What Brando spoke about.

Mr President, colleagues, thank you for a rich debate, and thank you, Commissioner Tzitzikostas, for your support on the direction of this report, but I want to be frank: from the Commission, we need not only support, but also the ambition that matches the one of the Parliament with action. So, on global AI governance, we must say that from Bletchley Park to Seoul to Paris to Delhi, we have been seeing the building of a fragile international architecture of AI safety cooperation. This is also important for the topics that we are discussing today based on my report. This asymmetry, where some countries sign declarations and others do not participate, tells us everything about where race dynamics are taking us. Precisely because of that, Europe must lead a coalition of the willing, pool capacity and resources with like-minded partners, and keep AI safety a genuine political priority, not a side event to investment announcements. On the personal data topic that was raised, digital trade agreements must facilitate data flows, but not at the price of data protection. Our adequacy framework and our citizens' fundamental rights are not a bargaining position; they are the foundation of trust in the digital economy, and the Commission must treat them as such. On the open-source topic, I heard some objections, but I want to be very frank: a handful of firms today control compute, cloud and data simultaneously in that landscape. Open-source AI is not an ideological preference; it's a structural response to concentration. So delaying open-source strategy is the wrong signal at the wrong moment. Thank you, colleagues, again for this discussion. This report tries to give a clear and coherent framework for Europe on such an important topic as AI in trade. I hope we can make a good use of this, and I want to ask the Commission to use it thoroughly to advance in this important endeavour.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the reality behind this report is that artificial intelligence is changing how goods move, how services are delivered, how companies compete and how economic power is exercised. Europe cannot respond with fragmented initiatives or with regulation alone. We need one strategy that brings together competitiveness, openness and strategic autonomy. I want to thank the shadow rapporteurs and all groups for their constructive work. Their contributions have genuinely enriched this report. The broad support in committee shows that Parliament can speak clearly on this agenda. The first priority is competitiveness. AI can be a practical tool for European companies, especially SMEs. It can reduce translation costs, simplify compliance, improve logistics and make it easier to enter new markets. It can also help our public authorities protect the single market. Today, customs and market surveillance authorities face huge volumes of e-commerce, including unsafe, counterfeit and non-compliant goods. AI can help detect those risks at scale, making trade fairer for companies that respect the rules and harder to exploit for those that do not. But AI is not only changing how we trade, it is changing who benefits from trade. In services, it can automate tasks in legal advice, finance, technical consulting and many other areas where Europe has long been strong. In manufacturing, competitiveness will increasingly depend on productivity, skills and the ability to integrate AI into production. That is why every trade agreement must assess the impact of AI on workers, skills and environment. If we want citizens to support open trade, we must be honest about disruption and serious about managing it. The second priority is sovereignty. When the United States restricted exports of advanced AI chips, it did more than limit a product. It showed that access to the infrastructure of the new economy can depend on geopolitics. When China restricted exports of rare earths, the message became even clearer. In the age of AI, dependency can become leverage. Europe is exposed at both ends of the AI value chain. We depend on others for advanced semiconductors, cloud infrastructure, computing power, and critical raw materials. These dependencies are not abstract. They affect our companies, our public services, and our ability to act independently. This is why the report calls for our economic security tools to work together. Foreign direct investment screening, export controls, trade defence instruments, including the Anti-Coercion Instrument. Instead of constant delays – as it continues to be, I suppose, watered down by industry lobbying – the Commission tech sovereignty package must match the urgency of this moment and should not be delayed further. The cloud and AI development act and Chips Act 2.0 are not optional elements, they are central to whether Europe can build AI capacity on its own terms. Open source AI also has a strategic role. It can reduce costs, increase transparency, support local deployment, and help partners in the Global South build real capability rather than new dependence. The third priority is governance. The AI Act is already a global reference for human-centric, risk-based regulation. We should promote this model through digital trade agreements, training technology councils, digital partnerships and the WTO. To conclude, the question is simple: will Europe shape the AI transformation of trade or adapt to conditions set elsewhere? This report chooses coherence, ambition and action, so I urge colleagues to support it.

