Speeches

Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for your interventions and your support. The needs are urgent, so we must move urgently making a collective effort so that Restore can be adopted and enter into force already this December. We cannot afford to lose even one day. Europe stands with the regions and citizens affected by natural disasters. This is a concrete and tangible expression of our solidarity. Today also marks a first step in our work together. I believe this has been a promising start. I do share many of your concerns, especially the absolute necessity to build back better. At the same time, the Cohesion Policy cannot be the solution to all major crises, as attention cannot be diverted from the long term, such as reducing disparities. For me, this discussion is evidence of the common ground between us; a strong foundation on which to build five years of work together, ensuring that in our Europe, no place is left behind, no citizen is left behind. I hope it is the beginning of a long and fruitful collaboration. You have my promise.

Madam President, honourable Members, before going into the matter, my first thought today is addressed to the people of Mayotte. As President von der Leyen said, Europe stands by France and its citizens in this time of tragedy, and we are ready to offer our support in the days to come. The cyclone that hit Mayotte this weekend is a terrible tragedy. Our thoughts are with the people of Mayotte, especially those who are suffering. The events in Mayotte underline the urgent need for a new instrument, RESTORE. In my hearing, I promised to work for all the regions of Europe in close collaboration with local leaders and representatives, listening to their concerns and responding to them. Today is a first step in delivering on that commitment. Indeed, RESTORE is our shared commitment to those impacted by natural disasters. As the climate changes and as such disasters are becoming more frequent, current resources under existing emergency instruments are no longer enough. These Member States need immediate support and the prompt help for the affected communities. It is precisely in this direction that RESTORE fits in. As announced by European Commission President von der Leyen during her visit to Poland on 19 September 2024, the proposal ensures that European funds can be quickly implemented to support post‑disaster recovery. This work aligns with the mission of cohesion policy because it prevents widening disparities and ensures that cohesion programmes and projects are not delayed. RESTORE is pragmatic and realistic, allowing specific and targeted flexibilities within cohesion programmes. I am grateful to the European Parliament, particularly Mr Omarjee and Mr Buła, for your support and for your close cooperation with the Council in such a short time frame. Even if that the original proposal of the European Commission gave a stronger sign of solidarity on several aspects, given the urgency and the fact that the core element of the proposal remains in the final text, I am nevertheless satisfied and look forward to a swift agreement between the co‑legislators. In particular, I refer to the following points. First, the 95 % co‑financing rate: this implies a financial burden for Member States and the regions. The original 100 % proposal was a stronger expression of solidarity. Second, the reduced pre‑financing – going from 30 % to 25 % – reduced the liquidity available for immediate relief. Third, the exclusion of the Cohesion Fund from the calculation of maximum RESTORE funding. This obviously reduces the overall amount available. Finally, the introduction of a shorter sunset clause would limit coverage to disasters occurring between the 1 January 2024 and the 31 December 2025. On this point, the Commission's ambition was to provide the structural flexibility until the closure of the current programmes. This had the benefits of keeping the framework stable, simple and not requiring further legislative changes for future natural disasters. For the other changes concerning the reprogramming of the Cohesion Funds and extending the deadline for submitting programme amendments, I see the rationale. Despite these changes, I emphasise that, in our view, it is crucial to quickly reach an agreement among the co‑legislators to ensure a timely and effective implementation of the EU intervention. This is essential to provide urgent support to the affected populations. I conclude by recalling President von der Leyen's words: 'by injecting liquidity with higher pre‑financing and co‑financing of EU funds, we are making a real difference for the people and the regions that are harshly hit by these disasters. We are giving the Member States the tools to become more resilient and better prepared for future crises.' Let us work together today to make this happen.

Madam President, honourable Members, dear Ms O'Reilly, thank you for all your interesting interventions. Good administration is not only a concept – it is a right enshrined in the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The demands and the needs from EU citizens, businesses and associations for transparent, accessible and efficient EU institutions based upon principles – notably of non-discrimination, impartiality, objectivity and fairness – are therefore legitimate, reasonable and valid. This is why cooperation between the European Ombudsman and the EU institutions is of key importance. The report and the resolution of the European Parliament on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2023 highlighted several areas where the institutions have done their job and others where improvements can be realised. It is our duty to strive to improve the way we operate, in line with the principle of good administration, in the interests of the EU citizens and the interests of the European Union. As already mentioned in my introductory remarks, the Commission will now assess in detail the issues raised in your resolution and during today's debate and will respond in the next weeks. Thank you for your attention.

Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, dear Ms O'Reilly, I am very pleased to take the floor on the European Parliament's report and the resolution on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2023. I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Saliba, the coordinators of the PETI Committee and all its members involved for this annual exercise, providing the views of the European Parliament on the issues that it considers noteworthy in the area of good administration. As highlighted in the report in the resolution, the work of the European Ombudsman is crucial for improving administrative practices and for promoting accountability, transparency and culture of service. Through the inquiries conducted in 2023, the European Ombudsman addressed a number of very important issues, such as transparency in the work of the institutions, respect for the fundamental rights, respect for procedural rights, ethical issues and compliance with ethical framework, accountability in the decision‑making and the recruitment of EU civil servants. This is essential for EU citizens, businesses and associations, and for an EU administration that always strives to achieve the high standards of public services. The Commission remains committed to continue doing so. The European Commission is the main addressee of the European Ombudsman's inquiries and initiatives, with 227 inquiries and initiatives out of 372 launched in 2023, representing 62.8 % of the total. These figures also reflect the fact that the European Commission is the largest EU institution and has many interactions with EU citizens. The Commission enjoys excellent cooperation and constructive relations with the office of the European Ombudsman. The fact that it is very rare that an inquiry ends up with the final closing decision of maladministration only in 4.8 % of the cases concerning the Commission – 11 cases in total – is an indication that constant dialogue and mutual understanding can provide tangible and concrete results. I would like to use this occasion to thank the outgoing Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, for the excellent work she has done for citizens, businesses and associations and for our institutions in the past 11 years. The Commission remains fully committed to act with due respect and the highest responsibility towards citizens' expectations and demands. Whenever feasible, the European Ombudsman's solution proposals, suggestions for improvement and recommendations will continue to be taken into account and implemented by the Commission. As usual, the European Commission will duly examine the European Parliament's resolution in the coming weeks and will reply to all the issues that concern the Commission, including by providing the relevant updates. Madam President, I look forward to hearing the views of the honourable Members and I thank you for your attention.