Speeches

The resolution, which concerns a democratically passed law in Hungary for the protection of minors, has surreal aspects. The Hungarian rule concerns a matter of national competence and has as its main objective the protection of minors and the possibility for parents to exercise an opinion with regard to the sexual education of their children. However, for the umpteenth time, Brussels has decided to give an instrumental reading of the issue, meddling in purely national affairs and threatening the use of every possible countermeasure, such as the blocking of European funds, to get Hungary back on track. This way of acting, based on coercion and blackmail, contravenes the basic democratic principles so often invoked by the institutions. I consider it serious that a Member State is continually subject to scrutiny on matters of national importance simply because it does not align itself with the opinion prevailing in Brussels. The attitude of the European institutions is in complete contradiction with the principle of cooperation on which the EU was founded. In the light of the above, I consider it unacceptable that the only Parliament in Europe that systematically denies institutional representation to the opposition and instrumentally attacks those who do not conform to the dogmas imposed by the current majority pretends to dictate the line to some Member States in terms of democracy.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the end of the parliamentary term and one of the last acts by which the European Commission decides to welcome these five years is emblematic, in my opinion, of the wrong approach with which the crucial issues of this legislature have been addressed. And it is wrong, in my opinion, according to two points of view: 1) in the method and 2) in the merits, precisely, of what has been done, and I am obviously referring to the debate that has arisen and is arising from the two mandates that you, President von der Leyen, gave to Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi to trace the future of this European Union. Wrong in the method because, once again, these relationships with which we have been in the company for so many years - I remember so many during my ten years here - are relationships that, as you yourself have said, must trace our path to the future. And here is the first mistake in the method, because once again one of the main problems of this Union is stressed, namely the primacy of technocracy over politics, over democracy. We don't need technocratic relations, we need the future to be defined by elected politicians with a strong popular mandate. So I hope that in the next five years it is politics that traces the future and not people who do not have an electoral mandate. On the substance, once again, we have been talking for years about a competitiveness problem, but Europe does not have a competitiveness problem. We are one of the most competitive continents, in the international rankings our Member States are considered more competitive than the United States, other countries. Europe's problem is not competitiveness, it is productivity. We have our gap with the United States on productivity and productivity is not reached, it is not increased with policies like those of the United States. Green Deal, with complex regulations, with bureaucracy, but with innovation, with freedom, do little but do it well. Only in this way will we really be able to focus on what is now the problem of Europe, which does not have a problem of competitiveness. Mario Draghi in his speech at La Hulpe said something very interesting that makes the idea of what was the problem. Mario Draghi said that, unfortunately, talking about competitiveness and working on competitiveness in recent years, from 2010 onwards, Europe has made mistakes, mistakes in its policies, in competitiveness, to try to lower wages combined with pro-cyclical fiscal policies. These are the words of Mario Draghi and according to him these mistakes destroyed our internal market, internal demand and our social model, which was among the most advanced in the world. What I was wondering was: Mario Draghi was needed 15 years later, when these are things, mistakes that we have said since the beginning that would destroy Europe. That is why I believe it is necessary to reiterate the primacy of politics, because it is too easy to say obvious things after the oxen have escaped from the fence, after the disasters have been made. I close my speech by recalling one thing: In this debate, the theme of Europe's progress is always identified with an increase in size, with an increase in centralism towards Brussels. That's exactly what we've been doing for the last 30 years with not entirely satisfactory results, if we're here to talk about it. So size is not always a success factor. In order to survive, Europe must learn from its mistakes and must learn to carry forward two concepts that are fundamental: subsidiarity and proportionality. Without legislation on these tracks, Europe will not be able to survive the quagmire into which it has plunged.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to speak today about two subjects which will be on the agenda of the next European Council and which are closely linked: on the one hand, the situation in Ukraine, the discussion and debate on security and defence, which seems to be one of the pillars of EU legislative work in the next legislature; On the other hand, agriculture. Starting from the beginning, week after week, a dangerous drift seems to be coming forward because, and we read it in some statements that I consider irresponsible by some European leaders, the sacrosanct support for Ukraine is turning into something different: It seems that someone today wants to give the idea of a continent preparing for war, of a European economy turning into a war economy. Here, this is a dangerous concept, dangerous in its effects but in my opinion also incompatible with what the European project is, and I believe that the Council at its next meeting has the obligation to reiterate this issue: The value of the European cooperation project is peace. It is not possible that in someone's head an institution, which in 2012 was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, will turn into a continent that is preparing for war. This must of course go hand in hand with reiterating that we are ready to support Ukraine, but that the European Union remains a peace project. It is not a military project, it is not a defense project: It is a project of peaceful cooperation between states and this is the value we have seen in recent years. And, as I said, the issue of agriculture is closely linked to that of the situation in Ukraine. We have seen the last Council meetings, where the two issues were the most important ones that were discussed; I believe it is necessary, also in the next Council, to reiterate that financial support for Ukraine must go hand in hand with support for the weakest, for those who are most in difficulty today in the European Union and, above all, for the agricultural category. I believe that the European Commission should make a mea culpa on this issue, and the fact that mistakes have been made in approaching this category in the past, in this legislature in particular, is evidenced by the fact that some measures, especially in this term, have been brought back. That is not enough, but it is the hope that the attitude of the Commission and the Union will change. Do not pass the message that is likely to pass: that on the one hand we take gasoline from tractors to put it in tanks.