Speeches

Right now, our policies need to focus on families being able to pay their bills and not having to choose between turning on the heat and eating. The EU needs a permanent fiscal capacity to deal with crises, strong and effective social safety nets and a permanent labour security instrument, such as SURE, launched during the pandemic. Some of the necessary funding could come from a tax on the windfall profits of companies benefiting from the crisis, and from the implementation of the minimum tax rate for multinationals. In addition, a deep reform of energy markets is needed to reduce our dependence on Russia and fossil fuels in general. The measures recently announced by the European Commission are going in the right direction, but they are not enough. The S&D Group has a list of reforms and measures that would alleviate the suffering of citizens and rebalance the burden of the crisis. We hope that the European Commission and the Member States will work with Parliament on solutions. It is unacceptable for the Commission to present its legislative proposals through Article 122 of the Treaty, leaving this House aside.

Mr President, at the end of last year, a global operation – coordinated by Interpol and the World Customs Organisation – made it possible to seize almost 20 000 protected live animals and detain 365 people in 138 countries. At the same time, Traffic, the international reference organisation fighting crime against nature, warned that the EU remains one of the world’s leading centres of illegal wildlife trafficking – Commissioner, pay attention to this – with more than 5 000 seizures in 2023 and more than 1 million seized specimens, many of them alive. This illicit trade is the fourth largest criminal industry in the world, behind only the trafficking of weapons, drugs and people. That is why Parliament’s position for CITES COP20, which we will vote on tomorrow, is clear and firm – thank you, Manuela Ripa, for your work on this resolution. First, ivory trafficking: on EU digital platforms, only 10% of advertisements for ivory objects provide evidence of legality. That is why, Commissioner, we ask you to transform the current guidelines into binding legislation; Guides are fine, but binding legislation. Second, the European Union is not only one of the main consumers of illegally harvested wildlife, it is also among the main re-exporters of non-CITES wild-caught reptile and amphibian species to the United States. The Commission's recent feasibility study states that there are possible legislative solutions. And thirdly, we ask - again - the Commission for a positive list of species allowed as pets in the European Union. Let us remember, ladies and gentlemen, that we have suffered a pandemic caused by zoonoses and that CITES also protects global health. This is very important: the EU should lead this integration of the One Health approach, which unites human, animal and environmental health in all its policies. I have a few seconds left, so moltes gràcies, sir president. I know you're ever asked why I speak to you in Catalan: It is because you are Catalan and, in this House, you should be able to speak at some point in Catalan, but also in Galician and Basque. That's the reason, so they know.

Madam President, in the privacy of these evening debates, Commissioner, I am going to say a Spanish saying to you: To God praying and with the deck giving. And is that we are losing credibility and leadership to jets. In yesterday's work programme I read that they want to reopen the ban on combustion engines by 2035. This is not compatible with having a strong image at COP30, especially because of the technological neutrality they defend. They will open the door again to fossil fuels: error, error, error. Yesterday we voted on the forest surveillance law and your group left with the far right and knocked it down: Your proposal, from the Commission! Again, we lose credibility. In the deforestation law, in whose internal discussions you have been, in the College of Commissioners, the ball has touched the stringer. Let's see how they behave here and in the Council. The Green Deal must therefore be defended here. And if not, we will not be credible at international summits.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, since we are here almost in privacy, you are correcting and reducing – as if it were a sausage, sliced into slices – the whole European Green Deal. They say one thing, but then they do the opposite. They are sent by a gentleman who sat here until recently, Mr. Weber; He tells you, he gives you orders, and you change. Look, my intervention, really, is a request: No, do not change the Rules of Procedure. Keep the 100% reduction in 2035. I suppose you have read the report of the European Environment Agency, right? Have you read it? Well, I don't have to tell him anything else. But, in addition, if they change the Regulation, China will eat us and will mark the step in the future. Look, don't buy the idea that synthetic fuels are neutral, either; It's fake. So look, every exception, every shortcut, every delay of the European Green Deal is a slap in the face of the image of the European Union and also our economic and competitive possibilities - not just sustainable ones - in the future. Therefore, be strong, stand up to your party and keep the Rules as they stand.

