What Sandro spoke about.

Mr President, today in Europe, millions of our citizens live close to border regions. They cross the border to go to work, to educate their children or to access health services. However, the incompatibility between national legal regimes hampers their mobility and possibilities. The pandemic has sometimes exacerbated this trend. Yet we need more cooperation in areas such as health or the environment. Too many barriers still exist, be it health services, labour law, tax rules or differences in administrative culture. However, we all know that there is a direct link between the removal of obstacles and the further social and territorial development of border regions, which is an essential element of European cohesion policy. These mechanisms to remove these obstacles to cross-border cooperation can offer a European solution to a European problem and I can say that this Parliament has been there. The same cannot be said of the Council. The Council remained silent and its Legal Service put forward arguments that were questionable to say the least. As often happens – and I have some experience as a former member of this institution – the Council Legal Service has created new political obstacles instead of removing legal ones. This story is well known and repeated today. Colleagues, our fellow citizens deserve better. The discussed European cross-border mechanism has a solid legal basis in the Treaties, promotes territorial cohesion and meets the requirements of the Member States, while leaving them the freedom to choose whether and when to use the Regulation. It is a specific action, which will have a positive impact on the economic and social situation of a region and a territory, in full compliance with Article 175 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The cohesion rules are uniform, but do not in any way imply a one-size-fits-all approach to development projects. My question is therefore addressed to the Council: When will you become aware of the urgency and relaunch the dialogue with us? I would ask the President-in-Office: What are your proposals and alternatives? We are open to dialogue, you cannot just block everything, because we need a clear legislative solution and above all, because our citizens need answers and above all more open borders so that they can live their daily lives better and feel even more European. So let us not waste any more time and resume the legislative dialogue.

Madam President, disinformation comes first and foremost through social networks. This is a fact and it is also a threat to our democracies. Practices such as hidden foreign funding and other online interference are also a fact, except for the representatives of the far left and far right in this Chamber, which we heard again this evening. Moreover, platforms themselves seem to choose to always protect their interests rather than the public interest. Always protect their income rather than democracy. Therefore, we must stop turning a blind eye to the risks of deviance from these platforms. They know the problem well, but simply refuse to solve it. They have parameters to reduce the spread of disinformation, but they use them very little, because they prioritise growth over security – as you rightly pointed out tonight, Commissioner. Self-regulation, voluntary measures and unilateral strategies have all shown their limits. We need a regulation with effective instruments ensuring more transparency and dissuasive sanctions. There is a need for regulation that effectively tackles disinformation, regardless of the language in which it is disseminated. We need to step up our efforts to develop digital education and independent media, thus enabling our citizens to have a better capacity for discernment. In this respect, the Digital Services Act has great potential. It can be a new model for the rest of the world and must become the spearhead of the fight against disinformation.

Madam President, cybersecurity is a necessity to preserve our democracies and sovereignty. While software such as Pegasus can be useful in the fight against terrorism, it is vital that we establish a clear legislative framework to control its use. Journalists, political opponents, but also several of us, ladies and gentlemen, have been victims of different types of cyber attacks, and I know something about this personally, Commissioner. The battle against cybercrime must be fought at national and European level, but also from a multilateral perspective, reflecting on an international cybersecurity agreement to ban certain practices, based for example on the model of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. Pegasus has also highlighted threats and violations from within the EU and we must demand full transparency from the Member States that have used Pegasus, starting with Hungary. Which other Member States used it? We have the right to know, European citizens have the right to know.

Madam President, since Friday Lebanon has had a government. This small step was one of the conditions for international aid, but we need to be very careful; The fact that Lebanon has a government does not mean that the European Union must refrain from punishing some of its corrupt leaders who are guilty of the country’s non-stability. Our policy of sanctions against Lebanese leaders, even with a government, must be implemented in the coming weeks with the vote on a first list of names, since we now have a very clear political and legal framework, voted last July. We also expect this new government to guarantee the holding, smooth running and transparency of the elections in 2022, with a view to the legislative elections on 8 May, followed by the municipal elections and the presidential elections. Ladies and gentlemen, for the Lebanese, we Europeans must be there.

Madam President, in 2016 in the United Kingdom and Italy, in 2017 in France, during the COVID-19 crisis in several countries, we witnessed serious interference that undermines our democratic life and supports far-left and far-right nationalist and populist forces. And the speeches by some colleagues in this Chamber today, from ECR, ID and the Left, only confirm all this. However, the observation is very clear: Russia has been playing a dangerous game for too long. It has been joined by other countries, such as, above all, China and Venezuela. Europe must be there. We need to fully integrate disinformation into the common foreign policy and decide by majority on sanctions in case of interference. Proven funding of political parties from abroad must be constantly identified and blocked. To repeat what you said, Mr High Representative: even if being right for a while is good, acting is even better.