Speeches

Madam President, President von der Leyen, President Michel, ladies and gentlemen, I listened with interest to the words of President von der Leyen, who gave us a vision of her trip to the United States and gave us an anticipation of what the measures that we so much await from the Commission will have within them. I allow myself, however, to be a bit skeptical, because in what you have outlined there are certainly elements of interest. But these are promises that we have heard for a long time and we are waiting for concrete facts. And then, in my opinion, on the subject of what Europe wants to be at industrial and production level in the coming years, there is a basic mistake in the strategy that the European institutions are carrying out and I have repeated it several times. In my view, it is a great mistake to copy the United States or to think that today the European Union can make or chase the United States into a battlefield for which we do not have adequate weapons. And really, the right strategy is not to replicate what the United States is doing, but to understand, to try to understand the reasons why on the industrial transition the United States can be leaders and protectionists and the European Union, today, cannot be because we lack so many tools. Some have outlined it. I would like to point out three of them, which I believe are fundamental and on which the industrial transition approach should be based. One – as you mentioned, Mr President, we have been talking about this for a long time – is administrative and bureaucratic complexity. Today, private investors do not invest in Europe, first of all because there are too many rules, because they are too complicated and because there is no legislative environment that is suitable for this type of investment. The second point is linked, this too, touched on in its initial presentation, and it is the capital market. The United States has a well-developed capital market. Europe is far behind on this point. We have been talking about it for many years, but the progress is really insignificant and there is an abundant amount of liquidity in these markets that awaits a signal to be able to invest in new technologies. And the last point is about natural resources. The United States is a country that has great natural resources, not only in its territory, but also has neighbors and allies who have as many resources, you mentioned Canada. Our transition will be based on technologies and resources that depend on a great country with which we have a clash today, which is China, which is not democracy, which is not a country to which we can tie our hands and feet. And there is another theme: Technological neutrality. Today, the Commission is abandoning this sacrosanct principle in its draft: To abandon the concept of technological neutrality in this transition is to kill innovation and research. The last point, on the subject of immigration. I agree with what Mr Procaccini said. I appreciated President Michel's words, because it means that today there is a change of course, today there is no longer the narrative of open borders or redistribution, which is not possible, but the focus is on reducing an activity that is illegal. Because, let's face it loud and clear, illegal immigration is an illegal activity. And it makes me feel like I have heard in recent days attacks by some colleagues on a government that in recent months has saved more than 30,000 people in the seas, even in areas that were not within its competence. So it takes a little more respect, especially from those who fill their mouths with respect for the rule of law, but then when it comes to immigration, they wink at the traffickers of human lives.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Green Industrial Plan presented by the European Commission has two flaws: the first in the assumptions and the second in the direction, in my opinion wrong, which takes this initiative. I'll go explain why. The first reason is to pursue the United States, and we are already starting out defeated if that is the assumption. The European Union is not the United States of America, we do not have the same tools, we do not have the same structure, and to start trying to imitate what they do on the other side of the Atlantic is to start already defeated. The second point concerns a drift, which I believe is dangerous, on the part of the European Commission. That is, it seems to me that we are going back to experiences of economic and industrial planning that we have already seen in the past in other systems and that have not worked, obviously. I am concerned that today the European Commission is presenting industrial policy plans and initiatives that tell companies what to do, when to do it, when to do it and how to do it. In my opinion, this is not efficient in a free market like that of the European Union. The third point, which is even more important in my view, is the very heart of the matter. Today, the European Union, in its proposals on the green transition, is abandoning a principle that, in my view, is fundamental in any industrial regulation: Technological neutrality. And this means that we are no longer talking about how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but we are talking about targeting all our chips on a technology that is even a technology that has certain shadows. We are not sure that it is the best technology, and this means killing investment in research and technology. The last point - and I will close - concerns what we can do today. Today, talking to companies and investors, the first obstacle to the flow of private liquidity in the European Union also on this type of investment is that of the clumsiness of rules and regulations that often kill the industry. Here, cutting unnecessary regulation, making it simpler, I think it is a fundamental step that we can really take to avoid bringing industrial desertification to Europe. Unfortunately, we have seen in the pandemic what it means to no longer have certain productions on our territory.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council is finally taking up a fundamental dossier, a fundamental practice that the European Union and the European institutions have been debating for years without the ability to finally take decisive action. We have high hopes in the words we have heard today, both from the Swedish Presidency, which has been very clear about its objectives in the first few weeks, and from Commission President von der Leyen, who, I think, has finally focused on what the problem is and what real solutions we need to put in place to solve the problem of immigration. Talking exclusively about redistribution and open doors, as we have done in recent years, means not wanting to solve the problem because the redistribution here, with these numbers, nobody wants it: Macron's government did not want it, socialist governments in Spain or other countries did not want it, no one in Europe wanted it. So continuing today to talk about redistribution and responsibility without reducing the numbers means not solving the problem. The points were also outlined by those who preceded me, the focus must be put on the external borders and on the protection of our external borders; This is what civilised states do, this is what developed states do, this is what states with the rule of law do, and I think that the European Union should be part of this group. I agree with the proposal that has often been made in the past, by my country and my party: we need to process asylum applications outside the borders of the European Union, because the percentage of applications that are accepted is very low and the rest remains with the countries that share an external border of the European Union. We can do this, because we give a lot of funding to many third countries at our external borders and I think that when we make agreements to distribute this money we can also ask for structures to process applications, where the institutions of the European Union take on the task of monitoring respect for the human rights of people who transit through them. The last key point: NGOs. We cannot, a public authority cannot outsource control of its external borders to private organizations and on this, very often, we have detected profiles of potential illegality. This we must do: Reduce departures. Only by reducing departures will we reduce deaths at sea and have a more civilised European Union.

