Speeches

I believe, however, that the will of women must be very clear, because otherwise in the debates we return to years and years and years of defense. I don't have so much faith in justice, I don't have so much faith in debates: I have more confidence in the woman's will and in her sensitivity and in her ability, even when she is in a matter of difficulty, to respond, even to respond in a debate. But the uncertainty of the law, especially in this last period, seems to me more serious than the true expression of the woman and her will.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, sexual violence against women is a serious crime to be punished with certainty and harshness. To make this crime punishable, without a doubt, it is necessary that, as the Istanbul Convention says, there is a case-by-case assessment. That is, the certainty of the crime must be unassailable in the debate to reach the just and harsh punishment of the rapist. It must therefore be at the center of the verification the woman, her sensitivity, her will. That's why we favor the concept of dissent: in the face of the woman's dissent, it will be more difficult to defend the alleged rapist in court, because it will be a clear and more easily demonstrable act and therefore, as alleged, condemned. However, this issue remains a field of action for the Member States and the Italian proposal is making penalties harsher and harsher when there is violence. However, this debate in the Chamber is good, as long as it is not the usual attempt of the left to bring into the broad field of rights not women's rights, including her defense, but generic as well as misleading "gender" theories. Here the woman, her sensitivity, her fragility, even physical, must be protagonists.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, you have referred to the crises, the energy crises that exist, which are historic; you have also given good advice to governments. But let's think about what we have to do here. Governments get along and have their sovereignty in these choices. But what can the Commission do? Well, he can do a lot. And it is true that in the face of continuous crises, they are factors of geopolitics that we have ... however on which we can do very little. What we can do today is to change what we are entitled to and what we are entitled to do is to consider how much a certain type of costs – from an ideological point of view very high – represent for our business world. First of all, and I disagree with Mr Salini when he says that the ETS is a desire to change: no, the ETS is one of the systems that today produces more costs than positive assessments. So what the Commission can do is not give good advice to governments; it is to stop this system because if it is a system that costs, it is not producing the environmental effect that we would like, it is only damaging our companies.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is still much to be done in Europe to ensure equal pay for men and women doing the same work. Even in Italy, women employees earn up to 25% less than men. This translates into a pension almost halved compared to that of colleagues. These differences in pay stem from the complex reconciliation of work and family: Women are called upon more than others to provide family care for their children and elderly parents and this leads to a greater use of part-time work, when this is granted, or to leave or forced exit from the world of work. To support the rights of working women and working mothers, the Meloni government has presented an implementation of the European Directive 970, which introduces new obligations also for employers: where the paid deviation is more than 5%, follow-up action shall be taken. This responds to pay transparency and social equality. But, first of all, it is a cultural fact. And, of course, in the debate that concerns us in Europe on European funds, a greater space should find support for motherhood and the family in order to promote life. And we should rethink the discussion on social housing: I participate in the EMPL committee and this is usually debated only for the homeless or for immigrants. Little, almost nothing, is said about working mothers and working women with low incomes. Well, a mother who works with serenity is a more accomplished woman and is an invaluable social value.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we are to strengthen the European research area, research must be free, open and not ideologically directed. In my writing of the Space Act, as rapporteur, I mainly tried to simplify rules, procedures, bureaucracy, as you also said, and authorisations, to develop a favourable ecosystem in Europe for the whole sector, in this case space. Research is an essential element: we have universities, public centres, governmental and intergovernmental agencies to support the research and development of start-up, innovative products, services in the control and management of data that are increasingly sensitive today. These projects must be supported with adequate funds, but above all private investment must be encouraged and the regulatory framework must be guaranteed, which must be clear and open. On dual use, for example, I believe that the distinction between civilian and military should be overcome: There is nothing just civilian, nothing just military - you said that in committee too - and so when we talk about research this a fortiori must be opened up. Space, in particular, has no boundaries of application: Agriculture, personal data security, national and European security have trade and defence applications without a possible border, where the decision is primarily political and – I would add – ethical. Therefore, the prohibition to use research only for certain areas or sectors should be lifted: We risk limiting Europe's ability to become competitive compared to other worlds where research is, of course, less controlled and less secure. And as you have said, through research we can retain the best intelligence and that is what Europe particularly needs.