Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteurs Anna Donáth for the Committee on Civil Liberties, and Sabine Verheyen for the Committee on Culture, all the shadow rapporteurs, the Spanish Presidency – I hoped that the Belgian Presidency would be there to tell her to thank the Spanish Presidency – and, of course, Vice-President Věra Jourová. Thank you for your cooperation, ladies and gentlemen, and dear Vice-President, for your efficiency. This is a very difficult collective work, but it is really very important and much anticipated. I am convinced of this, because the indications are formal: In 2024, we will see an exponential increase in disinformation and foreign interference in the European and US elections. From the Cambridge Analytica scandal and Brexit to the elections in Slovakia, we know the enemies of our democracies, we know their allies in Europe, we know their manipulation strategies. Today, I am convinced that we are giving a strong and effective response to protect all our elections, whether municipal, national or European. It is a strong and effective response to protect our democracy. We are working to strengthen the defence of our freedoms and personal data, to increase the transparency of electoral campaigns, especially online, and to strengthen actions against those who want to manipulate the democratic process. We are introducing a ban on political advertising financed by non-European actors in order to effectively counter disinformation and foreign interference, and better protect our elections and democracy. We are removing barriers and barriers in the single market. European parties will finally be able to carry out truly European and transnational campaigns. In addition, we provide for harmonized labelling of political ads to increase transparency and accountability in political advertising. What's the point? The aim is to make it very easy for citizens to identify political advertising and, above all, to know who is saying what, for whom and who is funding all this, while, of course, respecting everyone’s freedom of expression. To enhance transparency and oversight, we parliamentarians have decided to create a European register for online political advertisements. We impose specific restrictions on the use of sensitive personal data for advertising targeting purposes, while ensuring the protection of citizens’ privacy. Finally, we are putting in place a robust enforcement mechanism, strengthening cross-border cooperation and providing for dissuasive sanctions in line with the Digital Services Act, the DSA. And so, I repeat: We will achieve a very important and long-awaited result, a model at the global level. With this in mind, and if we approve this regulation tomorrow, I will present the results of our work to the United Nations and Washington next week. In conclusion, this text marks a significant step forward in protecting our democracies from disinformation and foreign interference. While we regret that it cannot be fully implemented already in the next European elections, we are pleased to see the impact of our measure on all upcoming elections, be they European or national. As regards the entry into force of this Regulation, we provide for a period of application of a total of 18 months, with a duration of 24 months specifically for the repertoire of the European Union. Certain key provisions will of course already be applicable in view of the 2024 elections. In addition, I would like to point out to platforms and Member States that you can, however, anticipate implementation by getting ahead and already putting in place all the measures set out above without delay, so that they are all already active for the elections on 9 June. This is entirely possible, and we encourage platforms to do so. This is an extremely positive step forward, ladies and gentlemen, which we must all support.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, in 2024, all indicators are formal: disinformation, fake news and hyper-fixing are likely to increase exponentially in Europe and the rest of the world. In our fight against online disinformation, unregulated social networks represent a major danger, as shown by recent examples in Ukraine, Gaza and the various elections in Europe. With the Digital Services Act, we end digital anarchy and require platforms to finally take full responsibility. Interference and manipulation of our democratic processes is unacceptable, and even one voice manipulated in an election is one too many. We need to ensure very strict enforcement and sufficient resources for content moderation measures and algorithmic transparency. It is high time for platforms to change their business model to respect our principles and values. For more transparency and better protection of personal data, we will also adopt more effective rules on online political advertising at the end of the month. Our purpose is clear. Freedom of expression does not mean the right to the virality of any false, violent or manipulated content. Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. We want more transparency for all actors who can influence an election, a democratic process, whether candidates, influencers, political parties, associations, companies or others. The European elections are the first test for all of us. We must succeed.

