Debate contributions by Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR

Mr President, Mr Vice-President Séjourné, I never agreed that in the last parliamentary term the Vice-President responsible for fundamental rights was at the same time responsible for consumer protection. But I find that connection justified in this new legislative framework for digital and sustainable transitions to the circular economy. Because it is to strengthen the rights of Europeans, to strengthen the rights of consumers against the planned obsolescence of that fast fashion and that tendency to waste and throw away more than to repair and preserve. Because, obviously, it is a commitment to quality rather than quantity and because it is also a legislative act in which, finally, instead of degrading the European standard, we can strengthen it by increasing not only the protection of consumers, but the responsibility of companies to adapt to this new regulatory framework that forces them to strengthen sustainability and the incorporation of the European Union into the circular economy.

Mr President, Vice-President Ribera, a risk threatens this legislature from minute one: to degrade or dilute the legislative record of the last parliamentary term of the European Parliament: Digital Agenda, Digital Services Act, European Media Freedom Act, artificial intelligence in coherence with the General Data Protection Regulation, which sets the highest standard in the world for the protection of personal data... But that risk becomes a threat if, in addition, the European Union makes the error - often tried - of appeasement before the powerful, the giants on the network, Google. That's why he hears it clearly: This European Parliament supports this exemplary fine of EUR 3 billion for abuse of an unacceptable monopolistic advertising model by Google. But our work will not be complete until – delivering on our promise of strategic autonomy – we are able, according to the Draghi report, to also develop our own ‘digital sovereignty’, as some have called it. That is, to develop our own technology industry, and even public social networks that better protect the rights of Europeans.

Mr President, this debate on a European mental health strategy appeals to the legislative powers of this European Parliament on technology platforms, whose addictive algorithms have a decisive impact on minors where the suicide rate is the leading cause of death across the European Union, and is directly linked to internet access. The message is therefore very clear: the European Parliament must legislate on the protection of children online as a matter of urgency because it is imperative to lay down common rules on what will otherwise be fragmented and contradictory solutions from national parliaments. And the third lesson is yes: There is no longer a debate about health that does not incorporate mental health. But there is no debate on mental health that does not have to be seen in a regulation of children’s access to online platforms and internet services that is compatible with the privacy and confidentiality of personal data, of course, but also with dignity and the free development of personality, which are fundamental rights.

Mr President, I did not want to miss the opportunity to welcome the work of the Committee on Petitions, because it is a committee in which a fundamental right of European citizenship is substantiated. The petition is, from its conception in the Maastricht Treaty – but certainly in the Lisbon Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – a fundamental right. But we have to respect the perimeter of that fundamental right without distorting it and misreporting it, because it is very often the case that, when the sounding board, which is the European Parliament, is used legitimately to raise a concern, this concern has nothing to do with the competences of the European Parliament, and that is the meaning of the fundamental right to petition. And another way to distort it is to then give rise to the misunderstanding that the European Parliament will investigate a matter as if the European Parliament were a standing committee of inquiry. No, it is not a good service to the right of petition to go beyond the perimeter of its exercise: European institutional competences and a European sounding board for a citizen's concern.

Madam President, Commissioner Virkkunen, the Digital Agenda for Europe, the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act and the Artificial Intelligence Act were adopted by this European Parliament not only to make digital services and large technology platforms subject to EU law; not only to affirm the regulatory effect we call digital sovereignty – the so-called ‘Brussels effect’ – but also to protect the fundamental rights of the Charter, of citizenship and of democracy. The European model of democracy cannot, in any way, kneel before the business model of these large technological platforms and their addictive algorithms. Commissioner, therefore: firmness. No concession to the pressures of these technology companies and Trump, who protects them, because it is absolutely a question of defending that model without any concession, under the pretext of flexibility or simplification, to the dissolution or degradation of the standard set by this European Parliament last legislature.

Madam President, we have been debating a real threat for hours: the increasing and repeated violation of our airspace by Russian drones in Putin's hybrid war against the European Union and all that the Union stands for. And what lessons come from listening to President von der Leyen? The first, the unit. Of course I do. And the second is a strategy to build a European anti-drone wall and a European air and space defence shield. But it is not enough to state it. Of course, for it to be effective, it cannot depend on the increase of 27 fragmented efforts, of 27 national budgets. No. It is a book example of the need to aim for an integration of our cybersecurity capabilities with sophisticated technologies that detect and shoot down drones to deter Putin. But in addition, it must be credible. And this means that it cannot harm what the European Union really stands for. The generation of investments and resources requires the European Union's own resources and strategic investments and, therefore, cannot harm social or cohesion policy or solidarity. Nor, of course, that social pillar on which the dignity of work and housing that Europeans are so concerned about depends.

