What Paulo spoke about.

Madam President, President of the European Council, President of the Commission, all my solidarity to our Dutch people, to our Dutch colleagues and to all the journalists today. Gostaria de começar por dizer que, para o PPE e para o PSD, a lei húngara que discrimina as pessoas LGBTI é intolerável e, por isso mesmo, pedi hoje palavra no debate que se segue para tomar uma posição que seja diferente da posição tíbia de neutralidade que a Presidência portuguesa do Conselho começou por tomar. E agora permita-me, a respeito do Conselho desta semana, dizer que é inaceitável a situação que vivemos agora com o certificado digital COVID. Porquê? Porque há, neste momento, países, e eu posso dizer que isso me aconteceu a mim, e vi centenas de cidadãos portugueses a quem isso aconteceu, que, vacinados, com certificado digital, com teste negativo, com declaração de viagem essencial e dispostos a fazer a quarentena se necessário, foram impedidos de entrar nos aviões com direção a Frankfurt ou a Baden- Baden. Não foi para isto que nós aprovamos o certificado digital. Um cidadão que tem certificado, que tem teste negativo, que tem uma declaração a dizer que é necessária a sua viagem, é impedido de entrar num avião com que argumento? Qual é o Estado-Membro que tem poder ou capacidade para fazer isto depois de termos aprovado o Certificado Digital COVID da UE? É justamente por isso que eu julgo que é fundamental que a Comissão tome uma posição dura para com todos os Estados. Restrições são admissíveis, mas devem ser proporcionais e devem ser uniformes. O critério que os Estados-Membros utilizam deve ser igual para todos os Estados-Membros. Se têm de restringir devido à pandemia devem restringir. Mas se as pessoas têm certificado, teste negativo, e têm um motivo para viajar, não há razão nenhuma para as impedir. Só assim seremos capazes de restaurar o Espaço Schengen.

Madam President, Commissioner, enlargement to include Ukraine, the Western Balkans, Moldova and now Georgia is more than a geostrategic and geopolitical plan for the European Union, it is also a right, I would say, for the peoples of these countries. That is why I must say that, as a Portuguese and a European, I saw with some sadness that the Portuguese government was one of the last to accept the status of candidate, it was even the last, for Ukraine, and it has always placed reservations, either because of the funds, or because of false expectations, everything is always very difficult. I'm sorry this happened. In any case, for the PPE, the truth is that it is essential that we welcome these states and, therefore, we must, of course, make progress not only by giving them that horizon, but also by making those reforms that are necessary institutionally and financially. There is one point that is fundamental, and today the very survival of the European Union also depends on this enlargement. The war in Ukraine has posed an existential challenge to the European Union and, therefore, enlargement is decisive if the European Union is to be a reality not only for our peoples, but also for the entire European continent.

Madam President, Minister, Vice-President, Firstly, I would like to welcome Sweden's accession to NATO, which is a key strategic fact for the Atlantic Alliance and for Europe. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine by Russia is an existential challenge to the European Union, democracy, freedom in the world and, therefore, it is crucial that we aim for a European Defence Union. In the defence industry, in military cooperation, let it be the European pillar of NATO, let it not give way to any European army and, on the contrary, strengthen NATO, which, incidentally, is an organisation broadly supported by the European countries and, in particular, by my country, Portugal. I would also like to say that there should be no movement of troops to Ukraine at the risk of escalating the conflict. And finally, I would like to regret that the Portuguese Socialist Party, here by the voice of one of its MEPs, has come with a viscous, ambiguous speech, clearly aligned to make an alliance with the two parties that are anti-NATO, at a time of war. Pedro Marques, what a pity to be allied with the Left Bloc, with the Communist Party that are against NATO. Russia needs NATO's defense. It is a pity that the Portuguese socialists with a speech that did not speak about foreign policy or defense, have come... (The Chair took the floor from the speaker)

