MEP Francisco Guerreiro was born in Santiago do Cacém, will soon turn 38 and deplores the “ecological footprint” left by the European Parliament. The former PAN thinks that “the far right wants to destroy the European Union” and that “they use the money and the benefits to undermine”.
What changed in Parliament after the pandemic ended?
I would say an opportunity has been missed. We had the option of using a mixed system where the physical part was reconciled with the virtual part, which was some commission work that could be done virtually. This saved the European Parliament costs and the entire bureaucratic apparatus that had to travel to Brussels, but also spared the environment. There you go, with these trips and all this dynamics there is of course a large ecological footprint.
And why hasn’t it changed?
It wasn’t mainly because of the big parties, but there are a lot of people who prefer to keep the old dynamic. I also felt that it is the wish of a more advanced age group that is used to this parliamentary dynamic.
Are you used to it because it’s a ritual or are you used to it because it eventually puts money in your pocket?
I can’t speak for each, but it seems to me it’s a mix of the two. But deep down I think the public interest in saving Parliament and public finances, despite that amount already being budgeted in the overall package, is money that could be allocated later. When there are remnants of a budget line, that line can be allocated to other needs. I think it was a positive example that we parliamentarians could set, which was to make sure there was more leeway to use in other dynamics that were more fundamental than MEPs’ travel.
How come what happens here can’t be passed on to Portugal?
There are a multitude of factors. There are polls that indicate that the Portuguese are deeply European, they defend Europe and its structures, but when it comes to voting, the phenomenon is the opposite. I think that the emphasis that should be given to European issues is not being given at the parliamentary and government level. That is, European architecture is not explained to people and how people benefit from it on a daily basis. For example, there are things that are easy to explain, such as people who go to other countries and do not pay any extra costs. This is easy to explain, but people often don’t know that this comes from a guideline. What is less known or a more controversial subject is used to explain that it comes from Europe. That is, the debate is much nationalized, what is good is national, what is bad is from Europe. I think this is a major lack of political parties and the parliamentary structure.
From Members of the European Parliament?
No, at the national level, in my opinion, the responsibility is more national. But as the European elections approach, you will hear more MEPs talking about domestic issues. But the point is that over a five-year term, we cannot simply hear MEPs speak at the end of the term, when there is more contact with MEPs. I think there’s a mixed responsibility there, a job that our job is to try to promote this information more easily to the public, but also to the media, so that they don’t just come and ask at the end of the mandate what are we doing. That gives the impression that we have been doing some updating for five years and that we are only worried about re-election at the end.
And what is Francisco Guerreiro up to?
I am working on the European Parliament’s budget 20-23, which will then be negotiated with the Commission and the Council so that we can allocate resources that were already predetermined, but where there is room for relocation. For example, for ERASMUS, for some agencies, to ensure that certain ecological restoration programs or for foreign aid for some countries have more or less resources. As a member of the Greens, I am negotiating that total package.
That would be the answer you would give if someone in Portugal asked you what you are doing here?
Yes, I would not just say that, because that is the most parliamentary task and the most difficult to explain.
Is it difficult to explain to people what is being done here?
I think it’s kind of hard when we don’t have time. I have worked on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, so everything related to funds for fishermen and the conservation of marine biodiversity. We just had a conference where we talked about preserving biodiversity and I was one of the rapporteurs to understand how public money will be allocated to fishing communities and marine biodiversity.
And if someone asked you if there was something you did that had a direct impact on the lives of civilians, would you have an answer?
Yes, the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy, these are all policies that reflect on a daily basis what people are going to buy off the shelf. For example, on the prices of products of vegetable origin, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the common agricultural policy because there was an amendment intended to make it difficult to label products as veggie burgers. There was an amendment that clearly wanted to complicate the naming of these products, making it difficult for consumers to know what they are eating. This was a very clear move that led to this amendment being dropped and what today means people can go to a supermarket and realize it’s a veggie burger.
If you do, if it disrupts people’s lives, but if people don’t know, is it your fault that you didn’t get the message across?
There is part of the responsibility of the Members of the European Parliament and the groups working on European affairs, because they have a responsibility to talk to citizens on a daily basis, but then the communication channels do not open the door for us.
And does it often feel?
For my part I feel. Suffice it to see that on issues related to the climate transition, we are often not invited to certain debates. We are often not invited to debate anything related to the common agricultural policy.
Is that the problem of being an independent MEP?
No, I already felt that when I was an MEP and member of the PAN. I think it’s hard to understand that there are different points of view, all of which are relevant. We know that there are groups that have more MEPs and more airtime, but that does not mean that the only MEP who is in the Greens group has no say in the various matters.
For example?
If many people knew, for example, that the group that Chega says he will join if he is elected to the European Parliament, which defends the far right in this House, often spends money that instead of helping to set up refugee camps for emigrants serves to build walls . This seems very relevant to me because, for example, there are many cases where the extreme right – which is the most anachronistic case – a group that clearly wants to destroy the European Union as a whole, but here living off this little bubble is using the funds and using the benefits to to undermine the European Union itself. If people knew what the extreme right stands for here, they wouldn’t vote for Chega.
But Chega is not there.
But if most people knew what this group stands for and then linked it to the national group, Chega, they might think twice before voting for them. Because often the soundbyte, the rhetoric and the populism dominate, but if we look at the facts and see what is being defended here and what is being said in the national parliament, people might think twice.
Anyone who thinks and votes once, thinks badly?
It’s not saying people vote badly because people have the right to vote, but if they knew what that means in Europe and what many of these groups are defending as a model for Europe, they’d think twice.
And 2024?
I don’t know, I’m not going to do a second term, I’m going to dedicate myself to my family, I’m going to dedicate myself to the things I care about.
Is it the return to civilian life?
I have always been in civilian life, I think I will always be a politician, I will not be a partisan politician. I’m going to take some time off to devote to my family because for five years I couldn’t keep up with the growth of most of my daughters and now we’re going to adopt a third. So this will also have an impact, being able to guide our third daughter. That will be my priority, I will dedicate at least a year to being with my family.
Even if an invitation came from a parliamentary group?
No, I do not think so. I really don’t feel like it, at least the first year will really be about going back to basics, prioritizing family and then we’ll see. I don’t aspire to be president of the republic or head of anything, I don’t have that kind of character.
If you had to name the five years you’ve been here, what would it be?
I would say that without any doubt I was a deputy who prioritized environmental issues. Everything related to agricultural policy, fisheries policy, energy policy, social housing policy and economic policy, the principle of ecology and good management of common resources has always been a basic principle. And then, of course, the issue of animal rights is still fundamental, because it is clearly seen that it is a tertiary issue and that we have brought to Portugal, but to the world of the Greens as a priority.
He should be…
The ecologist. Many of the topics we are debating today, Europe’s energy independence, the food crisis, the housing crisis, are topics that we have been warning about for almost two decades. And we’ve always said we’d be in trouble if we had some type of trade deal with some geopolitical blocs.
I.e?
If we didn’t prioritize food sovereignty, we would be in trouble; if we did not make multilateral agreements with certain principles based on the law and guarantees of reciprocity, we would have these problems that we face in the internal democracy of the Union. Thus, if we were not fighting populism, we would have edge leading the agenda with topics secondary.
Article originally published in DN on August 10, 2022.
Source: DN