Madam President, Minister, almost 150 million European citizens live close to an internal border. In May 2018, the European Commission proposed a mechanism to help its citizens overcome legal and administrative obstacles between neighbouring countries. But negotiations have not yet started. Now we can and must do it. In September 2023, the European Parliament asked the Commission to revise its proposal to make it simpler and more effective. This is what we have called Border Regions’ Instrument for Development and Growth in the EU – BridgEU (Bridge for Europe). All this has been made possible thanks to the constant support of the Chairman of the Committee on Regional Development, Younous Omarjee, and the other political groups, whom I would like to thank. It is here, the Europe of concrete solutions that we bring. On 12 December 2023, the Commission finally presented a new proposal, which is very good news, and I thank it for that. We are ready to start negotiations with the Council as soon as possible so that this mechanism becomes a reality. This could help create jobs and save a lot of money. Is the Council aware that this mechanism could help to increase the opportunities for cross-border citizens to work and grow? Is it aware that this mechanism is voluntary, that it does not create new obligations or add bureaucratic burden, and that it would have no impact on the international agreements on cross-border regional cooperation already in force in the Member States, such as the Benelux or the Nordic Council? Is the Council finally determined to start negotiations with parliaments quickly so that this mechanism becomes a reality before the European elections? Madam Minister, we are counting very much on the Belgian Presidency of the Council to achieve these very important results.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that a head of government has very different responsibilities and burdens from a political leader. It is what many, even tonight, starting with Giorgia Meloni, seem to escape, even in the case of the fascist greetings of Acca Larentia. We all agree in condemning the violence of the 1970s against young boys, from the far left as well as the far right; Nor do we care what Meloni said and did as leader of Fratelli d'Italia ten, five or two years ago. On the other hand, we are very interested and concerned that the President of the Council of a great European country such as Italy, founder of the European Union, president of the G7 in 2024, does not find the words to interpret the sentiments of the wider public opinion of her electorate and to strongly defend the fundamental values on which our Union is based. You see, dear Mr Procaccini, there is also a limit to opportunism and this time it has been largely overcome. We will always fight against right-wing extremists and this complicit and dangerous silence of yours.

Mr President, just a few months before the European elections, recalling citizens' rights and proposing to improve their implementation is essential. Our colleague Maite Pagazaurtundúa insists on these aspects. Indeed, in our Union, ladies and gentlemen, the rights of a medium-sized Member State are not really respected. This Member State is often forgotten, neglected, left behind. This should mobilize us all, but in fact, nothing is done. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I am talking about more than 13 million European citizens, more than 13 million, who live in another Member State and who are not informed about the right to vote and be elected to the European Parliament at local level, everywhere in Europe, regardless of their nationality. They live Europe every day and, paradoxically, it is often made too difficult for them to exercise their first right to vote for local democracy and European democracy. We must do everything possible to remove these unacceptable and obsolete obstacles in view of the elections on 9 June 2024. Let's not waste any more time.

Mr President, without real information, no freedom of choice is possible. Without information, consumers cannot choose the most sustainable products. Without information, we are all exposed to all kinds of misleading advertisements, starting with greenwashing. And how can we make our single market more sustainable and build a true circular economy without clear commitments in terms of transparency and good information? This is why these new rules represent a real turning point. We will end the planned obsolescence. We are taking a decisive step to stop these practices by banning various tactics and practices ranging from poor information about the lifespan of products, to incentivising the replacement of products or parts before they are actually needed. This is a clear commitment against planned obsolescence, a major problem in our consumer society. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Borzan and Commissioner Reynders for their excellent work. We said it in 2019, we did it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the 2024 elections will be the most important since the fall of the Berlin Wall, as history is accelerating, and we must therefore accelerate the European transformation. We need to reform the EU to unify the continent. That is why we have asked here to amend the Treaties, both to reflect on the question of financing and organising an enlarged Union of 36 States and on the answers that this Union must give today to requests calling for more security, health, investment and education. We need to let citizens choose in the 2024 elections and follow them up in the new term of office. This new Europe-power must also be a more European democracy. We have, for the first time in this Parliament, adopted a new electoral law, with transnational lists to Europeanize the electoral debate. A big debate on Europe instead of the 27 big health polls of majorities and national oppositions. But the Council is dragging on. We must insist until the last minute of the last possible day to change the electoral law in time for 2024 and, in any case, make it an issue of the new 2024-2029 term of office. It is clear that without lists there can be no headers of lists. This has always been the position of our group and will remain so in 2024: The hundreds of millions of our voters will not know the various candidates for the presidency of the Commission without transnational lists. For the most important European positions, we will be able to indicate the personalities we prefer. But until we have a pan-European list, all this will lack the necessary legitimacy and democratic strength. That is why we must continue our fight: an enlarged, reformed, powerful Union, a truly European democracy and more transparent elections, without letting go.