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, ladies and gentlemen, I too, on behalf of the Conservative Group, would like to greet, welcome and fully support Mrs Zelenska and reiterate on this occasion how useful and essential it is to send a message of clarity from this House in full support of Ukraine. His speech this year on the State of the Union is certainly the most difficult speech of recent years, because the context in which we find ourselves is certainly a truly complex context, not only because of what is happening these days but because we come from a difficult period, first the pandemic and then the outbreak of war. And it is important – it is not formal but it is substantial – to clearly express, also and above all in this circumstance, a strong condemnation of Russia’s action, of Russia’s behaviour; express full and supportive support, including active and concrete support, for Ukraine in the day-to-day action of governments and this European institution. At the same time, it is also very important to work to ensure that, on issues of defence and foreign policy, Europe is able to build a different position than in the past, especially within the Atlantic Alliance, where the supply chain, the relationship and the relationship must be strengthened. partnerships with European countries. But it is clear that all this leads us today to express an assessment that can only be of full support to a line that is not simple but that must be carried out strongly, which is that of support for sanctions, because only with sanctions can these results be achieved and such action on the subject of sanctions is decisive compared to the need, however, to reverse an action from the point of view of everyday life. And here we need unity and timeliness. We need unity, President von der Leyen, not unity of facade, true unity within the European context. It is necessary to be able to address two major issues, that of energy and that of interventions towards families and businesses, in order to be able to support the crisis facing us today. And it is clear that in this context we need clear answers: The gas price cap is one of them, as is the decoupling of the price of gas and energy. Courageous choices. I want to give you a concrete example to explain the sense of speculation in progress and the need to intervene. Well, we have in recent days, on 9 September, witnessed a European Council of Energy Ministers which gave a very positive and clear signal; immediately after, on 12 September, the price of gas fell below EUR 200, when on 26 August it was over EUR 330. In recent days, in these hours, the price of gas is rising, because the signal coming from the context of the European institutions is not positive. That is why we need a strong response, that is why all Member States really need to be aware of the difficulty we face. Timeliness is also needed because all programming, from cohesion programming – I am thinking of the 2021-2027 programming – to the NRRP, bears the price of having had a context analysis, in their choices, that predates the outbreak of war. We must have more flexibility in the use of these resources and, at the same time, we must work with conviction to bring true unity to the European context. You see, I have listened to the statements of my fellow chairmen of the other groups: I also understand the need to argue with regard to the national elections of the various countries. But that's not the way. I also thank the two girls who welcomed the Ukrainian refugees; These are two girls who are certainly a good example. But, allow me, the good example also comes from the whole front of governments and countries, starting with Poland, which opened their arms and operationally gave an exceptional demonstration in terms of reception, when it came to welcoming refugees fleeing Ukraine. And then we must be aware that unity cannot be sought in here, going to confrontation; unity must be true, substantial, avoiding using the weapon of the rule of law when we do not need it and, above all, avoiding using the ideological fury that does not accompany us anywhere in the positive. I say this to our colleagues: In the coming months, we will probably work on common fronts, in the general interest, and we do not need this controversy, we do not need this confrontation. We need a sense of maturity and responsibility. We need a serious Europe, capable of understanding, in cooperation with national governments, the way forward. In this context, I hope that there can be a correct approach. Democracy, you see, is not when you like it, it is not when voters vote as you say. Democracy is always, it's when voters vote. And all of us together, both when we win and when we lose, we must respect the mandate of the citizens. Only in this way will we be able to build a serious, credible Europe that can face the challenges of the future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, President of the Commission, Minister, there are two important aspects to this Council meeting: The first has an external value and the second has an internal value. As regards the action to be taken on the issues and choices that the Commission first, Parliament and the Council then made with regard to support for Ukraine, I think it is important to reiterate here too what the clear and clear position of full support for Ukraine is. But to do this I think it is important also in these hours to read carefully Putin's non-random statements, where he tells us very clearly what the idea of the future is, that of reproposing the borders that have traditionally been part of the Soviet domination of the past. That is why we must support the status of Ukraine. That is why, with the rules that you rightly pointed out, we must also express clear and clear support for Georgia and Moldova, because it is very important that this happens, just as it is equally important to take careful action on the Balkans issue. Because, as has happened and is happening in some areas of North Africa, also in the Balkans there is the risk of infiltration, there is the risk of interventions that must be seen with the utmost attention and content, to put in place instead an action that can strengthen those principles of our democracy, those fundamental principles that are the basis of the action that will see us engaged in the future. The second reflection is related to the internal dimension with respect to what is happening. I want to mention – no one has done so and I do not do so in any way out of controversy, as a mere element of reflection – the result of the French elections, which is a result on which to reflect. It is a result from which emerges very clearly a state of mind that is also worrying, that we must try to understand why we must put in place dynamics and interventions that are able to give clear answers especially to those countries that, by strongly and decisively supporting sanctions, also suffer from the consequences from an economic point of view and on this it is necessary to give clear answers. The first, I repeat, has just been mentioned, the ceiling and the price of gas is the first in this sense, the second to seek that overall dimension, beyond positions, controversies, to make choices that do not make us move from one dependence to another. Because some issues related also to the debate and to the measures that we have approved in these hours pose this issue to us. They pose a very serious issue, which is what has seen us so far look with concern at wrong choices, which have made us emerge after the war in Ukraine, the energy dependence on Russia and that we must be careful to avoid that this may lead to another dependence on other realities, especially on China, especially with respect to the choices that are carried out. That is why we need a broad dimension and a strong response also within the European Union and the Member States, which can pursue an intervention policy that can give answers to citizens and therefore be in a position to face a season that we are facing, which will certainly not be a simple season. I believe that this is the approach that the European institutions must take in this area and I hope that the Council will be able to confirm what has been said and done to the Commission and what the European Parliament has clearly indicated in recent days.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the choices that the Council has made are important given the strategic moment, above all because they reaffirm a fundamental concept, which is to continue on the path of unity. That is why we also appreciate the effort that is being made to find solutions from the point of view of unity in the context of the conflict, to strongly and decisively condemn the action that Russia has put in place and also and above all to highlight, as we are trying to do in every way, solutions that can go into the clear possibility of a strong response. In this sense, the effort to find a synthesis in the context of the approval, for example, of Poland's NRP is exactly the opposite of what Mr Lamberts has said so far, and we appreciate and believe that it is a useful effort in the dialogue to try to enhance the work done. That said, two basic considerations on food security and energy. We pay for the mistakes that have been made over the years and today we must avoid making the same mistakes. On food security - as President von der Leyen said and I want to reiterate this - we risk that it will also be used instrumentally by Russia, setting in motion a strategy that can exacerbate the instrumental use of immigration because, if food tensions break out in North Africa, the consequences will be for Europe. We need to give adequate answers in this regard, but we must also do so by making different choices compared to the mistakes that have been made in the past. Whole categories and an agricultural production system cannot be harassed. Similarly, on the issue of the environment and energy, we must start from the mistakes that have been made in the past, because if today we have a dependence, obviously there have been mistakes, which today must be corrected, and a series of choices that this Parliament and the Commission propose in parallel, I am thinking of the following: Fit for 55, they risk appearing at odds with the effort and the objective that we must put in place. That is why our support for the issue of sanctions is full, but above all we want to do it by trying to make this aspect as understandable as possible to our citizens, because otherwise we risk being crushed into a contradiction and a reaction. I say this also by supporting the effort and commitment on the issue of defense, imagining and expressing a clear position of support for the entry of NATO by Sweden and Finland, and on the strategy that must be put in place because on this ground we play a game of perspective. That is why our group strongly demands that we be able to reverse certain choices and to understand that the mistakes that have been made in the past must be corrected with regard to the future strategy in order to give adequate answers to the European citizens.