Speeches

Madam President, my group is opposed to holding this debate. Parliament is working intensively on this regulation and, as the Commissioner for Home Affairs is scheduled to appear in the LIBE Committee next week, we intend to add this matter to her appearance for explanations as appropriate.

Madam President, Commissioner, if at this moment we already think that the internet is a space that poses serious risks for our children, let us imagine how things can evolve with the massive application of new artificial intelligence tools or the management of natural language. We have a number of already very specific problems that need to be addressed. We must establish a real and effective age verification mechanism during navigation to prevent minors from accessing pornography distribution platforms. And this mechanism has to be legal, and it can be. We must establish, at European level, a uniform legal response to these phenomena. We must establish real mechanisms for two phenomena that are on the rise and that acquire an extraordinary gravity, such as cyberbullying and sexual harassment. Education is important, but precisely for this reason we must provide resources to those who have to act as real warning signs in our schools and in our families to prevent this from becoming the plague with which it threatens to become.

Madam President, Commissioner, I think we have to express our satisfaction with the progress that has been made in Albania in bringing that European perspective closer together and, finally, in joining the Union as the Albanians wish. But we know that this process requires efforts, it requires firm commitments, and we cannot hide the fact that there are also large deficits in terms of institutional organisation, the rule of law, electoral legislation, the police, justice and freedom of expression and demonstration. These deficits appear to have become visible in a recent police operation against the main Iranian opposition group in exile, based in Albania, after an agreement negotiated with the Albanian authorities. A massive operation of unjustified use of force. It's not about exempting anyone from law enforcement, because it's one thing to enforce the law and quite another to give political success to Iran's brutally repressive regime. I believe that, unfortunately, the latter is what has happened.

Madam President, Commissioner, allow me to greet the representative of the Spanish Presidency at this first hearing in Parliament and, of course, wish him every success in discharging his responsibilities. Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And it is not that the reports on the rule of law have been drawn up for an eternity, but they already accumulate a few editions and that gives us enough perspective to be able to know the X-ray of what is the situation of the rule of law in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that this is one of the most remarkable achievements of your mandate, and we have always been in favour of a universal, homogeneous and non-discriminatory instrument in analysing where these problems lie. We have reiterated, from the PP and the Spanish delegation, concerns about the deterioration of the legislative quality, about the deterioration of the legislative process, about some reforms. I will not go in to answer other party allusions that have been made; I simply want to express here the conviction today, precisely today, that next year - I assure you, Commissioner - the chapter dedicated to Spain will be much more positive.

Madam President, Commissioner, the truth is that today is a day to congratulate ourselves on this initiative. We have to be realistic: There will be no pauses, there will be no moratoriums on the development of artificial intelligence and we are therefore facing the most important transformation phenomenon of our civilization in centuries. That's why I think it's also important that we take a constructive view, an optimistic view that not only underscores the risks, but also expands the opportunities. We are not facing the irreversible and inevitable dystopia, but we are facing a new era of opportunities in which we can lead from the European Union in terms of regulation. Such regulation has to offer certainty, it has to facilitate innovation and it has to build trust. And we believe that, indeed, this standard meets these three objectives. And I do regret that whenever legitimate security concerns have been raised, China's argument is used as the final argument to silence this debate. No one is talking about China or Russia; we are talking about the European rule of law, about legitimate security concerns of its citizens for specific exceptions in some use of available technologies.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, the truth is that the magnificent report authored by our colleague Sandra Kalniete speaks for itself. It is a document of which we can be proud who have participated in this committee because, to begin with, it is a crucial contribution to raising awareness of what this threat and this challenge represent. And, secondly, because I think it is a report that meets the need for objectivity through proven facts, with recommendations and initiatives, and that monitors the implementation of the first report adopted by this committee. We are facing a challenge that unfolds in the shadows and, in the face of darkness, it is best to shed light. This report sheds light on the scale of the challenge and who is responsible for it. It is therefore important that we speak with the names of China, Russia and Venezuela; let's talk about malign influence strategies like Qatar and Morocco; Let us be aware that wherever there is a crisis there will be an interest in setting it on fire. And we have some experiences: Some experiences, such as that of the illegal secessionist process in Catalonia, which had the support and accompaniment of Russian agents. Elections to the European Parliament will be held in a year's time. Let us be aware that, once again, attempts will be made to condition the free decision of our democratic systems.

