Speeches

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the issue of the rules on the management of space traffic becomes fundamental at a delicate time for space, which sees, in addition to the International Space Station, also the presence of the Chinese Space Station and in the coming years the spread of commercial space stations. As early as 2023, the first module of the future private Axiom Space station will be sent into orbit. Going into detail, the debris issue is of great importance for the safety of the vehicles, but above all for the safety of the crews, since on average the International Space Station makes at least four rapid orbit changes to avoid swarms of space debris every year. These are numbers that must make us reflect who will be called to legislate. At the same time, the mapping of debris is becoming increasingly complicated, increasingly complex, given that so far the international community has adopted good practices, providing engines for re-entry into the atmosphere and minimizing those parts that could then become debris. Unfortunately, however, in recent years some countries, see the latest launches of the Chinese Space Station, have not respected these good practices, often not even monitoring the return of their carriers to the atmosphere. So we need international agreements that are clear and binding on debris reduction, but above all projects to collect and burn the largest debris in the atmosphere. So, in conclusion, it is essential that the European Commission and this Parliament find the most suitable synergy to summarize the European rules, also in view of the colonization of the Moon, which with the Artemis mission will provide for the use of a lunar orbiting station as a support base for moon landings and future missions to Mars.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let us return to the plenary session with yet another questionable exploitation of Article 7, which Europeans have now come to know as the gun aimed at the heads of governments less aligned with Brussels' wishes. And it makes you smile, but not so much, that you are concerned about the rights of minorities when you are the first in this House not to respect the thought of those who have an idea of Europe different from yours. But it is all dramatically consistent with President von der Leyen's reckless exit, which, a few days after the vote in Italy, threatened to have tools available if things went "in a difficult direction". Then perhaps the President will explain to us where the "difficult direction" is. I would like to suggest a reflection: Is the aspiration of democratically elected governments to evade the one-sided thinking of so-called new rights more dangerous for Europe's stability, or is it rather the self-crowning of the President of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties in matters which the Treaties themselves do not assign to the Union? Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, democracy can probably make progress in Hungary as well as in many other countries, but certainly the current summits of the European Union are the last ones that can teach lessons.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, there will soon be elections in Italy and only a few days ago I was a guest on a television broadcast: In connection with this, merchants in the historic centre of Vicenza threatened to put bills in the ballot box instead of ballot papers. Let's talk about the heart of the Italian Northeast, one of the traditional economic locomotives of Europe. This is a signal of the energy crisis and a strong signal of distrust in politics. What are we doing, then, to solve what is effectively becoming the Lehman Brothers of energy? It does not help the de facto nothing that came out of Friday's Energy Council; does not help the absurd war on gas fought until yesterday, because it has curbed investment; It doesn't help that the incoming response is called austerity. What worries me the most is the total underestimation of the social emergency that will be unleashed in Europe in the coming weeks. On the failure to implement the cap on gas prices, which is technically very complicated, the hunt for the bad guy on duty continues, while the leaders of unsuspected parties that make up the majority of this Parliament look at the profits of the gas suppliers of their countries. So we need more energy, we need more gas, we need to slow down the ecological transition and, above all, we need the humility to recognize that Europe has been so wrong about energy policies.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the rapporteur, but we are not there. In fact, I cannot hide my concern because I do not see in this text the perception of the emergency that is bringing families and businesses to their knees and, in spite of the efforts made by the rapporteur, the final text is reduced to a series of numbers that do not take into account the post-pandemic context and the conflict in Ukraine. My group has been denouncing for years that the direction is the wrong one: Unfortunately, the facts are proving us right and European companies are becoming less and less competitive. Doesn't this Parliament want to make a change? We are in favour of working towards a decisive but gradual increase in renewable sources, but we must admit that these are intermittent and unprogrammable sources and that the investment capacity in Europe is brought to its knees by what has happened over the last two and a half years. And if Europe doesn't understand it, we're not going anywhere.