What Elisabetta spoke about.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the various proposals that have been made by the different political groups mirror the gravity of the situation in the Middle East and this Parliament’s strong engagement to contribute to putting an end to violence and to the suffering of innocent civilians in the region. And in light of our responsibility as the European Union’s Parliament, it is of crucial importance that our House stands united in this commitment. So, in this spirit, I move a joint proposal on behalf of the EPP, S&D and Renew Groups to add a debate under the title ‘The humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the need for a humanitarian pause’ on the plenary agenda, which could take place this afternoon jointly with our debate on the outcome of the European Council meeting without a resolution. So I hope that a large majority of this Parliament of this House will support this compromise.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, housing is a fundamental right, a right of citizenship, it is not a concession. If you have a roof over your head, you can live safely, you can think about plans for the future, create a family, realize your desires. If, on the other hand, you are strangled by a mortgage that you have the anguish of not being able to pay, you live in a condition of insecurity. If you are forced to sleep in tents, not only to protest against rents but because you do not find a rag of room at sustainable prices to be able to study, it means that the European social model no longer holds, that it no longer holds. Then there are the financial speculations, so the house becomes an object to be exchanged on the market with rises that are dumped on the skin of citizens. In Italy we are wonderful: We managed to erase the only things that worked. The Meloni government has razed the default fund and the rent fund to the ground. Thirty-three cities are calling for a plan.Next Housing EU". We need to work on investments and serious commitments. Enough with a central bank raising rates and choking millions of households, enough with the poorest.

Madam President, we absolutely believe that water management is a crucial topic, but we really would like to address this subject also with a debate with a larger, all-encompassing title, including on the impact on agriculture and nature. And so we would propose a broader title: the Council and Commission statements on responsible water management, nature restoration and agriculture. However, we know that there are some other political groups that would like to have more time to discuss and to have a debate. And so in the spirit of compromise, we suggest that the debate be moved to the October II plenary session.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, many things have changed in Europe in this mandate. We are pleased that even points on our agenda as Socialists and Democrats have become points on its agenda, especially after the pandemic. We supported the social turnaround of the Union, instead of austerity, solidarity; Europe has found its soul for a moment, we forgot about the market. But there are things that don't come back. His party, the People's Party, is objectively blocking more important measures than the Green Deal: It's the truth. You reassured us at the end of your speech, and we want to believe you: We want to believe you, but we are a little bit sceptical about that. Not to mention migrants: She went hand in hand in Tunisia with Giorgia Meloni, the leader of a Eurosceptic and sovereignist party, hoping to pay an autocratic leader to keep all migrants in Tunisia. I don't think this is a good strategy: hand in hand with a leader who said that we must get out of the euro, that Europe is the Europe of usurers, that the European Commission is like the Soviet Union and that it wants a minimal Europe at the service of the nation states. So, you don't invent pro-Europeans overnight. We need a strong Europe on migrants, with strong skills and mandatory solidarity, and you really have to tell us which side you are on: whether on the side of Europe as freedom, as democracy, as pluralism, as responsible reception, or of the Europe of walls, of nativism; Europe of the extreme right, nationalisms; Europe is closing its doors. Because either you're on one side or you're on the other. And we want to be true pro-Europeans, not reluctant pro-Europeans. We want Europe as a project for the liberation of man, the one that David Sassoli wanted, with that anxiety for justice and freedom to which everyone aspires: the Europe of women, rights, the Europe of growth and development, the Europe of fraternity and hope. Really tell us which side you're on.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ecological transition is a life-saving policy for humanity. Here in Brussels and Strasbourg they tell us that the right and the left govern together on so many matters: But this is not the case with climate change. We need to say it loud and clear: There is a right and there is a left. The grades are different, the behaviors are different, the strategies are different. The sovereign right has made ecoscepticism its flag. Progressive forces have instead chosen the Green Deal, the need to fight devastating climate change. We are those of mitigation and adaptation; But it's always been hot, it's always been so. We those of the protection of nature; You are the ones of negationism and removal. We those of renewable sources; You're in love with the fossil. We those of the safeguard of the future; You are the guardians of the past. We saw it in Emilia Romagna: A right-wing government that does a disgusting political battle on the skin of flood victims and does not send reparations. We ask the Commission, its President, if we want to move forward with the Green Deal, because its own political force seems to us to be going in the opposite direction. Tell us the truth: Is it moving forward or not?

