Need for an adaptation of the EU legal framework on sustainable biofuels (debate)
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for too long Europe has pursued an ideological approach to the car sector, imposing from above choices that have weakened, if not destroyed, our industry and increasing costs for citizens and businesses, making us increasingly less competitive. Sustainable biofuels, on the other hand, are a fundamental and concrete tool, already available and strategic to strengthen European energy autonomy, guaranteeing that famous technological neutrality of which we talk too often, but which no one is putting into practice. However, we are witnessing contradictory choices, Commissioner, on the part of the European Commission itself, which, on the one hand, declares that it wants to support competitiveness and industrial sovereignty, and, on the other, proposes a negligible percentage of the use of biofuels in the automotive sector. Among these, limiting the energy use of soybean oil would seriously undermine our economic sustainability of transformation processes, harming industry, but also the agriculture sector. The ecological transition cannot become a suicide for our economy.
The attack against citizens in Modena: protecting public spaces and preventing violence in the EU (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 'you must burn, you Christian bastards': These are the words of the bomber of Modena, who said he wanted to burn "your" Jesus Christ. To the wounded and to all of Modena goes our solidarity and obviously a thought and a hug. However, we have already heard the usual well-thinking people say that he would only be a madman, who must be understood, who has Italian citizenship and that he would even be the cause of a health problem. Only a madman, of course, does such acts. But we cannot reduce everything to madness, if he had used these words, on the contrary, a Christian or a political activist, we would be talking about his religion, his nationality, his political faith, we would not be talking about mental health. A true Italian would never call Italians "Christian bastards," so not only does he have to pay, but he must possibly pay in his own country. Because if we're not clear about what happened, we risk it happening again. This is one of the fruits of that immigrant culture which, as far as we are concerned, has no reason to exist. And so, dear old Europe, defend yourself – instead of talking about the rules on electric cars – your identity and your peoples from a religious hatred that someone is continuing to import and saved from those hypocrites on the left of this Parliament, who, instead of talking about reality, are talking about racism.
EU cybersecurity and preparedness in view of advanced AI systems (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are talking about a topic of national and European security that is the topic of cybersecurity, which is increasingly strong vis-à-vis citizens, individuals, businesses, but also the fundamental and strategic sectors of our nations. I say this because it is not a simple digital voice, it is not a simple computer voice: This is a key issue to protect all of us and our nations. It is in fact news of a little more than a year ago a hacker attack on one of the servers of the Emilia‑Romagna Region that deals with all the health data of that part of Italy, people and citizens. Imagine what damage could be created if a server that manages all the health data of our European citizens were to remain blocked for several days. Is it or is it not a national security situation? Is it or is it not a European security situation? This is why we ask loudly, in front of those who say we invest in cannons, we say we invest above all in cybersecurity, we invest to save all those people who may be waiting for a specialist visit, a private exam; They need to be protected and we need to realise that national security is, and continues to be, through digital platforms.
Presentation of the Better Regulation and Enforcement Communication (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, better regulation is now central to the future of Europe, not only because we want fewer laws, but also because we need better rules and laws. In recent years, the European Union has produced a significant amount of rules, laws and bureaucracy – for goodness sake, some with shared objectives. But the problem is that too often these rules are complex, overlapping, difficult to apply, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of our production system. We must avoid a contradiction: We cannot, on the one hand, ask the Commission to simplify more and more if, on the other hand, we in this House continue to amend in ways that excessively increase bureaucracy. And we must start by cutting the laces and laces of the so-called Green Deal: It is necessary for Italy and, as the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, recalled, excessive bureaucracy is one of the main enemies of our ability to compete.
Spain’s large-scale regularisation policy and its impact on the Schengen Area and EU migration policy (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today in the European Parliament, thanks to the great work of the Brothers of Italy and all the forces of the Conservatives, we have approved the list of safe countries, which guarantees clearer returns to combat illegal immigration. But, at the same time, the government of Pedro Sánchez in Spain decides to regularize 500 000 illegal immigrants, because we do not know what else to call them, after only five months of stay. Clandestines who are now free to move within the entire Schengen area, undermining the unity of our Europe. It is an attack against the unity of Europe, it is an attack against its agreements, it is an attack on the security of our land. And even more, it is an attack on Spain. It is an attack on the Schengen Agreement. It is an attack on the unity of Europe. It is an attack on our identity and our security. And it is a damage against all countries – such as Italy – that are fighting illegal immigration every day.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the objectives of the Digital Networks Act They are shareable. It is wise to omit the fair share This would have dramatically increased costs for users. However, there are problems, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and innovative micro-enterprises, which we need to correct because common technical standards, especially for programming interfaces, risk harming small businesses. A peripheral computing start-up, for example, with innovative protocols, could risk not accessing the network. There are therefore no exemptions and protections against discriminatory prices and giants player They would risk harming the small and medium-sized enterprises that are the backbone of our European reality. The use of the regulation then, in our opinion, is wrong: sanctions, obligations, new authorities and then the forced exit from copper, the so-called peer review. Too much centralism and too much difficulty for Member States. Well modernize, but this is still, in our opinion, a legislation of the past.
