Speeches

Madam President, President von der Leyen, President Costa, ladies and gentlemen, the conclusions of the last Council give us a clear picture: Europe is finally emerging from its ideological bubble to confront the harshness of reality. As far as immigration is concerned, the agreement on safe third countries for returns is a success of common sense. We are beginning to take away the government of immigration from human traffickers and the uncertainty of judicial interpretations, bringing it back to where it should be, that is, in the channel of political responsibility. It shows that when Europe stops preaching and starts acting with pragmatism, the results come. As far as Ukraine is concerned, the €90 billion loan was an act of responsibility. We will continue to help those people who have been heroically resisting the cowardly Russian invasion for four years. We do it not only for the Ukrainians, we do it for us too, because if Russia achieves its goals, all the peoples of Europe would be in danger. If any nation were free to take its neighboring nations by force, the peace that has settled on our continent since the lacerating wars of which our history books are full would be in jeopardy. I know what you're thinking. What applies to the East must also apply to the West. I agree. On the other hand, we conservatives will continue to support the Union of the West, because it is not a mere geographical place, but a civilization with its flaws, its contradictions, but also with its culture of freedom. Frankly, I don't think it's by wearing the Top Gun glasses that we're going to get more respect from the United States. We can only earn it with our geopolitical solidity, with our economic competitiveness, with the sovereignty of raw materials, with an efficient and technologically advanced military defense. Our strength as Europeans lies in the transatlantic community. Only within it do we remain masters of our destiny.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as we debate in this House, in the streets and in the universities of Tehran, the uprising of young Iranians is being stifled in blood. The regime of Ayatollah It is brutally repressing yet another generation thirsting for freedom. In a few weeks the numbers of terror have become unbearable: Thousands of deaths of all ages, including many children. The result was even a horror business for the militiamen. Pasdaran, who ask the families of the protesters killed 700 million toman, which is about 6 000 euros, to be able to get back the corpses of their loved ones, otherwise they are thrown into mass graves. For us European conservatives, siding with the people in revolt is not an act of "external influence," as regime propaganda says. It is a moral necessity rather than a political one. Others say we shouldn't deal with it, because it's none of our business. They are often the same people who set fire to our cities during the Gaza crisis. Unfortunately, for women who defy the regime by discovering their leader, we do not see the demonstrations of solidarity that we have seen on other occasions. There are no flotillas on the road, no busy universities, no colorful T-shirts in here. Maybe because he Ayatollah Do they hate Israel and the West? Maybe because he Ayatollah Are they friends of Russia, China, Cuba or Venezuela? I am reminded of an ancient Persian proverb that says: “There are three types of enemies: the enemy, the friends of your enemy, and the enemies of your friends. However, in the face of this horror, Europe cannot stand by and watch. We need unprecedented political and diplomatic mobilization. To young Iranians, I say: You're not alone. Your battle is also ours and your freedom is the measure of our coherence.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam President von der Leyen, we are approaching this European Council at a crucial moment. On Ukraine, the ECR Group welcomes the shared goal of a just and lasting peace. It is important that Europe works with the United States of America: There is no need for lonely forward escapes, but to build a common strategy that guarantees Ukrainian security and the stability of the entire Euro-Atlantic set-up. Peace is built with the strength of deterrence and the lucidity of diplomacy. On defence, our position is clear: We need to do more, but we need to do better. A better European defense is not born by centralizing powers, but by coordinating the efforts of nations, especially in military spending. Then there is internal defense, that is, border security so that illegal immigration does not constitute a social bomb, as we see too often in our cities. Today we will vote to make it easier for irregular immigrants to return: this is necessary to break the criminal business of trafficking in human beings, but it is also necessary to distinguish those who have the right to asylum, because they are in danger of life or because they are useful for European economic growth, from those who do not. It is not racism or xenophobia, which you have accused us of in the past years, but it is sacrosanct common sense. We conservatives never forget that security is the fundamental right that allows the enjoyment of all other civil rights, it is the defense of the defenseless, of those who do not live in restricted traffic areas, who return home at night from work, who take their children to the nearest public park because they can not afford Eurodisney. A British conservative sage like Disraeli said that ensuring social security for the people is the first duty of those who govern a people and that is what conservatives in Europe intend to do even today.