Mr President, the European Union is the first global actor in humanitarian aid and development cooperation. But just as we have not been able to translate all the aid to the Palestinian people into unity to impose sanctions on the genocidal Netanyahu government and suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement, we have also not been able to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the 31 August earthquake in Afghanistan and, in particular, of women subjected to the discriminatory brutality of the Taliban regime. The European Union is the first contributor to the International Criminal Court and yet, just as we have not been able to impose unity on the Member States in respect of the international arrest warrant against Netanyahu, so far we have not been able to bring the case for a crime against humanity – which falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, together with genocide and war crimes – against those responsible for the Taliban regime. And so this is the message of this item on the agenda: that the European Union should hold responsible for crimes against humanity those members of the Taliban regime who have imposed this brutal apartheid and end the silence, the apartheid and also with impunity.

Madam President, Commissioner Brunner, there is no room in the European Union for hatred or discrimination. I have defended this principle with passion and conviction in all my work in the European Parliament. I strongly supported and promoted the common definition of antisemitism, which should inspire educational actions and criminal legislation in all Member States. In my work as Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, then, I had the honour of chairing the Intergroup Against Anti-Semitism, in addition to supporting the Declaration on Supporting Jewish Life and Combating Anti-Semitism. And I affirm that there is no anti-Semitism in the dismayed demonstrations against the massacre and genocide of the Palestinian people, the brutal and disproportionate reaction of the Netanyahu government after the terrorist attacks of Hamas, which we condemned from the beginning. But there is certainly anti-Semitism in this increase in violence against Jewish communities in Europe, who have the right to live in freedom and security because they are an integral part of our plural identity. And so I say that the security of their places of residence, assembly and worship must be strengthened with the Internal Security Fund, so that we make it clear that not only is there no room for anti-Semitism or discrimination, but there is also no room for racism.

Madam President, Mr Prime Minister, there is a recognition of pro-European Luxembourg in a Union in which there are neither big nor small, since they are all necessary to fulfil common tasks. Luxembourg is the seat of the two most federally oriented institutions: the Court of Justice and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. But this federal vocation for integration also teaches that there can be no enlargement without the Council responding to the request made by the European Parliament last mandate: a political conference, in accordance with Article 48, to reform the rules of operation and to end unanimity. And, in addition, you have claimed Schengen. How not! But just as free movement is important, so too is perfecting the internal market by reducing unfair tax competition between the Member States of the European Union and, therefore, by making a clear commitment to tax harmonisation. So, Mr Prime Minister, show that pro-European vocation by bringing even more Europe from a country as big as all the others: Luxembourg.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President Séjourné, you have already seen it. No one disputes the importance of the single market as a major achievement and objective of the Union. It is disputed, however, that simplification amounts to reducing the standards and requirements of European law under pressure from large technology companies, whether American or Chinese. It is disputed that the single market can be completed or strengthened without further tax harmonisation. Because the single market is incompatible with tax havens, but also with the forum-shopping and the search for favourable jurisdictions that are not available to small businesses operating locally. And, of course, it is disputed that a correct reading of the Draghi and Letta reports can be done without major investments, with the Union's own resources, because it is absolutely impossible to do more with less.

Madam President, Commissioner Brunner, it is not gratifying that Netanyahu has signed that the European Union is irrelevant to any agreement in Gaza, but the truth is that, despite the forcefulness of the resolutions adopted in the last State of the Union debate, he has still proved incapable of sanctioning Netanyahu's genocidal government and suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement for serious violation of the human rights clause in Article 2. It was equally irrelevant on August 8 in the agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, two European states, no less than in the White House and before Trump, without there being any guarantee – contradicting Kaja Kallas – regarding respect for the human rights of Armenians expelled from Nagorno-Karabakh. But, also, in the State of the Union debate, it was clearly heard that the proposal for a multiannual financial framework that dissolves regional policy is unacceptable, which prevents a step of regional governance that is absolutely crucial for regions in need such as the outermost regions. Time is running against us and, therefore, greater integration is essential, not the return to the national square, because we do not want to...

