Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the invention of emergencies, a lot of talk about fundamental rights, but you have forgotten one: It is called democracy, it is called respect for the choices of the voters who in Hungary, for the fourth time in a row, have chosen the government. You are sometimes a majority in this Parliament, but very often you are not in real life. So, what lessons do you want to give to the Hungarian people, their history, their values and their choices? And, last but not least, I learn that a large number of colleagues have asked the President of this Parliament to ensure exceptional security measures on the occasion of the trip to the 'Budapest Pride', even if you were going to war. So, this is just to give another crack to the credibility of this poor Parliament.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a debate in which I hear so much - too much I would say - about Russia but little about Europe: We have major problems in terms of industrial competitiveness, we have increasing energy poverty. But the only answer I have heard is in the direction of much more expensive solutions than the current ones, with the Commission and the majority of this Parliament giving me the impression that they can only act impulsively. It attacks, jeopardizes the contractual autonomy of individual States, harboring the illusion that in the simplistic response of "more Europe" we can find solutions for States that perhaps have a greater potential for photovoltaic generation, but they must also deal with States that perhaps do not have an outlet to the sea. For years, the use of deposits in the Eastern Mediterranean has been ostracized. In conclusion I must tell you that opinions are opinions but reality and numbers are different things and 16 packages of sanctions did not end this bloody war.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 50 million people are in the dark and the first trial is taking place today. blackout the History of the Age of Green Deal. And then, beyond – let me put it bluntly – the need to shed light on responsibilities, there are elements that clearly emerge. First of all, the illusion of being able to replace gas with renewables has been leading to imbalances in the energy system for years: The first effect is excessive price volatility. Then Sánchez and Greenpeace did not understand what the nuclear power plants are for, which must guarantee continuous power, they do not serve to buffer the oscillations of the system. And then I heard some criticism of private operators but Red Electrica de Espana, the transmission operator, is controlled by the State and expresses to the Presidency a well-known representative of the Spanish Socialist Party. And it is the duty of the grid operator to determine how much production from renewables does not feed into the grid. In conclusion, today the myth of Spain able to keep prices low thanks to an abundant generation of renewables collapses: This model has too many weaknesses, particularly in terms of energy security. If renewables increase uncontrollably, perhaps also thanks to incentives, and are not called to guarantee the security of the system, we face the failure of energy policy. And on this the Sánchez government cannot hide behind fatality.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I apologize, but perhaps I misread the title of the debate, because I thought I was witnessing yet another - now I have lost count, we are in a few dozen debates - debate on Hungary, but instead I witnessed an advance of an out-of-season electoral campaign by the Hungarian opposition. Then, for the rest, it seems to me that there is always a need for an enemy and those who have a different vision of Europe are regularly branded, trivially, as right-wing extremists. Commissioner, you are right: He said something beautiful when he said you have to be yourself. I agree very much, but then why don't you accept that the Hungarian people are themselves and vote for the political representatives they intend to vote for? I believe that, once again, this House is showing today that it has major problems with democracy, because the cordons will not suffice, the millions of Soros will not suffice, because the peoples of Europe have a bad vice, and this vice is that of voting with their own heads, of thinking with their own heads. And above all, the head, not to bend it to the will and arrogance of Brussels.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I take note of the marketing exercise or make-up – let’s call it what we want – to make the rearmament plan more acceptable, but people don’t like it. It's probably a hasty re-edition of the Pleven plan, which will perhaps end in its own way. Then, colleagues, look: People ask me, in everyday life, when salaries will increase, when pensions will increase, not when the latest generation of drones arrive, not when the most modern tanks arrive. So if the message is that budgetary flexibility can only be applied to military expenditure and only to rearmament, then, excuse me, but this Union will lose the little credibility it has left. Then there is another big issue, that of urgency. We also read it in the Council conclusions: It has to be done soon! We want to convey anxiety to Europeans, because then when a people is anxious it supinely accepts, without making stories, what are the decisions taken from above. Colleagues, the League is not, and never will be, the party of arms! And then, allow me: If an idea is bad, it remains bad and it is not enough to change its name.