Speeches

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I was undecided whether to speak in today's debate, because it seems to me largely a farce for what is happening. There would be talk of democratic pluralism and anti-corruption policies in Europe. And yet, a few weeks ago, the elections in Romania were cancelled: one candidate was excluded from the race, when he was first among all the polls. Does this democratic pluralism seem to you? Commissioner Breton entered the German election a few weeks ago, saying that if a party he doesn't like had been elected, he would probably have asked to cancel this election. Is this a choice of democratic pluralism for you? In France, Marine Le Pen is now declared ineligible for five years without having a final degree of judgment, so even her ability to appeal or appeal the sentence that has arrived, yet already the political sentence is final. Is this a choice of democratic pluralism for you? No, let's talk about corruption! Corruption, unfortunately, is too often within these palaces; We have seen this with the case of Qatargate – in fact, largely because of MPs who are part of the left-wing area. Money to say that women are respected in Qatar. We work for a different Europe, where there is no corruption, there is freedom and there is no fear of what comes from democratic elections.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, last July we voted against the reappointment of Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission because we did not share a large part of the proposals that were in continuity with the previous mandate. The idea of moving towards a continuous decarbonization that, unfortunately, destroyed our production system. A plan like the one on the car industry that literally massacres our productivity. And a wrong choice, in our opinion, in the field of illegal immigration. But, finally, here, in the European Parliament, there is a big component: the conservative component, which can really change the future of our Europe, starting from our identities and traditions, protecting what are our founding values, believing in the plan of competitiveness and protecting our companies. Last but not least, make the choice to really defend ourselves, without talking about wars, invasion that is not what we want to do. This must be the future of Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the line of the Italian Government, the Meloni Government, on illegal immigration has finally become the line of the whole of Europe. Finally, there is talk of preventing departures at origin, concluding bilateral agreements with the countries of the South of the Mediterranean to prevent those who do not have the right to asylum in Europe from leaving. And for the first time we've said what we've been saying for a long time: It is necessary to have a European return order, concluding agreements with third countries. There is someone like Ilaria Salis who calls it deportation: But we are doing nothing but defending the borders of Europe and the borders of Italy, as we have committed ourselves to the voters and as we will continue to do from now on, also at European level. We finally got something we've been saying for a long time: not only a reduction of more than 65% of departures from the Central Mediterranean but also a drastic decrease in deaths at sea. If no one leaves, no one risks their lives.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we have to talk about a debate of the utmost importance: the dangerous collaboration that would exist between the conservatives and the so-called extreme right. Now, we are certainly not of the extreme right, but surely those who proposed this debate have shown extreme stupidity. Why do I say that? Because while we are trying to change Europe, you continue to waste time feeding it into ideological discourses. The great truth is that it bothers you that there is someone who is tearing down the ideological choices of the world. Green Deal, such as car sector choices green, the ecological housing sector, all the damage you are creating and causing to our farmers and farms. So yes, all our proposals will find great support, certainly from those who want to save Europe and avoid its decline. Maybe you should, too.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have a point of order pursuant to Rule 202 of our Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. In fact, today is February 10 and in Italy, by law 92 of 2004, we celebrate the Day of Remembrance, which protects the honor of the martyrs of the foibe and the exiles of Istria, Rijeka and Dalmatia, sentenced to death and exiled for the fault of the communist brigades of the dictator Tito Yugoslav. If we want to pacify, we must remember all the victims of communism and also these, who touched my country in particular, and remember the martyrs of the foibe. For the first time there will be an exhibition here in Strasbourg.