Debate contributions by Paolo BORCHIA

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for the friends of the EPP to realise that there is a problem with returns. It is also strange that this cry of alarm comes from Scandinavia. We have all heard the words of Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen, from the left, who talks about how problematic the management of immigrants is in her country. And so, after years of open doors where everyone entered, both the deserving and the undeserving - with few immigrants working and too many exploiting and plucking the welfare state built by the sacrifices of generations and generations of Europeans - now the alarm rings. After years of many subsidies and few duties, now let's see if you actually want to change something. Today we are talking about regaining control, but the numbers, the statistics of the Commission tell us that 4 out of 5, when they are expelled, they are not actually repatriated. But when we talk about repatriations, in fact, of safe countries of origin, we need a change of direction, because the broths that have been proposed to us so far do not represent the solutions. Let my colleagues on the left do it for a reason. Because the European voters have been clear in drawing up the composition of this Parliament. There is a clear centre-right majority and if the friends of the EPP decide to implement a serious and rigorous immigration policy, we are there. If they decide to continue acting as crutches for left-wing groups, we obviously don't speak the same language.

Allow me, but the question is a trivial moment since we have been talking about it for weeks. The position of the League has been known for years. Then governments – at least democratic governments, so maybe not the ones you particularly like – are governed by coalitions. In coalitions there are parties with different sensitivities and the League has always expressed itself so clearly. In fact, yesterday we were at the side of the farmers. I don't know if you were there, but we spoke very clearly.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I listened carefully to Mrs von der Leyen's speech on the subject of Mercosur in particular, and I was amazed when she spoke of farmers being listened to. The question is: But then, if they have been so listened to, why have they been demonstrating for two days? Why are they losing hours of work? Why did they spend the night outside this Parliament below zero? This is not a free trade agreement, this is legalized unfair competition. We are talking about one of the sectors most under pressure from competition, from the legislation approved by this Parliament as well. I realize that we cannot satisfy all sectors. But at the same time I wonder: But why should agriculture always be slaughtered anyway? Then, Mr Costa, you referred to the EUR 90 billion loan for Ukraine. I, allow me, would like to call you back to a greater dose of realism, because if we think of recovering this money without an international legal basis, freezing Russian assets, forgetting that there are also European assets frozen in Moscow and without thinking about retaliation, then I think we sin of naivety. Excuse me, but thank goodness that you are not the bank manager because I would not feel very serene if I were your accountant.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, PRIMA is a Euro-Mediterranean partnership on water management, agricultural systems and food supply chains, sectors closely linked to the socio-economic stability of the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. It has a budget of EUR 700 million, co-financed jointly by the Union and the participating countries. Since 2018 PRIMA has produced over 270 projects aimed at obtaining technologies for water saving, the improvement of agricultural practices and governance tools applicable at local level. Independent evaluations, colleagues, confirm its effectiveness. In conclusion, Jordan, the country for which we vote to extend the programme, will contribute €4.5 million for the three-year period 2025-2027. So, no welfare, but a shared financial commitment. In a particular regional context, Jordan has proven to be a reliable partner and the continuation of this cooperation is in the Union's strategic interest.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first metaphor that comes to mind to sum up this COP is that of a high jumper – a normal athlete, perhaps a mediocre one – who wakes up one morning and thinks of setting a new world record. I think this may be the first summary of the COP: A COP that, once again, saw yet another escape from the crucial issues, because a useless declaration of principle was pursued when instead we had to deal with honesty about the numbers. Let me explain and give you an example: on fossil fuels for 40 years, their consumption has stalled at 80% – it takes only five minutes to World Energy Outlook of the International Energy Agency to be aware of this. And here, based on these numbers, the metaphor of the top jumper returns. This is a COP that is coming to an end - I say this also to you, Commissioner - denoting its limits, limits also of working method because we have seen a lethal mix between bureaucracy and diplomacy. I believe that, when we do not honestly compare the numbers, these are the results because the years pass, but final declarations of principle then, unfortunately, only crumbs remain.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe can no longer be the playground where everyone comes to do business without respecting the rules, where the interests of the producing countries are regularly sacrificed on the altar of the interests of the importing countries. We are not charitable fishing for Chinese overcapacity generated with state subsidies; We are a union of sovereign states with workers, businesses and an industrial history to defend. The effectiveness of our trade policy is not measured by the number of treaties that are signed, and the rhetoric of the fair play, when the opponent plays with made-up dice, it has now reached the end of the line. So, if we want to get out of humiliating addiction, the only path we need is that of courage: reciprocity, strict controls and massive investments in our supply chains. For decades, Commissioner, the mantra that has been repeated in Brussels has been one: opening without conditions. We were under the illusion that trade could develop as a peaceful round table and so Brussels, piece by piece, gave up whole slices of our production – steel, electronics and, now, with inertia, we are giving up the future of the battery and mobility sector. Either we finally decide to armor strategic assets, or today's debate will be yet another chat about the abyss on which we are sliding.