Debate contributions by Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR

Madam President, High Representative Kallas, the debate shows that the interest in Greenland is due to the fact that your case is certainly unique, not because the melting of the Arctic and the opening of new sea routes, in addition to its extraordinary resources, have put it on the radar of the ambitions of only China or Russia – both nuclear powers – but also that of the United States, with offensive, aggressive language, which does not even rule out the use of force. But it is unique also because, from a constitutional point of view, Greenland was an integral part of the European Union until 1984, when a referendum, which was then followed by a Danish constitutional decision, changed its status and removed it from the territorial area of application of EU law, but not from the intense cooperation of the European Union through Denmark, which ensures its external relations and its defence. Therefore, the lesson is clear: the European Union has an obligation to stand by the Kingdom of Denmark, so that we can ensure that under no circumstances are we prepared to contemplate any change in the status quo of Greenland that does not pass through the free expression of will of the Greenlanders and, of course, their corresponding constitutional assemblage in Denmark.

Mr President, in the debate on the 2023 discharge of the European Parliament, we in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs have an outstanding account, because this is the committee responsible for the reform of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. This outstanding account is the one that affects the fulfilment of a mandate adopted in an Interinstitutional Agreement that is the source of binding law for all the European institutions and also for this European Parliament: this is the Interinstitutional Body for Ethical Standards, which should incorporate independent experts ensuring transparency, accountability and accountability in the European Parliament while maintaining the highest and highest standards of integrity of the institution and its members. It is a lesson learned from recent experiences – particularly the bad ones – and I therefore believe that it is appropriate to draw the attention of those parliamentary groups that are currently putting sticks on the wheels of compliance with the Interinstitutional Agreement so that, before granting discharge to the European Parliament for 2023, the mandate of the Interinstitutional Agreement is fulfilled.

Mr President, Commissioner, when the current multiannual financial framework was adopted, we had not overcome the COVID-19 crisis nor had we had to face the war in Ukraine and the increase in energy prices, nor the migratory peaks that we have seen in Lampedusa and the Canary Islands. Therefore, the lesson is clear: the next Multiannual Financial Framework, if it is to respond to all these new priorities – in addition to climate disasters, which demand emergency and solidarity resources – it is essential that it be expansionary, incorporating own resources and common European debt, and that it do everything without departing from the classic policies that are the raison d’être of the European Union: regional policy, cohesion policy and internal solidarity in the European Union. But, in addition, the European Parliament demands greater prominence in the decision, and this is possible with the passerelle clause provided for in Article 312 of the Treaty on European Union, so that it is not only the Council that spares the resources demanded by the European Parliament, but that the European Parliament is fully involved in the decision of the next multiannual financial framework.

Mr President, Commissioner Šefčovič, it is clear that Trump's return to the White House has meant a kick to the board of global disorder and that the dilemma is clear in this debate. It is not possible to get ahead or break down, there is only a unitary reaction to defend a world based on rules and multilateralism, including in global trade. But there's one message that hasn't emerged yet that we have to be especially unanimous about, and that's telling Trump: ‘the EU was not designed to screw the US’. In no case was the European Union made to annoy the United States. The European idea is endogenous. The European idea has value in itself and the European Union must assert itself autonomously: strategic autonomy and also autonomy against those unilateral measures against which only fair and proportionate countermeasures can be opposed, but, above all, affirming the autonomy and raison d'être of the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, I signed, in March 2012, the Declaration that the European Parliament made to establish 6 March as the European Day in memory of the Righteous, in memory of all those who sacrificed themselves in the tortured 20th century in Europe to save lives in the face of Nazi-fascist and Stalinist totalitarianisms, but, above all, of those who sacrificed themselves to save lives from the genocides perpetrated by those totalitarianisms that went through the 20th century, from Armenia to Cambodia to Bosnia to Rwanda. That memory of the Righteous also reminds us that genocide is an international crime for which the International Criminal Court is responsible, as it is against crimes against humanity and against crimes of aggression. It is therefore sad and shameful that we know today that Hungary withdraws – the only withdrawing Member State – from the Rome Statute, which is upheld by the International Criminal Court, following Netanyahu’s visit, in flagrant violation of its obligations as a Member State of the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union absolutely prohibits any discrimination based on race, ethnic origin or membership of a minority. However, all these discriminations occur too much against the Roma community. That is why, within the framework of the EU Anti-Racism Action Plan 2020-2025, a European strategy against anti-Gypsyism was developed. However, five years later, the result is that, for the first time in this legislature, there is no member of the Roma community in the European Parliament. And look how great we've had them. The European strategy calls on Member States to have national frameworks against anti-Gypsyism, including their inclusion, equality and participation. It is therefore for the Commission to ensure that, with the assistance of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the National Contact Points, all remaining obstacles to the integration, inclusion and full participation of the Roma community are effectively removed. So, Commissioner, there you have a task as an equality officer. In addition to crisis preparedness, Commissioner for Equality has the task of monitoring that Member States effectively comply with their national frameworks and that no one misses the appointment of the elimination of discrimination against the Roma community and its members.

