Speeches

Madam President, dear Prime Minister Sanna Marin, allow me very shortly to express in Portuguese my condolences to the British people. Uma vez mais em nome do Grupo do PPE, mas agora em português, eu quero expressar a profunda solidariedade com o pesar de todo o povo britânico pelo falecimento da Rainha Isabel II, a que os portugueses estão ligados por uma profunda afeição e também pela mais velha aliança de defesa do mundo. Dear Prime Minister, I must start by congratulating Finland, the Finnish people, and you as their elected representative on your decision to join NATO. This is one of the most important geopolitical accomplishments of the 21st century, not only because it reinforces Finland’s security, but also because it strengthens the entire Euro-Atlantic community and our collective security. Each European here gains by having Finland join NATO, just as we did by having Finland join the European Union. It is a step that requires great courage by the Finnish people and that completes the process of full reintegration of Finland with our community of origin and destiny. In fact, Europe would never be complete without Finland and its contribution. There is no European culture without Finnish culture. Our diversity is much richer for having in our linguistic heritage a non—Indo—European language which truly opens the horizons of Europe. No one can imagine European literature without the Kalevala or without the name of Eino Leino. European architecture would not be the same without the architectural and design works of Alvar Aalto – not to mention the constitutional and democratic contribution of the 1919 Finnish Constitution, which influenced the way the powers of the Head of State President are shaped in constitutions such as the Austrian, Icelandic, Irish, French of 58, Portuguese and the constitutions after the fall of the Wall, such as the Lithuanian, Romanian, Polish or Czech. Finland, the land of a thousand lakes, can always count on our support, on our solidarity in every respect. In this moment of grave danger, with war raging in our continent, Finland must know that 26 other European countries and the broader Euro-Atlantic community stands with you in any challenges that Putin’s and the Kremlin’s war may bring. And we know that we can count on you for the same because of Finnish resolve that was proved on many occasions across history. Yes, the 27, we stand for Ukraine and for the Ukrainian path towards the European Union. We stand for the six Balkan Member States’, the Georgian and Moldovan path to the European Union. Turning to my mother language... Neste contexto de tempos conturbados gostaria ainda de fazer algumas perguntas. Estamos a viver na Europa uma série de velhos e novos desafios gerados e agravados por esta guerra de agressão. Comecemos pela energia. Precisamos de criar uma verdadeira União energética. Que propostas e que visão tem a Finlândia para este setor? A Finlândia apoia a construção das interconexões em toda a Europa, na Grécia, na Península Ibérica, na Itália, para diversificar as nossas fontes de energia? Que importância atribui ao investimento nas renováveis? E que lugar reserva para a energia nuclear na Europa? Olhando para a situação económica, a pressão da inflação e a subida das taxas de juro, e até para um risco real de recessão, deve a União Europeia ajudar as famílias e as empresas? Deve haver uma windfall tax sobre os lucros extraordinários? Como vê a Finlândia a reforma da Zona Euro e a solidariedade dos Estados-Membros? O que fazer com a crise alimentar e o futuro da agricultura na União Europeia? Finalmente, como os finlandeses sabem melhor do que ninguém, esta crise mudou a nossa visão sobre a defesa. Já o disse, a entrada da Finlândia na NATO é um dos factos geopolíticos mais relevantes destes 22 anos do séc. XXI. Que projeto tem a Finlândia para a construção de uma defesa europeia comum? Como olha para o desenvolvimento de uma indústria europeia uniforme? Como perspetiva a relação do Pilar Europeu de Defesa com a NATO? Como valoriza a relação transatlântica? Dear Prime Minister, we know that Ukraine, above all of us, but also Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, all the European Union and Europe, as well as the whole world, are living in very worrying and challenging times. But in the EPP Group, we keep faith and hope, keep the belief in the European way of life, because we deeply trust in the ancient wisdom of the Finnish people and so together with you, we can say: ”hätä keinot keksii”. ‘Necessity is the mother of invention.’ «A necessidade aguça o engenho.» ”hätä keinot keksii”.

