Speeches

Madam President, I just want to move an oral amendment, in agreement with the other groups, for this paragraph in which we just give an explanation. When we are calling for the sanctions, we mentioned those that are obstructing the political process and those that are obstructing the judicial process on the blast in the port, but we didn’t mention those that are undergoing financial misconduct and corruption investigation. So we just want to add to the paragraph: ‘those involved in serious financial misconduct and those obstructing corruption investigations’.

Madam President, thank you to the colleague for the question. We are proposing a European mechanism that includes the Member States and Frontex. It is therefore a joint mission to ensure maximum coordination and complementarity. This mission may also require funding, as my colleague points out, and we will have to look for the means in the pending revision of the multiannual financial framework. But let us not forget that the Member States have the assets, that is, the vessels that can help us to launch and implement this mission.

Madam President, thank you to Commissioner Johansson for participating in this important debate. The tragedy of Adriana in Pilos has, in my opinion, unfortunately been the chronicle of an announced death. And I think there are important political and also criminal responsibilities that will have to be cleaned up in this case. But above all, what we have to achieve with this debate and with this resolution is that what has happened in Pilos will never happen again in the Mediterranean. And that is why I have to thank my colleagues from the other groups - Lukas Mandl, from the EPP Group, Fabienne Keller, from the Renew Group, Erik Marquardt, from the Greens/EFA Group, and Cornelia Ernst, from the Left Group - for having arrived at the proposal we make in the resolution that we will vote on tomorrow for a European search and rescue mission. Because what is clear, beyond the ideological question on this issue, is that there is also a question of European responsibility and subsidiarity. There is a humanitarian obligation to save lives at sea, and it is an obligation that should not separate us in this House either by ideology or – as I say – by subsidiarity. Let us therefore move in that direction. Let us all vote in favour of this resolution tomorrow in order to send a strong signal to the Council about what we are demanding from this House. Two days ago the headless body - headless, I repeat - of a two-year-old boy was found on a beach in Tarragona, Spain. Police believe he drowned trying to cross the Mediterranean. Ladies and gentlemen, let us not allow this to happen again. (The speaker agreed to answer a question under the "blue card" procedure)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, more than a year ago, on 10 May 2022, 116 Members of this House addressed a letter to the European Commission asking it to establish the legal basis for the confiscation of EUR 300 billion of Russian state assets. A year later, the European Council instructs the Commission, the Council and the High Representative to continue the work to develop this legislative basis. Taking advantage of the fact that Vice-President Šefčovič is here, I tell him that we are very late with this task. And things, in our opinion, quite clear: an aggressor state, confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution and by the International Court of Justice, cannot have absolute immunity from jurisdiction as some are saying. And, moreover, nowhere in international law is it said that war reparations have to wait for the conflict to end. Please proceed swiftly with this legislative proposal.

Madam President Dita Charanzová, thank you very much to the Commissioner and other colleagues for the debate. I join the calls to continue combating climate change as the main tool to combat drought, as well as other measures such as rationalization in the use of water, saving measures and the use of treatment plants. But I also believe that the Commission needs clearer and stronger support for the instrument of transfers between surplus basins and deficit basins. This traditional instrument is also part of our arsenal and should not be stigmatized. Surely, it is even a better tool, for example, than overexploiting underground aquifers. Let us remember: transfers such as the Tajo-Segura, which is essential for human consumption and agricultural development in the province of Alicante, must receive clear support from the European Commission.

Mr President Marc Angel, I take the opportunity of this debate to address again Minister Roswall of the Swedish Presidency because, a year ago, the European Council at the end of June made a mistake that you can correct. When Ukraine was welcomed and declared a candidate, President Macron forgot his commitment to advance the political deepening of Europe and proposed the European Political Community, and everyone got lost. That was the occasion, while giving that signal towards enlargement, to give a signal towards deepening, that is, towards the reform of the Treaties. Because obviously nobody can believe that we are going to go to a Council with 30, 33 or 35 members and continue as before, with the right of veto and other things that do not make sense. So please, Minister Roswall, take the opportunity of this European Council to say something very simple: that enlargement and deepening must go hand in hand.