Mr President, the Commissioner has said that this summer's fires are a direct consequence of the warming of the Mediterranean. Thank you for saying it. And I make a reflection: It is not time to reduce the European Green Deal, it is time to strengthen it. We're listening to him. Therefore, more Pact and less negationism. On funds, Commissioner, we need more environmental policy funds, but the financial framework is not going that way. With regard to the Restoration Act - we have spoken so much in this House about the Nature Restoration Act - its implementation in the Member States needs to be accelerated. And, by the way, they are pulverizing forest monitoring legislation. As far as forestry policy is concerned, I have heard from Mr De la Hoz that it has to be Community. I hope so, because then they tend to be against it. I want to point out some responsibilities of the right and the far right with these fires, here, for their destructive denialism. But also in the Member States, because they cut and despise forest policies: they have done it in Galicia, they have done it in Extremadura... Mr De la Hoz, they have done so in Castilla y León, where they have reduced 90% since 2009 in prevention policies and forestry policies. Therefore, more pacts and less denialism.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Vice-President, some critical remarks: They say they simplify, but they actually deregulate. I give two examples: in the classification and labelling of chemicals or when providing for derogations for carcinogenic substances in cosmetic products. That's the first observation. The second: the chemical sector is very profitable, very profitable. Therefore, there is no need to harm public health, there is no need to harm consumers in the name of competitiveness. It wasn't necessary. And I say more, for this sector to remain competitive, it must follow two principles: circularity and decarbonisation. Our goal must be sustainable innovation, public health, preservation of the environment, but never back down from the manoeuvres of conservative groups and pressure from governments. lobbies, which is what you guys are doing. Competitiveness? Yes, of course, always, but at the cost of health and the environment? No, Mr. Vice President, never.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to express two ideas: firstly, the funds should continue and this Facility should continue. It is one of the best things we did when we were here last term and it must continue. And now, in these 50 seconds that I have left, I'm going to make an approximation to a very specific topic: the issue of the environment and the implementation of the funds in the environment and biodiversity part, because they are 37%, more or less, and have been implemented well, what happens is that, when accounting for it, monitoring is carried out that is only related to climate measures, but environmental and biodiversity issues are left out. What's the matter, sheriff? That we are in a crisis of planetary scope: not only warming, but also ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss. I therefore believe that they must address these shortcomings in design, implementation, to ensure efficiency, good governance, control of future financial instruments, and I repeat, not only for climate issues, but also for environmental issues and for biodiversity issues. This is my concrete request for funds that I hope can continue, as comrade Sandra Gómez said.

Madam President, Commissioner, the European Pact for the Ocean is a positive step, but, look, I would like to remind you that the Agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction has not been signed, and neither have other Member States. I ask that the Ocean Law have binding targets and a clear timetable, because we have to stop trawling and over-exploitation; If not, they will be nice words, but not deeds. The World Plastics Treaty: We're waiting for you. The moratorium on deep seabed mining must be maintained and strengthened, because only 37 countries officially support it. And finally, I ask you to increase resources for scientific knowledge. Look at: Only 2.7% of the world's oceans are protected, far from the 30% we have for land areas. So, yeah, okay, it's a positive step, we've made progress, but we have a lot left to achieve the optimal goals.

Madam President, congratulations to Mr Bajada, because I think he has done a good job and we already have a consensus, Commissioner, that he will come to you well for his work in the coming weeks. I say this, first, because this report prioritises nature-based solutions – well; secondly, because it advocates objectives to – read in the report – limit water abstraction in both agriculture and industry – well, courage; and third, as all speakers have said here, because it advocates the phasing out of PFAS, the famous eternal chemicals that are pure and hard pollution for our water resources and, indeed, also for public health, because they directly pollute rivers and aquifers. I do want to draw attention to an issue, an emerging problem, and it is the water consumption of data centers and artificial intelligence. A large data centre can consume up to 2 million litres of water in one day – attentive, Commissioner. So in the next legislation I ask you to take this situation into account. Congratulations on the consensus that this report has managed to garner.

Mr. President, then COP16 ended well. We have a funding strategy, a monitoring framework. Is that enough, Commissioner? No, we know it's not. Now we have to finish the task: first, by supporting developing countries, because they are experiencing the biodiversity crisis more severely; second, respecting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities; thirdly, Commissioner, reflecting this agreement in our multiannual financial framework – we need a European nature restoration fund; and, fourth, defending the validity of the Green Deal, promoting its development instead of cutting it, as your group wants to do, slice by slice, as if it were a sausage. And, by the way, supporting civil society, NGOs, the LIFE programme, and not with that statement that you made yesterday, which is rather an insult. I don't think that's the way. You want to calm the beast of the far right, but you won't get it. I've heard her talk twice about the plastics agreement in Geneva. Okay, okay. But agreement on microplastics here too. Do not submit to the sound of the simplification they want to impose on you. Be autonomous. Let's negotiate that regulation next week.