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam President von der Leyen, in the Council conclusions there is, first of all, an important recognition of reality. The Council welcomes the peace plan for Gaza. Perhaps the proper recognition of the role played by an American president surrounded by too many European prejudices is lacking. But, patience, you can't have everything from life. We hope that it will continue now with the other points of the plan, for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians. If a European commitment is needed to protect this fragile understanding, welcome, in the ways and in the forms that can be defined in the coming days. There is also talk of speeding up our defence readiness. Well, but this force is not built with EU-wide superstructures that duplicate what already exists. It is built in coherence with NATO and strengthening the defense industries of our nations. By the way, I read that you intend to create a European spy service. I'd say it's creepy. I'd say we can do without it. As for competitiveness, for years, from these banks, the ECR warned that the Union was strangling itself, driven by a pseudo-environmentalist self-destructive impulse. They called us anti-European. We were told we lacked ambition. Today, the Council also calls for a pragmatic and cost-effective transition. Better late than never. Madam President, the ECR is the voice of this rediscovered realism. We want peace through security. We want prosperity through economic freedom. We want to protect the environment through technological neutrality. We want Europe through the collaboration of nations, not centralization into a superstate. The conclusions of the recent Council indicate a new direction, a direction that we have been calling for for a long time. We conservatives are ready, as always, to lead this return to common sense.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the last plenary we welcomed the end of the war in Gaza, the release of Israeli hostages and the entry of humanitarian aid through the finally reopened crossings. Not everyone in here showed the same relief. The face of many colleagues was rather that of those who no longer have the toy with which to play "revolutionaries on a sailboat". Some even seem to suffer from this peace agreement, because they consider it a betrayal of the Palestinian cause by the Palestinians themselves: A surreal thesis! Unfortunately, it is true that this agreement is dangerously precarious. And it is because the most difficult point of the plan is the disarmament of Hamas, the terrorist network that holds the men and women of Gaza hostage. Now the question is: Who are you guys with? A Member of the European Parliament from the public left social network Hamas is celebrated for the shootings of Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel. "One by one" it has been written: One by one they must be taken and killed. Congratulations! Would you be the pacifists? We conservatives think that we must move forward on the peace plan put forward by President Trump, signed by Israelis and Palestinians, as well as by Arab and European states, also because its effects of stability and security would extend throughout the Middle East and, with a little optimism, even beyond. Today it seems possible to think of a freezing of the line of conflict between Russia and Ukraine: We would say hello as good news. I don't think it would be the same for other colleagues in here. I am referring to those who like to call themselves pacifists but fall in love with wars.

Madam President, in this Chamber we are used to delivering bad news. Today, however, we can all join the celebrations of the people in the streets of Tel Aviv and Gaza. A few minutes ago, a peace agreement was signed. Donald Trump has made it; despite all the bias against him, he succeeded. And this reaffirms a long tradition: conservative American presidents end wars rather than start them. So, long live peace in Israel and Palestine.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, two motions with the same objective, in which some arguments are different and others are the same. In the far-left motion, the focus is on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Not a single word of condemnation of Hamas, not a single reference to the Israeli hostages alive and dead, or to the massacre of October 7, which tomorrow will take place for two years. Israel's condemnation, on the other hand, is absolute, even violent. And in calling for sanctions against Israel, the motion also ends up in solidarity with Putin's Russia. Another passage that deserves to be underlined is the one complaining about the lack of response of this Commission to the climate crisis and the social crisis. Interestingly, the cause-and-effect relationship between the Green Deal and a social malaise, which actually exists and which is one of the reasons why the peoples of Europe are voting for the right and not for the left. You have to have a brain full of ideologies in order not to understand this obvious thing. Fortunately, this evidence is in the other motion we are debating today. There are also justifiable criticisms of the Commission's lack of transparency and its tendency to invade national competences set out in the EU Treaties. On the other hand, there are two issues on which the motions coming from both ends of Parliament converge. First, the criticism of the trade agreement with South America. But here things are a little more complicated, because it is certainly advantageous to be able to export our products without duties on a market with 700 million consumers. The problem is for European farmers and ranchers. Green Deal It has been burdened with overwhelming burdens and limitations. It would be a mockery for them to have to compete with those on the other side of the ocean who don't have to follow the same crazy rules. This is unacceptable. Secondly, there is criticism of the agreement with the Trump administration. This is clearly not the perfect deal, but the best possible, given that the American market is the best in the world for our goods and that a trade war with our geopolitical ally can only be wished for by those who hate President Trump more than they love their own people. In the ECR, each national delegation will be free to decide its vote on the basis of the reasons and interests of its people. For us conservatives, the European Union will never be a prison, but an alliance of nations, which does not stifle their aspirations, but realizes them with cooperation and not with imposition.