Debate contributions by João OLIVEIRA

Madam President, first of all, I want to say that we voted in favour of this motion of censure, because we believe that the European Commission deserves censure - and Mercosur is one of the reasons for that censure, because the European Commission disregards the national parliaments, refusing to listen to their opinion and refusing to take account of that opinion that must be given, and, moreover, harming farmers and national production. Secondly, we want to stress that we have been on the side of farmers and voted in favour of this motion of censure - because it is not because of the absence of the PCP vote that the European Commission is not sidelined and, in particular, that this contribution is not made so that the path towards Mercosur can be another one. But here too, thirdly - and that is what I wanted to make explicit - we want to emphasise the far-right parties that put forward this motion of censure. Because those who today in this European Parliament want to give an image that they are on the side of farmers are those who have betrayed farmers in the national governments they influence by approving the agreement with Mercosur from the governments, as happened with the flagrant case of the Italian Government. So, let there be no illusions, the far-right is not on the side of the farmers, it is just setting up a political staging to capture their support, despite betraying their interests at the level of national governments.

Madam President, Commissioner Mînzatu, we agree with the idea that criminal justice systems should evolve in their modern conception, in order to place the resocialisation of individuals at the centre of their choices - meaning the use of the criminal justice system as an instrument for all citizens to comply with the rules and norms of community life - and, of course, we support the idea that the death penalty should be rejected and abolished, because it is not compatible with this modern and humanist conception of criminal justice systems. We even consider that the Portuguese experience (Portugal was one of the first countries in the world to abolish the death penalty in 1867) is quite significant and revealing of this humanist conception that we share. We believe that every effort must be made towards the abolition of the death penalty at international level, not only with the national decisions that must, of course, be taken in this direction, but with initiatives that, at international level and, in particular, within the framework of the United Nations, can also be developed in this direction, namely by raising the awareness of the countries that are part of the United Nations Organization to sign and accompany the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a view to the abolition of the death penalty, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. We also believe that there can be initiatives on the part of the European Union to this end. There have been resolutions with this intention in the past, and we believe it is important that these policy initiatives can be developed. It seems to us absolutely essential that, in order for such initiatives to be successful, there should not be a double standard in the assessment of the international situation, which unfortunately makes it possible to note that several countries around the world continue not only to provide for the death penalty, but also to apply the death penalty, including the United States of America - which, incomprehensibly, are not mentioned in many of the speeches made in the plenary of the European Parliament, but which, of course, being one of the countries which not only provides for, but also applies (in a very significant way) the death penalty, should not also be removed from the list of countries to which such initiatives should be addressed, with a view to the effective abolition of the death penalty. And we believe that, in addition to initiatives aimed at abolishing the death penalty, with its withdrawal from the provision of penal systems, initiatives should also be developed towards a universal moratorium on the execution of capital punishment in the countries that have provided for it for those who have been sentenced to it.

Madam President, Commissioner Mînzatu, on the European Pillar of Social Rights action plan, three issues are absolutely decisive. Firstly, to ensure that the necessary measures are in place to address the social problems affecting workers and peoples within the European Union; secondly, to ensure that they are effective measures and that they do not stop at proclamations of intent; and, thirdly, to ensure proper coordination with policies at national level, which are the responsibility of the Member States, to ensure that they are implemented and that social problems are tackled. Valuing work and workers, their living conditions, their wages, the regulation of their working hours, issues related to ensuring access to housing - affordable housing - by expanding public supply, and ensuring measures to combat poverty towards its eradication are three of the essential aspects that this action plan must contain, and it cannot merely point out the path that needs to be taken. It should identify effective measures to address the various needs that exist in these dimensions and ensure adequate financial resources, either through the Multiannual Financial Framework or through the use of other financing instruments, including the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the timeframe of which should be extended, particularly to address housing needs.

Mr Vicent, you spoke about housing and the need for effective measures to address the housing problem. That is one of the dimensions that is specifically mentioned in this oral question on the European Pillar of Social Rights. And the question I ask you is this: was it not important for there to be additional and targeted funding in the next Multiannual Financial Framework to address housing issues, particularly to increase the supply of public housing? And do you not also consider it important that the RRP funds - from the Recovery and Resilience Plan - could be expanded so that, with their use, with a longer timeframe for their use, they could also be mobilised to address the housing problem?

Madam President, Mr Costa, the conclusions of the last Council meeting - a meeting that was just over a month ago, but it seems that it was an eternity ago - are, in fact, conclusions of a meeting disconnected from the reality of the peoples living within the European Union. We continue to see that neither the difficulties in housing, nor the difficulties in accessing health, education, social protection, nor the problems of deteriorating living conditions or rising prices, none of this continues to be of concern to the European Council, which continues to relegate to the background the economic and social problems that mark the lives of peoples. On the contrary, we see militarism and war, Mercosur, measures related to the so-called competitiveness policy, all pointing towards more and more measures to favour multinationals and economic groups, to the detriment of small and medium-sized enterprises, to the detriment of the exploitation of the countries' productive capacities, to the detriment of national development. And, once again, the insistence on obstacles to a peaceful solution, a political solution to the war in Ukraine, with the European Union insisting on its prolongation, with a further EUR 90 billion to prolong the war. These are completely wrong choices, Mr. Costa.

