Debate contributions by Ana Catarina MENDES

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, to defend a humanist view of migration is to reject a simplistic view of 'us versus them' and of this need to regulate migratory pressure. Migration is part of Europe's history, its future, its present, and it is part of the human reality that demands responsibility, solidarity and solidity. Colleagues, S&D has approved and supported and worked hard to have a migration pact that is reasonable, respectable and responsive to legal migration pathways. Legal pathways of migration are not compatible with casting a permanent suspicion on all migratory flows - and it is not compatible with what the Commission has proposed to us. Commissioner, I understand your words and I understand the words of my colleague Mr Tobé, but I completely distance myself from the Commission's choice on the list of third countries and on the consideration of safe third countries, when not even the possibility of there being a link between people and the country to which they are sent is possible, because it has been withdrawn by your proposal. And so the pact has to be respected, but it is not fair that this mandate goes beyond the pact. Beyond the pact! And, Commissioner, return is a mechanism that requires respect for human rights, respect for dignity. When the European Commission agrees to embark on return hubs For third countries, which have only insurance labels, this is a violation of the basic principles of respect for human rights. And so it will rely on S&D to continue to create and have legal migration flows. It will rely on S&D to combat human trafficking, to combat illegal immigration routes. It will not count on the support of S&D to continue to go beyond the pact or to look at this pact, not with the sensitivity it deserves (I will end now, Mr President), but like Portugal, for example, which rejects solidarity and pays EUR 8 million to send refugees to other countries. It is unacceptable in Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is an important day in this Parliament, when we are discussing the competitiveness and strategic autonomy of our internal market and, above all, to stop having an internal market that is fragmented and where it is not possible to boost all the innovation, knowledge and talent that we have in the Member States. start-ups — which is a movement, which is a market and a very important niche. It is important for the competitiveness of our economy, it is important for innovative companies to be a strategic priority of our internal market, but it is crucial that this harmonisation that is required here and that our rapporteur recommends to us here – harmonisation within the European area – is not at the expense of deregulation. It is therefore very important that this report, which I want to welcome here, underlines the importance of guaranteeing labour rights in a more developed, innovative and digital economy. Europe truly needs a robust and digital economy, but this is only done by staying true to the values of the past: European values.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, this is a very important debate, it is an absolutely essential debate. The European Union is built on the fundamental values of human dignity, equality, respect for human rights and non-discrimination. And yet, despite this solemn commitment, today we are witnessing a worrying increase in discrimination across Europe, affecting people on the grounds of age, disability, religion, belief or sexual orientation. It is in this context that we must recall the importance of the 2008 proposal for an Anti-Discrimination Directive presented by the European Commission, but which, after more than 15 years – 17 years to be precise – remains blocked in the Council of the Union. Here I would like to thank the Danish Presidency for prioritising the discussion and adoption (even though we have not even been able to get the discussion) of this directive, and I would like to thank the Commissioner for her commitment. This directive, often referred to as the Horizontal Directive, has a clear and ambitious objective of extending protection against discrimination beyond employment by ensuring equal treatment in access to goods and services, social protection, healthcare, education and housing. It is a question of bridging a clear gap in EU law, where protection still depends, to this day, on the ground of discrimination at issue. A person is today more protected against racial or ethnic discrimination than against discrimination based on disability, age, religion or sexual orientation, outside the work context. This implicit prioritisation of rights is incompatible with the right to equality in the European Union. The blockage of this directive becomes even more serious at a time when Europe is facing the growth of hate speech, the normalisation of social exclusion, the marginalisation of minorities and the political instrumentalisation of fear and difference. The absence of a common and binding legal framework weakens the European response to discrimination and leaves millions of people dependent on unequal levels of protection, depending on the state in which they live. This is why the non-adoption of this directive is not only a technical or legal deadlock. It is a political message – and a