Señor presidente, señor comisario, es realmente lamentable que con demasiada frecuencia se tenga que producir un hecho trágico para que se tomen medidas legislativas. Legislators should anticipate and address problems that we know exist and cannot be silenced. Coco Fox's life shouldn't have been lost. But now what we have to do is honor his memory and the struggle of his mother, Jackie Fox, to confront this scourge from a legislative point of view. We need to provide comprehensive protection for children with concrete rules – not just declarations – setting out obligations, proper reporting procedures, effective prevention protocols, commitment by parents and guardians, the education system, authorities, organisations and civil society and, of course, the firm commitment of all those companies offering digital services within the European Union. Cyberbullying is a reality that children suffer in silence and humiliation, that destroys them psychologically and that in many cases marks them with consequences difficult to erase, if not with lethal consequences. Cyberbullying is not just the bullying digital, it is sexual extortion, it is persecution, it is the induction to commit acts that are seriously harmful to the mental integrity, moral integrity and physical integrity of minors. Thank you, Frances, for your initiative and your commitment. We strongly support this cause and call in this debate for the criminalisation of cyberbullying throughout the European Union, with the adoption of measures to prevent, investigate and punish harassers and the support that victims deserve.

Madam President, Commissioner, we must welcome this Commission initiative because it will resolve unacceptable situations within the Union as regards persecution and the punishment of embezzlement. And we especially thank the Spaniards, who have seen, with amazement and shame, how the Government of Spain and its parliamentary majority a few months ago amended the Criminal Code to dissolve the crime of embezzlement and reduce penalties. I repeat, dissolve the crime of embezzlement and reduce the penalties. How did they do it? Under an urgent procedure and with an amendment to a legislative text that was being processed in Parliament. Why did they do it? To benefit his political allies convicted of embezzling public funds to finance the secessionist process in Catalonia. And now that we have the Commission's proposal, now what? Well, now we encourage the Government of Spain to take this opportunity and not wait for the proposal to be finally approved to rectify and correct a serious political and legislative error. We encourage you to do your real homework, to re-establish the crime of embezzlement and to recover your sentences. We encourage you to be diligent and seek agreement, at least with the main opposition party. And we encourage you to do so before the start of the next rotating presidency of the Council, which Spain will assume on 1 July. Honestly, Commissioner, I have little confidence, but to see if you in the Commission are more successful than we are and convince the Spanish Government to fix another of the legislative disasters that characterize it soon.

Mr President, Vice-President Jourová, we have heard a truly extraordinary statement that 'criticising a government in a democratic place means insulting a country'. No, we are democratically critical of the Spanish Government and affirm, however, that Spain does not have a structural problem of the rule of law. Spain's rule of law problem is its government. But your government – fortunately – is not a structural condition, because governments change with the ballot box. Vice President Jourová, lose all hope. The Spanish Government has neither complied nor will comply with any of the recommendations in its reports: of course, neither with the reform of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, nor with the reform of the General Council of the Judiciary. Look, they ask us to play a game, but they say that they will only play the first part and, therefore, there will be no talk of modifying the election system of the General Council of the Judiciary. In the next report, during the Spanish Presidency, there will appear, among other things, a government – and we should not look at Israel – that uses its parliamentary majority to set aside court rulings when they affect its political allies. This is the summary of the situation of this government in Spain and its stormy relationship with the rule of law.