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when the wise man points to the moon, the fool looks at his finger; If demagogic solutions are adopted, a critical situation is likely to worsen. On the other hand, good politics, the good one, not the ideological one, does not pursue public opinion but, on the contrary, manages to act on structural problems and to make self-criticism, especially on years of energy policies that have proved wrong. We cannot deny that the European rules on the functioning of the energy and gas markets have turned the price factor into a mad sliver, forcing governments to make debt to prevent companies from closing down, and all this without being certain of what will become of the Stability Pact. Above all, it must be clear that the objectives must be greater energy autonomy on the one hand and the rejection of austerity policies on the other. I, Commissioner, have listened carefully to your speech, but I wonder: If we tax extra profits, what do we do with the losses? Shall we tax them? As far as the Green Deal is concerned, I believe that the plant should be rethought, also in the light of what is happening to prices in recent months. Finally, the price cap I think it is an appreciable idea, but the negotiating power for now is in the hands of those who sell and not those who buy. So, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Union must be attractive to investment and not become the operator of new taxes.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you, rapporteur, and I would also like to thank President Buzek, who was a patient weaver of a final agreement that included the diversity and different sensitivities expressed by the political groups. This is an anomalous phase in the history of the energy market and brings out clearly all the limits of the gas crusade that we have witnessed in this House for too long. A crusade promoted by those who refused, perhaps still refuses to accept that gas is an essential source of transition. Beyond this, I believe that the greatest risk of its approach to mandatory storage levels is to create tension on the issue of gas prices. However, the Council's acceptance of the proposal to my group to maintain a lower threshold is likely to lead to price savings. No solution has been adopted to curb speculation on gas prices and this will be the next urgency to work on.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a bubble totally disconnected from reality. The debate today, which has seen the increasingly surreal Commissioner Timmermans and many, too many colleagues, lead me to think that those who sit in this House live on another planet, a planet where it is unknown that there has been a pandemic, the crisis of raw materials, the explosion of energy prices, a conflict. The dramatic side is that few have thought about the damage that this package will do to competitiveness and employment, not accepting the proposals of those who, instead, from the territories, ask for a gradual path, which accompanies companies and workers towards the ecological transition. You want to do in eight years what Europe has failed to do in thirty, posing as ambition what are actually big economic interests and an overdose of ideology. Meanwhile, international competition mocks what European politicians are deciding, with China poised to deliver the coup de grace to European industry. You are destroying Europe, you are ruining those who work. Yours is no longer environmentalism, it's called collaborationism.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are many shadows, few lights, too many resolutions that are bound to remain on paper. REPowerEU states that the Commission is living in a bubble. Europe takes the risk of zero emissions, not taking into account economic indicators and dramatic growth estimates. This is a plan that starts from the wrong assumption, namely that the current crisis coincides only with the conflict in Ukraine, ignoring years of wrong energy and climate policies. And there is a very serious lack: It is all about renewables, but not about a European supply chain that can develop the technologies that are essential for the transition. Away from energy dependence on Moscow to increase technological dependence on Beijing. Brilliant. The extraction, processing and transport of minerals and metals used intensively in the solar panels of wind turbines depend on an adequate supply of diesel and other fossil products made, look at it, by those who still produce energy exploiting coal capacity. Writing that energy saving is the quickest and cheapest way to bring down the bills seems to me a little trivial, I would say on the threshold of the offensive; It was not necessary for the Commission to reveal this to us. REPowerEU is only the last piece of an ideologised narrative; Timmermans said the law, with a Commission totally unable to bring it back to reality.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we must choose which Europe we want: Either peoples are listened to or the path of blackmail and arrogance is chosen. Today's debate, however, confirms that we are moving in the direction of using Article 7 to split Europe: Good against bad, welcome against unwelcome. But the founding fathers of the Union thought of a different Europe, a Europe capable of uniting and not dividing. It is impossible to give credence to the vagaries of the left, which in Hungary has not hesitated and is not embarrassed to have accepted an alliance with the anti-Semitic and anti-Roma extreme right. History has put Poland and Hungary at the forefront of the reception of refugees fleeing burning Ukraine, while in this House there is room for the chatter and frustrations of those who cannot accept the will of the peoples.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as draftsman of the opinion of the TRAN Committee, I believe that, at least once, the dream book should be set aside. It should be borne in mind that the transport sector needs viable solutions and, above all, solutions that at this historical stage do not raise prices for companies, a key issue, especially now that fuel prices have literally exploded. Let's not forget where we started with the negotiation of this file: There was someone who even wanted to eliminate any support for natural gas infrastructure projects. We look ahead, therefore, aware that TEN-E cross-border projects will also have to take production and supply needs into account. For the transport sector on liquid natural gas and biogas needed for the transition, the TRAN Committee tries to go in this direction. Then, those who think exclusively with ideology, have understood little of what it means, every day, to take the truck and travel hundreds of kilometers.