Mr President, the European Union does not weigh in on world affairs. Without reforms, it risks being permanently excluded from the negotiating table. Except that in international politics, if you are not sitting at the table, you will find yourself on the menu. So it is either hypocrisy, naivety or bad faith. The EU is already struggling to function at 27. Without reform, it would be completely paralyzed with 35 states – and there is even more urgency to say this in times of war, in Europe and in the Middle East. No totem, and no taboo. The revision of the Treaties is essential for a genuine foreign policy, for a common defence, for a stronger and more effective European democracy, for better protection of the rule of law, for a new investment policy, to name but a few priorities. Let us also put an end to the idea that public opinion is not interested in these issues. Citizens are not fooled. Integrating Ukraine and the Balkans into the European Union? Yes, of course, for our peace and stability. But I told the Commission: Who's going to pay for it? What will happen with European funds for my farm and my region? And how are we going to finance the new common challenges of security, climate and innovation at 35? In the enlarged Union, there is no longer room for blackmail and veto. That is why we call on the Council to decide now to launch a revision of the Treaties in 2025. This will allow us to debate it during the European elections and work on it during the new political cycle with a convention. Reforming the EU to unify the continent is the essence of our commitment.

Madam President, for the green transition to succeed, it is essential to transform our single market. Every consumer must be able to choose to have their items repaired so that we can talk about a truly sustainable market. The right to repair is essential. We've been talking about it for ten years and now we've done it. At least here in Parliament. Waste is expensive and produces a lot of waste, which is why we need to encourage repair. Choosing repair means being better informed and having better guarantees. Repair also creates competitive local spare parts markets close to home. The direction is clear: We must now negotiate vigorously with the Council to maintain this level of ambition. Our goal is a Europe of concrete solutions and a circular economy. With this proposal, we are putting in place effective solutions for consumers and for sustainable production. And we are also, in a way, continuing our battle against planned obsolescence.

Madam President, continental unification will have to be a new, gradual, flexible, reversible and merit-based process. It requires a strong political commitment by the Union and the candidates, adherence to the founding principles of the Union, full respect for the rule of law and the elimination of the veto in the European Union. To succeed, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, we must have the courage to face reality. An ambitious and innovative revision of the Treaties is essential to put the enlarged Union in working order. The decision to transform our Union by enlarging it forces us to undertake a triple revolution. Politics must prevail over economics, the gradual integration of candidate countries into the internal market is essential, and the EU must become a geopolitical power. It is time to take on our responsibilities without exhausting the patience and determination of our Eastern partners while reforming our institutions. Therefore, I repeat, let’s reform the EU to unify the continent.

Madam President, in Luigi Pirandello’s play Six Characters in Search of an Author, each character exposes their truth, making the story impossible to stage. Does that remind you of anything? Yes, it is very similar to the different presidents, presidents, commissioners and representatives of the EU when a geopolitical crisis occurs. Why does this happen? Because of the search, sometimes frantic, visibility or the possibility of being photographed? Undoubtedly. Due to the lack of a common strategy and common means? That is for sure. Because of institutional weaknesses? Even more. In Pirandello's play, it is up to the viewer to fill in the gaps and blurring of the text. But we, ladies and gentlemen, know how to modify the room: we need to change methods, we need to eliminate vetoes, we need to reform the institutions to have a single representative of the European Union instead of three, or four. Let us stop this political and institutional cacophony, which is too inefficient. We must therefore reform our Union, also by revising the Treaties, in order to unify our continent. EU reform and continental unification must go hand in hand. We must reform to deal with geopolitical threats and to weigh in on world affairs. For us, it is clear: We want a Europe-power. This is a necessity and an emergency.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, LGBTQI+ people in Italy have become an easy scapegoat for the nationalists in power. The situation of children born to same-sex couples is worrying and this is even more evident for children of female couples. Everything is done to make life more difficult for these families. Legal uncertainty and obstacles are increasing and homogenitorial families are treated as ‘anomalies to be remedied’ – I quote – and not as realities to be respected. If you're gay and migrant, it's even worse, because the far right in Italy would like to revoke the protection of homosexual or transgender migrants, amending the expulsion law and putting them at risk of persecution in their countries of origin. But the real problem, colleagues, politicians and Europeans, is that some citizens are treated as special categories. The far right in Europe is trying to make citizens and rainbow families invisible. Our battle is to make all citizens visible and equal and to protect their rights, which are also our rights, universal rights.

