Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report seems, at times, to be a political manifesto of the European left: the rule of law used as a tool to brandish against governments that do not obey, against peoples who vote "evil", against those who defend their identity. It's a game we know well. But allow me a deeper reflection: We are faced with an almost philosophical claim. It is not enough to check compliance with the rules; You want to educate people. You want to transform the rule of law into the ethical state of the left, a bureaucratic and moralistic caricature, an apparatus that proclaims itself superior, decides what is good, establishes which governments are presentable and which voters must be corrected. Citizens are not unruly students to be re-educated and right-wing governments are not pathological deviations to be brought back to the right path. But the wind has changed and the rule of law also means respecting the will of the people. Stop treating conservative voters as a problem to correct: We are defending the rule of law. You only defend the right to govern even when you lose elections.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Green Deal It has produced one of the most complex regulatory architectures ever seen in the energy sector: an unprecedented multiplication of increasingly ambitious regulations. Brussels imposed target increasingly stringent but families and businesses faced higher bills and loss of competitiveness. Today, the Commission is presenting this package with the aim, among others, of involving all citizens in the energy transition. That's great! But we cannot ignore the context. This package comes after an unprecedented energy crisis and policies whose failure is in plain sight. Europe continues to respond to the difficulties with new packages, new strategies and new communications, instead of addressing the problem at its root. Without a structural reform of the Green Deal, such initiatives are only timid attempts to correct the imbalances created by those very policies. Do we want to put citizens at the centre? Then we must have the courage to say that the Green Deal, as it was conceived, was a failure. We need a thorough overhaul of that plant that focuses on energy security, competitiveness and sustainable prices for families and businesses. We need a major overhaul of the CBAM ETS and its immediate suspension, because the energy transition must be sustainable not only for the climate but also for the European economy and citizens.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for too long Europe has been pretending not to see. Uncontrolled immigration was justified as inevitable, while in fact the political agenda was dictated under the impetus of immigration lobbies. Those who lived outside the reality rejoiced, while our territories were crushed under unmanageable pressure, which left the isolated administrations and citizens in a perpetual state of insecurity. And today we continue to pay the consequences. Yes, because uncontrolled immigration, the policy of open doors has not allowed any serious integration, but, on the contrary, has condemned and continues to condemn thousands of immigrants to cultural poverty, economic misery, often consigns them to crime and fuels degradation and insecurity, with a worrying religious radicalization in the background. But finally something changes. Europe is rediscovering the compass of common sense. Colleagues, migration is not a terrain for ideological confrontation: It is the test bed between those who know the territories and their difficulties and those who have seen our neighborhoods only on television. Today we change step. Effective returns, agreements with third countries to combat the phenomenon at its root and to build the core principle of the right to remain before the right to emigrate, focusing on the control of external borders and the prevention of irregular departures. We govern immigration with humanity, but also with firmness, because defending borders means defending the dignity of people and the future of our communities.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I also take the floor on behalf of my colleague, Mrs Kanko. The two dossiers we are debating provide essential operational tools for quickly distinguishing between those who are entitled to international protection and those who are not. This is a prerequisite for overcoming the uncertainties that have weakened the effectiveness of European asylum policies. This is not a technical step: This is the necessary condition to focus resources and administrative capacity on those in real need, reducing abuses of the system and alleviating the pressure on our borders. The work carried out in LIBE – and for this I thank all my colleagues – has strengthened the texts, improving the Commission’s proposal from a technical and legal point of view. Now it is up to us to confirm this path. Europe and the Member States are waiting for concrete responses, clear rules, swift procedures and credible tools to strengthen border control and ensure security for citizens, of course while respecting fundamental rights and international obligations. Let's finally go back to governing and not undergoing immigration.