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the torrential floods in Emilia Romagna last May are an exemplary case of the impact of the climate crisis on businesses and workers. We have had over 12 000 farms devastated, 14 000 other businesses destroyed, 15 dead, including workers. We truly believe in the fight against climate change, certainly with common sense, with reasonableness, accompanying the ecological transition with compensation for families and businesses, therefore without fixations and ideologies. On the other hand, the right in Europe to climate change does not believe it. The right-wing government in Italy does not believe it, because it has chinched for a month and a half before appointing a commissioner for reconstruction, putting vetoes on the only person who could do it, namely the president of the Region. The right wing of Meloni who is suffering from schizophrenia does not believe it, so on the one hand, it says that it takes nine to ten years to rebuild and then appoints the commissioner for a year, coincidentally precisely in conjunction with the regional elections. And the right wing of Meloni does not believe this because it has not yet applied for the European Solidarity Fund, which the Commission has also increased, the deadline of which is 25 July, and there is a risk that hundreds of millions will be lost on the lives of workers. Because between right and progressive there is a big difference about climate crises and the impact on workers and the environment: The right is in love with the fossil, the right denies that the overheating is such. Instead, we think we need to prevent, mitigate, help all workers in a better working environment and restore a bit of a healthy nature. Luckily left and right are so far away, and I say, welcome!

Mr President, dear Minister, dear Commissioner, let us give the state. What is the state? So having unblocked the Migration Pact is a positive fact. But we are only at the beginning and we really hope to improve the text. First, the obsession with repatriations everywhere. It seems that the most important thing is to send the migrants back, to push them back as if they were parcel post packages, even in countries of transit, when we know very well that it is not easy at all to make reliable deals with those states. So this risks to be a bluff. Second, the idea of outsourcing, again by giving money migration policies to external states. Tunisia, this time, an authoritarian state with an autocratic president who arrests a journalists, who represses the opposition, who carries out violent persecutions of black Africans. This is simply nonsense. It is clear that we cannot welcome everyone and for this reason we need the mandatory solidarity among Member States, not voluntary relocation or EUR 20 000 for migrants, which is pretty disgusting. Luckily, the money will go to an outside fund. So let us start the negotiations with responsibility and pragmatism. Let us hope to improve the text.

Madam President, actually, we are in favour of the compromise suggested by the EPP because the title is sufficiently broad, and also because we think that we have to defend the role of the European Parliament in the negotiations that will start soon. So we think that there is a broad title, and this allows us to begin the negotiations and to try to find a good compromise also on our part.

Mr President, Emilia-Romagna has been overwhelmed by unprecedented floods. A very rare event, it has been said several times, an amount of water in three days equal to six months, a cyclone with the force of a hurricane, rivers that have risen up to 10/12 meters overwhelming roads, cars, houses, unfortunately even people. Fifteen victims, to their families my embrace. The landscape now in my Romagna is brown, it is a mixture of smelly slime, which confuses any line of separation between the houses, which has submerged cellars, gardens, staircases, rooms, wardrobes and forced people to flee. We saw divers fishing people like heavy fish, we saw men, women and children on rooftops, pulled up, sucked up by helicopter ropes, and cars and refrigerators still swimming in the streets. Many have been busy. It is not true that in Emilia-Romagna the safety works were not done, nor is it true that it is a region that has cemented too much, indeed, we have made the regional law on zero-balance consumption, thanks to all the institutions that have worked and thanks also to the European Civil Protection Mechanism. But the story is not enough, it is not even enough to sing "Romagna mia", and we must not even give in to the unbearable opposite extremes, therefore either the obtuse environmentalism for which nothing must be done, no small work of containment, or the negationism, equally absurd, for which the changes of nature are a variable independent of the intervention of man: A healthy middle ground must be found. This is doing politics, it is not the absolute evil to urbanize if you make schools, houses and kindergartens, perhaps even welcoming. The ecological transition cannot take place at the cost of destroying entire industrial sectors. To find this middle ground we need Europe, a cursed, direct and immediate solidarity fund for the people who have lost everything. We need a simple Europe, not an obsessive and pervasive bureaucracy, and we need a Europe that treats people as citizens and not as subjects. That's why we will work from here and of course "we will get hit".

