Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we must force ourselves to face reality, because as Parliament today it is really embarrassing to find ourselves voting on a report which, for completely ideological reasons, deviates so much from its subject matter. We should have discussed the content of the inquiries conducted by the European Ombudsman’s Office in 2024, which reported serious failures by the Commission in the areas of transparency, civil society participation, Frontex migration management and protection of citizens’ health, as well as several instances of maladministration. The report, on the other hand, has been instrumentalised, manipulated by you – right-wing and far-right groups – to promote your agenda of environmental deregulation, of violation against migrants who died at sea; It accuses the world of NGOs of lobbying but ignores what the Ombudsman has reported. In fact, the investigations pointed out the exact opposite: a disproportionate representation of the industrial world and the unjustified exclusion of civil society from decision-making processes. These are not opinions: They're done. In recent months, I have fought, with several colleagues – whom I thank – for the text to reflect as honestly as possible the political reality that the Ombudsman’s factual inquiry work has highlighted. Come here to talk to us about the request for professionalism: But what is the professionalism of going to rewrite what the Ombudsman wrote in his report? I therefore cannot fail to consider unacceptable today the total lack of institutional respect which sets a very serious precedent in relations between Parliament and the Ombudsman's office. I hope that next year we will behave in a more respectful way and be honest with the objective work done by this office.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, twelve hours a day, without protection, without contracts, invisible. Two thousand workers are in these conditions in Treviso, in a single province of Veneto, my region, and only in agriculture. As many as 500 administration agencies are under control and this is an inhumane system against rights, against quality, of which we fill our mouths, while in the name of competitiveness crushed the weakest. This is not the good social, Christian Europe. We want strict European rules: maximum two levels of subcontracting, prohibition of subcontracting of core business and more controls to unmask abuses. Colleagues, we demand a directive that makes invisible people visible. Deaths at work, exploitation, degrading housing are not a coincidence, but the result of a system that we have a moral duty to dismantle.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to say that we, the Greens, for example, have always stood by our Green Party colleagues who have been imprisoned or expelled or endangered in Venezuela, number one. Point number two: These days the liberation of our fellow citizen Alberto Trentini in Veneto is presented as a great victory, among other things, as a great victory for the Italian government. 423 days is not a victory. 423 days of imprisonment in the silence of Italian diplomacy that decided to act only after Trump's attack. So my question is: Why do we talk to Rodriguez, who is Maduro's deputy? Today he has dialogued with her only to adapt and kneel to the Trumpist strategy.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Iranian embassies in Europe are writing and threatening Iranian citizens in Europe, intimidating them to have their silence. Let no one inform, let no one dare talk about what is happening – women, young people killed at the hands of diabolical groups, who must be declared for what they are: terrorists – but this is prevented by the Italian government in Meloni. On the other hand, for you Netanyahu is not a criminal and therefore not even the Pasdaran are, right? Meanwhile, 12,000 people have died in two weeks. Defending freedom of speech and calling those responsible by their names is a political and moral duty.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, dear Commissioner, the citizens' initiative 'My voice, my choice' has exceeded the signature threshold and been formally submitted to the European Commission. As Parliament, we have a duty to examine and discuss the request expressed by Europeans. This instrument is one of the most important tools of direct democracy provided by the Treaties. They allow civil society to have a voice on priority issues that directly affect our daily lives. I welcome the remarkable civic engagement and public participation that this initiative demonstrates. 'My voice, my choice' focuses on our personal health, on liberty, on human dignity, calling on the European Union to ensure safe and legal access to voluntary termination of pregnancy across the Union, while reducing inequalities through solidarity measures, in full respect of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights and of Member State competences as expressed in the Treaty on European Union. The PETI Committee has followed this initiative closely, aware of its sensitive nature. The European Parliament will continue ensuring this initiative receives proper attention from all EU institutions, because the right of abortion is not a given and it is perceived differently across our society. But personal conviction cannot be imposed through laws that deny others safe access to healthcare. As politicians, we represent communities that are no longer based on a single set of values. Our responsibility is not to impose our own views, but to recognise the diversity and shape a common path – a safe framework that guarantees medical, psychological and social support so that no one is left alone and even the most painful choices can be faced with dignity and care.