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a glass of wine is bad for your health, while insects are good for you. Cheese is poison, but chicken made in test tubes will feed us. Fishing is now considered unnatural, but only if the vessel flies the flag of a Member State of the European Union. We promote, on the one hand, organic, but perhaps it is better if we stop growing wheat. It is better to buy it from abroad, because our fields must rest. This is the synthesis of schizophrenia that this European Commission has carried out over the last five years, supported by a majority in Parliament. And today it is hypocritical to be surprised that, in the face of this senseless war that has been waged against this category, the category reacts, and reacts in a violent way that has sounded a wake-up call throughout Europe. Politics green von der Leyen and Timmermans was a disaster, a disaster that today we have an obligation to correct and modify. It will be a pity to have a continent, to have an increasingly weak and increasingly divided and torn European Union. I agree with what Mr Lamberts said, at least on one side. The Green Deal This is a disaster, in my opinion, but it is not the only reason why farmers are protesting today. There are other policies carried out over the years by the European Union that have meant that today, together with the disaster of the Green Deal, a farmer is unable to cover his production costs. This is the main reason why farmers are in the square. They're in the streets for their own survival, they're in the streets because they can't make it to the end of the month. One last political consideration: Today, hearing the news, hearing the statements in the newspapers, it seems that these measures have come from space. No, these measures were carried out over the five years by a Commission led by von der Leyen and a political majority that today supported these commitments. A very important consideration for the continuation of the European Union's action is that we must realize that the end of the month, unfortunately, comes before the end of the world, and farmers are aware of this.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Happy New Year to you all! Today I wanted to talk about the topics discussed at the last European Council but, as my colleague Mr Procaccini said, we are and we are entering an election year and what I heard from colleagues today forces me and gives me the opportunity to make a broader political reasoning about what this year will be, what the 2024 European elections represent and will represent. From what I hear, the premises are not good. No one today denies that next year will be even more difficult than the already difficult ones we have been through, but I, in this election campaign, and in the European Councils, would like to hear about the priorities and difficulties that European citizens face today and not always entrench ourselves behind the accusation of the parties that I, here in this House, represent. I have heard about the populist danger, every plenary session we have absurd debates about the danger of the parties I represent, but we struggle and especially those who have governed these institutions over the last 30 years struggle to understand that the success of the parties I represent is the result of your mistakes. It is the result of the policies you have pursued over the past 30 years; It is also the result of what is then revealed in the Council meetings, that is, of a divided Europe which, instead of focusing on a shared method, is the strength of the positions that then create divisions. We have not done anything extraordinary, we have only filled a political space that you have left empty, that you have decided not to fill. Answers to the citizens that we are giving and you with your policies have not given. So the problem is not to accuse those who have not governed of being inefficient or dangerous, today the problem you should talk about is the failure of your policies, because if we are voted on, we who have never ruled in Europe, it is evidently because the citizens are not happy and do not feel protected by those who have ruled in Europe today. 2024 will be very important. As a representative of this political group, I am happy today and optimistic about the future because we have already won. What we are debating in this House is the result of our political action having led the majority in Europe to discuss certain subjects, to talk about immigration, to talk about the economy, to approve a reform of the Stability and Growth Pact which finally, even if it is not the best possible, changes the perspective. So a wish to everyone for a good election campaign and a suggestion: Focus on a bit of self-criticism rather than criticizing those who don't want to destroy Europe, but want to free it from years of bad governance.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in reiterating our support for Ukraine, we urge the European institutions, two years after the Russian aggression, to take a central role in finally opening a peace process and also to carry out a comprehensive review of all the sanctions packages carried out to date, which too often have failed to meet expectations in their effects. Coming to the discussions of these days, to what will be discussed in the Council, I hope that today the Commission will categorically deny the rumours of an agreement with Hungary to release the new funds to Ukraine, because, if so, it would be a confirmation of how the European Commission uses the issue of the rule of law as an instrument of coercion towards the Member States and this would be very serious and unacceptable in a democracy. The rule of law is a serious matter and cannot be used at the will of the institutions. With regard to enlargement, it is right for states to discuss how to help Ukraine get closer and be more connected to the West, but this must be done with pragmatism, realism and transparency. Too often in the last twenty years we have seen the instrument of enlargement used as an end, rather than a means, to strengthen the European Union. There can be no sons and daughters in the enlargement process, because if this is the approach to this issue, unfortunately we will lose the little credibility that has remained in this area to the European institutions. I close on the subject of the revision of the multiannual financial framework with a reflection: Today we are discussing the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact and it is clear that we would be moving towards a fiscal effort, which we are requesting from Member States and which will be requested from Member States' budgets in the coming years. Here, in the face of this situation, we cannot demand and cannot use another approach with regard to the European budget. The resources are there, the European Union must understand that it cannot do everything and do it badly, as unfortunately happens, but it must do less and it must do it better. Merry Christmas to you all.