Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the good news is the partial withdrawal of the Russian armed forces from the Ukrainian border. But this news is accompanied, indeed preceded, by statements by Ukrainian President Zelensky and German Chancellor Scholz, in the previous days, which do not leave peace, because in those statements Zelensky declares that Ukrainian entry into NATO is only a dream and Chancellor Scholz declares that Ukrainian entry into NATO is not on the political agenda. We cannot believe that this is a victory, we cannot let our guard down, we cannot declare ourselves satisfied. The 36 letters from Russia to the NATO countries, to which we responded with one voice as the European Union and NATO, are excellent news but under one voice, so under one letter, there must be one policy. No one had forced us to depend almost entirely on Russian gas, yet we did. No one has forced us to withdraw very often from some of the most complex geopolitical scenarios, for example in Africa, leaving room for new Russian geopolitical ambitions. Here, behind that single letter there is a single European policy and a single European economic strategy.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the transition we have been working on for a long time can be unfair, that is, it can generate social costs greater than the value it produces. We must prevent this contradiction from happening. How can this be avoided? We have found that there are attempts by the Commission, appreciable, for example, to set up a social climate fund to offset the increased costs, but the risk of that instrument, as someone said before me, is to be rather contradictory. Why? Because the resources that feed it are determined by tools that very often are the same tools that have led to the increase in costs. A certain way of reconceiving the ETS, for example, is a very technical but not meaningless issue. So, the energy mix we often talk about, the technological mix we often talk about is the only solution, so that the social impact of this ambitious transition does not become such as to transform the Green Deal, of which we are talking, into an experiment on the skin of families, on the skin of the weakest subjects of society. Technology mix, technology neutrality is the solution for the cost of transition to be as sustainable as our environmental ambitions.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the data that the Commissioner has provided are data that tell us, on the one hand, of an important victory, namely the significant increase in electricity produced from renewable sources, a 38% that, for the first time, produces a greater result than fossil fuels, at 37%. But there is another fact that we cannot forget, the fact of dependence on energy produced outside Europe. The highest figure in the last thirty years, as much as 61% of energy used in Europe but imported from outside. This means that we cannot deceive ourselves that the increase in energy produced from renewable sources coincides with greater autonomy. The numbers say the exact opposite and therefore we must, in our energy mix, always consider, in addition to the energy produced locally, also the energy that we import from the outside. For this reason, it is essential that a strong storage strategy is included in our energy strategy. Storage means, first of all, ending the religious war on gas, so that, compatible with environmental objectives, a transition with pragmatic ambitions is allowed. Pragmatic ambition does not mean reducing these ambitions, but it means shifting the centre of gravity of these ambitions from the Commission offices to the production sites of our companies, i.e. to those who use that energy.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have an enthusiastic narrative, legitimately enthusiastic, in the comment we make in the light of the agreement underlying the establishment of this Trade and Technology Council between the United States and Europe. Enthusiasm is legitimate, the political subjectivity of the European Union consists in belonging to the Atlantic axis with the United States, but this agreement also documents the existence of a wound. The wound that for a long time, politically, sees this axis in difficulty: on Afghanistan; on the match linked to the battle against climate change; on defence, with the AUKUS agreement. Then the point is, on the one hand, technological oversight – transparency in algorithms and so on – and commercial, but on the other hand, who will take political responsibility for leading this huge game. Europe, politically, by whom will it be guided in exploiting the content of this new agreement with the United States?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing a new impetus for the European economy after the COVID blockade. This momentum has produced a massive increase in energy demand. Alongside this massive increase in demand, we have, unfortunately, a rigid reaction on the part of the European Union. Demand is increasing and supply is tightening, because energy solutions are limited to certain technologies. The principle of technological neutrality, i.e. the possibility of a genuine mix between different energy sources, has always allowed our system to react flexibly to these emergencies. Lacking energy to respond to this increase in demand, prices increase. We, the best performing continent in terms of sustainability – as much as 35% of our electricity today is produced from renewable sources – cannot create a system that completely disadvantages other forms, for example by diverting funding from another source useful for the transition, such as gas. The result is an increase in prices that is paid by businesses and households. Then we need to go back to that genuine mix to implement Article 194 of the EU Treaty, for example, which requires us not only to transition but also to secure energy supplies. Europe has a strong economy, it needs to support it in this way.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have two points of observation to analyse what is happening in relations between Europe and the United States. The first is commercial. Eurostat tells us that, for the first time in 2020, relations with China are superior to relations with the United States, but with one difference: Europe exports much more to the United States than it exports to China. So it has more advantage in the relationship with the United States. The second point is the defense, which has been mentioned several times. In Afghanistan we had the evidence of a shared error, so much so that the reaction of the United States was to question the relationship with us through the Aukus agreement with the United Kingdom and Australia. But let us not delude ourselves: Our autonomy will not result from further separation from the United States. Our autonomy, especially in foreign and defence policy, consists of a mature membership of NATO, not a division. We trust in the traditional family that links the European Union and the United States of America: This is the West.