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, ladies and gentlemen, I am leaving from afar, but only geographically. The military parade of the Chinese leader dressed as Mao Tse-tung, holding hands with Putin and Kim Jong Un, is an image that does not make you laugh; It reminds us that the world is a dangerous place, where regimes thrive that no longer hide their will to reshape the global order even by force. To become aware of reality does not mean that we have to assume stupidly muscular attitudes, but to strengthen our values, our economy, our defense, our allies. We are in favour of the agreement it has reached with the US administration on tariffs not because it is perfect, but because it is certainly better than a trade war between allies who need each other. We must have the courage, as Europeans, to make the right choices at the right time. The green deal It was conceived and wanted in another geopolitical era, today it is too high an obstacle for European competitiveness. And I want to remind you that economic development is the necessary condition to be able to have resources to spend on military defense, on welfare, on environmental defense. Maintaining the duties imposed by the European Union on itself, on its industry, even adding new taxes of its own in the new multiannual budget means going in the wrong direction: A tragic mistake! Instead, it seems to me that we are going in the right direction with regard to immigration, cooperating with the countries of origin and transit to stop the smuggling of illegal migrants; now we need to quickly define safe third countries and make returns an effective practice and not an empty promise. But let me say one last thing: While we are discussing welcome here, in too many regions of the world Christians are prevented from professing their faith. The post of European Union Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion in the World has been vacant for a year now. I find it bleak. President, please, hurry up! For some it will be unimportant, for us conservatives it is, and a lot! Because if Europe does not defend the principles and values that have shaped it, it will certainly not be able to defend its interests or its borders.

Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, our task today is to evaluate your programme in the light of our different political sensitivities. Of course, I welcome your resolutions on the fight against illegal immigration, on the protection of the external borders and on the need to facilitate the return of those who are not entitled to asylum. You don't know how long we conservatives have been expecting these words from a socialist leader. All these years, just for using your own words, we have been insulted, mocked and fought by the left in this Parliament. So, finally. Unfortunately, in other European nations socialists continue to pursue a mad immigration doctrine. no borders. I am thinking of Spain or Italy, where members of the Democratic Party risk fainting when they hear one of your ministers define the Italy-Albania Protocol as "incredibly positive". Unfortunately, the good news in your program for us ends here. The bad news starts with the desire to change European energy taxation upwards, therefore, higher taxes for households and businesses in the name of the transition green. Unfortunately, here is revealed the left matrix of your government, which interprets environmentalism as a substitute for socialism, which imposes, taxes, prohibits, obliges and compresses technological neutrality and people's freedom. All this without ever mentioning even once the word "nuclear", revealing the aversion to this energy source by the Danish Commissioner for Energy. Prime Minister Frederiksen, you will agree with me that it is the beauty of democracy and politics to confront different opinions. We will do it as always: courteous in tones, but very determined in respect of our values.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I will obviously not be able to speak today on behalf of the whole group, but I will be able to speak on behalf of two thirds of ECR colleagues who have not signed the motion. Not because they did not share some of the reasons for censorship in the text, but because, like me, they consider this motion a mistake, a gift to our political opponents, which comes at the very moment of their greatest frustration, when, thanks to the center-right majorities that had never been seen before, we are managing to bring some common sense back in here. There will be freedom of vote in the ECR, but this motion is bound to fail, you know, without even approaching the threshold of votes needed to be passed. Maybe the Left will vote for it, maybe there will be some French or German communists, or the "nientists" of the Five Star Movement. It's over. Unfortunately, it will be useful to the Socialists and the Greens, who will take advantage of it to call for the return to that "Ursula majority" slave of their agenda, which has already caused serious damage to European families and economic businesses. I will vote against this motion, as a European conservative and as an Italian, because I do not want to go back, to wild immigration and environmentalism as a substitute for communism, because several commissioners come today from European governments supported and participated by conservative parties with honor and dedication, because I want to defend the work of