Mr President, let me once again thank all the colleagues who have spoken and Commissioner Ferreira. I believe that this debate confirms the unity of all political groups on this issue and also the excellent cooperation between Parliament and the European Commission. It cannot be overemphasized that this BRIDGEU proposal is not intended to replace any existing treaty or agreement between Member States. On the contrary, the strength of this proposal is that it aims to complement, to make more effective the existing agreements. And it is an instrument that is strictly voluntary, so it does not in any way affect the sovereignty of the Member States. We must fully exploit the potential of this cross-border regional cooperation. BRIDGEU is more than just a political tool, it is an imperative necessity. I fully agree with your intention – which I hope will become a concrete act – to present a revised proposal, because the revised proposal, as you said, Commissioner, saves us time and would allow us to resume negotiations with the Council as soon as possible. And I still want to believe that, during this term of office, we will be able to offer this new instrument to our citizens. Let us not pass up this historic opportunity that stands before us. Thank you all for your support and attention.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, BRIDGEU is an initiative that is the result of close cooperation with the Chair of our REGI Committee, Younous Omarjee, and all the political groups, which highlights one of the most worrying issues: the continued violation of the rights and opportunities of the 150 million citizens living in border regions within the EU. Border regions, which encompass 40% of the territory of the European Union and are home to almost 30% of its population, are the scene of legislative and bureaucratic challenges that are often insurmountable and unacceptable. European citizens living in these border areas are constantly confronted with obstacles, large and small, that hinder their daily lives and their quality of life. For example, parents are forced to travel long distances to bring their children to the crèche or school, simply because the school closest to their home is on the other side of the border, where many obstacles prevent students from enrolling. Let’s take a moment to look at the case of the Spanish hospital in Cerdagne, located on the border between France and Spain. This hospital, managed by a European grouping of territorial cooperation, is often unable to hire French health professionals due to administrative formalities, thus endangering the health and well-being of patients who depend on these services. Examples like this, I could cite dozens or even hundreds of them, and they are just the tip of the iceberg. Ignoring these problems has an unbearable cost, according to several analyses by the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions. Every year, we suffer a colossal economic loss of EUR 457 billion, and we are witnessing the loss of nearly 4 million jobs, in addition to the infringement of rights such as education, health or free movement. Faced with this growing injustice, BRIDGEU emerges as a bulwark, a beacon of hope for our fellow citizens. BRIDGEU stands for ‘Border Regions’ Instruments for Development and Growth in the EU’. Bridge: a bridge, a bridge to overcome the invisible and absurd bureaucratic walls. We have made a considerable effort to take into account the concerns and perspectives of the Council. BRIDGEU is not a new obligation, but an innovative and promising opportunity. We fully recognise that some entities, such as the Nordic Council or Benelux, are fully satisfied with their existing regional cooperation, and we respect their choice. Our aim is to provide new opportunities for all other actors who aspire to better cross-border cooperation. All this in full respect of the constitutions of the Member States, of course, and in particular as regards relations between Member States and regions. We propose that Member States develop concrete, tailor-made solutions on a case-by-case basis. As rapporteur, I have done everything to bring the Member States to the negotiating table, and I would also like to welcome all the efforts that the European Commission has made in this direction. But this was not possible. That is why we use our prerogatives, our indirect right of initiative enshrined in Article 225 of our Treaty. This morning, Ursula von der Leyen gave an excellent State of the Union speech, which reminded me of another of her speeches, held in this Chamber before being elected President, in which she promised that any legislative own-initiative report adopted by Parliament would be followed by a new Commission proposal. I am confident that the Commission, and in particular Commissioner Ferreira here, whom I thank very much, will be able to live up to this commitment. We must start negotiations on a new text as soon as possible, as our citizens and our territories have been calling for for years.