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, theautomotive European is a sick person, he has a serious pathology and the answer that is given is a lukewarm broth, moreover. There are less than ten years left to ban the endothermic engine but in Europe electric cars do not reach 2%. But where do you want to go? Regulation has had an increasing impact on the range of models offered but has not been able to influence consumer guidance. And then there remains the great theme of how to generate all the electricity that will be needed to power the car fleet of Europeans. This plan was supposed to reverse the trend of building trust among car manufacturers, small and medium-sized related businesses, and consumers. Instead, he did not have the courage to acknowledge that Europe's approach to electric cars is failing. You have put so many companies into charity. This plan could have been ransom: This is yet another missed opportunity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, good luck. It seems to me that this Commission is supported by an uncohesive majority. For the rest, this is a lunar debate. We have heard Mr Repasi using the plenary to campaign for the German elections. Excuse me, but where are we? Buy TV commercials, don't use the European Parliament. Now you're mad at the billionaires, but when they helped and financed the left, everything was fine, wasn't it? You are destroying European industry with the Green Deal and now you are inventing that competitiveness would be threatened by those who are calling for a more gradual and orderly transition and did not vote for the Green Deal. Excuse me, but do you think European voters are fools? You're trying to scare people by talking about the far right, when the far right has been dead and buried for so many years. What you brand as extremists are movements that are trying to save Europe, that very Europe that you are destroying. Someone talked about fashion for the right, I call it democracy.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am intrigued by so many exercises of wisdom on the part of those who have helped to relegate the European Union to the margins of the international arena. It was strange, for example, to see in the election campaign that the same people who had written the Green Deal, cemetery of the competitiveness of our companies, then they were the first to criticize it, but after voting for it. It is a pleasure for our colleagues in the EPP to talk about the defence of borders, and we agree very much. However, for a serious and structured management of immigration, it is necessary to talk about it with the Patriots, not to make a majority with the socialists. This Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, must find credibility and respect for what Europeans vote for. Instead, over the past five years we have seen farmers being branded as polluters and entrepreneurs being forced out of competition. That's not right. I conclude with an observation, with a small reflection on the intervention of the President of the Socialists, who perhaps did not read the title of the debate and dedicated three of her four minutes to the summit of the Patriots in Madrid. Here, we take note of the strategy: Talk about others to avoid talking about your own disasters.

Mr President, Commissioner Ribera, ladies and gentlemen, you mentioned that the Green Deal would make history. Look, in one sentence it completely synthesizes being outside of reality, living totally on another planet. Sales of electric cars are not taking off; To date, there are no conditions for generating all the electricity that would be needed to ensure the mobility of the car fleet of all the countries of the European Union. I wonder: How do we talk about prosperity when we see the garrisons outside the factories of the supply chain, worried families, families slammed on the street? In 87 years of history, Volkswagen had only opened plants, now it is closing. Are we talking about prosperity? What is fair and inclusive? Have you seen the results of the election? People no longer trust you and we realise - and this is just one example - what would have happened to the packaging chain if Parliament and the Council had not corrected the approach of the Packaging Regulation? I, Commissioner, already told you this when we spoke at the hearing: We don't need environmental activists and radicals, we don't need another Timmermans.