Madam President, Commissioner McGrath, yes, we already know that there are countless debates and resolutions that this European Parliament joins against the government in Hungary of Viktor Orbán. Fifteen years of crushing minorities in their despotic and corrupt drift and violation of European law and all the rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Starting with the prohibition of non-discrimination. We can talk about the school law, we can talk about the ban on LGTBI demonstrations, we can talk about their favoring Putin in the Council, which has forced everyone else to form a coalition of volunteers to circumvent the rule of unanimity. We can talk about him receiving Netanyahu by violating that Hungary is part of the International Criminal Court, which has issued an arrest warrant against him. You will not be impressed by infringement proceedings, Commissioner McGrath, because you have not even been impressed by the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The only remaining step is, finally, to implement Article 7, which was activated by this European Parliament, with all its consequences and, therefore, to demand from the Council that, excluding Hungary, it takes the decision once and for all to deprive Hungary of its voting rights.

Madam President, Commissioner, this debate on the executive decision of the Trump presidency to withdraw through the United States Agency for Global Media all funding and support for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which have great symbolic value, is, in my view, one of the many debates in which we can entertain ourselves in detail without losing sight of the category, the underlying problem. The underlying problem is that Trump presidency, completely disruptive and against freedoms, in an example of a manual in which a populism voted at the polls shakes hands with authoritarianism and autocracies, and directly attacks a freedom as fundamental as that which allows in a free society the formation of a public opinion formed through the contrast of the veracity of the news and information pluralism. Therefore, the European Union now has a duty to accelerate its mission to fill that gap as well, and it can do so only if it acts together with the necessary resources to not only support those means, but also to ensure that that freedom of information is not left unprotected.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President Fitto, do you know that cohesion policy is surely, together with the fundamental right to free movement, the most precious asset of European integration? If it needs reform, it is in no case to end its shared management, its territorial approach and its multilevel governance. Surely it needs reform, to begin with, to increase its resources in the next multiannual financial framework and also to allow it to speed up its management to respond to natural disasters, which are increasingly frequent. But above all, it needs reform to boost the social dimension of cohesion in regional policy, which is absolutely sensitive, particularly for the most vulnerable regions and the outermost regions. And let's not say to ensure social inclusion: introducing a housing policy at European level that gives hope to the new generations and also, of course, ensuring a social policy that remains the main engine for legitimising European integration.

Madam President, Commissioner Lahbib, a European preparedness strategy to improve its capacity to respond to threats and risks certainly requires pointing out what those threats are, be they natural disasters and increasingly frequent extreme weather events, man-made disasters, cybersecurity attacks, hybrid threats or even geopolitical crises with imminent aggressions. But above all, it requires anticipation in a civil protection mechanism that is capable of integrating civilian and military capabilities and public and private capabilities. And, most importantly, let there be no concession to fear, no longer to the caricature of the survival kit, but above all to fear, which is the seed of populism and regressive dystopias in which the soul of the European Union is lost. Effective pro-European communication is therefore absolutely essential for preparing for the worst.

Mr President, Commissioner Brunner, European security has an external dimension that we have been discussing a lot for some time, but it was high time that we discussed internal security with that strategy that should succeed the one currently in place from 2025. And you will understand that none of your tools can surprise those of us who have been advocating for them for a long time. Firstly, the operational coordination and complementarity of Europol and Eurojust in order to optimise their results. Secondly, of course, we have an anti-drug and anti-gun plan. Why not relentlessly enforce the criminal legislation against arms trafficking that we have already put in place in this European Parliament? And, in the same way, to complete the negotiations to ensure the protection of minors from online sexual abuse, because this Parliament has also done its job and it is now up to the Council to do so. But above all, action must be taken against terrorism. Of course, not only against its sources of funding, not only against the spread of its contents online, but also against the radicalisation that produces and encourages it. And finally, digital infrastructures, digital information, sharing digital information so that we are able to protect our critical communications with even tools. But none of this would be complete if we did not also consider the importance of combating all forms of hate speech, anti-Semitism, anti-Gypsyism and racism. Hatred that directly incites crime and violence. Because without it our internal security strategy will not be complete.