dangerous political message – that suggests hesitation in consistently defending the founding values of the European Union. At a time when discrimination is growing and citizens' trust in the institutions is being tested, postponing this directive is postponing equality; To approve this directive is to approve a Europe that does not accept that fundamental rights depend on the context, place or identity of the person. The European Parliament has done all it has to do: adopted its position in 2009, repeatedly reinforced it, advocated protection against multiple and intersectional discrimination. The Fundamental Rights Agency warned. Civil society was under pressure. Parliament has moved forward – and the blockade remains in the Council. So, ladies and gentlemen, we can no longer tell victims of discrimination to wait. Waiting is not an option. Delayed equality is denied equality. And adopting this directive is a matter of coherence, political courage and respect for the founding values of the European Union. For S&D, this fight is non-negotiable, and here we will continue to stand to defend the fight against all discrimination in the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of S&D, I want to welcome the European Commission's communication on the resilience of our democracies, because it identifies threats, proposes a way to strengthen institutions and civic participation. But, Commissioner, as I told you yesterday, we need clear commitments to equality, social cohesion, sustainable finance and democratic accountability. I therefore ask you whether the voluntary participation of the Member States in the new European Centre for Democratic Resilience does not call into question the purpose of coordination and cooperation between the Member States desired in this centre; how this centre will be managed, and what role the European Parliament will play in scrutinising this working centre. I end with a personal note, because democracy is a system in permanent construction that lives in the public space. The personal note is that today is marked in Portugal the 25th of November, which consolidated the 25th of April. With Mário Soares, a great Democrat, they lost the extremists on the left and on the right, they won democracy and freedom. And we will continue here in the European Parliament to fight for democracy, freedom and our citizens.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, S&D is very clear that the Migration Pact has been presented as a historic step, but unfortunately both the report is late and all the news that comes, including your speech (I am sorry, Commissioner), are still shrouded in opacity, with no clarity as to the values, no clarity as to the solidarity mechanism and no guarantees that it will be applied fairly. I'll give you a first case: considers the decrease in irregular immigration by 35% to be very good, and I agree with you; the question is whether it is guaranteed that respect for human rights in this area has been respected. Secondly, the reduction itself is not a success if it is at the expense of rights and at the expense of people's lives. I ask you, Commissioner, how much we talk about solidarity here. When we talk about solidarity, I want to ask whether the Portuguese Government, when it announces the expulsion of students with temporary protection from Ukraine from the war in Ukraine, considers this to be solidarity and what measures it is taking to ensure that the Member States do not exclude citizens from Ukraine from their states. Finally, Commissioner, the new solidarity mechanism proposes that Member States should be able to choose between receiving immigrants or paying a fee for every human being refused or offering other forms of support. Why do the values that each and every human being is worth in this new mechanism remain confidential? I tell you, Commissioner, today's discussion is, once again, not only about migration policy, but what Europe we want to continue to be: the Europe of the values of solidarity and shared responsibility or the Europe of those who will pay for human beings because they do not want them in their Member States?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you do not need to send messages to S&D, because S&D is well aware that the compromise reached within the framework of the democratic platform is not perfect, but guarantees the essentials: human rights, environmental protection and stability safeguards for our businesses. The Socialists and Democrats have been at the forefront of these negotiations, and we have fought for a fairer, more balanced law that is closer to the people. And even in the face of the resistances and blockages that he has placed on us, we act responsibly, because progress is better, even if imperfect, than paralysis. Rejecting this mandate would be a serious political mistake, it would mean leaving the negotiating table and paving the way for uncertainty, instability and loss of credibility of the European institutions. To approve this text is to ensure that Europe remains an area of trust, responsibility and collective ambition. But I make it very clear: Socialists will continue to fight in trilogues for a stronger, fairer and truly European outcome. And that is why we will be here to build and not to create blockages, as the PPE has done throughout this process.