Madam President, happy birthday again, ladies and gentlemen, the last European Council, almost a year after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, reiterated the unconditional support that European countries and European institutions are ready to give to the Ukrainian people in their struggle for freedom. But it also laid the important foundations for what are the political priorities for 2023, which must be a year of rebirth after so much suffering. And the political priorities of these institutions must focus mainly on three major themes that will define the future of European countries and European institutions over the next 20, 30, 40 years: energy, the economy and the regulation of migration flows. We welcome the fact that in that meeting the foundations were laid for a meeting in February, which will focus on security and immigration issues, and I hope that in 2023 and that in this meeting the foundations will be laid for a different approach than in the past on this issue, which must focus on reducing departures and protecting the external borders. Only by reducing departures will we reduce deaths at sea and convince all European countries to talk about redistribution on smaller numbers. With regard to the energy issue, which is the hottest one, I partially agree with what President Van der Leyen said: It is true that in recent months, with difficulty, the European Union has moved, but perhaps the result and the condition less worse than we expected this winter is not so much dictated by the efficiency of the measures put in place, but rather by exogenous and favourable conditions, not dependent on it. This must be a reason to encourage us to work more concretely on two guidelines: one on energy autonomy, which is still far from being achieved, and two on the assessment of a green transition, which must be pragmatic and not ideological. And even with regard to Russia, it is true that the measures have been quite efficient, but it is equally true that Russian energy products, bypassing sanctions, continue to arrive in Europe in an important way. So we expect a lot more on this. The last topic, he talked about in Davos, is that of the economy. Theoutlook Presented on the first day is a outlook This is not very good for Europe, even if conditions in this area seem less bad than we expected. Well, the review of state aid, but beware we must not only worry about competitiveness with countries outside the European Union, but we must preserve competitiveness within the continent and the integrity of the single market, which is certainly the greatest success of European integration. The figures are worrying about state aid. In the last year of the hundreds of billions of schemes approved by the Commission, 80% concerned Europe's two largest economies and more than 50% the largest. The internal market is in danger. We expect concrete actions and on this we will also judge the action of the European institutions in 2023.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Vice-President Šefčovič, Prime Minister, welcome to the European Parliament, the Swedish Presidency certainly comes with great expectations, at a time that is not easy, but in a semester that we hope will be a rebirth after the difficulties and the great crises that we have faced during this year. The priorities you have put on the table are priorities on which we expect concrete answers and work that goes beyond the emergency response, but looks at the next twenty, thirty years and the structural future of the European Union, starting with the hottest one, the hottest theme, that of energy. It is true that, on the one hand, as Vice-President Šefčovič said, winter is going better than we would have expected, but, in my opinion, it is perhaps more due to the randomness and leniency of a less rigid climate than to the effectiveness of the responses we have put in place in recent months. On this we expect concrete structural action, because the price of gas still remains well above the average of recent years and undermines not only the competitiveness of European companies, but also the survival of our citizens. The issue of economics has been touched upon. Many colleagues have spoken about the revision of the State aid rules and this is certainly something we need to do. But be careful because this does not come and is not happening without a cost. Of the hundreds of billions of state aid schemes approved in the last year, 80% went and were demanded to come from the two largest economies within the European Union. Here, be careful, because the sustainability and integrity of our internal market must be the guiding light in this review. And the last point on immigration, we talked about it, for many years we have been trying to find an agreement, but we focus on the wrong issue, which is that of redistribution. I hope that the Swedish Presidency will take the matter into its own hands with a clear objective: the protection of our external borders to reduce arrivals. Only in this way will we reduce deaths at sea. Only in this way will we make the situation on the continent more sustainable. Only with lower numbers of arrivals will we finally be able to convince everyone to talk about redistribution. And one last point: We talked about Ukraine. This House's support for the Ukrainian people has been unconditional this year, but there is another people crying out for help and calling for the European Union. It is the Iranian people who are suffering and shouting a cry of freedom that we must listen to. On this issue too, we expect strong and concrete action against the Ayatollahs by the Swedish Presidency.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at the opening of the proceedings on Monday, in this House, there was a word spoken by all, unity, in order to respond better to an unprecedented scandal. Well, I am sorry to see that someone is still a victim of their own short-sighted political arrogance. That is why I propose, on behalf of the ID Group, an oral amendment whereby paragraph 3 should become as follows: Stresses that the gravity and scale of the ongoing investigations require Parliament and the EU institutions to react with unequivocal unity and firm determination; reaffirms that its idea of unequivocal unity does not include all political groups, i.e. the representatives of millions of European citizens; I conclude, Mr President, by saying that this House is just another proof of the hypocrisy and pettiness of some in this Parliament, who feel morally superior even now that the recent serious events have blatantly denied them.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the President for her words at this difficult time. What is happening these days I think is so far from the culture that it should belong to this institution, that it becomes very difficult even to find the words to comment on it. We are all deeply shocked by what is emerging in these hours, with very serious accusations against representatives of weight of these institutions, of the present and the past, as well as collaborators investigated in various ways. For our group it is clear and essential that this Parliament should take a strong and decisive position because, unfortunately, the attitude we have seen in the past and especially in recent months has not helped these institutions, with colleagues who have stood up as champions against foreign interference, even to the point of filling an official report of this Parliament with accusations that are not always substantiated. We are in the classic situation where you look at the speck of others and you do not notice the beam in your eyes. That is why I say today to all my fellow Members that this Parliament must be more humble and less hypocritical on certain sensitive issues. It is clear that everyone can make mistakes and commit a mistake and the responsibility for actions, until proven otherwise, is always personal, but what has become frankly unsustainable in this legislature, and will have to change, I believe is the attitude of moral superiority of some. This huge scandal that we are experiencing is just another proof. Now, beyond the immediate actions that we will take to protect the respectability of these institutions, I believe that we must do a deeper job and I believe that this Parliament must thoroughly investigate, in the future, whether there is also a political responsibility behind the facts that we have seen and reconstructed, starting from a different attitude and above all countering the self-referentiality that we have all too often seen damaging this institution and the European institutions.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, just to remind you that this morning, unfortunately, Mr Roberto Maroni, former Vice-President of the Italian Council, Minister of Governments of the Republic, Member of Parliament and Governor of the Lombardy Region for many years, passed away. A void that leaves in politics, to which he has made an important contribution in his institutional roles, also in the construction of European institutions in the last thirty years, but above all it leaves us the well-liked man, always pragmatic and always ready for discussion even with the political opponent. We were pleased that even today this House would remember him in his commitment as an Italian politician and as a European politician.