Mr President, after what we heard here a few hours ago, I can think of nothing that can improve the words of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mrs Ebadi, because it is difficult to think of a more authentic, more passionate and more pressing testimony. So, I want to recall a request that Mrs. Ebadi made to us today: ask for the record in the history books of what the Iranian regime does to Iranian girls. And we in Parliament can help to put the repression of this regime on record in the history books. But we have to do more. The need for the Revolutionary Guard to be added to the list of terrorist organisations has been repeatedly mentioned and needs to be repeated. Let's not fool ourselves: the scheme may start its washing operations, but the scheme cannot be reformed. However, even if the regime cannot be reformed, the regime is not unbeatable: We must keep this idea in mind when we implement the strategy that the Iranian threat requires.

Madam President, Europol's analyses are conclusive on the dimension of the security challenge posed by organised crime: 5,000 organised crime groups under investigation in the European Union. A crime that uses sophisticated technology, which is organized in networks with greater capacity to penetrate the social and economic fabric and that expands its activities: illegal trafficking, weapons, online crime, fraud of various kinds, money laundering and connections to terrorist plots. A crime that is also increasing the use of violence. I would like to refer in particular to the worsening of drug production and trafficking, which has an enormous capacity for corruption throughout the institutional system and its impact on public health – including mental health – as well as Europe’s growing production capacity, not only for synthetic drugs, but also for illegal crops. It would also be useful to look at the entry of organised crime into the field of environmental crime: a terrain in which criminals see business opportunities. The European Union has the resources to meet this challenge and, to do so, it has to mobilize those resources. The key is relatively simple: denunciation, cooperation and technology within our system of freedoms at the service of the fight against crime. That is why we must welcome the improvement of cooperation instruments with, for example, the proposal for a directive on the exchange of information between law enforcement authorities of the Member States, and call for us to further strengthen the regulatory framework and practice of our judicial and police cooperation.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to be clear and start by saying that Spain does not have a problem with the rule of law, but that the rule of law has a problem with the current government of Spain. Our Constitution and the development of its institutions have made Spain a vigorous democracy and three generations of Spaniards, already, we are proud to have built a system of freedoms since the transition from dictatorship to democracy, with a pact of reconciliation and a widely shared national project. And this is precisely what we want to keep. Attack the People's Party as much as you want, but do not offend women by saying that it is noisy that 200 sex offenders have had their sentences reduced – and this is data – and 19 have been released. Attack the Popular Party, but do not offend taxpayers when the embezzlers of public funds are going to see their penalties reduced as a result of a legal reform of the Government. And, by the way, speaking of cases of corruption, I believe that in Andalusia they will still be waiting for the return of the money taken from you. Attack the Popular Party, but do not offend the citizens when you weaken the protection of the democratic system with a penal reform that eliminates the crime of sedition agreed with the seditious. The Spanish judicial organisation, we know, is suffering the devastating consequences of another legal reform of the government, which has prevented the Council of the Judiciary from appointing judges to the main courts for two years. On the Constitutional Court, I will only say that it is a good exercise to compare its composition and the extraction of its members with other constitutional courts of the European Union. And this is not just a national issue, this is already a European problem. The Commissioner issues a rule of law report every year. It is a problem that has the name and surname of a government that has also made it clear - repeated by the Minister of Justice in Brussels last week - that it does not intend to comply with the insistent recommendations of the European Union and the Council of Europe. This is therefore the reality that we want to highlight and that you, Commissioner, will unfortunately have to continue to face.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is clear that the response to the protests and executions in Iran cannot be a routine appeal. It must be a firm act and, at the same time, a strategy that is sustained over time and well defined, both politically and legally. What is happening in Iran is the crossroads between excessive internal repression and destabilizing activity by the Iranian regime that goes beyond the regional level. Iran is a very serious threat to international peace and security and is a cruel regime that we know lacks legal, political and moral restrictions when it comes to attacking its own citizens. We therefore need to put forward a position of maximum unity in this Parliament - and we are working on that in the resolution that should close this debate - and a very strong commitment. We need to continue to express solidarity and support, but we need to move forward. Both the regime and its leaders must know that their actions, these iniquitous executions, among others, have consequences, that there are culprits and that these responsibilities will not be forgotten, but will be demanded. The Revolutionary Guard, which is the real supporter of the regime, must be included in the list of terrorist organizations of the European Union, it must increase the effectiveness in the application of sanctions, we must provide support to Iranians inside and outside the country, making possible the protection of exiles and refugees from especially threatened minorities, and we must strengthen diplomatic initiatives and facilitate the communications and contacts that the regime wants to suppress by blocking the Internet. And we must express, with all our might, our commitment to the freedom and safe return home of all European citizens detained and subjected to the arbitrariness of the theocratic regime.