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have heard many Members wonder why, once again, Europe is irrelevant on a foreign policy issue. Just look at the positions taken by the various European institutions since 7 October: Not only in the Council but also the other authorities have expressed divergent positions, they have started a personal quarrel that unfortunately in recent months we have seen too often. And be careful that this is not the fault of nationalisms but it is the fault of personalisms, of those who put their political careers before the common interest. Turning to the concrete issues, we certainly welcome the news that a part of the hostages will be released soon. But it is necessary, in order to understand well what is happening and what this House must do, to understand what happened on 7 October and what is happening in that area. Because what happened on October 7th is not the cry of a people claiming their sovereignty but it is a terrorist act of an organization that has as its objective the cancellation of a state, because this is what is written in the Hamas statute and this is what Hamas does with its supporters, including Iran. If, therefore, we do not understand this point, we cannot understand what concrete solutions we can bring forward and we do not understand the support that this House and these institutions must give today to the State of Israel, which is constantly living under the threat of its destruction. And a thought to the left, to its short circuit, to its dialectical dimension that on these issues is as always the self-goal: on the one hand, they ask us every day for respect for all minorities, for LGBT people, for women and, on the other hand, they support Islamic fundamentalism that denies women's rights, that condemns homosexual people to death and that represses freedom.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday we commemorated the anniversary of the Lampedusa tragedy, recalling the memory of those people who lost their lives in that terrible shipwreck, but today the question that European citizens are asking themselves is: What has been done in the last ten years to try to curb this phenomenon? And the answer is before everyone's eyes: Nothing has been done. Or rather, only one person has managed to stem landings and deaths in the Mediterranean, having moreover all against: national and supranational institutions, non-governmental organisations and even the judiciary. And this person is Matteo Salvini, in his role as Minister of the Interior of the Italian Republic. And I'm not the one to say it, but it's the numbers of the UN Refugee Agency, and these numbers are public, you can see them all. In 2015 more than 150 000 arrivals and almost 3 000 deaths and missing persons in Italy, in 2016 more than 180 000 arrivals and more than 4 500 deaths, in 2017 120 000 and 3 000 deaths, all under left-wing governments. And what happens in 2018? A representative of the institutions elected by the people establishes a principle that should be natural: In Italy and Europe, you can only enter legally. Immediately in 2018 the landings fall to 23,000 and the deaths to 1,300, in 2019 still the deaths halve and the landings halve. We come to the lowest point, the maximum protection of Europe's external borders. After the experience of this government, the numbers quickly returned to explode. So, at the end of this analysis of these numbers, I would like to ask all of you who in Europe over the past decade has contributed the most to avoiding tragedies and innocent deaths. I think the numbers speak for themselves. This is to summarize a very simple concept: It is necessary to start from the blockade of departures and the blockade of deaths. If there is strong political will, this can be done.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we certainly come out of this debate with positive news, namely that this is Mr Verhofstadt's last debate and, therefore, a better prospect for the European Union. For the rest, I repeat what I said: This is not the time for committees, this is not the time for working groups, this is not the time for special envoys. We know what the problems are and we need concrete and quick answers that we expect from the European Commission on the three main issues: a revision of the Green Deal, so that this transition is truly just; a truly radically different approach to immigration, especially illegal immigration, which must be declared as such and, on the economy, concrete responses and not bureaucracy and complications. Doing less and doing better must be the Commission's guideline in the coming months.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, President von der Leyen, it is not that I expected the fireworks from your speech, which seemed to me more like an electoral manifesto launching the campaign for your reconfirmation as President. But, frankly, I am a little unarmed to think that the weapons that you have announced to us in response to the crises that European citizens are experiencing today are all that the European Commission has planned to do in the coming months. And I'm going to break down point by point the issues that you raised, starting with the Green Deal. Today we have a historic opportunity, because we need less ideology and more pragmatism in making this transition, and with the departure of Commissioner Timmermans, you have the opportunity to put this transition back on a really right track, starting from considerations that must be clearly stated: When we talk about climate change, the European Union is not the problem, the problem is not our farmers, the problem is not our businesses, the problem is not our property owners. We really need less ideology and more pragmatism, otherwise the only winner of this transition will not be the environment, it will not be the European citizens, but it will be China and we have the signs. And I'll move on to this point. You have announced that the Commission intends to take action on this issue, with an investigation into subsidies. My question is: Does the Commission really still need to launch an investigation into this issue today, in 2023, when it is clear that China is competing unfairly? My son, who is not yet five years old, also knows this, so we do not expect investigations: We expect the European Commission to do what it has to do to protect our companies, which is to impose tariffs on those who do not respect the rules. And then I move on to the second proposal that you announced: This inquiry into the impact of bureaucracy and – if I understand correctly – intends to appoint a special envoy who will act as a collector between you and small and medium-sized enterprises. Once again I remain of stone: We don't need a special envoy. These, the elect of this House, are the special envoys. We who talk to companies every day do not need to do surveys, to do committees or to do many other beautiful things. We need less bureaucracy, businesses are asking us for fewer laws, better laws and more freedom, which no longer seems to be a priority for the European Commission. And the last point, immigration. So many measures have been announced, so many initiatives, but even today it does not seem to me that the Union wants to solve this problem and that someone would like the burden of unsustainable migration flows to fall only on a few countries. This point is very simple: until the European Union's line on this issue is clear, namely that those who do not have the right to enter the European Union must stay out, that illegal immigration is a crime and that there is no talk of redistribution unless departures are reduced, we will never solve the problem. I really hope that in these months we will change course and try to give more space to what the citizens are asking of us and that it does not need committees or envoys but it is quite clear.