Mr President, Europe's moment is now. Forty years after Altiero Spinelli has died, his message remains as clear as ever: Europe moves forward only when it finds the courage to become a federal union. I want the European Commission, the President of this Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, not just to come here every September for the State of the Union, saying that we need to reform the Union, that we need the Treaty change, and then nothing happens because the Council does not listen to the Commission. Challenge publicly the Council on starting this Treaty reform – that is what is needed today to deliver on what the citizens are asking us – to not have any more a veto-driven confederation. Instead of deciding on fiscal capacity, on defence, on decarbonisation, on protection of their living standards, we want the Treaty reform. But we can also start with some pragmatic moves: passerelle clauses, enhanced cooperation, even intergovernmental cooperation under the democratic control of the European Parliament. But please do something – do something.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, a few weeks ago the Femwar02 group paralysed La Sapienza University in Rome: 400 blocked servers, hundreds of thousands of students without services, personal data on the dark web. In 2024, the Russian group Black Basta published the medical reports of millions of Italians in the Synlab system. And it's not just a problem for Italy: These attacks are not future scenarios, they are the present throughout Europe and are about to become more and more dangerous. In April, in fact, Anthropic announced Mythos, an AI model that can autonomously find thousands of critical vulnerabilities in every computer system, so dangerous that it cannot be put on the market. The French company Mistral claims to have equivalent capabilities today. This is why we need to equip the European AI Office immediately with more resources, more qualified technical staff and a stronger political mandate to immediately address our vulnerabilities. There's no more time to waste.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, without European steel, there is no European industry and without a strong, high-quality industry, there is no future for Europe, for its workers and for its businesses. Tomorrow we will adopt a regulation of fundamental importance, an urgent and concrete step to defend the steel sector from the devastating effects of global overcapacity. Today, in the world, there is an excess production capacity of over 600 million tonnes of steel, almost four times the total annual production of Europe, which is the third largest producer in the world and employs around 300 000 people. This overcapacity – underpinned by irregular government subsidies and dumping practices – severely affects European producers and puts our jobs at risk. The consequences are obvious: increased imports at distorted prices, severe underutilisation of European facilities and loss of competitiveness. We have to react. With the new regulation, in fact, we reduce steel import quotas by 50%, setting a ceiling of 18.3 million tonnes per year, introduce a 50% duty on imports exceeding these quotas and strengthen traceability to counter circumvention practices. As Socialists and Democrats, we have fought for an accelerated timetable for the extension of the list of products covered by this safeguard and we have halved the time to cover downstream sectors as well – I am thinking of theautomotive, mechanics, household appliances, construction and shipbuilding – because we are not only defending steel, but the whole European industrial base. The European Union must cut energy costs, accelerate decarbonisation and support industrial investment. TheIndustrial Accelerator Act It will be essential to introduce mandatory criteria of European origin. Only truly European steel, which is actually produced in the Union, will have to benefit from this support. Together with the international partners who share our rules we must build a true global perimeter of protection of the steel market: This is a fundamental issue for the present, but, of course, also for the future.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 34% of teenagers in Italy have experienced cyberbullying. It is not a fact of nature: It is the product of platforms that earn on hate. We need to change course now. The Commission has just made a preliminary finding that Meta does not prevent children under 13 from using Instagram and Facebook, with all the relevant consequences on their mental health, well-being and learning ability: They knew it and chose not to act. Boys, LGBTQIA+ teenagers, children with disabilities pay the highest price. Artificial intelligence has brought all this to the scale of systematic violence. Just these days we have discovered, for example, in the small town of Acre, in Calabria, about 200 minors who have seen their images transformed into deep fake Sexually by peers. We are just at the beginning of a phenomenon that risks becoming an avalanche. This is why we need European criminal rules for the most serious forms. But more is needed: applying the rules with real sanctions, imposing effective age checks, banning nudifier not consensual, invest in schools, culture and psychological support. Let's not waste any more time!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today non-European digital platforms dictate the conditions of online activity to millions of consumers and businesses, obtaining resources, bypassing competitors, closing users inside their systems. This addiction must end. The Digital Markets Act exists to break this grip. Two years have passed, but today the investigations are still too slow, the measures are still too modest and the Commission does not have enough people to deal with them. We need more ambition, including on services. cloud and artificial intelligence: three companies control 90% of the cloud in Europe and therefore exercise a form of control also over the data used to train artificial intelligence. We need to apply rules in favour of competition and in support of the development of European alternatives, in order to have true digital sovereignty. Stop blackmailing us! We really stand up for the interests of our businesses, our workers and our citizens! Vice-President Ribera, we know of your commitment: Go ahead, don't let it stop!