Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the integration of the capital market is a primary objective for the European Union, because too many billions continue to be invested outside the Union every year and even more still remain the billions that remain stationary on bank accounts. It is therefore important to work quickly and effectively but with a timeline realistic for negotiations, because we need to strengthen the role of ESMA to reduce fragmentation, but it remains crucial to have a structural involvement of national competent authorities. Also because, to give an example, to date, crisis management and consequences for supervised institutions are currently largely carried out at national level and it is also for this reason, among other things, that we propose a pragmatic and gradual approach.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the rapporteur for the important work he has done and for addressing the main issues relating to the work of the European Central Bank. Coming to these, he is immediately remembered in the report The European Central Bank's primary objective is to maintain price stability, and it is an objective that the ECB can now claim to have achieved. It is then rightly recalled that this first objective is followed by a second objective, albeit subordinate to the first. This second objective provides that, without jeopardising price stability, the ECB should support the general economic policies of the European Union. Now, if today's macroeconomic projections continue to tell us that for 2026 and the coming years inflation levels will be below the 2% target, reminding us that the greatest impact on inflation will come from energy prices and not from growth, and if today's GDP growth projections continue to be not what we would like to see, as they range only from 1% to 1.5%, I ask, Mr Lagarde, what awaits the ECB to pursue the second objective enshrined in Article 127 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? So what is it waiting for to support the general economic policies of the European Union? Because, as rightly pointed out by the'Annual report The ECB, which we are debating today, must take its own decisions to carry out its mandate without interference and, I would add, political influence. Next, in theannual report reference is also made to the digital euro project, for which I would like to express my support, but also my gratitude, for the important work carried out by the European Central Bank. Finally, I would like to conclude by appreciating the work done through the simplification recommendations made by the ECB, as revising, for example, the prudential regime to be applied to smaller banks is the sensitivity we expect from a large institution such as the European Central Bank.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we believe that this InvestEU proposal is going in the right direction. For too long we have sacrificed our competitiveness and therefore every step towards simplification is a step in the right direction. We welcome less reporting, less burden and less overall bureaucracy, just as we welcome anything that changes investment in what are the big, unavoidable policies that we should all support. I think of infrastructure, I think of innovation, I think of sustainable housing, I think of defence, I think of security, I think of support for SMEs. But I am also thinking of the green transition because, if it is to be stressed that InvestEU is going in the right direction, the wrong direction that this forced and failed approach of the Green Deal and the Green Deal still needs to be strongly underlined and condemned. net zero They're moving forward. It is an approach that is not good for Europe and that we will do everything to prevent and stop.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to support this document on tax legislation because we believe it is going in the right direction. Shareable objectives are set, such as removing both obstacles to cross-border investment in the European Union and obstacles to the realisation of a genuine single market. It is therefore proposed to achieve these objectives by prioritising regulatory simplification and the elimination of overlapping tax rules. All beautiful resolutions, colleagues, that we continue to read, that we continue to hear but that we do not yet see translated into legislative proposals to the extent that we would need them in this particular historical moment. The European Union should immediately stop regulating and should start seriously simplifying but also eliminating all those rules that have led us to be in this situation and have created that huge gap in terms of competitiveness, innovation, investment in the most advanced economies.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, with this document we are finally beginning to become aware of the fact that Europe is falling behind, with the consequent risk of becoming irrelevant if strong political action is not taken. It also recognizes, albeit belatedly, the role that competitiveness, productivity and economic growth must have, underlining the importance of investment and the fact that it is not enough to mobilize large financial volumes to close the investment gap, but it is necessary to channel them into production activities. Finally, there is an awareness of the need to provide adequate incentives to start-up e scale-up, necessary to support the development of strategic and innovative sectors. Despite these good intentions, it is difficult to provide concrete solutions and recipes to put these proposals into practice, still remaining too attached to the ideology that brought Europe into this situation: as the disproportionate regulatory approach that has stifled our competitiveness, or as the constraints of sustainable finance that have channelled investments not where the market demanded, but where politics imposed. There is a lack of solutions, but there is also a lack of courage. And we see it with how much fear we are talking about very important financial instruments, such as securitization, which would allow us, among many other things, to close that great gap in terms of investment and competitiveness that we have with the rest of the world.