It is also my football team, so the colour is the same. And, by the way, it’s the EPP colour. Senhora Deputada Isabel Santos, queria só fazer uma pergunta muito clara. Não vê uma contradição entre a entrevista que o primeiro-ministro António Costa deu ao Financial Times, em que praticamente disse que não havia perspetivas europeias para a Ucrânia, e a atitude que ele tomou passados quatro ou cinco dias? Não vê que o presidente Macron andou a dizer que não se podia humilhar a Rússia e sempre a tentar, de alguma maneira, protelar a concessão do estatuto de país candidato, aparecendo depois lado a lado com Draghi e com Sholz em Kiev? I made the question. Is there or is there not a contradiction? That was the question. It was the first thing, by the way.

Mr President, Minister, Vice-President, Russia's illegal, unjustifiable and brutal war of aggression against Ukraine has changed the nature of the European Union. Putin has made the European Union a geopolitical entity and, to that extent, we must have new criteria and new standards for the enlargement of our European Union. So, of course, we have to accept Ukraine's candidate status. The PPE is defending it from the first minute and I am also defending it from the first minute. I welcome here the French Presidency, which was reluctant and reluctant to grant the status of candidate country, and even more so was the Portuguese Prime Minister, António Costa. It was really the will of the Ukrainians and the pressure of this Parliament that made Chancellor Scholz, President Macron and then, behind them, Prime Minister Costa, come to acknowledge to the Ukrainians and the Moldovans what, after this aggression, became a necessary destiny for peace in Europe in the future, for prosperity. All European peoples have the right to join the European Union. The European Union, not a European political community.

Mr President, I have to say again: if you want to have a debate on this issue, the Council has to do everything to be present. And that is the truth, because this is an image that shows very well what is the commitment with this, with the Conference. Because in other debates, they don’t have these kinds of problem. And so I would like to say that, because we have to be fair, the ones that are clearly in favour of a Convention, not only for changing the unanimity rule in the case of sanctions – it’s a good example, but we are aiming for something much more ambitious, in my opinion. And so, we cannot reduce our debate to this issue of sanctions. It’s a good example of things that don’t work so well, but we have to give to Europe again a new inspiration of democratic legitimacy. That should be our main task. And so I would like to say I praise the Commission because they are present. I regret that the Council have this unfortunate coincidence and cannot be here at this moment. But let us see. We will see. Today we’ll approve this resolution, I hope, and then we will see what is the attitude and the commitment of the French Presidency; that we can see in 15 days.

Mr President, dear Vice-President, and I would like to say dear Minister, but unfortunately the Council decided to be absent in this debate. They decided: they are not here.

Mr President, so to conclude our debate, I would like to say first that there is no point in the argument that we are trying to build a superstate. If you acknowledge – and all of you acknowledge because you vote in ECR and in ID, you vote in every opportunity that you have – that we have legislative competence and legislative powers, then, of course, there is no reason not to have the right of initiative. Either you start to retire from this Chamber and do not vote, and then, of course, you are coherent, or if you do not do that, of course you should acknowledge the right of initiative. Then let me say to the Vice-President of the Commission, I was very pleased with your intervention, but I would like to have a clear statement (which, by the way, your President, Ms von der Leyen, has made) that we are entitled to have the proper right of initiative. That was what I was expecting today because this was said by President von der Leyen. There is no reason for a Vice-President that is responsible for institutional relations not to say that here in a very clear and open manner. And finally, I would take this opportunity while I have here some presidents of groups to tell you that it is a shame that our Parliament in such matters like electoral law, triggering Article 48 and the right of initiative doesn’t schedule these debates as key debates, because the other institutions will say, you are debating, you are debating the right of initiative, but you give only a very, very short slot in the evening to debate this. And the same will happen tomorrow with the triggering of Article 48. This doesn’t honour our Chamber, and it’s the responsibility of the Conference of Presidents that we don’t have the institutional issues among the most important debates of our House.