Madam President, I regret that this debate did not end with a resolution, as proposed by the People's Party through our colleague Loránt Vincze. It seems to me that, when we are celebrating this 30th anniversary, this Parliament should not have been absent from a clear pronouncement on this. The protection of minorities is not only a requirement of fundamental rights, it is a fundamental part of the peace architecture in Europe that the European Union represents. But it is also a fundamental part of international architecture, peace and security. The Union sets very high global standards, but we need to make further progress on this path. I would like to point out three points that I think it is important to highlight on this occasion. First of all, that rights, as the UN rightly says, belong to people, and that we have to refer to people and their dignity when we talk about respect for minorities. Secondly, we cannot admit those who disguise themselves as a minority to separate, break up or divide societies. And thirdly, identity cannot be an element of confrontation, neither of language, nor of creeds, nor of cultures. It cannot be an element of confrontation in democratic and pluralistic political systems, nor can it limit or repeal the universality of human rights. Identity with equality. Identity with civic loyalty. Identity with diversity in peaceful and democratic coexistence. I particularly welcome the appointment of an envoy from the Union for Religious Freedom, whom we hope will take our firm convictions of freedom where they are most needed.

Madam President, this debate today is an act of recognition of the courage of the Iranian people. It is easy now to play the card of skepticism, sometimes disguised as realism, and think that repression will end up silencing the protests. But the protests have spread to all provinces. Protests continue and Iranians are standing up to repression. We are not, therefore, facing a déjà-vu. The genius of freedom has definitely come out of the bottle. The theocratic regime has a very serious problem and we must expect this problem to be terminal. Don't let appearances fool us: If the morality police have disappeared from the streets, it is because the regime needs more deterrent and repressive capacity than the veil keepers offer. The Iranian regime, moreover, is a serious risk that goes beyond the regional realm, as evidenced by the fact that Iran has become Russia's key ally. Let's be concrete: Is it acceptable for Iranian ambassadors to the European Union to remain peacefully installed in their residences? Is it acceptable that the repressive forces of the Iranian regime, starting with the Revolutionary Guards, continue to act unmarked for what they are, destabilizing organizations of a terrorist nature? There is an urgent need to continue to give answers.

Madam President, Commissioner, this debate highlights a reality that is often silenced. The data, the figures, have already been given here. And, although we probably do not have completely accurate data, in any case, this reality is an overwhelming reality. It is true that behind these disappearances there may be different causes: mental health problems, voluntary disappearances, accidents... But that is not usually the case for adolescents and children. In a Union without borders, very close police cooperation, the support of citizens and also the incorporation into police work of identification and information exchange technologies, which are effective and absolutely essential tools, are needed. In this regard, it is not acceptable, for example, that an interoperable child disappearance alert system has not been completed. But rather than pointing out or exposing anyone, it is essential that such an approach at European level, in the face of this challenge to our safety and the rights of children, prioritises capacity-building in those Member States that may have the most difficulties, the greatest workload or are most behind in cooperation procedures. European agencies, both Europol and CEPOL, should have a very special mission in this strategy to empower law enforcement agencies in all Member States. The scale of the problem shows that it is not only a national problem, even less so when the increase in migratory and refugee flows to the Union aggravate the vulnerabilities and risks of people, whether adults or children, who may end up missing and exploited.

