Speeches

Mr President, when we are discussing the budget, we cannot make the mistake of limiting our analysis to numbers alone, because the numbers in a budget indicate a political will and must then be implemented in the legislative measures. That is why I believe that the budgetary and legislative functions of this Parliament need to be more harmonised and more coherent in order to be more credible. In fact, it is essential that our budget is adapted to the objectives that are intended to be achieved, the ambition of which depends very much on the resources made available to it. Next year we will vote for the new Parliament and I believe that it is essential to have an adequate and well-structured budget in order to achieve the many different objectives, some of which may be overly ambitious, but above all in order to be able to express the real strength that Europe represents for its history of freedom and democracy. We need a budget that allows us to respond to the concerns and needs that citizens expressed to us in the Conference on the Future of Europe, underlining that they want more Europe, but a different, closer and more concrete Europe.

No one is questioning children's rights. We are insisting on making you understand that such an important issue would have required a different path. You are lending yourselves to a national controversy, and it is no coincidence that there is a showcase or a political catwalk. Here we are not denying the need to arrive at a shared norm, but Europe is the place of division, not of fans. Voi state facendo soltanto un dibattito politico e il fallimento della vostra richiesta è l'assenza totale di tutti, che avrebbero dovuto invece essere qui, perché anche io sono a favore dei diritti dei bambini, ma voglio una norma, non voglio l'emotività. There is no law and there is an attempt by Europe to harmonise. So this is what we are asking, not to lend ourselves to exploitation, otherwise this becomes the national parliament and I do not believe that we have been elected to discuss national issues here.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the failure of this debate and the true purpose of this debate are confirmed by the totalitarian absence of all the Members of Parliament who today have flocked to insist on a debate that had the sole purpose of bringing back here a national issue that is being exploited at the moment. It is surprising that Parliament is lending itself to the political exploitation of some who have transferred here to Brussels a national issue, a national debate, a national controversy on a subject that should have taken a different path, not a change in the agenda. A delicate, sensitive theme, a theme where everyone should have been able to express their position, even in the diversity of sensitivities that such an important theme requires, and be able to do so without any prejudice. Instead, we wanted to choose to ride the national emotion, through a debate without resolution, which has the simple flavor, and you demonstrated it when even today here you begin to define the current government of Italy as a far-right government that has only the fault of having detected an absence of specific legislation and having recalled a judgment of the Court of Cassation. The result of this little theater is yet another waste of time towards what could have been a step forward in the protection of the rights of children and homogeneous families, thanks to a well-reasoned discussion, a constructive confrontation where, I repeat, it was necessary to bring together the different sensitivities and in which what would have emerged in our specific case is the main problem, namely the lack of legislation and the attempt to harmonize a rule in all States. So I congratulate the many colleagues, including Italians, who wanted to put forward their political interests at this time, evidently too weak to be claimed in the right national forum, drugging this debate with national issues and misleading public opinion. (The speaker agreed to respond to an intervention. "blue card")

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the November plenary, here in this House, I and other colleagues urged the Commission and the Council to put forward a concrete proposal to prevent illegal immigration and human trafficking and yet another massacre of deaths at sea. At this point I wonder if it is worth continuing to debate in this House, if there is not someone who takes our positions into account and, above all, does not follow up on what this Parliament has expressed clearly and repeatedly. This is the third debate in the last three months on the issue of immigration, a dramatically topical issue on which it seems incredibly impossible to find a common solution. Then I wonder: How many more debates do we have to have? And most importantly, how many more deaths do we have to keep crying? The shipwreck of Cutro in recent days has shocked everyone deeply and once again Italy has been unjustly made the protagonist of this tragedy. But let's be clear: Cutro's tragedy is not an Italian tragedy, but a European one. Just as there is no migration emergency in Italy, there is a migration emergency in Europe. And it is a Europe that must intervene and not just discuss. So, our prime minister did well to include the issue of immigration at the next European Council, demonstrating that Italy is there and wants to do its part but cannot be alone. Because we need a single European policy that includes the true and undisputed solidarity of all states, the ban on human traffickers and above all a new immigration pact that strengthens cooperation with countries of origin and guarantees a legal migration that can be truly welcomed and integrated. There are no more excuses: Another misfortune at sea will have only one culprit, unfortunately: the European Union and its negligence.