Mr President, dear Vice—President, I would like to thank you for your presence, because I know that you made an effort to be here today. I would like to start by stating that I deeply regret that this debate isn’t acknowledged as a key debate by our Parliament. The same applies to the previous debate on electoral law reform and the debate that we’ll have tomorrow on the triggering of Article 48. If this Hemicycle, if this institution, doesn’t acknowledge these kinds of debate as key debates, what should we expect from the other institutions when they evaluate and appreciate our constitutional claims? I made this clear to the Presidency of this House and to the Conference of Presidents. A tradição constitucional dos Estados-Membros, assim como da Europa e das Américas, é dar aos parlamentos, por causa da sua legitimidade democrática direta, um direito geral de iniciativa legislativa. Esta é, aliás, uma reivindicação histórica dos parlamentos: transformar o direito de petição ao rei, que era um direito de iniciativa indireto, num verdadeiro direito de iniciativa legislativa. Todavia, a União Europeia não honra ainda esta tradição constitucional e o Parlamento tem alguns poucos direitos especiais de iniciativa, mas não tem um direito geral de iniciativa. Tem apenas iniciativa indireta. É verdade que nós temos hoje no Provedor de Justiça, na lei eleitoral, nas comissões de inquérito, o direito de iniciativa, mas curiosamente estes direitos de iniciativa exclusiva do Parlamento não são ainda reconhecidos como atos que exigem um procedimento legislativo mais importante do que aquele que é o da codecisão. Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Vice—President, the Report that we’ll vote on tomorrow clearly shows the towering institutional architecture is ready for a different distribution of the right of initiative. To acknowledge a general and global right of initiative of the Parliament is possible, desirable and responds to the constitutional aspiration of making the European Union more democratically legitimate. I want to strengthen democratic legitimacy, representative democracy. If we want to strengthen them, then Parliament has to have these rights. This Commission has honoured the commitment of President von der Leyen to always respond with a legislative act to Parliament’s requests under Article 25 on time, with only one or two understandable exceptions. But President von der Leyen, she also says that she is in favour of a right of initiative to the Parliament! President Macron also says that! And even today the Taoiseach of Ireland said that in this Hemicycle. So it’s time to act! Our citizens, they really aspire for more. And the Conference on the Future of Europe proposed several farther-looking proposals, the right of initiative is one of them. And this is the momentum. I must say that if there is a huge consensus, as it seems that there is, on this very issue of giving to the Parliament this right of direct initiative, then we could have even a revision of the Treaties only for that purpose, because there is a huge consensus in this respect. And so I think that a new distribution of legislative right of initiative should be acknowledged on our Treaties, should be acknowledged by the institutions. And I have to say, and to add, this doesn’t imply that the Commission doesn’t have its own right of initiative. It is of our tradition in all our countries that both the executive and legislative bodies have the right of initiative.

Madam President, the annual Rule of Law Report is a central tool for guaranteeing the values enshrined in Article 2 and for ensuring that they are respected throughout the Union; to identify and prevent problems and also to verify that they are met by all Member States. While the scope of this report should be broadened, it is already a good start and allows for objective insight into areas that are key to understanding and appreciating the health of the rule of law. However, it is important that this report, in the future, can only be an instrument of a genuine rule of law regulation, in which the institutions have the capacity to assess and even open procedures in relation to states that are not complying with the various dimensions and principles of the rule of law. And in this respect, I would like to say that it is crucial for the Council to move forward with the Article 7 procedure. It only needs a qualified majority to determine whether or not there is a risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values in Article 2. And because it has not done so, the Commission should also say in this report that the Council is failing in its obligations because it is neither implementing nor implementing Article 7 and has been mandated to do so by the Commission in the case of Poland and by Parliament in the case of Hungary. This is also a failure for the rule of law at European Union level. The Council is failing and should be sanctioned for it.

Madam President, Commissioner, of course we have to consider that the Conference on the Future of Europe has been a great success. It was and will be, because the conference does not end here. It has to have a follow-up, it has to have what we call in English a . First of all, it must be said that we managed to do this exercise of democratic participation with the active presence of the citizens, with a pandemic that almost killed the Conference and with a war now in this final phase. This was proof of the resistance, the democratic resilience of the European Union. It is true that most citizens' panels have produced recommendations which I would say are very encouraging, many of them needing, of course, the input of the national parliaments, of the European institutions, but which are clearly in line with a move towards European integration. I think that this is a clear assessment and I would even say here that it has brought us health, security and defence, democracy and the rule of law, climate change, the digital economy, real impulses to progress in the process of European integration. Clearly, we are also witnessing an appreciation of participatory democracy, but the will to strengthen representative democracy at all levels. This is a clear message from citizens and this is a clear message from national institutions and parliaments, as well as from other partners: social partners, the Economic and Social Council, the Committee of the Regions. They all give this very positive message. I therefore believe that the natural way forward as a result of this Conference is for us to convene a Convention to review the treaties. There are many matters that do not need a revision of the Treaties, but there are others that are decisive for the future of the Union that need a revision of the Treaties and, therefore, Parliament must propose to the other institutions, and in particular to the Council, a Convention that can deal with these issues that have been raised by the citizens, that can frame them and that can end with a Treaty on Union that can prepare it for the next ten years. The pandemic, on the one hand, and the Kiev moment, on the other, clearly show that those who decided to move forward with the Conference were right. The conference was confirmed by history. It is now up to us to rise to these challenges.