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a little late, but let us repeat it. Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Union shall respect the essential functions of the Member State, in particular national security, which remains the exclusive competence of the State. This applies to all Member States and also to Hungary. But there are double standards in this House. There is that if you are aligned with the left there is one interpretation, if you are not aligned with the left there is another. And I'm sorry that it also happens with friends of the People's Party. When Orbán was with them he was good and just. When Orbán is not with them, it is no longer fair. But Hungary is the theme. And Hungary is a free state that makes free choices for its sovereign nation and is part of the European Union and therefore must be defended against its prerogatives. We Conservatives are consistent in this. The prerogative of the Member State is not to cede further sovereignty, especially when it comes to defence. Then in this House, double standards: Salis acquitted and had to be tried in Hungary; Moretti, always of the left, is recalled to the laws of other states. These are double standards.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, cybersecurity is freedom and autonomy and is therefore a priority, and the Commission has done well to develop this. Cybersecurity Act for important objectives such as ensuring citizens and businesses on essential services today, which depend on and are managed by networks. And the second focus is to be able to strengthen the European supply chain of technologies, therefore of industry. I would like to underline two aspects. The first is that, like Europe, we have a security and resilience problem in energy networks, in critical infrastructure, in our communication channels. And today the domains, such as space and theunderwater, they are increasingly subject to hybrid attacks. The second, which interests me even more, is that of industrial production, of our technological industry, of investments in research, of our talents. We need structural capital and human capital because for too long, in the past, Europe looked out and today, for example, China, in the management of data, tools, supplies, risks being a danger to us.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let us immediately make it clear that China is our biggest problem in terms of industry and market balance. Their hyper-production capacity, the infinite possibility of supplying very expensive raw materials, the low cost of labour, the unlimited state subsidies and the almost total absence of environmental laws put European productions, compared to China, completely out of the market. Europe’s first problem is Europe itself, with its own laws – sometimes absurd and certainly very expensive for producers. But the second problem, we clarify, is China, which sees in Europe only a market for its own productions, from clothing to components, to the thermomechanical sectors, the total monopoly of electric batteries and photovoltaic panels: everything risks speaking Chinese and invading our market, not only of consumption but also of production, i.e. destroying our manufacturing capacity. But I want to focus on the raw material par excellence when we talk about industry: steel. China owns 46.2% of the world’s steel capacity; China alone has more than five times the steel capacity of the whole of Europe. We are invaded by their steel. Commendable, though belated, is the Commission's steel plan, which nevertheless highlights a disaster announced, Commissioner: The increase in tariffs on steel is fine, the reduction of quotas and the increase in quota costs is fine, but we have to protect semi-finished and finished products, because they are not subject to CBAM or tariffs, and they are invading our market.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are in a time of war and production in the armaments sector in Europe needs to be rethought - that is what EDIP is for. EDIP is fundamental, it is openly aimed at the defence industry and its competitiveness, so we must strive for ever greater European autonomy, it is obvious, but we must not think that this autonomy should or can exclude allied countries, because defence is above all a military strategy, potential prevention and management of conflicts, which therefore must be accompanied by robust military diplomacy. Military diplomacy is also done through industrial production and alliances for industrial production. Obstacles and restrictions should be avoided on European productions which, to date, cannot be separated from allied third party components. The aim must be to strengthen and increase the European production base. We have excellence, we have great national champions and a fabric of SMEs and start-ups to support, but just the great champions must respond to military needs and government strategies, they can not be self-referential. The ultimate goal we must aim for is that the national interests of the Member States coincide with the interests of Europe as a whole. But to be ready – and we are not – we need men, as well as products. Italian Minister Crosetto was very clear in rethinking the new armed force, talking about men and commanders; We need to select and motivate our military, which must be efficient, selected with different requirements for different uses and, above all, motivated. Industry and production are at the service of the military and government strategies, and not vice versa. And the rules for public procurement – Commissioner, and I conclude – cannot follow normal European bureaucratic procedures: Defense is played in attack.