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, twelve years ago I was a young farmer and I felt alone: suffocating bureaucracy, exorbitant costs for land, access to prohibitive credit and generational renewal, an obstacle race. I couldn't grow up, I struggled a lot. Twelve years later I want no other young farmer to be in the same situation as me. Because an entrepreneur can't just hope for a breakthrough, he has to see it. If not, who will be able to produce food from now on? This simplification makes progress – for organics, for small producers – but much of the bureaucracy remains, because it is the responsibility of the Member States. Yet you talk so much about deregulation, but never about what we can do directly, what we can make a difference here in Europe. The power of large retailers depreciating our work, the lack of funds and strategies for rural areas or for continuing to produce food in the climate crisis: I would really like to see you with the same enthusiasm and commitment to solve these problems, which are much more difficult than removing some environmental conditionality, because they require vision and above all political courage. We can be so many, young people and women, let us in and let us stay in agriculture.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, how afraid is the truth? And freedom of the press is the beating heart of democracy. That's true. And without the precious work of journalists, such as Sigfrido Ranucci, those who want to commit crime at the expense of the community and, at times, even in the political class, would have no more than to fear. And instead we find ourselves, after 40 years, again reading about bombs placed under the house of journalists, bombs that could have killed those who work for the truth and his family. Italy this year fell, unfortunately, again in the ranking of freedom of the press, reaching the forty-ninth position. We also have the courage to ask ourselves why after these episodes? Fortunately, in these days together we have heard many words of solidarity, which is very important, and therefore together today we must commit ourselves to move on to the facts. For example, stop using lawsuits as a tool against those who do their job with seriousness and responsibility, because the truth only scares those who act for their personal and political interests, rather than for the community. And so our solidarity is strong.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for health and environmental crises such as the PFAS crisis, reality must be considered pragmatically. Data is essential but insufficient to date. Therefore, it is good to work on solutions such as the database of alternatives to move from the old – dangerous and polluting – to the new, demonstrating that Europe can drive innovation in chemistry towards a safe and sustainable future. Attention, however: There is no need for a new data platform if companies can still choose what to tell and what to hide. We need real transparency, new investments in independent research and funds for agencies such as ECHA, which are asked to do more without giving it the proper resources. The precautionary principle is not a favor but is the minimum due to those who breathe, drink, eat dangerous substances that they have not chosen every day. It is the right to remain in one's own land, protected and made healthy by politicians who do not wait for the dead to defend life. PFAS are a lesson in humility: They remind us that politics without choice becomes propaganda and anyone who says otherwise probably has not seen people poisoned by these companies suffer.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Italy those who grow industrial hemp are treated like criminals. This is one of the examples of the results of your European deregulation: Fake flexibility creates disparities between states, leaving sectors at the mercy of national whims. We are calling for clear and lighter strategies for agriculture, and in this report I have proposed that you do so for a sector, namely hemp, and we are succeeding. So thank you, because we finally succeed and we start to defend a supply chain that diversifies income, regenerates soils, creates opportunities and is made mainly by young people and also by women. Farmers need new sustainable strategies to generate income, not obstacles, safe and transparent contracts and a ban on selling below production cost, and sustainable because water and fertile soil are not infinite. What do you do instead? Banned terms like "vegetable burgers," tiring a new market instead of supporting it. You do it out of cowardice or to protect those who are afraid. Afraid of whom? Who produces vegetables or who doesn't want to eat animals?

You talked about the very serious terrorist attack, you talked about Hamas, you talked about the evil that Hamas did. I would like to know your thoughts on what Netanyahu said in 2019 at a public conference of his party, when he said: “Anyone who wants to obstruct the creation of a Palestinian state must support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy, which is to isolate Palestinians in Gaza from Palestinians in the West Bank and support Hamas. What do you think of the responsibilities...