Madam President, in the meantime, I would like to express my gratitude to you for your words. As you said, we are facing a wounded land, that of Emilia-Romagna, Marche and, in part, Tuscany. We saw a cyclone with the force of a hurricane, hills falling and rivers rising, a river of 50 centimeters became 12 meters high. And in the face of this natural disaster, I really think it is important to have the support and support of all political forces, so that Parliament expresses not only solidarity, but also the request to the European Commission for the necessary funds and aid to be allocated. I therefore propose a compromise title between the Greens' proposal, which I thank, and Renew's; Commission statement on the social and economic costs of climate change in light of the floods in Emilia-Romagna, Marche and Toscana and the urgent need for European solidarity.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we all want environmental sustainability, but I do not think that the elimination of small-scale trawling will lead to the results you want to achieve. There is no impact assessment, we are waiting for it, and above all you will have noticed that here there is a very cross-party front that goes from left to right, going back: I'd take that into account. Why isn't that okay? Because it punishes the little ones without any distinction compared to the big ones; It is the big shipowners, the big industries that those, yes, will certainly pollute the most. Why isn't that okay? Because it destroys jobs all over Europe of people who have invested a life with enormous sacrifices, with small boats in fishing and today they can no longer access European funds and can not convert to other sectors of work. Do we want to take this into account? It takes common sense. And why isn't that okay? Because there is a blow to the quality of food, with effects on the food supply chain and on the tourism supply chain. In Emilia Romagna there are 200 boats per 100 kilometers of coast, two boats per kilometer. I would like to understand how these ruin the ecosystem. We love the European Union, I fight every day for a stronger and more united European Union. Do not do this by criminalising the small and in favour of the strong, because this only increases distrust of Europe.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, Commission, we have finally heard some words of truth about relations between the European Union and China, because, dear Vice-President, in foreign policy it is not always just a matter of the formal division of labour, of who does what, we also need to give strong political messages, to have a political vision. And so it's good that von der Leyen spoke of "de-risking" instead of "decoupling", we can't break away from trade relations with China, it would be stupid, and it's good that Macron said that we can't be servants of the United States, we look for our third way, our autonomy. But on two conditions: that China cooperates on peace negotiations with dear friend Putin and, secondly, well the third way, but foreign policy is never independent of internal arrangements, Europe is a great democracy, and then if we defend democracy in Ukraine, why should we not defend it in Taiwan? We continue to discuss this, but with a strong voice. We need politics and less bureaucracy.

Actually, how do you dare to ask for a debate on the rule of law in Spain when you know the only problem with that is that you are blocking the renewal of the General Council of the Judiciary after four years. So really, this is really anti-democratic and outrageous, colleagues.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are with you on speeding up, we hope, the asylum and migration package, for finally effective solidarity - we hope so. But frankly we must tell ourselves that we can no longer feel the blame for Europe, always, because the political responsibilities are there and can be seen. I have never seen a far-right government ask to strengthen European competences on the management of migrants, while I have seen flourishing far-right governments ask for money from Europe to finance walls and I have seen far-right governments, such as that of Meloni and Salvini, endlessly repeat the worst anti-immigrant slogans: nativist slogans "Italians first", neocolonial slogans "help them at home", conspiratorial slogans "migrants land in Europe to favor big capital and replace European workers", racist slogans "selective landings". And then in the face of massacres of innocents, such as that of Cutro, what do you do? It is said that Europe is not doing enough. But it's too comfortable! We are inventing a new crime with huge words ‘we are going to hunt traffickers all over the terrestrial globe’ – terracqueo, let’s mark it! – The responsibility for rescues is not clarified when it is the government itself that has made an obstacle race to save people at sea. And the omission of rescue is a crime, even this, in addition to that of traffickers. And then you end up doing karaoke for Salvini's birthday and who cares when there are dead and coffins. If you have an interest in the nation, do not be ashamed and assume your responsibilities.

Mr President, dear colleagues, today we vote for the mandate of the report on platform work to the trilogue. I’m asking you to vote in favour of this report, which is a very balanced and innovative text. I thank all the shadow rapporteurs because they have contributed to improve the text. I would like to immediately correct the political narrative which is going on and on. No later than yesterday I got an email from Bolt saying that we would introduce a general automatic reclassification of all platform workers. This is simply not true, and even impossible legally and technically. We are not against self—employment. If you are genuinely self-employed that is absolutely okay. We are not against job creation and innovation. But if you are bogus self—employed and, on the contrary, you are a slave of the algorithm, then you have to have your rights recognised as an employee. That is the point! We have reached three goals: we defend the workers; we defend good employers and fair competition; and we are promoting the human use of the algorithm. We do not want machines governing the labour market. Never again should it happen that a young rider like Sebastian Galassi dies in a car accident and then is fired after he dies. This is a shame. This is a shame. I ask you to support this text, to support social justice, which is the glue for democracy. I ask you not to disappoint the millions of workers who are waiting outside, and I ask you not to surrender to multimillionaires and powerful lobbies who try to interfere with our democratic process. Really, the conditions of workers are not an issue of right and left. It is an issue of dignity. That is why I ask you to vote in favour of this report, because this is what it is in play: social justice! On va écrire une très belle page de l’histoire européenne!

