Speeches

Well, I do not know whether I understand little or much, but there are those who understand much less than I do, which is the case with the honourable Member. The defeat of the Socialist Youth must have hurt him. I'd like to say the following: it is clear that I do not enter here – as Mr Assis quite rightly said – into Portugal’s internal policies. Now, we are not defending a prime minister who you say is hiding, the prime minister is from another party, he is from another political formation. I don't defend or attack, nor have I come here to attack anyone. I have come simply to say and defend national sovereignty, be it energetic, political, social, cultural or ideological. That's all I came here to do.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, more has already been said here than once that, on 28 April, Portugal and Spain entered the biggest blackout in history. And it was the biggest blackout in history because the others had been smaller, in the past, and with smaller consequences. This blackout was planned, everyone knew it was going to happen, as will other blackouts, as long as this policy, which is an ideological, irresponsible and suicidal energy policy, continues. We were the fourth country to shut down thermal power plants. Why? At the seaside planted, little polluted. Why? What was the counterpart to that? That needs to be known. On the other hand, we do not want any more Commission; we want more sovereignty, we want more Portugal and less Commission. We are not going to solve our problems with a European Grid. And it is not with the green fetish of the green economy, of green production that we will save our countries. We have to think about ourselves. Collaboration? Cooperation? Certainly, but from sovereign countries and not from a supranational or federal entity, as they are trying to do with us, which is the control of a European Grid. We don't want it, we are against it. We stand for interconnected but autonomous networks. Those who do not have energy do not have sovereignty. And Portugal, which has existed for much longer than the European Commission, wants sovereignty and wants its energy.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, well, it's very simple. Serbia is the most important country in the Western Balkans, and it's a black hole in the heart of Europe. Serbia must join the European Union, period. And I must say that the fault is ours, because the Commission, mainly the Commission, all these years did very little. And then came the Russians, and then came the Chinese – and we were away. The other thing is relations with Kosovo. Well, it's very easy to say. But what about the five European Union countries that do not have relations with Kosovo? Kosovo's independence was declared illegally by Resolution 1244 of the Security Council. So don't push Serbia where Serbia cannot be pushed. Push on other things – civil society, rule of law, closeness to the European Union, and so on – but not on what they cannot do. Serbia was proposed a European future 24 years ago. I know because I was there. Till today, there is no European future for Serbia.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Portugal is not just any country. Portugal is a country of the sea. It is a country that has made its past at sea, has its present at sea and wants to have its future at sea. And, my dear friends, it is not with pacts for the oceans that we will solve our problems. We are tired, but we are tired of words and we are very destitute of actions. It was because of the European Commission in Brussels that our fishing fleet was destroyed, our merchant fleet was destroyed and all industries that were related to the fishing industry were destroyed. These are the facts, because with words for the future we are fed up, this is not what we want. And what's more, to put the cherry on top of the cake, now they want to install wind farms, wind farms all over the Portuguese coast. Is this ecology? No, this is destroying natural resources, it is destroying the Portuguese coast, it is destroying what is most precious to us – it is what our life is all about. Therefore, for the sake of ecology, we attack ecology. For the sake of ecology, natural resources are being destroyed. For the sake of ecology, it declares war on food security and the physical security of its citizens. This cannot be so, this is not what we want. We do not want pacts, we want concrete and definite aid. And I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about concrete actions that can allow the Portuguese and Portugal a better life.

Mr President, Commissioner, before I say a few words, I would like to say how proud I have always been of my mother for working at Radio RARET in Portugal, which was an entity financed by the Americans and which conveyed to the Iron Curtain the ideals of freedom, the ideals that today make us move in Europe and in the Europe that is ours. Freedom of speech is not a detail of democracy. It's your heart. And right now, within the European Union, that heart is under attack. Let's call things by their names: There is a coordinated offensive against free truth. They are the "fact-checkers ‘official’, are the ‘authorised narratives’, are the ‘safety directives’. All packed in very beautiful language, but the truth of the facts is that only, and only, can they have a path, a direction: is that of friends, because others, who are against, who are dissidents, are persecuted in one way or another, as has been seen in recent times. So I think we're on the wrong track. Democracy with one voice is not democracy. It's authoritarianism, it's totalitarianism, and that's what we have to fight against. End censorship in disguise. Take control of the money. Let the truth compete. Letting dissent live. This is where we have to go, these are the principles that have to guide us, because only where there is freedom to disagree, there is freedom to live in democracy.