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, hearing today's bickering among the representatives of the majority in this Parliament, there is a political fact that is very clear: Today, the majority that governs these institutions no longer exists, they no longer agree on the focal points of Europe and, above all, on what is the project and model of Europe that we want to see in the next 20 or 30 years. And I believe that the Council, and especially the Commission, must take note of this, putting a brake on an ideological approach that risks creating fractures and making Europe a poorer, more backward and less prominent continent on the global stage. Coming to the Council's conclusions, it is good that almost a year and a half after the invasion of Ukraine, the Member States have confirmed their unconditional support for the Ukrainian people, this was not obvious. It has to be done with pragmatism. We know that Ukraine's rapprochement with Western institutions requires a realistic path, for two reasons: Do not disillusion the Ukrainian people and our Ukrainian friends, and do not show a weak European position towards Russia and other autarkies that support Putin's war. As far as the economy is concerned, it is important that we learn lessons from what is happening. The green deal The way it is set up is not good, it does not have the support of European citizens and therefore it is good to rethink it in a pragmatic way, before mistakes are made that we will regret. What the Chinese regime did last week is a signal of great alarm that we have denounced for a long time: It makes no sense to have made a huge effort to reduce dependence on Russian autarky to put our hands and feet inside an even greater threat, which is that of the Chinese regime. So it is important that we sit together on this and think back to a green transition that is not ideological, that is not pragmatic and that does not have the face of an unacceptable attitude, which is that of Commissioner Timmermans. I'll close on immigration. The clashes that took place in the discussion in the Council, also here, are a wake-up call on what must be the path for managing this problem: reduction of numbers, reduction of departures and intelligent and pragmatic management of migration flows. Europe cannot take on the problems of the world. In the end, otherwise, the risk is that the whole continent will turn into what we are unfortunately seeing in the French suburbs.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, three fundamental points on which we expect concrete answers from the European institutions in this Council. The first concerns the historic agreement on immigration reached in the Council, which is, however, only a small step, finally in the right direction, in a process that will be longer and must now focus much more on the external dimension. Fewer departures means fewer arrivals, means fewer deaths at sea, means more security for our citizens, means doing what a civil state and a state that respects the rule of law does. The second big issue is the industrial transition and I am pleased that, after four years of ideological propaganda, so many in this House are finally waking up - it is true, one year after the elections - and realising how crazy ideology is. green It has been carried out by the European institutions and, above all, by a majority in this Parliament that has failed. The votes of these weeks are proof that there can be a majority in this Chamber, pragmatic, carrying out a green transition in a pragmatic way, which looks at the improvement of the environment but also at the need for economic and industrial evolution against the ideology of those who want to bring Europe back to the Middle Ages. The last point concerns the economy. We are heading towards a period of lower growth or even stagnation and it is important that the European Union's policies on this are not pro-cyclical - I am referring to the review of the Stability and Growth Pact and the European Central Bank's approach - but supportive policies for citizens and businesses at a difficult time when we really need money injected into the economy to avoid a disaster and to avoid mistakes from the past that we have all acknowledged.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is certainly a good thing that a proposal has finally arrived for the revision of rules which, ten years ago, it was clear to everyone, were wrong rules in the management of public finances and investment within the European Union. However, I believe that the Commission's proposal is based on three incorrect assumptions which must be corrected. The first is that it does not change the incorrect structure of the rules of fiscal coordination within the European Union, assuming that by now all the institutions, from the International Monetary Fund, to the European Central Bank and the greatest economists, have recognized that the great eurozone debt crisis was not a public debt crisis, but was a crisis of a private debt imbalance, especially external. And, as proof of this, we know that some states that ended up under the programme, I am thinking of Portugal, I am thinking of Spain, I am thinking of Ireland, had a public debt-to-GDP ratio in line with or even below the 60 % provided for in the Treaties. The second point is precisely that it does not change the setting of these numbers, 60 % and 3 %, which are numbers that have no economic basis but are not revised. The third point, in my opinion, is a subject of accountability Democratic: It is right to create a flexible path for each Member State, but the proposal gives too much discretion to the European Commission, which is not an elected body and which, unfortunately, runs the risk of being able to exploit this power in defining the policies of a government and we know that these plans, very often, could go beyond the duration of a national government and therefore affect policies. The last point concerns investment. If we look at the data, unfortunately, many states in the European Union will be forced into fiscal consolidation that will not allow us to put in place the investments we need for the industrial transition.