Mr President, Commissioner, just as we do not spare criticism when things are not done well, we must show what works: the Temporary Protection Directive is working, the financial effort in support of refugees and host countries is a sustained and substantial effort, and solidarity is real. We know that this front, that of concrete solidarity with the Ukrainians, is also decisive for the Russian aggression to fail and for the European Union to make visible its unity against the aggressor. However, we need to be aware that, in the midst of this humanitarian crisis, conventional migration flows continue to increase. The figures for 2022 are reminiscent of 2016, when the European Union was experiencing the largest migration crisis in its history, triggered by the conflict in Syria. From January to August there has been a 75% increase in irregular entries compared to last year. We enter a situation that in a short time can become critical. We need to offer a European solution to restore trust between Member States and restore citizens' confidence in our ability to manage migration as a Union. We can't afford any more extensions. The next crisis may be just around the corner, if you are not knocking at the door already.

. – Mr President, Mr Vice-President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the war of aggression against Ukraine allows us to see in all its gravity what the strategy of disinformation and interference means. And the first conclusion is that disinformation and interference are also a war. When we face States that do not hide their ambitions, whether economic, territorial or nuclear, the disinformation they practice is the way to prepare the ground for the use of force. Before Putin bombed Ukraine, he had bombarded minds and opinions with a permanent campaign of hatred and demonization against Ukrainians and their authorities. Military force came later. Therefore, let's know that disinformation is the canary in the mine: It always heralds danger. After his military failures, Putin can only hope that any of these three hypotheses will work. First, the threat of the use of nuclear weapons. Secondly, a political change by some NATO ally, in the hope that it will call into question the aid Ukraine receives. And, thirdly, the withdrawal of the West due to fatigue. Well, in any of these hypotheses, and for them to work, the massive use of disinformation, interference, manipulation, acting through personalities and political, social and media organizations allied with Russia and related to its anti-Western narrative is essential for Russia. Let us therefore all be vigilant – institutions, politicians, the media, social organisations – not to let public opinion in our countries be polluted by lies, threats and manipulation at this crucial moment.

Seventeen days have passed since protests began following the killing of Mahsa Amini in Iranian police facilities. How many Iranians have been killed? Hundreds. How many have been arrested or injured? Thousands. We don’t know for sure. Women are beaten and dragged away by police. But let us get it right: this is not only about mandatory veiling or the hijab. This is about basic freedom. This is about a regime founded on systematic repression and cruelty against its people. A regime headed by someone fully involved in the massacre of 1988, a crime against humanity that has already come to European courts. A Swedish court has imposed a life sentence on an Iranian official for taking part in this crime. There is an uprising going on in Iran, and we have not only to condemn repression, but to support the victims of repression. We need to send a clear sign of our concern and condemnation, but also an unequivocal message of support: Europe means pluralism, democracy, freedom of religion, respect for all belief, equal rights between men and women. And those Iranians struggling for their rights, risking their lives, deserve to see Europe firmly on their side. Europe at its best: friendly, supportive and committed. There should be specific demands to the Iranian Government on the release of prisoners and accountability of perpetrators, no matter how long it takes. But neither the nuclear deal nor the oil resources of Iran can justify turning a blind eye or watering down our response. Appeasement, we should know, never works.

Mr President, this morning the President of the Commission recalled that democracy cannot be taken for granted and neither can freedom: This must be our starting point. The European Union, including Spain, remains a great democratic area, committed to the preservation of the rule of law, and now also has to be an example of special firmness in combating actions, discourses and ideologies that wish to put an end to representative democracy; some threats come from outside, others we have inside: There is populism that pretends to embody a popular will above the law, but also ethnic, racist and exclusionary nationalism. Democracy and freedom, diversity and pluralism are attacked, in the name of religion, ethnicity, identity or language, and this threat is still present in the European Union. A concrete, but substantial, aspect of this is the narratives that in my country legitimize the violence perpetrated for almost half a century by a terrorist gang. That is why, I reiterate, Commissioner, the need to speedily push forward with the revision of the Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime in the way recommended in this report in order to strengthen the protection of victims and to give guarantees that any act of humiliation and attack from social sectors related to the aggressors will be avoided.