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the new Prüm tool will contribute to the Union’s internal security by simplifying and speeding up the exchange of criminal information between law enforcement authorities and expanding the data categories that can be exchanged. The existence of common rules harmonising these exchanges will provide predictability to all users, as everyone knows what data they would obtain at each stage. The new system will also provide simplified and faster means for authorities to search for missing persons where time is a matter of life and death. Furthermore, it will allow for the identification of human remains, this is of essence for the families of the missing who have a right to know the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones – a right recognised by international humanitarian law. The new Prüm will also include Europol, as you mentioned, Commissioner, boosting the cooperation between the agency and Member States within the scope of the powers conferred to these agency. Colleagues, Schengen and the right to move freely is one of the European Union’s greatest achievements since its foundation. Effective police cooperation is a key pillar to ensure its functioning and the security of our citizens. With modernised Prüm exchanges, we will allow law enforcement authorities to work faster and more efficiently when fulfilling their mission of fighting crime and protecting citizens, whilst ensuring the highest standards on the protection of personal data and human rights. Exchanging criminal information is fundamental to ensure timely responses – not just to find criminals, but also, in a wider sense, to guarantee to our citizens the right to freedom and the right to fair justice.

–Madam President, Commissioner, tomorrow we will vote on the agreement reached in November with the Council on the regulation on automated data exchange for police cooperation, namely Prüm II. First of all, I would like to thank all my colleagues who have been part of Parliament's negotiating team, the Commission and, in particular, Commissioner Johansson, the Swedish and Spanish Presidencies for their long work and dedication and, by the way, the entire team which, whether in Parliament's Secretariat or in particular in Members' offices, has supported them in the development of this legislative change. The new Prüm will have the possibility to exchange, in a semi-automated way, criminal data, DNA, fingerprints, vehicle registration data, facial images, police records, between law enforcement authorities during the investigation of a crime through a system hit/no—hit. This gives national law enforcement authorities the possibility to know more quickly and efficiently whether other Member States, Europol, have data corresponding to those collected during the investigation of a criminal offence. I recall that, according to Europol, more than 70% of criminal organisations are present in more than three Member States. Every year in our Union, hundreds of thousands of people, many of them children, are reported missing. It is therefore a cornerstone of police cooperation in our Union, used daily by the authorities in the fight against organised crime, terrorism, trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking and many other crimes. Under the previous system, access by national authorities to data such as DNA, such as fingerprints, was possible, but it was time-consuming and bilateral. With this reform, data comparison is no longer done on a bilateral basis. It is now done through a semi-automated system in which all Member States enter, as the national databases will now be linked to a router Instead of just being connected to each other. In addition to clear operational gains in the fight against crime, this regulation brings more guarantees of protection of privacy, human rights, fundamental freedoms of citizens, because it guarantees the anonymisation of data and human control of so-called matches and also the monitoring of these information exchange processes. I would like to say that respect for European and national law in terms of data protection is fundamental. And this collection is always done only and only in the context of the prevention, detection or investigation of a crime and can also only be used for that purpose. In this sense, I would like to make it clear that the new Prüm is a huge step forward in the task of the police and it is also a huge step forward in the defence of fundamental rights. So it's a solution win—win. We have a criminal procedure that will be much more efficient and, perhaps, even faster, and at the same time we have a degree of guarantee of fundamental rights that is frankly greater than what we had hitherto. Ensuring a space as an insurance for citizens is an obligation of Member States. Giving the police the conditions to work with respect for fundamental rights, but doing their investigative work, is very important. And I wanted here, at a time when part of the criminal investigation police in my country is being unfairly discriminated against, to also stand in solidarity with them. On the other hand, I would finally say that there will be less room for Member States to resort to border control when faced with a threat or challenge to public security. And that is why the Schengen area also gains a lot from this new system. So it can get up and running as soon as possible.