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, on behalf of the Conservative Group, I would first of all like to highlight very positively the excellent work that has been done to prepare this report and to thank in particular all the colleagues who have worked in this direction, starting with President Omarjee. It is certainly a very important moment, because the aim is to really implement Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, but not only that, and also to create a strong stimulus for Member States to understand the relevance and importance of this issue. To do this, we must first identify the fundamental issues that concern the problems of the islands, from depopulation to the issue related to natural disasters, to fundamental services, from transport to health, to try to put in place a strategy that is clear and evident in order to be able to give adequate answers. In addition, there is a need to modernise key services and core activities from a productive point of view. I am referring to agriculture, fishing and tourism. In order to do this, we need important and concrete work, above all by finalising the choices that must be made from the point of view of coordination, as I said before, between the policies of the European Union and those of the Member States. However, this will not be possible exclusively with cohesion policies, but joint action, together with all the other intervention programmes, will be necessary in order to achieve this result. Tomorrow we will vote with conviction on this report, which will be a start, because surely the work still to be done will be very demanding for the future of the islands of the European Union.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Minister and Madam President of the Commission, I have listened very carefully to your speech and I think that this discussion of ideas is very useful and important in order to find immediate and rapid solutions to the evolution of the conflict. There is no doubt that the path pursued is a path that must be pursued decisively with regard to the attitude towards Russia, not only of condemnation but also of concrete action, so the package of sanctions is certainly the decisive element on which to work to obtain results, but the package of sanctions is a fundamental premise with respect also to the reactions and choices that must be made in Europe. We know that they are not very popular on our continent and that in some countries they risk creating major problems and it is clear that important answers are needed, so certainly the long-term objective of reconstruction in Ukraine is fundamental and it is good for the Commission to deal with it, but today we also have to deal with objective situations. The first: European exports fell by 6% between February and March. There is a need for a strong response to this. The compensation fund – we have an example, the Brexit model used in that direction – can be a solution because sanctions do not operate in all countries in the same way, there are countries that are more affected than others. Question 2: the structural choices, Mrs de Lange mentioned in relation to the theme of "Fit for 55". Is it conceivable that we do not change anything compared to what we imagined before the war? Is not war an event that should lead us to reflect on the need to change the approach that the Commission and the European institutions have put in place? I think so and therefore the implementation times, the overambitious targets, which are present within the "Fit for 55" are a decisive element on which to start a reflection to change these choices. Then another concrete proposal that goes hand in hand with a need, an answer on the major economic issues and therefore on the Stability Pact. A debate that is postponed, but which should be fundamental to accompany the measures that need to be taken forward. And this is the subject that we raised yesterday, in the debate with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr Draghi. Article 21 of the RRF makes it very clear that in exceptional cases these instruments, which have very important resources, can be modified in relation to current needs. If the Commission, before the war, provided for an article in the regulation indicating the need to amend the national plans in order to be able to adapt them to the new requirements, I think that this is the circumstance in which to take note of this and modify the choices in this direction in order to be able to imagine adequate solutions in this regard. I close with a final reference. We must avoid distinctions, if we want to be effective on sanctions, on two fundamental elements: joint purchases and cap on the purchase of gas prices. There needs to be a unified response to this. The distinctions do not help and risk weakening the overall strategy we put in place.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Gentiloni, President Draghi, I too wish you, on behalf of our group, a welcome to this Parliament. At a very complex and difficult time, it is certainly necessary to recall the unity that has been made by everyone, by you in a particular way, which represents, even in the context of the strong and clear condemnation of what is happening, a strong point of Western institutions. On the one hand there is a human tragedy, a disaster, along with a strong attack on the values of freedom, democracy, peace, which cannot deserve any kind of doubt and perplexity, so we have never had any doubt, as a group of conservatives and at the same time as a party of conservatives, to strongly support this line and this action. I want to say this, because from here begins a reflection that also develops at national level, where hesitations perhaps have not been lacking, President, allow me to do so, certainly not on our part, where with serious and responsible action we have given full support to support in this direction. However, it is also an opportunity to put in place a somewhat critical reflection. The idea of being united and looking to the future without reasoning about what happened in the past cannot pass, it is wrong because we risk retracing the same mistakes and therefore it is necessary, following precisely His scheme, His discourse, to reason on some essential points. We are certainly not – I use a euphemism – enthusiastic about the work of the Conference on the Future of Europe, which risks being a mere self-celebration. Just as we are also of the idea that the references that have been made on issues such as the need for a centrality in the Mediterranean and in Africa clash with what is the reality with which we have verified in recent days, in recent months, in recent years, an ever-increasing presence of Russia, China and Turkey, thanks to embarrassments and errors that have been made in Europe. Just as it is equally important to make a reasoning on the errors that have led to a lack of independence on strategic issues, which have seen an industrial policy increasingly relocate in the absence of a capacity for autonomy from the point of view of energy, agriculture, food. Objective facts that cannot be ignored if we want to look to the future in a serious and credible way and we must do so also because I believe that it is essential to put in place a concrete strategy that also clarifies another misunderstanding: the issue of immigration. Well, the narrative made in recent years has fallen, because we see these days that those countries indicated as those responsible for the lack of agreement are the main countries that have opened their borders, arms and hearts to true immigration made up of refugees, women and children fleeing war. These considerations must be made if we want to have a real analysis of the perspective and we must also make them with two proposals, because we do not belong to criticism for its own sake. We are capable and used to making proposals. You are very authoritative and credible in this forum. We ask you strongly, I ask you as a Member of the European Parliament, president of a group, but I also ask you as an Italian, we make you two concrete proposals. The first is to put in place a strong, concrete strategic action, as he said, to address the issue of sanctions that must be supported with an adequate compensation fund that reads the needs and needs of individual countries from the energy point of view, but also and above all from the point of view of exports, which is one of the fundamental aspects that risks bringing a country like ours to its knees. And secondly, in recent days and part of the national political debate, Giorgia Meloni has proposed to you the modification of the national recovery and resilience plan, an instrument that, unfortunately, even if it has just started, is already old. Article 21 of the RRF provides that in extraordinary cases action may be taken to change the organisation and choices that have been put in this context. Well, it is a tool provided for the pandemic, for economic recovery, for war, what could be more extraordinary to try to identify solutions and structurally modify, adapting this tool to the real needs? It is not a national fact. You mentioned, as in many, that here in Europe Italy is the main beneficiary of these resources and it is in this direction that we need a strong response, because the success or failure of the Italian NRRP will be the success or failure of a strategy in this sense. And since we – and I close – are not used to the worse, the better, we strongly ask you to evaluate this proposal in the interest not only of Italy, but also of the future prospects of young people, citizens and European businesses.