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, Prime Ministers, ladies and gentlemen, seventy years have passed since the creation of the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community. It was 1952 and Europe was very different from what we know today. The great wars were behind us and we were preparing for a future of peace and development with great hope. At the time, only 78 parliamentarians were appointed by the national parliaments of the Member States. Today we are almost ten times as many, 705, and each of us is here because it was the citizens with their vote who chose us here to represent them. I believe it is also necessary on this occasion to remind everyone, but first of all ourselves, of the value of democracy and the respect we owe to the citizens we represent in this House. The weight and extent of our parliamentary actions must be guided by the importance of the challenges ahead and the hopes that people, citizens, place in the institution of which we are part. And democracy in a context of national peculiarities, of different sensibilities and cultures that are close, but that maintain their own identity means above all respect for these differences and not flattening on a single model of thought. It is necessary to motivate everyone to rediscover that sense of common interest in facing challenges and in finding efficient and rapid solutions to the grim moment we are going through, unfortunately, and I invite you to reflect, to recover precisely that spirit, which in 1952 had given the impetus for the creation of what this institution is today. At the time, in fact, it was precisely through the ECSC that the States expressed all the importance of such fundamental elements to guarantee autonomy, development and a strategy for the continent. Resources and energy: These are two extremely topical issues even today. This fact should prompt us to ask ourselves: How did we get to where we are today? Why did we decide, first politically, then in fact, to delegate to other such strategic issues? Why, even at the industrial level, have we succumbed to the sirens of indiscriminate globalization? Relocation, dependence on third countries in terms of energy and substantial loss of autonomy are the mistakes that have led us to have to find solutions today, in a hurry, to a crisis that unfortunately will not leave us so soon. I believe that we have much to learn from our predecessors and I hope that today's anniversary will motivate each of us to recover the roots of this project and to give a different line to the present, but above all to our future. And, in conclusion, there is still one thing that I believe this institution lacks in order to be able to say fully realized: Sharing responsibility and values with democratic opposition representing millions of European citizens. When we get to this stage, we can really say that democracy is finally respected and fully represented in this House and in this institution as well.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, President von der Leyen, President Michel, we are concerned because we see that that unity, that concreteness, that impetus that the European institutions had after 24 February, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, is failing. The debate, the discord between two European institutions, which seems to me to be quite clear even from President Michel's speech, is not a good signal, it is not that signal of unity and coordination of the European institutions that we need. We need it right now to plan for 2023, which we know will be an even more difficult year than the emergency months we have faced right now. President von der Leyen recalled the actions taken, the achievement of adequate storage to face this winter, some measures that will certainly help us to face the emergency situation and recalled the drop in prices since the peak this summer. But that's not enough! It is not enough because we will probably be able to better cross the winter not so much for what we have done, but for exogenous conditions: A winter milder than was perhaps planned and which helped us to lower demand and, therefore, also to lower prices in a market economy. We need to take concrete action to address and respond to 2023, when Asian buyers will return to the market and the LNG market will be more competitive; when flows from Russia will no longer be available, as was the case for part of this year; when the storages are empty and the flows are lower. We need action today and we also need action on the issue of how much the European economy is financing Russia, because it is true, as the President recalled, that flows from pipelines and pipelines have gone almost to zero, but it is equally true that there are other worrying data: The import of liquid natural gas from Russia to the European Union has increased dramatically even in these months of war, in these months of confrontation, and we must act on this. We need concrete actions, also thinking about the responses that the world, our competing countries are giving to this crisis: China and the US are heavily subsidising their industries, so what will the European Union do? What can the European Union do to protect industries and households at a time of difficulty and at a time when our competitiveness is at risk? On this we need great unity and we need that, to words and statements, follow the facts, concrete facts and concrete answers.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me first reflect. Hearing some of my colleagues speak earlier, I was wondering what the people who saw the start of this debate today might think about European unity. We talk about it a lot, but then we are the first ones who, for futile and unjustified reasons, give an image of a divided Europe. Think about it when you make certain attacks and have more respect, you who stand as champions of democracy, for those who have a different idea, for those who democratically chose a government. Italians are very well able to choose for themselves, stop it. If I were in the socialist leadership, I would worry that the first leader to pay tribute to the Chinese dictator will be a socialist leader, German Chancellor Scholz. So, reflect on this before giving lessons of democratism to others. With regard to the next Council and the package that the European Commission has announced, before analysing this, however, let me take a moment to remind you, to make a prayer for the Ukrainian citizens who, again, in the face of a criminal attack, an unjustified attack, have perished. We must continue to ensure our support to ensure that this war ends as soon as possible and ends with a winning Ukraine. On the package, it's still a package of course in progressWe are also waiting for the Member States to give their green light, but allow me, Mr von der Leyen, to say that this package is not even remotely sufficient and I am trying to explain to you why we do not consider it sufficient. The first reason is that we even seem to have taken a few steps back from what you came here two weeks ago to announce to us. It is a package which, it is true, contains a proposal on the price cap – you mentioned it, we have been talking about it since March and today there is finally something on the table – but it is a price cap As it has been structured, it is unlikely that it will be implemented, assuming that there is then consensus in the Council and among the Member States to carry it forward. Solidarity, which is a very important element, will be a very important element not only to face the winter, but to face the next year that will perhaps be even more difficult. It is also a solidarity in purchases, which is important, but rightly goes to protect small states that, alone, in a competitive market, they could not do it, but little will be able to do to secure purchases, in a market that in 2023 will be even more competitive and competition will not only be within us, but will be especially with consumers. buyer Asians. And then, the protection of the competitiveness of our companies, this is a huge issue, a subject that also concerns industrial policy. And then, I close with two points. The first: the relevant part of this package is the re-use of the 2014-2020 cohesion funds. They are 40 billion, so little compared to the size of the problem, but they are the most important part. I believe that the Commission should also make a case for the 2021-2027 budget. Today there is an emergency. It is true that the European budget is structured differently, but in the face of the emergency, even with the 2021-2027 budget, we must respond. And then, I close with a point: What we can really do and the European Union can do is sit down with partners, with NATO allies, who are now gaining on the skin of Europeans, and speak clearly. The United States, Canada, Norway are now earning six to seven times as much as the normal gas prices they send us. I believe that if the European Union wants to do something concrete, it must sit down and speak clearly with all partners, we must make an agreement to block the price of gas that you send us, otherwise the European Union will no longer be able to guarantee the same support to Ukraine that we have guaranteed so far.