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on the eve of the European Council, I am intrigued by this whole repatriation race. Evidently the campaign promises still some tailstroke present it. After years in which the League has tried to explain to you the harmful consequences of unplanned immigration, without a vision, at the mercy of human traffickers, of immigration that is too - only - quantitative and not at all qualitative, suddenly one wakes up, after noticing the exasperation of millions of Europeans, and is struggling to find a solution. And this is after our cities, in almost all of Europe, have become almost a Far West newspaper. Here, in fact, the solution would be much simpler: hotspot and minimise the number of departures of those who know perfectly well that they will not have the right to find international protection in Europe. This was understood by Matteo Salvini, who as Minister of the Interior had found the solution – understood, appreciated, shared by the people. But all this consensus has frightened the masters of chaos and on Friday, in Palermo, a court will judge his conduct for what, for all intents and purposes, is a political process: A political trial of a man who kept his promises.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a good thing that this debate has warmed up the atmosphere in this House a little, because this morning I saw a chilly, distrustful atmosphere, where each group applauded its Commissioners. Let's say a sign of weakness. A frayed majority is not a good way to start this journey. I think that those who vote for this Commission are content with a Europe that is downsized at international level, that abdicates its role to the United States and China. Here, with a few laudable exceptions – I wish Commissioners Fitto, Várhelyi and Zaharieva good luck – I am sorry to say that there are too many Commissioners who have been appointed not on merit but to please the desire to command political parties, parties and groups. Here, everyone is worried about appearing winners rather than finding the best profiles for the future of this Europe. Thinking of entrepreneurs, farmers, young people, honestly and with such consistency, the League reiterates its no to Ursula von der Leyen's encore.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I note the annoyance and disorientation of many colleagues from the left-wing groups. Here, if for the annoyance I can do little - maybe I have some good medicine to recommend - on the subject of disorientation, instead, I would advise you to get off the pedestal, to make amends and to understand that talking only about decarbonization, without thinking about the loss of jobs, or talking only about civil rights forgetting social rights no longer works - neither in Brussels, nor in Washington. You have abandoned the poorest classes, the defeated of globalization, all sacrificed on the altar of the new minorities, those that are so fashionable. On the subject of the future of relations with the United States, little will change, given that theAmerica first It has also been carried out by democratic administrations in recent years. Instead, it is the self-styled majority of this Parliament that has made a mistake, first by contracting defense to the Americans and energy to the Russians, now technology and raw materials of the United States. green deal to the Chinese. More than fearing Trump or Elon Musk, I advise you to wake up because the wind has changed in Washington, now it's Brussels' turn.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not particularly like to be pessimistic. But I believe that, in fact, to bridge the delay with China and the United States we will need a half miracle, because we cannot think that the only watchword is decarbonization. Without competitiveness, we are not going anywhere. On the issue of the lack of workers, Commissioner, you rightly mentioned the lack of competence and I believe that the lack of skilled workers is unfortunately the keystone. Also because, unfortunately, even in this House there are those who think that the problem can be solved through the importation of an army of cheap workers, who perhaps come from distant countries. And then, in conclusion, there is a big issue of self-criticism, because the same ones who led us to be tail lights in the global economy, are now the ones who claim to continue to command, without listening to what is the will of the voters.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, lights and shadows in your speech: an assessment must be made of the distortions, the price increases that are causing the CBAM, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will produce a structural increase in steel prices of around EUR 200-300 per tonne, but without protecting European production. This is because large steel users are bypassing the CBAM, importing semi-finished products instead of raw materials. On the subject of investment, consideration should be given to the tax space available, which differs greatly from one Member State to another. It is right on the one hand to decarbonise, but decarbonisation is not everything. We are also starting to think about competitiveness. It's okay to be worried about surplus Supplies from China? Yes, but first we also think about solving the problems of our home.