Madam President, actually, we are not against the topic itself, but for the sake of compromise we do suggest eventually to leave the debate in this mini—plenary with no resolution, and with a changed title that is ‘Commission statement on anarchist terrorist actions and violent extremism in Europe’. I can explain why. It is because we think that anarchism is anarchism. It is not left or right. If you are an anarchist, you are not left or right; you are an anarchist against the institutional order. This is our proposal.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when we heard Mark MacGann in the Labour Committee, a former lobbyist for Uber, we were shocked. If his revelations and investigations are confirmed, we are faced with a pervasive system of illegal lobbying on European governments and not, with violations of the law, alleged violence against workers, pressure of all kinds. Tuck into Facebook and WhatsApp with fake accounts to condition workers, pay for compliant searches: this has been done. Unfortunately, in this Parliament we are discussing corruption, interference by third countries in our democracy, and this is a horror to us. Let it be clear, however, that it is not only the authoritarian governments of third countries that want to interfere. There are also the big multinationals, the big ones. corporationThe giants of the web. So, I wonder, what forms and how many forms does lobbying have? What is the line between legal and illegal lobbying? Let's be clear that lobbying does not mean corruption, we would miss it. Illustrating interests and points of view to improve our decisions is fine, but there can be a huge disproportion between large interests concentrated in a few hands and, on the other hand, interests spread among many very weak subjects. I can't say I have any evidence, but I saw them in the corridors full of lobbyists in Parliament during the negotiations on rider and platform workers. I was bombarded with requests for meetings, and fortunately I had the foresight to meet the platforms all together and together with the unions. And the text we are negotiating becomes even more important. The Swedish Presidency must move forward because we are saying the right things. First: We defend workers and demand a correct classification of the employment relationship. If you're self-employed, objectively, but that's fine, but if you're a self-employed fake and you're enslaved by the algorithm, you're subordinate and you're entitled to employee protections. But why do we have the terror of the subordinate employment relationship? But why do we have the terror of giving minimum protections to those who simply want them? I want to understand this thing here. Second: We defend good entrepreneurs because there are so many platforms that have good contracts with trade unions. Very well, let us avoid unfair competition with those who have false self-employed workers. Third: Rules on Algorithms. Do we want to be conditioned only by machines? We need human control over the decisions of the employment relationship. But is it ever possible that a 26-year-old boy died in a car accident, was fired from an email after he died? But be ashamed! Shame on you! And then we have to move on with our work, because our purpose is very simple: increase social justice. We will do it without conditioning and without interference.

Mr President, dear Minister, dear Commissioner, dear President of the European Commission, we are at the end of 2022 and we can say that it has also been an annus horribilis because we face a triple attack on democracy: an attack on democracy by Russia with the criminal invasion of Ukraine; an attack on our economy, our single market with the unacceptable blackmail on gas; and then – I do not want to escape – an attack on the democratic functioning and reputation of this institution by unimaginable criminal corruption. But, at the same time, we have stood up and reached outstanding results. We have a more social Europe, a Europe for health, REPowerEU, finally the freezing of resources for Orbán and his despotic regime. So I really hope that the Council tomorrow will go on with the same determination, also by envisaging a revision of the MFF in the summer in the name of a permanent instrument of public support for people and for companies which are struggling with inflation. I think that we will get stronger if we do this together. Thank you and Merry Christmas to all of you.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today's drama is energy costs and inflation. I am sorry, but the European Commission is making fun of us by putting a cap on the price of gas of 275 euros per megawatt hour that has never been seen, never, even in the worst moments. We have regained the soul of Europe with NextGenerationEU and now we are losing it with late and completely illusory measures. We need a SURE 2.0, a much more powerful REPowerEU. On the other hand, even the national governments disappoint, see the Italian right that has done nothing for the bills but copy and paste the measures of the Draghi government and, more than a maneuver, has thought of inaugurating a war between the poor, abolishing the income of citizenship because poverty is a fault and, as in Victorian England, those who do not work must not eat and who cares. It is the right that makes bonuses and cuts invisible excise duties, which thinks of increasing cash up to 5,000 euros and flattening taxes in favor of those who are better off. The right that spends a lot on pensions and zero for young people, strong with the weak and weak with the strong, the new recipe, but we will certainly not be silent.