Madam President, Commissioner Brunner, one of the innovations with the greatest political and constitutional impact of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, was to make visa policy a European policy, with common legislation. A competence that was, for a long time, distinctive of the Member States. And the European Parliament took it seriously, because it legislated, in effect, with a common European visa regulation and, annexed, also a regulation on visa exemption for third countries, under conditions of reciprocity, whose Article 8 allows its suspension in certain situations. And now, this Parliament has been involved in a legislative procedure; I greet your rapporteur, Matjaž Nemec - very well! - and the shadow rapporteurs, because it will be successfully completed in this parliamentary session, introducing novelties that are significant. You mentioned suspending the visa waiver agreement with those countries that engage in unacceptable visa waiver practices. golden passport, so criticized by this European Parliament: The European Parliament has shaken up those Member States that have practised them and, of course, those third countries. But it also provides for the suspension of the visa waiver for those countries that perpetrate hostile acts against the European Union with hybrid threats and, fundamentally, for those countries that commit serious violations of international humanitarian law, in violation of human rights. This is entirely relevant to the debate still pending on the implementation of sanctions against a State such as Israel – with the Netanyahu Government, with the serious crimes of genocide perpetrated in its indiscriminate and brutal offensive in Gaza – and the suspension of the Association Agreement with Israel, as mandated by this European Parliament in the State of the Union debate, is still pending. But, of course, we welcome this legislative agreement to amend the Visa Waiver Regulation. And I can only add, finally, that every parliamentary term in the European Parliament should be subject to a visa waiver. An extension of the visa exemption was pending in the last legislature, due to circumstances that I do not want to mention, but it affected countries that, like Ecuador, are homologating their visa policy to the European one, in the aspiration of being beneficiaries of that visa exemption that, as you have stressed, protects not only the European Union, but also the citizens of third countries in conditions of reciprocity, encouraging not only cultural activity and tourist exchange, but also the opportunity to influence through the visits of visa-free Europeans to those third countries.

Madam President, Commissioner Micallef, surely the most eloquent and beautiful definition of the European Union is that it is a pact of solidarity, interterritorial and interregional; social, but also intergenerational. And it is good to remember, because Europe has always been known as the Old Continent, and it looks to be an old continent. Reflection on this active ageing and dignity of older people is therefore absolutely essential in Europe. But it is also an opportunity to step up and deny this pretense that young people, who for the first time are looking to live worse than their parents and their elders, should not see the elders as rivals or as guilty of this worsening of perspectives. No, no. The responsibility lies in the weakening of the European social pillar. And only the restoration of the European Social Pillar, on the occasion of this European strategy of active ageing and dignity of the elderly, can restore that solidarity-based intergenerational pact of incomes between young and old.

Madam President, Russian drones in the Union! In Poland, a member state of the European Union that has seen all the borders inherited from the Second World War modified, but which has a direct border with Russia in Kaliningrad. Can we believe the Kremlin when it says that these were lost and out of control drones? Evidently not. How to react with cold head and blood, but, above all, with unity? In the Atlantic Alliance there is Article 4, prelude to Article 5 on collective defence. And in the Treaty on European Union we have an instrument of solidarity, Article 42. But solidarity is not enough, unity is needed. And unity will not be the sum of twenty-seven fragmented defense efforts, twenty-six defense efforts in addition to Poland's; No, it will be a common strategy, sharing intelligence, tools and resources. And these resources cannot be diverted from political, regional or cohesion solidarity, they must be new resources, new instruments and programmes that demonstrate the will to be of Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, according to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the right to education is a fundamental right, and access to higher education – the university – is a European public good. Hence the Bologna process, which is named after the oldest university in Europe and the world, the Erasmus programme and, now, this university alliance instrument, which seeks to promote not only a European academic degree – and therefore inter-university cooperation, promoting student mobility – but also competitiveness, and which requires stable and sustainable funding. But I place particular emphasis on their regional chapter, because the universities of the outermost regions have an enormous opportunity to make their case in the great neighbourhood – far away, yes – of the great area of European integration, but they are as European as the rest of the Spanish universities. The outermost regions therefore have enormous potential to promote their external projection, mobility and the competitiveness of their universities.