Thank you colleague of the question, which gives me the opportunity to explain our point of view. Clearly, geopolitical and international disruptions show us that choices must now be made, because we will have to deal with an ever-increasing number of people seeking asylum. Since the figures tell us that most of the requests are rejected because the preconditions are missing, we cannot harbor the illusion that in Europe there are spaces, opportunities and methods of reception for all, so we will have to make choices.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate comes just a few days after a dramatic bloody event in Verona, my beautiful and hospitable city in Veneto, historically a land of emigration and integration: A Malian boy lost his life after attacking with a knife a police officer who, in order to defend himself, had to open fire. This is an episode, one of many, which testifies that, when a disproportionate number of foreigners arrive in a territory, most of whom are not entitled to international protection, then it becomes impossible to manage their reception. I would have liked this debate to take place in a concrete and non-ideological way, without the illusion that there are unlimited opportunities and possibilities of welcome in Europe. The title is ‘Ordinary management and effectiveness of migration’: Perfect, the opposite of everything we've seen so far. In conclusion, I would like to express my dismay at the report of the Committee against Racism and Intolerance of our neighbours of the Council of Europe which "spits poison" on the Italian law enforcement agencies which, I recall, must be applauded, not defamed.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the meantime, let us put the dots on the i, because, before talking about Islamophobia, let us remember that, although denied, the roots of Europe are Christian, not Muslim. Then, if we want to seriously discuss this climate of hatred that is enveloping Europe, perhaps we will start reading the 2024 report of the European Agency for Fundamental Rights. This study confirms many of the alarms that the League has launched in recent years, alarms that the majority of this Parliament has denied in the name of reception at all costs. It is the European Agency itself that denounces the link between the growth of Islamic communities and the increase in incidents of violence against Jewish communities, for example. Do we want to address the issue of religious intolerance? That's great. So I ask how many Muslim women live in Europe in conditions of oppression, subjugation or oppression. Here, to those who refuse to condemn these horrors I remember that those who are silent consent.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am afraid that we have a problem with the title of this debate which refers to 'sustainable and affordable housing policies'. With the EPBD, the infamous Houses Directive green, at least this is how it has been renamed in Italy, we do not see where these housing policies are within reach. The costs of materials have increased, due to a drugged demand, and the number of construction companies is always that, and therefore it is not clear how we can reach the goal with such an unattainable roadmap and above all without financing. We continue to talk about sustainable construction, but the data show that this directive is far from sustainable. I cite Italy's figures so as not to frighten anyone with European figures. But we have 63% of the buildings that are in energy class F today and therefore have been labeled with the red pen. But, despite this context, continue to demand that by 2030 this old building stock be transformed into an energy efficiency model. So one wonders: But who pays? As usual, after sentencing, Brussels asks the states to make do and invent money that is not there. I ask you: Close the book of dreams, which in the meantime has become the book of nightmares, and stop persecuting those who do not arrive at the end of the month.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, factories are closed, car production is falling, people are losing their jobs, Chinese electric vehicles are invading Europe. You didn't need the crystal ball, you knew it was going to crash. Years ago we predicted these risks, but now the danger has become a reality. But since we're not just talking about economics, we're talking about people's lives, it's impossible not to get angry. Europe is in resuscitation. There was a supply chain made up of small and medium-sized enterprises, brought to its knees by a transition that sets itself lunar goals in a Europe devoid of energy and without money. While China and the United States were looking for competitiveness, in Brussels they were only thinking about cutting emissions, with a European Commission and a majority of Parliament totally complicit and complacent. The automotive targets were set at a time when European industry was the industry leader. That context no longer exists. Destroyed, annihilated. The only answer you could give to your mistakes was a cordon sanitaire, trying to silence those who were pointing the way, trying to silence those who wanted Europe to avoid crashing. The goal failed miserably, because those who work understood who was defending them. You are fuelling anti-Europeanism thanks to your anti-European choices, against industry, against the supply chain, against workers and against motorists from all over the continent. Either you are in bad faith or you are totally inadequate to get the European automotive sector out of this crisis. This is not the apocalypse, but if you don't listen to us, this is the future.