Speeches

Mr President, we are here today doing what is necessary, which is to extend the scheme of generalised tariff preferences. But we are here because of the inflexibility of the Council and the complicity of the Commission against this Parliament. This Parliament has asked for very few things and has been very flexible. It's been very talkative. He's tried to approximate positions. The response of the Council and the Commission, I insist, has been one of absolute inflexibility. I'm going to tell you one thing: I suppose you will wait for this term to run out and try to approve a new system of preferences in the next one. But the rights of European citizens, the rights of European rice farmers, the rights of European farmers will once again be on the table: because the system of generalized tariff preferences cannot be built against the rights of important sectors of our agriculture. You're not gonna make it. I recommend that you try to convince the Spanish Presidency to start a new trilogue and be able to bring positions closer together, because the system of generalised tariff preferences is really necessary, but you will not succeed against this Parliament.

Madam President, it is good to be ambitious and come up with new agreements, but I think it is good to be responsible and try to ratify the existing ones. But there are many irresponsible, there are some who defend, behind strategic sovereignty, strategic autarky. Some advocates of sustainable development would love to go back to the Neolithic or Paleolithic - maybe not even that - but the truth is that trade is good. Why is it good? Why are trade agreements good? For our jobs, to ensure our prosperity, to expand our markets, to expand opportunities, to ensure true strategic sovereignty, to advance in a global position of European leadership. For many reasons, but above all because we have to be responsible and agreements have to be concluded, agreements have to be ratified. What agreement are we talking about when we say this? From the Mercosur Agreement? Yes, of the Agreement with Mercosur, because we must try that some countries, for local or partisan interests, do not stop what is a necessity for the whole of the European Union, for our future and for the future shared with Latin America. Responsibility is important and, above all, we must be ambitious, but we must always be responsible.

Madam President, Commissioner Dombrovskis, does Europe need new instruments to defend itself and respond to acts of economic coercion by countries that interfere, through trade, with the interests and sovereignty of the European Union and its Member States? Obviously, yes. But, the question is: Is Europe willing to use these new instruments quickly and forcefully to be credible? Do you really want to be credible? Do you want to defend yourself? Let me give you an example: Algeria. Algeria has been boycotting all Spanish imports for two years, with losses of more than 1.5 billion euros, because, simply and simply, it wanted to punish Spain for its change of position with respect to Western Sahara. Do you know what the Commission has done? Nothing. And you know why? Because there are probably other Member States that have benefited from this situation for gas and oil. The question is therefore, if we adopt new instruments, will they use them this time or – again – will the defence of the commercial interests of some Member States take precedence over those of others? Hopefully that instrument will serve, this time, everyone and everything.

Madam President, Mr High Representative, today we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the military coup d'état in Chile. To commemorate as a form of condemnation such a tragic date for Chilean democracy, so terrible for all those citizens who were killed, disappeared, tortured, kidnapped, imprisoned or exiled by a criminal and totalitarian regime. Commemorating is an obligation in this way for every democrat, regardless of his political ideology, or so it should be. Within the framework of this infamous date, the president of Chile has promoted the Santiago Commitment, a manifesto that has four points. The first is to care for and defend democracy and the rule of law. The second is to face the challenges of democracy with more democracy, never less. The third is to strengthen the spaces for collaboration between States. And, fourth, to defend human rights without putting any ideology before the unconditional respect they deserve. This manifesto culminates with a fundamental idea: Let us take care of memory because it is the anchor of the democratic future that our peoples demand. Commemorating as a condemnation and remembering as a warning is a political and ethical obligation. Therefore, and in line with the Santiago Commitment, it is essential to defend and remember that the opposite of memory is oblivion, that the opposite of the defense of the rule of law is to attack or negotiate it with its enemies, and that the opposite of justice is the amnesty that amnesties history and crime. And just as we must point out those who commemorate, but celebrate, and those who commemorate and condemn some coups while defending and protecting others, we must also be very alert to those who defend democracy while associating, negotiating and marketing democratic principles and the rule of law with coup plotters. In short, commemorating as a condemnation and as a form of denunciation of those who defend memory while practicing oblivion is the best respect we can pay to Chilean democracy.