Mr Oliveira, I have just said that this is a programme with good intentions and few achievements. My party leader said so here a moment ago, too, but I would like to agree with you. We need a real, concrete and workable housing programme. We know that housing is not just a problem for our Member States. In Portugal, we have a crisis at this very big time. The increase in the price of housing is 35% in the last year, which generates many inequalities. So once again, just as in 2022 we called in Portugal for Europe to have a housing programme, I reiterate here that call for a real housing programme for all Member States.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have three very brief notes. The President of the Commission has spoken about competitiveness and I would like to warn that this competitiveness is not at the expense of our fundamental values, but that it is guided by a clear social and democratic compass. This means not confusing simplification with deregulation, reducing our high social and environmental standards. Secondly, I leave an alert. Pretty words are not enough to say that you want the Migration Pact implemented. The truth, ladies and gentlemen, is that today there are deep divisions in the Member States to adopt a joint and solidarity-based response on migration, and the Commission's failure to submit the first annual report on migration and asylum is worrying and not acceptable, because if the Commission does not comply, it cannot ask the Member States to comply. Finally, the promise of creating a European centre for democratic resilience is far from being realised, and we need a strong, well-funded structure to ensure that extremism and populism are combated, because that, yes, is a threat to our democracies.

Madam President, Madam Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let us have no doubt that our democracy is under attack. And it is under attack by the worrying growth of hybrid attacks against the European Union, by disinformation online, which has reached alarming levels in virtually all Member States, which undermines citizens' confidence, but also because citizens often fail to believe in what the welfare state can give them and what the answers to their problems are. But it is absolutely essential for the European Commission to act. Today, the President of the Commission has given a good speech on the need to defend democracy, but I have two very specific questions, Commissioner. The first: there is no democracy without a strong rule of law and scrupulous respect for the rule of law. At what point is the monitoring of the recommendations of the Rule of Law Report that has been made to the Member States, so that we can assess the health of our democracies? And secondly, Commissioner: how can we work together – Parliament, which has the Defence of Democracy Committee, with the Commission – and make our institutions stronger and more susceptible to the trust of our citizens?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the first note I want to make is that this debate is contrary to the construction of the European project, contrary to the values of the European Union, because it is, in itself, a title and a debate - as we have heard here from the presentation of the proposer - which instigates division, hatred and prejudice, and this goes against all the values of the European Union. And against perceptions and against perceptions, what the proponent came here to do was to say a set of perceptions, to generalize situations. First, the rule of law exists for everyone, and anyone who commits crimes, be they nationals or immigrants, must be punished before the law and the judicial system. Second, Eurostat and the OECD have said over time that there is no direct link between immigration and crime. Third, it is proven that, in the overwhelming majority of states, domestic violence or rape is mainly perpetrated by nationals. Last note, Madam President, irregular immigration fell by 38% in 2024, which means that in the face of perceptions, we will always have the facts and the truth.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, dear European citizens, today, more than ever, it is our duty to remember with firmness and hope that the European Union was born from the ashes of intolerance and division. It was born out of the collective commitment to ensure that future generations would never again live under the weight of hatred, exclusion or fear. That is why, at this moment, we cannot remain silent. On 28 June, thousands of people took to the streets of Budapest, not just to celebrate who they are, but to claim something basic and something essential: The right to exist with dignity, to love in freedom, to live without fear. They marched with courage, with pride, with joy and with the conviction that Europe also belongs to them. The courage of the mayor of Budapest is a symbol of the struggle for freedom and democracy. The Budapest march is more than a parade of colors. It's a cry for equality. It is a call for European solidarity. It is a reminder that, even within our borders, discrimination has not yet been eradicated. It was also the denunciation of a government that, under the pretext of protecting children, has censored dissenting voices, attacked press freedom, weakened justice and turned LGBTQI+ people into a political target. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not acceptable in the 21st century for European citizens to have their rights restricted on the basis of their identity. It is not acceptable for laws to be passed to silence LGBTQI+ voices. It is not acceptable that hate speech still finds shelter in national parliaments. And so we reaffirm here our commitment, S&D's commitment to the European Equal Treatment Directive, also known as the Anti-Discrimination Directive. This directive is a key part of our legal and political building. But more than a legal document, it is a moral declaration that there will be no second-class citizens in Europe, that everyone has the right to equal access to employment, education, health, civic participation; No child in any school in the Union should be taught to be ashamed of who he is. And it is because it is a moral obligation that the Commission, Commissioner, cannot and should not withdraw the proposal for a directive against discrimination. If you do, you will be complicit in an attack on the most elementary of European values. Building a free and fair Europe requires constant vigilance. We cannot allow democratic setbacks, often disguised as traditional values, to erode the pillars of the European Union. Freedom is not negotiable. Dignity is not relative. Human rights are not subject to the will of the majority, because they are universal. And, ladies and gentlemen, let us not forget that diversity is the soul of Europe. From the languages we speak to the ways we love, from the cultures we celebrate to the lives we choose to live. We are many and that is exactly what makes us stronger. To all citizens, from every corner of Europe, where they still face institutional discrimination, we say: They're not alone. Your fight is our fight. Your freedom is the measure of our democracy. And I conclude with a promise: We will continue to work so that no European or European has to march to prove that they deserve the same rights. But as long as it is necessary to march, we will be by your side, step by step, street by street, country by country. Because freedom in Europe is not a privilege for some; Yes, it is everyone's right.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the summit of 19 May 2025 between the European Union and the United Kingdom marks a new stage in our post-Brexit relationship of strengthening our cooperation in various areas. Whether it is strengthening in the area of security and youth, which should even be done, whether it is strengthening in the area of defence and security policy – we know how the international context demands it – or strengthening historical relations with the United Kingdom. So from that point of view, and on the part of S&D, I would like to underline here my congratulations for the success of this summit, but also for the return to good relations of cooperation, solidarity and neighbourliness, if we want to, with the United Kingdom. This is the background to the express wish of the United Kingdom to accede to the Hague Convention, which I would also like to welcome here on behalf of S&D. What is expected, as the previous colleague said, is to know what the Commission's position is and whether the Commission, as soon as possible, accepts this expressed will and confirms as soon as possible its favourable assessment of the acceptance of the United Kingdom's accession to the Hague Convention. However, as the previous colleague also said, Commissioner, institutional relations must be respected; Article 218(6) states very clearly that this Parliament also has a role to play in this context, not only to applaud, not only to welcome, but above all to be committed and committed to strengthening this relationship. That is why, Commissioner, my speech seeks to call for good institutional cooperation to continue and not to ignore the extraordinary role that the European Parliament can also play in the ratification of this Convention by the United Kingdom, which, I say again, I welcome with great joy.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is extraordinary that on the day we adopt yet another report on the rule of law, we must once again be talking about one of the most grotesque breaches of the rule of law. Ladies and gentlemen and Mrs Anderson, I am sorry, but it is decency to defend respect for human rights. It is decency to realise that Hungary has entered the European Union to respect human rights, to respect the rule of law, to respect democracy. What we are seeing from Orbán is a huge violation of human rights, forbidding the right to demonstrate, the right to association, the right to be, the right to choose who I am. This is what we are talking about, human rights. And it is in this Parliament and with this Commission that we must once again call for Article 7 to be applied. Because those who are the transgressors, those who do not respect European laws, cannot be part of this space.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in a few years' time we will all say that we have done everything we can to prevent the genocide that is taking place in Palestine. Our choices today will tell whether it was true or not. I therefore take this minute to call on the Commission to swiftly conclude the report on the values enshrined in Article 2 and assess whether or not they are being breached. Clearly, yes. I call on you to look at what is happening in Gaza, in the occupied Palestinian territories. I call on you to look, see and act. In view of the decisions of the International Court of Justice, the tireless work of the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories and the images that come home to us every day, it is difficult to argue that we are not dealing with gross human rights violations. The European Union cannot remain silent, it cannot remain impatient, it must act and it must suspend the Association Agreement with Israel in whole or in part. I said it here a few months ago. In a few years, I'll say it again, we'll all say we did everything. History will be here to judge us. Today is the day to act.

