Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, tomorrow we are voting on a text that definitively enshrines our commitment to defending the rights of young people, after years of battles in which we have been at the forefront of many. The practice of unpaid internships must be banned throughout Europe, as we have done here in the European Parliament under the leadership of President Sassoli. This requires a European directive, and tomorrow's resolution details the essential elements of the legislative text that we must defend. The right, popular conservatives and the Identity and Democracy group are against it. They will explain it to the girls and boys who start their careers, who struggle to pay rents, are exploited at the most difficult time, when they try to responsibly undertake their own path of autonomous life. There is a clear choice of field: with young people or against them. Curriculum doesn't pay bills. Adequate remuneration is also needed for trainees and we will have to continue working in this direction and tomorrow we will make a big step forward.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we have been waiting for some years for a concrete proposal for the establishment of an independent ethics body, with a control mandate for the institutions and agencies of the European Union. However, the Commission's text does not go in the desired direction. It's more of an empty box than anything else. The designated body, in fact, unlike the very specific proposals that we have made as a group of Socialists and Democrats, does not have investigative powers, it does not have the ability to impose sanctions, it is not really independent. We need to change and we should make different proposals. We need to act differently and this is also about this Parliament. I take this opportunity to say, because they are related issues, that the proposals we have on the table on revolving doors are not good. Six months off before he can get new positions at the end of his term is too few. A longer period of two years is needed, if not a full five-year legislature. On this point, I appeal to the seriousness and goodwill of all my fellow Members to find an appropriate solution. For the European institutions, the time has come for responsibility to make choices that truly enable us to combat all forms of corruption.

Madam President, I thank the Vice-President and all the colleagues for the debate. Thanks to my co-rapporteur Dragoș Tudorache and all the shadow rapporteurs for this great work, and also their contribution to this discussion that has been showing also the different angles to which we can look at the topic. I think it emerged very clearly that we need to work very strongly on some innovations that came after we have been starting this work. We started doing it with generative AI, with our proposal on general purpose AI, and this will be crucial that we maintain this ambition when we negotiate with the Council on these topics that are, we can say, on the forefront of the of the work. We need to defend our approach that strengthens fundamental rights, that has been clear, for example, with the fundamental rights impact assessment. But also I think it is important that we put value to our effort to strengthen innovation, to support start-ups with the work on the sandboxes. I think we did a thorough job on this, and I think it is important to clarify that, as was said earlier by the Commissioner, that when the worst happens, we can act. This is something we all agree on and we know that with this text, we the text that came out of the committee with the usage of non-real time, biometric identification in cases that are to pursue crimes that have been already committed and, with the control of a judge, we can pursue this balance. I wanted to specify this because I heard many colleagues speaking on this topic, but I think it’s important to clarify that the existing text is already very advanced and clear, and that is also why I think we should keep the text that we voted in the committee. We are ready to work for the upcoming trilogues. Thank you for all the work and for the efforts to put this chamber, this Parliament, at the centre of the effort to build a human-centric AI, not just for us but for the whole world.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the whole world is watching us as alarms follow one another about artificial intelligence in general, the risk of extinction of the human race by sentient algorithms, alarms often launched by the same Big Tech that fear what they have created. In the meantime, Europe has moved forward, without stopping, and in recent months has worked hard to propose a concrete response to the risks that already exist, not the future ones, of powerful technologies such as artificial intelligence. They told us: This will stop innovation, so Europe will never be competitive. While today many of these same people are right: Rules are necessary. Today, therefore, we are here to ask Parliament for a mandate to start negotiations on the world's first law on this matter. Our position contains many improvements to the Commission proposal, which clarify and update the text, promote legal certainty, avoid duplication with existing laws, stimulate innovation, while keeping the human being and his fundamental rights as a staple. It must remain at the heart of the European approach to artificial intelligence. I will mention just a few of the key points of our proposal: a clear and balanced definition, in line with the work of international organisations; a chapter to regulate systems such as ChatGPT, previously excluded from the text, to obtain transparency and mitigate the risks of discrimination and the generation of illegal content; in addition to watermarking to make the content produced by generative AI identifiable, which, although already provided for in fact by Article 52, I think will need to be even more clearly specified in the trilogue. But we haven't even forgotten the risks to the environment in training algorithms with billions of data and parameters. We have introduced a requirement for companies and public authorities using high-risk AI to carry out a fundamental rights impact assessment based on the specific context of