– Madam President, President Iohannis, Madam Commissioner, Herta Müller once wrote: ‘In this country, we had to walk, eat, sleep and love in fear’. When we read about life in Communist times, we can only appreciate Romania’s success in the European project. Romanian culture and heritage is indispensable for Europe because it merges the Roman—Latin culture with Orthodox heritage and with Germanic, Slavic and Magyar influence. That gives Romanians a unique ability to understand European diversity. We have seen Romania’s amazing economic development under your Presidency and impressive progress in the rule of law. Today, when we see attacks on the rule of law in Spain, in Malta, in Slovakia, we have to congratulate you, Mr President, for your exemplary leadership. We have an historic step in the lifting of air and sea border controls, but that is not enough. Romania, like Bulgaria, must fully join Schengen. You dealt with the migration crisis, pandemic restrictions and the arrival of war refugees in an extraordinary manner under immense pressure. The EPP has always been on your side in this matter. As the great Romanian poet Mihai Eminescu once wrote, ‘vreme trece, vreme vine’, or ‘time goes by, time comes along’. The time for complete and full accession to Schengen has come.

Mr President, Council, Vice-President, two years ago, Russian troops invaded Kiev, invaded Ukraine and Vladimir Putin was clear: He wanted a Europe that would go from Kiev to Lisbon, controlled by Moscow. This desire of Putin has not changed and it is therefore crucial, two years on, that the European Union is at the forefront of solidarity with the Ukrainian state and people. Financial support is essential. Military support is essential. Humanitarian support is essential. Progress in Ukraine's accession process is crucial. It is essential to link Ukraine to NATO. Without these pillars - financial support, humanitarian support, military support, integration into the European Union and future integration into NATO, Europe will be weaker, Europe will be vulnerable and Putin and the Russian invaders will have a victory.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, the Commission’s report on rule of law shows in a very clear way that there is no systemic violation of the rule of law in Greece, and that the Greek Government has made significant progress, and it will continue to make progress on the judiciary, on the media, and also in the protection of journalists. Dear colleagues, we have to distinguish clearly a systemic or systematic violation of rule of law, and that is the case of Hungary, it was the case of Poland, it is the case of Malta, it is the case now of Slovakia and unfortunately, it is also the case of Spain. Yes it is. You have to distinguish that from violations of some fundamental rights or some principles – that happens everywhere. Here what we see is that you are using single cases that could happen in Portugal or in Lithuania or in Germany, and you try to say that there is a systemic violation of rule of law. This is not good politics because there is no honesty in this allegation. There are problems, there are problems everywhere. But there is not a violation of rule of law.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, I would, of course, like to thank all my fellow Members for their contributions and I would essentially like to draw your attention to three points, which were actually present in the debate. The first point is that: the main function of national parliaments is to scrutinise national governments and this is a European function. And that is why I say that it is essential that we move forward on the transparency of votes in the Council. Parliament can only check whether its government is following Parliament's guidelines or what positions it is defending in the European Union if it knows how it voted in each Council formation. And, therefore, this would be a very, very simple way of leveraging the powers of the national parliaments, precisely by being able to carry out their main mission. Then there were a number of colleagues here who spoke on the green card and especially on the red card. I must say that, having listened to all parliaments, none wanted the red card – not for this report, but for an earlier report. Second bullet point: green card, I repeat – neither does the European Parliament have a legislative initiative and therefore the legislative initiative cannot be given to the national parliaments, nor can they be transformed into a third chamber. So that doesn't make sense. The national parliaments, I say again, have their main role, indeed, at national level. And then, yes, increase interparliamentary dialogue – totally in agreement. Increase it, however, subject to one caveat: the representations of the national parliaments must be diverse, i.e. they must be composed of the majority and the opposition. And in the reports that the national parliaments present and in their opinions, there must always be explanations of vote from minorities, because the great advantage of the participation of the national parliaments at European level is to bring in internal diversity, because the national position, that is already brought by the governments. Therefore, it is this internal diversity that must be brought to the European level. This can only be done through proper representation of national parliaments.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, national parliaments are key players in European and national democracy, and therefore their capacity to act can always be improved, especially at European level. And here we know that, in matters of subsidiarity, they can exercise greater control over the European policy of their national governments. These were the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe: the ability of national parliaments to scrutinise, control and steer the European policy of their national governments. That is why we are introducing a new idea into this report concerning the implementation, precisely, of the activities of the national parliaments and their role in the European Union, which is to give greater transparency to the Council. If we are able to reveal the votes in the Council, this will allow each national parliament, in its own country, to monitor much more closely the position of its government and whether or not it corresponds to the policy to which it has committed itself and the commitments it has made before that parliament. Therefore, the European mandate that national governments receive can only be scrutinised by national parliaments if the vote in the Council is a public vote. We also know why national parliaments are now important institutions at European level – not to represent their states, for which the governments are already in the Council. National parliaments represent political diversity in each state. A minority in one state can be a majority in another state. And so what really justifies a European statute for national parliaments is not the representation of states – because this is done in the Council – it is the representation of the political diversity of each state, which corresponds to political positions that have another projection in different states. Finally, let me say that we continue to insist that the eight-week deadline for the early warning mechanism is not sufficient. We obviously continue to believe that the principle of subsidiarity – taking into account the criteria of the Treaties, the case-law of the Court, the very practice of the Commission – implies that there is more clarity and that some gaps in its interpretations can be filled. Finally, let me say that we do not endorse the idea of the Green Card here. National parliaments have no European legislative initiative, nor can they. They cannot be a third chamber at European Union level. On the contrary, they need to strengthen national scrutiny of the European policy of their governments. And so, to that extent, we can at most accept that a certain number of parliaments can make a suggestion to the Commission and that the Commission, if it brings together a certain number of parliaments, has an obligation to respond. Allow me, finally, to mention just one idea – which is already long, long overdue, which I have already launched here with regard to this report or these reports in the past – which is the creation of a European week. We should have a week which, in all national parliaments, should be a week for debate on European affairs, with the presence of MEPs not only from that country and with the presence of Commissioners. This would be a way of creating a week in which European topics would be discussed at national level, in all parliaments. Here's that suggestion again. I would like to stress this and thank you in advance for your contribution to this debate.