Situation in Venezuela following the extraction of Maduro and the need to ensure a peaceful democratic transition (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we have woken up to many defenders of international law, professors, people who invoked the knowledge and competence of this right above the heads of all of us. But where were the defenders of international law when Maduro's communist regime decided to incarcerate people? Where were the proponents of international law when Maduro's communist regime decided to shut up political opponents? Where were the defenders of international law when the many Venezuelans forced to flee their land, simply because they did not share the ideas of who was the so-called "legitimate" president of Venezuela, found themselves seeing their fundamental rights violated? And then, perhaps, Europe, which is the cradle of international law and fundamental rights, should realize that with this act, which can be arguable, an illegitimate commander has been deposed - because I do not know how else to define him - despot of what is instead a people that deserves his freedom.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are talking about the Consumer Agenda and, among many other issues, we are dealing with the safety of our citizens, which unfortunately is undermined by millions and millions of parcels a day arriving from outside the European Union – and in particular from Southeast Asia, China and India – in our markets, without any kind of control. This is not just unfair competition to our European manufacturers, as these companies often bring products to Europe that do not meet our quality and safety standards. Try to imagine a child to whom we may give a gift at Christmas, as in this period, which has no safety standard for this boy, for this child or for this girl: This is a matter not only of competition, but of protecting the safety of our consumers. European citizens must be defended by those who do business in China and India on the backs of our security.
The urgent need to combat discrimination in the EU through the horizontal anti-discrimination directive (topical debate)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today the left would like to introduce a DDL Zan in European sauce, ending up proposing a vision, in our opinion ideological, exclusively ideological, of society, perhaps in schools, perhaps teaching in some school that it is normal for a child to have two fathers or two mothers. Do we want to talk about discrimination? So let's talk about Christians who, even in Europe, cannot access a Christmas market without being controlled for fear of Islamist terrorism. We are talking about those who cannot make a crib, who are accused of being extremists. We are talking about all those who defend life and even in this place they have been discriminated against with verbal aggression by those who are part of "My voice, my choice". We are talking about the centre-right deputies who have today been called by my colleague Ilaria Salis as fascists and extremists simply because they voted against illegal immigration. You make ideology a pound, we defend freedom.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of protecting our young people, our children and our children, but there are those who would like to do so by replacing the Member States; There are those who would like to do so with further bureaucracy; There are those who would like to do it by trying to shut someone's mouth. We conservatives, on the other hand, have a very clear idea: working with families, which remain the center of our society. This is why we want to make all Member States aware of the need to develop parental control They also call on digital platforms to do this, as there is no substitute for the fundamental role of families. And it cannot in any way replace the fundamental role of the Member States, which still have to preserve their sovereignty against those who, on the other hand, would like to hide or erase it in some way. We want more freedom, more clarity, but fewer rules that replace the sovereignty of our member countries.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all want to combat foreign interference in this House, especially when it comes to our house. It is right, however, that individual nations do so within their own countries, in full respect of the principle of national sovereignty, and that a new bureaucratic structure – so many of which we have already seen here – is not created, which ends up being able to attack a single government or a single political party at its own discretion. We are concerned that the European Shield could lead to this. Create a network of magazines for the fact-checking can silence some governments or make them considered inappropriate in the democratic space; This is what happened on some occasions when, even recently, we wanted to try to organize a mission to Italy to say that someone violated the rule of law. More freedom, more sovereignty, more subsidiarity, less control by Brussels bureaucrats.
Situation in Belarus, five years after the fraudulent presidential elections (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, five years after the 2020 elections, Belarus unfortunately remains hostage to a real regime that tramples on any democratic principle and basic freedom. Lukashenko, who has been in power for over 30 years, continues to suppress dissent and, as we have seen and talked about today, there are over 1000 political prisoners detained in inhumane conditions and this government continues to carry out policies that undermine the language, culture and identity of the Belarusian nation. We recognize and reaffirm the solidarity of the Conservatives with the Belarusian people and in particular with Sviatlana Tsichanouskaya, who is, in our view, a fundamental leader of the democratic presence within this nation. This management of power is using the pressure of mass illegal immigration to destabilize Poland and eastern Europe, similar to how someone is doing in southern Europe and across the Mediterranean. We defend our borders and the freedom of our peoples.