use, as an additional safeguard for vulnerable groups. It should also be recalled the addition of the right to a judicial remedy, to an explanation, to be represented by collective action in case of negative impact on health, safety or one's fundamental rights, and the addition of the environment, democracy and the rule of law among the objectives to be protected, in addition to the obligation to discuss the deployment of artificial intelligence in the workplace with trade unions and to inform the workers involved, as well as the expansion of practices considered unacceptable, such as predictive policing, biometric categorisation, indiscriminate collection of facial images from the web, emotional recognition in some contexts and opposition to the use of biometric recognition in public spaces for surveillance purposes. The use of these cameras has no proven benefit on the safety of citizens, while the risks of abuse, discrimination and inaccuracy are proven, especially on some people, women, non-white people, children. The introduction of these technologies poses risks to the viability of our countries, to their democratic viability, and that is why we will fight with the Council in the coming months to defend this approach and counter dangers to our freedom. I think of the worrying words of some interior ministers, including the Italian Piantedosi. We want artificial intelligence to unleash all its positive potential for creativity, productivity and the improvement of everyday life. For this reason, we have also engaged in an intense work of confrontation with legislators around the world to find common approaches. This is why we support the work onAI Pact to anticipate the effects of the Regulation and theAI Code of Conduct for generative artificial intelligence. But let us also make a clear warning: all approach and adaptation activities are useful, as long as they do not intend to replace the binding rules that we are going to establish. We will not be influenced by attempts that could come from large corporations or government institutions and not to dilute and weaken this effort to make our democracies stronger in the context of technological transformation. We will do our best in the interests of Europeans together with the Commission, which I thank, together with the Council, together with all my colleagues.

Madam President, many people have lost their lives, more than 30 000 have had to leave their homes, the rain that falls in seven months has fallen in a couple of weeks, causing rivers to overflow, hundreds of landslides, flooding 43 municipalities and, think, over 100 000 tonnes of waste to be disposed of. These are the dramatic figures of the floods that hit Emilia-Romagna two weeks ago, but without forgetting also the very serious damage that hit Marche and Tuscany. Today in this House we observed a minute's silence. I would like to thank the President of the European Parliament for her heartfelt words of closeness to the people of Emilia affected by this tragedy. As the President of the European Commission has seen for herself, the social and economic costs of this disaster are enormous. We therefore need Europe's immediate and concrete help. The activation of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism was important, but now we need the Emergency Fund for Agriculture, the Cohesion Funds, especially the Solidarity Fund. For this very important measure it takes a few months, but it is essential that it is activated. We're working on it. We immediately asked for this commitment because it is about giving immediate relief to those who have lost everything. As President Mattarella said, "all of Italy is close to you, you will not be alone in the reconstruction". I would add that the whole of Europe is and must be close to these people. "Tin bota", as the President said, and let us do everything we can to give meaning and the message of a Europe of solidarity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 137 days have passed since the journalist Ihsane El Kadi was arrested solely for publishing articles critical of the Algerian authorities, his media outlets have been shut down and he will have to serve another five years. The violation of freedom of the press and the non-respect of fundamental freedoms and the rule of law have been on the agenda in Algeria for at least four years, but never before have there been major concerns. As Europe we cannot look helplessly at what is happening on the other side of the Mediterranean, in Algeria or elsewhere. The authorities release Ihsane El Kadi and all detainees for crimes of opinion and respect the freedom of the press. The European Commission establishes new joint actions with Algeria, including conditionality on respect for democracy and human rights. We cannot have partnerships that are not based on this. Once again, the European Union must raise its voice so that democratic freedoms are not an exception but a rule, everywhere, inside and outside our borders.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the package presented by the European Commission is a good starting point for updating, strengthening and harmonising the European legislative framework for the fight against corruption. In particular, I stress the importance of the proposal for a directive on combating corruption and, as Parliament, we should improve it to strengthen the capacity to put in place concrete measures to prevent, detect and punish this type of crime. More transparency, dedicated resources and awareness-raising are needed for a culture of anti-corruption. There is also a need to harmonise the definitions of the crime of corruption and to increase sanctions. Finally, the investigative aspect needs to be improved to ensure effective investigations and trials in the Member States. The example must start from the European institutions, precisely because of those recent scandals that we know. It is therefore urgent to set up an independent ethics body with a control mandate for the institutions and agencies of the European Union, there can still be no political groups blocking the establishment of this ethics body, we need it. With this ambitious package we can advance in the fight against corruption and we will do our part.