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not understand why President von der Leyen did not stay here. I think that an hour of his time could have dedicated it to us, also because there are many questions to ask today. I heard from the President herself that, since the ETS was introduced, GDP would increase by 27%. Well, if we had been in Italy I would have had the impression of being on the set of the well-known show "Scherzi a parte", because von der Leyen would have had to say "despite the ETS", not "since when". In summary, I think that we must take a bath of humility, an exercise in realism, and come to the conclusion that the transition must be rethought, it must not be accelerated, also because in this House many think in this way, many have promised it in the election campaign, but then it is preached well but it scratches badly. Mr von der Leyen, if you had stayed in the Chamber, I would have also pointed out to you that you spoke of decarbonisation and competitiveness, but by continuing in this direction you are either decarbonised or you are competitive.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no mistrust in you - we would miss it - but let me slightly doubt the good faith of this debate, because the alleged events that happened eight years ago, strangely, coincidentally, emerge a few months after the elections in Hungary. But, ladies and gentlemen, if we are going to engage this House every time journalistic rumours come up - look - we are done working! We are serious, because it usually works that, first you try an accusation, you reconstruct how things went, you draw conclusions and then, possibly, there is a debate in the Chamber. On the other hand, we must realise that a European government which has been overturned by a people, the Hungarian people, is under constant attack by this Parliament. Do we have to tell the truth? Take the agendas of the last plenary sessions and let's see how many times and what Hungary has been talked about. Now, it is right that there should be inquiries, it is right that there should be in-depth investigations of the case. Let's see if, digging, some "James Bond" or some "Mata Hari" in Hungarian sauce will come out. But as long as we dig, let us try to engage this House with serious arguments that exist and not with assumptions.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Von der Leyen, if you had stayed in the Chamber, I would have told you that tomorrow evening, like all my colleagues, I would have returned to my territory to meet farmers, students, mayors, the real country, and those who will ask how the plenary session went. A context where purchasing power is becoming increasingly worrying, where students want to flee abroad for more decent salaries, where mayors are increasingly struggling to guarantee services for their citizens: But what can I tell this cross-section of society? That the President of the European Commission came to the House and welcomed the fact that the market for wind turbines is increasing by 10%? That the Global South, which is struggling to eat, requires clean energy? This House and this Commission are complicit in a Europe that does not know how to respond: From the obsession with armaments, to the anxiety for decarbonization at all costs, to a brainy and stubborn approach that has never been questioned, which above all has never wanted to listen to those who think differently. This is the reality, this is what is happening. It is an approach that destroys those who produce: -32% for the automotive market in Italy. We will never be your accomplices!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am an expression of the small business of north-eastern Italy, that is to say one of the contexts that has historically been best able to exploit the potential of the single market. However, I was struck, but not surprised, by the fact that you attributed responsibility to the Member States for the obstacles to the single market. I believe, however, that the focus should be placed on another theme: bureaucracy, hyper-regulation, overregulation. We have 60% of the barriers in the services market that are the same as they were 20 years ago. We have the relationship between Europe and the United States, between unicorn start-ups, i.e. those companies with a value of more than one billion that are not listed on the stock exchange, which is one to six: One in Europe, six in the United States. This implies that the companies of the future, unfortunately, are not born in Europe, and therefore it is obvious that it cannot be the fault of the States alone. I believe that the single market is not completed by more bureaucracy, but by putting all businesses on an equal footing, without tax havens, avoiding the brainy choices that damage our businesses and above all constitute the worst hidden internal tariffs.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, President von der Leyen is not offended, but it was 75 minutes of agony: So much theory mixed with hypocrisy, because those who created the problems are now explaining how to solve them. I have heard many contradictions, because it speaks of electric cars and respect for the roadmap of the green deal Just as his Chancellor Merz, the same party, calls for more flexibility on time. It talks to us about the media resilience programme, but at the same time cuts the funds for agriculture; is superficial on Mercosur and above all speaks a lot, too!, of weapons. You turn to a pro-European majority because inventing enemies, especially when you are weak, is always convenient, but this weakness, remember, is reflected in the divisions of the fragile and colorful majority that unconvincedly supports it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if the future of the Union is what we heard this morning, we need to worry. And there is so much to worry about, because we had a President of the European Council who spoke only of weapons - and I miss the times when the European left was pacifist - and a lady, von der Leyen, who has now left us, who talks about how it would be nice to pay less bills and have less bureaucracy, when it was the European Union, the European Commission, that created those same problems that now explains how to solve them. There is a line that unites everything: It starts with the pandemic, then comes the climate emergency and now the feared invasion of Russia across Europe. When peoples are frightened, when emergencies are generated, then it is the peoples themselves who are perhaps more likely to bend their heads. And that seems to be your goal. In conclusion, Mr Costa: A Europe that finds money and flexibility for arms is a Europe that betrays its origins and betrays its principles, because it forgets pensions and salaries, it forgets the Europe that suffers in the name of the Europe of arms.