Mr President, Commissioner, this is a very bad proposal from the European Commission: bad because it will result in cuts and legal uncertainty. They almost completely dismantle due diligence. This means that they leave the most vulnerable links in the chain abandoned, that they cut mandatory civil liability and that they severely limit access to justice for victims. That's what you guys do. In terms of sustainability, they abandon everything to voluntariness: whoever does and whoever doesn't, no. And that's bad for the environment, but it's very unfair for those who do meet the standards. Nefarious and unfair at the same time. And the icing on this cake – a poisoned cake – is that they weaken the taxonomy. Commissioner: flexibility, simplification... yes, always yes. Now, deregulation, backtracking... Never! Of course we must help businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, but with this proposal you subject the general interest to the private interests of a powerful few, and that is not the way, Commissioner.

I was looking, Mr. President, in case I was someone from the far right, because I would never have accepted anything, neither blue nor green card. Look, everything related to European funds, despite your Group and your policy in Spain, we are doing well. And I do not want to recall here what you have tried to do with First Vice-President Teresa Ribera. That is, despite the fact that you here are against everything and are always putting obstacles and problems, we are applying NextGenerationEU funds very well in Spain and we will continue to do so. I only ask one thing: It is good that you ask me that question, but then, in Spain, help, you are always against everything.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a debate in a rather difficult context, because we have the new tenant of the White House and his denialism, and a retarded EPP Group, I am sorry. Mr Tusk's speech yesterday takes us down these dangerous paths. I present two ideas that are like two pieces of evidence. Soil is a non-renewable resource, it is important not to forget it. Do you know how much droughts have increased in the last 25 years? 30%. And in this context, Commissioner, what can the Union do? I tell him that defending green policies - as we go along - is going to be almost countercultural. Well, first of all, look at a risk assessment of desertification and land degradation, as suggested by the European Court of Auditors in 2018. We don't know anything about that report. The Soil Monitoring Act, please, I ask your colleagues in the EPP Group, because they are lowering and lowering it, like all environmental regulations. We can declare ourselves a region at risk of desertification under the United Nations Convention. For that we do not have to wait for any international summit, that we can do now. And, above all, present a specific desertification strategy, as this Parliament has told you. Notice: up to four major measures we can do on our own – the European Union – and set an example in the world. But of course, there is too much retardism on the right. Don't fall for that, Commissioner, there are many groups that are going to support you.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President Ribera, it is a pleasure to see you here. By the way, the Spanish economy is doing very well and it's partly thanks to you. So I'm really glad to see you around here. Look, Mr Procaccini - which I do not see now - European competitiveness is never in conflict with sustainability. On the contrary, it depends on her. And the United States, which has its inflation-reduction law, and China, which is making massive investments in clean technologies, have been mentioned here. Here in Europe we are caught up in sterile debates over that fight between the far right and the right, and it doesn't make any sense because we can't waste time. We have seen this with the Regulation on Deforestation. And, in reality, this is a buried debate on the Car and Van Emissions Regulation with which they want to dilute our climate commitments. I ask: Who benefits from this setback? Citizens and businesses – in particular companies that have already invested in adapting to existing regulations – certainly not. I believe that we must defend the ambitious climate standards we have, because that is defending legal certainty, a level playing field for our businesses and, above all, gentlemen of the right and the far right, the future of the next generations.