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in this morning's debate there is still the feeling that the objectives are set here first and only then is it reflected whether they are achievable or not. Eliminating 2/3 of Russian gas imports has a geostrategic value, certainly, but few reflect on the risk of energy rationing. On the issue of joint gas purchases, we need the failure of the market logic on which the EU's energy policy has been built in recent years. This is the impression that it is a faded idea even before being deepened. Obligation on storage quotas is certainly a good idea, but it will increase prices and is not what we need, certainly. Finally, over the years you have built all the preconditions for the Union to become dependent, too dependent, on energy imports. Calling this debate "The power of the EU" is a mockery of businesses and households that fail to pay their bills.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the situation is unsustainable, the recession is one step away, and now is the time to move from words to solutions. But the assumptions of responsibility are also needed: This is the failure of an idea of a globalised Europe forced to import everything, from masks to respirators, during the first phase of the pandemic, while today we woke up, realising that we had everything wrong about energy policy. This is also the failure of an industrial policy defeated by neoliberalism, powerless in the face of international competition. The market logics have jumped, since yesterday the TTF saw the price of gas equal to 16 times compared to what it was a year before. The dependence on Russian gas is not overcome in a day, but reflect those in this House who have systematically opposed the alternative, boycotting, for example, the creation of the Southern Gas Corridor. It is necessary to return to draw from the deposits of the Mediterranean. LNG, liquid natural gas, is a solution, but it is expensive, it has quantity limits, there are limits at the level of infrastructure, while renewables we know the merits but also the many, many limits. Finally, we need to reflect on the Green Deal. Emissions containment policies have contributed to higher commodity and energy prices, despite the fact that the European Commission, in answer to one of my questions, has denied the evidence. The Green Deal It has a roadmap to the limits of the unrealizable. The reactivation of coal production capacities is bringing back to the ground those who thought that with renewables we were okay. If the approach does not change, if this Parliament and the Commission do not make an honest self-criticism, then the Green Deal It becomes a problem, not the solution.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am afraid that we have some problems on orders of magnitude, in the sense that there are international experts who estimate that the potential production of offshore wind will be proportionally much lower than the target of 60 gigawatts that the European Union alone intends to achieve by 2030. I have a question that is far from secondary: the €800 billion of investments that the Commission would like to mobilise by 2050, where do we think we will find them? We also do not underestimate the problems of coexistence with other maritime activities, let us think of fishing and navigation. Nor do we minimize the problems related to offshore maintenance costs, the wear and tear that wave shocks and salinity inevitably bring to offshore wind farms. I repeat it with conviction: renewables may be the future and it is right to promote them, but a concrete and painless energy transition needs above all programmable sources and bills that are affordable for businesses and households. So, if we don't take this realistic approach, the good and expensive intentions that often break with the icy reality remain.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the sham elections of 7 November tell us that we are moving forward with Sandinistas, we are moving forward with Ortega, we are moving forward with a regime that undermines the democratic process by ostracising opposition, and perhaps this is a first point in common with this Parliament. We will vote for a balanced resolution, yes, in some places, but unbalanced and unbalanced in others. For example, these resolutions never lack references to LGBT people, but sometimes it would be better to also remember the real vulnerable, starting with the disabled or the poorest. Colleagues, my group will table an amendment to rekindle the spotlight on the odious affair of the terrorist Alessio Casimirri who, in 1978, as part of a commando of the Red Brigades, murdered the then president of the Christian Democracy and former president of the Italian Council Aldo Moro together with five men of his escort. It was 1978 and for 43 years in Italy we have been waiting for justice to be done. In a fairer world, Casimirri would be serving a life sentence, but in the real world, unfortunately, he sits quietly in a restaurant in Managua cooking shrimp and squid. Colleagues, we're counting on you. Merry Christmas to all.