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is true that cohesion policy has a problem with the use of funds, but instead of correcting the mistakes made here, within this institution, the bureaucracy has turned it into an ATM for large companies and for making mega infrastructures. And with the excuse of defense from tomorrow you can divert billions destined for less developed regions, or poisoned, for the construction, for example, of a bridge over the Strait: excellent investment, which are also classified as climatic. Or, give an avalanche of public money to a few big defense companies, which is obviously a simpler method of using these funds immediately, rather than giving them to many local small and medium-sized businesses, right? Here's the whole thing, think a little bit, with less transparency. Why do we ever know where and how our funds are actually used and this, I am sorry, is not respecting the foundation of cohesion policy. What will remain to defend ourselves against the climate crisis, to defend our social policies, small and medium-sized enterprises, health, services and rural communities? Orbán thanks you very much, since with this vote he will be able to continue to use the funds while still violating fundamental rights. This is something that we Greens will continue to fight against.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, drought is putting us in trouble, presenting us with the bill: 50 billion in 2022 alone, 5 million agricultural workers on their knees due to lack of water. Crops have collapsed, soils are degrading, biodiversity loss accelerates: This is climate normality in Europe, of which you are complicit today. Those who work the land, taking real care of it, are not valued, they are not recognized. A living soil that retains water, biodiversity necessary to produce food, which is a common good: This is what they do, these are the farmers, true custodians of our future. And as such they must be supported. We will soon discover the strategy of the common agricultural policy of the future. Concrete, stable and accessible tools are needed, and this strategy has a name: agroecology. Commissioner, let us stop pursuing the interests of those who do not want to change and let us finally build an agricultural policy that protects those who protect us.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when a candidate is forced to escape the blows of a hit man, the alarm for the whole democracy of a country is clear. The attempted murder of Miguel Uribe Turbay reminds us that political violence in Colombia, unfortunately, is not yet a closed chapter. In order to fulfil our role as Europe, it is essential to reject violence from now on and not to exacerbate political fronts and conflicts. Because if the political debate slips into the language of intimidation, then those who want violence win, and the most fragile people pay for it. That is why since this institution we must build relationships of dialogue and not arouse the conflict, already extremely polarized, because this puts at risk the communities that are struggling to defend their rights, starting with that of their own land, and that in Colombia is an extremely complex and risky struggle, in which people also lose their lives. So all this, if we do not behave responsibly, will frustrate the work done to defend the first peace agreement with the FARC and all the efforts carried out by the government, in particular Petro.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the colleagues with whom I have dealt with this path both in the Committee on Agriculture and in the Committee on Regional Development, because finally there is talk of using cohesion policy to really support rural areas, not only in agriculture, but also to guarantee essential services, opportunities for young people, women, parents, or to invest in the ecological transition to defend small businesses from the climate crisis or projects such as energy communities, which restore power to citizens. Beware of hypocrisy: with one hand we vote for non-legislative texts that celebrate cohesion for rural areas, with the other we support legislative changes that risk diverting those same funds towards defence and large companies. It is a contradiction that is serious, because if it is difficult to find the funds to build a common defence strategy, the solution is not to encourage as many as 27 national ones using the only real funds of European social policy, because weapons do not combat depopulation. Cohesion must help communities, not war industries with record profits. What about regions at risk? Cohesion funds must provide their citizens with social services, medical services and secure facilities. But moving resources from rural areas to military production, perhaps without transparency, is a betrayal of the spirit of cohesion. Let's find more resources. Tomorrow we will vote on a clear proposal for the future of European funds for rural areas. Let us find the courage to be consistent also in the next acts.