What Antonio Maria spoke about.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, in order to change Europe in deeds and not in words, it is first necessary to radically change the Treaties, starting with economic governance. But the new version of the pact, instead of promoting a real investment policy, proposes reforms still animated by punitive objectives and a strongly pro-cyclical system dictated only by the deficit-to-GDP ratio and by outdated short-sighted budgetary constraints and conditionality that, together with State aid rules and an imperfect ECB statute, does not remove the limits of the previous one in the slightest, but rather amplifies them. Can the ambitious and costly goals on defence, energy independence and digital in the coming years be reasonably achieved with the spending limits that this new stability pact will also impose on states? Instead of conceiving a truly sustainable and easily applicable one, the trilogue resulted in an even more strongly pro-cyclical regulatory monster, pejorative compared to Commissioner Gentiloni’s proposal of April 2023, which is impossible to comply with and will not lead to any hoped-for growth. If the Treaties are not amended beforehand, starting with the annex to Article 126 of Lisbon, Protocol No. 12, Article 1, which sets the convergence criteria of 3% and 60%, no Stability Pact can generate growth, as if it did not adopt the so-called Monetary Statute, which is present in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in Articles 123, 124 and 125. The reduction of the debt-to-GDP ratio must occur mainly not with the real cut in primary current expenditure and with the increase in taxation, i.e. with an exclusive reduction of the deficit, but by stimulating growth, with expansionary policies with a high multiplier coefficient. You don't know John Maynard Keynes in this Chamber? This pact will accentuate asymmetries, social injustices, divergences and discord among the peoples of Europe and will not allow the growth that we all hope for and condemn us to an inexorable decline, relegating us last among all the world's economies.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal to reform the Treaties is the result of the work of a small group of Members of the majority, meeting behind closed doors for over a year, with my group on Identity and Democracy, deliberately excluded from the outset: An excellent example of democracy! The result was a model of a Europe with more powers and competences for the Union and, above all, the proposal to overcome unanimity in the Council in fundamental matters such as foreign and fiscal policy. Overcoming unanimity in the Council, which is the voting mechanism that allows all Member States to block the adoption of decisions that are contrary to their interests, is a sneaky and dangerous proposal. It would mark the beginning of an irreversible process to the detriment of national sovereignty sanctioned by the democratic choices of citizens and won by universal suffrage. It would be the final completion of the external constraint as a supranational method of government. The founding fathers had provided for the mechanism of unanimity voting, well aware of the inherent risks of majority voting, to prevent the creation of real hidden blocking agreements between states to the detriment of some non-aligned member country. This idea of Europe does not belong to the citizens, we will never stop opposing it, despite the clumsy attempt to attribute popular legitimacy by calling into question the recommendations of the failed Conference on the Future of Europe. We stand for a Europe that safeguards true democracy and legitimate national interests, as well as the recovery of effective cooperation against the centralisation of elitist powers that have only accentuated asymmetries, injustices, divergences and discord between European countries and peoples. Remember that sovereignty belongs to the people.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Green Deal will cause enormous problems, especially in the area of enforcement. Moving from a fossil-based energy system to one based on electrification will lead not only to the restructuring of the entire energy infrastructure, but also to a complete overhaul of supply chains. The energy transition, as desired by the European Commission, will then produce an increase in the demand for critical metals, including copper, lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, graphite, molybdenum, zinc, rare earths and silicon, whose supply is firmly in the hands of China. On the other hand, Europe does not have adequate mineral extraction and refining capacity, so we are doomed to be dependent on imports from a few leading countries in the sector, which could apply export restrictions. The Beijing government continues to stockpile raw materials, holding 93 % of the world's copper, 74 % of aluminium and many others stocks to date, exposing us to economic and geopolitical blackmail. In addition, China itself is also the undisputed leader in refining a wide range of minerals, making it the world's leading producer of cost-competitive electric vehicles. But the biggest mistake made by the Commission was that it entrusted the energy transaction exclusively to electricity and did not accept the principle of technological neutrality, making citizens and businesses pay the costs of this wrong choice. Is any Member of the Commission, not imbued with ideological fanaticism, aware of how much an electric car costs? For a small car it takes no less than 35 000 euros: It's an energy transition for the rich.