What has changed in Parliament after the end of the pandemic?

I would say an opportunity was missed. We had the opportunity to use a mixed system where the physical part was reconciled with the virtual part, which was some commission work that could be done virtually. This saves costs for the European Parliament and the entire bureaucratic machine that has to go to Brussels, but also saves the environment. There it is, with all those movements and all those dynamics, there is of course a large ecological footprint.

And why hasn’t it changed?

It was not mainly due to the big parties, but there are many people who prefer to keep the dynamics of the past. I also felt that it is the wish of a more advanced age group accustomed to this parliamentary dynamic.

Are you used to it because it is a ritual or are you used to it because it ends up putting money in your pocket?

I can’t speak for every one, but it seems to me it’s a mix of the two. But deep down I think that the public interest in saving Parliament and public finances, despite this amount already being budgeted in the overall package, is money that can be allocated later. When there is a surplus on a budget line, that line can be allocated to other needs. I think it was a positive example that we MEPs could give, namely to ensure that there was more leeway for us to use in other dynamics that were more fundamental than the travels of MEPs.

How come what’s happening here can’t show up for Portugal?

There is a multitude of factors. There are polls indicating that the Portuguese are deeply pro-European, defending Europe and its structures, but when it comes to voting, the phenomenon is the opposite. I think that there is no emphasis on European issues at parliamentary and government level. In other words, European architecture is not explained to people and how people benefit from it on a daily basis. There are things that are easy to explain, such as people who go to other countries and do not pay extra costs. This is easy to explain, but people often don’t know that it comes from a guideline. What is less known or a more controversial topic is used to explain that it comes from Europe. In other words, the debate is much nationalized, what is good is national, what is bad comes from Europe. I think that is a major flaw in political parties and in the parliamentary structure.

From MEPs?

No, at the national level, in my opinion, the responsibility lies more nationally. But when the European elections come, you hear more of MEPs talking about internal issues. But the point is that during a five-year term we cannot simply hear MEPs speak at the end of their term of office, when there is more contact with MEPs. I think there is a mixed responsibility, a job that should be our job to try to spread this information more easily for the population, but also for the media, so that they don’t just come to the end of the mandate to ask what we are doing. This gives rise to the idea that we have been doing secondary work for five years and that we are only concerned about re-election at the end.

And what does Francisco Guerreiro do?

I am working on the budget for the period 20-23 of the European Parliament, which will then be negotiated with the Commission and the Council, to allocate the funds that were already pre-defined but where there are margins for travel. For example for ERASMUS, for some agencies, to guarantee that certain ecological restoration programs or for external aid to some countries have more or less money. As part of the Greens, I am negotiating this total package.

Would that be the answer you would give if someone in Portugal asked you what you are doing here?

Yes, I am not just saying that, because this is the most parliamentary work and the most difficult to explain.

Is it difficult to explain to people what is happening here?

I think it’s a little difficult if we don’t have time. I’ve worked on the European Marine and Fisheries Fund, so everything related to fishermen’s funds and the conservation of marine biodiversity. We just had a conference where we talked about biodiversity conservation 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 you were doing something that had a direct impact on the lives of citizens, would you have an answer?

Yes, the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy, these are all policies that reflect daily what people are going to buy off the shelf. For example, over the prices of plant-based products, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the Common Agricultural Policy because there was a change intended to make it difficult to label products such as plant-based burgers. There was an amendment that clearly wanted to make the name of these products difficult, making it difficult for consumers to know what they are eating. This was a very clear measure that led to the repeal of this amendment and that means that people today can go to a supermarket and realize that it is a veggie burger.

If they do, if it disrupts people’s lives, but if people don’t know, is it your fault for not getting the message across properly?

There is part of the responsibility of the Members of the European Parliament and the political groups that work on European affairs, because they have this responsibility to talk to citizens on a daily basis, but then the channels of communication do not open the doors for us.

And that often feels?

For my part, I feel. Suffice it to say that we are often not invited to certain debates on issues related to the climate transition. We are often not invited to debates on anything to do with the common agricultural policy.

Is it the problem of being an independent MEP?

No, I already felt this when I was an MEP and a member of the PAN. I think it’s hard to realize that there are different points of view, all of which are relevant. We know that there are groups that have more MEPs and have more airtime, but that does not exclude the fact that the only member of the Greens group has nothing to say about the various issues.

Such as, for example?

If many people knew that, for example the group that Chega says he will join if he is voted into the European Parliament, which defends the far right in this house, often allocate money that instead of helping to set up refugee camps for emigrants, to build walls. This seems very relevant to me because there are, for example, a lot of cases that the far right – which is the most anachronistic case – a group that clearly wants to destroy the European Union as a whole, but they are living small bubble here, using the funds and using the benefits to to undermine the European Union itself. If people knew what the far right stands for here, they wouldn’t vote for Chega.

But enough is not here.

But if most people knew what this group stands for and then linked it to the national group, which is Chega, they might think twice before voting for them. Because often the soundbyte, rhetoric and 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.

Who thinks once and votes, thinks badly?

It’s not to say that people vote badly because people have the right to vote, but if they knew what this means in Europe and what many of these groups are advocating for the model of Europe, they would think twice.

And 2024?

I don’t know, I’m not going to run a second term, I’m going to commit to my family, I’m going to commit 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 dedicate myself to my family because for five years I couldn’t keep up with most of my daughters’ growth and now we’re going to adopt a third. That will also have an impact, being able to accompany our third daughter. That will be my priority, at least a year I will devote myself to being with my family.

Even if there was an invitation from a 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 you’ll see. I don’t want to be president of the republic or head of anything, I don’t have that kind of side.

If you had to give a title to the five years you were here, what would it be?

I would say I was a deputy who, without a doubt, prioritized environmental issues. Everything to do with 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 fundamental principle. And then of course that the issue of animal rights is still fundamental, because it is clear that it is a tertiary issue and that we have brought it to Portugal, but to the world of the Greens as a priority.

Would 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 that if we had some kind of trade deal with some geopolitical blocs, we’d be in trouble.

I.e?

If we didn’t strive for food sovereignty, we’d be in trouble; if we did not enter into multilateral agreements based on certain principles based on law and on guarantees of reciprocity, we would have the problems we face in the Union’s internal democracy. Therefore, if we didn’t fight populism, we would let this fringe lead the agenda with secondary themes.

artur.cassiano@dn.pt