Mr President, I would also like to stress once again that, from the point of view of the composition of the European Parliament, the Council’s decision fully reflects the position I have defended since February as co-rapporteur, as well as that of my group. As far as the composition of Parliament is concerned, I think we are moving forward. I fought to increase the number of seats in Poland, Belgium and France, because I think that this corresponds to a more correct application of the principle of degressive proportionality. From this point of view, congratulations to the Council! So you can succeed, whenever you want. Even unanimously. So I encourage you, dear President-in-Office of the Council, to make the same efforts and achieve the same successes on the European electoral law. Because you can see it. And you see that when there is a dialogue – even a muscular one, sometimes – between Parliament and the Council, even in special procedures such as consent, we can achieve results. That is why I am counting very much on your presidency. You should not wait until you have found the lowest common denominator in the Council on the electoral law before starting discussions with us. Let's start discussions together. Let us start discussions between institutions, even – I repeat – on the basis of the French Government’s proposal. It is much less ambitious than ours, but it is for us, as we wrote in a letter to you, a good basis for negotiation. Let us speed up and intensify the negotiations, because it is still possible to reach an agreement on the European electoral law. I believe that we must do everything possible not only to respect the will of this Parliament, but also to respect the will of the citizens who, in the Conference on the Future of Europe, explicitly called for this democratic advance at European level. And we have a duty to act on that request.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank my co-rapporteur, Loránt Vincze, and my fellow shadow rapporteurs for the work of the last nine months. The text on which we are going to vote largely reflects the priorities we set ourselves at the beginning of the work. With the increase of 15 seats, we will ensure a fairer and fairer representation of citizens, which will also reflect demographic changes in the Member States, a necessary change to respect the Treaties. That is why the Renew Europe Group welcomes the allocation of additional seats to France, Belgium and Poland, for which we have been fighting since the beginning of these negotiations, even here in the European Parliament. However, we cannot ignore that the identification of the best solution requires an objective and definitive approach, and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is already working on a formula to ensure that the allocation of seats is defined by a mathematical, objective and impartial criterion. As the European Parliament, however, we had set a clear political priority: that 28 seats be reserved for candidates elected through transnational lists so that our proposal to reform European electoral laws can be implemented swiftly, as soon as it is adopted in the Council and enters into force. The deletion of this paragraph – and I am addressing the Presidency-in-Office of the Council in particular – is politically wrong and legally meaningless. I would even say that this sounds like an unnecessary and short-sighted provocation on the part of the Council. Even more serious from a legal point of view: the addition of a recital which, despite the four additional seats added to the eleven proposed by Parliament, instructs the budgetary authorities to keep Parliament’s budget unchanged, thereby ignoring Parliament’s prerogatives over the annual budget. Moreover, the excessive pressure exerted on the Presidency of the European Parliament by the Presidency of the Council, and the hesitations and reversals of some political groups – which I regret, as I said yesterday in committee – have accelerated the procedure and prevented a political debate on how to ensure real progress, including on the other files related to the composition of Parliament. The very ill-advised President of the European Council has indicated a date on which the European Parliament should speak, namely tomorrow. The President of the European Parliament, who was very ill-advised, decided to act on it. For this reason, I would like to ask the Spanish presidency how it intends to follow up on our proposal to reform the European electoral law, which was adopted more than a year ago and which the Council has finally begun to discuss, I would like to underline, under the Swedish presidency. This has also led France to present a proposal for a revised electoral law, on which we are ready to discuss. This makes it even more important that the Presidency of the European Parliament, in its letter to the Council, reaffirms the objectives and prerogatives of the European Parliament in this matter. Cooperation is two-way, but for the Council it is often one-way. It too often ignores the demands of the European Parliament, and even more so the expectations expressed by citizens at the Conference on the Future of Europe. Attention, dear representatives of the Presidency of the Council in office, because if we always drive one-way, sooner or later, we will have a big accident. Nevertheless, we, as a Renew Europe Group, undertake to approve the proposal, for the reasons given at the beginning of my speech. It is a step in the right direction, from the point of view of the composition of the European Parliament, as well as from the point of view of demographic change and full respect for the Treaties. But we will continue to fight for a new electoral law that is fairer, more effective, more modern and, above all, more European.