the previous president of the ECR, current Vice-President of the European Commission, the Italian Raffaele Fitto. Let me say one thing, I respect everyone's choices, but there is a question that comes from my heart: Why did several signatories today never table a motion of censure against the last von der Leyen Commission, the one that supported immigrant NGOs, which produced the Green Deal and the so-called Pfizergate, which had the socialist Timmermans as vice-president instead of the conservative Fitto? Of course I know the answer and I have no resentment. After someone gets their quarter of an hour of celebrity we will have to start fighting together again, side by side, to seek the truth about the political scandals that have influenced the European Parliament, to defend freedom of speech, to protect our peoples and for many other good reasons. Unfortunately, some people like to lose, both at home and here. I don't. We don't want to stop winning, building majorities on content and not on prejudices. This is our time and we will not waste it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are celebrating forty years of a great European victory. Schengen is the story of a Europe that has removed internal barriers to guarantee almost half a billion people the freedom to travel, live, work and grow beyond their national borders. We remember the events, the faces of the first cross-border commuters, of families no longer divided by a passport, of small businesses that have been able to expand their market without obstacles. But this freedom is not an acquired fact: It is the result of a pact between the peoples of Europe that must be respected day after day. Unfortunately, this pact has already been violated several times. To respond to just popular protests in the face of migratory pressure, some governments have decided to reintroduce customs and border controls. Paradoxically, the first to do so were those governments that for years politically and economically supported immigrant NGOs and ideology. no borders. The aim was to impose the indiscriminate reception of migrants on the European states located on the southern and eastern border of the continent and at the same time the internal borders were closed to prevent secondary movements between one European state and another. A hypocritical decision that has unloaded the full weight of immigration on the countries of first entry, then provoked a series of similar decisions by half of Europe. Now, I ask you: Have you ever seen in history a political entity that is open to the outside and closed to the inside? This approach was a blatant betrayal not only of the Schengen Treaty, but of the very idea of Europe in a political and cultural sense. I hope this lesson has been learned: Without the fight against illegal immigration, without solid external borders, our freedom falters and with it the reasons for our being together.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are celebrating forty years of a great European victory. Schengen is the story of a Europe that has removed internal barriers to guarantee almost half a billion people the freedom to travel, live, work and grow beyond their national borders. We remember the events, the faces of the first cross-border commuters, of families no longer divided by a passport, of small businesses that have been able to expand their market without obstacles. But this freedom is not an acquired fact: It is the result of a pact between the peoples of Europe that must be respected day after day. Unfortunately, this pact has already been violated several times. To respond to just popular protests in the face of migratory pressure, some governments have decided to reintroduce customs and border controls. Paradoxically, the first to do so were those governments that for years politically and economically supported immigrant NGOs and ideology. no borders. The aim was to impose the indiscriminate reception of migrants on the European states located on the southern and eastern border of the continent and at the same time the internal borders were closed to prevent secondary movements between one European state and another. A hypocritical decision that has unloaded the full weight of immigration on the countries of first entry, then provoked a series of similar decisions by half of Europe. Now, I ask you: Have you ever seen in history a political entity that is open to the outside and closed to the inside? This approach was a blatant betrayal not only of the Schengen Treaty, but of the very idea of Europe in a political and cultural sense. I hope this lesson has been learned: Without the fight against illegal immigration, without solid external borders, our freedom falters and with it the reasons for our being together.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have been waiting for this debate for a long time, because I have often felt a little alone in denouncing what happened after the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war: There have been nations that have done stunts to immediately disengage from Russian gas, both liquid and piped. I quote one: Italy. But perhaps you do not know that other European nations have increased their purchases of liquid gas from Russia, regardless of the fact that Putin used that money to manufacture missiles and bombs to be dropped on Ukrainian cities. In 2022 and 2023, Spain’green-chicSánchez became the second largest buyer of Russian LNG in the world, with 18%, ahead of Belgium liberal De Croo is behind only Xi Jinping's China, with 20%. In. In 2024, France overtook Macron, which increased imports of liquid gas from Moscow by 81%, or about 3 billion euros paid into Putin's coffers in a single year by a single nation. Understand well that, net of the hypocrisy on the Green Deal, On which I would dwell but I do not have time, what is a bit contradictory are the muscles