Madam President, Mr President Sánchez, you told Mr Kaczyński in December 2020 that the courts in Poland are politically dependent on the opposition. Just over a week ago, he said that public institutions have definitely been instrumentalized to persecute political adversaries in court cases. Mr. Sanchez, what's the difference? Do you or does anyone know of a rule of law in which parliamentary committees investigate judicial decisions in pending and future cases? The Spanish Parliament is being made a court, the "big brother", the great judge who judges the real courts. That is the instrumentalization of Justice. It is the political manipulation of justice in exchange for seven votes. Yesterday began a process similar to that of the Salem witches, that of the witch hunt. Sign judges, prosecutors and police. And we are being persuaded that violating judicial independence is normal and necessary. I can only think of one well-known Spanish saying: I don't believe in witches, but there are, there are.

Mr President, Mr High Representative, the Venezuelan people deserve more and deserve better. And it cannot be used as cannon fodder for Nicolás Maduro's delusions. Maduro knows—o. Faced with the assertion of the opposition and Maria Corina Machado — and like Putin — he is looking for the oldest trick of all tyrants: The mirage of conquering territory to hide the total failure of its governance. Of course, the discovery of large oil reserves in Essequibo helps. Of course, dissatisfied with the waste he makes of Venezuela's reserves, these are no longer enough for him and he also wants to waste those of Essequibo. The International Court of Justice has ruled this month: the Venezuelan regime cannot unilaterally change the status quo of Essequibo. Maduro rejects the instruction, as if the farce of a referendum could grant the right to annexation. We have another Ukraine, now in Latin America. What are we going to do, Europe? What does the High Representative think? What will you do to show that we are against this deeply illegal act from the point of view of international law?