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the words of leader Mark Carney in Davos hit the mark, because they made it clear once and for all that the old world is over and we have entered a new one. A world where Europe must change or disappear in relentless decline. For this reason, with Canada, as well as with other medium-sized powers, the European Union must build more advanced political and trade relations. Especially it must do so even more with all those countries, as well as Canada, that share the will to rebuild a new multilateral order from the ashes of what we are, alas, seeing burning before us. This is also why we must continue to implement CETA, the EU-Canada trade agreement which, despite doubts and opposition – in the past also in this Parliament, very heated debates – has produced a 65% increase in trade between the two blocs in less than ten years. We must move forward with courage and determination in the interests of Europeans. We can do it. Let's do it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, a year ago Draghi told European governments: Do something! They haven't done almost anything yet and continue to read that report as a à la carte menu, while they should address the key recommendation: moving from a confederation to a European federation, with a pragmatic federalism that pools resources, collects common debt and makes common investments, overcoming vetoes and, where it is not possible to move forward together, building reinforced cooperation. Today von der Leyen, perhaps waking up a little late, raises this issue in the Chamber. But there is no word on his part on building a common fiscal capacity. Only very vague speeches, while we need a Europe that is competitive in being leaders technology, decarbonizing, building common security and maintaining our social model. Here, I believe it is time for our governments to take up this challenge and wake up, because there is no more time for Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, strengthening the strategic partnership between the European Union and India is a clear political priority. We were with the Trade Committee at the end of October to hold meetings in New Delhi precisely for this purpose. We are talking about a relationship that concerns trade and investment, but also foreign policy, security, innovation and above all fundamental values to be shared between great democracies, such as India and the European Union. We are at a positive stage in the negotiations. I hope that the progress made can be translated into an agreement by the EU-India summit on 27 January 2026. Opportunities for Europe are significant, in particular for strategic sectors of our exports, such as the agri-food industry of excellence, theautomotive, the mechanical engineering industry and advanced technologies. But a credible deal must be balanced and protect our industrial interests in the face of a manufacturing giant like India. It is essential to maintain a firm line on the protection of the most exposed sectors, from agriculture to textiles to the steel industry, in a global context of unfair competition and overcapacity. The work on trade safeguards in the Trade Commission is therefore also central to the relationship with India. Finally, legally binding commitments are needed on compliance with labour standards, environmental protection, ratification of the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization. On major geopolitical issues, a rules-based agreement, multilateralism and international law can further strengthen EU-India cooperation.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the title of this debate is already indicative of what the majority of this Parliament thinks. We need a united European response to the American blackmail of Greenland. We need to send a clear message to the United States: Stop, go back to the discussion table, because this time the countermeasures, the sanctions will really be there and they will hurt. I say this to the European Commission, I say this to you, High Representative, and I also address our governments: Be brave this time and don't stop. Only if our intention is credible will it be possible to stop this escalation that nobody wants, not even - I am sure - the majority of the American people. What is certain is that Europe must stop being naive and become a power, that democratic power that can stop the dismantling of international law that has been in place for a long time and in many different contexts. Reversing the course is possible, but it depends only on us.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am outraged today. I am outraged and angry that, in this Parliament, even in the face of violence against children, sexual blackmail and suicide, the sovereign right can clearly say that it is necessary to apply the rules and punish those who abuse. On the contrary, we are asked not to censure freedom of expression. We're insane. So do we want to continue in Europe the cases of platforms, Grok and not only, that allow to strip in a few seconds the photos of girls and boys? In the last year, 312,000 images of child sexual abuse were certified, the highest number ever, also due to artificial intelligence systems. We must apply the rules that exist, such as the Digital Services Act and theAI Act that, if activated without shyness, allow us to counteract these phenomena. We don't need mass surveillance mechanisms, but rather to consider even more stringent changes to digital regulations. European girls and boys need to be protected now.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner McGrath, why does a company that sells offline have to follow a whole series of rules to protect customers and consumers, while in online commerce large players, often non-European, can still do whatever they want, making unfair competition to companies in our territories? This also impacts consumers, so this agenda is an important piece to ensure maximum protection offline and online and have a market that works properly. Pay attention to marketplaces: Incorrect online practices cost almost €8 billion a year. We need a change of pace. First the digital regulatory framework needs to be fully applied, then more effective controls, customs reform and anti-dumping action are needed. The recent Toy Safety Regulation shows that Europe can protect consumers if it wants to do so. We expect then a Digital Fairness Act ambitious, clear rules against the so-called dark patterns, the prohibition of unfair practices of dynamic ticket pricing in the entertainment sector and strong online child protection. European consumers are asking us for simple, strong and homogeneous rules: Let's do it and, most importantly, let it work.