Madam President, Mrs Kallas, in a turbulent world of global disorder in which authoritarianisms and autocracies clash with national-populisms to the detriment of human rights, the European Parliament’s 2024 human rights report analyses not only trends and challenges, but also the tools at its disposal. I underline some important ones. The first is to target visa policy in favour of human rights activists – humanitarian visas. The second is to give priority in the funding of European programmes to United Nations agencies dealing with human rights and non-governmental organisations in order to strengthen civil society. The third is to condemn those restrictive measures against officials and workers of the International Criminal Court. And the fourth, to focus on the prohibition of arms sales to those regimes that massively violate human rights. In addition to ensuring that spyware purchased by the European Union is in no case used against human rights activists.

Madam President, Mr President Costa, Commissioner Šefčovič, often the most useful Council conclusions are those that have not been written down but can be read between the lines. The first is the untenable unanimity in foreign policy decisions, which has forced 26 Member States to form a coalition of volunteers to once again exclude a Hungary whose government is increasingly incompatible not only with its responsibilities as a partner of the Union but even with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – as we will discuss elsewhere in this plenary session. The second is that when the importance of the external dimension of migration policy is stressed, there is always an emphasis on returns and instrumentalisation, but never enough that it will only be possible to negotiate with the countries from which desperate people come if there is also a diplomatic architecture, with agreements that are mutually interesting, in addition to a common visa policy that includes humanitarian visas and legal and safe pathways. And the third, when we talk about multilateralism with rules, we must insist that the European Union must have a common strategy for reforming the United Nations system, which is becoming increasingly obsolete, and at least a consonant representation in the Security Council with the two members that Europe has in the Security Council.

Madam President, Commissioner Roswall, on 28 March the General Affairs Council met to discuss the future of regional and cohesion policy in the multiannual financial framework to come after 2027. It is an extremely sensitive issue for the most vulnerable regions of the European Union and particularly for the outermost regions. Next week the representatives of the outermost regions will meet and this meeting will also involve parliamentarians who were born and reside in those regions, such as the Canary Islands, and we have two concerns that will resonate in their conclusions. The first is that, on the horizon of the new foreign and security and defence policy priorities, the classic policies of the European Union will never be harmed. Regional and cohesion policy certainly is. But, secondly, that there is also enough to meet the new priorities: housing, the fight against poverty and the emergency fund against these disasters, which are increasingly common in remote regions. But there is also a concern about maintaining the shared management system and the regional horizon that allows regions to be a decisive step in the management of regional policies and cohesion policies.

Madam President, Commissioner, this parliamentary term of the European Parliament starts as it all does, forced to learn from your experiences, and particularly from the bad ones. It does so with a commitment to strengthening its integrity, transparency and accountability. Why? Because in the last legislature we had a bad experience with the so-called 'Qatargate', which forced this European Parliament to take very seriously the obligation to strengthen its standards of accountability and transparency. That is exactly why we negotiated and agreed with the other European institutions, in accordance with the legal basis provided by Article 295 of the Treaty on the Functioning and Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union, an interinstitutional agreement. Therefore, it is already in time to fulfil the mandate acquired by this European Parliament to reform its Rules of Procedure to put in place an ethics body that incorporates representatives of the institutions, but also five independent experts. They will help to share best practices and raise the European Parliament's accountability standard. This is in addition to the Anti-Corruption Directive, which is already in advanced negotiation with the Council, and the Special Committee on the European Shield of Democracy, which sends a message to citizens. We cannot miss the opportunity to say that we have to reform the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, without dragging our feet, in order to finally put the ethical body on its feet. The sooner the better.

Mr President, Commissioner Hansen, this debate on the confiscation of Russian assets has been presided over by the living awareness of this European Parliament that it has done everything in its power to help Ukraine in the face of a Russian war of aggression, which, incidentally, is an international crime under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, as this Parliament has also declared. We have supported the freezing of EUR 250 billion and we are ready to support the political objective, to give a solid legal basis, by amending the Regulation, to transform the freezing into confiscation. But this affects not only foreign and security and defence policy, but also the internal market in its financial market variant. It must therefore be done with complete legal certainty, which is what makes the difference to any arbitrariness and creates a permanent legal regime. Thus, this precedent – which effectively makes it possible to finance the necessary reconstruction of Ukraine and thus fulfil the prognosis that we will support Ukraine as much as it takes, not only as long as it takes— It has continuity and sends a message to the world that we are willing to confiscate the assets before...