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone and irreplaceable pillars of the European industrial fabric in the Community's economies. For example, in Italy – which, I recall, ranks second in the ranking of manufacturing enterprises among the 27 Member States – micro, small and medium-sized enterprises even account for more than 99% of the total. The Commission should therefore fully explain how it intends to finance the demanding and costly Green Deal initiatives for businesses, reconciling them and making them sustainable with the return to inevitable austerity policies and the worsening of financial conditions due to the sudden rise in rates due to the monetary policies of the European Central Bank. Moreover, after having so far issued eleven packages of sanctions against Russia for the aggression against Ukraine, has the Commission assessed the economic effects on companies forced to reduce their turnover after having, with effort and sacrifice, conquered that market? Be clear: We all agree on sanctions on Russia but the price is now being paid precisely by those companies that have no fault of their own. bad management and that they saw each other from evening to morning foreclosed that market. I would also like to draw the attention of the Commission and of this House to the fact that, because of the cost of raw materials, particularly energy, the countries of the Union have taken asymmetrical measures of financial support for their businesses and citizens. This has created distortions in the single market as some countries have allocated significant resources compared to others, in clear contrast to the State aid rules, as enshrined in Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, giving their economy a clear competitive advantage over those of others. I am referring in particular to the extraordinary plan launched by Germany for more than EUR 200 billion, rejected by their own Court of Auditors, as such aid would have been channelled by accounting devices outside the scope of the public budget. Is everything normal for the Commission, or can the other Member States now use the same tricks as Germany? Or, again, does the Commission show that it is strong with the weak and weak with the strong?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in one minute I can only reflect on the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact. In the reform, the Commission will have enormous powers in determining the economic policies of national governments, far superior to the previous pact, not even involving this Parliament, which, I recall, is democratically elected by universal suffrage, as are the respective parliaments of each of the 27 countries of the Union. It follows that the new rules will be interpreted in the Commission's favoured governments, while they will apply rigidly to others. It will no longer be the citizens who decide with the vote, but the unelected bureaucrats who have always proven to be completely disconnected from reality, the same as the incomprehensible decision not to separate NextGenerationEU loans from the calculation of public debt. I firmly reiterate that sovereignty belongs to the people and those who think only minimally to replace it are doomed miserably to fail. Then I first heard the claim that the euro has become like the lira; I would like to remind you that in 1991, with the lira, Italy was the fourth industrial power in the world. The problem is that you have to know how to do things, not with a central bank that can't.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, after a long and intense negotiation both in the ECON Committee and in the trilogue, we have arrived at the text of the regulation on (MICA), where a very great and excellent work has undoubtedly been done. However, I would like to highlight some critical issues. The European Union is the first to introduce rules in this area, with the risk, however, of chasing the rapid evolution of the world. crypto e crypto-assets, with the concrete danger of issuing an already obsolete regulation. Precisely for this reason I have always strongly supported the need to promote a world conference on crypto-assets, a sort of Bretton Woods, in order to plan and harmonize common rules among all actors, especially those outside Europe. However, we have achieved the goal of setting a few simple regulatory stakes in a terrain that until now we could define from the Far West, and this mainly to protect investors / consumers. However, let us not forget that we live in a highly globalised world of financial markets for which, in the absence of a common approach to the subject, enormous competition problems could arise due to strong regulatory asymmetries. Although it is widely believed that European regulations often add unnecessary bureaucracies, in this case we can say that, with the introduction of the MiCa regulation, we have helped to give a huge opportunity to this sector, recognizing it legally, and therefore to have traced a path for the future.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given that the current US banking crisis currently has very different contours from the previous ones, we cannot help but highlight these considerations. First: the failure of the Silicon Valley Bank It was triggered by the default of a financial and banking platform linked to crypto assets. Are we sure that the European banking system is free from the same risk? Second: the monetary policy undertaken by the ECB over the past year on raising rates to counter rising inflation exposes the financial banking system to systemic risks such as that of 2008: the sudden increase in rates has corresponded to a fall in the prices of asset outstanding bonds, generating potential liquidity problems in the banking system. What economists call the "black swan theory" could manifest itself. These considerations should prompt the ECB, as is already happening for the Fed, to immediately review its outlook for interest rate dynamics, together with a more reassuring communication to citizens and businesses, already enormously affected by the recent increase in the cost of loans and mortgages.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission's proposal of 9 November and the subsequent debate on the revision of the Stability Pact continue to focus on public debt while completely ignoring private debt, which has shown greater responsibility for the causes of crises in the past. How many countries in the eurozone and the world meet the 60% of public debt/GDP limit? Very few! The average from the eurozone is 95%. It is also necessary for member countries to grow at the GDP numerator, dismissing austerity policies and strict debt-repayment rules that have always systematically failed, instead of chasing sterile percentages with no scientific basis. The treaties were written in Maastricht and Lisbon, not on Mount Sinai! So let's stop pretending to ignore these problems and finally turn to the treaties, adapting them to the real needs of the world in which we live.