Madam President, colleagues, this is a good report, the result of real cross-party work. It proves that, despite Brexit, cooperation with the UK can deliver – smooth sharing of police data to fight cross-border crime, steady energy trade to keep prices down, joint steps to protect farmers and small businesses from needless border checks, and new partnerships on clean technologies like carbon capture and offshore wind. We also highlight where we must go further: making supply chains safer together, maintaining high data protection standards for stable cross-border services and building structured cooperation on AI so our rules lead globally. But let us be honest, we are only here because of Brexit. We are spending time and effort fixing problems that were created by leaving. The TCA limits the damage; it does not erase it. So we need to continue working to find new solutions also for mobility and to support further cooperation in areas that are not fully covered still.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are rules in the digital space regardless; It is a question of deciding whether we let the big tech companies establish them in agreement with each other, or whether we set them up in a democratic way. It is right to simplify our digital regulations, for example by helping small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups by removing their bureaucracy and complications, as it is essential to strengthen centralised governance to counter fragmentation, which is still very much present, by giving more resources and expertise to institutions such as, for example, the European Artificial Intelligence Office. It is not acceptable to deregulate, remove transparency, delay expected measures, affect data protection; Unfortunately, this is also part of the Commission's proposal. The theme is based on: We cannot apologise for wanting to be the global benchmarks for regulation, but rather we need to accelerate investment, capital market completion, common industrial policy initiatives that really enable us to compete with the US and China. Otherwise we will find that, from omnibus to omnibus, our competitiveness remains at stake, because we have not made the really necessary choices. It's not too late to do the right ones.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am laying a pitiful veil on colleagues on the Italian right who want to ban affective education at school in Italy and then, in this Chamber, say that we must not put limits on social media, perhaps in order not to annoy some large digital enterprise. Let's talk about serious things: 42% of Italian teenagers turned to a chatbot for comfort when they felt sad or anxious. Not to a parent, not to a friend – to an algorithm! This figure of Save the Children It tells us everything about the seriousness of the situation. Today, platforms design dependency: infinite scrolling, dark patterns, algorithms that amplify fragility. They are not system errors, they are the system, and our young people are paying the consequences. With this report we call for clear European rules: harmonised minimum age, age verification with respect for privacy, prohibition of addictive designs. The big tech They should stop treating children as products. For those who doubt the necessity of our rules, look at the damage to our young people. The European Parliament must choose its side.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today's debate demonstrates one thing: the European Union does not yet have the appropriate tools to defend our economic security in the face of unilateral decisions that can bring entire strategic chains to their knees. We welcome the temporary one-year suspension of some restrictions on Chinese exports negotiated between the United States and China but, let's be clear, the restrictive measures introduced in April remain fully in place, and this short breath is not a sustainable and structural solution. We therefore need a pragmatic and autonomous European approach to China, independent of the United States but firmly rooted in our strategic interests and based on our values. At the same time, we need to strengthen cooperation with partners who share these values – Canada, Japan, Australia and others – to diversify supplies, increase resilience and counter aggressive economic practices such as these export controls. We must continue with proactive policies such as the steel safeguard, which I myself am negotiating with other colleagues, because overcapacity is the other side of the restrictions. Today, Europe is weakened by a patchwork of fragmented national policies; This fragmentation is no longer an option. If we want to defend our economic space in a world defined by the strength of the industrial policies of other global powers, we must act together as Europeans, and we must also act soon!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is today organised in such a way that it can respond to the challenges it faces, from conflicts to transitions to economic security. We say with this text that there is much to be done to live up to it. For this reason, in the wake of the Draghi report, we affirm the need for greater political cohesion and greater institutional solidity in order to pursue the objectives that the report itself lays at the foundation of competitiveness: decarbonisation, innovation, common security. The proposal we are voting on today is the result of a compromise between the political forces to make Parliament's voice heard in this debate, with some key proposals: increase the number of matters where the right of veto is exceeded and decisions are taken by qualified majority, starting with foreign policy; strengthening the role of the European Parliament in the legislative process; developing enhanced cooperation where there are difficulties in moving forward in common policies. I would like to thank the rapporteurs of the political groups and the chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Sven Simon, for their joint commitment. I therefore ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to approve the original text as adopted by a large majority in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, voting in favour of the paragraphs where the separate vote was requested. Today we can take a step forward for a sovereign, competitive and united Europe; Let us do this together by approving this text. Thank you very much.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement of the European Union is a clear political choice. Today the accession processes have regained momentum but if we want to welcome new members we can not only add chairs to the table: Before enlarging, the Union needs deep institutional reforms for more effective, simplified and targeted decision-making. We have to go hand in hand. Even the Draghi report, often evoked in these classrooms, says it clearly: Treaty changes are needed to overcome the unanimity constraint. And if you can't do it right away, we use tools that we already have, such as passerelle clauses and enhanced cooperation. But I say more: those who are ready to do more together, do so, without fear of differentiated integration. Serious work is needed, so that each new entry does not dilute the unity of Europe but makes it more united, stronger, closer to its citizens. We can do it, working together with commitment and determination.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a few days ago, in Italy, the journalist Sigfrido Ranucci was the victim of a terrible attack in which they tried to kill him. From here too, from this House, it must receive our solidarity and closeness. Defending those who do investigative journalism is a political and civil duty, but to do so also requires resources, social recognition and economic models that protect quality journalism. That is why, when the European Commission decides to intervene on those who create advertising monopolies, it acts, among other things, to protect the freedom of publishing and journalism. But fines are not enough: full compliance with European competition rules must be demanded, in order to protect the right of citizens to free, plural and qualified information and to avoid the diversion of resources. Defending free media means defending European democracy: Let's never forget that. As rapporteur for the Artificial Intelligence Regulation, I say: We are moving forward, committed to enforcing our rules to protect our values, to protect freedom of information in Europe.