Speeches

Mr President, welcome back, Mr Michel, for the European Commission I no longer see President von der Leyen, ladies and gentlemen, two general reflections on the conclusions of this Council and they are, in my view, worrying reflections. The first is that it seems to me that there is a constant in these conclusions: There is a chronic inability of the Council to find a minimum common denominator for making decisions or resolving the issues we face today. The second general reflection concerns the fact that, all too often, the weaknesses of the European Union are reflected in the fact that we are easily blackmailed by the dictator on duty, whether it is Turkey, whether it is Belarus, whether it is in Libya, whether it is in Russia. Unfortunately, this has become a constant. The Union should give strength and instead our weaknesses allow us to be constantly blackmailed on various issues. I now turn to the concrete issues that have been discussed. On the pandemic and vaccines, my colleagues have already spoken extensively about it, unfortunately in the Council conclusions only a general mention is made of disinformation and nothing is reported about the fact that one of the main and pivotal measures that the Commission had put in place, and that here we voted by a large majority, is likely to dissolve after a few months, that of the green certificate. We are waiting for the Commission's new proposal, but it seems to me that we are going in a direction where everyone does what they want and it is still difficult to find a common plan among the European countries. We are very concerned, and unfortunately we have also seen it in Brussels in recent days, about the violent waves that are coming in protest for this situation. Violence and violent protests are to be condemned without ifs and buts, but I wonder if, from an information point of view, the European institutions cannot do more to prevent discontent from translating into these despicable acts. As far as energy and raw materials are concerned, here too I have said it several times: We don't need the dream book, we need concrete solutions. To think that what we are doing here in terms of energy transition does not have an impact on these dynamics is not to understand the size of this problem. The energy transition is an important point, but we must do it with pragmatism and taking into account the current situation. This is not the case and we risk creating problems both in the short term and to fail the objectives of the transition. The last point concerns immigration. Full solidarity with Poland and the Baltic States. What is happening is unacceptable. On this point we see an important gap. If the President of the Peoples and yourself President, compared to the past, consider some necessary measures to protect our external borders, this is certainly a positive fact. Frontex data are worrying, it published them today, not only with regard to Belarus but also with regard to the Mediterranean. From here we would like more participation and protection of our external borders by the European institutions.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, Mr President Logar, before moving on to the Council's issues, a reflection on yesterday's debate, given that so many colleagues still want to touch on that subject today. I believe that this House and these institutions should look at the issues raised in yesterday's debate, in the debate we constantly have on Poland, with less hypocrisy. Because not recognizing the forcings and mistakes that we have made in the last thirty years in pursuing European integration means not understanding that the situation in which Europe is today is the cause of this approach, it is the cause of an approach that, not being able to convince the European States and citizens of the goodness of European integration with the goodness of the results, has tried to pursue it by forcing the Treaties, using backdoor, which is not really the most appropriate path to pursue this objective. And I wonder what so many colleagues have to say when they hear what one of the champions of European law, Michel Barnier, says today in his campaign for the French presidential elections, when, in front of his associates, the members of his party, who are now in the ranks of the European People's Party, he says and speaks of the supremacy of French law over European law. I believe that it would receive very different treatment from what we are giving today to Poland or other Member States that say the same thing. I believe that, without hypocrisy, we must recognise, for the sake of the future of European integration, the fact that it is the Member States, the national constitutions that legitimise these institutions and not the other way around, and if we are able to recognise this, I believe that European integration also benefits. Turning to the Council's issues, there are many important issues, but I believe that a fundamental one is missing, which is that of the economy and economic recovery. Here, on this issue I see too much complacency on the part of European governments and institutions, because it is true that today we are experiencing a period of growth that in the last twenty or thirty years we had never seen in Europe, but it is equally true that this growth comes after a memorable thud and that still in terms of employment we are far from recovering pre-pandemic levels and in some cases even pre-crisis levels of the eurozone in 2010. I believe that a deeper reflection should be made on the sustainability of the socio-economic model that the Union has pursued so far, namely that of making ourselves dependent through a mercantilist model on foreign influences, because someone has to absorb our huge trade surplus. Quickly on other topics. Energy and costs: I also do not believe that the situation we are living in today is a temporary and exceptional situation. I believe that unfortunately it is becoming a structural situation, which can continue in the medium to long term, and even if a prestigious newspaper like The Economist on the front page questions the effectiveness and the foundations of the green transition proposed by the European Union, I believe that we must reflect on the pragmatism of this transition. The last two themes: Immigration and External Relations. On immigration, I am very happy that at least the European Council has finally decided to change gear and to change its approach and has understood that the only way to solve this problem is to protect our external borders. Irregular immigration is outlawed, it is against our right and we must fight it. The last point: external relations. The Indo-Pacific is a fundamental point, I believe that the Council must continue to cooperate with the Quad Group, perhaps not following the whims of a president like Macron, because it is essential that Europe actively participates in countering the Chinese regime and its expansionism.