Madam President, thank you to Vice-President Jourová for her presence and also to Mrs Roswall, on behalf of the Council. Minister, the truth is that I do not think that the issue is to enter into a debate between us, parliamentarians, but I was a little shocked by the intervention of my colleague Paulo Rangel. Knowing its position against transnational lists, one must admit that this is Parliament's position and, when we come to debate with the Council, precisely because after a year... Colleague Rangel, you've had your two and a half minutes, then maybe you can make a blue card. (in response to a comment by Paulo Rangel). I believe that today is not the time to re-discuss between us what we already approved on 3 May, but to urge the Council to start negotiations with Parliament, more than a year after its adoption. Especially since Mrs Roswall, on behalf of the Council, kindly sent us a letter to the European Parliament recently urging us to make the proposal for the composition of Parliament. We see that they are in a bit of a hurry, but of course, one knows that in life there is that which the Romans called «quid pro quo’. So if you want us to vote on the composition proposal tomorrow, it would be good to expect that you, a year after we voted on our electoral law proposal, would also start negotiating. Because, although you said, Madam Minister, that the report has its complexities and that there are many new elements, you also know that we have proposed to negotiate on three elements in particular – the pan-European constituency, gender equality and the rights of persons with disabilities – and we have not yet had a response to our offer. We're still waiting. And, in addition, another element must be kept in mind. One is left with the feeling that the Swedish Presidency does not have a great will to go forward when you conclude your speech by saying: "By the way, we must not forget that the most important thing is the issues that interest citizens". What are you trying to say? That this issue, that of strengthening European democracy and giving them the possibility to vote directly for European political parties, is of no interest to citizens?

Mr President, Commissioner, if you can wait a moment, because you have not answered the question. He hasn't answered the question I asked him. But it's gone running, you can't do anything anymore.

Mr President Karas, Commissioner, thank you for your presence. According to the World Bank, since October 2019, Lebanon has been gripped by the most devastating and multifaceted crisis in its modern history. We could even say that these superlatives fall short. At the root of this crisis, among other factors, lies deep-rooted corruption that weakens institutions and curtails the possibility of change. But there is a paradigmatic case, which is that of Riad Salamé, the governor of the Central Bank of Lebanon. There are seven European countries that are investigating it and have claimed their participation in the judicial processes. He has also been indicted in Lebanon by three judges. A number of arrest warrants have been issued against him, most recently by France on 16 May of this year and by Germany on 23 May. Interpol has also issued a red alert regarding Mr Riad Salamé. In addition, investigations in Lebanon have been obstructed by the political class – part of the political class – and the judges who instruct them have been harassed or dismissed from their posts. I would therefore like, Commissioner, at the end of the day, a concrete answer from you to this question: the Commission has the Council's framework decision which expires at the end of July, is it prepared to implement it in order to sanction the Governor of the Central Bank, Mr Riad Salamé, before 31 July?

Madam President Picierno, Madam Vice-President, thank you for your presence and thank you to colleagues. The truth is that when the Commission proposal on this subject arrived, I printed it on paper to read it carefully and carefully, so that nothing escaped me, bearing in mind also that the Commission had taken its time – four years – to make this proposal. One might expect that, after four years, having carried out many consultations with experts or having read Parliament's own-initiative report, a very powerful, very ambitious proposal would come from the Commission. However, as it is said in Spanish, it seems that you have given birth to a mouse. They have taken a long time to present us with something that has a level of ambition and also a disconnect from Parliament's proposal that really catches our eye. So, before that, the most expert colleagues involved in the dossier will have to decide whether to return the proposal to the Commission, rejecting it outright, or to amend it and turn it around almost like a sock.

Mr President, it has been said that the blasting of the New Kakhovka dam constitutes an ecological and humanitarian catastrophe and, in my opinion, is also a symptom of the desperation of the Russian armed forces who, at the beginning of the spring counter-offensive by Ukraine, have resorted to this war crime to try to sustain their defences. This reminds us that we must continue to provide all military and arms support to Ukraine for this counter-offensive to be successful. At the same time, we need to move forward with sanctions. It is essential to approve the 11th package of sanctions and, above all, to establish secondary sanctions so that third countries cannot help Russia circumvent our sanctions.