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, this report is an important step towards implementing the new pact, recognising Italy's central role in managing flows and defending borders. This step, however, must be translated into real operational capacity, and we look forward to fully assessing its contents once the Council decision is taken. The fact is that Member States need concrete tools to deal with migratory pressure, and it is our duty to make sure that they arrive on time. The focus, therefore, must shift decisively on the external dimension: working at the root of the problem, making binding agreements with countries of origin and transit and disrupting routes operated by smugglers. The report itself recognises that the reduction of landings in Italy is the result of effective cooperation with third countries, a pragmatic model that Europe must extend and support. In this direction we are already working: from the anticipation of some key elements of the Pact to the dossier on returns and on the list of safe third countries, which can make the European system more coherent and uniform. We cannot afford delays: It is time to return to governing causes, not to resort to effects.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one year after the tragic story of Novi Sad, we are faced with a complex situation that requires first and foremost responsibility. Serbia is going through months of polarization with widespread protests and a confrontation between the government and the opposition that has tightened. There is no doubt that the State's response must remain anchored in the rule of law. However, it would be a mistake to read this crisis only as a problem of public order: It is a clear sign of a balance that is breaking down. The latest Eurobarometer survey reports that Serbia's accession to the European Union is supported by only 33% of Serbian citizens, the lowest level among the candidate countries. This means that if Europe loses political ground in Belgrade, players with competing interests, such as China and Russia, benefit from it, with negative repercussions for regional stability. This is why the Union must maintain a balanced and constructive approach, relaunching a European offer of inclusive development and dialogue. Only in this way can we prevent disappointment from turning into detachment and detachment from becoming geopolitical detachment: It would be a defeat for European interests.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the attack on Ranucci is a very serious event: I express my full solidarity with him, his family and the editorial staff of Report. We strongly condemn this intimidation: The freedom of investigative reporters is an indispensable pillar of our democracies. The Italian government has made every effort to identify and punish the perpetrators, because violence against a journalist is an offense to the entire democratic community. Politics, like journalists, however, should follow an indispensable polar star: the search for and respect for the truth. It means not manipulating reality for partisan purposes. I say this because someone has suggested that the cowardly attack may have been inspired by an intimidating atmosphere towards the press by the Italian government, a consideration that must be declassified as a defamatory lie, especially when it comes from those who, in the recent past, called journalists "pennivendoli" and "instruments of the regime" and today, instead, manifest for freedom of expression. With what lack of responsibility can one approach a bomb, a terrorist act to a democratically elected government in a country where information and freedom are constitutionally guaranteed? Are journalists under threat, Mr Rootolo? Yes, but not by the government. These considerations are offensive to the intelligence of anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty. Our solidarity with Ranucci is absolute. Even more so today, after his statements discarding the political motive for the attack: A demonstration of how you can have different ideas but sharing what defending freedom of the press means respecting the truth of the facts.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for years this Parliament has preferred to turn a blind eye to reality. There has been talk of unlimited reception, of open doors, as if our States were able to absorb a continuous flow of arrivals without consequences. Today, however, even those who denied the evidence are forced to recognize reality: That model has failed. Migration is no longer a terrain of ideological confrontation. Realistically, we have to admit that our social reception systems cannot withstand pressure of this size and that no integration is possible in this way. The result is that the rights of those who really flee from wars and persecution are trampled on, because the system collapses under the weight of those who enter without any title. And, of course, the security implications of our citizens are there for all to see. The facts speak for themselves: entire districts that have become red areas, where degradation and violence are unfortunately the order of the day. This is why one of the most decisive seasons opens today; In this House, we are debating concrete instruments such as the reinforcement of returns, the consistent application of the safe third country principle and the common list of safe countries.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, every citizen has the right to demonstrate and express his or her vision of the world. Absolutely, but this right applies to everyone, not only to those who are aligned with the dominant vision or, better, to the most mainstream. Because, you know, the real problem is when you pretend to turn a political vision into dogma, using the European institutions to target those with different sensitivities and values, which for some are not as legitimate. We are talking about defending fundamental rights against right-wing attacks, but in reality we are pointing the finger at entire democratically elected governments, at people who have simply chosen another path. The Pride of Budapest is cited as a symbol of resistance, but the last, the defenseless and the forgotten were not parading, as we have heard these days: There were all the political, cultural and progressive elites, activists funded by the usual well-known and influencers of all sorts. A fantastic picture that, from the top of festive wagons branded by multinationals, pontificates on what is right for every people. The reality, gentlemen, is much simpler than you would expect: If you want your ideas to become law, convince the citizens and win elections. Otherwise, accept that there are different policies that are contrary to your beliefs. This is how democracy works or should work.