Madam President, I believe that the importance of these multilateral spaces is being stressed here – in the previous debate on the G20 they also did so – and I think it is very important that we continue to do so and, also, that we recognise the efforts of the Colombian government – as the Commissioner has done – because their organisation was a success. I would like to highlight the work of the Commission, its head, Director-General Florika Fink-Hooijer, but, Commissioner Schinas, I missed some Commissioner, some Commissioner or Vice-President Šefčovič in Cali, because at a time, in a context where our credibility is on the downside – and it is on the downside because the main group in the House is always questioning the European Green Deal – I think it would have been important if we had been involved at the highest level. I was glad, by the way, to hear you that the Nature Restoration Act has to be a European Union business card. Tell Mr. Weber these days that you're going to see him, and see if it gets into his head at once. Well, problems we've had: national biodiversity plans; almost no plans have been submitted before this COP. That is also a credibility problem. And the funding - as the Commissioner said - 200 billion that we said in Canada, but we haven't done enough. We Socialists do not care how, whether in a new fund or in the Global Environment Facility, but we must mobilize the necessary resources. And the Cali Fund has been highlighted here for the equitable sharing of the benefits of genetic resources and also the participation, the prominence, of indigenous communities. That has been fundamental. Those have been Cali's greatest successes. In any case, it is an optimistic assessment, but we have to consolidate – as the European Union – our position of credibility, coherence and dialogue with other actors. It has been difficult for us to understand each other with African countries, for example, Commissioner. And above all coherence and participation in funding. That is the great challenge, the great debate, that we are going to have two years from now in the next COP and we have to get to it with the duties already done and prepared.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is the kind of debate we never want to have here, because we are talking about numerous victims, material damage... In short, a catastrophe, but reality cannot be denied, and, although a section of this House denies it, reality will always be in front of us and will prevail, and that reality is called climate change. I point out two ideas: In this new cycle, new mandate, which is now beginning, many of you want to park, downgrade, delay... the European Green Deal, and today's debate confirms that mistake. The Green Deal, with its twofold social and economic focus, must remain the priority of the European Union: this debate confirms this. Here, a few months ago, we debated a law that they demonized, and I look at this sector of the House, the Nature Restoration Act, and, note, this Act guarantees the treatment, for example, of rivers or floodplains. It is now time to develop national plans, restoration plans: I think it's time. Ladies and gentlemen, we can deny reality, but reality will continue to exist.

(start of the intervention out of microphone) ... almost a year since the terrible attacks and the genocidal invasion, Commissioner Netanyahu, and since the last debate in February we have seen the spread of poliovirus in children under the age of five. They have their first dose alone, they need the second one right now, later this month. By the way, I haven't given you the figure yet: 560,000 girls and boys. I think this should be our first priority in today's debate. And the second, equip hospitals in Gaza to treat, for example, hepatitis or diarrhea. I believe that these are the priorities in a debate like today's. And, basically, they follow the three questions that fly over us and that we have not just faced. First, review the partnership agreement and, if necessary, suspend it. Second, sanctions, not only on the settlers, but also on the Netanyahu government. And third, to end the apartheid, because this is an invasion, it is an illegal occupation, and the only solution is that of the two States.

Mr President, as the last one - broom car, we say in Spain - left me with some conclusions. It has become clear that denialism exists and that it is very strong, and it will depend on the people between June 6 and 9 who are not the majority in this House because the PP is peeking at denialism. The planetary crisis, which is twofold – climate, warming, biodiversity, ecosystems and, let us not forget, biodiversity – is a fact, it is evidence. It exists. And I think it's good that we tell people that this crisis puts the survival of human life on the planet at risk, not in the long term, but in the short and medium term. Therefore, I believe that the deniers lie. Let's see if we can draw that conclusion from this debate: They lie and endanger human life on the planet. I do not think it is enough to be scientifically correct, ladies and gentlemen. We have to be democratically right. The European Green Deal has to be the great policy of the coming legislature. It can't be a dogma, it never has been. It can't be. It has to be a flexible policy. And on that policy they have to turn all the others. I think the fact that I am the last one has made the presidency give me more time than I think I had established. I shall take this opportunity to say to the members of the Council, but above all to Hungary, Poland and Austria that there is a great law for the future, called the Nature Restoration Law, which is awaiting approval. And it is also a question of democratic reason. This Parliament did its homework. Now it has to be done by the Council. And, if we don't have a prompt law, it would be a little embarrassing. So beat the deniers. At the moment we're doing it, but we don't have to trust each other. And this is not only for those inside, but for those outside.

Madam President, Mr Borrell, what a cute thing the neo-Francoist dedicated to you, who has since left; I shouldn't have had much interest in hearing his reply... But why does he do it? Well, because I believe that the two languages that have been in the European Union have been understood. I, of course, prefer yours to that pilgrimage made by Mrs. Metsola and Mrs. von der Leyen. I believe that in your language the necessary forcefulness must be incorporated again to say that a massacre is coming in Rafah and that this is going to be a humanitarian disaster. Second: sanctions. We are going to talk about sanctions on the Israeli Government, which is the one we are talking about, and about establishing a new, more restrictive diplomatic relationship. And third, and most importantly: Palestinian state. That is the answer that Israel, the Palestinian State, will understand, as the Government of Spain is defending, by the way. And that I think is the task to which you have dedicated these years and which, I hope, in the coming months can be completed.