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its strategic guidelines presented last year, the European Investment Bank focused on eight political priorities. The first of these priorities states that financing the green transition and supporting climate action is the number one strategic priority of our time to ensure sustainable growth, competitiveness, strategic autonomy and security, thus giving the EIB a clear political and ideological objective. But the most serious thing is that this report by the European Parliament even proposes to consolidate that role of the EIB as a European climate bank, and it is unacceptable, since this important institution was created to finance investments in support of all the political objectives of the Union, not just those of the socialists and the greens.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking our rapporteurs for including our sensitivities in the report on the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and I would also like to thank Executive Vice-President Fitto for his great work in organising, managing and, above all, programming this crucial spending chapter. We have before us challenges that are too important not to call into question the ideological approach that too many times has held back Europe and its potential, such as the great challenge of competitiveness, which if it is not included concretely among the priorities, will never allow us to close the gap. gap with the other great powers. Policies such as the Recovery and Resilience Facility have shown us that Europe, if it so wishes, can create the investment tools needed to tackle and overcome crises. It is up to us to create the political conditions to replicate and certainly improve those tools necessary to face the great challenges of our day.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as the Governor of the Bank of Italy and later President of the Italian Republic, Luigi Einaudi, taught us a century ago, it is the market that defines the number of banks and their size. And looking at the European banking system, characterized by a large number of small banks, we realize that it is the national banks, and in many cases the regional ones, that dominate the market. This fragmentation means that European banks do not compare with American banks. Let's think about the fact that the capitalization of the first American bank is equivalent to the capitalization of the top ten European banks, with the consequent inability to be able to finance important investments. We can no longer afford mistakes, colleagues, such as the mistake of transposing the Basel principles even more stringently than expected or the mistake of inserting ideology. green in the banking sector, because otherwise we will never close that gap We are competitive with the rest of the world.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we know the reasons for speeding up the Union of Savings and Investment: We have a propensity to save in the eurozone that is more than double that of the United States. Only 30% of this savings is invested, while 70% remains on current accounts, also because of our bank-centric system, which sees 70% of funding coming from banks and only 30% from the markets. However, Commissioner, we should start talking about some solutions, such as changing the prudential treatment of bank investments in banks' equity, or changing capital requirements that hinders the whole world and the securitisation sector. Or, also, changing supervisory expectations which, if not aligned with the new omnibus package, will not allow the financial sector to assess firms’ exposures to the risks of climate change; or, finally, as the modification – or rather elimination – of feeder. You, Commissioner, know that an important trilogue is starting tomorrow because, as it is written, it would allow third countries to access our financial data, without reciprocity, among other things, which would seriously undermine our competitiveness. If we want to achieve competitiveness and complete the Union of Savings and Investment, we should try to reduce, if not eliminate, all those regulations that are excessive, if not harmful.

Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, the role of the European Semester is to coordinate the economic and budgetary policies of the Member States, thus having a very strong impact on the macroeconomic stability of the Union. And although this set of procedures is born to counter the sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone, today the macroeconomic contingency in terms of rating, spread and government bond yields mean that the focus is no longer solely on the numerator of the debt-to-GDP ratio. Today there is an awareness that debt sustainability must be pursued through economic growth and strategic investments, allowing us to work more and more on what is the denominator of the debt-to-GDP ratio. And this is why we have welcomed the recent announcement about the activation of the safeguard clauses of the Stability and Growth Pact, a pact that we, as Brothers of Italy, have always called for to improve and whose easing would allow for an increase in defence spending that is fundamental at this historical moment.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, we have read so many words in this compass on competitiveness. Some of us share them, such as the admission of certain faults or the introduction of the principle of technological neutrality, which would be necessary to safeguard the car industry. However, there are no concrete indications of what would be targeted decisions that would allow the Commission to go beyond mere words. For example, there is no suspension of fines, already from this 2025, for the car sector; there is no cancellation of the stop of the sale of cars with endothermic engine from 2035; there is no immediate and urgent revision of the ETS and CBAM systems, i.e. the system of taxation and duties on high-emission products. We, colleagues, Commissioner, would not need so many words. However, we would need to erase those mistakes in terms of industrial policies that have brought our competitiveness to its knees. We are living in a world of great acceleration and once again, unfortunately, the European Commission is proving to be too slow.