Mr President, dear colleagues, we have learned the lesson from the pandemic that from tragedies coming from outside we are able to find our unity and the soul of Europe. What we have done with the common debt, SURE and Next Gen has been revolutionary. Now, on gas and energy, we really have the same challenge and we cannot take the luxury of time. So we need again a stronger Europe for at least three things: a cap on gas; a centralised purchasing agency for gas; social investments for families and companies not able to pay their bills. But for all that we need a strong Europe, a stronger Europe. I am very tired of listening to anti—European, extreme right parties that are now asking for European money, European assistance, European aid. Where were you when we spoke about strengthening the competences of our European institutions? You always said ‘no’. So now we need a united Europe, a Europe that delivers. We have to decide. We can do things if we are united – and please do tell the truth!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I certainly do not fall into the trap. They come to lecture us, they explain to us that the far right in Italy has won the elections and therefore can do whatever it wants and we just have to shut up. We are determined to talk, to oppose, to tell what the extreme right is. Because this is the extreme right that has even radicalized what little remained of Berlusconi's liberal party, it is the extreme right that has elected as the most important positions a nostalgic of fascism and a hypertraditionalist for whom homophobia is the norm. This is the extreme right that makes the Europeanist in Italy and then comes here to dismantle, piece by piece, the Union, the extreme right of closed ports, naval blocks, so all migrants are illegal, better nativism, where we are all the same, all identical because we all live in the same neighborhood and we are not afraid. Then we will not be silent in the face of this, we will not shut our mouths, we will tell, we will manifest, because we like differences, we like democracy, we like pluralism and we leave all hatred to you.

Mr President, the general EU budget for 2023 is a powerful political tool. There is a lot of politics inside, not only economics. In times of skyrocketing inflation and economic recession, politics has to deliver. If politics does not deliver, we will have explosive populist upsurges, anti-system protests and nationalist outcries. During the pandemic, we were able to basically double the budget of the EU: with Next Generation EU, SURE, REACT-EU, we got another EUR 1 000 billion – exactly like the multiannual financial framework. We were kind of magic. Now we have a similar challenge with the energy crisis. Increasing resources for Erasmus+, the Just Transition, is good news, but it is not enough. We need fresh money coming from new own resources to provide on-the-spot responses to gas deprivation and energy prices. We cannot lose the credit we had during the pandemic. We cannot lose the battle against inequalities and social despair. We cannot lose face in front of our people’s expectations. We simply cannot.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, what we are voting on tomorrow, dear friends, is simply a revolution – a revolution in the name of social justice, dignity and decency for workers. Today, inflation is skyrocketing. The purchasing power of families is falling down and social tensions are exploding. A directive on minimum wages is precisely what we need. Europe has come first, and now in each country, salaries must be adequate to the costs of living. We recognise the importance of the most representative of trade unions, and we encourage Member States to increase the coverage of collective bargaining. This is a historic moment. We believe that social rights are more important than the ups and downs of the economy. We believe that the living conditions of millions of workers are more important than partisan interests. And we believe that the younger workers, the most precarious ones, their hopes have to be at the centre of our political action. This is not high politics. This is practical problem solving. It is our concrete step toward a fairer and social Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the OECD is telling us that we will lose one and a half points of economic growth in Europe, one third of what is expected from the explosion in energy prices, inflation and the sanctions rightly imposed on Russia. Small and medium-sized enterprises will suffer particularly, yet they offer 90 million jobs in the Union – I quote the ceramic district of my region, Emilia Romagna and its relevance to social cohesion and the labour market. The flexibility shown by the Commission on State aid during the pandemic and the decision to extend the temporary health emergency framework first, then the crisis framework were indispensable, allowing for the implementation of extraordinary national measures, such as liquidity aid, access to finance, public guarantees, subsidised loans. We must continue, the Commission must continue listening to Parliament to show that Europe is there.

Mr President, among the devastating effects of Russia’s criminal aggression against Ukraine, there are those on tourism – which accounts for 10% of GDP in Europe – a sector which has already suffered a lot during the pandemic. We are facing naturally a loss of Russian and Ukrainian tourists all over Europe, and the costs of energy, foodstuff and fuel are growing fast. An explosive mix. We ask for financial assistance for big and small touristic companies within the internal market programme, together with a full crisis management action plan. Putin has invaded a peaceful country in mainland Europe. This is crystal clear. We have to do our part and support the Ukrainian people in the right to choose their own destiny. Why should a country surrender to the arrogance of a despotic leader? Why should a country submit to the invaders’ will? Putin will respond for his crimes in front of the history, but for now, we have to work for peace. And we have to relieve the most damaging humanitarian, economic and social effects of war, united as ever.