Madam President, I would like to make a point of order only to draw attention to the very serious situation in Sudan, which is getting worse. We have volunteers, we have organizations on the ground, also from our European countries, I think also from Italy. Organizations such as Music for Peace and AICS that are present on the territory and that are there to help need the attention of Europe to stop the violence. Sudan is Europe's anti-door; we need to pay very close attention, that there is a commitment on our part and also on the part of the European Commission and the High Representative. I wanted to say this here because in these hours the situation is getting worse and we need all our attention and all our commitment.

Madam President, Mr Bettel, welcome back to the European Parliament. Your country, Luxembourg, has been central to the construction of European integration together with many other countries. Today we are a great Union, but we need more courage, from your country and from so many others, from so many governments, from the Council. On 8 and 9 May, for Europe Day, hundreds, thousands of citizens and associations will be demonstrating in Strasbourg, doing so in every corner of Europe for a more united Europe and a federal Europe. It is the new generations who are asking us for quick decisions, without vetoes on the crucial issues of social rights, climate rights, tax justice, civil rights, the institutional change of Europe so that it is stronger. The Conference on the Future of Europe has shown the way forward. Let us open a convention for the reform of the Treaties, which will give rise to true European integration, while also respecting differences. We do not veto the future of European citizens, we listen to their demands for a more united Europe, because otherwise the alternative is nationalism, and nationalism, we know, is war.

The state of emergency declared by Prime Minister Meloni is just another way to hide the difficulties of the government: as they are unable to provide sustainable solutions, they declare a state of emergency and they try to distract the public opinion – and also the European opinion – from the difficulties of the government to achieve the real results we need from them. So to spend the amount of resources that we have from the NextGenerationEU and to pursue a policy in favour of the purchasing power of Italian families and to sustain the economy. They act against vulnerable groups because they don’t have any other argument.