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that we are witnessing the chronicle of an announced death. I say this without rejoicing, which would be out of place, because we are talking about European industry, its competitiveness and jobs. Between Asian competition and the need for rearmament ‐ necessity, we must say, even inflated by an anxious communication that we have witnessed in recent months ‐ the Clean Industrial Deal, which has a name and a programme, has a character which is conditional on the compatibility of environmental measures with the survival of the European industrial apparatus. Personally I am amazed by so many criticisms of the entire system of the Green Deal by those who voted for it, because sometimes I have the impression that the more than thirty regulations and directives that compose it have voted for themselves. Then, Commissioner, industrial companies in Europe pay up to three times more than their competitors in third countries. This structural gap undermines competitiveness, the ability to attract investment and to avoid relocations in particular. To sustain the clean energy transition, we need modern, digitalised electricity grids capable of managing the variability of renewables. In conclusion, Commissioner, if we do not want Europe to become the restricted traffic zone of the world, we need to change the mentality and above all we need to stop talking in terms of ambition, which at this stage is only a dangerous illusion.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the invention of emergencies, a lot of talk about fundamental rights, but you have forgotten one: It is called democracy, it is called respect for the choices of the voters who in Hungary, for the fourth time in a row, have chosen the government. You are sometimes a majority in this Parliament, but very often you are not in real life. So, what lessons do you want to give to the Hungarian people, their history, their values and their choices? And, last but not least, I learn that a large number of colleagues have asked the President of this Parliament to ensure exceptional security measures on the occasion of the trip to the 'Budapest Pride', even if you were going to war. So, this is just to give another crack to the credibility of this poor Parliament.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a debate in which I hear so much - too much I would say - about Russia but little about Europe: We have major problems in terms of industrial competitiveness, we have increasing energy poverty. But the only answer I have heard is in the direction of much more expensive solutions than the current ones, with the Commission and the majority of this Parliament giving me the impression that they can only act impulsively. It attacks, jeopardizes the contractual autonomy of individual States, harboring the illusion that in the simplistic response of "more Europe" we can find solutions for States that perhaps have a greater potential for photovoltaic generation, but they must also deal with States that perhaps do not have an outlet to the sea. For years, the use of deposits in the Eastern Mediterranean has been ostracized. In conclusion I must tell you that opinions are opinions but reality and numbers are different things and 16 packages of sanctions did not end this bloody war.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 50 million people are in the dark and the first trial is taking place today. blackout the History of the Age of Green Deal. And then, beyond – let me put it bluntly – the need to shed light on responsibilities, there are elements that clearly emerge. First of all, the illusion of being able to replace gas with renewables has been leading to imbalances in the energy system for years: The first effect is excessive price volatility. Then Sánchez and Greenpeace did not understand what the nuclear power plants are for, which must guarantee continuous power, they do not serve to buffer the oscillations of the system. And then I heard some criticism of private operators but Red Electrica de Espana, the transmission operator, is controlled by the State and expresses to the Presidency a well-known representative of the Spanish Socialist Party. And it is the duty of the grid operator to determine how much production from renewables does not feed into the grid. In conclusion, today the myth of Spain able to keep prices low thanks to an abundant generation of renewables collapses: This model has too many weaknesses, particularly in terms of energy security. If renewables increase uncontrollably, perhaps also thanks to incentives, and are not called to guarantee the security of the system, we face the failure of energy policy. And on this the Sánchez government cannot hide behind fatality.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I apologize, but perhaps I misread the title of the debate, because I thought I was witnessing yet another - now I have lost count, we are in a few dozen debates - debate on Hungary, but instead I witnessed an advance of an out-of-season electoral campaign by the Hungarian opposition. Then, for the rest, it seems to me that there is always a need for an enemy and those who have a different vision of Europe are regularly branded, trivially, as right-wing extremists. Commissioner, you are right: He said something beautiful when he said you have to be yourself. I agree very much, but then why don't you accept that the Hungarian people are themselves and vote for the political representatives they intend to vote for? I believe that, once again, this House is showing today that it has major problems with democracy, because the cordons will not suffice, the millions of Soros will not suffice, because the peoples of Europe have a bad vice, and this vice is that of voting with their own heads, of thinking with their own heads. And above all, the head, not to bend it to the will and arrogance of Brussels.