I accept the lesson of Professor Rangel. There wasn’t any question. Je vous dis seulement en français: faites le deuil de votre défaite. La loi électorale a été adoptée. Les listes transnationales ont été adoptées. Faites le deuil, cher collègue, de votre défaite.

Madam President, dear Minister, dear colleagues, I would have a point of order, because I think that some colleagues, President, haven’t understood what we are talking about tonight. We are not talking about the electoral law. We are asking the Council: when will you start to negotiate with us on electoral law? The electoral law has been approved one year ago. So, the question is not whether we like it or not – the electoral law – the question is to invoke the principle of mutual and sincere cooperation, which is blatantly violated by the Council, which for one year has ignored the proposal of the candidates. So, I am saying we are preparing the European elections. We are doing our job on the composition of the Parliament. When will you start serious negotiation? We appreciate the effort, the questionnaire. We appreciate the effort of informal discussion, but we want formal negotiation on how we want to prepare the European election in 2024. And this means that we have to discuss the composition of the European Parliament and we have to discuss the electoral law. We are still waiting from the Council to know this and I’m very happy about your letter. That means that you have taken notice that the Parliament exists. But don’t take notice that the Parliament exists only when it suits you for the composition of the Parliament, take notice that the Parliament exists all the time and start negotiation of the electoral law. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Mr President, (start of speech off mic) ... see you again, dear President, dear Nikos, in this function, I have fond memories of our past cooperation. And I know we can fully count on your leadership for a sovereign and democratic Union. You mention in your speech Jean Monnet and the change of context. I do believe that the Ukrainian conflict has changed the context and that enlargement has become a fundamental geopolitical tool and geopolitical question. Against this background, I think that it is not credible to go towards the next enlargement without a deep reform of the European Union, of the institutions, of the common policies, and that we must address the unresolved territorial issues within the Union, in particular in view of the next enlargement. Against this background, again, and in view of the Cyprus Presidency in 2026, I would like to better understand from you what are your key priorities for the reform of the European Union and what do you expect the Union to do more or differently with regard to the Cyprus territorial issues to break the deadlock?

Madam President, in 2021 Belgium and Germany, in 2023 Italy. Same scenes and same pain. The lesson is clear: In the face of climate change, we are all the same. These were days of great concern and pride for me. Concern because Romagna has been hit hard, and in particular the places where I was born, Sogliano al Rubicone, and where I grew up. There are people who have left us. Friends who had to leave their homes. Places disfigured by the violence of the floods. But also pride, because all of Europe has seen the strength and courage of the people of Romagna, who with their feet still in the mud is already projected on the restart. Proud of how Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was welcomed in Cesena, bringing concrete solidarity to Europe. Some in Italy commented: This is the Europe we want. I think differently: This is the Europe that already exists, concrete solutions, support for suffering citizens, the Europe that is ready. We are ready to quickly activate the solidarity funds that Italy will ask for. We will also have to activate the fund for agriculture and Italy will be able to use the cohesion funds and part of the European recovery plan for reconstruction and prevention. It has been remembered, in Romagna it is said "tin bota", it means "keep hard", "be brave". We too, like the people of Romagna, dear colleagues, must be swift and courageous and do everything necessary for a more efficient, sustainable and resilient reconstruction.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we want a Europe of concrete solutions. Today, 9 May, we recall the Schuman Declaration, which set out, in concrete achievements, the way forward to build the European Union. We want a Europe that multiplies opportunities, rights and protections. In fact, we want a Europe that is consistent with its societal choices, and the proposal on consumer empowerment is a very concrete example of that Europe. It is impossible to achieve our green transition objectives without modernising the Single Market. We need to build a fairer and more transparent relationship between producers and consumers. We need to encourage and support our businesses to win together the challenges of the circular economy. How many times have we been presented as too ecological a common sense practice that should be common and mandatory? How often do our mobile phones and washing machines crash irreparably when it is clear that they could last much longer? That is why we are adapting the Single Market to enable consumers to make environmentally friendly decisions and to encourage companies to offer them sustainable products. We are tackling greenwashing, which is far too much used by some companies to improve their image. And we want to end the early and planned obsolescence of products, and fight against misleading claims that insidiously incentivise consumers to make unnecessary purchases. We also want to guarantee the right to repair, which must become a common practice, and to ensure better information for consumers, while encouraging sustainability initiatives for small businesses. Concretely, we will drastically reduce the number of phony labels touting products as sustainable when they are not. We said it in this Chamber, we did it. Let us now be as ambitious and fast in negotiations with governments, as 150 million consumers and citizens are waiting for us at the turn.

