Speeches

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.