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have a growing problem of internal security within the EU, in our cities, in our homes. On the one hand, we need a whole-of-society approach to security and defence, as the Niinistö report reminds us: strengthening our military capabilities and rethinking the role of leverage, service, especially for young people, and a broader reserve. On the other hand, we must recognise the fundamental role of the police and security forces. In recent days we have seen pseudo-pacifist demonstrations in favor of Gaza and turn into violent attacks against those who, in uniform, were only guaranteeing order and legality. Here, today, I cannot fail to remember Valerio, Davide and Marco, the three carabinieri who lost their lives in the province of Verona, in Italy, in a tragic and senseless way: Our thoughts and our thanks go to them and to the whole body of the Carabinieri. And I find it unacceptable that someone, even in this House, tried to justify this vile act by ranting about capitalism, instead of condemning violence without hesitation. I am talking about Mrs Salis, who is also unpunished in this House, and her usual disobedience. To ensure safety, we must first respect those who wear the uniform.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it has been inspiring to work as a shadow rapporteur on this important dossier, because works councils can play an important role today. I say this after having managed 350 complex crises in my land of work and having always found the solution with the help of workers. Companies and workers are unique today and the look that must be taken is not that of a rearguard defense, nor a social clash, but rather that of a promotion of rights that are often those of work, business and territory. Today, however, we have further scenarios, we have an aggression that comes from outside. Yesterday's rights are completely renewed and often the interlocutor is not exactly what we expect when we talk about a dialectic of this type. That's why the role of company committees, which I like to call as a concept of participation in choices, responsibilities, stimuli, reflections that must be done, must also be able to find a further stimulus. There are cases, as happens in these hours in the province of Bolzano, where it is politics that opposes an industry and a steel mill, and instead it is workers with entrepreneurs who defend it. It's a new world.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, you have declared the future of the electric car, echoing von der Leyen's words, and someone has also said so. I wonder if you are producers, analysts, experts. You give me the idea of being with the size of the Soviets, with the proposal of the little car electric, the Lada, or battery factories that aren't there yet. Then there is realism and the numbers say something else. The numbers say that neither cars nor electric trucks are seen. And, if we do two counts on trucks, try to see how much a battery is in a truck, how much space it takes, how much transport space, how much it costs, how long it takes to recharge, and how much it costs to recharge. grid. How much does the electrification network cost across Europe? Do we have this money to electrify all of Europe? Meanwhile, other data: factories close, the Chinese market has invaded us, 55% of imports of electric cars are Chinese. If this is your result of defending the EuropeanautomotiveI advise you to change course. And if we go to vote, I am convinced that there will be another majority in this House.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, anti-Semitism is growing in Europe. And who is responsible? Those responsible are those who do not condemn the brutal aggression of October 7: families in homes, young people at a concert, children killed, women raped, elderly people beaten. Those who pay for and supply weapons to Hamas are responsible. And those strange NGOs that feed anti-Semitic propaganda with public money. In Gaza alone, 1,300 journalists, all Palestinians, and, in Gaza alone, 13,000 employees paid with UN money. All pro-Pal propaganda is responsible for anti-Semitism. In Europe, those who burn the flags of Israel or who carry banners with the words "October 7: Palestinian Resistance Day. This is anti-Semitism. Those who demonstrate by destroying cities and forcing Jews to hide their belonging and Israeli children to have to change schools. It is responsible for anti-Semitism that brigade of sea provocateurs who have violated international rules for their feeling unpunished and above the laws of a sovereign state. This is how the actions of Islamic extremists are justified. And it is a shame that some colleagues, covered by parliamentary immunity, wanted to show the world that they are unpunished, but perhaps from today it is no longer a novelty. There are still fifty hostages, we only ask for their release and this is peace.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is very appropriate that, apart from the events that are happening today, which means that we are very close to Poland, but it can happen anywhere, we are starting to discuss this issue a few days ago. Space Act. It has a lot to do with security. It has a lot to do with Europe's sovereignty in the management of its own data and control systems, of production, which must see us able to recover a gap that exists between the largest producers in the world. Because without the control also of production, without the strengthening of our large state-owned industries - and there are and of great value - together with a supply chain It needs to be built and strengthened also with the help of European funds, our ability to have control of components, control of data and control of systems would be inadequate. Today the issue of security concerns the civilian and military component, but perhaps a single large environment: This is what we must try to defend and protect, understanding that the first question of space is to recognize it as domination.