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, every citizen has the right to demonstrate and express his or her vision of the world. Absolutely, but this right applies to everyone, not only to those who are aligned with the dominant vision or, better, to the most mainstream. Because, you know, the real problem is when you pretend to turn a political vision into dogma, using the European institutions to target those with different sensitivities and values, which for some are not as legitimate. We are talking about defending fundamental rights against right-wing attacks, but in reality we are pointing the finger at entire democratically elected governments, at people who have simply chosen another path. The Pride of Budapest is cited as a symbol of resistance, but the last, the defenseless and the forgotten were not parading, as we have heard these days: There were all the political, cultural and progressive elites, activists funded by the usual well-known and influencers of all sorts. A fantastic picture that, from the top of festive wagons branded by multinationals, pontificates on what is right for every people. The reality, gentlemen, is much simpler than you would expect: If you want your ideas to become law, convince the citizens and win elections. Otherwise, accept that there are different policies that are contrary to your beliefs. This is how democracy works or should work.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the rule of law is a pillar of the European Union and no one questions it. Ensuring independent justice systems, respect for fundamental freedoms and proper institutional balances must be a common interest. There can be no ambiguity about this. However, we cannot ignore what is happening in this House. An instrument born with the purpose of technical monitoring and constructive dialogue has progressively become a means of political and ideological pressure. We are going through the rule of law to the rule of left. Instead of merely photographing reality in different legal systems, ideological judgements are proposed, unilateral standards are defined and recommendations are formulated that have little to do with the protection of the rule of law and much to do with the ambition to guide the political choices of the Member States. It is not acceptable for the rule of law to be used to condition democratically elected governments just because it does not align with an arbitrarily superior political vision. It is not acceptable that attempts should be made to impose social, cultural and regulatory models in areas clearly falling within national competence. This approach undermines the legitimacy of European monitoring itself, fuels distrust and drives citizens away from the institutions. Defending the rule of law also means defending the freedom of the peoples of Europe to decide according to their own traditions, sensitivities and values. Because, perhaps it is useful to remember, the rule of law cannot be used to impose from above what citizens reject at the polls.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the fight against discrimination is a fundamental principle, but we cannot continue to repeat the same slogans over and over again, ignoring reality. It is hypocrisy to believe that if reality does not coincide with one's own convictions, it is reality that is wrong. As an administrator, I have dealt directly with the problems related to Roma communities and I know that integration is not just a question of resources or strategy, it is first and foremost a question of will and respect for the rules. For years it has been insisted on the marginalization of Roma, but the truth is that many of these communities choose to live separately, organizing themselves in settlements that refuse any contact with institutions. We cannot speak of exclusion when it is an autonomous, deliberate, convinced choice. In many cities of Europe there are neighborhoods where the state is absent, not because it does not want to be there, but because those who live reject it. Can we accept this? I don't think so. Integration cannot be a one-way concept: Those who want to be part of our society must respect its laws, send their children to school, work, contribute to the development of the community to which they belong. We cannot tolerate free zones where other rules apply, where we live by expedients and where the state enters only to collect rubble after an emergency. This is not the Europe we want. Public money has been spent on hundreds of integration projects with very modest results. If it is right to protect minorities, let us not forget the majorities; Majorities exasperated by people who steal, steal, do not work, do not send their children to school, exploit minors and pregnant women to avoid justice. The European Union must stop imposing models that do not actually work: I know that for integration we need more teachers than policemen, but there can be no integration without responsibility, nor rights without duties.

