What Danilo Oscar spoke about.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I come from Franciacorta, a land in Brescia that has made excellence, sustainability and quality much more than a slogan. For us it is a way of life, not a matter of the market. This regulation strengthens EU food standards and quality and ensures that our cultural, gastronomic and local heritage is preserved and certified as authentic within the EU and worldwide. This means more protection for our specificities, for local productions and for that set of flavors and knowledge that make our territories so unique, like ours and my Franciacorta. In Brussels, farmers are protesting and I wonder: What is the point of defending our geographical indications if the majority of them damage our agriculture by assimilating it to industry? What's the point of defending our excellence if you impose synthetic foods and cricket flour on us? What's the point of banning alcohol from everyone because of a few drunks? It's like banning candy from children because sugar hurts your teeth. I would also like to see less ideology and more pragmatism in other dossiers. If we want to protect agriculture, wines and spirits, there is no more time to waste.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we will vote on the revision of the regulation on detergents and surfactants, which lays down the rules for placing these products on the EU market. My priority has always been a good balance between consumer protection and a harmonised and simplified regulatory framework, while ensuring the competitiveness of industry and the sector. On the one hand, Parliament's text presents clear rules on labelling which allow easy access to the information necessary for informed purchasing choices. On the other hand, recent and future innovations in the sector, progress made and transition times are taken into account to allow companies to adapt to the new rules. The broad scope of Parliament’s proposal in terms of sustainability is clear and I would like to stress that the objective is right for me, but all too often the methods and measures imposed by the Commission to achieve those objectives, under the shield of the Green Deal, are wrong and counterproductive. The text is not perfect and important issues remain for surfactants: This time, however, common sense prevailed, limiting the ideological dispositions that had initially been proposed by left-wing groups. The ongoing revision of the Regulation will lead to changes that will still have an impact on the sector. But the entry into force of these requirements has been postponed and linked to an assessment by the Commission, which will have to take into account the economic costs, the competitiveness of our industries, as well as the real expected benefits for the environment and the population. I conclude by saying that I appreciate the work done on this file and I am sure that the remaining critical issues will be resolved at the trilogue level.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, no one has the right to interfere with who we love or what we do under the covers of our house. I respect everyone, but when it's too much it's too much. In the name of political correctness, television, education and even movies are overflowing with LGBT examples. Forcing these patterns in daily life is unhealthy and above all it is not correct. In kindergartens and schools the imposition of ideology is rampant gender, according to which the difference between male and female is only a cultural construction, and must therefore be deconstructed. You are the ones who want to pollute the clean mind of our children. I won't be an accomplice. You cannot override my right as a parent to educate my child. Vittorio Feltri is right: you can no longer use certain expressions of the Italian language, because otherwise you risk jail. Does that mean protecting freedom? I can't use certain terms, but you have to tell me how to speak? It is enough to require Member States to recognise homogenitoriality. It is enough to impose freedom of expression in the name of political correctness. Enough LGBT mandatory courses for everyone. You see the traditional family as an obstacle. The real family is made up of father and mother, it is healthy, it is the one that makes children and makes the world go on. You propose a filth that has no future and will lead the world to extinction. Already last year, in May, you grossed these classrooms with a blasphemous exhibition made by the last of the perverts. And, I conclude, we are tired of being subjected by law to models and customs that do not reflect reality. We want to live without being indoctrinated. Common sense will prevail, not your strategies.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the trilogue was long but in the end reason prevailed over too ideological positions. No one denies attention to environmental protection, nor do we criticize research into alternative technologies, indeed: the doubts still present stem from many comparisons with the players in the F-Gas sector. I repeat: Reducing greenhouse gases and seeking more sustainable and natural solutions in the refrigeration and heat pump industry is our vision. The problem is the fundamentalism of some of the very souls of this Parliament. How can you ask to eliminate F-gases by switching to more dangerous technologies such as flammable gases? Why do some want to impose bans and deadlines too close if there are no technological solutions available? Fortunately, the Council has rebalanced its initial forecasts. It will be crucial to assess in the next mandate whether this legislation will live up to the expectations of operators, actors and the environment. Two considerations. First, we are at the forefront of refrigeration in the European Union; Do we want hasty ideological choices to affect a sector of excellence? Do we not think that companies and workers need stable, clear regulations that defend the environment without neglecting to defend their business? The second: Let's widen our eyes. Do you really think that with such strict regulations and unrelated to the technological context we will be competitive in the international scenario? There are already enough aggressive business practices around us; How can we support the production and research of our companies if we do not create the right conditions? I'll conclude. There are only a few months left to the European elections, citizens are increasingly asking us to use reason and weight in choices, especially in those that touch everyday life. We therefore replace the various ideologies with a pragmatic approach that protects companies, workers and our productions.