Madam President, I am going to read you a passage from a book by Timothy Garton Ash: . It says: The practice of deliberate oblivion had been the norm in Europe for centuries. [...] In the 1960s and 1970s, a new rule was introduced: Never forget! It was necessary to document and analyze the problematic past, to approach it from a psychological, moral and political point of view in a process of public and private recognition. Why do we Social Democrats bring this debate here? Because we have to defend the engine of memory against the abyss of oblivion, which is where the right wing takes us. Examples: a fascist concentration in Italy. What did Mrs. Meloni say? Niente [nothing]. And, in Spain, the neo-Francoists of VOX and the right of the Popular Party - which is always very timid when it comes to condemning Francoism - are eliminating the laws of democratic memory in the autonomous communities. And that's an embarrassment. That is why, in this Parliament, we must have this debate in order to defend remembrance as a true engine of European construction. Never, ever, forgetfulness.

Madam President, I believe that this debate helps us to draw some clear conclusions. I believe that we must focus on demanding the release of the hostages, ensuring humanitarian aid and the presence of UNRWA - an eye, which Netanyahu is behind, as we know, withdrawing that aid - and preventing the immediate ceasefire. Those are the three conclusions that I think we can draw, Commissioner, from this debate. But there are three other background ideas that I think are very important. First, to really review the association agreement with Israel and, if necessary, to suspend it, even to adopt sanctions. In other words, I ask you to heed the letter sent to you by the Governments of Spain and Ireland. Secondly, it is necessary to impose sanctions on the radical attitude of the settlers. And finally, what is the underlying problem? The underlying problem is the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories. If we really say what is the substance of the question is that and what is derived, that is the true apartheid This is what has been done to Palestine for many years. I therefore believe that the European Union's search for a comprehensive, genuine, two-state solution is the only solution we have at the moment.

Mr. President, I have to say something to Mr. Mato, who has just left here. No, that the Nature Restoration Law will only bring benefits to the primary sector and the countryside. Abandon extremist denialism. You'll see. Thank you, Paolo de Castro, comrade, for bringing this report here and for doing the job so well because we are talking about a heritage not only economic, but also social, political and cultural of that Europe of the regions. I believe that the creation of new guarantees and their introduction in a single text is very important. I want to highlight three things: firstly, simplifying the registration system for producers will be very important. Secondly, to strengthen protection in the international market and in digital trade. And finally, the Act recognises the Regulatory Councils as the engine for the development of GIs, and I think that's a big step forward. In short, I believe that having unified this regulation to preserve protected geographical indications is a very valuable policy that speaks very highly of the European Parliament.

Mr President, Parliament has already taken a decision on deep seabed mining: we took it up in the report on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, in which we called for a moratorium on the International Seabed Authority until the effects of seabed mining on the marine environment, biodiversity or climate had been sufficiently studied and researched. That is what this Parliament approved. So how is it possible that this proposal opposed by 800 scientists and with the negative opinion of the Norwegian Environmental Agency in relation to the assessment they have adopted has been adopted? The European Union, Commissioner, must therefore act now. How will the Norwegian government monitor the environmental impact? How will you ensure that unknown species do not become extinct? How will their actions affect fisheries? What impact will they have on the potential of the seabed? How will they affect such vulnerable ecosystems in the Arctic? Therefore, we must take decisions, we must act and, in addition, I believe that urgently and, I repeat, promote what this Parliament's report on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 said: promote an international moratorium on mining within the International Seabed Authority. That's the solution.

Mr President, Mr High Representative, it is true that we are possibly at the worst time since 1948. And this debate, said an EPP colleague, should provide solutions. The first is to consolidate this change, this turn of the European Union, which has been made possible by the attitude of Mr Borrell, on behalf of the Council and the Commission, but also of Pedro Sánchez in the rotating Presidency, which has been much better than that role played by Roberta Metsola and Ursula von der Leyen. And then I think there is some evidence that Parliament has to say more clearly. The evidence of the total ceasefire, of the total ceasefire. That evidence would have to be said more clearly. Like, by the way, that of the undisputed release of all hostages. I think the bottom line is that there has to be a Palestinian state. But not just a Palestinian state: There must be an end to the occupation and not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, which is what European society demands and what this Parliament must say loud, clear and strong.