Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, it is clear, we all agree that Europe needs to accelerate the deployment of clean technologies, a process that is absolutely necessary for the achievement of the objectives we have set ourselves in this legislature: industrial competitiveness, energy sovereignty and, of course, the achievement of climate objectives. But in order to address this process, in addition to very good words, very good intentions - it is clear and you have said this - pragmatism, determination and, above all, ambition are needed. And not only that, it is also necessary to put aside the old dogmatic clichés and some ideological prejudices that have proven to be so harmful in the past. In addition, it must be clearly stated and, consequently, acted upon. Energy transition in Europe is impossible without nuclear energy. If we really want energy sovereignty in Europe, we need nuclear energy. If we really want affordable prices in the European Union, we need nuclear power. We therefore need nuclear energy to be treated on an equal footing with renewable energy. We need the remaining anti-nuclear biases to be removed from European legislation. We have the example of Germany, of its error and of its subsequent rectification. Let's act in that direction. Let us heed the letter that 12 European governments have recently sent to the Commission, asking it to make progress in the development of nuclear energy, and help us - I conclude with this - to prevent the government of my country, against the times and against all economic, social and environmental logic, from continuing with its plan to dismantle the nuclear power plants that exist in our country, solely and exclusively on a whim...

Mr President, Commissioner, it is clear, we all agree that Europe needs to accelerate the deployment of clean technologies, a process that is absolutely necessary for the achievement of the objectives we have set ourselves in this legislature: industrial competitiveness, energy sovereignty and, of course, the achievement of climate objectives. But in order to address this process, in addition to very good words, very good intentions - it is clear and you have said this - pragmatism, determination and, above all, ambition are needed. And not only that, it is also necessary to put aside the old dogmatic clichés and some ideological prejudices that have proven to be so harmful in the past. In addition, it must be clearly stated and, consequently, acted upon. Energy transition in Europe is impossible without nuclear energy. If we really want energy sovereignty in Europe, we need nuclear energy. If we really want affordable prices in the European Union, we need nuclear power. We therefore need nuclear energy to be treated on an equal footing with renewable energy. We need the remaining anti-nuclear biases to be removed from European legislation. We have the example of Germany, of its error and of its subsequent rectification. Let's act in that direction. Let us heed the letter that 12 European governments have recently sent to the Commission, asking it to make progress in the development of nuclear energy, and help us - I conclude with this - to prevent the government of my country, against the times and against all economic, social and environmental logic, from continuing with its plan to dismantle the nuclear power plants that exist in our country, solely and exclusively on a whim...

Mr President, Commissioner, tomorrow the first of the reforms of the omnibus package is approved, a necessary and urgent step that will allow us to continue orienting our industrial policy towards the objective of competitiveness, but which will also allow us to simplify, clarify and relax some of the rules of sustainability, without thereby losing our capacity for growth. It will also, of course, allow us to free some importing companies from the burdens that weigh on their ability to generate wealth. All this under the prism of an unavoidable objective on our part. A primary objective that should govern each and every decision taken, not only in the economic field, but also in the climate field. And it is that all decisions must always be, and in any case, useful so that our companies can expand, can grow and can generate wealth and also employment. Only in this way will we achieve that objective of competitiveness. As the reform of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is planned, we are absolutely sure that it will allow us not to lose effectiveness in the objective of reducing emissions and, at the same time, it will help us to reduce the administrative burden of large importing companies, while eliminating unnecessary obstacles for small importers. We are talking about 180 000 importers who are going to get rid of the obligations of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. We are also talking about simplification and flexibility for those still obliged. We are talking, in short, about maintaining the effectiveness of the model, without hampering our industry. That's the way. It is the path that we have been demanding since the beginning of this legislature. A path that, let us not deceive ourselves, will only lead us to success, that is, to make our economy really competitive, if we face it with ambition, without complexes and learning from the mistakes we made in the past.

Mr President, the Commission points out in its communication that nuclear energy is key to decarbonisation, also to security of supply and, of course, to lowering the cost of energy. In line with this, most EU states are considering new investments in the field of nuclear energy or at least extending the lifetime of their plants. There is only one country whose government is going against it and is considering the closure of the nuclear power plants that exist in its territory: Spain. And it does not do so for technical or security reasons. It does so solely and exclusively by sectarianism, by ideological radicalism. It is the legacy of Mrs. Ribera, the legacy she leaves us in Spain, and has as an immediate consequence the closure, in 2027, of the Almaraz nuclear power plant, a nuclear power plant that generates 7% of the electricity consumed in our country. Needless to say, what will be the impact in economic terms, employment and, of course, also in the price of the electricity bill we pay in our country. So while in Europe the debate arises around the lowering of the cost of energy, in our country we are still anchored in the debate of "renewable yes, nuclear no". Understand that it is impossible to move forward in this way. It is not at all the time of energetic and ideological dogmatisms. It is time for economic pragmatism. If we do not understand this, it is impossible for us to assume the concept of competitiveness.