Madam President, President von der Leyen announced in her State of the Union address in September 2022 a new package of legislation and measures for the defence of democracy. It is crucial to protect and strengthen European democracies. We therefore welcome the Commission's proposals in this regard. It must be clear to all European citizens that we are deeply committed to defending our democracy. A few months away from the 2024 European elections, we cannot let foreign interference and interference, nefarious and malign disinformation, and radicalisation and polarisation bear fruit in the Union. This package of measures is precisely intended to respond to situations that have already caused us enormous damage. I recall the case of the Brexit referendum or the so-called Catalan referendum. I recall the various attempts of Putin's Russia, the Iran of the Ayatollahs or Xi Jinping's China, which have played a role in weakening what is most dear to us, which is freedom of expression and freedom of opinion-forming. These proposals should protect the Union's electoral systems, but also the media and their pluralism, non-governmental organisations and their work, civil society in general and the role of citizens and their organisations in democratic life. Non-governmental organisations, citizens’ organisations do not have the same ability to withstand undue influence from third parties and it is therefore crucial also to protect democracy by protecting these entities that promote citizens’ participation. This is always with a clear notion that we cannot replace representative democracy with direct democracy. It is time and time – and here I come to an end – to fight the Trojan horses of democracy and the rule of law. That is what this package is intended to do, and we therefore place a lot of hope on the effects it may have.

Mr President, first I have to welcome this report because it’s really a quite consistent effort to reinforce the principle of lead candidate. And this is a good principle if we want the European Union to be a parliamentary system of government. Of course, we have to be very aware that this has nothing to do with a single constituency across the European Union, because we have a lead candidate in a lot of Member States, and there is no single constituency. So it’s a pity that sometimes we use some divisive language instead of trying to put everybody around this principle of lead candidate. But let me tell you that in a parliamentary system, the lead candidate system doesn’t mean that, at the end, the Prime Minister of the President of the Commission is really one of the candidates, as we can see when we look at the English system. So what we have to do is that if we want really the President of the Commission to be chosen by the citizens, then we should have a presidential system. Of course, in presidential systems parliaments are very, very strong, but they don’t have any interference in the choice of the president of the executive. And I don’t want a presidential system. I’m only saying that that would be the consequential point. Another thing that I would like to be very, very precise in this debate, because we lack a lot of knowledge of constitutional law when we are speaking about this. The truth is that the system that we have now is a kind of a semi-presidential system where the European Council represents the head of state and has the capacity to nominate. And even if I’m totally in favour of the lead candidate principle, as it is now set up, and probably in the future with the revision of the Treaties giving the Parliament the capacity to appoint the President of the Commission, that I’m totally in favour of, don’t say that this is undemocratic, because the European Council is a European institution and it has totally democratic legitimacy at national level. But okay, this is something that you can see in a lot of systems, like, for instance, the Finnish system between 1990 and 1991. But okay, this is only in defence of a more constitutional-law accuracy.

Mr President, it is only a very, very short remark to say that I was expecting that – when you are conducting our session and someone exaggerates a bit in the way it refers to a colleague – you should intervene. And you did not do it. It’s no hard and no personal feelings with Pedro Marques, not at all, even if what he said, that is intellectually dishonest. And now I do not expect any correction from you, because he has the opportunity to read, if he wants, my last book that is already in all libraries and bookshops and there this is very clearly explained. By the way, it was already published before, but I do not want to give any constitutional law lesson, because I saw in the last days, after this proposal of the Spanish Government that our socialists have forgotten all lessons from constitutional law, and now they are against a separation of powers. So I do not pretend to teach anybody, not even a Portuguese colleague, only to say that I am not intellectually dishonest.

Mr President, ‘intellectually dishonest’ – I was accused of being intellectually dishonest. And I would ask you, President, to also verify the behaviour of this speaker, Mr Marques, because he accused me of being intellectually dishonest. So he asked for fair treatment and he is the first to have now fair treatment. And I am not going to answer, but he has to study my books, because he doesn’t know anything about what I have written. You have to study!

Mr President, Madam Secretary of State, Commissioner, on whether this is an internal matter or not, I read the words of Iratxe García: During these weeks I have insisted on many occasions that the European Parliament does not have to judge anyone, but it has to ensure respect for the rule of law, the separation of powers and justice. That's what we're doing here today: We are fulfilling the words of Iratxe Garcia. I wanted to tell my socialist colleagues and the Greens that I believe they are democrats and that they believe in the rule of law. Tell me: Do you think it is possible to set up parliamentary committees to investigate the judiciary? Do you think this is the rule of law? That this is respect for the separation of powers? This is a systematic violation of the rule of law. The Amnesty Act, the appointment of a minister and a government adviser as members of the Constitutional Court, the blocking of the General Council of the Judiciary, the change of legislation on sedition and embezzlement were one-off violations of the rule of law; the amnesty law and the agreement are a systematic violation of the rule of law. And that is why I say that I will never accept in my life that a state in which parliamentary commissions investigate the judiciary and that they say (inaudible) The judicial system of political persecution is a democracy. That's George Orwell's 1984 State. (the Chair took the floor from the speaker).