Mr President, first of all, I have to say that I do not understand the interpretation of the conclusions of the conference. I was in the working group and I heard citizens say that this is not the case. And in the conclusions, it is very clear that there is a double vision because it is about the direct election of the President of the Commission, it is in the written conclusions that we have approved here. Only one question: What is the role of the Council in this model? The Council is an anti-democratic body. Would it not be more rational to change the Treaty and say that Parliament appoints the President and the Council gives its consent? That would really be reform in favor of the lead candidate.

Mr President, I must say that I have already spoken, but I like this debate because it is a parliamentary debate. For the first time, I see a parliamentary debate here, and that is very good. I just want to ask Pascal Durand a question. Isn't the United States a democracy? Is Switzerland not a democracy? Do we need to create this artificial figure of transnational lists in order to have a representation, a real democracy in Europe? Is that Europe's problem? I don't think so.

In fact, you cannot complain because the President of the Commission is German now. But let me tell you something that is very clear. I always defended that the European parties were on the ballots, in the ballot papers at home, across all Europe. Now, with this system and, by the way, I defend the direct election of the President of the Commission, that will be a different system but it would be much more democratic than the transnational lists. And, you know, I have a fear with transnational lists, because imagine in Italy, an Italian on the Socialist list, but not an Italian in the EPP or the Greens list, and this will create a nationalistic debate about the transnational lists and it will be counterproductive. And that is something that you should bear in mind.

But if you look at all the systems, you have the lead candidate without any constituency. I see my prime minister was elected in at least one constituency and Mr Boris Johnson was in a very local constituency. And this was not a problem. Why do you need a European-wide constituency? And second, let me say, I am a federalist and I want Europe to be a federation, and that’s the reason why I am against transnational lists, because they are not a federal instrument. They are a centralisation instrument. This is not by chance. It is normally the MEPs from the big countries that are in favour of that because they know that their rate will be much higher. And it’s in representing also the small and medium sized countries that I’m here defending this position. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue-card speech)

Mr President, this electoral law is a bad electoral law because, instead of reinforcing democracy, it puts the citizens further away from their representatives. This is a bad law because it will create two kinds of MEPs: the ones that feel themselves Europeans and the others that will be the locals. And this is unacceptable to a parliament. This idea of transnational lists has nothing to do with lead candidates, as we see when we read the piece of legislation, because we have lead candidates in all our countries and we don’t have nationwide constituencies. This is not a federalist idea, it’s anti-federalist, because I don’t know any federation where there is a federal constituency. Not the United States, not in Switzerland. And I am not going to say that they are anti-American or they cannot represent the United States because they are elected in Texas or they are elected in Nevada. This is something that we should bear in our minds: that we should be closer to the citizens. That is the most important principle of democracy. And transnational lists break this principle. That is the reason why I’m very pro-European, Mr Verhofstadt, and I cannot accept that someone says that those who are against transnational lists are not pro-European or are not federalist. It’s quite the opposite: it’s those who want devolution and to be close to the citizens who are against this electoral law. It is a bad project and I hope it will not be approved. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue-card speech)

Mr President, first I would like only to say that I don’t know why someone forgot that in 2018 this idea was repealed by this House by a huge majority. And this was not said by the rapporteur, which is a false thing. In 2018, this idea was repealed. But what I would like to ask you is, where did you see a link between the lead candidate and transnational lists? Because when I read the piece of legislation, there is not one word about your lead candidate. I see it in recitals, I see it in the resolution, but not in the text of the law. And so this is false, that to have a lead candidate we need transnational lists. That is false. And I would like you to quote me what is the article in the piece of legislation where this is written?