Mr President, Commissioner Brunner, ladies and gentlemen, we welcome the new internal security strategy, an important step in providing effective tools against increasingly complex and evolving threats. Strengthening Frontex and Europol is a necessity: For too long, Europe has faced crises with inadequate means, unable to respond promptly and decisively to the challenges of our time. Terrorism, organised crime, trafficking in human beings, hybrid threats require a solid strategy and enhanced cooperation between Member States. However, we must avoid a mistake: moving from an emergency policy to a policy dictated by fear. Security is not built with alarmism, but with authoritative strategic planning; Threats exist and must be firmly addressed. Therefore, we need to strengthen border control, fight illegal immigration and radicalisation, protect citizens; We must take decisive action against organised crime, which exploits the weaknesses of our system, and against hybrid threats. Commissioner, Europe shows that it is strong and that it is not afraid of the challenges ahead.

No, there's no undermining of the court. Just think of the case, the case, and that is that the sanctions were issued for the Netanyahu and Israel issue. We do not think we are equating the only democracy in the Middle East with a handful of cutthroats that you defend.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, tonight we are debating the independence or decay of international institutions such as the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice? Do we discuss how to protect justice or its political use disconnected from reality and the raison d'être of the state? What independence is there when a court uses the word "genocide" in reference to Netanyahu or investigates Italy for protecting national security? To those who, with contempt for ridicule, speak of Meloni blackmailed, it escapes us that we do not choose our neighbors, and that on strategic issues such as energy, terrorism and immigration we do not always deal with delicate diplomats or mature democracies, but with governments whose legitimacy is based on parameters very far from ours, like it or not. Those who do not understand that arresting a government leader – be it Netanyahu, Putin or the Libyan police chief and, why not, Kim Jong Un or Lukashenko and many others – is not a neutral legal action, but a potentially incendiary act, which certainly puts those who implement it and those who suffer it in a position of conflict, with consequences that evidently ignore those who approach such delicate issues ideologically and instrumentally. That is why we must say clearly that this debate is not born to defend international justice, but to strike at non-ideologically aligned governments. Once again, the left demonstrates its desire to exploit institutions for political ends, turning a legal issue into a weapon against a democratically elected executive. Take the case of Al Masri: the Italian Government has acted in full compliance with the rules. The Criminal Court did not send valid documents, preventing the Court of Appeal of Rome from proceeding with the arrest. Despite this, Italy has nevertheless guaranteed security, with its expulsion. But for the left the truth does not matter, the only goal is to attack the Italian government. We will not allow our country to become the target of international power games. We will not remain silent while attempting to discredit the Italian government with fabricated accusations. We will defend Italy's sovereignty and the credibility of its institutions, rejecting any attempt at political manipulation, which wants to turn the Criminal Court into a partisan instrument.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the situation in Serbia today is the result of years of uncertainty. On the one hand, the progress on the European path is highlighted and, on the other hand, the ongoing protests seem to prove the opposite. It should be remembered that Belgrade acknowledged the validity of the protests, took responsibility for them, with the resignation of the prime minister and the mayor of Novi Sad and prosecuted those responsible for the violence. Serbia is a strategic partner in the Balkans and it is right to call for a concrete commitment to reforms, but to speed up the accession process, not slow it down. The real question is about us: What do we want to do with Serbia? Do we want to facilitate its entry or do we leave it in a gray area? Because if we choose not to decide, we cannot be surprised if Belgrade strengthens its ties with Russia, China and the Arab Emirates, seeking investment and support, while its citizens develop growing indifference towards Europe. Politics is a matter of choice: either we build a credible accession path with Serbia, or we agree to lose a strategic partner in a region that is crucial for our security and stability.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, every year more than 90% of the irregulars arriving in Europe rely on the vile services of smugglers. According to Europol, this traffic is worth around €6 billion a year, fuelling criminal activities on a global scale. Criminal organisations exploit migrants and the weakness of our borders to facilitate inhuman trafficking, which puts the lives of thousands of people at risk and promotes unmanageable immigration. In this context, we cannot ignore the role, at least ambiguous, of some NGOs, whose work facilitates traffickers, acting as a pull factor and facilitating the completion of illegal routes. It is essential that NGOs operate in full transparency and in coordination with European authorities. Europe must show that it is up to the challenge of security and justice. We agree, Commissioner: Europol needs to be strengthened with adequate resources and expertise to dismantle criminal networks, more cooperation with third countries, in particular those of origin and transit, and strong bilateral agreements, including border control and return and not foolish immigration policies.