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, allow me to thank Mr Lins for the work he has done and for having been able to draw the attention of a very serious emergency that may involve risks that we must remedy. A global fertilizer crisis like the one we're going through hasn't been seen since the 1970s. The pandemic before and the war and the energy crisis after have led not only to a reduction in fertilisers, but also to an increase that in some cases, it has been said, reaches around 150%, thus causing a serious difficulty for the entire agri-food chain and a loss of competitiveness compared to farmers in third countries. Imports from Russia and Belarus, which supply more than 60% of EU fertilisers, have drastically decreased and the increase in the production costs of synthetic fertilisers has forced many European producers to reduce their activities or even stop production. Add to this the fact that in this House we are even insisting on a further reduction in fertilisers, to achieve environmental sustainability objectives, which we can agree on, but without finding an alternative solution in the meantime and without worrying that today's shortage of fertilisers will weigh on tomorrow's production, with a growing world population and with repercussions on the availability of food and on our food security, unless someone is convinced that the solution is synthetic production or the consumption of insects. Our farmers are in the midst of an economic crisis and we need to find a remedy against which the CAP will probably not be able to support them either, given that there is inflation that is reducing its scope. Ladies and gentlemen, the current situation urgently requires the need for a strategy which, we note, has been announced by the Commissioner, but which must be timely, because we are obviously in a position to put European food security and autonomy at risk and we will find ourselves, as has already happened with gas, where, of course, we will be increasingly dependent on third countries and will lose our credibility and geopolitical strength.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as has been said, there are still too many millions of European citizens who live and reside, including for work or study purposes, in a country other than their country of origin, which unfortunately cannot exercise their electoral rights. Their turnout is low compared to national citizens, and even lower is the percentage of those who decide to apply in a country other than their country of origin. In reality, these citizens represent the social mobility that has been so aspired to strengthen the project of European integration, and that is why today Parliament is making it clear why they can and should be encouraged and facilitated to stand as candidates and to be able to vote, especially with regard to people with disabilities. Let us not forget that participation in political life is the foundational precondition of any democracy, and the new rules we propose also aim to have a Europeanisation effect in order to change the way in which the citizens of the European Union view European democracy, strengthening its sense of belonging and fighting what, in my opinion, is the real enemy that we must face: abstentionism.

Mr President, Madam Minister, ladies and gentlemen, after so many speeches by my colleagues, it is natural for me to ask how much longer this Parliament, before a Council, has to speak in order to have a concrete answer. This Parliament has reiterated this on several occasions, albeit with different sensitivities: We need a political and European solution. As long as the Member States continue to put national logic before Community logic, it will unfortunately not be possible to find a concrete and pragmatic answer. If we do not act now, we will continue to witness impotent waves of migration that will become, as they have been in the past, real emergencies. So I appeal to you, so that the Swedish Presidency can have the strength to find an agreement based on solidarity and on the idea that the southern and eastern borders are European borders. We need to work with third countries to make returns more efficient, while promoting social and labour reintegration; We need to strengthen the external borders, which will undoubtedly have to be financed and implemented in order to process asylum applications. Finally, we support a code of conduct for NGOs in search and rescue operations, so that they are made accountable, with their states, for compliance with international and national law. Good luck to this Parliament and good work for a difficult commitment, which is truly concrete.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the revelations about Uber at this historic moment for our institutions call for a responsible debate in Parliament, without leading to generalised and demagogic conclusions. The risk that is run, in fact, in these moments of great emotionality, is to get to demonize someone, without realizing that the facts from which the debate is born are often attributable to a few subjects and cannot compromise the credibility of an entire system, which seems almost to appear as devoid of any rule. Indeed, let us be careful that on these serious episodes there is not the speculation of those who have an interest in delegitimizing Europe as a subject that is conquering the centrality on the geopolitical scenario. Surely the diffusion of the Uber documentation confirms that extremely aggressive political pressure techniques have been adopted and that in some cases they have exceeded the limits of ethics. This conduct must be condemned openly, but it is also right to point out that lobbying is a legitimate political activity and the illegal behavior of some cannot tarnish an entire category of professionals who often, thanks to their contribution, provide us with useful and important points to better carry out our institutional task. Lobbying is an essential activity within Parliament, it is an evaluation tool to understand the various aspects of the many issues that are being brought before us. Those who are stakeholders, in compliance with the rules and with the utmost transparency, cannot be confused with those who carry out their work illegally. Uber's facts teach us that there is a need for more transparency, including financial transparency, and this must be requested from those who lobby and that we must expand a code of conduct that provides for stricter sanctions. We MEPs can and must also play our part in supporting the current process of change initiated by President Metsola, so that our activities, which are already strictly regulated, can be better protected from illegal and unfair conduct by certain parties who must be kept away from any form of institutional representation. However, it is understood that those who want to act illegally will continue to do so at the expense of any current or future rules.