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry that, once again, I have to steal time from my speech in order to respond to those who exploit politics at such a delicate time. But I would like to remind the Socialist Group that we do not accept lessons in morality from those who wink in Europe and outside the worst far-left regimes. We do not accept morality lessons about Russia from those who still host Russia's biggest lobbyist, former Chancellor Schröder. And we do not accept lessons from those who still in Europe turn a blind eye to the violations of some governments just because they are supported by socialist parties. Accept the democratic result of the elections in Italy and get out of the head that Italy, even with this government, is not the protagonist of positive construction in Europe and support for Ukraine. Turning to concrete matters, to today's problems, I have listened attentively to the speeches of President von der Leyen and the High Representative, but we are very concerned. Looks like the story hand is back. In these six to seven months, in February, unfortunately we found ourselves again facing a war within Europe that brought us back to what happened seventy years ago, more than seventy years ago: A disaster of history. And today, in the face of escalation, the nuclear threat, the threat of a cold war between nuclear powers, which we hoped to have left behind us, returns forcefully to present itself. And Europe must, also in this sense, show unity, as it has done in recent months, to prevent this threat from materialising. The High Representative spoke about the new package of sanctions and I believe that the European institutions have demonstrated the unity, leadership, pragmatism and realism that is needed on this issue in recent months, and therefore we must ensure that we continue to have important support for these measures. But, as I have already said, Mr President, in my previous speeches, in parallel today Europe needs to put in place measures to support businesses and families. If we want to maintain strong support, including from our own people, for the Ukrainian people in fighting this war, we need the weight of these measures not to fall on the citizens. Unfortunately, I do not share the optimism that you have outlined that we are going to have a relatively quiet winter, that we have all the tools to go through this winter unscathed. Unfortunately, the reality of the facts seems different to us. We really do call for support measures to be put in place and I appeal. I'm glad to hear that on price cap It will probably go on. We know how difficult it is to reach an agreement, we know that it will not be easy to impose an agreement. price cap imports from Russia, but in recent months citizens are asking themselves a question. As Western allies we have shown great unity, we have supported NATO, the European Union has supported NATO in the measures, but it does not seem to us that the allies have shared the burden of these measures. We know that Europe is suffering, we know that the allies have supported us in increasing gas supplies, energy supplies to the European Union, but we expect that from allies with whom we have shared a strong path there will also come support, a strong help to Europe. Today Norway, the United States, Canada, all NATO countries, earn six to seven times as much with the supplies they send to Europe. Well, it would be nice if the European Union pushed these allies to consider them a price cap and to provide, in these difficult months, in these critical months, all the necessary support, even reducing perhaps a little their profit margins, to ensure that Europe can continue to strongly support the approach of the West and NATO towards Ukraine.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Zelenska, welcome, your testimony here today is important and it is important that you have also demonstrated today that this House and these institutions will continue to support, across the board, the Ukrainian people against Russian aggression. Before getting to the heart of the topics touched on by President von der Leyen, I would like to make a suggestion to the Green and Socialist friends who, in the absence of original ideas, continue to cry out to the fascist threat in Europe: Well, I suggest you talk to citizens, traders, businesses and you will find that none of them are worried about a fascist threat, but rather they are worried about having to bear the damage of years of devastating and destructive policies carried out by these groups in Europe. On what President van der Leyen said, we heard a good speech, but unfortunately, President, it remains a speech, words remain. You have announced measures that the Commission will propose to deal with a dramatic situation that this continent has never experienced in the past. But these measures – let me say – are not even remotely sufficient to be able to bring concrete help to those who today are suffering, through no fault of their own, from a situation that – I repeat – is dramatic. Businesses are closing down, they are stopping production, shops are closing down and citizens are no longer able to face the costs of living that are increasing exponentially across Europe. And it is true, as you have pointed out, that the main fault for this lies not in Europe but in those who have carried out unjustified aggression. But from 24 February onwards, Europe is responsible for protecting its citizens from the consequences that we could have imagined and that we knew from the beginning would be there. And Europe's fault was that it did not act in time. You reminded us a few days ago that democracy has a cost: It is true, if we want democracy there are processes that we have to endure, there is dialogue, there is confrontation and then things are done. But this must not be a justification for non-action and delay, which unfortunately is the responsibility of some European institutions. The cap on the price of gas, which is the only measure that will somehow help citizens and businesses against this crisis we are experiencing, still remains uncertain, still remains in discussions, still remains in a debate and a dialectic that does not give us hope and does not give hope to those who are suffering too clearly in the face of this crisis. And with regard to this cry for help, this call for concrete and rapid action in the face of a critical situation, I also make another reflection, more internal to the mechanisms of the European Union and to the work that the European Commission has carried out since 2019. In my country there is a saying that only fools and fools do not change their minds. Here, I believe that the European Commission should make this statement its own and look at what is proposed, at the pillars of what the programme was in 2019 and understand that some things need to be revised. The world of 2019, when these norms and plans were conceived, is a world that has totally changed, it is a world that we know will no longer exist. The hands of time will not turn back. We therefore need Europe and the Commission to look at the changed situation with pragmatism on the Green Deal and on some trade policies and, in a forward-looking way, to admit that there are different conditions and therefore certain things are not only no longer feasible but have not helped to date to protect the climate or to achieve the industrial and socio-economic transition that this continent desperately needs today.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, Mr Vice-President, Prime Minister Fiala, as I said at the meeting we had a few weeks ago of useful discussion, good luck. Good luck for you and your country to manage the Presidency of the Council at one of the most critical moments that this continent, which this Union is facing both from an external point of view, the issue of the war in Ukraine, and from an internal point of view. You and your colleagues have listed the problems that the citizens and businesses of the Union are facing today with great difficulty and we share the priorities of this ambitious programme that the Czech Presidency is putting on the table in these six months, but now we need the facts, the citizens are asking us for concrete facts and concrete decisions. Too much time has been spent in these months in a certainly difficult situation in finding the right decisions and even today there are no answers on the two fundamental issues. On the war, we know that until we can end this war, inflation will not go down, energy prices will not go down, we will not be able to save the people of Ukraine, and we will not be able to save the people of Europe, our countries, our citizens. And we have to act on that. Protecting, defending Ukraine with the ultimate goal of achieving peace as soon as possible, this is what Ukrainian citizens are asking of us, this is what European citizens are asking of us. On the economy, as I have said several times here, the European institutions have been lacking. Today we need strong, exceptional measures, because the situation is dramatic. The costs of the energy bill have increased fivefold, tenfold, the activities are no longer able to reach the end of the month, to make balance sheets, the prospects for our economy are gray as they have not been for some time. The proposals are on the table, we need to act and immediately. President Weber recalled the proposal that the Italian government put on the table even at the last Council. The longer we wait to put a cap on the price of gas, the harder it will be to counter Russia and the more we will give Russia room to blackmail us into gas supplies. And I would like to add another proposal, which the Polish Prime Minister made very intelligently: We temporarily put a cap also the CO2 price, the ETS scheme. We need strong decisions. I close by saying that I do not agree that what the European institutions are doing about the green transition is not affecting the price of energy and is not part of the problem. And I'm not saying that, says the European Central Bank, which has officially confirmed several times in recent months that the pressure on inflation is also the cause of some policies that we are pursuing. We need pragmatism, we need concrete decisions because otherwise we will not be able to talk about Europe, otherwise we will not be able to perceive the value of being together with our citizens and our businesses.