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, more than 3.9 million people have fled Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian aggression, taking refuge in the various territories of the European Union. Unfortunately, this figure is set to increase in the coming weeks, in view of the protracted conflict. This is an emergency which concerns women and children in particular and which has seen a great deal of acceptance, particularly by some States which are often instrumentally demonised in this House too, and I am referring to Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Moldova. Indeed, several Member States are subject to a high number of arrivals relative to the size of their population and to considerable organisational and economic effort, in the form of housing, social services and transport. This is why our group, while aware that these resources may not be sufficient and may require further action in the coming weeks, as it has already done previously with the CARE package, strongly supports and has supported this measure and this procedure, considering them fundamental with regard to increasing the pre-financing of REACT-EU to support the Member States, but above all to continue to demonstrate our closeness to the Ukrainian people. Once again, cohesion policy, as was already the case with the pandemic, proves to be the most effective and flexible policy with which to deal with emergencies and provide support to the different Member States. And it is precisely because of this capacity that, I believe, it is necessary to carry out a broader reflection, because it is clear that we need to build a structural solution to prevent these resources from continuing to be used in an extraordinary way. An urgent structural solution that the Commission has a duty to find in order to be able to guarantee, in the face of a problem that will not be resolved in a few days or in a few months, a solution and a constant response. That is why we will continue to support this type of intervention in relation to the work and emergencies we face.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, welcome, Prime Minister Trudeau, Ukrainian President Zelensky, first in this House and then in the Canadian Parliament, stressed that Ukrainians are defending the values that form the pillars of all free and democratic countries and that the unity of these countries is now more important than ever. That is why I believe, Mr Prime Minister, that your presence here today among us has a strong value, first and foremost symbolic value, and testifies to the strong bond and spirit of cooperation between your country, the European Union and the various Member States. In 2014, Canada was one of the first countries to support the government of Kiev and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Support that was not lacking last June, at the end of the EU-Canada summit, and that today I believe it is once again important to underline, reaffirming our common commitment also through further efforts and actions to be taken in the coming days in all the appropriate fora to put an end to the Russian offensive. The Russian-Ukrainian crisis has highlighted the need for the European Union to re-engage and invest in defence and security, but also to renew and strengthen cooperation with our traditional partners such as Canada, to which we are linked not only by our common membership of NATO, but also by bilateral agreements and ties. The European Union and NATO, more than ever in recent weeks, have taken coordinated and effective action in response to the Russian aggression and in support of Ukraine and its people, demonstrating unprecedented unity and determination, from which we should learn to address future challenges, not only from a military perspective but also with regard to cybersecurity, strengthening intelligence capacity and countering terrorism and hybrid threats. Transatlantic relations and EU-NATO cooperation, in full respect of the principles set out in the Treaties and those agreed by the European Council, are essential elements against which we will have to act together with greater unity and complementarity if we are to successfully address the common geopolitical and security challenges we will face in the coming years.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for twenty-eight days we have been witnessing a military aggression by Russia and an ever-increasing series of barbarities targeting civilian targets, and at the same time a great test of courage and resistance on the part of Ukraine and its people. But they are also twenty-eight days in which our continent has rediscovered that climate of cold war that had characterized the last century. The European Union and its Member States have reacted with unity and determination to Ukraine’s aggression so far. But we know that this may not be enough and in the coming weeks we may be called upon to make further decisions to counter this action. That is why we hope that the next European Council will confirm the necessary measures to stop the Russian offensive, in agreement with our partners, and strengthen its spirit of solidarity, cooperation and support towards the millions of refugees who are forced to leave their country these days and those states such as Poland and other border countries, which are giving extraordinary proof of the reception and management of the humanitarian emergency. We all know that sanctions are necessary, but at the same time they make us more vulnerable. That is why there must be an even stronger commitment to protect our economies from the consequences of the war and to maintain the consensus of European public opinion. We welcome the first step taken in the field of defence with the launch of the Strategic Compass. Putting defence back at the heart of our policies is crucial. Our economies must continue to be supported, starting with the sectors most affected by sanctions. If the war were to continue in the coming weeks, the growth outlook would be sharply and definitively diminished. This is why we need to act on the basis of the rules of economic governance. Returning, in these days, to the old rules or procedures would be a downward reform that would constitute a very serious mistake. It will be crucial to make choices in the field of agriculture and energy. At the same time, with a view to the next EU-China summit, we must strongly reaffirm our position, in particular by strengthening our economic, trade and strategic autonomy, and unambiguously call for a commitment to the solution of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. It is time for concrete and immediately applicable decisions for today's Europe, but above all for tomorrow's.

Mr President, Madam President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, an unjustifiable tragedy is hitting our continent. What is happening before our eyes, a few kilometers from our borders, is an all-out attack by the Russian Federation against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a democratic country. The images coming to us from Ukraine bear witness not only to an unjustified and indiscriminate attack but to the blatant violation of all the rules of international law, including those governing conflicts. We must react to put an end to these targeted actions against civilian targets, women and children, which do not represent a real war but a barbarism, the perpetrators of which must be called into question in the competent fora. Barbaries to which the Ukrainian people, to whom we express our full solidarity and closeness, are following and reacting with courage, dignity and a great spirit of resilience. Just as I think that today it is appropriate to underline what is the action, the role of the countries of the eastern border, which are carrying out an action in the reception and management of the humanitarian emergency that is commendable. A reaction, the Ukrainian one, perhaps unexpected for many and which requires on our part, in cooperation with other countries of the Atlantic Alliance and the international community, an even greater commitment to defend the values of freedom and democracy. And that is why the European Union and the West have certainly made some mistakes in the past: But today is the time of unity and steadfastness. That is why, on the part of our group, I reiterate my full support for the sanctions and all those actions that affect the economic and military power of Moscow and that force the Kremlin to put an end to this shameful offensive against Ukraine. But, at the same time, it is also appropriate to ensure that, in preserving the political unity and decisions of the European Union, it is possible to maintain the consensus of European public opinion on what has already happened beyond these two years of pandemic on the economic front. That is why we must think hard to look carefully at the establishment of a fund, to be able to protect the citizens and categories affected by these sanctions.