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the events and travels of the last week have confirmed two principles. The first is that the geopolitical dimension of the European Union does not exist or is inconsistent, and this is a promise that was made by the Commission at the beginning of 2019 and that still remains in vain today. The second consideration that is confirmed month after month is that the greatest sovereignist and nationalist in Europe, no matter what, is Macron. Because behind this controversy on the subject of Taiwan and Taiwan's statements has gone almost unnoticed a fact, namely that Macron went to China and took home rich contracts and rich agreements for French companies. I wonder if this is the concept of European strategic autonomy that the French President wants to advance. But there is a consideration to be made. It is true that autonomy is an important issue for European states, but I believe that there are some topics on which there can be no ambiguity and on which the concept of strategic autonomy is inconsistent, and one of these is China. There can be no strategic autonomy, there are credible allies with whom we go step by step and we must go side by side in global challenges and there are autocratic regimes, such as Russia and China, from which we must differentiate ourselves, and there cannot be a third way in this. Europe must decide with whom to side clearly, and I believe that on this issue there is no doubt that Europe must side with Western allies, because China is the greatest geopolitical challenge that the West is facing today and we cannot think of facing it trying to differentiate ourselves from allies who have common interests with ours and who have shown that they hold to those important values that we talk about every day in here at least as much as we do. That said, Europe needs to figure out how to approach China, and what we've been doing since 2019 is definitely not a good way. President von der Leyen recalled some of the measures that the Commission has proposed, on which we are working to implement this "de-risking" that the High Representative from China was talking about, but - allow me, President - these measures are not even remotely sufficient. The Chips Act, the Net Zero Industry Act, the Critical Raw Materials Act These are acts that will not actually allow us to detach ourselves from China, not to be dependent on China. Then, the last point. I have shared many of the considerations that both President von der Leyen and High Representative Borrell have made today, but the problem is that these considerations are not followed by the facts, the facts are completely different. If we look at the data, the European Union's dependence on China in recent years, also due to this green transition, has increased dramatically and we really risk repeating another fundamental mistake: tie our hands and feet to a dictatorship, to an autocratic regime. I close with a question to which today I do not find an answer, or I find it and it does not satisfy me. What would happen to the European Union tomorrow if China decided to invade Taiwan? We have to think about that. We need to think about what tools we have to avoid repeating the same mistakes we made in the past and are paying for today.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, from the words we heard at the last plenary session in Strasbourg and also from the words we hear today on the subject of competitiveness and the future of our industry and economy, it seems that the European institutions have clear ideas, and therefore target in the proposals those points that we lack, from the reduction of bureaucratic complexity to the implementation of a functioning capital market, which are the first two requirements to manage such an impressive industrial transition project as the one we are trying to manage. But you will allow me to be a little skeptical when looking at the proposal that the Commission has put forward and also when looking back at certain measures in times of crisis that these institutions have tried to carry out. Many colleagues like me have been sitting in this Parliament for a long time and unfortunately, in the last ten years, we have experienced so many critical issues, so many moments of crisis, where the European institutions have tried to propose innovative and revolutionary instruments. Unfortunately, these innovative and revolutionary tools, announced with such fanfare, proved to be little. Looking at the Commission's latest proposal, the industrial transition package that has been presented, the guidelines for which have been outlined in this House, I can think of what the Juncker Commission did with the Juncker Plan. It was presented in the Chamber with a lot of fanfare on the same basis, because the problems were the same: Too much bureaucracy, too much complexity, too much centralism and an undeveloped capital market. Here, the Juncker Plan did not achieve those goals and today we are talking again about the same problems with similar solutions. It doesn't work, it can't work that way. We are managing an important industrial transition and we must do so with pragmatism. The fallacy of the industrial transition package shows that the whole basis of the Green Deal, which started in 2019, is unsound. We are still in time to change and we are still in time, and I close President, to understand that this project was born as a project of freedom, both after the Second World War and in 1992 against Soviet leadership. Today, seeing these institutions propagate dirigism and centralism is of great concern to me. This is a project of freedom. We must maintain these principles firmly in our proposals.

Madam President, President von der Leyen, President Michel, ladies and gentlemen, I listened with interest to the words of President von der Leyen, who gave us a vision of her trip to the United States and gave us an anticipation of what the measures that we so much await from the Commission will have within them. I allow myself, however, to be a bit skeptical, because in what you have outlined there are certainly elements of interest. But these are promises that we have heard for a long time and we are waiting for concrete facts. And then, in my opinion, on the subject of what Europe wants to be at industrial and production level in the coming years, there is a basic mistake in the strategy that the European institutions are carrying out and I have repeated it several times. In my view, it is a great mistake to copy the United States or to think that today the European Union can make or chase the United States into a battlefield for which we do not have adequate weapons. And really, the right strategy is not to replicate what the United States is doing, but to understand, to try to understand the reasons why on the industrial transition the United States can be leaders and protectionists and the European Union, today, cannot be because we lack so many tools. Some have outlined it. I would like to point out three of them, which I believe are fundamental and on which the industrial transition approach should be based. One – as you mentioned, Mr President, we have been talking about this for a long time – is administrative and bureaucratic complexity. Today, private investors do not invest in Europe, first of all because there are too