The walls in the Mediterranean, as Manfred Weber did yesterday, are a real monument to demagogy. How do you want to make your walls in the sea? Giorgia Meloni campaigned about naval blockades, then discovered that when people at sea can't block them, you have to save them. Colleagues, democracy does not solve the real problem in any case: How do we regain control over immigration? With responsibility and humanity, we say, with walls and inventing an emergency every day, says the extreme right in Italy and in the rest of Europe. And just today an Italian minister spoke of ethnic substitution with respect to immigration, a real shame. The President of the Republic Mattarella has defined the European rules of Dublin as "prehistoric"; Well, we too, but it is the allies of the current Italian government that have prevented Dublin from reforming in recent years, from Morawiecki to Orbán. Because, you see, when you evoke solidarity at the top of Europe and then invasions at home, you remain prisoners of your own propaganda. More than open walls or doors, we need common policies to control and manage. Instead of selling cheap demagoguery, we should all explain, as Members of this Parliament, that we are working for real solutions, that the Pact on Migration and Asylum is one of those solutions. More coordination, more effective relocations and returns, solidarity and fair distribution of responsibility: I would have liked to see these words in Manfred Weber's interview with Corriere della Sera, instead of chasing nationalist propaganda. Let us not chase the populists and their hasty and illusory responses. It is a time of courage and European solutions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Italy, with the far-right government of Giorgia Meloni, there are many decisions that we do not agree with. But that could be said to be politics. But differences become unacceptable when ideology is made on people's skin. They become even more unacceptable when ideology is made on the skin of our children. Denying the rights of LGBT couples, in fact, as the Italian government is doing, means creating heterosexual couples of series A and homosexual couples of series B. Now I wonder, dear colleagues, if it would not be better to use our time to guarantee rights for all, to eliminate the barriers to freedom of movement in Europe, rather than always raising, every time, new walls of division and discrimination between European citizens based on sexual orientation. Look, it's really bleak to take children's rights hostage to wave ideological flags, as we heard tonight. Because this is happening in Italy and this has unfortunately also happened in this House, in violation of the international European principles of the UN, as Commissioner Helena Dalli recalled. Here, against this Renew Europe fights and will always fight.

Madam President, the commitments made must all be honoured, pacta sunt servanda. On these points, until today, dear Vice-President of the European Commission, we have been very disappointed by our friends from across the Channel. Thanks to the Windsor agreement, we can turn the page without tearing it apart. Did you say way forward? All right, all right. This is very good news, especially for British citizens, who are bearing the brunt of all the negative effects of Brexit. A point of attention though. This must also be good news for Europe's greatest achievement, the single market. The Windsor Agreement, through the so-called Stormont brake, gives the possibility to 30 Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland to oppose the application in their province of a European law. This is an exceptional procedure modelled on the 98 peace agreement and therefore cannot set a precedent in the rest of the single market. This is another very concrete proof of our willingness to establish a new relationship with our British friends, which must always be based on mutual trust.

Madam President, Vice-President of the Commission, dear Věra, ladies and gentlemen, in 2019 there was a very worrying democratic event – during the European elections – about which no one spoke. What happened? Abstentionists among expatriates were 9 million people, equivalent to 70% of the population of a medium-sized state in Europe (13 million). These are Europeans residing in a Member State other than their country of origin. Their fundamental right to democratic participation has been severely constrained by bureaucratic inconsistencies and lack of information. As an Italian citizen, resident and elected in France, I am convinced that we are missing out on the best opportunity offered by our Union: to be a full citizen, everywhere in our Union. Our report goes exactly in this direction: We need to remove, very quickly, unacceptable obstacles to democratic participation ahead of the 2024 European elections.