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I take note of the marketing exercise or make-up – let’s call it what we want – to make the rearmament plan more acceptable, but people don’t like it. It's probably a hasty re-edition of the Pleven plan, which will perhaps end in its own way. Then, colleagues, look: People ask me, in everyday life, when salaries will increase, when pensions will increase, not when the latest generation of drones arrive, not when the most modern tanks arrive. So if the message is that budgetary flexibility can only be applied to military expenditure and only to rearmament, then, excuse me, but this Union will lose the little credibility it has left. Then there is another big issue, that of urgency. We also read it in the Council conclusions: It has to be done soon! We want to convey anxiety to Europeans, because then when a people is anxious it supinely accepts, without making stories, what are the decisions taken from above. Colleagues, the League is not, and never will be, the party of arms! And then, allow me: If an idea is bad, it remains bad and it is not enough to change its name.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, theautomotive European is a sick person, he has a serious pathology and the answer that is given is a lukewarm broth, moreover. There are less than ten years left to ban the endothermic engine but in Europe electric cars do not reach 2%. But where do you want to go? Regulation has had an increasing impact on the range of models offered but has not been able to influence consumer guidance. And then there remains the great theme of how to generate all the electricity that will be needed to power the car fleet of Europeans. This plan was supposed to reverse the trend of building trust among car manufacturers, small and medium-sized related businesses, and consumers. Instead, he did not have the courage to acknowledge that Europe's approach to electric cars is failing. You have put so many companies into charity. This plan could have been ransom: This is yet another missed opportunity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, good luck. It seems to me that this Commission is supported by an uncohesive majority. For the rest, this is a lunar debate. We have heard Mr Repasi using the plenary to campaign for the German elections. Excuse me, but where are we? Buy TV commercials, don't use the European Parliament. Now you're mad at the billionaires, but when they helped and financed the left, everything was fine, wasn't it? You are destroying European industry with the Green Deal and now you are inventing that competitiveness would be threatened by those who are calling for a more gradual and orderly transition and did not vote for the Green Deal. Excuse me, but do you think European voters are fools? You're trying to scare people by talking about the far right, when the far right has been dead and buried for so many years. What you brand as extremists are movements that are trying to save Europe, that very Europe that you are destroying. Someone talked about fashion for the right, I call it democracy.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am intrigued by so many exercises of wisdom on the part of those who have helped to relegate the European Union to the margins of the international arena. It was strange, for example, to see in the election campaign that the same people who had written the Green Deal, cemetery of the competitiveness of our companies, then they were the first to criticize it, but after voting for it. It is a pleasure for our colleagues in the EPP to talk about the defence of borders, and we agree very much. However, for a serious and structured management of immigration, it is necessary to talk about it with the Patriots, not to make a majority with the socialists. This Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, must find credibility and respect for what Europeans vote for. Instead, over the past five years we have seen farmers being branded as polluters and entrepreneurs being forced out of competition. That's not right. I conclude with an observation, with a small reflection on the intervention of the President of the Socialists, who perhaps did not read the title of the debate and dedicated three of her four minutes to the summit of the Patriots in Madrid. Here, we take note of the strategy: Talk about others to avoid talking about your own disasters.

Mr President, Commissioner Ribera, ladies and gentlemen, you mentioned that the Green Deal would make history. Look, in one sentence it completely synthesizes being outside of reality, living totally on another planet. Sales of electric cars are not taking off; To date, there are no conditions for generating all the electricity that would be needed to ensure the mobility of the car fleet of all the countries of the European Union. I wonder: How do we talk about prosperity when we see the garrisons outside the factories of the supply chain, worried families, families slammed on the street? In 87 years of history, Volkswagen had only opened plants, now it is closing. Are we talking about prosperity? What is fair and inclusive? Have you seen the results of the election? People no longer trust you and we realise - and this is just one example - what would have happened to the packaging chain if Parliament and the Council had not corrected the approach of the Packaging Regulation? I, Commissioner, already told you this when we spoke at the hearing: We don't need environmental activists and radicals, we don't need another Timmermans.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on the eve of the European Council, I am intrigued by this whole repatriation race. Evidently the campaign promises still some tailstroke present it. After years in which the League has tried to explain to you the harmful consequences of unplanned immigration, without a vision, at the mercy of human traffickers, of immigration that is too - only - quantitative and not at all qualitative, suddenly one wakes up, after noticing the exasperation of millions of Europeans, and is struggling to find a solution. And this is after our cities, in almost all of Europe, have become almost a Far West newspaper. Here, in fact, the solution would be much simpler: hotspot and minimise the number of departures of those who know perfectly well that they will not have the right to find international protection in Europe. This was understood by Matteo Salvini, who as Minister of the Interior had found the solution – understood, appreciated, shared by the people. But all this consensus has frightened the masters of chaos and on Friday, in Palermo, a court will judge his conduct for what, for all intents and purposes, is a political process: A political trial of a man who kept his promises.