Madam President, High Representative, dear colleagues, well, as the shadow rapporteur for the Patriots for Europe, I feel compelled to express a fundamental concern. This is not a political disagreement, but a procedural and democratic failure. Every single amendment, Mr McAllister, that I proposed was rejected without debate, without engagement. Not because they were extreme, but because they came from the wrong family. I hope it is not nothing personal against me, of course. So, I give you some examples. The persecution of Christians all over the world, which is probably the group more persecuted these days. The Balkans who live a very sensitive situation right now, mainly in Bosnia, where the Islamisation is in full process. EU funds and human rights violations, I mean, demanding EU funding must never support regimes or organisations to violate basic freedoms and that's not what's happening. So, this has been a report with a lack of democracy, a lack of participation from everybody. Mr McAllister, you are not marginalising me. You are marginalising millions of European citizens who voted for us, for the parties who composed the Patriots for Europe in this Parliament. This Parliament is supposed to be the House of democracy, and my person, the votes on me are the same as the votes on anybody else in this House.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, well, in its first 100 days the European Commission promised transparency but instead we have seen allegations of corruption, abuse of power and lack of accountability. The European Union should serve its citizens, yet it has become an isolated bubble, funding its own narrative rather than fostering democratic debate. The European Commission, in the former legislature, and the former Vice-President, Frans Timmermans, funnelled millions of euros into environmental NGOs to push the Green Deal without proper oversight. This raises serious concerns about the misuse of public funds to shape policy behind closed doors at the expense of business, jobs and families. The European Commission allocated EUR 45 billion to the resilience and values programme, including EUR 1.5 billion to NGOs aligned with its political agenda. The issue is not defending itself, but the lack of pluralism. Public money should foster open democracy, debate, not reinforce a single political perspective. When confronted about these things, the European Commission refuses to provide concrete answers and avoids open debate. The double standard is evident. When the EU establishment pushes its narrative, it is considered legitimate policy, but if it is challenged, it is dismissed as misinformation. The European Commission cannot continue to operate without scrutiny. European citizens deserve to know where their money is going. Democracy cannot be just a slogan, and we will accept nothing less than full pluralism, transparency and accountability.

Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, those I invite come into my house. Secondly, my home is a place governed by the law, and that law is called the Schengen Agreements. He hasn't seen it, he's not coming in. And whoever enters without a visa, whoever enters without my will, must return home. And this, Commissioner, is a first step. It is flawed, of course, but it is a positive first step towards the return of those who should not be in our home, because national sovereignty and security are affected by this illegal migration. My country was a safe country until two and a half years ago, now it is not a safe country. What is happening in terms of human rights? Portuguese – Europeans – also have human rights. They are the main object of human rights. Why do we hunt down the human rights of the citizens of Europe, the citizens of our countries, the citizens of Portugal, to elevate the human rights of others who enter our home by force and without invitation?

Madam President, Commissioner, the United States has left the Paris Agreement, suspended humanitarian aid and left the World Health Organisation. Disaster. But the reasons why the United States did this are very simple. As far as humanitarian aid is concerned, I can only say one thing: If it's too dirty for the CIA, call USAID. Then, as for the Paris Accords, it seems to be a religion. Everyone has to be in line with the principles of the Paris Agreement. And then, what's going on? It turns out that Europe is in the state it is in and in the state of underdevelopment towards which it is heading. As for the World Health Organization, this magnificent organization that decrees pandemics and wants to create a health passport in order to control populations, because, of course, it has to leave. You cannot stay in a place that is totalitarian and that does not respect citizens and that does not respect people.