Madam President, first of all I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs who have participated in this report and in the construction of this report, in particular those who are part of the democratic field. Ladies and gentlemen, I apologise, but the rule of law is not a vague concept, nor is it an ideological concept. It is indeed the foundational basis of our European Union. It is respect for rights, freedoms and guarantees, it is respect for the separation of powers, it is respect for democracy. What we are seeing here is, once again, not looking at this report as an instrument assessing the democratic health of our Member States, which requires cooperation, solidarity and improvements among all of us in order to have a stronger Europe. Those who are legitimately elected to this Chamber, the most democratic house in the European Union, are the ones who want to attack the foundations of the European Union, the foundations of our democracy and the reason why there is a European Union today. So to those I keep saying: disinformation cannot pass, because in the face of disinformation, manipulation and lies we must respond with facts, truth and what is essential. We have to respond every day to those who elected us to solve their problems. Ladies and gentlemen, I have heard it said today, to my great astonishment, that democracy is a danger. So I end by saying: dangerous are those who attack every day the democratic foundations, because there is no better system than the one in which we live, that is, live in freedom and democracy. Thank you very much, Commissioner, for counting on this Parliament to continue the institutional cooperation that we must continue in order to respond to the citizens. This is what they expect from us; It is not hatred, it is not violence, but solidarity and cooperation.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is above all a project of peace, freedom and respect for human dignity. These are values that for decades seemed to us to be guaranteed, but which today are under attack and under threat. We live in times of uncertainty, wars on Europe's doorstep, mass disinformation fuelled by social media, social and economic crises. It is precisely in these moments of fragility that democracy becomes even more vulnerable, and the far right and its enemies know this. We see in several European countries anti-democratic forces conquering political space through fear, lies and hatred. They undermine institutions from the inside, undermine the separation of powers, delegitimize free and independent media, attack the rights of women, minorities and migrants. This is not just an ideological deviation, it is a clear attempt to destroy the rule of law. Ladies and gentlemen, the rule of law is not a political option; This is the basis of our democratic coexistence. It is what prevents arbitrariness, protects the most vulnerable and ensures that no one is above the law – neither governments nor parties. The European Union must be firm. We cannot finance those who attack the fundamental values that we all subscribe to. We need binding and effective mechanisms, to make access to European funds conditional on full respect for the rule of law, to strengthen the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union and to give concrete support to civil society, which resists in countries where democracy is being stifled. Today, defending democracy is more than voting; It is to act, it is to speak, it is to fight and it is to resist. We cannot remain silent in the face of the normalisation of intolerance, racism, censorship or hate speech. Democracy is not eternal, and the silence of the democrats is the extremists' greatest ally. The European Commission’s 2024 Rule of Law Report is a clear and urgent warning: democracy and the fundamental values of the European Union are under threat, not only outside but also within our borders. That is why the report, underlining progress, also reveals dangerous setbacks. More than half of the recommendations made in 2023 were ignored or only superficially addressed. This shows that the current mechanisms are insufficient to halt the democratic decline. Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we will vote on this report. Let me be clear: It is fundamental rights that we are talking about in this year's Rule of Law Report. When Journalists Are Targeted software spy in Italy, when LGBTQI+ rights are attacked in Hungary, when reproductive freedom is threatened by a new nationalist president in Poland, the European Parliament must send a clear message. To those who try to rewrite history, we respond with memory. To those who attack the achievements of these years we respond with more democracy. To those who manipulate information, we respond with the truth of the facts. To those who restrict women's rights, we respond more equally. To those who want to destroy democracy, we respond with energy, to defend a society of progress and social justice. Democracy lives on the separation of powers, freedom of the press, access to justice and respect for fundamental freedoms. Without this, the rule of law becomes an empty thing and the space opens up for authoritarianism, even within democratic regimes. Today, Parliament has a responsibility to continue to fight for democracy in our Member States, with more care, with more vigilance, with much more courage and with much more action. It is for this fight that the report calls you.