Mrs Riba i Giner, you spoke in your speech about the damage that has resulted from options being made for dismantling production, dismantling the response to some of the people's needs, particularly in relation to food issues. And my question to you about the conclusions of this last meeting of the European Council is whether you do not think that it is dramatic that there is no reference to the response to the economic and social needs of peoples, whether in food matters, housing, access to health or other issues that mark such great difficulties in the lives of peoples.

Madam President, the report on the 28th legal regime that Parliament discusses and approves is a report that leaves us with many concerns. The 28th Law is an offshore Federal law addressed to multinationals to create a set of facilities in relation to tax matters, in relation to administrative matters, including in relation to labour legislation, jeopardizing not only workers' rights, which will be weakened through the 28th legal regime, but also jeopardizing the survival conditions for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, which will continue to deal with a set of difficulties for their activity - which, of course, multinationals will no longer have to deal with. This proposal for a 28th legal regime is a federal solution to guarantee multinationals a green path that allows them to move beyond national laws, disregarding what are absolutely essential parameters, not only of an economic nature, but also of a labour nature, and is therefore unacceptable to us.

Madam President, this report on critical medicines raises a number of concerns, first of all, that we are dealing with an issue that is absolutely fundamental to the defence of citizens' rights, which is the accessibility of medicines, particularly critical medicines. And the key issue in this regard is to enable each Member State, in accordance with its productive capacity and by developing that productive capacity, by developing the science and research that is needed, to be able to ensure access to medicines for its citizens. This report is based on a completely different basis from that, which is the basis on which, today, the Member States are held hostage by the pharmaceutical industry - particularly the multinationals, which decide at will what profit margins they want to make, using an issue that is absolutely fundamental for any country, which is to guarantee access to medicines for its citizens. We have had the dramatic example of this with the COVID-19 pandemic and, unfortunately, the path that this report points out is not to free the states and peoples of the European Union from those shackles that make access to medicines difficult.

Madam President, Madam High Representative, Kaja Callas, the US military aggression against Venezuela and the kidnapping of the Venezuelan President must be condemned as a violation of international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter, a violation of the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people. The answer must be to demand respect for international law, respect for the sovereignty of peoples and states, and the release of the Venezuelan president. The lack of condemnation by the European Union of this action by the United States constitutes a position of complicity with this violation of international law and submission to the United States, with serious consequences from the point of view of the international situation, and reveals an untenable double standard. It is the requirement of compliance with international law, respect for international law and sovereignty of peoples that can contradict the sense of the rules-based international order that is translated in this action against Venezuela. This international order is an order that does not respect international law and that operates on the basis of the rules that are imposed by force, by those who have military force to determine them. This cannot be the future of humanity.

Mr President, High Representative Kaja Kallas, the aggressive and exploitative offensive of US imperialism is a threat to Greenland. The submission of the European Union to the United States increases the risk of this threat materialising, and the double standards of the European Union weakens the ability to defend the people of Greenland from these threats. Trump's threats must be met with a firm response of demand, respect for international law, respect for the sovereignty of peoples, refusal to use force and the threat of war as criteria for international relations. But the European Union is in a difficult position to provide such a firm response. The Commissioner spoke to us today about sovereignty, and the problem is to know where these criteria were for demanding respect for sovereignty and international law in the face of the occupation of Palestine, in the face of the war of aggression and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, the aggression of Libya, Syria. Where were these criteria in the face of the aggression against Venezuela? The problem, and I conclude, Mr President, is that this attitude of submission to the United States for so long now makes it difficult to straighten the spine to give the firm answer that is needed.

Mr President, Mr Hansen, my question to you is: in the face of the threats that Donald Trump has made in relation to Greenland, and after the violation of the sovereignty of international law in relation to Venezuela and all the other threats that he has made in relation to other countries, what indeed should be the response of the European Union? Is it in the framework of submission and subservience to the United States that the European Union can find a way to convince Donald Trump? For those who have advocated sanctions, restrictive measures, the refusal of economic and political relations in other circumstances, what will be, after all, the firm response that the European Union should give - in your opinion, of course - to the Trump administration in the face of these threats that it is now making to Greenland?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are voting in favour of this report on artificial intelligence in the workplace, because we believe that it points to a sense that seems to us to be correct in protecting workers and their rights in relation to the use of artificial intelligence. But we want to underline three aspects. Firstly, it seems to us that this regulation must be made at national level, because it is for the Member States to deal with the regulation of these matters, protecting workers and their rights. Secondly, measures and guidelines that could be considered at European Union level should not undermine regulation or serve as a pretext for deregulation or a reduction in regulatory requirements in relation to these matters. Thirdly, we want to underline a contradiction between this sense of protection that is affirmed today in this report adopted by the European Parliament and the measures that were adopted here at the last plenary session – which aim to amend the General Data Protection Regulation and also the Artificial Intelligence Act in a way that undermines workers’ rights and interests.