Mr President, Mr High Representative, the truth is that it is going to be difficult for me to start this speech, because I came to recognize the personal success that you have had as a promoter of this meeting and, really, the success that the same meeting has meant. But every time I listen to him, the desire to thank him for his work is taken away. Because really the treatment that you are giving these Members seems to me to be unfair and inappropriate. And I'll tell you why. Because this is an example where the role of the deputies has been very important to be able to reach this meeting. That heavy, insistent, sometimes even scathing - or even sometimes inappropriate - role has been necessary to get to this meeting. We have promoted, while no one did, the need to put Latin America and the Caribbean on the political agenda of the European Union. Got it. And I repeat - even though I only have one minute and I really didn't feel like it - I want to acknowledge his work and ask him to keep insisting. We have less than a year ahead of us and I hope that your work will allow us to have an answer to the question we are now asking ourselves, the "now what?" question.

Madam President, the Nicolás Maduro regime is a regime addicted to crime and disqualifications. In recent years, more than 1,400 citizens have been disqualified from exercising their right to elect and be elected. Now, when Venezuelans prepare to choose in primaries to which the opposition can be the candidate to face a hypothetical presidential election in 2024, the disqualifications reappear, in this case of María Corina, to which Henrique Capriles and Freddy Superlano are added. In view of this, this Parliament endorses the recommendations of the Electoral Observation Mission that the European Union sent to Venezuela in 2021 and whose recommendation No 2 said that political disqualifications should be abolished. And it not only endorses this recommendation, but makes it an obligation and a condition for the 2024 elections to be genuine, genuine and competitive elections whose outcome can be recognised. With this resolution, this Parliament sends a loud and clear message: With disqualifications there will be no free and fair elections, only a farce. With disqualifications there will be no elections.

Mr President, if we stop to listen, if we listen carefully, we hear anger, anger, discontent and also insecurity, uncertainty, concern and fear. It's the sound of the middle classes. They are middle classes that are experiencing progressive erosion and impoverishment; middle classes suffocated by the rise in prices, food, energy and housing, who are increasingly having trouble reaching the end of the month, who are more indebted and who live with greater instability their future work. Insecurity, uncertainty and concern have settled in a good part of our middle classes, which only receive obligations and fewer and fewer rights. They are middle classes who are afraid of loss: loss of status, loss of identity, loss of security, loss of future. That is why it is time to put the middle classes, that is, most of our societies, at the centre of the political debate. But not only in the economic, that too. Sometimes one listens and does not understand anything, because we do not speak to them clearly and we must speak to them clearly. People must be put at the centre of the political debate. This is the home of the citizens and they would have to understand us. And they don't understand us because they don't see themselves reflected in what we do based on what they need and it's time to connect with that. We need to be able, in the face of worries, uncertainties, insecurities and fears, to provide trust, certainty, security and hope. And for that, an action plan on the middle classes is necessary that puts them at the center of the political debate, so that, in the face of fear, in the face of that fear that some will demagogically exploit, we offer certainties.

Mr President, from Citizens we denounce from the first day that the work of the Committee of Inquiry in charge of examining the use of the Pegasus Surveillance Spy Program and other equivalent programs could be instrumentalized by convicted criminals or by escapees from justice for violating democracy and the rule of law or by Kremlin pawns in their strategy to weaken European democracies. In short, we said that we ran the risk that Pegasus would become the Trojan horse and that some would open the doors for him. Unfortunately, we do not avoid it in the report voted in committee, which is a text that voluntarily presents suspicions, conjectures or speculations as if they were certainties, and assumptions and inferences as if they were proven facts. Fortunately, it has been achieved in this resolution, which will be voted on in this House and which will propose concrete measures to guarantee the rights and freedoms of European citizens against illegal interference with their privacy. However, it must be stressed that we must ensure that all Member States use all mechanisms, all instruments and all technology to defend our democracies. A rule of law has the right to defend its citizens using monitoring programmes, which are only spies when used without a warrant, which this resolution can help to avoid.