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, clean technologies are Europe's heritage. The cultural approach to respect for the environment is European – certainly more so than other nations in the world – but what we risk today is being out of the market. We need to return to a pragmatic approach and a principled approach to technological neutrality. It is written in our treaties, it is not applied. We, today, adopt laws that prevent this type of approach, trying almost to direct, from an absolutely technocratic point of view, the ways. We need to talk about renewable fuels, we need not demonize the big investments made by theautomotive, there is not only the electric car, which is also totally dependent on China and will become more and more expensive and less and less available. We must have a renewed approach to the issue of nuclear power, without wrong prejudices. That is a clean energy that Europe must see today, and Italy has made this choice: Investing in this field.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Israel has the courage to do what Europe does not have the courage to do. Israel has the courage to defend itself when it is under attack. We cannot forget that on 7 October 1,400 victims were civilians, children, the elderly in their homes, at a concert, and 250 abducted, including 30 children. Israel has the courage to react and defend itself. It is under attack every day, but the European newspapers, the newspapers of the world, do not talk about it. Israel has the courage to say who is guilty, to know that Iran is behind that Hamas terrorism. He has the courage to call things by their names. He has the courage to say that this terrorism is what moves Europe and fragile souls when they see children. But those children are the children of those terrorists who are used by them as human shields. It is unacceptable to use one's children as human shields, it is unacceptable to use hospitals as terrorist command centres.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let us try to do an exercise to leave energy outside the ideological field: The goal is that. Certainly at this time we are at war: Europe has chosen its side and we must free ourselves from Russian supplies. But can we set ourselves the goal of removing ourselves completely from the subject of gas? I don't think so. I believe that on technological neutrality, which is also energy neutrality, we must try to address the issues that are those of competitiveness. There is no ideology in competitiveness. We need to understand how production costs are lower and how household costs can be reduced. And then all energy sources, indeed diversification of sources; all energies, indeed, as the Italian government has done, make agreements to be able to have other supply routes, including for gas, and especially nuclear, which cannot remain an issue not fully addressed.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have entitled 'The Global Race' this debate. But to race we need to put the elements that put us in a position to win the competition. The first thing is to remove the weights: You can't run if you're heavy. The Commission repeats, from day one to the day after the comment on the Draghi report, a sort of mantra: We need to cut red tape. But Mr Draghi himself was outraged in this House by the slowness, the lack of clarity, because in fact this bureaucracy is still very heavy. There is also a technocratic arrogance, I want to call it that. It's a burden. It is an address that technocracy gives to say how it is produced, when it is produced, what products must be made: It's a kind of one-way street. But our competitors don't think so. Our competitors are structured worlds, China and the USA above all, which invest in research, which do not have the weight that we have and which leave more freedom. And then our strengths must be valued: Traditional industry cannot be relegated outside the technological sphere. Artificial intelligence needs to be addressed from a European perspective. We have great design ability, great research ability. It has been said: Our universities have a great reputation and are able to attract. On all of them, therefore, a solution: the concept of technological neutrality must prevail, finally, and on the other, these funds that are announced, which must be able to interact with each other: the Defence Fund, the Competitiveness Fund, research must be able to tend to the defense, protection and enhancement of our industries.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is born in coal and steel: a pact. An energy pact and a building pact, we were in the aftermath of the Second World War and today the themes are the same. We deal with and must find answers for energy, at too high a cost for the entire production sector, and we must defend the mother of materials for industrial construction, which is steel. We have two real problems: how to protect our steel, how to defend it, because when we talk about overproduction we are talking about invasion, not national overproduction. And, the other, how to deal with the issue of energy when the Member States are different. These are the two serious problems we have, but I find weak, timid solutions, Commissioner Séjourné. Instead, the solutions must be much more assertive, much clearer: we certainly need to review the CBAM, but we missed the opportunity with the discussion on energy-intensive companies; we must make sure that decarbonisation, which