many rules, because they are too complicated and because there is no legislative environment that is suitable for this type of investment. The second point is linked, this too, touched on in its initial presentation, and it is the capital market. The United States has a well-developed capital market. Europe is far behind on this point. We have been talking about it for many years, but the progress is really insignificant and there is an abundant amount of liquidity in these markets that awaits a signal to be able to invest in new technologies. And the last point is about natural resources. The United States is a country that has great natural resources, not only in its territory, but also has neighbors and allies who have as many resources, you mentioned Canada. Our transition will be based on technologies and resources that depend on a great country with which we have a clash today, which is China, which is not democracy, which is not a country to which we can tie our hands and feet. And there is another theme: Technological neutrality. Today, the Commission is abandoning this sacrosanct principle in its draft: To abandon the concept of technological neutrality in this transition is to kill innovation and research. The last point, on the subject of immigration. I agree with what Mr Procaccini said. I appreciated President Michel's words, because it means that today there is a change of course, today there is no longer the narrative of open borders or redistribution, which is not possible, but the focus is on reducing an activity that is illegal. Because, let's face it loud and clear, illegal immigration is an illegal activity. And it makes me feel like I have heard in recent days attacks by some colleagues on a government that in recent months has saved more than 30,000 people in the seas, even in areas that were not within its competence. So it takes a little more respect, especially from those who fill their mouths with respect for the rule of law, but then when it comes to immigration, they wink at the traffickers of human lives.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Green Industrial Plan presented by the European Commission has two flaws: the first in the assumptions and the second in the direction, in my opinion wrong, which takes this initiative. I'll go explain why. The first reason is to pursue the United States, and we are already starting out defeated if that is the assumption. The European Union is not the United States of America, we do not have the same tools, we do not have the same structure, and to start trying to imitate what they do on the other side of the Atlantic is to start already defeated. The second point concerns a drift, which I believe is dangerous, on the part of the European Commission. That is, it seems to me that we are going back to experiences of economic and industrial planning that we have already seen in the past in other systems and that have not worked, obviously. I am concerned that today the European Commission is presenting industrial policy plans and initiatives that tell companies what to do, when to do it, when to do it and how to do it. In my opinion, this is not efficient in a free market like that of the European Union. The third point, which is even more important in my view, is the very heart of the matter. Today, the European Union, in its proposals on the green transition, is abandoning a principle that, in my view, is fundamental in any industrial regulation: Technological neutrality. And this means that we are no longer talking about how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but we are talking about targeting all our chips on a technology that is even a technology that has certain shadows. We are not sure that it is the best technology, and this means killing investment in research and technology. The last point - and I will close - concerns what we can do today. Today, talking to companies and investors, the first obstacle to the flow of private liquidity in the European Union also on this type of investment is that of the clumsiness of rules and regulations that often kill the industry. Here, cutting unnecessary regulation, making it simpler, I think it is a fundamental step that we can really take to avoid bringing industrial desertification to Europe. Unfortunately, we have seen in the pandemic what it means to no longer have certain productions on our territory.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council is finally taking up a fundamental dossier, a fundamental practice that the European Union and the European institutions have been debating for years without the ability to finally take decisive action. We have high hopes in the words we have heard today, both from the Swedish Presidency, which has been very clear about its objectives in the first few weeks, and from Commission President von der Leyen, who, I think, has finally focused on what the problem is and what real solutions we need to put in place to solve the problem of immigration. Talking exclusively about redistribution and open doors, as we have done in recent years, means not wanting to solve the problem because the redistribution here, with these numbers, nobody wants it: Macron's government did not want it, socialist governments in Spain or other countries did not want it, no one in Europe wanted it. So continuing today to talk about redistribution and responsibility without reducing the numbers means not solving the problem. The points were also outlined by those who preceded me, the focus must be put on the external borders and on the protection of our external borders; This is what civilised states do, this is what developed states do, this is what states with the rule of law do, and I think that the European Union should be part of this group. I agree with the proposal that has often been made in the past, by my country and my party: we need to process asylum applications outside the borders of the European Union, because the percentage of applications that are accepted is very low and the rest remains with the countries that share an external border of the European Union. We can do this, because we give a lot of funding to many third countries at our external borders and I think that when we make agreements to distribute this money we can also ask for structures to process applications, where the institutions of the European Union take on the task of monitoring respect for the human rights of people who transit through them. The last key point: NGOs. We cannot, a public authority cannot outsource control of its external borders to private organizations and on this, very often, we have detected profiles of potential illegality. This we must do: Reduce departures. Only by reducing departures will we reduce deaths at sea and have a more civilised European Union.

