Debate contributions by Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR

Madam President, Commissioner McGrath, what a bad thing it is to have hostile neighbours, the enemy at the gates! Putin's Russia, immediate border with the European Union, with its Kaliningrad enclave in Poland and its proxy, Lukashenko's Belarus, which threatens us with drones, balloons and attacks on the critical infrastructure of the European Union, but also with espionage and bribery. There we have seen national parliaments of the Member States bought by the interests of Russian military intelligence and a European parliamentarian, in the last legislature, also affected by that complicity with Russian espionage. Therefore, our response cannot be only reactive: 19 packages of sanctions against Russia, of course, but it has to be constructive and purposeful. If the Russians have an intelligence that acts against our interests, we must have a counterintelligence and a shared intelligence: a service that develops that effective intelligence embryo that we have in the European External Action Service to prevent and respond to when needed. In addition, it is imperative that we draw the consequences of the experience of the Special Committee on the European Shield of Democracy, not only to protect electoral systems, but also to be able to respond to that hybrid threat that disrupts the opinion-forming process in the Member States of the European Union and in the Union as a whole. It is the way to put an end to this constant interference of Russian espionage in the integrity of the democratic processes of the Member States and of the Union itself.

Madam President, Commissioner McGrath, what a bad thing it is to have hostile neighbours, the enemy at the gates! Putin's Russia, immediate border with the European Union, with its Kaliningrad enclave in Poland and its proxy, Lukashenko's Belarus, which threatens us with drones, balloons and attacks on the critical infrastructure of the European Union, but also with espionage and bribery. There we have seen national parliaments of the Member States bought by the interests of Russian military intelligence and a European parliamentarian, in the last legislature, also affected by that complicity with Russian espionage. Therefore, our response cannot be only reactive: 19 packages of sanctions against Russia, of course, but it has to be constructive and purposeful. If the Russians have an intelligence that acts against our interests, we must have a counterintelligence and a shared intelligence: a service that develops that effective intelligence embryo that we have in the European External Action Service to prevent and respond to when needed. In addition, it is imperative that we draw the consequences of the experience of the Special Committee on the European Shield of Democracy, not only to protect electoral systems, but also to be able to respond to that hybrid threat that disrupts the opinion-forming process in the Member States of the European Union and in the Union as a whole. It is the way to put an end to this constant interference of Russian espionage in the integrity of the democratic processes of the Member States and of the Union itself.

Madam President, Commissioner, the adoption, by this European Parliament, in 2020, of the Regulation on conditionality of access to European funds to compliance with the constitutional values of Article 2 (of the Treaty on European Union) was a formidable impetus to make it mandatory for all Member States subject – and not, in the event of a breach, to the imposition of Article 7 sanctions. However, it was not by chance that that regulation was appealed before the Court of Justice of the European Union by Hungary and Poland at the time, and the Court of Justice fully confirmed its compliance with European law. It is now a question of strengthening it – this is what this report proposes – so that precisely those shortcomings that have been identified – the Commission’s delay in taking decisions, the lack of transparency in the criteria for hearings and, above all, the difficulty of making the fund applicable to its ultimate beneficiaries, to its addressees, despite the imposition of conditionality – give rise to some lessons, as well as, of course, the possibility of strengthening its communication with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the scrutiny to be exercised by this European Parliament, which takes the rule of law very seriously. That's what the conditionality rule is all about: take the constitutional values of Article 2 seriously.

Madam President, Commissioner, the adoption, by this European Parliament, in 2020, of the Regulation on conditionality of access to European funds to compliance with the constitutional values of Article 2 (of the Treaty on European Union) was a formidable impetus to make it mandatory for all Member States subject – and not, in the event of a breach, to the imposition of Article 7 sanctions. However, it was not by chance that that regulation was appealed before the Court of Justice of the European Union by Hungary and Poland at the time, and the Court of Justice fully confirmed its compliance with European law. It is now a question of strengthening it – this is what this report proposes – so that precisely those shortcomings that have been identified – the Commission’s delay in taking decisions, the lack of transparency in the criteria for hearings and, above all, the difficulty of making the fund applicable to its ultimate beneficiaries, to its addressees, despite the imposition of conditionality – give rise to some lessons, as well as, of course, the possibility of strengthening its communication with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the scrutiny to be exercised by this European Parliament, which takes the rule of law very seriously. That's what the conditionality rule is all about: take the constitutional values of Article 2 seriously.

Mr President, Commissioner, explaining the European legislative procedure in a 700-seat Parliament and then approving 27 governments is not easy. But not only is it incomprehensible that this horizontal anti-discrimination directive has been blocked for no less than 13 years, but it is also unacceptable. We call it horizontal precisely because it is transversal and cross-sectoral and reinforces the possibility of protecting oneself against any discrimination prohibited by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the beauty of which is that it protects not only Europeans, but anyone – therefore also foreigners – and has a state-of-the-art anti-discrimination clause: not only does it prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion or belief, but it also prohibits discrimination based on age, disability, sexual orientation, property and the protection of minorities. Therefore, this Directive would strengthen the ability to protect against discrimination established by Member States in their legislation, as is the well-known case of Hungary, with its anti-LGTBI laws even criminalising Pride. Therefore, Presidency, it is high time to unblock this anti-discrimination directive and overcome the resistance of that minority of Member States that still refuse to accept it.