Madam President, Mr Borrell, in connection with your visit to Cuba, you said that we must talk to everyone, I subscribe to you. So, the question is what is being talked about with everyone. And the question is, have you spoken to Mr. Díaz Canel or the Cuban authorities about the freedom of political prisoners? Has he spoken of the cessation of the persecution of the Sakharov Prize laureates given by this Parliament? Have you spoken to the democratic opposition or to the relatives of the political prisoners or has Mr Díaz Canel not left you? But the problem, it's not talking, it's what you talk about. And above all, have you told the Cuban authorities that if they do not comply with their commitments to the agreement, it can be suspended? I don't think so, and you know why? We have repeated the word "nothing" many times. Do you know why Cuba does nothing? Because he knows he can do nothing. Because, doing nothing, nothing happens to Cuba. He knows that nothing happens to him by doing nothing and, therefore, he does what he does. Nothing.

Madam President, Commissioner, according to the United Nations, more than 2 800 people have been killed, more than 16 000 irregularly detained, more than 1.2 million citizens have been displaced, political parties have been disbanded. That is, Myanmar's level of degradation is unbearable. And I think that here, recurrently, we are telling ourselves what we can do. What can we do that we haven't done? Well, there are things. There are things you can do. I know that this is not going to be very popular and that it is not easy, but it has already been done – it was done with Cambodia –: This is the withdrawal of the tariff preferences available to the country and from which a significant part of the government benefits, i.e. the ‘Everything But Arms’. Why? Because it's an instrument. That instrument had to be used to prevent serious and systematic violations of human rights. This is the time when this temporary withdrawal of preferences can be implemented as there is a serious and systematic violation of human rights. What more serious and systematic violation of human rights than almost 3,000 dead, more than 16,000 detained and more than 1.2 million displaced?

Mr President, Commissioner, we very much support this resolution on a roadmap towards a social Europe: two years after the Porto Social Summit. But two years after Porto we have to recognize that in this roadmap we have forgotten about the middle classes. And two years after Porto we must recognize that the middle classes have become impoverished and are becoming impoverished by leaps and bounds. There is an erosion of the middle classes, and the middle classes are the support of our democracy. And that erosion is fueling populist discourse. Not to fix a part of social Europe in the middle classes is a mistake that we will pay very dearly if we are not able to incorporate the middle classes into that road map of social Europe. Because the middle classes must recognize themselves as a substantive part of what concerns us and what concerns us. Because while the rich are getting richer, everyone else is getting poorer. And like everyone else we are becoming poorer and poorer, our social outlook cannot and should not forget the middle classes. That is why, from the Renew Group, from the liberals, we have managed, with the majority support, to talk for the first time about the need to promote a European action plan for the middle classes. Whenever the Commissioner listens to me, I always ask him to initiate action plans. But this action plan for the middle classes, this European action plan is key. It's important, Sheriff. Do it. The middle classes need it. And Europe and social Europe require it.

Madam President, Commissioner, a Europe that wants to be a global player needs a common defence policy. And a common defence policy needs common defence military units. This would seem very obvious, but it must be said. It must be said here, in parliamentary headquarters: We need permanent military units that are operational to be deployed quickly where the European Union needs them and decides. And, for that, we have to have these military units. I liked battlegroups – the name – and this capability would be, at bottom, a rapidly deployable battlegroup. What do you need? Greater concreteness. I think the idea is very good, but it must be developed because it is clear that it needs to go a little further in the approaches. However, I consider that the wickers of the approaches are good, that is, the skeleton of what is proposed is good. I think we need to move forward on the definition of terminology, the nature of the crises in which it would participate, the level of commitment of states – how far that level of commitment would go – the financial mechanisms and the operational scenarios. Why? Because, for availability and operability to be effective, we need to provide answers to these questions. Because we need that unity; We need it urgently. You have to define it and you have to assume it. To conclude, deterrence goes through the credibility of the threat and the response, but one thing: When you design an instrument, you have to be willing to use it.