Mr President, Commissioner McGrath, do you realise how many times in this plenary session of the European Parliament, including in the State of the Union debate, there has been talk of digital platforms and their business model as a European problem? Because only from Europe can the tooth sink to that oligarchy that has been called "techno-feudalism", which escapes European law if it can. Therefore, there is a problem not only of tax fairness, as has been said, of tax justice, that they pay the part that corresponds to them and do it as we pay all other taxpayers: where they generate their profits. No, there is also a problem of what has been called – I do not know if with a very successful lexicon – ‘European sovereignty’, ‘Brussels Effect’, the ability of the European Union to impose its rights on the network giants. But, thirdly, it is a problem of credibility of the European Union, especially when after having made a fool of himself at the appointment of the Scottish golf course, shaking Trump's hand to try to placate him, he still threatens with sanctions anyone who dares to impose fair taxation on the technological giants of Silicon Valley. It is completely intolerable: fair taxation is a European necessity.

Madam President, Commissioner, this Parliament, you know well, has done everything in its power to establish a political cycle with a binding framework of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights that prevents - and not only corrects when it is too late - deviations from the European standard, which is binding on all Member States. The European Union is not only a market or an interest club, but also values and a European model of the rule of law and democracy that all Member States have an obligation to fulfil. At one point we had to deal with the autocratic drift of the Orbán government in Hungary and then came the "Orbanites", which is what we call the Orbán imitators: for a while we had the Polish question - also subject to the procedure of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union - and now we have a challenge with Slovakia. The government of Slovakia deviates notoriously from the European standard and challenges it, with a prime minister who shakes Putin's hand and comes solicitously to interview him and Xi, without any European coverage, without representing either the values or the European standard: dismantling the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, attacking the independent press, frighteningly pushing back freedoms in Slovakia... It is an issue in which we have not only the obligation to ensure, to monitor, but also to warn that the conditionality of the rule of law was designed exactly to prevent and block access to European funds and the European budget for governments that do not comply with their obligations, with the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. This is the time to set eyes on Slovakia and to support the mission carried out in that country by the Committee on Freedoms, Justice and Home Affairs, which once again suffered – I remember it well because I was part of those missions on more than one occasion – unworthy treatment for the European Parliament, which is neither a UFO nor an external interference in a Member State, but a direct democratic representation of Slovak citizenship in so far as that citizenship is also European.

Madam President, Commissioner Kubilius, this morning, upon hearing the news of the flagrant violation of Polish airspace – European ergo – by Russian drones, we heard President von der Leyen in the State of the Union debate make a very concrete commitment to the European defence industry. Yes, we know that there has not been in history a more effective engine of federal unity than defense, because the teaching is clear; in no case will we be stronger by adding the fragmented efforts of the 27 Member States, but also by not detracting resources from the distinctive policies of the European Union: cohesion, solidarity and regional policy. What is meant, in this debate, is that it is clear that we must support this reinforcement against interference in air navigation – the Galileo system – but, fundamentally, we must support that – in order for us to have a common unity of force – it is essential to have common intelligence that leads to common action, not only by the Member States, but by the Union as a whole, with European added value.

Madam President, Commissioner, yes, attacks against the European model of democracy that protects its law are becoming more frequent, intense and disruptive, coming from foreign interference, but not only from state actors – notoriously Russia – but also from non-state actors, such as those digital platforms with social networks, whose business model is addictive algorithms that devastate European values and cause unquantifiable damage in the new generations – as we know well those of us who have sons and daughters –, polarising, confronting and generating hatred. This requires not only digital literacy, but above all European law. The Special Committee on the European Shield of Democracy, which was launched in this European Parliament on 18 December 2024, has just renewed its mandate for another year, but it will draw conclusions, and the important thing is for the Commission to turn those conclusions into new legislation to strengthen not only the deterrent capacity against Russia and its interference, but also against digital platforms, with fines as strong as the one that this Commission – Commissioner Teresa Ribera – has had the courage to take forward against Google.