Madam President, Commissioner, the fundamental values of the European Union enshrined in Article 2 must be respected by all Member States. And it is clear today that both Hungary and Poland, in particular through the actions of their governments, are not respecting these values and, therefore, the Commission has opened a procedure under Article 7 and, on the other hand, Parliament has opened a procedure under the same article for Hungary - one against Poland and one against Hungary - precisely in order to restore those values. Every day, particularly in the Hungarian case, we see a deterioration in the situation which is extremely worrying, especially in the light of the latest developments. In the case of Poland, in particular, the question of the judiciary, non-compliance with the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the disciplinary question and the question of the re-entry into office of judges who have been unlawfully expelled from the judiciary or terminated their connection with the exercise of judicial functions. The rule of law must be restored. For us, it is fundamental. And it is crucial that the Council acts. The Commission and Parliament have done their part. The Council has not yet done so and is in a position to do so, at least as far as Article 7(1) is concerned, because this requires only qualified majority and not just unanimity. That is the fundamental question. The Council must act to restore the rule of law throughout the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, the links between Putin and his regime and various European movements have long been known. Firstly, far-right movements, such as those of Le Pen, Salvini and others; secondly, to separatist movements, the case, for example, of the Catalan issue, where Russian interference was clear. But also, for example, the case of Brexit. Brexit, which dealt a profound blow to the European Union, was directly encouraged and supported by Putin and the Moscow regime. And, therefore, we must also look not only at the links that are ideological links and that are to the extreme right, but also to the extreme left, to Syriza, to Podemos, to the parties of the Portuguese extreme left. We must also look at the issue of separatism. And there, as my rapporteur for Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is essential to warn this House and all the European institutions. Right now, as for a few years now, Putin is instrumentalizing separatist instincts in Bosnia to create destabilization and bring about war again. The risk in Bosnia-Herzegovina, now 30 years after the start of the war, has never been greater than it is now, after the war. Dayton Peace Agreements It is therefore crucial, in order to stop Putin, that the European Union does its work for peace and development and for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s European path.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Madam Vice-President, it is essential to show solidarity with the Ukrainians, with the humanitarian tragedy that we see every day before our eyes. But for this it is essential to end the financing of the war of the Kremlin and Putin. This means being able to make an immediate embargo on the purchase of oil and gas, and eventually a full trade embargo. At the moment, Putin wants gas and oil to be paid in rubles, which will only strengthen his economy. We cannot agree to the financing of war, we cannot strengthen those who wage a war of aggression and invasion. And in order to protect ourselves, it is of course essential that we deal with the energy supply and the food supply, and in the case of the energy supply, that this Council has a special plan for interconnections throughout Europe, from the Iberian Peninsula to Greece, from northern Germany to the Adriatic.

Madam President, I would say to the Prime Minister that she has just said that her mother taught her that saying ‘I told you’ was rather impolite; it may be impolite, and it won’t change the past, but it can be very useful. I hope that today everybody in this House and every leader in the European Union has heard you and has listened to your advice, your proposals and your views. Then we won’t need to say ‘I told you’ any more. A resposta a dar a Vladimir Putin tem de ser uma resposta clara. É tempo agora de banir as compras de gás e de petróleo à Rússia. O próximo Conselho Europeu, este Conselho informal, deve dar esse passo. Ele implica sacrifícios, implica perdas, mas é a única forma de não estarmos a financiar a guerra de Putin, de não estarmos a financiar a destruição da Ucrânia.

Mr President, in the shadow of the new major conflict in Europe, the aggression of Russia, we have repeatedly heard that this is the most dramatic situation in Europe since the Second World War. We cannot, and we should not, compare the tragic suffering caused by different conflicts. But neither should we forget the much more recent drama of the Balkan wars of the 90s. In 1995, a difficult agreement was reached in Dayton, which returned peace to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Today, that agreement is under threat, a victim of secessionist rhetoric and movements intransigent political blockades and foreign and hostile interference. Peace, stability and the very integrity of the country are at stake, and we cannot allow the present conflict between Russia and Ukraine to interfere in this region. A range of measures is therefore required, starting with the application of sanctions to the perpetrators of these manifestly unconstitutional activities. The Council has the mechanisms and the example of the United States, all that is needed is the political will. In addition to individual sanctions, the Commission must also restrict access to Union funds until the blockage of central institutions and unconstitutional movements has ceased.

