible for consumer protection. But I find that connection justified in this new legislative framework for digital and sustainable transitions to the circular economy. Because it is to strengthen the rights of Europeans, to strengthen the rights of consumers against the planned obsolescence of that fast fashion and that tendency to waste and throw away more than to repair and preserve. Because, obviously, it is a commitment to quality rather than quantity and because it is also a legislative act in which, finally, instead of degrading the European standard, we can strengthen it by increasing not only the protection of consumers, but the responsibility of companies to adapt to this new regulatory framework that forces them to strengthen sustainability and the incorporation of the European Union into the circular economy.

Mr President, Vice-President Ribera, a risk threatens this legislature from minute one: to degrade or dilute the legislative record of the last parliamentary term of the European Parliament: Digital Agenda, Digital Services Act, European Media Freedom Act, artificial intelligence in coherence with the General Data Protection Regulation, which sets the highest standard in the world for the protection of personal data... But that risk becomes a threat if, in addition, the European Union makes the error - often tried - of appeasement before the powerful, the giants on the network, Google. That's why he hears it clearly: This European Parliament supports this exemplary fine of EUR 3 billion for abuse of an unacceptable monopolistic advertising model by Google. But our work will not be complete until – delivering on our promise of strategic autonomy – we are able, according to the Draghi report, to also develop our own ‘digital sovereignty’, as some have called it. That is, to develop our own technology industry, and even public social networks that better protect the rights of Europeans.

Mr President, this debate on a European mental health strategy appeals to the legislative powers of this European Parliament on technology platforms, whose addictive algorithms have a decisive impact on minors where the suicide rate is the leading cause of death across the European Union, and is directly linked to internet access. The message is therefore very clear: the European Parliament must legislate on the protection of children online as a matter of urgency because it is imperative to lay down common rules on what will otherwise be fragmented and contradictory solutions from national parliaments. And the third lesson is yes: There is no longer a debate about health that does not incorporate mental health. But there is no debate on mental health that does not have to be seen in a regulation of children’s access to online platforms and internet services that is compatible with the privacy and confidentiality of personal data, of course, but also with dignity and the free development of personality, which are fundamental rights.

Mr President, I did not want to miss the opportunity to welcome the work of the Committee on Petitions, because it is a committee in which a fundamental right of European citizenship is substantiated. The petition is, from its conception in the Maastricht Treaty – but certainly in the Lisbon Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – a fundamental right. But we have to respect the perimeter of that fundamental right without distorting it and misreporting it, because it is very often the case that, when the sounding board, which is the European Parliament, is used legitimately to raise a concern, this concern has nothing to do with the competences of the European Parliament, and that is the meaning of the fundamental right to petition. And another way to distort it is to then give rise to the misunderstanding that the European Parliament will investigate a matter as if the European Parliament were a standing committee of inquiry. No, it is not a good service to the right of petition to go beyond the perimeter of its exercise: European institutional competences and a European sounding board for a citizen's concern.

Madam President, Commissioner Virkkunen, the Digital Agenda for Europe, the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act and the Artificial Intelligence Act were adopted by this European Parliament not only to make digital services and large technology platforms subject to EU law; not only to affirm the regulatory effect we call digital sovereignty – the so-called ‘Brussels effect’ – but also to protect the fundamental rights of the Charter, of citizenship and of democracy. The European model of democracy cannot, in any way, kneel before the business model of these large technological platforms and their addictive algorithms. Commissioner, therefore: firmness. No concession to the pressures of these technology companies and Trump, who protects them, because it is absolutely a question of defending that model without any concession, under the pretext of flexibility or simplification, to the dissolution or degradation of the standard set by this European Parliament last legislature.

Madam President, we have been debating a real threat for hours: the increasing and repeated violation of our airspace by Russian drones in Putin's hybrid war against the European Union and all that the Union stands for. And what lessons come from listening to President von der Leyen? The first, the unit. Of course I do. And the second is a strategy to build a European anti-drone wall and a European air and space defence shield. But it is not enough to state it. Of course, for it to be effective, it cannot depend on the increase of 27 fragmented efforts, of 27 national budgets. No. It is a book example of the need to aim for an integration of our cybersecurity capabilities with sophisticated technologies that detect and shoot down drones to deter Putin. But in addition, it must be credible. And this means that it cannot harm what the European Union really stands for. The generation of investments and resources requires the European Union's own resources and strategic investments and, therefore, cannot harm social or cohesion policy or solidarity. Nor, of course, that social pillar on which the dignity of work and housing that Europeans are so concerned about depends.