Madam President, dear Prime Minister, dear Commissioner Ivanova, I would like to say that Bulgaria is a country whose history is intertwined with Europe, and it is really in the origin of the DNA of Europe, from its ancient times to modern times. Your country gave us the alphabet of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and you are speaking, in a very clear way, the language of freedom after 1990. So it’s a pleasure – and it’s really something that completes the European project – to have Bulgaria in the European Union and also in NATO. And I also have to congratulate you and Mariya Gabriel for the return of political stability and responsible behaviour – a clear pro-European government. And I would like to say here that Mariya Gabriel – a very, very committed pro-European – is a very important actor of your executive. Then let me tell you that I understand the difficulties in the external landscape of a country that has its coast in the Black Sea – so close to the war – but at the same time, it is very important to call on you to step up your efforts to end fossil fuel dependence on Russia. Could you clarify how you plan to close this loophole on Russian oil? We are here as the European Union to support you, but we need also your efforts in this field. And let me tell you that we are also a bit worried with the European funds, because the instability of the last two years paralysed the development and the implementation of these European funds. So what is the plan for the next two years where you have a very, very tiny time? And only to say: we are totally with Bulgaria and with Romania on your Schengen accession. And we, as the EPP, we already condemn the EPP government that is blocking that. I hope that liberals with the Netherlands would do the same, especially after these elections.

Mr President, Presidency, Vice-President, first, I have to say that I would have liked that this process of drafting this report and annex would have been a bit more inclusive, because there are a lot of people that have different opinions on this issue. We were so careful taking into account the Conference of the Future of Europe and then when we look at the Members of this House, probably this was not such an open process. But I have to say that there was a huge improvement since the starting point till the text that we have now. And the text that we have now, I think that in a lot of matters, is quite balanced. It is one that it can be a starting point for negotiations because, of course, Parliament has to have a position that is not the position of the Council and to negotiate. So it is a constructive text, I would say, and all of us that on single issues have differences will probably with split and separate votes have an occasion to express our differences and to show to the public that even if they agree with the convention and with a new reform of European Union that is needed because of the enlargement, but not only also to enhance our integration as such, I think that there will be room to the plurality of opinions that I think that were not heard at the beginning can now be clear on our decision. So I hope that this debate can also illuminate some colleagues in order to see the achievements that we have.

Sophia in ‘t Veld, I have to tell you that the Renew Group also was against that debate, not only the EPP. Yes, indeed, otherwise, the debate would be here today. So, it’s your own group; there’s a different assessment from you. By the way, that is a quite common thing that sometimes we are isolated in our own groups. And that happened with you in the Greek case. That’s why your assessment is the wrong one. Again, I say: one thing is systematic violation of rule of law, another thing is violation of some norms, rules and behaviours that are regrettable and should be condemned, but are not really a systematic violation of the rule of law.