Mr President, Mr von der Leyen, ladies and gentlemen, Europe needs a radical and muscular change. We need to review the regulation on so-called electric cars, as we have been saying for some time, and we appreciate the openness that has been shown towards so-called biofuels. We must defend companies from unsustainable choices, in the name of a living room environmentalism that too often was ecological and sometimes ideological, without leading to concrete answers. We need to review the emissions trading system: the idea that, in order to produce, our companies must buy stocks in order to be able to pollute – a system that is not standing and is leading us to economic decline. Economic decline cannot be the fate of Europe: President Draghi said it, even the socialist commissioner of the previous term, Paolo Gentiloni, said it. This is demanded by Europeans and the main parties of our Europe: Let's change the pace, because otherwise we will go into decline.
A new legislative framework for products that is fit for the digital and sustainable transition (debate)
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are talking about this legislative initiative by Parliament, which asks the Commission to regulate where, up to now, the current rules are perhaps old, perhaps past: They need to be modernized. In particular, as regards digital presence: not only services and products of a digital nature but the possibility that, through online services, products that do not comply with the standards set at European level may arrive in our market. This is called unfair competition. Unfair competition, because while European companies, consumers and workers have to comply with environmental, sustainability and safety standards, too often they come to our markets, taking advantage of the presence of online platforms, products that do not respect European safety, health and quality standards. That is why we must fight counterfeiting, we must fight unfair competition; we must combat any type of product that is dangerous for our consumers but also harmful to competition for our businesses. Reciprocity is needed: This is why we also want to take inspiration from the excellent practices carried out by the Italian government, by the Meloni government, to combat the fast fashion and theultra-fast fashion, in particular by choosing to protect the fashion chain of the Made in Italy. We need to protect our European brands and ensure that there is no unfair competition coming through digital platforms. Will it sometimes be necessary to close the market? It might make sense. Will it sometimes be necessary to make choices of capillary control of what comes to our Europe? We'll have to do it. But this is crucial for businesses and even more so for consumers.
Promoting EU digital rules: protecting European sovereignty (debate)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by saying that I do not accept any kind of morality about what democracy is, what the rule of law is, when this House just yesterday decided to trample on the rule of law and to allow parliamentary immunity to a person like Ilaria Salis. So we do not accept any kind of comment and morality towards us. But I say one thing: too long the rules that have been approved at European level end up shutting up someone, usually those who are disliked by a certain left in this House. That is why, in order to attack Donald Trump or the United States, you end up handing us hands and feet to the digital policies and strategies developed in China, which is certainly not a liberal-democratic reality. That is why we must develop a European technological sovereignty, trying to understand a difference between who our allies are and who does not prove to be our ally. So yes, by working and holding together the united West, we must develop guarantees of technological sovereignty on our continent.
Implementation and streamlining of EU internal market rules to strengthen the single market (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Italian President, Giorgia Meloni, has already defined what, in our opinion, should be the line for the future on the system of bureaucracy. If Europe wants to start again, it must have a pragmatic vision, which reduces bureaucracy, truly supports businesses and does not make purely ideological choices. We have seen it on the subject of green dealWe have seen this in the case of excessive bureaucracies. In two words: Do less, but do it better. We want to reduce bureaucracy, increase competitiveness, have a pragmatic vision, which means not only fighting productive desertification, but it means being pragmatic going beyond a stale debate. Protecting our production sources, protecting workers who must be at the centre of all types of assessment, protecting energy supply systems: This is the Europe we want. More freedom, more pragmatism, more economic growth, less ideology.
Need for a strong European Democracy Shield to enhance democracy, protect the EU from foreign interference and hybrid threats, and protect electoral processes in the EU (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are well aware that foreign interference, information manipulation and hybrid threats endanger the freedom of our citizens, and that is precisely why the shield for democracy can be useful. But we conservatives will watch until the last day so that this does not become a pretext to shut up citizens or to silence people whose opinions are not shared. We are for freedom. This is demonstrated by the scandal of green gate, It has shown that, unfortunately, some interference exists but is more internal to the Union than external to it. And that is why, as the ECR Group, we have obtained a working group to call for the transparency of NGOs, which unfortunately have been a problem in recent years rather than a resource. Finally, the so-called chat control: We conservatives are against any system of mass surveillance. Protecting minors from abuse is a responsibility that calls us all, but it must be exercised with common sense. A firm response also to the protection of fundamental rights.