Madam President, happy birthday again, ladies and gentlemen, the last European Council, almost a year after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, reiterated the unconditional support that European countries and European institutions are ready to give to the Ukrainian people in their struggle for freedom. But it also laid the important foundations for what are the political priorities for 2023, which must be a year of rebirth after so much suffering. And the political priorities of these institutions must focus mainly on three major themes that will define the future of European countries and European institutions over the next 20, 30, 40 years: energy, the economy and the regulation of migration flows. We welcome the fact that in that meeting the foundations were laid for a meeting in February, which will focus on security and immigration issues, and I hope that in 2023 and that in this meeting the foundations will be laid for a different approach than in the past on this issue, which must focus on reducing departures and protecting the external borders. Only by reducing departures will we reduce deaths at sea and convince all European countries to talk about redistribution on smaller numbers. With regard to the energy issue, which is the hottest one, I partially agree with what President Van der Leyen said: It is true that in recent months, with difficulty, the European Union has moved, but perhaps the result and the condition less worse than we expected this winter is not so much dictated by the efficiency of the measures put in place, but rather by exogenous and favourable conditions, not dependent on it. This must be a reason to encourage us to work more concretely on two guidelines: one on energy autonomy, which is still far from being achieved, and two on the assessment of a green transition, which must be pragmatic and not ideological. And even with regard to Russia, it is true that the measures have been quite efficient, but it is equally true that Russian energy products, bypassing sanctions, continue to arrive in Europe in an important way. So we expect a lot more on this. The last topic, he talked about in Davos, is that of the economy. Theoutlook Presented on the first day is a outlook This is not very good for Europe, even if conditions in this area seem less bad than we expected. Well, the review of state aid, but beware we must not only worry about competitiveness with countries outside the European Union, but we must preserve competitiveness within the continent and the integrity of the single market, which is certainly the greatest success of European integration. The figures are worrying about state aid. In the last year of the hundreds of billions of schemes approved by the Commission, 80% concerned Europe's two largest economies and more than 50% the largest. The internal market is in danger. We expect concrete actions and on this we will also judge the action of the European institutions in 2023.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Vice-President Šefčovič, Prime Minister, welcome to the European Parliament, the Swedish Presidency certainly comes with great expectations, at a time that is not easy, but in a semester that we hope will be a rebirth after the difficulties and the great crises that we have faced during this year. The priorities you have put on the table are priorities on which we expect concrete answers and work that goes beyond the emergency response, but looks at the next twenty, thirty years and the structural future of the European Union, starting with the hottest one, the hottest theme, that of energy. It is true that, on the one hand, as Vice-President Šefčovič said, winter is going better than we would have expected, but, in my opinion, it is perhaps more due to the randomness and leniency of a less rigid climate than to the effectiveness of the responses we have put in place in recent months. On this we expect concrete structural action, because the price of gas still remains well above the average of recent years and undermines not only the competitiveness of European companies, but also the survival of our citizens. The issue of economics has been touched upon. Many colleagues have spoken about the revision of the State aid rules and this is certainly something we need to do. But be careful because this does not come and is not happening without a cost. Of the hundreds of billions of state aid schemes approved in the last year, 80% went and were demanded to come from the two largest economies within the European Union. Here, be careful, because the sustainability and integrity of our internal market must be the guiding light in this review. And the last point on immigration, we talked about it, for many years we have been trying to find an agreement, but we focus on the wrong issue, which is that of redistribution. I hope that the Swedish Presidency will take the matter into its own hands with a clear objective: the protection of our external borders to reduce arrivals. Only in this way will we reduce deaths at sea. Only in this way will we make the situation on the continent more sustainable. Only with lower numbers of arrivals will we finally be able to convince everyone to talk about redistribution. And one last point: We talked about Ukraine. This House's support for the Ukrainian people has been unconditional this year, but there is another people crying out for help and calling for the European Union. It is the Iranian people who are suffering and shouting a cry of freedom that we must listen to. On this issue too, we expect strong and concrete action against the Ayatollahs by the Swedish Presidency.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at the opening of the proceedings on Monday, in this House, there was a word spoken by all, unity, in order to respond better to an unprecedented scandal. Well, I am sorry to see that someone is still a victim of their own short-sighted political arrogance. That is why I propose, on behalf of the ID Group, an oral amendment whereby paragraph 3 should become as follows: Stresses that the gravity and scale of the ongoing investigations require Parliament and the EU institutions to react with unequivocal unity and firm determination; reaffirms that its idea of unequivocal unity does not include all political groups, i.e. the representatives of millions of European citizens; I conclude, Mr President, by saying that this House is just another proof of the hypocrisy and pettiness of some in this Parliament, who feel morally superior even now that the recent serious events have blatantly denied them.