Speeches

Mr President, without pollinators, agri-food production capacity and quality would be substantially reduced. We are not just talking about the honey bee, but about the immense group of solitary and communal bees and other insects that are irreplaceable in pollination. Research is needed in this area to reduce the use of and dependence on the use of pesticides. Opposed to the interests of pharmaceutical and agro-industrial multinationals, which requires not only public investment in research, but also the creation of national technical and productive capacity. But it is a mistake to fine-tune the discussion on pesticides. It is necessary to question the production model, leveraged in the guidelines of a CAP that privileges the increasing concentration of agricultural production, monoculture and intensification of the production model, and the abandonment not only of traditional species and models, but also of small and medium-sized producers, thus contributing to the reduction of biodiversity, also of pollinators. Commissioner, today we repeat the debate in June last year, where I questioned you. Since then, the Commission has done nothing to answer these questions.

Mr President, the increase in Israeli repression of the Palestinian people is being brutally aggravated, with an escalation in the policy of forcibly expelling Palestinians from their homes and lands at the hands of the current Israeli government, which integrates forces of a fascist nature, and which is even more ostensibly pursuing Israel's long-standing plans. The repeated proclamations of the European Union in defence of the two-state solution are in stark contrast to the connivance, shaped by multiple forms of support and cooperation and double standards, with Israel's policy, which has long prevented such a solution, grossly violating relevant UN resolutions and successive agreements with the Palestinian authorities. We need to go beyond statements, Mr. Borrell. It is necessary to take a position of unequivocal defense of the immediate realization of the right of the Palestinian people to a sovereign and independent State, with the borders of 1967, capital in East Jerusalem, with the realization of the right to return of refugees, in compliance with the relevant UN resolutions. All solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Madam President, as much as you want to paint it social or green, the European Semester will still be what it has always been: an instrument of conditionality and interference in the budgetary policy of States, to the detriment of the peoples, for the benefit of the great powers and economic groups. Let us recall that the 2022 country-specific recommendations, in the case of Portugal, highlighted the strengthening of fiscal pressures until 2023, aimed at containing current government expenditure, i.e. by pushing for the containment of real wages and investments in public services. This discussion cannot be separated from the announcement of the end of the escape clause of the Stability Pact and the reinstatement of the excessive deficit procedures, linked to the ongoing debate on the revision of the so-called economic governance, with a view to increasing the constraints on state spending and public investment and its sanctioning framework. Negative developments that are anticipated to the detriment of countries like Portugal.

Madam President, this is yet another speech which, by pointing to war, without pointing out solutions to put an end to it, seeks to scapegoat all evils. And yet, the concrete problems facing the peoples – aggravated by the policies of sanctions, liberalisation of sectors, concentration of production, precariousness and low wages that the European Union promotes – still lack solutions. Where are the measures to reverse the rise in poverty and stop the indecent concentration of wealth? Where are the measures to contain the loss of purchasing power and the brutal rise in the cost of living? What are the measures to put an end to the exploitation and speculation of large economic and financial groups and their obscene profits? What initiatives to invest in public services and defend universal and solidarity-based social security? What are the proposals to end the assault on labour rights, increased exploitation, precariousness and deregulation of working hours? People want peace, they want what is being denied them. In Portugal, as throughout Europe, the mobilization of the population, of the workers, is intensifying. Claims for the right to a decent life, to work with rights, to increase wages are multiplied. The end of speculation and exploitation, intervention in the markets, the fixing of maximum prices. For the right to health, education, housing. For peace. This is the voice you have yet to hear.

Mr President. The ECB’s insistence on consecutive interest rate increases has a brutal but uneven impact on workers, households, businesses and the economy in several Member States. A particularly serious problem for families who have indebted themselves for house purchase and in countries such as Portugal, where the variable rate in housing loans prevails. Brutal increases in house prices, as well as a wide range of essential goods and services, stagnant and low wages and reforms, loss of purchasing power, exploitation, speculation and cartelisation increase the profits of the large economic and financial groups of banking, energy, telecommunications and large distribution, among others. The European Commission and the Council can no longer ignore the ECB's policies that, they acknowledge, have brutal impacts on households. We are promoting an oral question with debate addressed to the Commission and the Council on the necessary and immediate measures to be taken in relation to the ECB’s decisions, including by reflecting them on bank profits and not on employees. Debate in need of regimental agreement between political groups. We therefore invite you to expedite the scheduling of such a relevant discussion.