Madam President, Commissioner, you mentioned in your speech that tourism is an industry that generates millions of jobs in the European Union and accounts for 10% of its gross domestic product (GDP). In some regions particularly dependent on this industry, such as the Canary Islands, it accounts for 35% of GDP and 36% of employment, and the collapse of Thomas Cook meant a catastrophe for consumer rights, but also for the regional economy as a whole. A European consumer protection framework that strengthens legal certainty and the attention of large tourism companies to European rules is also essential to prevent employers from imposing abusive conditions, which have to be faced not only with the courage of certain governments – as is the case with Spanish – but with the support of European law. And one last recommendation: an information campaign that expands the awareness of their rights on the part of all those who are exposed to the new rules to strengthen the protection of consumer rights in the tourism and package travel industry.

Mr Tarr, does it not seem strange to you that, so far, no speaker on behalf of the EPP Group - to which Mrs von der Leyen belongs - has mentioned the paragraph of your speech in the debate on the State of the Union dedicated to migration and asylum, which is surely the most challenging and sustained issue in time, since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force? Because he mentioned that there is a need for a joint fight against smuggling and its business model, but also for strict compliance with the obligations contained in the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which include shared responsibility and mandatory solidarity between Member States. Doesn't it seem strange to you that the only mention of the matter came from the speech...

Mr President, when we are debating here the hybrid threats and the interferences looming over the impending elections in Moldova, we are calling the elephant in the room by its name: Putin's Russia, which maintains a military presence in Transnistria (Moldova's secessionist) and which has also made it clear that any extension of the European Union to the east – let alone NATO – will not only not contribute to the security of the continent but, on the contrary, will expand military objectives in what it claims as its zone of influence. Therefore, to support Moldova's progress towards the European Union, it is not enough to applaud its President as we have done this morning, or with resolutions and good words. There is also a need for political will and unity of external action, which in this legislature has been seriously weakened by the promise of strategic autonomy. And that means that, when we have agreed to extend the mandate of the Special Committee on the European Shield of Democracy, what needs to be done is to draw the lessons for the Commission to take concrete initiatives, to show that words and good intentions and soft power are not enough to defend the European idea of democracy.

Madam President, the survival of a regional governance echelon in cohesion policy is not only an existential examination of Europe's raison d'être, but also of the sense of belonging of the citizens whom this Parliament represents, especially in island and remote regions such as the outermost regions. And you can't do more with less. The priorities for the Socialist Group are therefore set out in the cohesion policy that is identified with social policy: funding for emergencies – which are becoming more frequent and devastating – but also funding for a new priority: housing policy. This new pillar of cohesion is ideologically divisive, because there are those who approach housing as a good of market and speculation, but we socialists do it as a right that the European Union has the obligation to attend to, with sufficient funding, and it has to be embedded in cohesion policy with a step of regional governance.

Madam President, High Representative Kallas, there are two debates this morning in plenary on Ukraine and Gaza, conflicts of very different causality and nature, but with a common thread that denounces the impotence that threatens the irrelevance and hypocrisy of the European Union's foreign policy. The "coalition of the willing" is a surrogate for the absence of unanimity, which means that there is no position of the European Union, and part of that coalition integrates countries that are no longer in the European Union, such as the United Kingdom. The most serious thing is not that the premise on the security of Ukraine requires a peace that is far from sight, nor that Putin says, clearly, that the involvement of the European Union in the security of Ukraine does not translate into security for Ukraine but into insecurity for the whole of the European Union. The most serious thing is that, in the scenarios in which all this is discussed, the European Union is neither waiting nor waiting for it, in blatant betrayal of the proclaimed promise of its strategic autonomy.

Mr President, the intensity of the meetings of the Contact Group on Asylum of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament expresses the commitment to the implementation of the obligations of the institutions and the Member States with regard to the legislation adopted in the Pact on Migration and Asylum. And in the last session we had an intense conversation with the designated EU Solidarity Coordinator, who also expresses interest in the redeployment of rescued people in the external border regions. But in these regions there are also interventions of the Frontex agency that must be respectful, in any case, not only with the mandate, binding in its Regulation, of respect for fundamental rights (which includes fundamental rights agents), but with the regulations on the protection of personal data and the confidentiality of such personal data, which is the highest in the world, something of which we are very proud. Therefore, in this context it is extremely deplorable that solidarity is encountering so much obstruction and so many difficulties in Spain, despite the efforts of its Government, due to the obstruction of the regions governed by the Popular Party.