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, let us go straight to the point: who pollutes and why we have to shed tears and blood to pay the electricity and gas bills. Let's think for once about the smallest realities, small crafts, small and medium enterprises. Today the spot price of electricity in Italy has reached almost 300 EUR per kWh, but do we think that people have to go stealing to pay their electricity and gas bills or to fill up the car? This 30-page State of the Energy Union report devotes half of it, and I said half, to the price problem! Here you need concreteness, you need answers, not chatter! The perfect storm has been unleashed while someone, unfortunately also in this House, continues to wage the war on gas. Long live renewables, welcome wind and solar, but they are sources that are not programmable, they are not and will not be. To do business you need programming, it is necessary, and without a minimum of backups Today, the economy of fossil fuels is in disarray. Now let's see who's polluting. More than 91% of global emissions come from outside Europe, but we continue to pay for polluters here too. Why do Europeans need to be more bullied? And what will you tell especially to the new unemployed? Creating unemployment and trying to compensate it with public spending is insane. Then, in this report there is little about climate diplomacy. Without China's cooperation, we will not solve the problem and we will be called to a bloodbath. Here it's not about pleasing how top-class we are on climate, it's about realizing that political decisions about emissions prices are then passed on to the end customer and, while here it's philosophy, then people and businesses can't pay anymore.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, manufacturers of household appliances, furniture and cars are experiencing hiccup production and this is not good news to help demand restart. The problem of prices has now been overcome by that of the supply of raw materials. For many EU countries, which are heavily dependent on imports, this is a big problem, not least because we are talking about essential elements for the energy and digital transitions. If the energy transition is not corrected, it risks turning into a dead end for the Union, as the number of critical raw materials has doubled in the last decade and dependency on third countries seems to have reached a point of no return. Think, for example, of China and Turkey, which are almost monopolistic in supplying the Union with rare earths and borate. It would also be useful to reflect on the fact that the Union has chosen to outsource extraction and refining to third countries. For goodness sake, they are processes that pollute, but even contracting everything has costs. Finally, colleagues, a final reflection on the price of wheat, which has reached its highest price in the last nine years. I mention this fact because perhaps many have not understood it, but the consumption of agricultural goods to produce energy in a few years will exceed that for food, with the consequence that food will cost much more and, if for the Western world we will talk about inflation, for developing countries instead the challenge will not be to decarbonize, but to be able to eat.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, instrumental, decontextualised and biased: So I summarize this debate authorized with unjustifiable superficiality by the Conference of Presidents, because in addition to the events in Rome there were similar events in Milan but, since they were provoked by anarcho-insurrectionists, someone pretended nothing. My group pointed out in the Conference of Presidents that a 2020 Europol report points out that the majority of cases of violence originated from left-wing and non-right-wing groups, but this was not taken into account. Then I read the title of the debate and ask myself a question: What does racism have to do with the events in Rome? Open your eyes, because people are scared of bills, inflation, poverty, the aftermath of the pandemic. It is a society split between guaranteed and unguaranteed. We condemn the violence at the CGIL, Commissioner, yes, we condemn it, but let us not forget the silence following numerous attacks on the headquarters of the UGL, another union, a union that is not leftist. My party, the League, has suffered hundreds of assaults in recent months, and you mute. Even in the last few days there have been episodes related to Islamic radicalism, and you mutes. Dear colleagues on the left, why don't you also ask for a debate on these episodes and stop treating this House as if it were your own garden? This is the plenary of the European Parliament, it is not a party seat.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fear is that the next COP will be reduced to the usual costly nothing, pretending that there has not been a pandemic and that the demand for certain energy sources can be generated by law. A few days ago a survey was published in Italy according to which 85 percent of respondents believe that the energy transition is economically viable. This says a lot about the indoctrination work that has been done, because talking about economic convenience means having no idea of the sacrifices that will be required of the next generations. And while the issue of raw materials is becoming increasingly dramatic, where the issue of supply has now surpassed that of price, the Union is calling for tears and blood from Europeans, building the conditions for an increase in unemployment and for new relocations. Meanwhile, China is increasing coal production. Carbon dioxide prices are rising – likely to exceed €100 per tonne – bills will increase, some may be happy because renewables will finally be affordable, obviously this is a totally busted philosophy because wages are at a standstill. We are in a post-pandemic environment, we cannot stifle the recovery with inflation. We need time and flexibility, we need an energy mix where renewables must certainly play a central role, but they must also be supported by transitional sources, such as gas. And in view of Glasgow we have to accept that talking about goals that are out of reach does not mean being ambitious, but it means continuing to make fun of people with unrealizable promises.