Mr President, Mr von der Leyen, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, there are great expectations for what a delicate European Council will be, precisely because the phase we are currently facing is a delicate one, not only because of the political and symbolic significance of some of the choices that will be made – we hope that there will be a unanimous decision on granting the status of candidate country to Ukraine – but also because today it is time for the European institutions to take concrete decisions in the face of an increasingly deteriorating situation, which European citizens and businesses are facing. You, Minister, have spoken well and I want to focus on sanctions. The goal of the sanctioning instrument is clear and it is the only weapon we have today to bring Russia to a negotiating table. And you said well what should be the goal of sanctions: It must stop the flow of money that enters Russia's coffers and finances the war. If this is the goal that we shared and shared at the beginning, I believe the results are not entirely satisfactory and I believe that the impact that these sanctions have had on the price of energy is helping Putin not only to finance his war more and more, but also to use gas and energy as a weapon of blackmail. If the financial flows to Russia had not been so high, in recent months, in recent weeks, due to price increases, today Russia could not have cut energy resources and also endangered the plan that the European Commission had presented to us to secure our winter, supplies to be able to allow us to take those steps in terms of diversification of energy resources, in terms of building new infrastructure, in terms of ensuring energy independence for Europe. I think we need to think about this and I think it is finally time for an agreement on a cap on the price of energy, a proposal that my government has been bringing to the European tables for a long time. And I close with a very important aspect, always on concrete actions, which we ask, which the citizens ask of the European institutions. The economic scenario is deteriorating more and more, rising prices, rising inflation is biting more and more on the ankles of European citizens and businesses. Faced with the steps that we are strongly taking to protect, to defend Ukraine, I believe it is necessary to move forward today and agree on concrete actions to help European citizens and businesses to go through this moment of great difficulty that comes after two years of pandemic that have already bitten with the difficulties of European citizens and businesses. It is necessary for the institutions to carry out a project to ensure that we do not face a new economic crisis in the coming months.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Prime Minister Martin for being here, because at this time of serious difficulty, in one of the most difficult times facing the European institutions, it is very important that we have a constant interinstitutional dialogue, especially between this Parliament and the representatives of the Member States. First of all, coordination and dialogue are important in order to strengthen a point where, in my opinion, the European institutions have been somewhat lacking in this difficult period, which is credibility. When facing a geopolitical challenge, a major challenge such as the one we are facing in the face of Russian aggression, credibility and unity are two factors of fundamental importance. Unfortunately, also because of the strategic and informational mistakes we have made in the past in building our Union and our model, we have seen this credibility and unity gradually lacking. So it is crucial that we work together, so that separate blocks are not created, as we are sometimes seeing in discussions about emergencies. Reflecting on why and how we can avoid these mistakes in the future becomes crucial. Decades of energy dependence on Russia, which have been a political choice made by the European Union in the past, have made us weak. Just today, when this Parliament is due to vote on one of the most important measures of the next legislature, we must take advantage of our past mistakes, so as not to repeat them in the future. The energy transition, on which this Commission has focused a lot in this legislature and on which this Parliament has been working for a long time, will be successful if it is not guided by ideology and if we learn from our mistakes of the past. At a time when we are trying to break free from Russia, tie our hands and feet to another geopolitical threat, which is the Chinese one, it is not exactly the right way to reshape the socio-economic future of the European Union. So we invite everyone to reflect and make a right strategic decision on our autonomy, including on this package. I close on the last point, very important. Today we are trying to support Ukraine and its people in the face of this aggression, and the European citizens have made a great effort and are enduring a great effort to this end, but we have long demanded that the European institutions take concrete action so that the burden of this latest crisis does not fall on the European citizens and our businesses. In the face of the challenges we are facing – inflation, rising costs, unemployment and loss of purchasing power – it is crucial that there are three priorities for the European institutions: work, work, work. We have a great opportunity to shape our new future model, which must be based on an autonomy that frees us from regimes and makes us independent in our geopolitical choices. If we are not able to shape this system by looking at the mistakes of the past, unfortunately the European Union will remain a weak geopolitical actor and will always depend on others. Thank you, we are counting on you.