Madam President, Mr High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, twenty years ago we rightly decided to intervene on the basis of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty in support of the United States attacked at home. After twenty years, this collegiate decision to start was interrupted on the basis of a de facto assessment of the United States that was little more than unilateral. What has happened in these 20 years? Something specific happened in that country: A hope is born, and it is objective: Not only is the doubling of the number of Afghan citizens striking, but the most striking fact is that when we arrived 20 years ago there were 800 000 male students in Afghanistan alone, today there are 12 million students, half of whom are women. When a hope is born, the task of politics is to take it into account, and it is not only a political and humanitarian point, it is not a business of non-governmental organizations, this is the pillar of geopolitical strategy. The United States decided not to look at it. Europe shows that it wants to look at this pillar in order to return to being a great leading power.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, we have, on the subject we are debating this morning, the possibility of dividing the debate into two major chapters, as I see it. On the one hand, critical raw materials, necessary for the digital transition and green, such as rare earths, cobalt, lithium, on which there is a focus formulated by the European Commission in its industrial strategy. Here the solution is medium-long term. Then there are questions about the immediacy, the very short period, the major supply chains mentioned by colleagues: wood, food, construction, mechanics with steel, etc. In that case, immediate solutions are needed. The Treaties allow us to identify some solutions and also the open files we have on the table - one of which you rightly mentioned - we are in the process of revising the Waste Shipment Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. The challenge is to stop considering waste as waste and start considering it as a real raw material. We are a continent that transforms and that is a raw material for us. So our industrialists, our entrepreneurs do not have to suffer endless red tape in order to be able to circulate rejection from one country to another in the European Union. We must speed up the possibility, de-bureaucratize the transfer of waste from one country to another and invest, as Italy is doing massively, in recycling and recovery plants. And at that point we will also be able to afford the luxury of limiting the export of waste, especially recyclable waste. The case of steel scrap is emblematic. We are able, by transforming, using electric furnace technology instead of the integral cycle into steel, to reuse our scrap very efficiently to make green steel. It is absurd to export it to Turkey and then import steel from Turkey. Our industrial strategy takes these priorities into account.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, we have finally concluded and happily concluded the negotiations on the Connecting Europe Facility, so we have EUR 33 billion available, of which almost EUR 26 billion for transport, and what is more important is that we will be able to co-finance up to 55 % of the Member States' investments. But physical infrastructure is not enough, we also need technology, high technology to ensure safety, especially in rail transport. That is why the challenge of ERTMS is central. Today we apply this technology in fact only at high speed and in a differentiated way between the various member countries. The working point now is to harmonise ERTMS systems so that they dialogue with each other across countries. My country, Italy, has experimented on the Genoa-Rotterdam route and has invested heavily even putting about 3 billion in its NRRP. How to have shared governance? We propose an agency and why not just an ERTMS agency in Italy that is investing so much in this.