Mr President, Madam President of the Commission, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, let us try to put some order in this morning's debate. From a legal point of view, it is not easy to understand what is scandalous or anti-European in the ruling of the Polish Constitutional Court. From a political point of view, on the other hand, if it is enough for this House to devote half an hour of its time to expressing dislike for a government, then I believe that this is an approach that becomes offensive to the prerogatives of this Parliament. This was stated by President Morawiecki in a letter published yesterday: Poland recognises the primacy of Community law in accordance with its obligations under the Treaty on European Union. And what does that mean? It means that the rules on the Union are binding only on those matters for which the States, through the Treaty, have delegated their powers to Brussels, but they are not binding at all on national constitutions and legal systems, let alone on those matters on which the individual States have never delegated their sovereignty to the Union and, in this case, what are the aspects that regulate justice are no exception. It is therefore unusual to raise a debate of this magnitude, not least because this is not the first time that some national courts have questioned the primacy of Community law. It happened in Italy, it happened in Germany recently, you will remember, with the purchases of securities by the Central Bank, or with what was the suspension of the ratification process of Next Generation, in Italy happened in 2017 with the Taricco case; Therefore, this means that the most recent legal history of the Union is dotted with similar cases, but I do not remember such heated debates or fears that Germany or Italy would leave the Union. I conclude, colleagues, with a warning, because sometimes the excessive will to punish, which so many of you are carrying out today, leads to a violation of the Treaties. That would be a violation. Controversy of this kind must be supported by law, otherwise we are faced with an institution that seeks to usurp powers that do not belong to it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there was a lack in this morning's debate. Let me explain: the Union has tightened sanctions and restrictions with regard to the ban on airspace overflights and access to European airports for carriers in Russia. Among the consequences are dramatic. In fact, the sustainability of adoption programmes is compromised, which traditionally involve European adoptive families and Belarusian children, children who, once adopted, are forced to remain in their country, remaining physically separated from parents who cannot visit these children except through some occasional visits. It is clear that these occasional visits cannot replace the normal functioning of adoption programmes which, on the other hand, should allow adopted children to live permanently with their new family. It is a harmful situation for the stability of these children who, after losing their natural families, are also deprived of the possibility of building a stable bond with their new parents. Three weeks ago I sent a letter to High Representative Borrell and I am still waiting for a reply. Derogations from travel restrictions are needed to restore a minimum of normality on adoptions and therapeutic stays and above all to prevent children from being sacrificed on the altar of international politics.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, to do in the next ten years what has been done in the last thirty years, not bad, I would say, for a post-pandemic context, so I think we need at least to ask ourselves some questions. For example, this morning I did not hear adequate reflections on the trend of bills for businesses and consumers. Not a word about the increase in water demand, given that the extraction of rare earths and the increase in metals that this green revolution needs will need to drain more water resources. Not a word about the CO2 emissions in Europe over the last thirty years, which have been thwarted by the evolution of emissions in the rest of the world. So the others pollute, while in Europe imposing more restrictive legislation. It is an environmentalism that I consider short-sighted, that follows fashion a lot and winks at the rich, since I do not know in 13 years how many will be able to equip themselves with fully electric cars. There are billions of Recovery fund They will end up in China, a country from which we are increasingly technologically dependent, given that 60% of the raw materials of this revolution will be imported from this country. So this is a design that will, at the end of the day, replace Europe's dependence on Middle Eastern oil with that of Chinese technology, to the delight of international competition, which is no good example. So, ladies and gentlemen, let us be careful because this is no longer Europeanism, but collaborationism.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is paradoxical that the very people who invented the cordon sanitaire are here today trying to give lessons in democracy. This morning I heard blackmail, threats, tangible proof that too many of you do not like democracy and are not accepted. You are taking time and resources away from this House by instrumentalising a law that is based on the protection of the defence, the interests of children under the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A law that is a national, non-Community competence and above all has been voted almost unanimously. But what are we talking about? I am waiting for the day when the real vulnerable, for example the elderly, the disabled, will receive the same attention that alleged minorities receive from this House. Minorities are also well-funded and well-protected internationally. Reflect, ladies and gentlemen, because it is true that democracy is at risk, but in Brussels, not in Budapest.