Mr President, Mr Commissioner, dear Minister, this must be a joke. In my country alone, the socialists took Portugal to bankruptcy three times in 30 years. Progress is made of this. You can scream wherever you want, but you are not right. It's not because you speak loud that you're right. On the contrary, this idea that the leftist ideas can come forward and be a principle for development. It's a lie. Doesn't work. Never did and never will. We know how to work. We know that liberty, freedom against totalitarianism, taxes, against suffocating the economy. That's what the socialists do. And that's what we can do. And call us the far right; far right is an invention of the Marxists, because they are as totalitarian as they are. We are in favour of the citizens, and we are in favour of the people of Europe to be great again.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, I can see here that we are discussing a wider, comprehensive EU-Middle East strategy. Let me say one thing: the strategy is the same. I cannot see any kind of improvement. I see difference in the region, but I don't see a different attitude from the European Union. On the contrary, it's more of the same. We now have a ceasefire in Gaza, which is a good step, but it's not enough. We have a ceasefire in Lebanon. Good step, not enough. And the big question mark in Syria, which probably is not a good step and definitely not enough. So we have to take a more proactive approach to these questions. I just have to remember you: five times there was put on the table the solution of two states and five times didn't work, because of the Palestinians, not the Israelis. I remember you Black September in 1970, when King Hussein fought the Palestinians and there was about between – we don't know the numbers – tens and thousands of deaths. Nobody cared about. But now they care because it's the Israelis who are doing it. When it was the Jordanians, nobody cared about it. So is there a solution? Maybe. But the solution goes through an international administration of the Palestinian areas, because they themselves cannot do it, as it is proven. To say 'two-state solution and bye bye' is not a solution. You have to have an international administration of Gaza, international administration of the West Bank and to be very careful with the Palestinians living in Jordan.

Mr President, I do not think that bags have anything to do with this, but I would advise you to read the UNODC report entitled Links Between Smuggling of Migrants and Other Forms of Organised Crime. On the other hand, I will also tell you something, the gentlemen of your party lie, because – and I will give you data for 2023 – the DGRSP report proves that 16.7% of prisoners in prisons are foreigners, 2 036 out of 12 193. Crime has increased in Portugal: 8.2% in crime, 5.6% in violence, drug trafficking rose by 20%, aid for illegal immigration rose by 300 %, and so on. Therefore, it is not we who lie, nor Rita Matias.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the recent report by the United Nations, by UNODC, has revealed what we have known for a long time, and which is not a perception, is that open-door immigration has brought with it countless criminals and criminal organisations. I am not going to blame the migrants here, who have nothing to blame. I will blame the governments that authorised this open-door policy and let criminal gangs into our countries, into the countries of Europe. This is an extremely important matter, because we have armed groups at the moment, we have groups that are determined to impose their own rules on our territory, and this is extremely serious. My dear friends, two and a half years ago, this was not happening in my country, because immigration was controlled. Right now, it's completely out of control. And it is this fact that leads to increased crime and an uncertain future, both for residents and for those who come again. This has to be resolved sooner rather than later.

Madam President, Commissioner, yesterday a historic page was turned in this 21st century, because nothing will be the same after the election of Donald Trump. And nothing will be the same does not mean that it is better or worse, it will be different, surely. In a world – and this is a key point – where we are increasingly moving towards multipolarity rather than bilaterality, we are, as Europe, very important for this multipolarity. Because we have to be partners with the United States, complementary, and work with the United States, because the culture is the same, the civilization is the same, the principles are the same, and we have the same values as the United States. It is not going against the United States that we are going to assert ourselves. It is by collaborating with the United States, collaborating with the new administration, and invigorating Europe, invigorating our countries, that we will move forward. And let us forget this history of the common army. No, no! Let us maintain our security in NATO, which has been the defensive pillar of Europe and the North Atlantic. Let us keep our trade open – as the Commissioner said – let us keep our social and cultural relations open, as they have been in the past and which must be enhanced in the future. It's a future that can be bright if we want to. It is a future that can be ours, that must be ours and only ours, but also with our partners.