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner McGuinness, as part of the Fit for 55 package of proposals, we have already noted that the ideological approach taken so far to the energy transition creates potentially devastating distortions, in particular in terms of increasing costs for businesses and households already affected by the pandemic and the war. Today, however, we are discussing another of the severe consequences of the strict rules imposed in the framework of the strategy: the problem of the availability of critical raw materials and, in particular, the increase in European dependency and access to certain non-European productions. What amazes us is the delay with which Brussels, after having issued the various proposals for regulations of the Green Deal, which will soon enter into force, is preparing to fill a regulatory gap that tries to stimulate and protect security of supply. Why is the European legislator only now posing the problem? The same Chips Act, on which the institutions will start negotiations shortly, aims to relocate semiconductor production in Europe, which requires particular raw materials. There will be several elements to take into account during the process of the new measure, first of all the role of China, which over time has accumulated many specific raw materials even plundering other continents such as Africa. China controls more than 90% of the availability of rare earths and copper stocks and 77% of the global solar panel sector, against an exponential growth in European demand by 2023. The American role of the new Inflation Reduction Act for the green economy. The US has decided, for example, to incentivise American households to buy products with at least 40% of the raw materials extracted in the US. Although this raises concern and may seem like protectionism, it must be borne in mind that it is, geopolitically, an attempt to defend one's own national strategic interests. To this end, I therefore consider it appropriate and urgent to prepare a study on the real level of dependence of our economy on Chinese supply chains, in particular in the renewables, metals, electronics and pharmaceuticals sectors.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam President Lagarde, Madam Commissioner McGuinness, in commenting on the ECB's 2022 report, it is necessary to point out that the current increase in inflation is due to the sudden rise in the prices of energy products and commodities, not only because of the war, but even earlier because of the previous choices on green policies, which are not sustainable for the maintenance of the previous European industrial capacity. The ECB's statutory framework is rigidly monetarist and therefore, in a situation of exogenous inflation, operates in procyclical terms, amplifying, with depressive effects, the criticalities of the costs of entire productive sectors, with consequent negative effects on real employment and wage levels. The action of the ECB cannot correct either the causes or the effects, now structural, of this agflation, but can only achieve the irreversibility of a widespread deindustrialization, combining to an unresolved problem on the supply side also a demand crisis, related to the increased unemployment and job insecurity, which are already affecting, with the reduction of real wages, essential living standards, with the dear energy and the increase in the cost of financing for businesses and households. Even a devaluation of the euro cannot be pursued, either because of the persistence of high rates or because of the so-called Marshall-Lerner condition. Forced imposition of policies green, production prices for exporting firms experiencing aflation cannot be traced beyond certain minimum levels. The Fed, on the other hand, raises rates to attract capital and preserve the international role of the dollar, being able to offset the recessionary consequences with expansionary fiscal policies, while the strict rules of the treaties do not allow it. This makes a massive relaxation of the State aid rules laid down in Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union inevitable.Quantitative Tightening", will only be allowed to those countries with more fiscal space and will instead be precluded from all others, because of the unsustainable cost of financing states on the markets, which you yourself have determined with the increase in rates and the sale of government bonds. The scene is reminiscent of the famous saying: The operation was successful, but the patient died.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I will speak as a simple parent of a boy who is 100 % disabled and not as a Member of this Parliament, and for one minute I will ideally be the father of all disabled people who cannot be here. I have carefully read the report 'Towards equal rights for persons with disabilities' and I wonder why all the European institutions have never paid full attention to the real issues that people with disabilities, their families and carers face on a daily basis. Exclusions, discrimination, especially at work, insurmountable bureaucratic difficulties, differences in health care and economic support within member countries are still too ignored, when the real level of civilization of an organized and democratic community is measured precisely by full respect and attention to the disabled. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I will speak as a Member of this Parliament and I can only say that the report we are debating associates, in addition to people with disabilities, other categories of citizens who need other protections, which no one denies, but certainly cannot be assimilated, comparable and superimposed on those of the disabled. Why can't disabled people be the subject of a specific and autonomous relationship and it is necessary to include other categories, which have nothing to do with the world and the needs of those with disabilities? Yet we are talking about 87 million European citizens, 24 million of whom have severe disabilities, not to mention minors. Are they not enough not to include other categories to be protected? Finally, I would like to thank our President Roberta Metsola for giving us this brooch I am one of those who can wear it with my head held high.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind this House that the vast majority of European citizens are of the opinion that 'grants', as provided for in the Recovery Fund, mean resources given away, that is, materialised out of thin air thanks to the European Union, whereas in reality they are obtained through so-called own resources. It would therefore be appropriate to better inform European citizens that new own resources and recovery have been provided for, meaning nothing more than taxes that, in the end, are always borne directly or indirectly by citizens. In addition, I have enormous doubts that all the "grants" provided for will then be compensated by the planned revenues from the new own resources and other extraordinary revenues will certainly have to be used in the course of work, always borne by the citizens. In short, the system is very reminiscent of the famous game of three cards of the country fairs, where it is already known who always loses. After all, as you have now seen, it only takes one minute to make the citizens understand this misunderstanding correctly.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the face of the problems that have arisen since the invasion of Ukraine, our disappointment is with the Commission, because it has not previously carried out a study on the social and economic impact that would have been generated as a result of the additional impetus given to the increase in prices and the cost structure of businesses. I believe that the Commission should consider the solution indicated by Keynes in his '39 'How to pay for the war'. Eight months after the start of the war we are still without solutions shared between member countries and European citizens are in the dilemma of paying their bills or shopping for food, while companies are paying the higher energy costs by raising prices or ceasing production, dismissing their employees. The financial situation appears precarious at public and private levels, having not prepared tools to deal with a possible systemic crisis from the first symptoms. This condition cannot legitimise the independent initiative of individual member countries, which create serious asymmetries within the single market. If the Commission allows Member States to intervene directly with their own resources without offering their own alternatives, unlawful competition in the European common market will be established, in clear breach of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The most obvious case is the €200 billion aid plan launched by Germany to support its production system. The delayed consequences of this policy would work against the consensus of the population towards the institutions, causing disturbances for the stability of the European agreements, at the very moment when their validity is finally examined in a rapidly changing world.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Gentiloni, I believe that this is the case at present. First: a modest growth impact as a result of planned investments, as well as in the working group on the RRF, and too bureaucratic procedures. Second: too stringent conditionalities and lack of flexibility to obtain funding, which have led many member countries to use deficit spending instead of borrowing. Third: the institutions' unwillingness to recalibrate the environmental objectives of the Recovery so that they are realistically sustainable to ensure effective European energy security, having over-followed the ideology green, which risks exacerbating socio-economic issues, with the bitter prospect of being even more dependent on China. I therefore hope that the RRF will be better implemented by RepowerEU, together with the redefinition of sustainable objectives and a streamlining of implementation procedures, so as to allow countries to reformulate their NRRPs and make them effectively achievable.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Conference on the Future of Europe was intended to open a debate on the real causes of the crises that have hit the Union in order to make it sustainable, instead of proposing mechanisms to circumvent Parliament, legitimising initiatives in the interests of some and to the detriment of others, since the most debated Treaty change involves overcoming unanimity voting in favour of qualified majority voting in the Council, including on foreign policy, common security, the budget and taxation. If the objective is to quickly overcome an obstacle mechanism to the development of a common defence, Article 48 does not offer any steps to make it possible in a short time, because the simplified procedure concerns only changes related to the internal policies and actions of the Union and neither can the procedure referred to in paragraph 7 of Article 48 apply to decisions in the field of defence. Removing unanimity would also jeopardise the sovereignty of the Member States, because it would allow the creation of bloc alliances between countries and this is not in the spirit of the Treaties. Instead, the changes will have to cover all economic governance, starting with the so-called Monetary Statute in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, Articles 123, 124 and 125 on the prohibition of monetisation. bailout and fiscal solidarity, which have rendered the eurozone incapable of dealing with crises in recent decades. The citizens we represent are waiting for a policy of investments and structural reforms, already partly carried out but driven by pro-cyclical punitive objectives, not dictated only by the deficit-to-GDP ratio or by short-sighted outdated budgetary constraints and conditionalities, such as State aid, and by an ECB statute with only inflation and non-employment targets. It is the prohibition of lender of last resort It is certainly not a change to unanimity voting in the Council which would undermine the protection of the interests of individual Member States.