Madam President, I would like to transfer all my support and that of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party to this resolution. Of course, we again demand the release of both Navalny and Kara-Murza and the other opponents. But I have to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that I have no real hope that this will happen. That is why I think the most important thing is that we sanction, as several colleagues have already requested, all those who are involved in the trial of both Navalny and Kara-Murza and the other opponents. That means that we sanction, as the United States and Canada have already done, the judges who have handed down these sentences, the prosecutors and the police officers who have ordered the arrests, as I say, of Navalny, Kara-Murza and all political opponents in Russia.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to extend my thanks and congratulations to the rapporteur, Javi López, also a colleague of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, for this magnificent report, and to the other rapporteurs who have collaborated on behalf of the various groups. Because this position of Parliament really comes at a very opportune time, because we must relaunch, we must ensure, by the end of 2025, that this force or rapid reaction capability is already operational, available. It is one of the main commitments of the strategic compass put forward by High Representative Josep Borrell, and one of the elements that, in my opinion, justifies the mandate of this Commission in the field of security and defence. The report adequately raises the issue of the General Staff and Headquarters, which must be established to give effect to this rapid reaction force. And in this regard we have two possibilities: the first, to do an exercise of creation, let's say, of new plant of this General Headquarters and General Staff. The second, and I propose it for consideration and debate, is to try to communitize the Eurocorps, which, as you know, is based precisely in Strasbourg and which is a capacity that is already available, although not at Community level. That is why I say that perhaps through PESCO it could be communitarized, so as not to have to do an exercise in the creation of a new plant.

Madam President, thank you to Commissioner Hahn for joining us in this debate. It is a debate that is undoubtedly taking place at a very opportune time. Why? Because just in recent weeks there has been the parliamentary visit referred to by President Skyttedal, to which I am also grateful for her work, and also the meeting of the EU-Iraq Cooperation Council between the High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borrell and the Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is true that the satisfaction - I have to say it in my personal capacity - is not complete, because it would have been desirable for this debate not only to be an exchange of views between parliamentarians and the Commission, but also to have been accompanied by a resolution; Let us not forget that the last resolution of this Parliament on Iraq is from 2018. It has rained a lot – as it is said in Spanish – since then in Iraq and in Europe. And we are also on the 20th anniversary of the US intervention in Iraq. Having said that, let us take advantage of the time we have to lay down some positions, at least in the capacity of Members and groups. Iraq is a country trying to advance its democratic transition, in a troubled region that has suffered from the lack of freedoms and the scourge of the Islamic State. Undoubtedly, it is an imperfect democracy, but one of the few cases and examples we have in the region and, therefore, we have to give all possible support. In this regard, I believe that a test of our joint cooperation must be the establishment, still pending, of the joint interparliamentary committee between this Parliament and the Iraqi Parliament, on which we are working from the delegation. I also do not want to leave the opportunity to address the Commission because we believe – from what we are told – that Commissioner Urpilainen is not a big fan of maintaining financial support for the UNESCO initiative ‘Reviving the spirit of Mosul’. You may not know right now if that is the case, but you may be able to ask yourself when the debate is over. Members of the parliamentary delegation had the opportunity to learn about this initiative and we firmly believe that it is necessary to recover a jewel of universal heritage and give hope to the people.

Mr President, thank you to Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič, not only for his presence, but for having negotiated the Windsor Framework, which is a rule of interpretation of the Protocol that allows us to get out of the situation we were in. Therefore, congratulations. Congratulations also, of course, to my dear colleague Pedro Silva, the rapporteur for the report on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement. I think we have to take into account several elements. First of all, perhaps, to follow very closely the use in practice – if it is used, hopefully not – of the so-called Stormont brake, because it is true that, until we see it in practice, we cannot calculate exactly what consequences its activation can have. Also take advantage of the new climate, because after all this is the debate on relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom, to recover some elements of cooperation that in its day - Maroš, you will remember - we proposed in the agreement on the future relationship, which at that time Prime Minister Boris Johnson decided to withdraw, such as cooperation in foreign and security policy and other important elements. In this regard too, we have to express our concern with the proposal for a migration law recently made by the current Prime Minister, on which Ylva Johansson has already declared that it is obviously contrary to international law, given that intention to deny the right of asylum to people arriving through the English Channel in the United Kingdom, and which has implications also with regard to our migration policy.