Mr President, a policy of cooperation, if consistent with a dimension of effective solidarity, should be based on capacity-building for the independence, sovereignty and development strategies of countries, leveraging, among other things, their productive and strategic sectors and the economic and social progress of states. On the other hand, the European Union's so-called development cooperation policy has been an expression of the interests of the European powers and of large economic groups seeking profit, the opening up of markets, the liberalisation of trade relations, control and the plundering of resources and wealth, even at the cost of growing inequalities, regional destabilization or even war. Conditionalities of a different nature are imposed, interfering with the sovereign choices of States. Dependencies and external debts worsen in the context of a persistent neocolonial pennant. There is an urgent need for a framework of effective cooperation between equals and of mutual interest, within the framework of respect for sovereignty and international law, aiming at social progress, solidarity and peace.

Madam President, the European Union insists on neoliberal and market solutions such as alpha and omega in combating the environmental problems we face. It seeks to delude the fact that mechanisms such as greenhouse gas emissions trading, which promotes not only perverse measures – turning the purchase and sale of the right to pollute into a business – are ineffective in reducing emissions. Green measures that, at the same time, impose inequalities, development asymmetries and social injustices, pushing the costs of this market for families already facing the brutal increase in the cost of living, also resulting from options and policies of the European Union. A serious fight against the reduction of emissions requires another path. And there are alternatives. It is necessary to adopt a normative approach, setting reduction targets according to fair, effective and transparent criteria, integrating the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, aligned with the dissemination of the best available technologies, alongside, among others, policy change in the energy and transport sectors, regaining public control of these strategic sectors, valuing national production and promoting public investment.

Madam President, President Lagarde, the ECB recently announced the fifth consecutive increase in interest rates, envisaging a further increase in March as part of the response to rising inflation, ignoring inseparable causes of European Union choices and other monetary and economic instruments and measures that could be considered. It turns out that the mortgage market is not homogeneous, with the variable rate predominating in the countries in the so-called periphery of the euro area. The impacts of your policies are therefore unequal and you know it. Your choices stifle thousands of families who, in some cases, as in Portugal, have seen benefits increase by 80%, while at the same time being confronted with rising prices of essential goods and services and sharp wage devaluation. What do you have to say about this asymmetric impact on families, but also on businesses and on the financing conditions of states, which will tend to exacerbate inequalities, creating even more difficulties for these countries? We have already seen this film, Madam President Lagarde, in 2010 and 2012. Do you want to repeat these disastrous policies?

Madam President, last week in Portugal many thousands of workers took to the streets and engaged in various struggles. On the 9th, there was a great day of struggle with various actions throughout the country: strikes, stoppages, plenary sessions, marches and demonstrations, filling streets in several districts. They took to the streets for better wages, against precariousness and the increase in the cost of living, for price regulation, for the right to public health, to housing. It is this immense mass of workers who produce the wealth of the country, who deserve a better and dignified life. On the eleventh, there was also a great action of struggle of teachers and educators, in defense of the public school, for the valorization of careers and for the recovery of years of progression stolen. Struggles where we have been present, with which we stand in solidarity, and which are an expression of the increasing mobilization of workers for what is just, for what is theirs, for other policies that guarantee the sovereign development of states, rights, justice and social progress.

Mr President, on GDP growth in Portugal last year, the highest since 1987, two notes. First, this growth is accompanied by the largest fall in the share of wages in GDP over the same period. Real wages have declined, workers have lost purchasing power, many are impoverished to work. Economic groups increase their profits, increase inequalities and injustices. This reality is inseparable from the guidelines, pressures and impositions of the European Union, to which successive governments have been subjected, from attacks on collective bargaining, from wage restrictions in the public sector, from disinvestment in public services and in the social functions of the State. Second, despite the economic bias of this growth and the exceptional circumstances that explain it, it exposes the absurdity of insisting on debt reduction through budget surpluses of the deficit dictatorship. Economic growth is the way to faster and more sustained debt reduction.