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Italian and as a taxpayer, I can only agree with the directive which finally introduces minimum taxation for multinationals and, therefore, should only be considered as a starting point and not a point of arrival. In fact, 15% is still too low a threshold compared to the taxation that is applied to companies resident in the Union and that does not compensate in the slightest the enormous competitive advantage acquired and consolidated by multinationals. It is true that, thanks to this directive, the risk of evasive phenomena put in place by large international groups, which for too many years have not contributed to the revenues of the State in which they carried out their activities because they were not regulated, will decrease. Applying a minimum threshold of 15% effectively means applying a flat tax and citizens and businesses residing in the Union would not understand this blatant and discriminatory difference in treatment. For example, in Italy, my party the League has been proposing for a long time the same flat tax 15% for all incomes, finding huge obstacles also from the European institutions, citing non-progressiveness. As all of you are elected by citizens and not by multinationals, I would like the minimum threshold of 15% to be revised upwards, or, even better, the rates for small and medium-sized enterprises to be reduced.

Madam President, Commissioners, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, how much longer will we have to wait for even the most diehard advocates of rigour and austerity to convince themselves that we are at the last resort to change all the Union's failed economic governance? How much longer will we have to wait to see all the automatic mechanisms, starting with the Stability Pact, ending their harmful effects in the European economies? Over the past two decades, the average GDP growth of the eurozone countries has been significantly lower than the average of all other OECD countries. What more needs to happen than the pandemic and a vicious war on our eastern borders, which is literally disrupting our concept of democracy and our energy and raw material supply plans on a global scale? The political and material effects of energy dependence on third countries are not enough to add green and the digital further dependence on technologies and raw materials imported from areas that are now dominant in our development? I therefore call on this Parliament to carry out a rapid, serious and immediate review of the objectives rigidly outlined in the agenda of the European Council. Next Generation EU to make it possible to reformulate their national plans on the basis of current affairs and sustainability criteria, otherwise the Union will continue to be an increasingly clay-footed giant. Finally, the rules of the current Stability Pact force member countries with excessive debt to use the funds under the conditionalities of the Stability and Growth Pact. Next Generation EU As specified in the Commission's latest autumn economic forecasts, they will produce low growth multipliers, while other countries will use autonomous debt towards investments with high multipliers, generating the paradoxical effect of increasing asymmetries between the European economies themselves. Let us meditate on these considerations.

Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, Table 2 on page 7 of the ‘Recovery and Resilience Dialogue with the European Commission’ forecasts country-by-country GDP growth due to NGEU, from 0.4/0.7% to 2026 for Germany and Austria and 1.5/2.5% for Italy to 2026 and for Spain to 2024. This means that at best the growth generated is estimated on average at 0.14% per annum for the former and 0.52% per annum for the latter. Based on these considerations, it follows that the type of investments rigidly outlined in the NGEU agenda will produce a low multiplier, significantly lower than that produced by the respective budget deficit expenditures. Moreover, the effects produced by the Country Report conditionalities imposing immediate fiscal consolidation measures and those needed by states to cover the forthcoming reactivation of the Stability and Growth Pact, which resumes the path towards structural fiscal balance in addition to those expected from 2027 when an additional contribution to the EU budget due to NGEU (0.6% of GDP) will be needed for the start of bond repayments, have not been calculated in the forecasts. Therefore, only after estimating the multipliers of these consolidation measures could we be able to predict with more reasonable certainty whether and to what extent NGEU will lead to positive net growth, pending a rapid and constructive overhaul of the entire NGEU. governance economics of the Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I have listened with great interest to all the speeches of my colleagues and I broadly agree with them. Yes, Western countries and Europe have done and have done a lot compared to the past, but the problem, in my humble opinion, is another: If we do not succeed in involving all the countries of the world, I say all, no one excluded, starting from China and India, we will have failed too. On the contrary, I repeat that this Parliament must do more precisely in this sense, we must commit ourselves in such a way that all the other countries do exactly the same things at the same time, otherwise it is useless. The world is like a bell, we're all in it. Otherwise we will also give, among other things, immense competitive advantages, which we will pay for in terms of unemployment. Last thing I say to Greta: That's good, that's good! In the future you will be even better if you go to Beijing and New Delhi to give these speeches.