Mr. President, Mr. High Representative, "From the door of [the] [daily] La Crónica Santiago [Zavala, Zavalita] looks at Tacna Avenue, without love: cars, uneven and discolored buildings, skeletons of luminous warnings floating in the haze, the gray noon. And he wonders "at what point had Peru fucked up?" Well, this was written by Vargas Llosa at the beginning of Conversation in The Cathedral, in 1969. More than fifty years have passed and the question is still floating in the air: When did Peru get screwed? In fact, this is a country in which eight of its last ten former presidents are imprisoned, prosecuted or awaiting extradition. Then the problem is a political problem. And in the face of this political problem, the question is what we can do. The European Union immediately went out to guarantee and support Peruvian democracy and its institutions. And this was done immediately and gave a sign of what we have to do, which is to accompany Peruvians in a process of consolidating their democracy. Accompany, because Peru is an ally and friend, and of allies and friends we care and take care. The legitimate use of social protest must be guaranteed, institutions must be urged to investigate abuses, but, above all, tension must be reduced and an inclusive political dialogue must be contributed to in order to find a way out of the crisis. That crisis may have a way out that is elections, but that has to be said by the Peruvian Congress because we have to respect their decisions. For what purpose? In order to contribute to the reforms that the country needs so that, in a few years, we can ask ourselves, unlike Zavalita, "when was Peru fixed?"

Mr President, Commissioner, High Representative, when one wonders about the need for a coherent strategy it is either because it has no strategy or because it is not coherent. Or both. Any of the three is bad news, because China does have it; China has a strategy that is hegemony. As you know, go is a game that originated in China more than 2,500 years ago. It is a game where two players fight to expand their own territory when possible, attacking the weaknesses of the opposite. China has been playing go for decades, putting its pieces on the global board: first Asia, then Africa, then Latin America and almost Europe – nothing, good, little, little or insufficient. China is a global player. The question is whether we want to be a global player or we want to be a piece on the board. I think we should be a global player, and that means taking on responsibilities and the costs of being a global player, because if you're not a global player, you risk being a piece in a game, and the pieces in games are sacrificed.

Madam President, the importance of preventing lies and disinformation from being used has once again been highlighted in this Council. I'm going to ask you, first, for forgiveness for my intervention. I did not think I had to do it, but we cannot allow lies and disinformation to thrive in this House, because lies only thrive in silence. A Member who is not present – because she has already done the show and is already gone – he has reported illegal detention by a Member State, which is absolutely false. She was arrested to appear before the Justice because she did not want to appear before a judge. Being a Member of this Parliament does not entitle anyone to disrespect the rule of law. I repeat, I apologize for having to intervene at this minute. I've said it before: This is not the forum. It is not the forum for those who have abused their status as rulers, and who have abused their status as deputies, to abuse their status to bring inappropriate debates to this Parliament.

Madam President, I, as a Catalan, would ask you, please, to try to prevent this House from becoming a space for political debate that goes against the principles we have just defended. We came from celebrating a space of meeting, of union, of agreement. This kind of situation doesn't help at all. You've given a way out of a situation that... Look, I have an opinion - I've given it in the media before - but I think this is not the space. The space – you have properly led it to where it has to be produced – is in the corresponding commission. I would like this House not to be used to make a show political, which I think at a time like this, and after being talking about what we were talking about, absolutely degrades and I think it does not suit your political action.

Mr President, the aim of the Committee of Inquiry to examine the use of the Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware was and is to determine the legal use of surveillance programmes to guarantee the fundamental rights of European citizens, i.e. to delimit the legal use of the illegal use of these surveillance programmes. A legal surveillance program is a surveillance program and an illegal surveillance program is a spy program. Well, that is and was the purpose of this commission: map the reality of the use of such programmes by Member States to determine and assess whether this was being done within the legal framework that allows it, with the aim of combating organised crime, terrorism, i.e. defending democracy, or whether it was being done in an illegal and irregular manner. That is what this committee is working on, that is the aim of its work. Work that has to be completed with the adoption of the report and the Recommendations. One of the elements to be denounced in the report will be the lack of commitment on the part of the Commission. It should also denounce the lack of commitment and response on the part of the Member States. That's the goal. I therefore fully support this complaint, pending the report's determination of the extent to which the Member States and the Commission are actually committed to delimiting and guaranteeing citizens' rights and freedoms. Let us not fall into the error of allowing the Pegasus program to become the Trojan horse of the enemies of democracy against those who decide to defend it.