Madam President, at the end of the discussion, which I value, let me highlight a few more elements and recommendations of the report. The defence or creation of markets of origin, promoting short marketing channels, valuing fish and thus the income of fishermen. Faced with situations of loss of income, the creation of mechanisms that provide for wage compensation, counting them as effective working time for the purposes of retirement and other social security rights. The reintroduction of the fisheries component of POSEI and the creation of a POSEI-Transport to support the outermost regions in view of the increased costs of insularity. Streamlining EMFAF procedures, reducing red tape and changing the funding process by a pre-financing system, ensuring the use of funding ceilings for eligible measures that should in any case be extended to this segment. support for the replacement of engines, including the increase in power, where duly justified, as a means of improving the safety and operation of vessels. The reintroduction of possibilities to support storage, freezing and refrigeration, with a view to fully exploiting all fish, ensuring public supply and the supply of the food processing industry. Allow me, in conclusion, to make a few suggestions to the Commissioner: it is essential to move away from dogmas and simplifications such as a concept of inadequate small-scale fishing or correlations between power and fishing capacity, which cannot be directly verified or applied equally to each vessel. You need to get out of inertia, you need to redefine priorities, you need to go to the ground not on visits to take pictures, but to know, in practice, the reality of the problems of the sector, to hear why the funds do not reach those who need them most. We can well say, to the point of exhaustion, that there are funds in the EMFAF that can be used by small-scale fishing, if small-scale fishing cannot access them, they are useless. We need to know the reality. Reducing the environmental impact can also be done, and should, at the expense of fleet renewal, which this Commission rejects. There are many recommendations in the report that small-scale fishing is calling for. What is important now is that the Commission and the Member States take action to achieve them. That is what is required.

Madam President, when the European institutions discuss the small-scale artisanal and coastal fishing segment, which accounts for 75% of the fleet in the fisheries sector, it is more the proclamations, the rhetoric, than the concrete measures. The options for centralising the Common Fisheries Policy, the architecture of successive fisheries funds and other regulations, which are out of step with the needs and reality of the segment, have been an increasingly tight corset, which is slowly stifling small-scale fishing. While the European Union's policy has been benefiting large-scale fishing for decades, concentrating on the sector and even opening the door to the privatisation of resources, which we reject from the outset, the segment is facing increasing difficulties. Limited access to funds: over the years, only 7 % of the funds for the sector will have reached small-scale fisheries; if strictly related to vessel operations, 25 %; one quarter of the funds for three quarters of the fleet at the same time, the least capitalised. High bureaucratic burden, low co-financing rates, need to frontload funds, limited spectrum of eligible operations: problems, to which the EMFAF does not respond, which are highlighted and require change. Fleet and crew ageing: for more than 20 years there has been no funding for fleet renewal, which, with an average age of over 32, is in many cases obsolete, increasing the risks and costs of the operation. Funds are needed for the renewal and modernisation of the fleet in the segment, without itching or false concessions blocking this support. Low income: the segment, in particular its professionals, is confronted with low fishing incomes, to which low prices contribute greatly to production. They win the middlemen, lose the producer and the consumer. A fair and appropriate distribution of value added across the sector’s value chain is needed, reducing intermediation margins, improving first-sale prices and containing prices paid for final consumption. Increase in production costs: as in other sectors, the segment was confronted with the substantial increase in production costs, particularly in fuels, with negative impacts on incomes. Fuel support for this segment, including through the EMFAF, is a pressing need. To reject them, particularly in the current context, is to contribute even more to challenging this segment – by the way, potentially more sustainable, not only from a social but also an environmental point of view. Steps still need to be taken to counter the path of centralisation towards local management, which takes into account the reality and the complex and enormous diversity between States, and even at national level, of small-scale artisanal coastal fishing, in its fleets, target species, fishing gear, consumption preferences and fish consumed per inhabitant. Proximity management, which gives more prominence to States, within the framework of their sovereignty, goes against the logic of increasing subordination to the market and concentration in the sector, determining objectives of a fisheries policy that must include the management of resources based on adequate scientific knowledge, the guarantee of public supply of fish to the populations, in the context of food security and sovereignty, and the development of coastal communities, the valorisation and social and labour recognition of the professions linked to fishing, promoting employment and the improvement of the living conditions of fishermen and the socio-economic viability of the sector. These, among others, are some paths and measures that the segment claims and that are necessary, and that the report seeks to point out. While noting the absence of the Commissioner responsible in this discussion, I would like to leave a word of appreciation to the shadow rapporteurs for the good cooperation, which has made it possible, even if on some topics it has not gone as far as necessary, to enshrine in this text a number of important recommendations on small-scale coastal and artisanal fishing. They must now be implemented.