Madam President, Mr President Macron, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we have experienced different emotions and feelings in this House this week: from the commemoration of President Sassoli to the election of President Metsola. Very different emotions and feelings because they obviously cross joys and pains and put in place a fundamental element, which I think should characterize our debate: comparison and respect. And this is the cut that we want to make as a group also with regard to the French Presidency. We want to do this because even on the main topics of your agenda we want to put in place fundamental needs. The first: There has been talk of the rule of law, well, the rule of law is not a theme that can be used as an ideological struggle, it is not a theme that can be used against someone. We ask that even in these six months there be a substantive debate to try to understand the individual dossiers whether or not they justify choices and whether they should be placed within an institutional framework that must be very clear and precise, respecting the will and mandate of the voters. And so on the other very important dossiers we want to reiterate our positions. The Urgency of Immigration. Immigration must be addressed with a broader vision, trying to understand what is happening in Africa where yes, Europe must play a role and a function, but where China is now predominant in its action. What has happened in recent years in Libya, creating the conditions for there to be a total lack of control over the migratory flow to the Mediterranean and with an ever-increasing and ever-increasing role on the part of Russia and Turkey. Let's talk about these fundamental aspects to address the urgencies related to migratory flows with which we will inevitably have to deal. And we do so in the midst of a pandemic, in which certainly the measures of intervention from the economic point of view have represented an important breath of oxygen, but we have a decisive game such as that of the stability pact, on which we will discuss the merits, because from there will depend the possibility or not of consolidating growth in the most dramatic economic moment we face. And to this I want to add another very important priority, which is that of the climate, where elements of realism must be included with respect to the current economic, social and entrepreneurial structure of our continent and with respect to the overall assessment of this with the large numbers of large producers worldwide. On these issues, President, we will confront ourselves, even from different positions obviously, but we will do so following that profile, that feeling, that emotion that we have breathed in these days in this Chamber of respect and comparison. We will do it with the strength of our ideas, we will do it with the strength of our proposals and we will do it above all with a great conviction, which is to put in place a project not against someone, not against Europe. We are here because we want to put in place a project to profoundly change rules, arrangements and choices at European level. The confrontation will lead us to this, our proposals will not be lacking, we will not shout at anyone, but we will carry forward our ideas with the conviction and the certainty that these ideas have the possibility of representing a great opportunity for the future of Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to join in the good work and happy birthday wishes, obviously and given the coincidence. We look very carefully at your Presidency. We know that in this Parliament there is a need to ensure that the words that resounded yesterday in this House, especially the main one, respect in relations is a fundamental element in the action and work of this Parliament. I am happy because the European Parliament has elected a woman today, but I am very happy because this woman is a woman I know and for whom I have no difficulty in expressing a personal appreciation, because I think that there are all the conditions to be able to play this role, thanks to her curriculum, with seriousness and competence. So yes, very well a woman, but above all very well a woman who has the skills and abilities to be able to play this role. And I think this is a very important part of our assessment, especially since we will inevitably have - as all the group leaders have said - divergent views. Each of us could choose in his speech the things we like and emphasize them, ignoring or criticizing the things we do not like. Yours will not be an easy role. However, we will work to ensure that this role is a guarantee and that our approach, as it has been in the past, will also be for the future an approach to a role open to dialogue, so that this institution can regain its credibility in the interests of the institution itself and also of its role and its action. We are satisfied this morning with this result and we hope to be able to work with you, we are convinced, in the interest of this Parliament and these institutions for the future. Good luck and good work.

Madam President, authorities, ladies and gentlemen, family members, the premature death of President Sassoli has left a void in each of us, but at the same time a memory that those who have known him will always carry with them, that of a serious man, kind and respectful of his interlocutors regardless of roles, functions and ideas. President Sassoli in recent years has played his role with great self-sacrifice, trying to make this institution, from his point of view, close to the real needs of citizens. The institutional grace, his commitment to guarantee the work of Parliament even during the pandemic, the fact that he played his role with the same dedication as ever, even during the months of illness, which he lived with great dignity until the last day, demonstrate very clearly that the characteristic that President Sassoli lived is an example for us. But its main element and concern was to organize and make the work of Parliament functional. All this regardless of the role. And all this is a sign of a politician of great depth, endowed with great respect for the institutions. It is no mystery that, compared to our group, President Sassoli had very different visions and positions, starting with the process of reforming the European Union, which often led us to lively exchanges of views, but this at the same time has never prevented us from having in recent years, both in this House and also within the Conference of Presidents, a constructive and respectful comparison of all positions, demonstrating intelligence, foresight and political sensitivity. But David was not only the President of Parliament, with time he had become also and above all a friend. The diversity of positions has never been a limit to the strengthening and growth of the personal relationship, which has grown and consolidated over time. And even in this last period, when we saw each other, when we felt or talked, we had the opportunity to reiterate these feelings, this respect and this friendship. There are many episodes that I personally could mention and that I will keep in my mind and especially in my heart to remember a great friend. I like to remember him with his great passions, with his great irony, with that smile that everyone has recalled, always ready to listen and give useful advice. I believe that it is important today, on behalf of the Conservative Group, to extend sincere and true, heartfelt, non-formal condolences, first of all to the family, to Mrs Alessandra, to her sons Giulio and Livia, to the political community of the Democratic Party and the Socialists and Democrats Group, and also to her staff, whom I have had the opportunity to know and appreciate, who have also been deeply affected in this matter. I am sure - and I say this as a political adversary - that even if, having finished his role as President, in the coming months and years, his contribution to Europe would have been able to face current and future challenges and would have been useful and fundamental. Diversity of opinion as a real enrichment, respect as a distinctive feature of his political commitment: These are the main lessons that this House, which European politics and Italian politics should learn and carry forward for the coming years. It will be lacking in the European institutions, it will be lacking in politics as a whole, it will be lacking in us all a capable, serious, credible and respectful interlocutor. (Applause)

Mr President, Madam President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to join in thanking the Slovenian Presidency for its work and I think that today it is important, with regard to tomorrow's Council, to reflect not only on the role of a Member of the European Parliament, but also on that of citizens. Reading the agenda of the European Council you have the impression, for some months now, that it is the same and that the conclusions do not advance on the main issues but stop, and this I think is a fact on which to reflect, also to try to give answers and identify concrete solutions. All this while – as you, President, also mentioned – the epidemiological situation remains difficult and strongly threatens the recovery. Alarmism must be avoided, but work must be done to strengthen the fight against the pandemic, protecting health but at the same time avoiding, as far as possible, new restrictions that may lead to economic problems. Support to Member States needs to be improved, not least through effective and coherent communication on the science and technology behind vaccinations. Moreover, as the President of Ghana rightly pointed out in this House yesterday, until everyone is safe from COVID, nobody will be safe. So it is important to win and face the immediate challenge on vaccine distribution and production capacity, also and especially in Africa, in light of what you have called a very important summit between the European Union and Africa. But, at the same time, growth risks being threatened by other factors, on which, even here, the response has not been adequate to date, starting with the energy price crisis, which will continue for a long time if divisions are not overcome and clear choices are not made in terms of supply and use of resources. Gas and nuclear are key to achieving