Mr President, Commissioner Hansen, the alleged legal arguments invoking the sovereign right of the Member States to their family laws and the need for unanimity to change that competence actually hide prejudices – that is, ideological prejudices – which are incompatible with the obligation of the Member States to respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which enshrines free movement without discrimination and, in particular, protects the best interests of the child. This is exactly the aim of the European Parenthood Regulation, which it is essential to take forward in order to ensure that no child is discriminated against in any Member State on the basis of his or her origin; because it is not acceptable for the child to be made guilty of the alleged family from which he comes and which he does not like in certain Member States. No one is required either to accept same-sex marriage or to accept surrogacy. What they are required to do is to respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which, with the same legal value as the Treaties, is binding on all Member States.

Madam President, Commissioner, three clear lessons emerge from this debate on European defence. The first is that strengthening European defence cannot depend on increasing 27 fragmented national budgets, because without interoperability and common structures we will not have any deterrent capacity vis-à-vis Russia, even though our army and our joint budgets are superior to theirs; Not, of course, without the NATO umbrella and with a White House detached from the collective security commitment of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Secondly, in order to correctly reinterpret the collective security clause of the Treaty on European Union (Article 42(7)), what we need to do is to specialise in the combination of military capabilities, innovation and cybersecurity by adding value. And the third lesson is that this cannot be done at the expense of either the European Pillar of Social Rights or European cohesion, so it is imperative to test new financing tools and instruments, including, of course, the common debt to underpin Europe's defensive effort.

Madam President, Commissioner, as far as the Return Regulation is concerned, you have heard points and criticisms that must be addressed, because a regulation creates obligations for the Member States and it is not, therefore, a matter of opening up to them the margin of manoeuvre in the view that migrants and asylum seekers are a threat to our security. First point: For returns to be possible, what is needed is an architecture of agreements with countries of origin and transit that allow them to be dignified, a diplomatic architecture that currently does not exist. But secondly, detention centres in third countries, which are neither of origin nor of transit, for up to two years, are not only not an imaginative solution, but run counter to the human rights standard to which the European Union is owed. And one last point: there is no point in modifying the safe third country regime that we negotiated and established in the EU Common Asylum Procedure Regulation before giving it the opportunity to enter fully into force.

Madam President, Commissioner, in this debate in the European Parliament there has been talk of an omnibus package and we have referred to the needs of the outermost regions. There is also talk of the European Social Fund and the reformulation of regional policy, which requires that this regional dimension be respected in the definition and implementation of the policy that corresponds to the particularly vulnerable outermost regions, but with a specific legal basis as well. We will also be talking about outermost regions when we discuss the Return Directive tomorrow, because they are external border regions that, in any case, show – as happens when we discuss the disaster on the island of Réunion and the need to specialise emergency response and civil protection in regions increasingly exposed to extreme weather events – that we have a special legal basis to protect those particularly vulnerable regions that are the external border of the European Union. Commissioner, that is the common thread and, therefore, there must be commitment to the external border regions and to the outermost regions in all the defining chapters of the European Union because, if we want to reformulate European policy, we cannot ignore that it is portrayed where it is most needed: in border regions.

Madam President, Commissioner, this omnibus package is the first major legislative initiative of the von der Leyen II Commission and sets the tone for the legislature. But the tone of this European Parliament's response has been announced: Simplification is not deregulation. Can the reform of the InvestEU Regulation move in the right direction because it makes it possible to optimise all currently available instruments and funds – even legacy ones – to try to incentivise innovation, research and competitiveness without renouncing the commitment to sustainability and the environment, to which almost half of the Regulation’s investments are dedicated? The degradation of due diligence, climate targets and environmental commitment may, but is not moving in the right direction. Because if the Commission does that in the service of the big economic interests that complain about overregulation, we have the right to suspect that it will do the same when it comes to degrading the Digital Agenda at the service of the big tech corporations, or the Pact on Migration and Asylum to give back to the states the competence that we have finally got from the European Union. And in the face of that we say quite clearly that you will find a resounding no in this European Parliament to any setback.

Mr President, Commissioner McGrath, Ján Kuciak and his colleague Martina were murdered not only for practising journalism, but also for defending the right of citizens, not only Slovaks but also Europeans, to truthful information. And we must not only condemn that murder and, of course, fight for there to be no impunity for the murderers of Ján Kuciak and Martina, nor for those of the Greek Karaivaz or the Maltese Daphne Caruana or the two people killed in the Netherlands for exactly the same thing in recent years, but we must also honour the commitment that "never again". And in this European Parliament we have done the job. The Digital Services Act and the Directive on strategic lawsuits against public participation entered into force, i.e. against abusive processes and intimidating litigation aimed at intimidating and silencing journalists, but above all the European Media Freedom Act, which aims to create a European area of guarantees, transparency, accountability, institutional advertising and thus access to information pluralism at European level. That is the work we have to do so that a journalist never again has to pay with his life the risk of doing his job for European citizenship.