Madam President, Mr Michel, the people want peace, work with rights and decent wages, the right to health, education and housing. Your answer, however, is the escalation of confrontation, the militarization of war, without any glimpse of the demand for the end of war and the defense of peace. Your answer is the insistence on sanctions, even if it means, as hitherto, that the peoples pay with their tongues. Your answer is that of temporary and insufficient measures, which do not counter speculation and safeguard the interests and profits of the large economic groups at the expense of the empty pockets of the workers. No concrete steps towards the truly indispensable path: general increase in wages, price control of essential goods and energy products, market regulation, recovery of public control of strategic sectors, development of national production, among others. For our part, we are where we know that you are not, have never been: side by side with the struggle of workers and peoples, for justice and social progress, for peace.

Mr President, respiratory infections and the associated complications of morbidity, even mortality, and the responsiveness of health services are increasing. It is important to address the causes of this issue without neglecting, however, the social dimension and the coincidence of the worsening of people's living conditions, to which the policies of the European Union contribute, of the widespread impoverishment, inhibiting better food care, improving housing conditions or ensuring their heating. This problem is increasingly compounded by the frequent lack of medicines of various kinds, a situation which is not alien to what are options motivated not by the interests of the public and public health, but by the interests of pharmaceutical companies and their profits, in particular multinationals, for which the institutions of the European Union facilitate everything. Whatever the analysis, the solution that is needed, if we really want to respond to these problems, must be a public response, investing and strengthening national public health services, empowering each country productively and technically, and releasing patents in order to respond to their needs for medicines within the framework of their sovereignty.

Mr President, these days the 16th Congress of the Polisario Front, the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people, is taking place in the Sahrawi refugee camp in Dakhla. For fifty years, these people have waged a heroic struggle against the illegal occupation of their territory by the Kingdom of Morocco, which imposes in Western Sahara the last colonization in Africa, through violent repression and the imprisonment of activists fighting for the end of the illegal occupation of their homeland. This occupation must be brought to an end by enforcing international law, the principles of the United Nations Charter, the relevant UN resolutions and the agreements reached. It is necessary to put an end to the connivance of those who, like the European Union and the United States, agree to the non-respect of the national rights of the Sahrawi people and the illegal exploitation of their wealth by the Moroccan authorities. From here we express our full solidarity with the Sahrawi people and their cause for the right to self-determination, the liberation of the occupied territories and the guarantee of a free, independent and sovereign Western Sahara. Certain that sooner rather than later the Sahrawi people will win.

Mr President, let us be clear, this discussion takes place less to safeguard the interests of the peoples and the environment, more to safeguard the interests of some, few, who see in the garbage business a way to fill their pockets even more. A market of tens of billions of euros that the so-called green policies of the European Union privilege and seek to expand: restrict exports to those with the least economic potential; maintain profit accumulation in the internal market; increasing conditionalities and interference with third countries; removing powers from States by interfering in waste management according to their interests and centralising them in the European Commission. It is the liberalisation of this market that moves and focuses the proposal, ignoring the limits and inefficiency of private waste management, but highly effective in maximising profits. It is the profit and not the real needs, also from an environmental point of view, that determines that a significant part of the waste is directly sent to landfill, with low multimaterial recovery, without favouring reuse or recycling. Paradigm that can only be changed with proper regulation and strengthening the public dimension in waste management. One last note: We talk about the end of the line, but not the path. The responsibility of companies in the choice of materials, in increasing the durability of products, the fight against planned obsolescence, the non-transfer of costs to the populations of this market and the profits they want to ensure to some. Concerns, not by chance, absent from this proposal.