Well, the ones who want to push someone to the sea are not the Israelis, it's the Palestinians: 'from the river to the sea', as you know – so that's (A). (B) I didn't say I didn't want a Palestinian state. I just said that a state in these conditions is not realistic. And I mentioned Bosnia and Herzegovina because I served there, as I served in the Middle East, as well, in several countries, and I know the mentality. And, of course, I was thinking about a juridical aspect of how to define the coexistence. And if you see Republika Srpska and the Bosnian Federation, they are as much or almost as much apart as the several populations of Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan. So I didn't say, 'I don't want to'. I said, 'We have to find new solutions, just not only this two-state thing'.

It's very simple. Mr. Trump's first mandate was a peace mandate, ended the wars and, at this point, reached the ceasefire, so I have no doubt in saying it. He also advocated an arms race in the first term, and there were no wars that resulted from it. On the other hand, the move of the Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – I was there – was a mere paper transfer, because the Embassy in fact continues to operate in Tel Aviv. In Jerusalem, it is the Consulate General, which is theoretically the Embassy, but in fact it is not. So if the honourable Member does not want to see the openings, he does not want to see the future, it is not my problem.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today is a historic achievement for all of us, for the world, for the United States in particular, and for Europe. We will have the opportunity to discuss this issue, which is the inauguration of President Donald Trump, and that come different times, come. Another historic fact was the ceasefire in Gaza yesterday. It is a small step – the conflict has not been resolved – but it is a step. And this step, in large part, was also due to Trump and his peace initiative. And, my dear friends, today I am going to tell you a little about the two-state solution. It is obvious that the two-state solution alone does not solve anything. They can't even create a Palestinian state, how can they create a state divided into three parts? One third in the Gaza Strip, with no territorial continuity with the West Bank, one third of the population in the West Bank and another third in Jordan. How are we going to create a state in these conditions, when these movements that dominate these populations do not speak to each other, on the contrary, they are bitter enemies? So, my dear friends, instead of filling our mouths with the creation of a Palestinian state, the two-state solution, let us try to find a viable solution. We will try to find a solution like the one they have in Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example, or other solutions that have already been tried in the world. Five times – five times – the two-state solution has failed, and always because of the Palestinians. Let's be imaginative, have the experience of other experiences and let's try to find another solution.

Mr President, Commissioner, this is a Green Deal which looks more like a black deal. What has been said here in general, I will not repeat, but I will talk about my country, about Portugal, and the effect that Green Deal It has been about Portugal. It is very simple: agricultural land transformed into solar panels, destroying fauna and flora; the destruction of thousands of cork oaks, which is an iconic and fundamental tree for the Portuguese economy – thousands of cork oaks, I repeat –; the installation of pointless wind farms and, now, with a schedule of making offshore wind farms, all along the Portuguese coast which is the greatest good we have. Portugal lives off the sea and, in this way, they will prevent us from fishing, they will prevent us from tourism, they will prevent us from security. This is what the Green Deal Give it to Portugal. It is the destruction of our economy, of jobs, it is the destruction of our society.