Madam President Metsola, Commissioner Gentiloni, President Draghi, welcome back to the European Parliament. As you mentioned, we are facing one of the most critical moments in European history, with a war a few kilometers from us, which today calls us to give a strong, thoughtful, but above all credible response to the dark period we are facing. Unfortunately, in recent weeks we have had to see that the initial conviction of being strong and united Member States, European institutions and leaders has dissolved as a result, in our opinion, of past and present strategic errors, of building our European system that continue to make us weak, inefficient and above all blackmailable. It is necessary to process these errors before looking to the future. Above all, we need to reflect on the choices made in the past. We need to find new solutions to old problems and above all to do it quickly. Dependence on countries like Russia has been a political decision of the past decades. We have made our prosperity dependent on cheap raw materials and energy, thus no longer having guaranteed any control over production levels, risking the paralysis of entire economic sectors, but the strategic autonomy that we all invoke today will not exist until we profoundly change our industrial development model and our socio-economic model. A few days before 1 May, I would like to draw attention to the issue of work and recall that the strategic security of the Union on wages and purchasing power requires that some fundamental productions are no longer made in a single country outside our borders, but on European soil. And we know that there will be a price to pay for this, that is, an inevitable increase in costs. So – and you know this well as an economist – the economic balance will require that they can be paid for more and that these goods are also available to the same workers who will have to be paid for better. Unfortunately, the downward levelling, which we have seen during the period of uncontrolled globalisation, must be reversed primarily for reasons of national security. First, however, I think we need to clarify one point: for this reversal to be sustainable we should all together think in terms of the race to the top, demand quality, bear the cost and of course demand remuneration. Today we realize that we must make ourselves more autonomous on supplies, but I invite everyone not to repeat the same mistakes of the past. Moving from Russian to Chinese dependency, for example, cannot be considered a winning strategy. The highest offices of the Union must reconsider the decisions of the past and reflect on the answers to the enormous questions that the dramatic conflict in Ukraine has posed to us. Is this still the right direction to follow? Was it wise to rely on the leadership of a single country to outline the political and strategic path of an entire continent? Is it really essential to insist on proposing ideological recipes to real problems? What is needed now is more pragmatism and less ideology, more concrete actions and less announcements on the issues you have touched on – work, energy, environment and defence – to find a solution, the EU can refer precisely to the energy issue. As we are seeing, energy mixes vary from country to country, needs and lifestyles are different depending on the capital we are in. Here, I hope that this state of affairs, which is both a reality and a metaphor, can finally push this European institution to abandon the rhetoric of the "one size fits all" which in many cases has made the completion of the European project itself an obstacle and not a resource as it should be. It is not a crime to admit mistakes and change course, but it must be done in time. I conclude, Mr Draghi, because the difficulty of the moment brings with it an opportunity to change things. You talked about the European treaties which are the end point, but there are so many little things we can do together before. I hope that the Union, like our country, will be able to follow the common sense of this renewed approach to dealing with the problems facing our countries and the whole of Europe. We will always be there on this.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank President Metsola again for being the first representative of a European institution that wanted to send a strong message of closeness to the Ukrainian people and I believe that, in this situation, this is also very important. The terrible images that come to us from Bucha and Irpin touch us deeply and encourage us to increase our efforts to support Ukraine and the Ukrainian people in this war, in this confrontation with the Putin regime. But they also remind us that war is this: War is destruction, war is crime, war is devastation. That is why, I believe, the Union, together with support and sanctions packages, must step up its mediation efforts to find a peace solution, not least because we cannot allow these efforts to be left to other regimes, such as Turkey and China. Sanctions chapter: what has been proposed by the Commission, the fifth package, is certainly a step forward, but we must not hide that this issue is becoming a divisive issue, mainly for a reason: because we know that the impact of these sanction packages is asymmetric, it is different depending on the Member State and we have to take this into account. We must be clear to our citizens that this effort requires sacrifice and the European Union cannot allow this sacrifice to fall on the shoulders of citizens and businesses who are already suffering, which is why, today, in parallel, it is also necessary to speed up discussions on an aid package that reduces these asymmetries. I believe that this can help to reassure those Member States that are now more reticent in taking some steps in this direction. It is true that the ban on coal imports is also an important step, but you yourself, President von der Leyen, have given us the figures: We are talking about 4 billion euros per year in value of these imports and, if compared to the almost one billion euros that we pay to Russia every day, we understand that it is little and there will be no concrete impact. On sanctions, another topic: It is important that sanction packages are credible. Unfortunately, in recent weeks on some measures we have seen how in many cases the West has had to find solutions, let's say, innovative, to put it mildly, because it has noticed that some sanctions harmed our operators and our actors more than the Russian regime. So it is important that on new packages this element is predominant. On energy autonomy, it is important that it is not done with ideology but with pragmatism: not only do we need to diversify our sources, this is not enough, they depend on as many regimes that are unstable, for example Algeria. We must understand that Europe is a continent that is poor in energy today, but it is not poor in energy sources and we have an obligation to exploit them, these energy sources. In closing, this war has unveiled the veil of a weakness of the Union, which is mainly the model of industrial and economic development that we have decided to pursue over the last twenty, thirty years: A model that has made us dependent on everything: from energy, to defence, to food security, to our value chain. If we do not understand that this model needs to be changed, we will be weaker and weaker in the face of local threats. I close with China: The message that has been sent by the European institutions is very strong, but this request, this message must be credible. Today, faced with a possible confrontation with China, Europe would be weak and in a negotiating position of disadvantage. We have to work on this.