Madam President, Parliament recognises what was anticipated when it adopted the budget: the budget is insufficient. Even more so in the framework of successive instruments, imposing either more indebtedness or frontloading, or the response of more with the same budget. The problem, inflation and war, they say. But where are the impacts of sanctions or speculative exploits that generate even more obscene profits for large economic groups? What can be said about successive cuts in the budget in cohesion, in national envelopes, in agriculture and fisheries, while opting for increased military expenditure and programmes that serve mainly the major powers, which is not cyclical, but is the result of a political decision and choice. What is required is an effective reinforcement of the budget through national contributions based on the gross national income of each country, putting an end to the tassels to the countries that benefit most from integration, the full strengthening of cohesion and structural funds, eliminating the lines of defence and external interventionism, the end of economic and political conditionality and the alignment of investment options with the real needs of each country.

Mr President, this is an important discussion, especially in the context of the worsening of Israel's ongoing aggression against Palestine and its people. The situation in Palestine clearly demonstrates the double standards of the EU, including on human rights. Where is the suspension clause in the EU-Israel Association Agreement, Commissioner? How much money from European Union funds continues to directly or indirectly finance the Israeli military industry? The important affirmation of the two-state solution as the only possible one is not enough, when the European Union, by its connivance and complicity, contributes, by omission, to the worsening of Israeli policy aimed at preventing the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, as enshrined in United Nations resolutions. A consistent policy is needed towards the creation of a sovereign, viable and independent State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, ensuring the right of return of refugees and the release of Palestinian resisters held in Israeli prisons. All solidarity with the struggle of the Palestinian people.

Madam President, Alex Saab was illegally detained in Cape Verde in June 2020 and then transferred to the United States in October 2021. This detention, which has lasted for more than two years in clear violation of international law, is yet another example of US interference, destabilisation, pressure and blackmail against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and its people. An action that also includes illegal and unilateral sanctions, or the so-called Democratic Transition Plan for Venezuela promoted by the United States, which constitute frontal acts of disregard for the rights and sovereignty of the Venezuelan people. Why was Alex Saab arrested? For being a diplomat who sought to ensure the conditions for the development of Venezuela and for the improvement of the living conditions of Venezuelans that the US sanctions aim to condition and prevent. From here we express our solidarity with Venezuela and its people, who defend their sovereignty and independence, and demand the release of Alex Saab and an end to the policy of interference and destabilisation by the United States.

Madam President, last summer there was chaos at airports. The problems remain unresolved and, at the gates of another festive season, thousands of passengers are again affected and workers are overwhelmed. The option to lay off around 7 million workers during the pandemic undermined the response capacity in the face of the increased operation. The Commission, co-responsible for years of liberalisation of the aviation sector, a condition which is inevitably linked to this situation, washes its hands like Pilate. First they liberalized, now they are astonished at the evidence of the situation they have created. Were miracles expected? The same Commission, on behalf of that competition, shapes restructuring plans of flag companies, such as TAP, for the benefit of certain operators. Distortion of the market, if it is in favour of low cost and of the European aviation giants, it is no longer a problem. Now they are talking, as the Commissioner has said here, about safety, but they are paving the way for operation with only one pilot, jeopardising safety in civil aviation. It gains capital, loses the public sector and the sovereignty of states. Reversing the liberalisation process in the aviation sector is therefore increasingly necessary.