Digital Markets, Digital Euro, Digital Identities: economical stimuli or trends toward dystopia (topical debate)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are here to discuss the digital euro, electronic identity and the single market for data. These are all concepts that on paper evoke progress, growth and competitiveness. But they can also be great limits for our economic space, because sometimes instruments of freedom can become instruments of real control. I am convinced that as long as we defend cash, any digital euro instrument can be sustainable, provided that, as already provided for today in the Treaties and also in the protocols, fairness is guaranteed in the use of these instruments. But I would also like to think about the theme of digital identity. It has already happened in some countries such as China that there are still evaluation scores of citizens providing individual services only under certain conditions. This type of digital identity or system of scoring The points licence has already been judged by all European courts to be harmful to freedom. And we will always protect freedom.
State of play and follow-up two years after the PEGA recommendations and the illegal use of spyware (debate)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am taking advantage of this debate today to denounce a serious fact, which highlights all the inconsistency of the Italian and European left. I refer, in particular, to Italy, to the Paragon case, a media storm unleashed ad hoc against the Italian government following the discovery of the use of the Graphite Spyware Possibly journalists and activists. For weeks, the Meloni government has been attacked and accused of violating fundamental rights. What we have always said is to wait for Copasir, the Parliamentary Security Committee of the Republic, to declare that, at the end of the day, what did he say? Not only that there has not been any kind of initiative by the Meloni government, but even more, that if there have been initiatives against some journalists, these were held during the previous government of Giuseppe Conte, run by the Five Star and the Democratic Party. Indeed, some colleagues put a question asking whether the Italian government was really undermining the security of our democracy. We ask that they come to the House and to the committee to apologize, because perhaps the obscurantists are others.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is in economic stagnation: we have aggregate growth of less than 0.3% of GDP. This shows that the choices made to date, and also other external agents of crisis, are probably irreparably damaging our unique economy. Simplification is needed, real simplification: It is necessary to break down all this bureaucracy that we see, also caused by choices of a Community nature. A major investment in digitalisation is needed, where the European Economic Area is still lagging behind the Americas and China. And we call for genuine protection of small and micro-enterprises, which are not sufficiently mentioned in this communication. Every euro you ask companies for more bureaucracy is an extra euro that costs in the pockets of citizens. We need to understand this, to help our competitiveness and meet the needs of consumers.
The Hungarian government's drift to Russia-style repression: legislative threats to freedom of expression and democratic participation (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in Hungary democracy belongs to the people, as it should be in all European countries. Many scandals have touched these buildings, as you all know, starting from Qatar Gate, where it has been shown that organizations or, sometimes, even sovereign states, have undermined our democracy: It is there for all to see and investigations are underway. In Hungary, public revelations tell us that there are millions of dollars that every year arrive and end up in the pockets of some non-governmental organizations to oppose the government. Now, you ask us to stop the rules that the Hungarian people vote for, asking for transparency, but at the same time you are the same ones who vote for full transparency with respect to the goods that arrive in our economic space: double standards. You ask us where the timber for deforestation comes from but do not accept those who ask for transparency on resources that end up in the pockets of those who make politics. We want reciprocity, we all want transparency and, above all, equality.
Old challenges and new commercial practices in the internal market (debate)
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, while there is too much talk here in Parliament about tariffs, there is a lot of talk about import taxes, there is a lot of talk about import taxes. Green Deal, we are talking about so many agents outside the European market, we forget what we are and what we must be. Unfortunately, the data is very clear. As the rest of the world grows, Europe is basically stagnating economically. It goes on thanks only to a few countries, including Italy, but growth is still modest, generalized in our continent. We want less bureaucracy, we want better simplification, we want to leave European companies free to work and compete on equal terms with the rest of the world. And I'm sure we'll do it best. We are also calling for a major investment in artificial intelligence, with real European infrastructure that allows us not to depend on the other side of the ocean or the East, which too often is more of a danger than a resource.
High levels of retail food prices and their consequences for European consumers (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, we are seeing more and more prices for products that end up from the field to the table, to our consumers, increasing in recent years, with significant damage to all those who produce: farmers. This is because the choices made by the Green Deal by the European Commission in the previous mandate caused a steady increase in prices. While there is a certain left that talks only and exclusively about tariffs, it does not realize that if all those who have to work with the land can no longer produce it, not only producers but also consumers will pay for it. It is time to review the Green Deal. It is time to realize that agro-pharmaceuticals can serve if there are no other sustainable alternative solutions. It is appropriate to do as the Italian government is doing, which wants to change the CAP and review it fairer with less bureaucracy and really help farmers: By helping these, we will be able to have fairer and fairer prices.