Mr President, yesterday the President of the EPP, Mr Weber, said that we must be ready to build fences and walls with the European budget, promoting a phantom fake solidarity with Italy. Disconcerting and unacceptable words. It seems that Erdoğan, Orbán are the models of the Italian and European right. It's outrageous. The President of the Italian Republic Mattarella is right, we need to go beyond the prehistoric norms that regulate migration in Europe, we need responsibility. No Member State can tackle this issue alone; Italy is the first border of the Mediterranean and cannot be left alone. But it is the nationalist right itself in Europe that wants to leave it alone, other than allies. We in Italy will make a very harsh opposition to the so-called "Cutro" decree law, which affects special protection in order to create more irregularities, foment a social clash and hide the difficulties of the government, for example in the spending of European funds. We won't allow this mess. (The speaker agreed to respond to a "blue card" speech)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have been called into question by Mr Mussolini, saying that I do not know and have not read the government's acts. But I have read the deeply discriminatory and violent statements against the rainbow families and their children of the Italian right, a right out of what is the canon of a European conservative force of Western European countries and looking rather towards, perhaps, the Orbán model. So I say no to the orbanization of Italy and yes to respect for the rights of all families and all boys and girls. Thanks therefore to the European Parliament, to the groups that wanted together to decide to have a debate on this issue, a topic that touches many European countries, but that today sees Italy under a dangerous regression, an attempt in this sense by the government, blocking the registration of the sons and daughters of homogeneous couples in the city registers, and the opposition to the European regulation for the certificate of parenthood. I therefore thank the mayors of the main Italian cities, not only Sala who was here today, but also Gualtieri, Manfredi, Lo Russo, Lepore, Nardella and Decaro, who decided to continue on a path that already sees the cities in the past, I think of Mayor Pisapia, today a colleague here at the European Parliament, who already in 2012 had created a register of civil unions in Milan. I think it is important to be there, even from other European countries, on May 12 in Turin, when there will be a great national demonstration in support of these families, because the government, which fails to solve the problems of bills and the increase in the costs of living and which launches a tax reform against the majority of Italian taxpayers, is raging on families and their children. We as the Democratic Party will bring forward a proposal for equal marriage with access to adoptions and for the recognition of homogeneous couples. Our secretary Elly Schlein said this and we will work on it because, even the Commissioner's words tell us, there are no Serie A or Serie B children, there are no Serie A or Serie B families.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the S&D also proposed a title along the same lines of the Greens who have just presented it. Our priority is that a debate on the ongoing situation actually takes place, so we are happy to converge on the Greens’ proposal for the title and to support this debate. And thanks also from our side to the Mayor of Milan here, Giuseppe Sala, and all the mayors that in Italy are working to support this fight for the rights of all children.

Mr President, I just wanted to say to Mr Mussolini that every government is responsible for public order in its own country. So, if the Italian government has failed to stop violent supporters, it is the fault of the Italian government, which will obviously have to answer to Parliament and the citizens.

I will clarify better what I wanted to say, there are different issues. On one hand, we need to forbid what should not be happening already. At the same time, we also have a general interest – and the Parliament expressed itself already many times – to have an ethics body that is able to confront with these issues. We have different opinions in this room, but let’s not mix different things. It’s a series of actions that we need to take. Forbid what should be forbidden, clarify what should be clarified and also have a general ethics body. We will still debate about that, but it’s just a legitimate opinion.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, all the European institutions must act responsibly internally in order to have a structure that is as transparent and credible as possible. Compared with the inquiry launched by the European Ombudsman into flights paid to Commission officials, it is certainly necessary to investigate thoroughly, so that there is no doubt whatsoever about undue pressure or illegal actions. New, clearer and more stringent rules are needed to make the European Commission also more resilient. It is necessary to strengthen the existing rules, for example against the revolving door mechanism, which is too often circumvented today and which also affects the European Parliament, as demonstrated by the recent scandals. The promised independent European ethics body should be set up as soon as possible, with a mandate to scrutinise the institutions and agencies of the European Union. This is a request that Parliament has been making for a long time. We cannot disregard the expectations of our citizens from all the European institutions and we expect a commitment that is up to the challenge. (The speaker agreed to respond to a "blue card" speech)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, last July Matteo Salvini, the current minister of the Italian Government, said that Putin would push boats for the left. Today, however, it is precisely the ministers of the right in government who point to Wagner, Putin's mercenary militias, protagonists of horrible crimes in Ukraine, as responsible for the recent arrivals. We're at comedies, Salvini said. Maybe he foresaw the future. Human beings, meanwhile, die on our shores, blamed by the unworthy words of Minister Piantedosi, who defines irresponsible parents who flee from despair. What can I say? I'm ashamed of him. But now we need politics, the good one, the one that changes things. We need the European Council to act, changing the migration pact with legal and safe channels, with a new European rescue and search system at sea. Let's stay human.