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work, for being able to combine a text in which we must consider an important area for the single market, but also consumer protection. The European video game industry is the fastest growing cultural and creative sector in Europe, contributing to the development of new technologies and providing over 90 000 jobs across Europe. However, we cannot ignore the dangerous implications of improper and unmoderated use of video games, as has been said, which can have a negative impact on social relationships, mental health, work and academic performance. I also put the question on the prize boxes, the so-called loot boxes, virtual boxes that can be purchased during the game. Many scientific studies have found a correlation between gambling and the gambling system. loot boxes, emphasizing how they are able to manipulate underage users and push them to carry out microtransactions, triggering in them mechanisms of dependence and disturbance. I believe that the Commission should assess whether the current regulatory framework with regard to these premium boxes and purchases in-game is sufficient and I say this also as a parent, because eventually these risks are obviously available to all our users, but above all those most at risk are our children.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the International Federation of Journalists has already documented 59 murders of media professionals in 2022, twelve more than in 2021. It is even more disconcerting that nine out of ten murders of journalists still go unpunished. These are alarming data, especially if they are also associated with the many episodes of violence and intimidation against those who choose to tell the truth, protecting and strengthening our democracy accordingly. Freedom of expression, media freedom and pluralism are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union, as well as in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is clear that there is a link between freedom of the press and the rule of law, because promoting and defending the rule of law also means promoting and defending freedom of the press and all those who work for it. One thing is also certain from today's debate: Despite the many European initiatives, we must be more decisive and incisive than we were in the case of the Maltese journalist killed a few years ago, or in relation to the current Russian aggression or the uprisings in Iran, where journalists, cameramen, photographers are killed or arrested only because they want to hide the truth in favor of propaganda made of disinformation and manipulation. Freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of our rule of law and, as such, must be promoted and defended because there can be no democracy without media freedom and pluralism. An attack on the media is an attack on our democracy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in these difficult days, President Metsola has said so, 'European democracy is under attack' and, I would add, that it has not been since Friday evening. Foreign forces have been trying for years to get involved in our decision-making processes to influence or change the fate of our Union, and it is no coincidence that we have set up a special committee precisely to analyse the attempts of these interferences. We have seen this with widespread demagogy on the occasion of Brexit, or with attempts by Russia or China to undermine our fundamental values. In this risk scenario, we must not underestimate the link between foreign interference and our energy, food or financial autonomy: It is clear that there are some regimes that for economic or energy reasons, for example, try to limit our principles and our democracy. We must respond to these attempts with strategies that lead our Union to become more and more autonomous in order to face any external threat that tries to weaken us. Unfortunately, today, we are witnessing a serious case of corruption within our home and I hope that those responsible for these conducts, if ascertained, will not go unpunished but, above all, that clarity will be made immediately to avoid destroying the credibility of our institution. A credibility built with commitment, sacrifice and many struggles. A credibility that maybe scares someone. And so, at this moment more than ever, we must react to defend the credibility of our institutions and of the whole European Union, not only to the outside world, but above all to our citizens who are calling for a strong, close and credible Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today, once again, we are here in the Chamber and we all agree that disability is an undeniable disadvantage, which makes everyday life and their integration into society more difficult for millions of people. Unfortunately, years later and despite numerous European and national measures that are not always coordinated with each other, we must take note that there is still much to be done and, above all, we must take note of the need to combat and break down the cultural barriers of indifference and discrimination. I believe that disability is in the eyes of those who want to see it, creating social barriers that are much more difficult to overcome than material ones; A physical barrier can be broken down, but the invisible barrier is one of incomprehension and indifference. This resolution goes in the right direction and proposes active inclusion policies to guarantee paths of autonomy, looking especially after us, which, allow me, should be an even more careful phase because the most difficult one not only for the disabled person, but for those who live with her and suffer with her, perhaps even more. He suffers the discomfort and uncertainty of having, for a loved one, no longer certainties of conditions of inclusion and equality.