Madam President, Mr Nausėda, President of the Republic of Lithuania, I have absolutely shared your speech in the elements of firmness towards Russia, of total support for Ukraine, in the defence of its integrity and sovereignty. Also, in opening up to enlargement, of course, for Ukraine, for Moldova, for Georgia and also, as has been recalled, for the Western Balkans. He has my full support on that agenda that he has put forward. At the same time, I would like to tell you that this agenda requires, if we are honest and if we are credible, also a mention, which I have not found in your speech, to the necessary deepening of the political project. It must be clear to me, and I am also speaking on this occasion as my group's spokesman on constitutional matters, that there can be no enlargement without deepening. It is not sustainable to go to a Foreign Affairs Council with 30, 32 or 33 states with veto rights in foreign policy, for example. Or that we also need unanimity to approve the multiannual financial framework with 33 Member States and, let us not forget, 33 national ratifications. Therefore, Mr President Nausėda, I encourage you to also contribute to the debate in the European Council to pave the way for the adoption of a new Treaty that is more democratic, more efficient and therefore more federal.

Mr President, Mr Executive Vice-President Timmermans, I thank you for being here today in this debate. I would also like to thank the rapporteur for the report, Mr Paet, who was unable to be present. I would like to address a more particular issue, because many things have already been said: Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Article 31 TEU is very important. Why? Because in its paragraph 2 it allows many decisions to be adopted by qualified majority and, until now, unfortunately, it has not been used. In order to implement those decisions by qualified majority, a decision on the strategic interests and objectives of the Union, in accordance with Article 22 TEU, needs to have been taken. It is apparent that the European Council adopted that document, entitled ‘The New Strategic Agenda’, and its last section is entitled ‘Promoting Europe’s interests and values in the world’. Therefore, as it was also adopted by the European Council through the consensus procedure, they have been satisfied. de facto the requirements of Article 22 of the Treaty. Therefore, a European Council decision on the Union's strategic interests and values is already available. This allows Article 31(2) TEU to be applied to take decisions and actions implementing those strategic interests and values by qualified majority.

Madam President, first of all, I would like to convey all the solidarity of myself, of my political group of socialists and, I would also say, I am sure, of all the Spanish people and the European people, to Navalny for this very inhuman and unjust situation. Certainly, we have to do everything we can from the European Union to get them released, and not just for a humanitarian reason. Because I am convinced that sooner rather than later Ukraine will prevail in this war and, also sooner rather than later, Putin's regime will collapse in Russia. Then we will be able to find – meet again – a free and democratic Russia that will return to the European nations. And Navalny, among others, will be instrumental in building that new order: a Europe, let us remember, from the Atlantic to the Urals, free and united.

Madam President, first of all, I would like to extend my heartfelt condolences to the relatives of Julio Obama Mefuman, who died on 15 January 2023 in a prison in Equatorial Guinea. What this Parliament is asking for today with the resolution that all the political groups have negotiated is simple. First, the repatriation of Julio Obama's body to Spain. Julio Obama had dual Equatoguinean and Spanish nationality. He was therefore also a citizen of the European Union. He was imprisoned for his status as an opponent of Theodore Obiang's regime, which has lasted for forty-four years, all my life. Secondly, we call for the immediate release of his fellow opponents: Feliciano Efa Mangue, Martín Obiang Ondo and Bienvenido Ndong Ondo, three political prisoners who were also kidnapped in South Sudan and transferred to Equatorial Guinea in a sort of new Operation Condor on the African continent. There they were imprisoned and subjected to inhuman torture, under a total lack of respect for international law and with very limited consular access that, fortunately - and I thank you - the Embassy of Spain was able to offer. No one should die or suffer for their ideas. These activists deserve all our protection and protection. We therefore call on the Equatoguinean authorities to stop this harassment and arbitrary detention, both inside and outside the country.