the objectives of the transition, just as it will be crucial to support a genuine investment policy by Member States that can be achieved by reforming – this is a key point – the Stability and Growth Pact and State aid rules. These are issues which, once again, are not on the agenda of the European Council. Realism and pragmatism are needed to prevent these green initiatives, also in the light of the results of COP26, from turning into a serious economic and social problem rather than solving an environmental issue. Decisions that we also hope for in the area of immigration. After March, June and October, let us avoid this Council also being a Council of Intent and not of Progress. The Commission's proposals on the new Pact for Immigration and Asylum risk not resolving the problems and above all risk not putting in place a real policy regarding the external dimension, putting in place without further delay a comprehensive vision and strategy on the three different routes that concern immigration issues in the European context, but also to counter third countries' attempts to instrumentalize migrants to destabilize and blackmail our continent. All this must be accompanied by strong and clear political and diplomatic action aimed, on the one hand, at strengthening cooperation with the countries of the Southern Neighbourhood and, on the other hand, at putting an end to the ongoing destabilisation on the Eastern Front by Belarus and Russia's attempt to question Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. With Russia's growing threat and increasing hostilities from China and the constantly unstable Middle East, cooperation between the European Union and NATO is more necessary and fundamental than ever. Therefore, it is essential to avoid duplication and ensure complementarity, burden-sharing and close transatlantic cooperation. On these points, I wish and hope that the Council will be in a position to give concrete answers and advances, and I too want to join, without irony but with conviction, in a wish, as you did, in all languages for a Merry Christmas. I will be an incurable traditionalist but I think this is a deep root that in Europe has represented and will represent for the future still a lot.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am genuinely surprised by the Commissioner's report. We are here for a debate where, from the title to the merit, two weights and two measures are used. The premise is a must, full solidarity with the CGIL for what happened in Rome, just as it is absolutely a must to condemn "without ifs and buts" any violent act and any infiltration of associations or movements that may refer to neo-fascism, as they refer to anarcho-communist positions. Because you have not mentioned the Europol report here today, dear Commissioner. So, if you didn't mention it, I'll remind you quickly. Because it is enough to read the Europol report to understand that extremism, on the one hand and on the other, must be strongly condemned, must be strongly condemned. 98 arrests in 2019, 24 in 2020 in Italy, 22 attacks in 2019, 24 in 2020, only one is linked to right-wing extremism, which we strongly condemn, but it is not possible not to say a word about everything else, it is not possible to take positions in this House from an institutional point of view by putting in place a debate that is devoid of the real story of what happened. Because if what happened in Italy happened, you should have, just as this House should have stressed the very serious responsibilities in the security management system of our country, which led our party to demand the resignation of the Minister of the Interior. Because the demonstration to and against the headquarters of the CGIL was led by a gentleman who is the subject of a measure that would not have allowed him to be in the square and the minister herself, responding to a question in Parliament, said that no action was taken not to cause violence, unlike what happened in Milan and what happened in recent hours in Trieste. That's why we don't like this approach. That is why this debate seems biased. That is why we have no difficulty in strongly condemning all the acts that can be traced back to extremism, which are not good and which should not be part of the civil and democratic debate of our country in Europe. But we cannot accept an approach like the one we are witnessing today, we cannot accept that the representative of the Commission comes here to tell in a partial and biased way a story that does not correspond to the reality of the facts. We cannot accept that conditions are laid down here in order to be able to speak of certain manifestations and not of other manifestations. You see, what happened in Italy is very serious. Just as it is serious what happened later, because expressing solidarity, trying to turn away in any way by condemning positions of this kind cannot mean in any way turning this story into an attack on the main opposition party. Because this happened in Italy, it happened exactly the opposite of what would have been expected from such a debate, and that is why we want, with great clarity, to express a strongly negative judgment on this approach. You see, we have been discussing Poland for days in the morning and afternoon, the day after Italy, imagining that there is a story being told in this Parliament that does not correspond in any way to what is the reality of the facts. That is why we are not afraid to express our position forcefully and clearly, and we do so with the knowledge that our relationship and our commitment is absolutely in the interest of the citizens and that we strongly condemn any extreme and violent position.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I regret that this morning the debate starts as we left it yesterday, again talking about Poland. It's a kind of fixation. This week in this session we talk about Poland every day, in every way, even when it is not on the agenda, because there is probably a real fixation on the part of someone. I would propose to the President – I will also do so at the next Conference of Presidents – that during the parliamentary session a one-day outburst for Poland be set up, so that all colleagues can come here and speak out against Poland. Because this is what is happening, even in the context of a debate like this, on the agenda of the European Council, on which, Mr President, I have taken very important and positive aspects, including from what you have said, and I would like to try to make a contribution, because we should talk about the real issues that concern citizens, not about a supposed democracy imposed by Brussels and this Parliament, which tries to explain to the citizens of the countries that regularly elect, both in Poland and in Hungary and in Slovenia, their governments, that these governments are not good for the European Parliament, for the political opposition forces, that put this mechanism in place. The debate before us is paradoxical, and it is also offensive to respect the democratic values that this Parliament should uphold. That said, the Council has a number of very important points. I would like to start from a fundamental need, which is that of economic recovery, which is a decisive point. The President of the Commission has made some very important references, which I would like to grasp, but also pointing to our positions and some strong concerns regarding the choices that are being made, starting from the theme of the surge in gas and energy prices, an issue that certainly represents a real limit and that risks hitting our consumers and our companies hard. Here I refer to the issue of the green transition and I see in your words, Mr von der Leyen, some fundamental points, but which also represent, with regard to the Commission's approach, limits. You spoke of a real problem, the real problem is that of the timing of permits and choices on renewable energy, and it is the issue that makes the Green Deal approach not credible. Because if we have that timeframe – six to seven years – to be able to carry out a renewable energy intervention, we are sure that the programming put in place is a programming that will not find its implementation. And this also concerns another aspect to which you have referred, which is very important, which is that of supply from third parties, on which we need a clear framework for Europe, bringing to the agenda of this debate and of this Parliament also the issue of Nord Stream 2, together with many other issues concerning the external supply of energy and gas, which are decisive in relation to the credibility of this plant that we carry forward. As well as I want to focus on another important issue: the issue of immigration. The statements are acceptable in principle, but in March they were postponed to June, in June they were postponed to October, in October I do not know when the issue of immigration will be postponed. We have three problems, three different fronts on which Europe approaches itself in a wrong and different way. The first is that of the relationship with Turkey, where Erdoğan seems to dictate the agenda also with his statements, because he collects what is his attitude, his behavior to block that migratory flow, a second very dangerous flow, that is what is used instrumentally by Lukashenko with respect to the action that is taking place in Afghanistan and to the attempt to put in place a serious instrumentalization of the management of the migratory flow with respect to Eastern European countries. And a third front that is that of the Mediterranean, where the presence, importance and political relevance of Russia and Turkey are growing, diminishes that of Europe and where a scenario is being foreshadowed in which to use once again, with the same mechanism, the theme of immigration. On this we expect serious answers, together with the theme of the digital transition, which is another very important aspect. On this we will press on with the work of the Council and carry out our action in Parliament, with the prayer of talking about real issues and of preventing this debate, which is now paradoxical and instrumental and political against some governments, from continuing, exclusively with an electoral campaign purpose that we should try to dismiss from this Parliament.