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the President for her words at this difficult time. What is happening these days I think is so far from the culture that it should belong to this institution, that it becomes very difficult even to find the words to comment on it. We are all deeply shocked by what is emerging in these hours, with very serious accusations against representatives of weight of these institutions, of the present and the past, as well as collaborators investigated in various ways. For our group it is clear and essential that this Parliament should take a strong and decisive position because, unfortunately, the attitude we have seen in the past and especially in recent months has not helped these institutions, with colleagues who have stood up as champions against foreign interference, even to the point of filling an official report of this Parliament with accusations that are not always substantiated. We are in the classic situation where you look at the speck of others and you do not notice the beam in your eyes. That is why I say today to all my fellow Members that this Parliament must be more humble and less hypocritical on certain sensitive issues. It is clear that everyone can make mistakes and commit a mistake and the responsibility for actions, until proven otherwise, is always personal, but what has become frankly unsustainable in this legislature, and will have to change, I believe is the attitude of moral superiority of some. This huge scandal that we are experiencing is just another proof. Now, beyond the immediate actions that we will take to protect the respectability of these institutions, I believe that we must do a deeper job and I believe that this Parliament must thoroughly investigate, in the future, whether there is also a political responsibility behind the facts that we have seen and reconstructed, starting from a different attitude and above all countering the self-referentiality that we have all too often seen damaging this institution and the European institutions.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, just to remind you that this morning, unfortunately, Mr Roberto Maroni, former Vice-President of the Italian Council, Minister of Governments of the Republic, Member of Parliament and Governor of the Lombardy Region for many years, passed away. A void that leaves in politics, to which he has made an important contribution in his institutional roles, also in the construction of European institutions in the last thirty years, but above all it leaves us the well-liked man, always pragmatic and always ready for discussion even with the political opponent. We were pleased that even today this House would remember him in his commitment as an Italian politician and as a European politician.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, Prime Ministers, ladies and gentlemen, seventy years have passed since the creation of the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community. It was 1952 and Europe was very different from what we know today. The great wars were behind us and we were preparing for a future of peace and development with great hope. At the time, only 78 parliamentarians were appointed by the national parliaments of the Member States. Today we are almost ten times as many, 705, and each of us is here because it was the citizens with their vote who chose us here to represent them. I believe it is also necessary on this occasion to remind everyone, but first of all ourselves, of the value of democracy and the respect we owe to the citizens we represent in this House. The weight and extent of our parliamentary actions must be guided by the importance of the challenges ahead and the hopes that people, citizens, place in the institution of which we are part. And democracy in a context of national peculiarities, of different sensibilities and cultures that are close, but that maintain their own identity means above all respect for these differences and not flattening on a single model of thought. It is necessary to motivate everyone to rediscover that sense of common interest in facing challenges and in finding efficient and rapid solutions to the grim moment we are going through, unfortunately, and I invite you to reflect, to recover precisely that spirit, which in 1952 had given the impetus for the creation of what this institution is today. At the time, in fact, it was precisely through the ECSC that the States expressed all the importance of such fundamental elements to guarantee autonomy, development and a strategy for the continent. Resources and energy: These are two extremely topical issues even today. This fact should prompt us to ask ourselves: How did we get to where we are today? Why did we decide, first politically, then in fact, to delegate to other such strategic issues? Why, even at the industrial level, have we succumbed to the sirens of indiscriminate globalization? Relocation, dependence on third countries in terms of energy and substantial loss of autonomy are the mistakes that have led us to have to find solutions today, in a hurry, to a crisis that unfortunately will not leave us so soon. I believe that we have much to learn from our predecessors and I hope that today's anniversary will motivate each of us to recover the roots of this project and to give a different line to the present, but above all to our future. And, in conclusion, there is still one thing that I believe this institution lacks in order to be able to say fully realized: Sharing responsibility and values with democratic opposition representing millions of European citizens. When we get to this stage, we can really say that democracy is finally respected and fully represented in this House and in this institution as well.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, President von der Leyen, President Michel, we are concerned because we see that that unity, that concreteness, that impetus that the European institutions had after 24 February, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, is failing. The debate, the discord between two European institutions, which seems to me to be quite clear even from President Michel's speech, is not a good signal, it is not that signal of unity and coordination of the European institutions that we need. We need it right now to plan for 2023, which we know will be an even more difficult year than the emergency months we have faced right now. President von der Leyen recalled the actions taken, the achievement of adequate storage to face this winter, some measures that will certainly help us to face the emergency situation and recalled the drop in prices since the peak this summer. But that's not enough! It is not enough because we will probably be able to better cross the winter not so much for what we have done, but for exogenous conditions: A winter milder than was perhaps planned and which helped us to lower demand and, therefore, also to lower prices in a market economy. We need to take concrete action to address and respond to 2023, when Asian buyers will return to the market and the LNG market will be more competitive; when flows from Russia will no longer be available, as was the case for part of this year; when the storages are empty and the flows are lower. We need action today and we also need action on the issue of how much the European economy is financing Russia, because it is true, as the President recalled, that flows from pipelines and pipelines have gone almost to zero, but it is equally true that there are other worrying data: The import of liquid natural gas from Russia to the European Union has increased dramatically even in these months of war, in these months of confrontation, and we must act on this. We need concrete actions, also thinking about the responses that the world, our competing countries are giving to this crisis: China and the US are heavily subsidising their industries, so what will the European Union do? What can the European Union do to protect industries and households at a time of difficulty and at a time when our competitiveness is at risk? On this we need great unity and we need that, to words and statements, follow the facts, concrete facts and concrete answers.