Madam President, Commissioner, Presidency, I would first of all like, of course, to greet all women on this International Women's Day and to have a special word for the Ukrainian women who, either in Ukraine or now outside it, have shown so much courage. In these last thirteen days, Russia's unjustified criminal and illegal invasion and aggression of Ukraine is also the product of our tolerance for disinformation, for fake news that we've had over these 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 years. Indeed, Putin and Russia have always been using the media and digital platforms and paying extremist parties on the left and right to create a communication and information environment that has sown the seeds of this war. That is why this report, the Kalniete report, is so important. Because even before the war he already demonstrates how information manipulation, manipulation of political discourse and interference in elections are the pasture and seed for a war of aggression like the one we are living through. Therefore, we will have to follow all indications to set up a security, cyber defence and resilience strategy or mechanism to avoid the failures of the past.

Madam President, Vice-President Borrell, Vice-President Schinas, ladies and gentlemen, it should be noted that the groups and Members who increasingly defend the self-determination of peoples and the sovereignty of states here are those who least defend the self-determination and sovereignty of the people and state of Ukraine. They agree to the occupation of Donbass, Donetsk and Luhansk, the occupation and annexation of Crimea and even part of Georgia or Transnistria. The European Union cannot fail. The transatlantic relationship cannot fail. With the US, the UK, Canada. We cannot ignore the aspiration of Ukrainians, the Ukrainian people, for a liberal democracy, free from corruption and a market economy that brings prosperity and well-being. Russia must realise that it cannot condition, cannot place and cannot dispose of the will of a European people, sovereign and free, as the Ukrainian people are. It is crucial that NATO, from Tallinn to San Francisco, from Vilnius to Vancouver, is united to defend the freedom of the peoples and peoples of Europe in particular. Thucydides said: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they should.” Ukraine is not weak. The European Union is not weak. NATO is not weak. We are strong because we are united against dictators.

Madam President, High Representatives, the partnership with Africa that will be discussed at this summit was always necessary for humanitarian reasons, I would say for reasons of cooperation. But also for common history. There is a very strong common history between Europe and Africa, between African countries and European countries. But there is also an additional reason and this is of self-interest: Europe's affirmation in the world, Europe's global affirmation will always depend on a coalition with Africa. Only in partnership with Africa can Europe be a relevant voice in this global world. Therefore, it is essential to focus on training, education, public health, but also on the security challenges that are clearly at the top of the priorities of our relationship with Africa today. I would now like to leave a word for the situation in Mozambique, alerting to the concern of what is happening in Cabo Delgado, which could be a good school for cooperation between Europe and Africa, and what we see today, according to information from the African Union, is that China itself is already entering into this partnership and taking away what was the place of our mission in the context of Cabo Delgado. I leave this alert and wish the best results for this Summit.

Madam President, Mr President, I wish the French Presidency every success. Senhora Presidente, Senhor Presidente, desejo todo o sucesso in Presidência francesa. Do seu discurso destaco duas falhas, duas lacunas. Por um lado, em relação à reforma de Schengen falou muito, e bem, das fronteiras externas. No entanto, a pandemia de COVID-19 pôs em crisis as fronteiras internas. Temos hoje o espaço Schengen completamente retalhado e separado. A pergunta que temos de fazeré: qual é a visão da Presidência francesa para restaurar a liberdade de circulação no espaço interno de Schengen e não apenas nas fronteiras externas? Também não ouvi nenhuma ideia da Presidência francesa para o futuro da União Económica e Monetária. Ouvi falar em muitos investimentos, mas não num roteiro para o futuro da União Económica e Monetária. Ouço muitas palavras, boas intenções, mas não vejo ação. Mr President, in your speech you mentioned the great Portuguese poet Pessoa. I answer you with a quote from Molière, taken from the Scholarly women: I live on good soup, not beautiful language.