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Vice-President Borrell, cooperation between the Union and the United States is, has always been, must be and must continue to be the fundamental pillar guaranteeing a democratic balance in the world. Unfortunately, I still see a chronic failure on the part of the Union leadership to understand US political dynamics. A simplification, at times, and an approach that do not allow to fully reap the benefits of close collaboration between these two great powers. Trump was not the problem and was not an enemy before, as he cannot be and is not the problem today the Biden administration. Unfortunately we must understand that for Americans, whatever their political affiliation, there are red lines, that the national interest comes first, and therefore of this we must be aware, without drawing our policies on supporters towards one administration or another. What happened in Afghanistan is certainly a wake-up call, but it only brings to light problems we have seen for a long time, mistakes we have seen for a long time. On the subject of defence, I have already said that our European defence is called and can only be called NATO. However, to do this, to make our defence and also the autonomy of our interests functional and efficient, we do not need much, we need money, we need investments, which unfortunately the majority of European countries have not done today. No one prevented us from sending 50,000 or 100,000 troops to Afghanistan. The Member States had this capacity. The fact that we did not send them was a political choice, it was a choice dictated by the fact that it was not our war. So starting from this mistake for a wrong analysis, saying that what happened in Afghanistan shows that we need a European defense or that, if we had a European defense in Afghanistan, the management of the withdrawal would have been different, it is a mistake, it is not telling the truth. That said, I think the next steps are important. As Mr Bütikofer pointed out, it is good to focus on what is the geopolitical challenge of the future, namely the threat to the democratic balance posed by the Chinese communist regime. In this we must strengthen, without jealousy and without conflict, cooperation, not only with the United States, but also looking at the valuable initiatives that this great country is doing in the Indo-Pacific area and be credible to have a role at that table. That's the challenge we have to play, but before we claim a seat at that table we have to prove that we are reliable partners.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, ladies and gentlemen, we have listened carefully to your speech and I will try to follow the points you raised in your words. First of all, the most pressing issues: the COVID response and the economic crisis. I still see too much complacency in the Commission's words, in the words you have used: I would avoid calling the situation we are in today a success. Of course, there has been a change of course, you came here to this Parliament in January acknowledging the mistakes and shortcomings of the Union, but it is still not enough today. And even today we must say thank you to the States that have put in place a vaccination machine, which is certainly not thanks to the coordination of the European Commission. Fixing the shot cannot be defined as a success, but rather something to think about in the future. On the economic crisis, even today, you have rightly given rise to what has been the Next Generation EU but let's analyze what it is: The first money came a year and a half after the crisis, it's not enough. We lost time and even today we are very far away, in terms of jobs, in recovering the level we had pre-pandemic. A new theme, a topic of today, that of defense: I think you have launched a project that will be discussed. I say that the Western force of action already exists, it is called NATO, because European defence and military cooperation cannot be separated from the United Kingdom and cooperation with the United States. There was only one problem, which is as always a money problem: All too often we have taken advantage of the umbrella of the American ally and the states have not done their duty to invest in defense, and you, as a former defense minister of an important country, know this very well. On the green, on the environment, another point on which this Commission has worked a lot, here too, just ideological approaches. It is an important topic, but it should be treated with pragmatism: the transition that the Union and the Commission have built today is an ecological transition for the rich, it is not a correct ecological transition, it is not an ecological transition that must weigh on the poorest citizens and it is inconceivable that Vice-President Timmermans, number two of a Commission that you yourself defined in 2019 as a policy, would say that this is not the responsibility of the Commission but it is the politicians who have to decide how to redistribute the costs of this transition. I close on the topic of the future, on the topic of integration, we are discussing it and we will discuss it. Today we are all more or less aware of the need to reform the Union, with different ideas. Let me give you a suggestion: it is enough to proceed with European integration and evolution through back doorby forcing the citizens. The citizens must be convinced of this project, a political project cannot be carried out by forcing the will of the citizens. (The President took the floor from the speaker)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Janša, welcome, although you are certainly a seasoned politician, I would like to give you a little advice, you see that this is the only Parliament in democratic Europe that denies institutional representation to minorities; It is the only Parliament in democratic Europe that does a medical cordon to some parties just because they have different ideas. So, surely do not give rope to these instrumental attacks because here no one can give lessons of democracy. Having said that, I would like to move on to the issues that I hope will be developed during your Presidency, issues that you have spoken about. He reflected on the pandemic, the pandemic was certainly a devastating moment. She was quoting an image of these wagons in a row and this image comes from the city where I come from. We have suffered a lot, but if we have to look at the positive side, we have discovered through the pandemic that things were not going well in Europe. You touched on the subject of the economy, you recalled that it was Europe that invented the social market economy. But we have noticed that this model may not work properly, if it is true, as the numbers show, that Europe is the continent that has grown less in recent decades than our competitors, both already developed economies such as the United States and developing economies. We need a radical change in the rules that govern our model of socio-economic development. He also talked about industry, which is a very important issue. Here too, with the pandemic, we realized that our model was not working, that we had outsourced too much, that we were too dependent on technologies developed by other countries and here too we appreciate and hope for a great cooperation between your Presidency and Commissioner Breton who has put good ideas on the ground. However, there is a problem and a contradiction, because you mentioned the semiconductor sector, but we cannot develop an industry or recover the technological gap we have with third countries in certain sectors, if we do not change our state aid rules and therefore a need for change that I hope will be at the heart of your Presidency and of these six months of policy. In conclusion, I would like to wish you all the best. We know that we can count on you and despite this cold reception that someone has shown you, I hope that this really is a successful semester and that, beyond the individual factors, it shows that there is an alternative that I consider better to European cooperation than the one that we have seen in recent years. It is important to show that we can do Europe good, that we can build good European cooperation respecting our diversity and respecting our traditions and above all respecting our nations which, like it or not, remain the bulwark, the founding and fundamental core of our democracies. Thank you again and good luck.