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning's debate confirms once again that when we talk about immigration we risk being misunderstood. And unfortunately there is a widespread distorted perception that sees on the one hand the good, those who integrate and welcome human lives, and on the other the bad, those who are only trying to govern migration processes. I believe that there cannot be such a simplistic and categorical vision, but there must be a common approach and a common response, but above all European. We all, including in this House, claim and are proud of European values, including solidarity, but apparently we interpret it outwards, but we do not apply it inwards. I cannot ignore how this issue particularly affects my country and a few others, and I cannot fail to underline the difficulties and the commitment we are putting in to better manage this difficulty. There is no migrant issue for Italy, nor for every single state, there is a migrant issue for Europe. The Italian coasts, as well as other borders, are a part of the borders of the European Union, but Italy cannot do it alone, just as no one else can do it alone. We need a European strategy that involves everyone and in which everyone plays their part. We need a proposal that prevents illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings, we need to activate humanitarian corridors, we need to provide for mandatory and non-voluntary relocation, but above all an extraordinary economic plan for Africa and for all those countries where the problem must be tackled at the root, to prevent the creation of the conditions to prevent these people from fleeing. The thousands of deaths in the Mediterranean are a defeat and a burden for all of us, without exception. And then we cannot go back, we just have to go forward to avoid further burdening this burden.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the vulnerability of our strategic infrastructure is visible to all. In fact, in recent years we have seen an increase in hybrid attacks due to both climate change and domestic threats and terrorism, not to mention the pandemic, and then to the war that has endangered the security of our continent. Today, more than ever, it is essential to defend the proper functioning of our critical infrastructure, to make it more resilient in order to ensure its proper functioning for our economies and the single market. The risks are clear, it was said. A disruption of one of these critical infrastructures can potentially generate knock-on effects not only in the state in which it is located, but also in all other states. I therefore welcome the strengthening of the rules that aim to increase the resilience of strategic structures and infrastructures for services and for the performance of essential economic activities and I am pleased to have obtained an extension of the areas of application of this directive also to the agri-food sector. In particular, I am referring to the large wholesale markets, which are obviously recognised in this measure in their role as strategic infrastructures. The functioning of the agri-food chain is an essential service for the well-being of our society and wholesale markets are fundamental, as structures of public interest, just think that, thanks to them, during the pandemic, the blockage of the agri-food system was avoided in many countries and the supply and distribution of food could be guaranteed.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, European agriculture and our farmers are in difficulty. For months, the People's Party has been denouncing how the increase in the costs of raw materials and the price of gas have generated a situation that risks blocking the entire agri-food chain. This debate, allow me, runs the risk of passing on European farmers or some of us as those who do not have an environmental sensitivity, when in reality it is all the opposite given the commitment and the results achieved by European farmers and their full willingness to share a pragmatic strategy where the environment can be protected together with productivity. Because we remember that no environmentally sustainable result can be achieved if we weaken our production system. The strategy provides for a ban on the use and non-production of fertilisers. Given that Europe is the world leader in their production, it means that it exports to the world what is prohibited in its interior. Make this reflection: if the strategy leads to a reduction in production, imports from third countries will increase and therefore Europe considers that what is exported is harmful and then finds it on the plate. We must ensure that there is the principle of reciprocity, otherwise it means that the richest European consumers will be able to afford to buy more expensive European products for their production costs, while the less wealthy will be redirected to purchases of cheaper but also less safe and less sustainable imported products.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the work she has done and for having found the synthesis of a balanced text. As part of the strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities, the creation of this centre was necessary to assist the Commission in monitoring and implementing the strategy, but also to support and coordinate the various Member States, where unfortunately there are still many differences and delays in the implementation of the European accessibility directives. The main aim of the Centre is to promote a real culture of equal opportunities and the full participation of people with disabilities in all aspects and areas of daily life. I am pleased that the importance of increasing the employment levels of disabled people has been underlined, both with the use of new technologies and with the necessary cooperation, not only with non-governmental organizations, but also and above all with the business world that must be sensitized to take note of the great potential deriving from the employment of disabled people, today often excluded also because of prejudices now denied by their many work and success stories. In this context, the role of local authorities is important, both in the analysis of the needs of the territories and in the implementation of social policies. I am convinced that the Centre will be the operational instrument with which the Commission and the individual States, with a coordinated and harmonised approach, can concretely promote all the conditions for real access to real life, with the removal of all physical and cultural obstacles.