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, when someone is a party to and a cause of the problem, it is unlikely, if not impossible, that they will be able to contribute to the solution. All the problems outlined in the Draghi report are closely linked to the economic and industrial policy choices made by the Union in recent years. I therefore ask myself: Who has depressed public investment with illogically tight pro-cyclical budgets? Who depressed productivity by encouraging wage cuts? Who favored uncontrolled immigration to block wage claims, fueling the industrial reserve army? Who drove up gas prices with the unattainable goals of the Green Deal? Colleagues, allow me to summarize the Draghi report, because I would tell you that, before applauding it, it should be understood.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, yes, two days ago the Italian Vice-President of the Council, Matteo Salvini, was asked to be sentenced to six years in prison on the basis of the crime of kidnapping, following the case of a vessel flying the Spanish flag which had been assigned two safe ports in other Member States of the European Union. Beyond the issue of border protection, which the topicality of these weeks sees at the center of the action of several governments, regardless of political extraction, there is an alarming fact: in fact, if part of the judiciary instead of applying the rules outlined by the legislative power assumes attitudes of political militancy, the rule of law is clearly and heavily questioned. In the light of the above, President, ladies and gentlemen, we request the addition to the agenda of a debate on the subject already mentioned by the President.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would ask Mrs von der Leyen to spare us from being told that you will be the President of all, if you will be, since you have not decided to speak to certain political groups representing millions of voters. Then I see that, after the election campaign, the good intentions on the revision of the Constitution have fallen into oblivion. green deal, one green deal who doesn't stand up. Someone had believed her, but the agreement with the Greens brings us back to the times when Timmermans was the master. Regardless of how it goes, you are on an uphill path looking at the colorful majority that will support you, with a fake center-right who asked for the real votes of the center-right voters and then go on to form a comfortable majority with the same left parties punished by the same voters. It's brilliant! Without ambiguity the League says no to Ursula von der Leyen's encore. Nothing personal – maybe I would have been more cautious when using SMS – but doing the President of the European Commission well is something else.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, lower prices for households and businesses because the cost of energy in Europe weighs too much and affects the competitiveness of those who work. This must be the first objective of this reform. Then it is also necessary to have the ability to analyze with humility, with self-criticism, all the factors that have led to an increase in the Union's energy dependence from abroad and to the absurd increases of recent years. So something didn't work. I fully agree with Parliament's position on the question of Legal Single Entity, a single entity that would not only risk disrupting the current functioning of the European integrated market, but would also be detrimental to national systems, inevitably leading to the elimination of national stock exchanges in favour of a European super-stock exchange. In conclusion, I believe that we need a balance between decarbonisation and competitiveness, given that too much ideological reform is massacring markets, consumers and businesses. Europe is asking for something else.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 'Let us help them at home' must not be an empty box, a slogan for its own sake: It must represent a concrete commitment of the European Union in the direction of development cooperation. The PRIMA initiative is jointly promoted by the European Commission and 19 countries in the Euro-Mediterranean area, including eleven from the Union and eight from outside - we welcome, among other things, the inclusion of Bulgaria among the partner countries - for a partnership that is of considerable geostrategic importance for the Union as a whole. Addressing challenges such as water scarcity, food insecurity in the Southern Neighbourhood, in fact, intends to act as a tool for scientific diplomacy, focusing in particular on the root causes of the migration emergency, whose impact is increasingly extending beyond the borders of southern states alone. Between 2018 and 2022, PRIMA financed more than 200 projects related to water supply, agriculture and agri-food development, for a total value of almost 300 million euros. In less than six months – and here we come to the most interesting points – since the allocation of the dossier to the ITRE Committee we have been able to complete the entire legislative procedure, in what turns out to be a significant success; Indeed, perhaps a real record from the point of view of timing. Furthermore, it is right to recall that PRIMA plays a crucial role in addressing one of the most urgent issues on the European scene, namely the migration emergency. We, through research and innovation, aim to directly combat the root causes of the phenomenon, primarily by promoting water management and the development of innovative agricultural practices, as well as innovation to ensure local communities are able to adapt to change and environmental conditions. In addition, PRIMA intends to invest in education and youth engagement, thus creating opportunities at neighbourhood level as, if young people find prospects close to home, then they will be less inclined to look for other solutions. In conclusion, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their contribution, especially for the speed that has enabled the process to come to a conclusion: this is a great result and especially with really important timing.