Madam President, if we really want to bet on the competitiveness of our economy, it is clear that we cannot continue to accept that industrial relations continue to be trapped in models that, we know, are outdated and, above all, are serving solely and exclusively to curb investment and the growth of our companies. We need, of course, to introduce tools that serve to energise, speed up and simplify, including in the field of industrial relations. But let's not fool ourselves: This cannot and will never be achieved by initiatives that seek to limit and condition decisions that are purely entrepreneurial, nor by introducing more bureaucracy or more rules that serve solely and exclusively to introduce more obstacles within companies. We are aware that, in the face of the imminence of a crisis, moments of labor conflict are generated; But what we cannot do in the face of an imminent crisis is to act by trying to strengthen the role of trade unions within companies. I think it would be far more sensible if we were concerned, first of all, with trying to prevent business crises from happening and that, if they do take place, they will have the least possible economic impact, also, of course, in terms of employment. It is not a question of ideologies, it is a question – simply and simply – of sensibility.

Madam President, Commissioner, thank you for the speed, thank you for listening to the sector before taking decisions and thank you also for the importance that is finally being given to the automotive sector. First of all, we must recognize that this Plan represents an important step forward, mainly because it solves some of the immediate problems facing the sector, such as the issue of sanctions. But, nevertheless, we must also be sincere: The Plan, from our point of view, falls short. Technological neutrality is not only a slogan, it is an absolute necessity. We cannot link our future to a solution when innovation and technology offer us multiple paths to decarbonize and, in addition, gain in competitiveness. Let's have a much more open technological vision, much more realistic. Betting on electrification as the only solution condemns us to dependence and, therefore, to relocation. Decarbonisation is an unavoidable goal, of course, but it can't be a trap for our industrial development at all. Therefore: fewer dogmas, more freedom, more neutrality, but also fewer limitations, fewer prohibitions and more incentives.

Madam President, the United States is withdrawing from climate policies. China, a leader in renewables, is also a leader in pollution. It is a golden opportunity for Europe to take climate leadership. A good opportunity if we know how to play our cards well, some cards that in the past we have not been able to play properly: We are punishing industrial policy for achieving over-ambitious climate targets. The result we have already known: we have not achieved objectives and we have hampered our competitiveness. The good news is that the Commission is willing to react; is willing to take on the mistakes made and, from them, rectify them in order to change the dynamics of industrial policy. And this is important, bearing in mind that competitiveness objectives can only be achieved if we are aware that industrial policy and climate policy must go hand in hand, coordinated, and industrial policy must never be subordinated to climate policy. And that's the Clean Industry Pact. A Pact which, firstly, speaks of 'clean', not 'green', and, secondly, refers primarily to industry. It is a good first step – short, perhaps, but a good first step – solid in terms of its principles, less in terms of its objectives; and we would have liked it to be, without a doubt, something more ambitious. We will have to wait for the normative development of the Pact to demonstrate whether there is such a willingness to rectify the mistakes of the past and to really push forward industrial policy in the European Union. For this we ask for determination, courage, but, above all, speed. There's not a minute to lose in the race.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, sometimes when we talk about competitiveness, we have the majority of us here who are clear about what our shortcomings are, what are even the objectives to be achieved, and we begin to agree on what the tools must be to restore competitiveness to our economy; In that regard, we warmly welcome President von der Leyen's announcement of the Clean Industrial Pact. The important thing is missing, which is to succeed in developing the tools, the instruments that should serve us to reorient these excessively ambitious climate policies and make them compatible with the equally necessary industrial and energy policies that finally ensure the competitiveness of our economy. The Clean Industrial Deal, which must of course be born from a thorough analysis of the impact of Green Deal policies on our industry, cannot be at all a reshaping operation or even a simple update of Green Deal policies. The Clean Industrial Pact should be the first step in a paradigm shift in industrial policies in the European Union, a pact that should reflect the ambition of the European Union to put at the same level the objective of decarbonization with the objective of competitiveness and a pact that assumes as a fundamental principle the need to reformulate those policies that, in order to achieve the climate objectives, we know are hindering or have hindered the competitiveness of our industry. Many duties, little time, but a fundamental challenge: restoring the economy while maintaining decarbonisation targets. Nothing else.