Mr President, Madam High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, the Assad regime in Syria has collapsed, taking all the major world powers by surprise. The same can be said for the terrorist attack by Hamas. This raises the serious question, in unstable global quadrants, about the efficiency of intelligence and diplomatic services. Assad was a ruthless dictator – there is no doubt about that – but I believe that Europe needs to look more aloof at what is happening, before celebrating a sort of pluralistic turn: prudence for Turkey's roles and unscrupulous attitude; caution because the weakening of Putin and his withdrawal from Syria could lead to a retreat to Libya, finding the Russian fleet in front of the Strait of Sicily; caution because al-Jolani's soul is mixed with jihadist thought and because the factions in the field could lead to a fight of all against all and a consequent migratory earthquake. The temporary suspension of asylum applications for Syrian citizens, adopted by many countries, reflects the urgency of addressing the challenges in a responsible and coordinated manner. If the hope is that the will to start a virtuous path in Syria is sincere, its reconstruction requires respect for its territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. But our help must demand the rejection of all extremism, respect for international law and diplomatic representations and the protection of minorities.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if a man is not willing to take risks for his ideas, or his ideas are worth nothing or he is worth nothing. This sentence of Pound perfectly outlines the spirit of Daphne Caruana Galizia, a courageous journalist who made life and the search for truth one thing, to the point of putting life itself before the fight against the corruption of his country. A very difficult battle to break Pandora's box of admixtures between government and malfeasance, which first cost her declarations of hatred, then a bomb, a device with which illicit corruptions were wanted to remain hidden, continuing to crush the body of Malta. Seven years on, there are still many unanswered questions about Daphne's case and we must strongly call for significant results from the Maltese Government in improving the judiciary and substantive freedoms. Honoring memory, however, means keeping alive the flame that burns in the hearts of journalists immune from any conditioning, witnesses of social and civil function and information that exposes mafias, bullying, criminal systems. Information is freedom, especially where it is fragile or held hostage. Paraphrasing Jünger, remembering all those who gave their lives for the sake of truth, they lived in a time when it was necessary to be courageous and having courage means being up to any destiny.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the external dimension is fundamental to the management of immigration and cannot be separated from the development of strong cooperation between countries of origin, transit and final destination of flows. Frontex is a central player in the scheme and any initiative aimed at enhancing its external action should be encouraged. It is therefore desirable that part of the legal framework applicable to the common foreign and security policy be applied to the Agency's work in third countries. Frontex must be given greater autonomy and powers to intervene in capacity building. In fact, so far, some attempts at cooperation or agreements with third-country authorities have been wrecked, as Frontex is not considered by those authorities to be a useful interlocutor to offer resources and technical assistance directly. Moreover, the lack of reliability of some third countries on the issues of respect for fundamental rights cannot constitute an obstacle to the Agency's intervention, since, in appropriate circumstances, its action aimed at transferring their international standards to border management must be desirable.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Schengen area is a precious asset that must be protected, but more and more states are showing a willingness to implement stringent measures to better control immigration, to counter the undue migratory pressure to the social consequences it entails, to stop human trafficking, to prevent the risk of synergies between organised crime and terrorism, to protect Europe's historical, cultural and civil features. However, the reintroduction of border controls is a limited instrument. Rather, Europe needs to change its order of priorities from how to manage internal movements to how to defend external borders. Frontex data certified the effectiveness of the Meloni government's strategy, which from the beginning focused on the external dimension, with rational, non-ideological policies, to block illegal departures through equal cooperation with the countries of departure or transit. The so-called "Mattei Plan" must become the pole star of the European Union, in the spirit of Global Gateway, targeted at the areas from which it originates, from which illegal immigration originates and originates. If it is true that we need migration quotas, then it must be governed, of quality and compatible with our cultural heritage.