Mr President, Commissioner McGuinness, ladies and gentlemen, it is difficult to make a very detailed speech in one minute, but I would like to say something that I believe is important to all European citizens. You see, our voters are asking us: why when we pay, perhaps for the pocket money to go to eat a pizza or a hamburger, to our children and we make the transfer on a prepaid card, even for only 20 euros, yes, of 20 euros, we must bring a series of documents so high? Not only we who make the payment but also those who receive, our children. And then we read in the newspapers that it is allowed to transfer figures from one part of the world to the other, I read in the newspapers even for the Pandora Papers, 32 trillion dollars. And nothing happens. We are called here, we are obliged to give answers to the citizens of Europe. This Parliament exists to give these kinds of answers.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if the Banking Union means the transfer of supervisory responsibilities from national to European authorities, it is not clear why there are still some very strong discriminations. In fact, there are asymmetries to the detriment of commercial banks that operate essentially to support the real economy, that is to say to the advantage of the production system, in favour of those that operate mainly in financial transactions not supported by commercial operations, but which, however, being exposed to considerable risks not duly monitored and coded, can negatively affect the entire banking system at a systemic level. These fears arise from the awareness that there are potentially high risks to which many European banking institutions have been exposed for years. asset complex financial derivatives, i.e. those catalogued in level 2 and 3 and so-called toxic securities, since the risk of other derivatives is already controlled by CCPs (Central Counter Party) and EMIR (European markets infrastructure regulation) on OTC derivatives. On the other hand, for NPLs there is a precise calendar provisioning, up to 7 years, before outsourcing, i.e. divesting, whereas for complex derivatives, classified as level 2 and 3, there is no similar timing and no guidance and methodology in this regard, let alone specific capital provisions against possible misassessments. It is therefore not understandable that, while restrictive and codified guidelines have been adopted against commercial non-performing loans, the accumulation of enormous risks in complex derivatives, left to self-referential calculation alone by the banks involved, with macroscopic conflicts of interest and without assessing the risk of the growing phenomenon of non-performing loans, has instead been inexplicably protected. shadow banking system, where adequate supervision is not yet in place. Moreover, the entire European banking system is burdened by the uncertainties of Basel IV, the details of which we will know at the end of October, but the real risk is that its transposition may further penalize small and medium-sized enterprises with a still fragile credit system. Finally, on the completion of the Banking Union and the EDIS common deposit guarantee scheme, we are not convinced by a hybrid model for the common guarantee fund, as without a real mutualisation of risks it will not produce any benefit, nor will it strengthen the ability of EU banks to withstand any shocks. On the contrary, the principle of risk differential between the economies of the centre and the periphery will remain and, paradoxically, will pave the way for those who claim that the risk free Sovereign.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the economic contraction caused by the pandemic has had a dramatic social and employment impact throughout the European Union, especially in some economic sectors. The current regulatory framework is clearly insufficient: there is a great need for flexibility and cooperation with Member States, even at the cost of postponing other ambitious targets that do not take sufficient account of the problems associated with reducing asymmetries in the world of work. The same SURE instrument did not cover all categories: For example, platform workers, who have had a huge expansion in the last year and a half, do not have the same protections as other categories of workers. On the one hand, it creates opportunities by reducing barriers to entry into the world of work, but on the other, it raises serious concerns about the conditions in which they exercise their profession. Moreover, the effects of the pandemic have led to huge inequalities between categories of workers, both employed and self-employed, and between permanent and fixed-term contracts. Unfortunately, among the consequences of the pandemic, we have seen situations that are not compatible with the levels of social well-being achieved over the years in the countries of the Union, such as the endless queues of citizens in front of the revenues of humanitarian associations in order to ensure a hot meal, despite the fact that a few months earlier they enjoyed more than dignified incomes. It is the Commission's priority task and duty to monitor these inequalities and put in place effective correction tools to eliminate them.