Mr President, Madam President of the Commission, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to be here in this debate to support the reasons of the Polish Government, because we are in a surreal debate in this Parliament. This will be the fifteenth and twentieth time we have discussed Poland. There is not a single topic, however important, that has had the attention and interest of the European Parliament as much as that of Poland. I do not want to repeat the considerations that have already been made from the specific technical point of view addressed to the other countries, to the judgments of the other countries, to the total lack of fairness in the judgment by all the European institutions, because we are here in the presence of a political debate, a political debate that emerges very clearly, because we do not want to compare the situation of the decision of the Polish Council with what happened in Poland itself in 2005, to what happened in the other constitutional courts, as has been mentioned several times, but above all we cannot fail to remember that in the other countries there have been clear choices in this sense that challenge this principle. But here we are talking about politics, even the speeches I have heard are all political. There is a beginning of an electoral campaign, there is an attempt by the European institutions to change course to a legitimately elected government in Poland, and it is done with very serious interference, because it would be very important to talk about the instrumental use of the judiciary in politics, it would be very important, for example, to talk about other issues. I have listened in several speeches to the call to Putin and to the relationship with Russia; six times in the Conference of Presidents our proposal to discuss here in this House, for example the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, has been rejected, and there will be a reason why there is no will to speak in this House on this issue. But let's talk about the political situation. Here, it seems to me that this debate is yet another self-goal of European institutions that want to instrumentally use European events to be able to put their noses and attack a legitimately elected government.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened very carefully to your speech and I think it is important, starting from your considerations and the important passage that Europe sees today, to make some considerations that are not only those of telling the lights and what has been done positively. He claimed the successes of Next Generation EU and the vaccination campaign, but it is also important, in order to deeply understand Europe's difficulties, to understand and remember also what has not gone, what has not worked within the limits of the current European Union. In the first phase of the pandemic, when faced with the uncertainty of COVID there was not this climate of solidarity and unity but there was selfishness and closure, the response was slow and uncertain. We must remember this, because remembering this serves not to forget the limits and to better understand the opportunities and perspectives on which we must confront ourselves. From this crisis emerged the need for a profound and total change, on which our group, as always, is ready to confront not with slogans, but with serious proposals, provided that there is a real and serious discussion that respects the opinions and proposals of all. The ongoing pandemic crisis, the economic and social challenges and the international context increasingly characterized by strong tensions between the different actors and new fronts of instability confront us with serious, important challenges for which our continent must be able to respond. The first challenge is the one you referred to and it is the fundamental part, the health one, linked to the economic and social one. Well, we must ensure that the first signs of recovery that we have become structural, creating the conditions for a solid and lasting economic recovery, able to guarantee employment and social stability. Next Generation EU resources play a key role, but they alone are not enough. I have not heard a single word about the stone guest in this debate, namely the stability pact. The Stability Pact is not a detail, and no one talks about it, as if there were no problem. Instead, it is a decisive and fundamental issue because modifying the mechanisms, even in respect and sustainability of debt, is a decisive fact, not to do so, to return to the old patterns, to return to two years ago, as if nothing had happened, would be devastating and would make the policies to which reference is made very unbelievable. But at the same time it is important to make a reference to the necessary changes on the subject of State aid, which have led to increased disparity between the different Member States. In recent months we have realized that we are too dependent on the outside on medical products and raw materials and that commercial policy must regain strategic autonomy. Otherwise we will have important limits. All this must be done, without a doubt, with a process of environmental and digital transition – and we all agree on this – but it is not that we can put our backs to the wall and call demagoguery those who pose the serious problem that this environmental transition cannot be reduced without assessing the general conditions with regard to what is happening in the world, and above all with regard to the impact on our production and economic system, because otherwise we would risk doing damage and would not give results to which we must all look with equal certainty. The issue of international affairs and immigration confront us with important urgencies. You mentioned a migration pact: We have three fronts and we behave differently on the three fronts. The first front, that of Central Europe, on which resources and the relationship with Turkey are invested with ambiguity and hypocrisy, unlike what nothing is done in the Mediterranean and the exploitation of the use of immigration by Lukashenko is being evaluated within the new front that has opened with the Afghan affair. I close, because I think it is important to make a final reference to the issue of the rule of law. We are ready for comparison: If the Conference on the Future of Europe is to impose a federalist agenda, we are not interested. If the Conference on the Future of Europe and if the debate in this House must be open and respect all positions, we are here. What is happening in some Member States, starting with Poland, is the result exclusively of a political approach and a preconception that a majority wants to impose, going in the opposite direction to those that are the principles and values of a European Union that must respect, in diversity, the competences also of individual States.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summer season that has just passed has undoubtedly been difficult: the floods and fires that have hit Europe have had dramatic consequences, causing casualties, as well as significant economic and landscape damage. Unfortunately, the risk of disastrous and catastrophic phenomena is increasingly frequent for multiple causes and this I believe requires a pragmatic and realistic approach on our part, first of all by improving and consolidating existing instruments. The scale and severity of the fires – I am thinking in particular of my own country, Italy – meant that the European strategy worked only partially: the fleet established under the rescEU system has shown its limitations and difficulties, especially when several Member States have faced the same type of disaster at the same time, as has been the case with fires in Mediterranean countries. The Solidarity Fund and the Civil Protection Mechanism must be consolidated and made more effective, not only in terms of resources, but above all from the point of view of disaster management, damage assessment and simplification of procedures, improvement of damage identification and quantification mechanisms. The Copernicus European Forest Fire Information System needs to be strengthened in order to improve prevention and response actions. In fact, many of these events could have been avoided if there had been, in recent years, a real preventive action. Protecting and protecting against disasters and disasters urban centres, architectural assets and natural and landscape beauties is the real challenge of the present and the future, a challenge that we will be able to tackle in the best possible way only if we are able to make bold choices from the point of view of budgetary policies and if, through the existing instruments starting from the cohesion policy funds, but also from those of the NRRP, we will strengthen – as you have rightly called for – the synergy and cooperation between all the actors involved. This is the spirit in which we want to make a contribution as a REGI committee and I am very positive about the President and the work that REGI has put in place.