I see that you don’t want to speak about Malta. This is the subject today. But I don’t have any problem. I don’t condemn Greece because there is not a systematic problem of rule of law. Probably there are some problems here or there, of course, as in every Member State. Look at Spain now. But there is not a systematic problem. In Malta, there is a systematic problem – six years without any prosecution of this crime. This is terrible and is a shame that you here – even Mr Daniel Freund – try to compare the assassination of journalists with other kinds of misuse of power. This is a shame, a shame, Mr Freund. You have double standards. That is the problem! (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Any attack on the freedom of press and the freedom of journalism, I will condemn, in any case. And I have very good precedents. I voted in 2012 for the report by Rui Tavares about Hungary and about Orbán, and I always defended the expulsion of Fidesz from the EPP Group. Not like the S&D, where our Socialists never defended the expulsion of SMER. Even now, it was only a suspension. And I would like the Greens also to speak. But not me, not me, not me. That’s what you are ... (The President cut off the speaker) (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Madam President, Daphne Caruana Galizia was a martyr for freedom in Malta and martyr for freedom in Europe. Six years after this brutal crime, we are still waiting for justice to be made – justice to Daphne, to her family, to the Maltese people, to the European citizens. How can the Commission be so shy on the rule of law situation in Malta? How can Member States remain silently complicit? How can the S&D congratulate judicial reforms that actually maintain an environment of impunity, which has actually increased? According to the Council of Europe, impunity has increased, together with further deteriorating media and freedom, and pluralism. Where are your strong words of condemnation? Does your group’s sorrow depend on the colour of the government? It is unbelievable that, as S&D always does in different issues, be it about physical borders or media freedom, you preach one thing in the European Parliament, and forget to draw attention to the policies of your own governments. Yes, colleagues, I am referring to Daphne, to Malta, but also to Ján Kuciak, to Slovakia. In the case of Slovakia, your feeble and weak reaction took five years! Five long years! How much longer will you wait to react to the rule of law situation in Malta? (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Mr President, first I would like to pay my respects and offer my prayers to all the victims of the terrible attacks of Hamas in Israel, of the terrorist attacks in France and Belgium, and naturally also to all the civilians that have died in the last days in the Gaza Strip. É evidente que a agenda do Conselho vai ter de ser marcada, também outra vez, pela solidariedade com Israel, pela condenação do Hamas – sem quaisquer contemporizações – pela exigência da libertação imediata de todos os reféns – sem quaisquer condições – pelo apoio e reforço da ajuda humanitária – designadamente pela abertura de corredores no Egito, com o apoio do Egito e de Israel – para fazer chegar esta triplicação da ajuda às pessoas em necessidade na Faixa de Gaza, e pela afirmação do direito de defesa de Israel a desmantelar e neutralizar o Hamas, ainda que com respeito pelo princípio da proporcionalidade. É também preciso elogiar o papel dos Estados Unidos, do presidente Biden e do secretário de estado Blinken, que muito têm contribuído para atenuar os efeitos mais dramáticos desta crise. E, já agora, que o Conselho exorte o Senhor Alto—Representante a ir a Israel e a não fazer o exercício que fez aqui hoje, que claramente é unidimensional e quer claramente tomar um lado. A União Europeia não está de lado nenhum. Está do lado da justiça e da condenação do terrorismo. É também muito importante dar atenção à crise não apenas Sérvia—Kosovo, mas Arménia—Azerbaijão, e é fundamental manter o apoio integral à Ucrânia, no sentido de que a guerra que a Rússia está a fazer não seja esquecida, apesar dos gravíssimos conflitos que estão a decorrer no Médio Oriente. Para além disto, naturalmente, uma condenação ao senhor Orban, que teve o desplante de se encontrar com o senhor Putin e de fazer com ele um acordo. Esperemos que a eleição de Donald Tusk como primeiro—ministro na Polónia possa vir a mudar a situação dos países que, até agora, têm, de alguma forma, estado a bloquear este processo – o processo do Pacto das Migrações.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, once again we have a Schengen reform that aims, with digitalisation and modernisation, to make our visa system safer and less vulnerable. As previous rapporteur for the visa information system, I can only welcome this and, essentially, see that there are already steps here to try to avoid what recently happened in Poland. This new regime allows for a more efficient, less costly process, avoiding long waits for lack of administrative resources. But watch out! What has happened to ETIAS and the entry-exit system, which is still waiting to come into force, must not happen to this legislation. I have to say that in order to have a truly cohesive Schengen area, we also need political reforms: finish the Migration Pactbecause, without concluding the Migration Pact, we will not have a truly functioning Schengen area. We need to bring Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen area, because they are already in a position to enter. We also need Member States to stop controlling borders using arguments that are already outdated. One thing is an emergency situation, another thing is a normal situation. And finally, we have to create conditions - and I am working on this, for example, in the Prüm report - so that the police can exchange information and we, the citizens of the Schengen area, of that broad area, can move safely, we can move freely.