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, we all agree that the global economy is changing and that its progressive digitalisation is confronting us with new challenges that the European Union and its states must face in a cohesive and coordinated manner. The principles of the current tax framework are progressively outdated and do not guarantee fair, transparent and harmonised taxation on cryptocurrency and blockchain activities that, given their exponential growth, risk altering the internal market. I thank the rapporteur for a resolution that adequately addresses the various aspects, although, in my opinion, the environmental impact of the production of cryptocurrencies should also be taken into account in the definition of an updated tax framework, which requires an important amount of energy and therefore carbon emissions to carry out data control and encryption operations. Just think, for example, that the Bitcoin blockchain consumes more energy in a year than Italy. For this reason, it is good to create a clear and transparent regulatory framework, with fair taxation, which also takes into account the environmental impact of Blockchain activity and ensures the right competitiveness between companies, safeguarding especially the smallest ones.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, drought is not a problem for some, we do not make the mistake of two years ago when in the presence of the first COVID cases, someone thought it was the problem for some states. Drought is a problem across Europe and beyond. That is why we need a common European approach, structured and with concrete actions. It is necessary to modernise and implement new Italian and European infrastructure to understand how to make water reserves available also with a European solidarity system. Europe has invested heavily in both space research and innovation, but technologies and data can and must be better used to ensure the appropriate and responsible use of a water resource that is apparently not inexhaustible. The drought emergency coincides with the Commission's recent decision to reduce plant protection products. To compensate for these measures, European legislation is needed for the use of assisted evolution technologies, other than GMOs, to have crops that are more resistant and resilient to new pathogens and increasingly frequent droughts. European agriculture is going through a delicate phase, but if we want to ensure its green transition we must now worry about how to avoid a certain water emergency, otherwise we will have collapse and food dependence on third countries.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to thank the two rapporteurs for these two important pieces of legislation, which represent a crucial turning point in the discipline of a market, the digital market, where more and more citizens and businesses, it has been said, meet and, over the years, there are many increased risks for users and many forms of unfair competition. For many years, the digital giants have controlled the market, asserting their economic power and creating a real monopoly, in which small businesses have not always played an adequate role and consumer users have not always been considered. I believe that the European Union has finally decided to put in place rules to ensure fair competition, innovation and consumer protection. There will be sanctions, because obviously the Digital Markets Act is a backbone, but it is important to monitor its implementation because the digital market, as it has evolved in recent years, will continue to react to this legislation and it is important to know how to adapt it to avoid that, once the law is made, there is, of course, a scam, and in this we will be careful enforcers of an important law for this European Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, how can we explain to our citizens that, although we are the only institutional body democratically and directly elected by them, we do not have the power of legislative initiative? Unfortunately, it is difficult to explain it and over the years this anomaly has also contributed to fuelling anti-European sentiment. With the Conference on the Future of Europe, citizens welcomed the opportunity to express their concerns and were clear about what they expected: more efficiency and democratic participation. The conclusions of the Conference highlighted the need to amend the Treaties and, given Parliament's democratic expression, it goes without saying that recognition of the legislative initiative is the first step towards giving the European Union greater democratic legitimacy and credibility among its citizens. It is true that the future of Europe is in the hands of the citizens, but it is to us MEPs who have delegated the task of representing them so that their demands and expectations are translated into concrete solutions and measures.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, it is unfortunately clear from today's debate that European cohesion policies have failed in recent years to deal effectively with the various socio-economic problems of the 20 million citizens living on the islands of the European Union. This observation deserves a deep reflection, considering that precisely from the small island of Ventotene, in the Mediterranean, about eighty years ago, the European project took its first steps with the manifesto of Altiero Spinelli, with which it imagined the realization of a cohesive Europe from a political, social and territorial point of view, a Europe in which all citizens could enjoy the same rights and the same services. To date, however, islands, especially smaller ones, as my colleagues have said, suffer from structural disadvantages: low population density, difficult energy and water supply, difficult access to health and cultural services, dependence on transport and an economy almost exclusively linked to tourism, fishing or agriculture, despite the islands having so much potential. This resolution is an important step in defining a strategy that can bridge the socio-economic