Mr President, Commissioner and Vice-President of the Commission, one message I would like to convey to you, Commissioner, is that you will not have an easy job at this stage in Syria. A terrorist will always be a terrorist. Someone who has been to Abu Ghraib never forgets in his life. What do I mean by this? I want to say that those who took power in Syria at the moment were terrorist and mercenary movements in the pay of various countries. In terms of geostrategy, we have a Turkey that is already active on the ground, we have Israel that has occupied a buffer zone to protect it, we have other forces — don’t think Iran lost in this exchange, because this was the result of a deal — we have the Muslim Brotherhood behind the terrorist forces that made a deal in Doha. So we're going to have an extremely complicated subject and it's going to be very difficult to bring humanitarian aid to those who need it. You can be sure of that, because they won't let you. And by the way, I'd like to say this: if the European Union, once and for all, does not take the reins of the problem in this matter, and if it does not move forward, it will never move forward, because it will lose its face completely and it will be a weakened European Union that, from now on, will try to deal with the issues that confront it. So, Commissioner, I wish that instead of being like that music all the time paroles, paroles, to take action and turn the European Union into a trusted partner, into an active partner.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, today we address a real threat to European sovereignty: foreign interference and espionage in our universities carried out by countries like China, Russia and Iran to acquire strategic and sensitive knowledge. Recent cases have highlighted this problem, such as academic partnerships in our countries that have resulted in access to sensitive technologies in fields like artificial intelligence, biotechnology and cybersecurity. A study by the European Union Institute for Security Studies itself has revealed how authoritarian regimes use universities to infiltrate and influence networks, collect sensitive data, and even recruit agents. These actions go beyond the academic espionage, they represent a direct threat to our security and sovereignty. We need to act now. I propose concrete measures. One: strengthen security in EU-funded projects with righteous audits and vetoes on suspicious collaborations. Two: supervise foreign researchers in sensitive fields in coordination with national intelligence services. Three: establish a European list of high-risk foreign institutions, warning universities about potential threats. Four: promote partnerships within the European space and the free world with the countries that share our democratic values. European universities are pillars of innovation and our independence. Protecting the knowledge generated with them is safeguarding our freedom and the future of Europe.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, today I wish to express my concern about the state of the procedure for appointing members of the European Commission, which undermines the credibility of our Union. What should be an example of transparency and meritocracy has become a stage for political games. This politicisation undermines citizens' trust in our institutions. On the one hand, the policies pursued by the previous and current Commission make us extremely concerned. One Green Deal It is increasingly turning into a Black Deal, with unacceptable consequences. On the other hand, the freedom granted to immigration, without any control whatsoever, concerns all European states, the citizens of Europe and all societies that are being destroyed by this immigration. Finally, I would like to say one thing, Madam President, is that we are in favour of freedom and against totalitarianism. And that's what makes us move, and that's what makes us fight.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are here today to discuss a crucial issue for the future of our Union: Europe's civil and defence preparedness. Patriots for Europe advocate an approach that combines national sovereignty with European strategic cooperation. The Niinistö report highlights multidimensional threats that affect not only military security, but also public health, the economy and infrastructure. We agree on the need to strengthen European resilience, but we believe that any measure must respect the sovereignty of the Member States. The centralisation of decisions in Brussels should not compromise the ability of each nation to act according to its specificities and needs. NATO remains the backbone of European defence. We are against the creation of a European army, but in favour of strengthening national armies. We draw attention to the importance of incentives in the private sector and investments in resilience. We insist that European funding be fairly distributed and transparent. This is very important, because most of the time it is not. Finally, we reinforce that Europe will only be strong if its Member States are strong. The strength of the European Union cannot exist without the strength of states. Together we can build a resilient Union, but the strength of our Union lies in the diversity of its parts.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am amazed when the minority in this House, the House of Democracy, comes to say that, with the election of Trump, the world will end. Trump is the evil being who will end the world. My dear friends, nothing could be more wrong. Trump's election was a boon to the Western world and we, Europe, have to deal with it. It's not going against Trump that we're going to win and we're going to be more Europe. It is, rather, by engaging with the US administration, by making our interests prevail, along with American interests, even if they are not the same. So yes, we're going to win, we're going to have even less WokismWe're going to have less destruction of society, we're going to have our children more protected. Therefore, it is not with war that we will prevail, it is not with confrontations that we will be able to make our ideas follow. It is, yes, with collaboration, with negotiation and moving forward.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am surprised - or not - at this debate, because we have the solution in hand, and that solution is called Schengen. All of our countries are practically part of Schengen, and while Schengen was complied with, there was no illegal immigration and no forced immigration. There was the immigration that would have to be. I am not against immigration, we are not against immigration, but in my house comes who I invite; You're not going to force the front door into my house without my permission. As for Frontex, it is not just Frontex that is at stake, because there are other land borders, airports, ports that are equally important. And as far as Frontex itself is concerned, I must say the following: You have the staff you have, which are more than enough, you have the means you have, you have the money you have, which is more than enough. What is needed is to reshape Frontex, to put it to work as it should be, and not as it has been working so far, with orders. It is not the agents' fault; It is the fault of the orders given to them. And these orders do not go in the direction for which they were created. Therefore, Frontex can be effective, it can be a perfectly useful body for European security, it must be reformulated, it must be revised and it must be restored to what has been created.