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President Ribera, ladies and gentlemen, if today we are to talk about the impact that the Green Deal has had on European competitiveness, as an Italian I cannot fail to mention the very serious crisis that the car sector in my country is facing because of the Green Deal. Car production in Italy in 2024 has dramatically stalled at 300 000 units, a decrease of 45% compared to 2019. By 2025, turnover in the sector is estimated to fall by an additional 20%, putting 40 000 jobs at risk. And if we look at the entire European car industry, because of the Green Deal we risk having to pay 15 billion euros in penalties for not achieving the targets. Colleagues, this is the real impact of Green Deal policies on European competitiveness, this is the real impact of climate neutrality on European industry. Let us stop talking about climate neutrality and start talking about technological neutrality, as all stakeholders outside this Parliament and this Commission are continuing to demand.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, let me begin by strongly stigmatizing what one of my fellow countrymen has just heard about abusive occupations, because these are words that are not worthy of this Parliament and must be strongly condemned. That said, the construction sector is facing a general increase in costs: construction costs increase, mortgage rates increase and rents increase in many cities. As the Commissioner said earlier, there is a huge issue related to energy poverty: In 2022, 41 million people, or 9.3% of the European population, were unable to heat their homes. Here, of the three factors that define energy poverty here we deal with energy efficiency. In addition to energy efficiency - as we heard from the Commissioner, who intends to help Member States to double investment in affordable sustainable housing - we would also like to hear about common debt again, because we do not hear about it. Finally, Commissioner, we will remind you that the redevelopment and efficiency of the building stock must necessarily take into account certain peculiarities, such as the architectural features of our historic centres that characterise many beautiful cities in our Member States such as Italy.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that the crisis in the car industry is before everyone's eyes. However, to understand what are the causes, I advise you, colleagues, to analyze well the macro sectors involved. On the supply side, contrary to what some colleagues have said, we see car manufacturers strongly asking to give up and revise the 2035 deadline. This is because either the manufacturers are planning to close the industrial plants, as we see in Germany, or because they have already had to close them, as we dramatically see in Italy, at the Mirafiori plant in Turin. On the demand side, electric cars simply do not sell and do not sell because economic sustainability and practical accessibility have not been taken into account, not only to cars, but also to the energy sources needed for charging. And this also spells out a failure in terms of energy policies. Finally, if we look at the labour market, we see mass layoffs and widespread use of social safety nets. In ten days, on the 18th of October, a general strike will be called in Italy and I, colleagues, invite you to look at the demands of this strike that are addressed not to industry, but to politics. These are the same demands that we hear from all the macro-sectors of the economy, and I conclude, Mr President. This is because politics cannot descend from above decisions such as the Green Deal But we must try to take into account the laws of the market, otherwise we will destroy the European industrial base.

Mr President, Commissioner Simson, ladies and gentlemen, reading the report on the State of the Energy Union, we agree that energy policies are crucial for the competitiveness and security of the European Union, but we do not agree at all that this energy transition is the key to secure, competitive and accessible energy, as we see written. First of all, we are concerned about the deadlines for this energy transition: a 90% reduction in CO emissions2 by 2040 and 100% by 2050. With this approach, the energy transition will cause a very heavy fall in well-being and this concern is expressed by all sectors of the economy, from industry to the tertiary sector, as well as being expressed by Mario Draghi's report on competitiveness. And it is also because of our energy policies that we are losing competitiveness with respect to the rest of the world, having higher energy prices than those of our competitors. In addition to the fact that there is still no mention of the reform of the ETS system, which price CO2 emissions at very high and increasing costs2. In addition to the fact that there is no response to the demands of industrialists, starting with the car industry, which has received the toughest restrictions and deadlines. To conclude, Mr President, Commissioner Simson, we are all the more concerned when we look outside the European Union and see how the world's great powers are putting in place energy policies that can give their companies the conditions they need to compete globally. Suffice it to say that among the approximately 170 nuclear power plants that are currently, in the world, either under construction or under design, almost 50% are Chinese, while the European ones are only 5%. These are my considerations – above all, my concerns – on this report.