is a principle and a goal that we must all grasp, can be addressed and welcomed with a solution of technological neutrality, not with a single way. And when we talk about steel and the protection of steel – I remember that Italy has a steel that is produced for 80% with electric furnaces, it is a green steel, I would say very green – yet our scrap comes out and returns, perhaps from Turkey, with laws that are very different from ours. Then we need more clarity to defend this strategic sector for reconstruction, because this is a theme of our Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is a film that I love very much. Fight Club. At some point they enter the cockpit of the plane and replace the cards. The cards were all reassuring: There was a plane crash but smiling and calm faces came out gracefully. Here, it seems to me that this is happening here: In other words, you, Commissioner – with all due respect – used reassuring tones, talked about peace and prosperity, made a very reassuring video where you let a survival kit out of your bag. But I would say that we have not read the Niinistö report, which says something quite different: It fully analyses the state of unpreparedness of this Europe. It rightly mentions the Finnish model, which is an all-round preparation, from the armed forces to the citizenry, to the evidence that there must be very serious training, a sort of recruitment of citizens. The problem with preparation is that we are very unprepared.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is a prayer from an association of former military personnel that says: Save us, armed as we are with faith and love. Europe has lost faith and confused love, and today it has a rather obvious security problem. We need to get out of this hypocrisy and address this issue clearly; the Internal Security Strategy is a key need. Not just weapons, of course! But also weapons, even armies, even military forces, and certainly security concerns much more: concerns citizens; concerns the data of these citizens, businesses; concerns borders; concerns domains; concerns the land, the sea and today also space; It covers energy sources, water, raw materials, strategic infrastructure. It is a hybrid war and we need to be aware of it and prepared for it. It must therefore change the paradigm and we must act to defend our sovereignty. First of all, today it concerns industrial/personal production and freedom.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for four generations, this company had transformed its production because the market demanded it; in the last season, because European laws require it and the market does not follow them. This is what the Gnutti company tells us in the visit that the ITRE committee made to Italy. This motion was born - and the rapporteur knows it - to respond to the theme ofautomotive and for the loss of jobs and closure of companies. But theautomotive It is completely ignored. The rapporteur even says that it is a great opportunity for the Green Deal. The opportunity is to see companies shut down and jobs lost. The rapporteur in this House has said that the right, the right, wants to exclude the union. I have been managing business crises for 15 years: the union has always been my great partner, but not in opposition to the company, to try to go into the continuity of production and the defense of jobs. This motion does not go in this direction. The ECR Group will vote against tomorrow and we will propose an alternative resolution precisely to put companies and workers at the centre.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, clean, we are already clean, Commissioner: 6% emissions, first in the world for circular economy – I am talking, of course, about Europe. We have the industries that have made the greatest investments in respect for the environment. Perhaps from clean We should move on to Real Industrial Act o Deal or what we want to do, because within this act there are 40 measures to be done in 2025. But what do businesses ask for? And the Draghi report also told us well: They ask us for simplification, they ask us for less bureaucracy, they ask us for more listening. And I, I have not read this, in this beautiful 24 pages, where the term "technological neutrality" is written only five times. Let's be realistic: the Europe that is born on coal and steel, that is, on a pact between energy and production, is a Europe that today is made up of gas and oil These are technologies that aren't like that. dirty However, they have made significant investments. We've reduced steel, we've reduced aluminum, we've reduced our automotive: Maybe we should really change course.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if this is the time for strong choices, Commissioner, as you said, because the context has completely changed and today we must discuss some issues that we thought were left to rest: We must defend our civilization, our economy and our borders in a context of permanent hybrid conflict. Alongside some that we have identified as problems, however, there are others, of scenarios: In addition to Russia-Ukraine, there is the Middle East, there is Central Africa, there are other dangerous subjects for us, there is China, there is the role of Turkey, there is the role of Iran, there is Islamism advancing. Well, in the White Paper I expect there to be such assessments, because we would need a defence industry, we would need a defence industry. dual use, We will need more and more prepared armed forces and our soldiers more and more secure, because our thanks go to them. And, as he said in Niinistö's report, there is also a need to look at the population, which needs to be better prepared. And above all we must speak to young people, so that they can have more love of homeland and defense skills.