Madam President, it would be very interesting to know how many thousands of tweets, photos and videos were hastily deleted after Russia started its aggression against Ukraine. Social networks show that the influence of Russia and Putin has gone beyond the capture of elites, the financing of foundations or parties, or the penetration of media and universities. We have to deal with the Russian aggression against Ukraine and we have to deal also, in democratic Europe, with the proxies Putin's ideology. Some see Putin as the man of iron, the patriot, the herald of values, the representative of manhood and the hope that everything they consider condemned by the decline of the West will survive. Others, nostalgic for communism, identify Putin with the survival of that old communism that, after its defeat, has been transformed into aggressive nationalism. Well, in front of each other, let's continue to investigate, let's continue to draw the map of Russian interference. But let us also issue a warning to those who want to act as Putin's fifth column, a warning to his proxies ideological: Let us know who they are and confront them to preserve freedom and democracy.

Mr President, this is such an important debate and the issue is so serious that, indeed, care must be taken not to bring in travellers without a ticket, not to bring in free riders, those who want to appropriate the concern of this House in order to turn it into a sounding board for their victimhood. To these travelers without a ticket, to these free riders of Pegasus, they like to present themselves as persecuted exiles, when in reality they are mere fugitives from justice, or they want to pose as defenders of the rule of law, when in reality they have starred in the most flagrant and unusual rupture of the maximum expression of the rule of law, which is the Constitution. Even some parties that now teach us starred, for example, in my land, in the Basque Country, some famous cases of political espionage, those yes accredited before the courts in other times. I will always argue that a fundamental right, and of course also the fundamental right of those travellers without a ticket, can only be affected in clearly defined circumstances for well-founded reasons and with the guarantee of an independent judge. And I have no reason to assume that the law establishing these guarantees has been violated in the case of Spain. A distinction must therefore be made between dissidents and fugitives. It will be necessary to distinguish between those who can legitimately desire, claim, ask for the independence of a territory and those who in the name of independence organize, participate and lead seditious processes. A distinction will have to be made between victims of arbitrariness and the legality of those who may be subject to the legal action of a democratic State when the State legitimately defends itself.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, at this time of the evening I think that it is not the support some of you have expressed, but your physical presence in the hemicycle that I really have to thank you for. Let me just say that Europol’s record is a success and we have to prolong and to strengthen that success, that I am aware of the doubts and the criticism that has been expressed from some groups and some Members. I regret to say that some of them stem from an utterly inaccurate representation of what the regulation says. For example, Europol is not allowed, and won’t be able, to enter alerts from the Schengen information system on its own, and certainly not on persons who have no relation with any criminal activity. That is simply false. But let me stress that, once the regulation is in place, we will all have a different and a new role. There will obviously be a new role for Europol – a new mandate, new responsibilities, new capabilities. There will be a new role for the Commission, of course. Some of the new duties brought back about the development and implementation of the Europol regulations are, and will be, very important. There will be a new role for the EDPS in reinforced intervention in the activity of the agency. And there will be a new role for Parliament and the instruments that we have placed in the hands of Parliament to increase and strengthen democratic oversight. I think that if we all use the instruments that the new regulation places in our hands, Europol will be better and all these doubts will simply disappear.