Thank you President, welcome President Trudeau, welcome back to the European Parliament. It is a great opportunity for this Parliament to debate with you on the eve of such important meetings that they need to show how the West is united in giving a coordinated and efficient response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A unity with which, until now, Europe is moving in concert with its own and many other important nations of the world. Mr Prime Minister, I would like to take this opportunity, in your presence, to remind you that, after years of crisis, we need to ensure that the Atlantic Alliance is strengthened not only in a period of crisis and emergency such as the present one, but in a constant and constructive way, and above all in the original sense of the Alliance, which is a deterrent and not an offensive sense. To enhance, therefore, the function of NATO as a union of forces that follow the path of peace in contrast to those who still today continue to put the common security at risk. Just yesterday, President Zelensky of Ukraine, speaking to the Parliament of my country, to the Italian Parliament, called on the European Union to make effective use of the instrument of diplomacy and dialogue, thereby implicitly reaffirming the very principles that underpin the mode of action of the Atlantic Alliance. Let me make another point, Mr Trudeau. Not even she, of course, will have missed how the world is rapidly shifting its axis towards new geopolitical balances. We have had, unfortunately, a recent demonstration of this when we look at the vote in the United Nations Assembly on the resolution condemning the Russian invasion. Western forces, on the one hand, expressed themselves without hesitation, compact, but a large number of states, the most populous ones, those that hold most of the planet's resources, wanted to give a different signal that goes far beyond the text of the resolution. A signal that must be understood in its deepest meaning, and I hope that this is a central theme of your debates in the coming days. The conflict in Ukraine is confronting us with important new choices and new challenges. We are now struggling with a world that is no longer based on the Western model alone, but has returned multipolar. This does not mean that the West should not be the point of reference, rather it must regain its conviction and strength to show that democratic models are the winning ones and that violence, oppression and dictatorships can never be the solution. To do this it is necessary to fully reappropriate our values and our identity on the political, social, cultural and even economic level with those who believe that the pride of a model of development that is not based on wars and oppression, but on respect for peoples and their freedoms, values that we can not question either now or never. In the face of madness – and I am starting to close President – it is time for rationality and we really hope that this is the fundamental principle that will guide your choices in these dramatic and important days. Good luck because we need a strong Western leadership that restores peace and balance to our continent and the world.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, every day the images of the Russian devastation and aggression against Ukraine are more dramatic than ever and, despite the fact that a month has already passed since that tragic 24 February, we really cannot get used to this devastation which we must fight by all means. So it is good that on Thursday and Friday the Member States and the Council discuss how to increase support for the extraordinary resistance that the Ukrainian people are carrying out with a thousand difficulties. And this resistance to defending one's freedom must set an example for all of us. Of course there are these emergencies. Support for the Ukrainian people first and foremost. The issue of energy costs, because we know, and we have told ourselves from the beginning, that the choices we are making to support the Ukrainian people and counter Russia in its action have a cost for us, have a cost for our citizens, and we must do everything possible so that, after already two years of dramatic pandemic, these costs do not fall on the shoulders of the weakest. At the same time, I believe it is necessary to address the emergencies that remain. The priority is to look to the future, to look at what the European institutions need to change in order to ensure that the weaknesses we demonstrate today in the face of so many factors do not become an element of weakness in the future. The world was changing before February 24 and will change even faster after February 24. I believe that looking at the voting map on the Russian resolution at the UN, we need to ask ourselves some questions. It is good for the Council to start debating these future scenarios, because countries representing more than half of the world's population have not supported, abstained from or voted against that resolution. We must ask ourselves why these countries today do not look at the Western model as an example to follow, as an example of cooperation, but are attracted by authoritarian models, by models that we oppose. That must be the question. Friendly countries, countries that receive huge funds every year both from European states and from the European budget, which today do not show themselves to be cooperative, which today are fundamental in helping Russia to circumvent Western sanctions. I believe that the Council on Thursday and Friday should focus on the future. If we are not able to answer these questions and have a strategy for the next ten or twenty years, where we correct these mistakes, we cannot talk about autonomy, we cannot talk about a geopolitical future role for our continent, we cannot talk about a prosperous future. I'll close with a question. President Weber talked about it, and I've been talking about it for a long time. What happens tomorrow morning if China invades Taiwan? Are we ready to act and to be repaired against any event that what happened on February 24th puts us in front of? I believe that this is the moment when, in the face of the unchosen, we choose a path of courageous choices.

Madam President, Madam President of the European Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, the despicable attack by the Russian regime on Ukraine is reviving Europe's worst images in its history. As President von der Leyen recalled, thirty years after the Balkan war, again, in 2022, we are talking about a war in Europe. Our support and extraordinary admiration goes to the Ukrainian people, to these people who today, with tenacity, defend their freedom and sovereignty in the face of unjustifiable aggression. Well, the unanimous condemnation and well the fact that, perhaps for the first time, in this way the European institutions have responded firmly and quickly to an emergency situation. You've all remembered it: the package of sanctions that has been launched is a package that, in terms of size, width and impact, has no equal in the history of Europe; We have never seen the approach and unity with which the European institutions have moved before. Support for the Ukrainian people must be total and we must ensure that, as soon as possible, the solution to this conflict is a peace that restores the territorial integrity of Ukraine. But at the same time, as some of you have recalled, we need to analyze the fact that February 24th changes and has changed our history and that there will be a "before" and a "after". And we have an obligation to analyse what our mistakes were, what our mistakes were in the former, in order to ensure that Europe and the European states are not unprepared for an aftermath. Russia is not the only authoritarian regime that threatens the global world, and we should take that into account. So, let's try to analyze them, these errors: we have spoken several times – and some have been highlighted by those who have spoken before me – about our dependence on Russia on energy, gas, oil, raw materials, as an outlet market for our products. But this dependency was our political choice: It was our choice not to use our energy resources to buy them from Russia or other countries. You see, Europe is not an energy-poor country: He decided to be an energy-poor country. Let me give you an example: In the 1990s, my country produced 20 billion cubic meters of gas per year. Today it produces 3 and not because the gas in Italy is finished, but because we decided not to use it. And with regard to sanctions: As we have said, a package that has never been seen, but we must be clear, will also have an impact on our economy and I repeat what Mr Lambert said: After two years of pandemic and an unprecedented economic crisis, we cannot allow the consequences of these sanctions to still weigh on our businesses and our citizens, and I hope that just as swiftly, as it has acted on sanctions, the Commission will act to ensure that this does not happen and that our businesses and citizens are supported. I close with two thoughts. The first: What we have seen with Russia must be a lesson for the future. There is another illiberal regime that threatens the West, namely the Chinese one: We do not make the same mistakes we made with Russia under this regime, and reducing Europe's dependence on this country is an obligation. The second point, and I conclude, is more personal. These are the moments in history when politics, politicians, are divided between big and small; In my country it is said between "men" and "ominicchi". Unfortunately, I have to say, Mr President, that once again, in the face of this dramatic moment, some in this Parliament wanted to be remembered as little men: preventing my political group from supporting with conviction the resolution that we are going to vote is a gesture of small politicians, which does not so much harm to me, nor to the group that I chair, but harms this institution which, perhaps, for once in its history, could have taken a strong position unanimously.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam President von der Leyen, Mr President Michel, I believe that today the message that the European institutions must give to the Ukrainian people is a message of solidarity and we cannot leave room for the ambiguities that, very often in the past and also in recent discussions, Europe and the West have given on this issue. I have listened carefully to what President von der Leyen said, what President Michel and High Representative Borrell said, and I do not agree with the optimism of how Europe has acted in this situation. There are still many ambiguities in the approach we put on the ground to the Russian issue and the threats that the Putin regime poses on our borders today. We must firmly and firmly make Ukraine understand that Europe is ready to do anything to protect its territorial integrity and freedom, and these are principles on which we cannot compromise. We also need to analyse carefully what our mistakes were and why this ambiguity, the fact that Europe has not been able to give, in the face of this crisis, a unified and concrete message. Clearly there were mistakes. We have talked about the dependencies that our Member States have on the Russian regime, but these situations are not new, we have not discovered them today, they are situations that we have known for years and we have done nothing to reduce this dependency. Ambiguity is a problem, because it is true that the dynamics of dictatorial regimes are difficult to understand for us who belong to free countries, but it is equally true that we are able to understand very well that our weaknesses and ambiguities give space to threats, give space and power to those who want to bring war to our borders. It is sad to see that twenty years after the last war we have experienced within Europe, the war in Kosovo and the war in the Balkans, there are still winds of war on our borders, and this is a failure of all, it is a failure of Europe, it is a failure of the West. That is why I believe that, of course, what we must avoid today is a war, an escalation that leads to a military conflict, which no one wants and which no one today is able to face. But we must firmly correct the mistakes we have made in Europe and we must also have the courage to say that this ambiguity is very clear, but very often we hide it under the carpet, such as the fact that Putin's first lobbyist in Europe unfortunately is a former head of government of the most important country in this European Union. I believe that there is still room to work on a peaceful solution, not transient on our principles, that there is room to bring the hands back, that there is room to do so and to show that the West is united, but Europe must leave behind its ambiguities, it must give a message of compactness with Western allies and together, within the framework of NATO, we must resolve this situation. Otherwise, our ambiguity will always be a weakness and we will never succeed in being protagonists, in a positive way, in the resolution of conflicts and in the protection of the freedoms of which we should be harbingers.