Mr President, High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, the Netanyahu Government, which took office at the end of 2022, unfortunately already holds two records: It is the most right-wing executive in Israel's history and has sparked anti-government protests, the largest ever. Hundreds of thousands of people are taking to the streets these days to reject a justice reform that wants to concentrate powers in the hands of the Executive and depower the Supreme Court. With this reform the government could appoint the judges of the Court much more easily, the power of veto over the laws of the government would be eliminated and the majority would be able to block the judgments of the Court itself. This is an example of an authoritarian nationalist design by a government that threatens the state of Israeli democracy, its mechanisms of checks and balances, as well as the prospects for peace with the Palestinian people, as an unprecedented spiral of violence continues. The European Union cannot look the other way: It must also be committed to democracy and peace in that region.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, until a few years ago, speaking of Tunisia, we would have thought immediately of the Jasmine Revolution, the Arab Spring, the first real example of a democratic constitution in the Arab world. Today, however, we see only chaos, a very serious economic crisis and a disturbing political-institutional situation, due to a long series of political decisions taken by President Saïed, which bring to mind the darkest period of Ben Ali. The democratic transition of the country, which I have experienced closely as an election observer for the local elections, is now suffering a heavy setback and Tunisia has in fact been regressing since July 2021, when the President froze parliament and began a path of repression against political opponents, trade unions and activists. The controversial constitutional referendum of last July saw a turnout of 27% and the recent legislative elections, boycotted en masse, of only 11%. The scenario is therefore that of a single man in command, with full powers, and an extremely delegitimized parliament. The situation is untenable. As the European Parliament, we immediately call for economic reforms so that the country can obtain the necessary loans and a change of pace in the defence of the rule of law. The Tunisian people, to whom the European Union has always stood by in its democratic ambitions, undoubtedly deserve better conditions. Europe must not look the other way.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was 2019 when you, Vice-President Jourová, were entrusted with the responsibility of establishing an independent ethics body, common to all the institutions of the European Union. As Socialists and Democrats we have always worked in this direction with other groups, while other political forces have maintained equivocal positions or even explicitly rowed against them. Years have passed and there is no trace of this organism. The time for postponements is now over. Full implementation of the current rules on transparency and ethics must be ensured, in particular by strengthening the code of conduct for MEPs. There is also an urgent need to set up, before the end of the parliamentary term, this ethical body with a control mandate for the institutions and agencies of the European Union, with adequate financial means and staff. The Body will have to assess possible incompatibilities and make proposals to improve transparency and accountability on Members’ second assignments, in order to prevent possible conflicts of interest. Finally, we also want clear sanctions if inconsistencies or violations are proven. There must be no misunderstandings. In fact, this is not the time of disengagement, delegations to third parties or a catalog of rules that could only be seen as a sort of straitjacket to be evaded by someone. Corruption is an internal enemy of well-functioning institutions. The resources to fight it can and must therefore come from within the institutions first of all, through action supported by a responsible institutional ethics, aimed at mutual support of best practices to foster transparency, control and greater capacity to act, to avoid conflicts of interest even with respect to those who leave the institutions. The scandal that has undermined the foundations of our European home has shown us that we can no longer wait. Let us act together now, because it is the future of Europe that is at stake.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Vice-President Timmermans, with the regulation on CO2 emissions for cars and vans, the Union is providing itself with an essential instrument for achieving the decarbonisation objectives of the European Climate Law, a strategic legislative text that will lay the foundations for an industrial policy geared towards the future. Those who oppose it, thinking of slowing down change, do only damage to the economy and workers. Like the Italian right, which here in the European Parliament will vote against it, but then the representatives of our government in the Council voted in favour. The reason is obvious: confusing the waters and escaping responsibility in the face of such an important choice. The agreement maintains a technologically neutral approach and a strong social footprint to ensure investments for the fair transition, two key points to allow the industry to remain competitive compared to American and Asian manufacturers, already far ahead in the market for zero-emission vehicles. To vote against today is to make citizens pay a very high price. Instead, let's really commit ourselves to a just and sustainable transition socially and ecologically.