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Council at the end of June was supposed to be an opportunity for real change on a number of issues. Listening to this morning's debate, however, I must say that perhaps we have, Mr Sassoli, the wrong title because it seems to me that little is said about the outcome of the European Council and much is said instead of what happened a few hours before the European Council and that therefore it is very curious that a debate like the one we are witnessing has taken place, which is certainly a very questionable debate for some aspects, including formal ones, President of the Commission, because if the President of a parliamentary group, Mr Cioloş, officially announces that a national plan has been suspended, obviously in the absence of a Commission decision, this is very serious, because the Commission should and could activate a procedure in this regard, but certainly has not decided anything from what is officially apparent. It is also very serious that today there are a number of speeches and positions that have nothing to do with the real content that we should be discussing here today in this House, dear President Michel, on certain issues. And I am referring to the issue of immigration to make a very clear reference, which is an issue where, once again, it was preferred not to decide by postponing any solution to October, when instead we would have needed immediate, urgent progress, but little is said about this. We will talk about it hypocritically in the coming months when we may see dozens and tens and tens of thousands of landings on the coasts of southern Europe starting from Italy, and there instead we will tell the whole system that in October the European Commission will make a proposal, but in the meantime we will attack Hungary because this is more convenient at this time, rather than addressing the real issues, the issues for which even on the subject of immigration nothing is done on the one hand, but much more is done on the other, because it is decided to renew the 2015 agreement and make about 3.5 billion euros of contributions to Turkey, highlighting once again the contradictions and hypocrisy that reign within the European institutions, especially because, in that case, the issue of condemning the lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law disappears from our reach. We don't talk about it anymore. We are giving three and a half billion euros and we are moving forward with an urgent need which affects parts of Europe and which does not, on the whole, seriously and credibly address the context we are dealing with. And so I think it is unacceptable to look at the situations on which we are confronted in this House, ignoring what is happening, because in these hours there are some NGOs running around the Mediterranean full of illegal immigrants and that we do not know what the point of arrival will be and above all we are not able at European level to give an answer in this sense, because the situation is being addressed with an agenda that does not look at the real and true needs. Here, we would have liked to talk more about this in this debate, we would have liked to talk more about the national recovery and resilience plans than the effectiveness of their action, we would have liked to talk about economic recovery and what must be a system of interventions on the subject of companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises that must resume and must be the central point of relaunching economic action in the European context. We must try to look at a context in which it seems to me that today's debate has missed a great opportunity to be able to address the real issues and above all to be able to take refuge on questions of principle and of a general nature on which no one is called out. We will discuss the rule of law, we will discuss the issues that are being pursued, but it is not possible for a parliamentary debate such as this to indicate a solution, to issue a judgment, to decide in advance on something on which there is nothing real comparison, but above all it was not discussed in detail and it was not given the opportunity to open this debate. That is why I am disappointed by this debate and I would have preferred today's debate to focus on the issues that really concern citizens and above all that there was, within these institutions, a concept that is that of respect, even of those who think differently and not of the idea of carrying forward with force and determination a unique thought to which we personally can never in any way convince and surrender.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam President of the Commission, Prime Minister Janša, your Presidency is starting while the pandemic is not yet over, with a situation that is certainly improving, but our continent will still have to face very complex and important challenges in the coming months in order to definitively emerge from this dramatic crisis. I believe that the Eurorealism I have heard today in many of your passages can be an excellent synthesis and a concrete opportunity for the Europe of tomorrow to be guided by a spirit of solidarity and cooperation between the different states and peoples. Cooperation and solidarity are often hampered by political prejudices, which undermine respect and fair treatment for all EU countries. In this regard, we are reassured by your words and your approach to the fundamental values and principles of the Union, including the rule of law. And in this regard, the controversy over the European Public Prosecutor's Office seems to me to be quite instrumental both in terms of the timing and the manner in which it is put in place and, above all, in terms of the clarifications that you have abundantly indicated on several occasions. The rule of law monitoring mechanism must operate in an objective and transparent manner while respecting the equality of the Member States, not following the approach that is often highly politicised and that uses mechanisms agreed at EU level only to punish opinions that differ from those carried out by some political parties. All this, unfortunately, only fuels divisions, discord and mistrust between the States and the peoples of Europe. The main objective right now that we should all have is to ensure a stronger and more resilient Europe. Countering the pandemic, strong and lasting economic recovery, integrity of the internal market, commercial interests and strategic autonomy, but also security and defence of our borders to counter phenomena such as terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration: on these issues our group is ready to collaborate guided by pragmatism and common sense. We say yes to environmental protection, but with the right compromise between environmental sustainability and economic and social sustainability. It is also very positive, I want to emphasise, your focus on managing illegal immigration and building a functioning asylum system. We welcome your particular attention to the issue of the Western Balkans, but in order to do so we must not forget the further importance of the Eastern Neighbourhood for ensuring peace and stability in Europe. Finally, this Presidency is at the very start of the Conference on the Future of Europe. Your Presidency will take a fundamental and decisive step forward on this issue. We only hope, without going into the substance, that the Conference on the Future of Europe will not be an opportunity to exclude, but an opportunity to include and take into account all legitimate different views in developing common views on solutions for the future of Europe. I conclude by reiterating that I appreciated the reference to dialogue, cooperation and equal treatment as essential conditions for improving the conditions, well-being and security of our citizens. Our hope, in wishing you a semester of important results, is that this spirit can concretely guide your action. Good work.