Madam President, happy birthday, congratulations on your election and good luck. He will need it because His task itself is not easy, but it will not be easy in the next two and a half years for two main reasons. The first is that he obviously has a heavy legacy, that of President Sassoli, but I am sure he will be able to honor him. The second is because the European institutions will face a very important debate in the coming years: the exit from a pandemic, both as regards the functioning of these institutions, and as regards the political challenges, the reform of our rules, looking to the past, to the mistakes made and trying to build a better future and, of course, the management of a situation that will not be simple. Many grey clouds are approaching the geopolitical future of Europe and our allies, so really good luck. As for what I expect from you, even after hearing and appreciating your inauguration speech, it is of course respect for this institution and for all 705 Members. You see, Mr Lamberts pointed out one very important thing: It is certainly an extraordinary event, in the true sense of the word, for a woman to be elected to the head of this institution. Less important event, but equally extraordinary I think it's my agreement with Philippe, I think I can completely subscribe to his words: What we expect from those who really believe in this institution is respect for the rights of all, as is the case in all democratic parliaments, and I am sure that you will be able to guarantee this in these two and a half years. Good work.

Madam President, as this House demonstrates today, I believe that the respect and sorrow for the disappearance of the institutional figure of the person of David Sassoli must bring us together today in a shared memory, covering the entire political arc of this Parliament and going beyond the family to which David belonged. The political vision of the group I represent, as you know, is not akin to that of David. Nevertheless, we have always had the respectful awareness that figures like his, that of a kind, cultured man, who really believed in his own ideas, with genuine passion, and who carried them forward with devotion and seriousness, gave and give luster to politics as a whole. The unanimous testimonies of esteem and affection for him – not least the sincere greeting that, as part of the institutions, we paid him on Friday in Rome during the State funeral – express better than any word the sign that the Sassoli man has left impressed on each of us, far beyond the sphere of his personal affections, to which we renew our condolences today. Just a few weeks ago, in December, as often happened, we had had the opportunity to meet and exchange some opinions here in Strasbourg, during the last plenary session of the year and just a few days later, on the occasion of the Christmas holidays, we had felt to exchange New Year's greetings. The confrontation with David has always been marked by great cordiality, sincere and mutual respect, and I still remember his smiling eyes, the pats on the back, the simplicity with which he approached anyone inside these buildings. A simplicity that has always distinguished him, despite the high-profile role he had dedicated himself to in this institution. A dedication which, as President of the European Parliament, he has shown concretely and courageously until his last days and for which we are grateful today. Good luck David, may your smile and tenacity be an inspiration to all of us for a long time to come. (Applause)

Mr President, Madam President von der Leyen, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the Slovenian Presidency, because it was not an easy time and I believe that the Slovenian structure has done an excellent job in a very complex situation. We are at the turning point of this legislature, a very difficult first part both for the way in which this Parliament has had to work and for the crises we have had to face, extraordinary crises that have obviously pressed the European institutions and this Parliament in an important way. Obviously the first and most important was the Covid crisis and again, for the second consecutive Christmas, we will experience the drama of restrictions, the drama of deaths, the drama of not yet having a definitive response to this crisis and I believe that it is now clear that the only long-term solution is to find a way to live with this virus, which unfortunately will still accompany us for some time. Therefore, the vaccination campaign is not enough, it is no longer a solution that can take us fully out of this crisis and, on this issue, I believe that Europe must do more, on treatments, on how to find a solution that is complementary to that of vaccines to allow the situation to normalize and to allow even in the face of the emergence of new variants to have more weapons to counter this virus. And I think Europe needs to improve its ability to detect and target new variants, because we are still far behind on this, once again the United Kingdom has shown greater ability to analyze the developments of this virus. On the subject of energy – President Lamberts, who gave the Greens' point of view, spoke a lot about it – I believe that we are facing a dramatic emergency and this dramatic emergency does not come with surprise, but is the result of years of inaction and wrong choices on the subject of autonomy. We have known for a long time what the European situation is in terms of energy supplies and we have known for a long time that we are too dependent on countries that are being blackmailed and with which we have deep geopolitical divergences. We can set up and buffer any situation temporarily, but without a long-term solution we will always be dependent on the anti-democratic regime on duty and therefore blackmailable. True, I agree with President Weber on the subject of Russia and Belarus: Europe must stand at that table, but it must stand at that table and earn a place. Unfortunately, today the European countries are not reliable partners on this issue of our Atlantic ally. We must do more on this, and we must make it clear that the Atlantic Alliance is at the heart of our response to the undemocratic regimes that threaten our stability. I will close with the issue of immigration, which remains a fundamental issue. I am sorry that the Council departs from the June conclusions. We do not need to start from these conclusions, but we need a change of direction. Frontex data are dramatic and the situation in the Central Mediterranean is dramatic. I close with a Merry Christmas wish to all of you, hoping that the next two and a half years will be better than those we have experienced.