Mr President, Commissioner, explaining the European legislative procedure in a 700-seat Parliament and then approving 27 governments is not easy. But not only is it incomprehensible that this horizontal anti-discrimination directive has been blocked for no less than 13 years, but it is also unacceptable. We call it horizontal precisely because it is transversal and cross-sectoral and reinforces the possibility of protecting oneself against any discrimination prohibited by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the beauty of which is that it protects not only Europeans, but anyone – therefore also foreigners – and has a state-of-the-art anti-discrimination clause: not only does it prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion or belief, but it also prohibits discrimination based on age, disability, sexual orientation, property and the protection of minorities. Therefore, this Directive would strengthen the ability to protect against discrimination established by Member States in their legislation, as is the well-known case of Hungary, with its anti-LGTBI laws even criminalising Pride. Therefore, Presidency, it is high time to unblock this anti-discrimination directive and overcome the resistance of that minority of Member States that still refuse to accept it.

Mr President, Commissioner Šefčovič, we agree that Trump’s national security strategy – an insult to the European Union – accelerates our strategic autonomy and our declaration of independence. But the question is: how? With a multi-annual financial framework that does not have enough resources, that renationalises its policies in national envelopes and that does not provide funding for a European problem such as affordable public housing, the intervention of rental markets and the regulation of the intervention of vulture funds? How? Giving in to the green ambition policy to prolong combustion automotive? Or giving in to the blackmail of the great technological oligarchs who control polarizing algorithms? Isn't that what Trump wants by supporting far-right nationalisms and populisms? A weak and divided Europe? It is clear that the answer is the opposite: a united Europe, with a will to be, finally awake and faithful to its values.

Mr President, Commissioner Brunner, Lukashenko's Belarus is an indirect agent of Putin's Russia, a direct border with Lithuania, Latvia and Poland and therefore a very real threat. A number of points on the same agenda for the Strasbourg plenary session make this clear. We talked about the European Defence Strategy. We have spoken of defence preparedness, of the defence industry, of ReArmar Europe, to answer precisely that threat which is very hot and very real. But it is necessary not only to invest in security and cybersecurity, but also to show solidarity with Lithuania in the face of these balloon and drone attacks – which are multiplying and disrupting the operation of critical infrastructure and airports – by clearly invoking the article of internal solidarity of the European Union, Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union, which precisely guarantees that joint security of the entire Union and which sends a very powerful message. They won't be able to join us, no matter how thugs they get.

Mr President, Commissioner Brunner, Lukashenko's Belarus is an indirect agent of Putin's Russia, a direct border with Lithuania, Latvia and Poland and therefore a very real threat. A number of points on the same agenda for the Strasbourg plenary session make this clear. We talked about the European Defence Strategy. We have spoken of defence preparedness, of the defence industry, of ReArmar Europe, to answer precisely that threat which is very hot and very real. But it is necessary not only to invest in security and cybersecurity, but also to show solidarity with Lithuania in the face of these balloon and drone attacks – which are multiplying and disrupting the operation of critical infrastructure and airports – by clearly invoking the article of internal solidarity of the European Union, Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union, which precisely guarantees that joint security of the entire Union and which sends a very powerful message. They won't be able to join us, no matter how thugs they get.

Mr President, pain and horror at a brutal anti-Semitic terrorist attack on Bondi Beach in Sydney. Infinite solidarity with families and condolences, as well as families, to shocked Australia. And honor the anonymous hero Akhmed, a Muslim who risked his own life to save peaceful Jews celebrating Hanukkah. Not anti-Semitism, not barbarism. In Australia, in the European Union and everywhere. Criticism of a particular action by a particular Israeli Government is legitimate, but in no case is criminal violence or hate speech leading to hate crime. Protecting Jewish life was the strategy adopted by the Union as a whole in the last legislature and remains in force. It is an unconditional commitment to the dignity and security with which the Jewish community has the right to live in any free society, which implies an unconditional absolute condemnation of any criminal violence and any terrorist act.

Mr President, pain and horror at a brutal anti-Semitic terrorist attack on Bondi Beach in Sydney. Infinite solidarity with families and condolences, as well as families, to shocked Australia. And honor the anonymous hero Akhmed, a Muslim who risked his own life to save peaceful Jews celebrating Hanukkah. Not anti-Semitism, not barbarism. In Australia, in the European Union and everywhere. Criticism of a particular action by a particular Israeli Government is legitimate, but in no case is criminal violence or hate speech leading to hate crime. Protecting Jewish life was the strategy adopted by the Union as a whole in the last legislature and remains in force. It is an unconditional commitment to the dignity and security with which the Jewish community has the right to live in any free society, which implies an unconditional absolute condemnation of any criminal violence and any terrorist act.