Mr President, we of course support the content of the Budapest Declaration. It is a text very much in line with the Commission's programme and also with the Letta and Draghi reports which, for the most part, we share in this House. We are already clear about our weaknesses, we are already clear about our threats, we are also clear about our strengths, and we even agree on generic objectives. Now, six months after the elections, it is time to get to work as a matter of urgency. Every day we let go is a day we lose to the rest of the world. Our economy depends on European industry and European industry needs our support now more than ever. It needs us to be by its side and to be flexible, to be tangible, to be, of course, agile and, above all, to be effective. We can only make our industry competitive if we are able to encourage innovation, boost productivity, cut costs, cut red tape; But above all, we can only make our industry truly competitive if we do not subordinate industrial policy to climate policy. Decarbonisation and competitiveness are two objectives that we must achieve together and hand in hand, not at all sacrificing our industry for the achievement of any of the decarbonisation objectives. If we are clear about this and if we also work in dialogue, on the basis of consensus, our industry will do well, our economy will do well, and therefore the Europe we believe in will do very well.

There is no question, but I will give you an answer. Do you know what happened after you, the Galician left, grossly used an ecological misfortune that occurred in Galicia? That the citizens, who are very intelligent, sent you and your socialist partners to the streets. That is what happened in Galicia and that is, perhaps, what will happen also in the future in our country. Ladies and gentlemen, when the will of the citizens is manipulated, they react and I am sure that here too they will react to those who try to manipulate misfortune solely and exclusively to benefit politically and electorally. Ladies and gentlemen, you should be ashamed.

Madam President, I come from a country where, when there is a misfortune - and there are a few - some have the sole objective of generating a story that favours their political and electoral interests. It happened with the Prestige. It happened recently with COVID-19 and, of course, it had to happen now too, it could not be less. Thus, while the media and political satellites - as we have just seen - are determined to generate a story that makes the Popular Party responsible for this and any misfortune that happens in Spain, we find a Government whose minister responsible for the management of the river that overflowed has not yet come forward, no longer to ask for forgiveness or to assume any responsibility, but only and exclusively to side with the victims, so as not to harm their career here in Brussels. Only in this way is it understood that a president of the Government refuses to assume the national emergency, simply to not show his face and assume his responsibilities. Only in this way is it understood that aid from other States should be refused. Only in this way is it understood, ladies and gentlemen, that the President of the Government of my country dares to publicly state that "if anyone needs something, let them ask for it", while people died in the streets. Meanwhile, of course, the delivery of humanitarian aid to Valencia is conditioned on the approval of the General State Budget. Ladies and gentlemen, it would be very naive to think that there will be no more catastrophes in my country. It would be very naive to think that the left is not going to behave in an unworthy way as it is doing. I am in a position to ask for the involvement of the European Union, the Community institutions and the Member States, so that this misfortune can serve as a turning point and so that, once and for all, we take seriously the need to prevent natural disasters.

Madam President, yes, of course, and although there has been no question, I will try to give an answer. In the European People's Party we are extremely clear that the industrial policies, the development policies and the industrial future of the European Union, must always be compatible with climate policies and always be coordinated with them, and never be subordinated to them.

Madam President, the crisis in the automotive sector is no longer a threat. It is an absolute reality. Faced with this reality, citizens, especially those millions of workers in the automotive sector who today do not see their future work clearly, demand urgent and forceful actions from all of us. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we get down to work to promote reforms and reorient our policies and our strategies, including climate, if we do not want to be dragged down by a doped foreign competition. The extraordinarily ambitious climate policy is one of the burdens of the automotive sector. The emission reduction targets we set for the sector today are far from being achieved. The response of the Community institutions can in no way be to punish producers and impose extraordinarily high and unjustified fines on them. The review of the Emissions Regulation needs to be undertaken now – ahead of 2025 – in order to revise the interim targets and also to honestly introduce the role of biofuels and synthetic fuels and thus ensure the principle of technological neutrality. We must also address the future in 2035 and beyond 2035 and the role that plug-in hybrids will play thereafter. If we do not do it now, if we do not act urgently and forcefully, we will pay for it in terms of employment and in terms of the destruction of what is still the European Union's flagship industry today.

Madam President, we agree, of course, to a large extent with the analysis made by Mr Draghi in his report, as well as with the need to adopt measures as soon as possible to curb this process of loss of competitiveness and to address as soon as possible the measures to put it into effect. It is necessary, of course, to take action and change our political priorities by bringing to the forefront those that allow us to recover competitiveness and simultaneously initiate a necessary process of reindustrialization of our economy. I would like to draw attention to one of the flagship sectors of European industry: the automotive sector. A sector that is now under threat, undoubtedly weighed down, among other things, by the loss of the balance between industrial policy and climate policy and by the limited flexibility we have given it to achieve the objectives we have entrusted to it, without even knowing or properly assessing whether these were feasible or not. The achievement of the objectives of competitiveness of the automotive industry expressed in the Draghi report, with which we mostly agree, requires that beforehand all, absolutely all, including all the members of the College of Commissioners, assume the non-subordination of the same to the principles of decarbonization and understand the strategic character that has had, that has and that must have the automotive sector from the point of view of both economic and social.