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that the question that needs to be asked today is how many more breaches of the rule of law Mr Orbán needs to make in order for us to be able to act. It has been said for seven years that the conditionality mechanism and Article 7 must be applied – systematically disregarded by Mr Orbán. What we are seeing here once again is an attack on the rule of law, an attempt to muzzle, to shut up, to stop what is essential work that non-governmental organisations and civil society must do to help strengthen democracy. Commissioner, I have listened carefully to your speech and I have followed your action. I trust you, but please, Article 7 really must be applied, the attacks on democracy that are being made in Hungary really must be stopped. Because (allow me to reflect on this) whenever we are complicit in silence or inaction about what is happening in Hungary, a Member State of the European Union, we are broadening the discourse of those who want to kill democracy. You have Parliament with you, please act, apply Article 7 of our Treaty.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the mandate of the European Commission is very clear: a strong Europe faithful to its values, respecting the central role of this Parliament. The first 100 days leave concerns about the working method and also about the relationship with the pro-European platform that underpins it. First of all, we see with concern the migration package that gives in to a security discourse, confusing immigration with security, and also with concern the so-called simplification package, under the pretext of de-bureaucratisation that pushes us towards dangerous deregulation, putting at risk some of the social and environmental achievements. But this beginning of the mandate, Commissioner, should be focused on people's core problems. In 2026, the deadline for the implementation of the RRP expires. I see with particular concern the delay and reprogramming of the RRP, for example, in Portugal and I think that they should also be focused on this matter, because it decides people's lives. Finally, there are 100 days of major geopolitical changes, and defence must be a priority – but it must not come at the expense of cohesion policy.

Mr Oliveira, I absolutely agree with what you said and I would like to ask you the following: do you or do you not consider that this is a regulation that goes against what is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Contrary to what is practiced in Portugal, for example, which does not have detention centres, has temporary accommodation centres, up to 72 hours, citizens can appeal their decisions. I ask you whether or not this is in the sense of a blatant violation of these people's human rights.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, while it is true that a consensus has been found in this House for the Pact on Migration and Asylum, the fact remains that the issues of return continue to divide us. If there are measures put forward that are positive, there are three that I would like to stress as being negative and which, from my point of view, from the point of view of S&D, violate fundamental rights. Firstly, the idea of giving Member States the freedom to choose with which third country to negotiate for the return of their citizens. I believe that this freedom is a danger, because it does not meet what the Commissioner has said here, that there must be a common policy of return. Secondly, the possibility of people being sent to third countries that have not ratified any instrument of international law or that cooperate with non-recognised entities, including those controlling parts of countries that are not diplomatically recognised (terminal) is a danger and I think it should be reviewed. And finally, Commissioner, (I am even ending) the fact that unaccompanied minors can be sent to third countries is a danger and violates the most basic freedoms – and I ask the Commissioner to go back on that point.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is right to recall the memory of Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová, especially so that we never forget that media freedom and the press are an essential pillar of the rule of law and that a free and independent press makes and deepens our democracy. It is therefore right to greet all those who, sometimes in difficult conditions, continue to carry out their mission of informing with courage and determination. That is why it is important for everyone, even all crimes against journalists, to be thoroughly investigated and for justice to play an absolutely essential role here. Today, we are facing threats to press freedom. The various Rule of Law Reports have said so. The information that the Commissioner brings here is important, but it is not enough to say that we have a shield of democracy, there needs to be effective action and the implementation of the Media Freedom Regulation plays an absolutely essential role here. Today let us honour the courage of all those journalists who died doing their job: inform the people, because that's what they exist for.