gap between islands and continental areas, ensuring their development perspective in view of the challenges of the green and digital transition, but above all by implementing a concrete European cohesion policy, as provided for in Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for a long time we have witnessed forms of unfair tax competition, especially from multinational groups and, finally, after the agreement between the majority of the OECD countries, Europe is starting with this step to transpose an important agreement to combat circumvention and evasion, providing for a minimum tax rate of 15%. Of course, the path is long and tortuous, given that at the last meeting of European ministers of the economy the agreement was not reached, highlighting also in this case the need to review some rules of operation, first of all those of unanimity. This reform aims to address the tax challenges born from the digitalization of the economy, holding back the race of some nations to create tax havens that allow multinational companies to move their headquarters on the basis of the most favorable tax convenience. With the minimum taxation of large groups, especially those outside the EU and those in the digital world, taxes will be paid in the country where the income-generating assets and activities are located. I welcome this proposal and hope that it will be a first step towards the establishment of a single system of taxation within the European Union and that, above all, it will become more ambitious in its revision after the first five years in order to find the necessary resources for funding programmes similar to that of the European Union. Next Generation, necessary to face the many challenges. The path taken is the right one, but there is still much to be done, especially within the Union for tax harmonisation and tax reductions in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank the rapporteur, who has been able to combine the needs of the organic sector with those of farmers in a practical way. It has been said that our goal is to support organic production, by making our farmers contribute to the Green Deal, but let us not forget that we must ensure proper price formation, so that organic products can be known, appreciated and consumed. In this connection, I reiterate, as has also been mentioned in the report, the importance of wholesale markets, because they are large service platforms, which are also mentioned in the strategy. Farm to fork, which are important for price formation not only as guarantors of transparency, but also facilitators of a fairer agri-food system towards farmers and consumers. Finally, I also reiterate the need to protect our producers and consumers of organic products, especially from imports from outside Europe, and we must ensure a real principle of equivalence.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this unjust and unjustifiable war is undermining our production chains and our food autonomy. War is an exceptional and extraordinary event, against which Europe must act and react with equally exceptional and extraordinary measures, both to promote its cessation and to defend our food production security. As we build a long-term strategy for our autonomy, we must have the courage to recognize that the various sustainability strategies prior to the war in Ukraine must be contextualized. It is therefore necessary to understand how to reshape any initiative that may affect European production capacity and adapt our strategies in the light of the critical issues that have emerged. No one wants to give up a more sustainable and environmentally friendly agriculture, but we must be pragmatic. Environmental sustainability cannot be separated from economic sustainability if we want to make our companies more competitive to achieve the result that we have set as ambitious and we want to achieve.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it must be acknowledged that, unlike what has happened in the past, where we have supported environmental policies in favour of photovoltaics without having a European production, on this occasion the European Union is aligning its environmental policies with industrial ones and aims to have its own gradual autonomy of quality production to be opposed to that of third countries. Of course, the time factor is an essential variable, also in the light of the ongoing war conflict that, if unfortunately it should continue, obliges us to pursue, yes, our objectives, but at the same time to open a deep debate to evaluate in a practical way what corrective to adopt to the methods of implementation of our environmental strategies. Having made this clarification, I believe that the work of the regulation represents a model to be replicated for the holistic approach with which we proceeded to define a regulation referring to the entire life cycle of a product, so as to be able to make the most of its potential and create a virtuous circular system. It has been said that the demand for batteries will grow exponentially to promote both sustainable mobility and the accumulation of renewable energy, but we also know that unfortunately Europe is dependent on third countries for the necessary chemical components. The current blockade of Russia to export nickel highlights even more the need and urgency of our circular production system as autonomous as possible, as the regulation aims to achieve. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Bonafè, who was able to share and define an innovative and ambitious but also balanced text; I hope, however, that there is still room for improvement in the negotiations, especially on a few points: I am thinking, in particular, of the definition of battery or manufacturer or the wording of Article 11 on the replaceability and removability of batteries, for which I believe that easy and practical replacement should be allowed without compromising devices or, let alone, risks for the consumer. Finally, I hope that the new regulation will also be accompanied by a reduction in the bureaucratic burden on businesses, so that they do not lose competitiveness. Because let us remember that we will be able to achieve ambitious environmental goals if we do not weaken our economy.