Mr President Othmar Karas, High Representative Josep Borrell, thank you for your intervention this morning. I agree exactly with that idea that diplomacy is also a tool at our disposal, together with all the military support that should go further in Ukraine, always bearing in mind that the objective has to be a just peace, that is, for Ukraine to regain its sovereignty and territorial integrity. In that sense, we saw today in the Financial Times a new holder: ‘Russians amassing aircraft within striking range of Ukraine target». Indeed, we have been too slow. A year ago, it was said that the help of tanks and fighter jets will come too late, but no one knows how long the war will last. That strategy could therefore have been even more effective. In a year of war, Ukraine has regained half of the territory initially occupied by Russia. Let's go faster and faster.

Madam President Picierno, Commissioner, one of the most important innovations of the Maastricht Treaty was the introduction of European citizenship, including the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and also in municipal elections. We currently have more than 13 million citizens living in another Member State of the European Union. It is therefore essential that these citizens can fully exercise their right to vote and stand as candidates in electoral processes, both in the European Parliament and in local elections. Unfortunately, these citizens face too many administrative and information barriers, especially for people with disabilities. It is therefore time to remove these barriers. We call for this report to be taken into account in order to include at least three objectives in particular: make it easier to register as residents and voters, provide more and better information on elections in an official language understandable to them, and thirdly, ensure the needs of the most vulnerable groups, making voting accessible to people with disabilities, the elderly and the homeless. I also believe that it would be very important to ensure postal voting in all the Member States of the European Union.

Madam President, thank you very much for your flexibility and generosity also in this round of catch-the-eye. I'm going to be really very brief. The Allies have spent six, seven, eight months debating whether to send the tanks or not to send the tanks to Ukraine. And it was very clear from the outset that it is absolutely necessary to make available to the Government and people of Ukraine all available means so that they can face that aggression and regain their sovereignty and territorial integrity. And now the issue of delivering long-range missiles and fighter jets is on the table. I say from here, from this House, to the allies, to the West, to NATO: please do not waste another six, seven, eight months debating this issue. Go directly to make this delivery as soon as possible, because the people of Ukraine need it.

Mr President, 24 aid workers on the island of Lesbos accused of facilitating illegal immigration into Europe, a case which a study by this Parliament described as the largest criminalisation case in Europe and for which the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called for the charges to be dropped. And this is not the only case, unfortunately. Now we see how the Italian hard-right government tries to hinder with this decree the activities of NGOs that help at sea. It is not a matter of regulating anything but of making their work more difficult and of complicating it. And we also see that other governments, in addition, what they do is practice hot returns, forced returns. We have seen it in Greece, we have seen it in Croatia, we see it in Poland. Therefore, Commissioner, the Commission has to act. European Union law is being violated by these authorities and by these governments, both in the criminalisation of NGOs – which is a rule of law problem – and in the issue of systematic forced returns. Please act by opening the infringement procedure of EU law.

Madam President, first, if I may, a point of order: closed the debate with a list of not less than eight MEPs from the European People's Party and opened the catch-the-eye procedure by also giving the floor three times in a row to three MEPs from the Group of the European People's Party. Maybe it would have been more reasonable to alternate with the other groups that we had asked to participate in the catch-the-eye procedure, but well, in any case, it is very clear what this House demands. Commissioner Reynders, I have to tell you that I have seen you a little generic in your opening statement. You've put a lot of punches: that you are working on a working document, that you have worked with the Commissioners, with the services, that this needs to be studied very well. Well, of course, that is what the technicians are for, but he has not given us any compelling reason why, after the first initiative of this Parliament, with the letter we presented in April and the May resolution, at this stage you still do not say clearly that you are in favour of establishing the special court. I don't know what you guys are waiting for. The technicalities will come later. Please give the political signal that five political groups in this House have asked you to give. Only two MEPs – one from the far right and one from the far left – have been against it.