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is time for the European Parliament to act. We must consider the proposals on the table and demand that they finally be implemented. Hurrying doesn't have to be bad advice, though. We will be as demanding and ambitious as possible in making our institutions more transparent and impervious to corruption, along with measures to be implemented immediately and supervised. We also want deep structural reforms, the results of which will only be visible in the medium term. I am thinking of the new independent ethics body, which as Socialists and Democrats we have always asked for together with other political groups, but which some other groups have always hindered. This requires the concrete commitment of the European Commission. President Metsola's proposals are a good step forward, but they are not yet sufficient, first and foremost to address the issue of revolving doors, for which a cooling period of five years is required. Today only six months are proposed, too few, especially compared to the twenty-four months currently in force for the European Commissioners. We must produce a balanced result, not by undermining Members' freedom of mandate, which is a key principle of democracy, but by being sure that we will radically avoid any attempt to pollute and manipulate our democratic bodies.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, shared responsibility: This is the principle that must guide the European Union and all Member States in tackling migration with humanity and sustainability. The Commission’s willingness to speed up the migration pact so as not to go beyond 2024 is positive and the Swedish rotating presidency cannot overlook the topic. But that's not enough. I address President von der Leyen and President Michel: it is not acceptable for the European response to migration to be limited to speeding up returns, ignoring the structural weakness of the European asylum system. Just as we do not accept that the Union finances the Member States to build walls at the borders, nor scandalous illegal pushbacks against those fleeing war and poverty. We will not tire of remembering that the priority action must be the revision of the Dublin Regulation, so that the management of the first reception is no longer the burden of a few but the permanent commitment of all. The emergency logic imposed by the nationalists has only resulted in more irregularities and more deaths. The time has come to create clearer and more humane rules, also through strengthened cooperation, also through departure from those who are there, without being vetoed.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and my fellow shadow rapporteurs on the excellent work they have done together in recent months on this legislative initiative file for the reform of the European Works Councils Directive. The text that arrives in plenary leaves no room for interpretation. Almost thirty years after the first directive, a complete revision of the directive is urgently needed, so that information and consultation rights are no longer understood as optional by multinational companies operating in Europe. Too often, in recent years, the rights of workers to be informed in good time by companies and to be involved in their strategic choices have been trampled on, choices that in many cases have had a dramatic impact on the jobs and working conditions of millions of European workers, such as decisions to close a plant in a Member State or in the face of company restructuring. In order to stop this happening, we need a European directive that introduces a better definition of the transnational character of a decision, a new system of sanctions that effectively discourages any attempt to circumvent these obligations, new rules to strengthen access to justice for works councils and finally the possibility of requesting a competent national court to suspend a business decision when information and consultation rights have been violated. The report that arrives in plenary presents important innovations on all these points and I hope that colleagues will reject with the vote in plenary any attempt to weaken the text. The European Commission is now called upon to do a very delicate but extraordinarily important job. As Parliament, we expect a broad and general proposal to revise the directive, which is indeed one of the pillars of the European social model. The world has changed. Our companies operate in a global context. The single market, which celebrated its 30th anniversary just a few days ago, is a reality of the European Union and the choices of companies go beyond national borders, but must never - and I say never - go beyond the fundamental and social rights of workers.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the very serious assault by Bolsonaro's supporters on Brazilian institutions is unfortunately in continuity with other incidents in other countries. A situation that is repeated because of a right-wing ideology that does not want to accept the popular vote. I was in 2018 at the World Social Forum in Salvador de Bahia, where Lula intervened and then was imprisoned and hit by accusations that turned out to be a major political plot. He was re-elected President of Brazil today, and he is our hope to reunite and reconcile the Brazilian people after President Bolsonaro's disastrous four years. At stake is the future of Brazil, of a great democracy, but also of our planet, for example for the fight against climate change, defending and preserving the Amazon, as Bolsonaro did not know how to do. So we are and must be, like Europe, on the side of Lula and on the side of the Brazilian people who must be able to defend their democracy.