Mr President, when we talk about Georgia, its etymology - the Greek 'georgos' - inevitably comes to mind: the farmer, the planter, the farmer, and the metaphor of St. George and the dragon. Georgians sowed the seed of freedom twenty years ago and are now threatened by a dragon. In Latin: "Hic sunt drachones". There are dragons near Georgia. It is a dragon that is gradually eroding its democracy, with a pattern that we recognize and that we have seen in this law that the government has approved - or has tried to approve. Therefore, we have to help the Georgians. Because Georgians are not saints, they are citizens who seek and fight for their freedom. They fight in front of a dragon. Let's not do what we did in 2008, which is leave them alone in front of those who attacked and violated their territorial integrity. Let us not leave them alone in front of those who, now, with a proxy political, they try to erode and laminate the right they have to collect the seed of their freedom, which is called Europe.

Madam President, Mr Nausėda, unfortunately, in Europe, countries are often – I would say too often – divided according to geography – whether they are in the north, south or east; depending on their population – whether they have many millions of inhabitants or few; or on the basis of their GDP – whether it is very high or small. But on many occasions reality arrives, and reality acts as a reactant, as proof of the true size of countries and their importance. And when we talk about the importance of a country, we look at Lithuania and see that it has proved to be a great country in the moments of difficulty that the war in Ukraine has unveiled. It is a great country because it has set an example of generosity, commitment and solidarity. And it has done so not only with words, which are always important: Words move the world. But what really moves the world is what one puts on the table when truth compels us: money, resources, people one admits as immigrants. And there, again, Lithuania has proved to be a great country, because while its small country spent more than 1% of its GDP, the large European countries did not reach 0.2%. So when we talk about European values and we talk about what Europe is, do you know what Europe is? commitment, generosity and solidarity. And do you know what Europe is?: your country, Lithuania. Because it is in times of difficulty that countries, their rulers and their citizens demonstrate what true European values are and what Europe is. Europe is a refuge. It is a refuge of democracy, but it is also a shield and must be a shield of democracy. And democracy is defended with commitment, yes; generously, yes; with serenity, yes; but, also, with weapons. Because democracy is also defended in the trenches and, therefore, it is very important that all of us here follow its example, follow Lithuania's example in defending the democracy, rights and freedoms that are at issue in Ukraine. Because Russia is a certain threat, Russia is a military threat, it is a geopolitical threat. You, the Baltic countries, had been warning for years about energy dependencies, about the threats posed by Russia, and you all looked the other way. Again small countries led European values. In short, President Nausėda, thank you for being here with us. convey to your citizens the thanks of this Parliament and of all European citizens and their representatives, because European values, in addition to commitment, generosity and solidarity, now have a new name: Lithuania.

Madam President, Equatorial Guinea is governed by a dictatorial regime that has systematically violated human rights since 1979, a regime that persecutes and harasses the political opposition inside and outside the country, executing kidnappings, torture and extrajudicial killings. The regime of dictator Teodoro Obiang Nguema kidnapped in South Sudan at the end of 2019 four opponents, who were illegally transferred to Equatorial Guinea on the presidential plane, two of them with dual Spanish and Equatoguinean nationality: Mr. Julio Obama and Mr. Feliciano Efa. Both were tried without guarantees and sentenced in 2020 to 60 and 90 years in prison. Since then they suffered permanent torture, until on January 15 of this year Mr. Obama died, probably because of such torture. Twenty years after the last resolution on Equatorial Guinea, this Parliament breaks its silence and condemns and holds the Equatoguinean regime responsible for the death of Mr Obama. It demands an end to the persecution of the opposition and calls for the immediate release of all political prisoners. We know that these requests will not be met and, therefore, we call for concrete actions: to investigate the Criminal Network for the Monitoring and Kidnapping of Opponents in Europe; that any cooperation with the regime is conditional on respect for human rights and that sanctions are put in place against members of the regime. In conclusion, I hope that with this resolution Equatorial Guinean citizens will feel that Europe does not forget them and hope that we will work for a democratic future for Equatorial Guinea.

Madam President, Morocco is a strategic partner of the European Union and, as a strategic partner, must respect the agreements and commitments it adopts. When it does not, this Parliament is obliged to remind you that it cannot use immigration to blackmail a Member State, that it cannot spy on friendly governments and that it cannot bribe Members of this Parliament to condition its debates. And when it does not comply with human rights, this Parliament is obliged to remind you that it cannot violate them, that it cannot prosecute and illegally imprison Moroccan journalists for doing their job, that it cannot harass European journalists for denouncing what the Moroccan regime is doing and, above all, what it cannot do is look the other way while all this is happening. Today, more than 20 years ago, there was no talk in this Parliament about the human rights situation in Morocco. Now we know why. But Morocco – your government – needs to know that this Parliament is not going to look the other way again. That a good relationship of partners must be based on respect for human rights and mutual respect, despite the many pressures that the Moroccan Government puts on this House.