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we will vote on the EU-New Zealand trade agreement, an agreement of significant geopolitical value given the position in the Indo-Pacific of New Zealand, which is a country that is geographically distant but close to the Union in terms of values, interests, standards and quality. This agreement will offer new opportunities for European companies, especially as regards exports of manufactured products, but also of agri-food products, which will be able to benefit from zero duties in New Zealand from day one. In addition, I appreciate the list of geographical indications protected by the agreement and I am very proud of the fact that more than a quarter of these designations are Italian products of excellence appreciated all over the world. It will therefore be essential to ensure effective protection even of those names most at risk from the phenomenon of'Italian sounding. I will vote in favour of the agreement but I still hope that the Commission will consider, during its future negotiations, the cumulative impact of the different trade agreements and also the introduction of so-called mirror clauses. Finally, I conclude by hoping that a lasting solution will soon be found to the so-called kiwifruit issue, which is particularly relevant for my country. It is important to ensure reciprocity for European companies that want to invest in the production of kiwifruit in New Zealand, but avoid having to disclose sensitive commercial information in order to export their products.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, synthetic meat and cricket flour? No, thank you. Food is culture, not an algebraic sum of protein, fat and carbohydrates. This is yet another ideological choice of a Parliament that protects the interests of large multinationals, rather than its citizens, artisans and farmers. Italy, pioneer of this great culture and tradition, has exposed your lies. Test-tube meat is a substitute for meat based on proteins extracted from plants or artificially produced by genetic modification. They are ultra-processed foods and certainly not in favor of the environment. 95% of Italians say they would never eat synthetic meat if it came to market. I don't either. And how can we be wrong? Let us rather value a European excellence, namely the Mediterranean diet: a food education, as well as a heritage to be handed down to the youngest, which does not harm, but rather enhances the environment. With cultivated meat we would permanently lose the link between food and the land in which it is produced, local knowledge and cultures, knowledge and processing techniques. That's not going to be your goal, is it?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the recast of this directive, the initial installation of which dates back to 1991, was an opportunity to affirm the theme of urban wastewater in the light of the evolution of research, but unfortunately, here, science gives way to ideology. Although the text we are voting on today represents a step forward from the Commission's proposal, I consider it unacceptable to establish a system of extended producer responsibility, which is not in line with and above all is not proportional to the polluter pays principle. We are underestimating the excessive costs of the mandatory quaternary treatment that producers will have to face, costs that will then be borne by end-users. We are not taking into account the characteristics of the collection systems in the different Member States. In Italy, for example, there are consortium purifiers that group together several municipalities. This would make quaternary treatment mandatory for everyone. Moreover, they do not justify the costs, although it would have been more appropriate to provide for quaternary treatment only in cases where tertiary treatment is not sufficient to eliminate micro-pollutants. I close: For these reasons, we will vote 'less' on the report in the vote.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we recognise the importance of the revision of the CLP regulation, but we consider certain provisions of the text to be very problematic for our industries. That is why, together with our parliamentary colleagues from the parties that make up the Italian Government, we have tabled amendments that correct the most critical parts. At the same time, I cannot be silent in the face of the behaviour of associations that should represent the interests of the productive sector and instead make politics. Indeed, CEFIC reversed the proposed priorities for the plenary vote due to the ID Group’s support for these instances. Similar behaviors were also implemented by AISE, which suddenly decided to abandon some of them. Is this what businesses deserve from you? Leave politics to those who are democratically elected. This attitude betrays the mandate given to you by the productive world, also composed of small and medium-sized enterprises, which does not care that part of these Italian parliamentarians are also part of the ID group. Are these behaviors protecting companies and workers? I repeat: We are open to dialogue and consider it one of the fundamental points of our work.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is not easy to understand how part of this Parliament claims that livestock emissions can be assimilated to industrial emissions. Colleagues from different parliamentary groups and the AGRI Committee itself have repeatedly called for industry and agriculture to be treated differently; It is not a political matter, but a matter of reality. We cannot let ideology impose on our farmers and ranchers choices that penalize them, instead of supporting them as we have always done. Do you really believe that including livestock in industrial emissions helps farmers, our agriculture? And finally, what benefits does it bring to our production chains? For the League it is not so, we play open cards and with tomorrow's vote we will see who cheats. We will see who really wants to support European agriculture and who, by ideology or who knows what else, is hitting it in an unacceptable way. I conclude by saying that voting in favour of agriculture is not a vote against the environment, but rather enhances generations of identities and cultures handed down from father to son in many European regions. I don't think we can think of giving our children tomorrow, after sacrificing the world of breeding, cricket flour or grasshoppers.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, finally, good news for agriculture, after you massacred it with absurd rules, such as the revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive or the insane labelling of wine as harmful, not to mention the cuts in the CAP. With GI rules we give more protection to the excellence of the territories, we protect them from unfair incursions by unscrupulous operators and counterfeits. Geographical indications in Europe are synonymous with quality. Territories, small businesses, supply chains that for decades have dedicated attention to sustainability and at the same time to the production of excellence. For this reason, the GI system as a whole must be adopted in trade agreements with non-EU countries. It is good that, thanks to our amendments, the role of EUIPO has been regulated. If administrative responsibilities remain with the Commission, EUIPO comes into play when it comes to optionally assisting producers in free trade agreements. This suggestion, started by INTA, has been implemented in AGRI and today will help to increase the tools available to our production chains.