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the colleagues with whom I have dealt with this path both in the Committee on Agriculture and in the Committee on Regional Development, because finally there is talk of using cohesion policy to really support rural areas, not only in agriculture, but also to guarantee essential services, opportunities for young people, women, parents, or to invest in the ecological transition to defend small businesses from the climate crisis or projects such as energy communities, which restore power to citizens. Beware of hypocrisy: with one hand we vote for non-legislative texts that celebrate cohesion for rural areas, with the other we support legislative changes that risk diverting those same funds towards defence and large companies. It is a contradiction that is serious, because if it is difficult to find the funds to build a common defence strategy, the solution is not to encourage as many as 27 national ones using the only real funds of European social policy, because weapons do not combat depopulation. Cohesion must help communities, not war industries with record profits. What about regions at risk? Cohesion funds must provide their citizens with social services, medical services and secure facilities. But moving resources from rural areas to military production, perhaps without transparency, is a betrayal of the spirit of cohesion. Let's find more resources. Tomorrow we will vote on a clear proposal for the future of European funds for rural areas. Let us find the courage to be consistent also in the next acts.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I come from one of the territories in Europe most contaminated by PFAS and I am also a farmer, so you can also imagine how important water resilience is to me, how important the protection of this resource is. That is why, rereading the words of this own-initiative report, I admit that it was a great disappointment to see that we focus almost exclusively on great engineering solutions, but inconsistent, and rely on reiterating false promises of an exclusively technological nature to solve instead a need, that of agriculture, that of the drinking system, which is to use the best solutions for capacity and economy, drawing on the knowledge of the past, and the best research that guarantees us to reduce the use of resources. You do not know how difficult it really was to read that there are still reticences in banning PFAS definitively, in accompanying the entire production system, not just some sectors, to ban the use of PFAS and to find alternative strategic solutions. Health is protected and natural resources are protected without compromise.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot make Europe's poorest and most at-risk citizens pay for their weapons. Cohesion policy is at the heart of the Union: It serves to innovate, to give future to mountain and rural communities, to give to the lands affected by the climate crisis a hope, and solutions to those who live in polluted areas, isolated or without opportunities. Instead, they want to empty it to finance military spending. What common defense is this, if in the meantime we leave behind those who need support, networks, services? The mid-term review should strengthen and simplify cohesion, not reduce it in view of the next budget, sacrificing millions of people to favour a few players in the war industry. President von der Leyen shows little interest in social policies. I therefore appeal to you, Vice-President Fitto: Defend cohesion, defend your mandate. Do not confuse cards, hiding weapons behind words such as decent housing and water resilience. Our strength lies in the ability to build not 27, but a just, fair and united European future.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed a great 'wow', because competitiveness in agriculture is back at its core. I fear, however, that in your vision, Commissioner, competitiveness depends, for the most part, on the weight of agriculture in global trade and on the ability to guarantee healthy food for Europeans. So, ladies and gentlemen, together we must lead European agriculture to regain its autonomy, to no longer be held hostage by the oligopolies of the multinationals that control the markets, the genetics of our seeds, chemistry and now also the transition to organic and agroecology, wanting to control and distort them more and more. For example, in your vision, Commissioner, the central ecosystem services, generated by farmers working in symbiosis with agriculture, want to deliver them to the market without protection. So, this time again, instead of being an income opportunity for farmers, the market will have control. The same market that today leaves only 7% of the price paid by consumers in the pockets of farmers. Commissioner, working for a fair wage is also a right for us farmers. Give us back control of this.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the negotiations between the Italian Government and Elon Musk on Starlink are a strategic issue for the sovereignty and security of the Union. Meloni wants to cede government and military communications to Trump's key man, Musk himself, who supports the German far right with the aim of destabilizing European institutions. What other interferences and how many others do we want to accept? Do we really want our classified information networks to be operated by a non-European company? Remember what happened when Musk cut off access to Starlink in Ukraine? Hurrying is not worth the expense. European right-wingers go to Trump's knees and he thanked us by taxing our strategic industries. But now we want to sell others too? It is unacceptable that Prime Minister Meloni continues to want to bring the enemy into the house, and with Starlink she does so. An alternative European project to Starlink is: is IRIS2. Let's support him. The European Union must develop an autonomous infrastructure, to avoid geopolitical blackmail and to ensure our security.