Mr President, we are here showing that the European Parliament denounces and condemns the assault on democratic institutions in Brazil to support its democracy, to denounce this unacceptable violation of the seats that represent the powers of Brazilian democracy and, I repeat, to support it. We in Europe know very well what this means. In 2018, Catalan separatists attempted to storm the Parliament of Catalonia. In Europe we live with astonishment that, in 2021, Trump's followers will storm the US Capitol. But not only do we have to convey words of support for Brazilian democracy - which of course - but we have to move on to the facts. And the facts are that we have to strengthen our political, cooperation and economic relations with Brazil. For this we have an instrument that is the Mercosur Agreement, which is not a problem, which some denounce, but is the solution, because also to face the challenges in the defense of democracy, the Mercosur Agreement is necessary.

Madam President, if I were to tell you about a European Prime Minister who disobeys, fails to comply with laws and court rulings, who appoints his Minister of Justice as Attorney General of the State, whose government partners accuse judges and magistrates of the Constitutional Court of being coup plotters for enforcing the law, which causes three of the four judicial associations to write a letter to Mr Reynders accusing this government of threatening the rule of law, if he said that there is a president who wants to change the majorities of appointment of members of the Judiciary illegally, who pardons politicians convicted of sedition and embezzlement, yes, who reforms the Criminal Code to his measure so that they also do not have a cost of disqualification, who do you think I am talking about? Orbán's? No, Pedro Sanchez. Pedro Sanchez, yes. Factual stuff. I know you don't like to hear them, but they are like that. But I'm going to tell you one thing: Spain is not Pedro Sánchez, nor his government, nor the Socialist Party, nor its separatist and communist accomplices. That's got to get in your head, don't confuse it. Spain endured a coup d’état by its partners and will be able to withstand the abuses of the rule of law that you provoke, because your government is the main threat to equality before the law – a basic principle, the equality of any citizen before the law – and to respect for the judiciary and the separation of powers. You guys are. But remember one thing: You said in 1985 that Montesquieu had died, but we will not allow Pedro Sanchez, your government or you to bury him.

Madam President, Mr Reynders, at the end of last year, Mr Borrell launched the roadmap towards 2023 to strengthen relations in Europe and Latin America. Well, it's now 2023. Now what? What do we have to do? Well, do everything we haven't done in three and a half years. And so we're in a hurry, because we only have one year left. And then, as we are in a hurry, we have one year left and we have to do everything we did not do, what is the priority? Ratify the EU-Mercosur Agreement. I repeat: ratify the EU-Mercosur Agreement. That is key and it is our main obligation. No more excuses. The French elections have passed, the German elections, the Brazilian elections. We already have a French president and we already have a Brazilian president. There's Lula. What's the problem now? Well, believe it. Because Mr. Borrell has always defended this. Does the Commission as a whole defend it? I don't know. It would be wise for him to do so. Why? Because 2023 has to be the year of Latin America and, for this, the EU-Mercosur Agreement must be ratified.

Madam President, what is the main new development or accusation we have about foreign interference in the European institutions? For a month now there has been one, which is not Qatargate, it is "Qatar/Moroccogate", Qatar/Moroccogate. I thought Commissioner Johansson was going to provide us with some kind of information about, for example, Mr Borrell's trip to Morocco and the explanations that Morocco, which is directly linked to this bribery scandal for MEPs, has been able to give him. He has told us absolutely nothing, because is there any greater interference than buying the legislative work of a Parliament, of a partner and friend? And do you know what Mr Bourita, Morocco's foreign minister, says? That this is a campaign of harassment urged by some deputies with their own agenda. How can we allow partners and allies, instead of giving explanations, to make accusations against the members of this House who do not bend to their money and their book? That is a situation that we have to correct and the best way, in addition to internal control mechanisms, is to ask for explanations from these strategic partners and allies, because there will be no impunity for corruption. There must be no such thing in this Parliament. But will there be impunity for the corrupters? Will there be impunity for corrupting countries?