Mr President, we are voting ETS after the agreement at the end of 2022; Once again, an agreement that pretends to be in the name of the environment, which risks having a devastating impact on citizens and businesses, bringing additional costs in an economic scenario where inflation already has worrying levels. I would like to remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that in a market system, price is determined by supply and demand, not by fairy tales. In 2027 we risk that carbon prices will be well above the 45 euro limit hoped for by the European institutions, causing a direct increase in the price of fossil fuels such as gas, gasoline and diesel. To denounce it is no longer only the League, but also experts in the field and authoritative newspapers. What will the majority groups vote for, knowing that the maximum price of EUR 45 is not guaranteed at all? The phasing out of free allowances to businesses is also too rapid. Entrepreneurs are already facing higher energy and commodity prices and experiencing uncertainties in the recovery, while non-EU markets are increasingly competitive. Will the ETS reform, in this way, help businesses? Will it reduce costs for our citizens? It will help us to be more competitive in a global market or facilitate the competitor? And if companies relocate, do we save the environment? We do not create false expectations. Let's not confuse ambition with madness. As an ID group we request rejection of the agreement. We need a new Commission proposal, focusing on climate objectives, but supporting businesses by better timing and accompanying them in this transition.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the revision of the F-gas regulation affects many sectors and will be of crucial importance for European and Italian industry. Once again, Parliament has produced a report which, if adopted, will lead to a significant contraction in the turnover of leading Italian companies, jeopardising jobs in Europe and shifting investment outside the EU. This text is negative for the environment, harms REPowerEU objectives and slows down decarbonisation and independence from fossil fuels. In some sectors, banning equipment that contains greenhouse F-gases, although with low global warming potential, is not achievable quickly today. Few equipment using F-Gas can use alternative sources, either because of a lack of technological innovation or because they are potentially dangerous or worse from an environmental point of view. The word "ecological transition" needs to be reconsidered. We need to take time into account, mark it better and share it with industries. We must allow industries to safeguard the environment, workers, families and all the industries affected by this revision. Continuing with this ideological approach used so far does not help the European economy, but is detrimental to businesses, to our territories and provides yet another assistance to the people of Europe. competitor foreign. This is a wrong direction if we want to support the environment and our industry. We will support the amendments tabled by the EPP, because the environmental approach is correct and we share it, we are all in favour of the environment, but we must do so within the timeframes that allow us today, through our industries, to be able to maintain the well-being we have achieved.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, it is entirely acceptable to aim for a reduction in CO2 emissions in the transport sector, but this plan must have realistic objectives and not lead to increased costs for citizens and businesses. The current solution in the vote is a substantial forcing towards the electric option alone, not a choice of the market, but an imposition by the legislator and a violation of the principle of technological neutrality. An imposition that essentially puts an end to one of the European sectors of excellence worldwide, not to mention the importance of the entire chain connected to it, from components to maintenance, and the large number of European workers employed in the automotive sector. There is still no infrastructure or technology to bring about such a revolution in the transport sector. We only risk further benefiting our competitor international companies that hold raw materials and patents. We must also weigh the environmental costs we will face, from the extraction of raw materials to the disposal of batteries at the end of their life. We are moving from Russian dependence on methane gas to that of China with rare earths and, as always, unfortunately, the poorest and weakest classes will pay the real price for this choice with increasingly expensive vehicles.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in 2020 the European Union's exports of waste to third countries reached 32.7 million tonnes, or 16% of the world's trade in waste. Turkey is by far the largest destination for EU waste exports, receiving around 13.7 million tonnes in 2020. Most of the waste exported outside the EU is ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal, as well as waste paper, plastics, textiles and glass. Iron scrap, however, is a precious and essential material for the decarbonization of the steel industry, it makes little sense to export waste abroad when we have the opportunity to feed a virtuous cycle of a strategic sector such as the steel industry. The decarbonisation and energy saving measures already affecting this sector will, inter alia, lead to a significant increase in scrap needs in the coming years: for each tonne of recycled steel scrap, a saving of 1.5 tonnes of CO2 is achieved and, in the case of stainless steel scrap, this saving is even greater, reaching about 5 tonnes of CO2. I wonder if it is still the case to call and catalog waste these materials that have become so precious and strategic to feed a virtuous cycle in the steel sector. In conclusion, it is therefore absolutely acceptable to adopt stricter rules on shipments of waste, without forgetting the importance of monitoring and anti-circumvention measures, in order not to weaken these rules, and this is precisely the meaning of the proposed amendments.