Mr President, in my capacity as rapporteur I am particularly honoured to address the Plenary on the new Europol Regulation. This Regulation, the new mandate for Europol, marks a substantial, I would say, leap forward in the capabilities of the Agency, in its ability to support Member States, in the governance framework and, last but certainly not least, in the enhanced system of safeguards that we have put in place. This Regulation is the result of a shared concern about the need to have a better and more efficient instrument to support Member States in a security landscape with evolving and increasingly complex threats. Let me underline that the Parliament has been at the forefront in promoting the Europol recast. I’d like to commend and express my appreciation for the work done by my colleagues, the shadow rapporteurs, from the very beginning of this process following the presentation of the legislative proposal by the Commission on 9 December 2020. We have dealt with sensitive issues from different views but we have been able to create an atmosphere of real cooperation and open exchange. No concern has been overlooked and no contribution has been disregarded. And let me add that in the best spirit of compromise even those outside the majority consensus can see some of the contributions reflected in this regulation. We have established a sound legal basis for the analysis and processing of large and complex data sets, and accordingly, there will be extended information sharing and enforcement rights for the EDPS on Europol planned data processing operations. Under the new mandate, Europol will cooperate effectively and directly with private parties for establishing jurisdiction. And will be allowed to exchange data with private parties directly in online crisis situations related to the massive dissemination of terrorist content and in the fight against child sexual abuse material online. Europol will be able to support Member States in the use of emerging technologies and in developing common technological solutions. And under the new mandate, it will be possible for those projects to include the processing of personal data for the sake of security, subject to very tight safeguards. The new mandate also provides for the capacity of Europol to propose Member States the entry of information alerts in the interest of the Union in the Schengen Information System, based on information received from third countries or international organisations. The new mandate clearly improves and widens the scope of the cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Europol and EPPO should conclude a working arrangement setting out the modalities of their cooperation, taking due account of their respective competences. The increase of the capacities should ultimately be matched by adequate resources for Europol. But more importantly it will be accompanied by more transparency, parliamentary oversight, greater democratic accountability and a wide array of safeguards that guarantee full respect for data protection. That is a major political achievement of the Parliament and it shows our ability to reach reasonable and workable compromises, first among us, the political groups represented in this Parliament, and then with the Council. And I have to commend the role the Commission has been playing. I think that the Parliament has delivered on its duty. We have taken into account the new operational requirements of law enforcement, the necessary balance with the basic responsibilities of Members States, which remains in the hands of Member States, the conditions for an enhanced police cooperation and the safeguards and democratic oversight that go along these developments. A better governance, an efficient system of oversight and controls proportionate to the new capabilities that we place on the Agency will only result in a better and more efficient Europol which is fit for the challenge. That is exactly what this regulation is all about.

Madam President, Commissioner, this is a necessary and timely debate, but not all of them are here. Right-wing extremists? Of course. Separatists? Of course. But isn't there anyone on the left? Because it is not necessary to be an expert in French politics to know what the speeches are and what Mr Mélenchon thinks of the Russian invasion, and it is not necessary to be an expert in Spanish domestic politics to know that a part of the governing coalition continues to oppose military aid to Ukraine. And Putin has obtained the sympathy of those who see in the invasion of Ukraine the resurrection, or at least the aroma, of the old Soviet Union, and also the sympathy of those who consider that Russia is the refuge of what traditional or racial values are not known and, of course, has achieved the complicity of separatist movements. In short, everyone who wants to set the European Union on fire knows that, once the fuse is lit, Putin will come with gasoline. The report of the Special Committee on Foreign Interference in All Democratic Processes in the European Union, particularly Disinformation, chaired by the rapporteur, Mr Glucksmann, clearly reveals the skein of interests and complicities that we have to undo, including those complicities with the separatists. Even today, in this same House, we want to be taught lessons of respect for pluralism, democracy and the rule of law by representatives of Catalan separatism, political instigators of sedition, who denounce a democratic state like Spain, while we know that among them there are those who have run to seek the protection of Moscow, the support of an autocracy, and who wanted the same disinformation and propaganda apparatuses that today lie against Ukraine to act in favor of their purpose of breaking the unity of a democratic state that is a member of the European Union – and Russia collaborated. Therefore, if any conclusion should be drawn from this debate, it is to remind Jefferson when he said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance: Ukrainians know this and are suffering from it, and Europeans should not forget it.