Mr President, the cooperation and development policy promoted by the European Union has been an expression of the geostrategic interests of the European powers and the profits of big European capital, rather than an approach of effective cooperation aimed at empowering and consolidating the independence of developing countries. The materialisation of a global Europe gives strength to this instrumentalisation of international cooperation for the geopolitical domain and control of resources, insisting on a neo-colonial approach. This report thus reflects the increasing financialisation of official development assistance, offering more debt to the states concerned in the context of increasing political conditionality, in open confrontation with the sovereign choices and strategies of developing countries with interests of third countries. The increasing militarization and aggressiveness of a foreign policy at the service of the European powers and the large economic groups leaves a trail of dependence, inequalities, war, contrary to the interests of the peoples. There is an urgent need for a genuine cooperation and development aid policy with the appropriate means and based on effective solidarity.

Madam President, the dangerous situation in the Middle East is inseparable from decades of politics, interference, sanctions and aggression against countries in the region, with the United States of America, NATO and the European Union as the main protagonists, and their allies, such as Israel or Saudi Arabia, responsible for wars in Iraq or Syria and recent developments, which have sown death and suffering among the peoples of the region. Here we condemn the cruel war of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries against Yemen, with the direct participation of the great powers of NATO, causing one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes of our day. Here we condemn the impunity of Israel's brutal action against Palestine and its people, the systematic aggression and violation of international law, only possible with the connivance and objective support of the United States of America and the European Union. Here we leave the usual solidarity to the Palestinian people, to the Syrian people, to the other peoples of the Middle East, welcoming their resistance and struggle for their rights, independence, sovereignty and emancipation.

Madam President, another conference on climate change has taken place. Developed countries shuffle responsibilities, emission reduction targets remain insufficient, paths of individual accountability, capital accumulation, appropriation of natural resources are deepened. Environmental problems are either unresolved or aggravated. Social inequalities are increasing. The development of countries is conditioned. For developing countries: indebtedness. For the financial system: mechanisms for the transfer of funds. The carbon market does not reduce emissions, guarantees profits and normalises the right to pollute of those who can afford it. Increasingly exposes the perversity of the so-called green economy and the inability of capitalism to respond to the problems of Humanity and the environment. Other answers are required: public control of strategic sectors, such as energy; betting on public transport; promote local production and consumption; guarantee the right of each state to produce and food sovereignty; public water control; combating planned obsolescence; The Rejection of War. Responses also demanded by those who fight for the environment and nature, and in particular young people, whom we welcome here.

Mr President, preventing the worsening of socio-economic inequalities and avoiding a deep recession require increased investment and public spending. On the contrary, the European Commission's proposal for a reform of macroeconomic governance today goes in the opposite direction. It maintains the Maastricht criteria, arbitrary, without economic foundation, usurpers of economic sovereignty and imposing the diktat Neoliberal. It makes countries' excessive deficit procedures automatic, simplifies and strengthens sanctions. They impose investment and development options and caps on public spending, guessing even greater pressures on public services such as health or education. By deepening interference in sovereign choices, it meddles in the economic policies of states, far beyond the strictly budgetary dimension. The so-called reform presented by this proposal, which affirms flexibility, merely confirms that it tightens the grip even further on States and peoples, exacerbating divergences between countries, following, as always, Germany's position. That's how you see who's in charge. They lose countries like Portugal, they lose workers and peoples. Sovereignty is being watched and democracy is being sneered at.

Madam President, this proposal falls far short of the necessary answers in the energy sector. It ignores the consequences of sanctions that sacrifice the interests of the countries and peoples of Europe. Almost no new money, more loans and indebtedness. It redirects funds from the current Recovery and Resilience Plans, Cohesion and EAFRD, removing funds needed to address structural deficits. They redirect dependencies to more distant, more expensive, and environmentally harmful dependencies, such as U.S. shale gas. There is no question of regulating the market, which must be defended at all costs by allowing speculative increases in gas, energy and fuel prices and obscene profits. Economic groups win, indirectly financed; They pay people with palm tongues. More constraints on energy policies and national development strategies. This is not the way. Regulate the market, fix prices and margins, regain public control of this strategic sector and all its dimensions - that is the necessary response that the peoples call for.