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, every disease is serious, but when the disease affects us personally, then the disease, absurdly, becomes even more serious. It's the same for everyone and it's the same for me. Then what do you do? You dig the data, you work hard to understand what you can do, like, when, why, where, who? The world estimate of diabetics (data from the International Diabetes Federation) grows swirlingly. From an estimated 151 million in 2000 to an estimated 285 million in 2009, to 536 million in 2021. Diabetes is a plague, affecting the weakest social groups. But what do we do in Europe? I found that in Europe to date there is not even a distinction in data collection between type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. If we want to win the battle against diabetes, we need to team up, align the data of all EU Member States, invest in research and experiment with all the possible innovations proposed by science. Prevention is better than cure, but to prevent you have to know; Knowledge equals research, research equals investment, investment means, once again, prevention.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Timmermans, in order to achieve concrete objectives to protect the environment, it is essential to create the conditions for important sectors of European industry, which are very exposed to international competition, to remain competitive throughout the transition phase and to be able, in this way, to put in place the necessary investments, preventing their production from being replaced by that outside the EU, which absolutely does not comply with our environmental and social standards. Pollution does not stop at borders. CBAM and ETS will have a significant impact on industries and citizens. We have approached the work of these two dossiers in an absolutely unjustifiable rush, without taking any account of the changed economic, geopolitical and energy conditions, which are not even remotely comparable to those prevailing when the European Commission drafted the proposals. Proposals that Parliament has so far only managed to make worse, with a race to the most media-driven climate target, following logic completely unrelated to reality, protecting only a few special interests at the expense of the real interests of the vast majority of our citizens and our businesses. With the ideological slogan of saving the world, we risk irreparably compromising the competitiveness of key sectors of European industry, without benefiting the environment in global terms. I have not met a single entrepreneur who has not proved more than favorable to the protection of the environment. Our companies must be accompanied in the transition, not blamed and punished, binding them to achieve totally unrealistic goals and burdening them with increasing costs. Where do you think these increases will fall if not on the weakest groups? We have already been severely impacted by the pandemic. The war in Ukraine is having devastating effects in countless human and economic aspects. We carefully reassess the entire climate legislative package before doing irreparable damage to our society without... (The President took the floor from the speaker)

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, without prejudice to the unanimous condemnation of the invasion by Russia and the need to intervene with the peaceful means at our disposal in order to stop this harmful war, it is clear that the continuous sending of weapons to Ukraine is showing that the times for peace are not shortening, but only the ranks of the dead are lengthening. If the sending of arms is aimed at weakening Russia, then peace is far away. The escalation in diplomatic relations with Russia is playing into the hands of the warmongers who are 10 000 kilometres away from the conflict, the same ones who do not risk any energy penalties, but who are certainly making their economic and geopolitical interest felt on the backs of thousands of dead. Europe must courageously begin to live and exist autonomously, without being influenced by anyone. On the other hand, continuing with the current attitude, we risk compromising the objectives that we have set ourselves with ambition. New Green Deal. The lack of energy sources necessary for the transition certainly does not accelerate the process, but it irreversibly undermines it, because buying liquefied gas from America with costs greater than 30% and above all higher polluting emissions of transport and extractions not only represents a business for the USA and a patch for Europe, but goes in the opposite direction compared to the objectives set in the environmental field.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today the EU contributes about 8-9% of global CO2 emissions and this percentage, on current trends, could be reduced to about 5-6% in 2030. In this context, the Green Deal and the Fit for 55 package, of which the ETS report is part, are in practice an industrial revolution with a zero-emissions ambition. Previous industrial revolutions were driven by the need to respond to market growth; Neutrality by 2050 is imposed by the legislator. If this initiative is not accompanied by a great deal of support for companies, a strong incentive for investment and a strengthening of measures to combat carbon leakage, risks irretrievably jeopardising the competitiveness of strategic sectors of European manufacturing industry, while at the same time not ensuring any global climate outcome. The doubling of the absorption rate of the market stability reserve is one of a series of measures that are being introduced without adequate justification and aim to artificially increase the price of CO2, which has already increased significantly in the last two years, resulting in higher costs for households and businesses. Instead, effective measures must be put in place to counter any speculative phenomenon on the carbon market that unduly harms ETS operators. The strengthening of Article 29 on price fluctuations of CO2 certificates becomes crucial. In a very unstable international context, with serious risks of energy supply and exponentially increasing costs, with similar measures we risk damaging the competitiveness of our companies, putting valuable jobs at risk, when the real polluters reside outside Europe. The real polluters live outside Europe!