shown in front of the cameras by some "willing" European leaders who, on the one hand, show themselves ready to do anything to stop Putin and, on the other hand, pay him to move forward. It is a contradiction also denounced by President Trump, to whom the "willing" ask to commit themselves against Russia, but LNG is bought from the Russian enemy, rather than from the American ally. The Commission has just announced a plan to end energy imports from Russia: I'm a little late, but that's fine. We must run towards European energy autonomy from fossil and renewable sources, without ideologies or even hypocrisy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we Conservatives believe in the free market, which at the same time favours consumers and producers, those who are naturally more capable and more talented. But we must admit that the policy of tariffs has also been a European policy, which has turned not only towards those who violate free competition every day, such as China, but also towards valuable allies such as the American citizens. Let me give just one example: Until a few weeks ago, the United States imposed a 2.5% tariff on European cars. The European Union imposed a 10% tariff on American cars. This is the starting point for a free trade agreement with the United States with zero tariffs on both sides. This is what Meloni discussed with Trump in Washington within a general political framework in which the unity of the West must be preserved. The rebalancing of the trade balance with the United States is not only an economic fact, it is also political. The liquid gas scandal from Russia is emblematic of a certain European hypocrisy and it is only today that Commissioner Jørgensen seems willing to deal with it. Do you know which are the nations that have most enriched Putin in recent years with the purchase of LNG? Well, it's not Orban's Hungary but Macron's France, with an 81% increase between 2024 and 2023. And it's Spain green Sánchez, which has its largest gas supplier in Russia at 38%. Here's another right thing to do: remove the duties that the European Union has imposed on itself with the Green Deal This will boost its competitiveness. This is the road we must take; Certainly not one that goes towards illiberal regimes such as China or North Korea.

Madam President, 'a Church that goes out' is how Pope Francis summed up the mission of his pontificate, a Church that doesn't remain confined within its physical spaces, but instead opens itself spiritually to the world, a Church that reaches out to people, cares for them – even physically – wherever they may be. I've shared many of Pope Francis's messages, even those considered 'politically incorrect', but I would be hypocritical if I didn't also admit some different points of view, particularly regarding the governance of migration. I think that for some here it's quite the opposite. Yet despite our differences, Christianity represents all of us. It's the only cultural bond that still holds us together. It's the common root of Europe, even if the European Union denies it every day. In October 2020, Pope Francis wrote to us: 'Europe, find yourself again! Rediscover your ideals, which have deep roots. Be yourself. Don't be afraid of your millennia‑old history, which is more a window to the future than to the past'. Addio, Papa Francesco.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, Mr Costa, ladies and gentlemen, the European Council has finally put in its conclusions the need for a revolution in European political action. The heads of government show that they understand why they were elected: simplifying the lives of citizens, not making them impossible, and protecting the lives of citizens, not putting them in danger. On two issues this reversal is particularly evident. Immigration, which must be based on the fight against human smugglers and the transfer of the European migration government outside European borders. This means not only faster returns, but also holistic cooperation agreements with countries of origin and transit of migrants, in order to stop illegal departures and remove the causes of migration. The other major issue is the revival of industrial competitiveness. I represent a political group that has always defended the free market: because it knows how to reward the talent of entrepreneurs, the quality of their products and, consequently, the freedom and well-being of people. President Reagan rightly said he was against tariffs because "protectionist legislation destroys prosperity." That said, those who today are shouting against the threat of tariffs by the Trump administration are the same ones who dragged the economy of our continent into a socialist swamp, on the grounds that we had to defend planet Earth from human beings living in Europe. In the coming weeks, we will be called upon to make an urgent and profound legislative effort to remove the tariffs that we have imposed on ourselves with the Green Deal. Net of all hypocrisy, the so-called omnibus package serves exactly that. And then I turn to the People's Group: Do not be afraid to make the right choices, even if they are shared with the groups sitting to the right of Parliament. I was there in the last legislature, how many times did the blackmail of socialists to vote with the extreme left and the Greens lead the legislative path indicated by Frans Timmermans? Now we have to save Europe. As the producers of the association have written to us Business Europe: "time is of the essence". We have to do it soon, we have to do it well.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in these first 100 days of the new Commission, we have dealt with competitiveness and the revival of economic growth, simplification and the return of illegal immigrants. The European Union finally decides to govern the phenomenon of migration, instead of being governed by smugglers or immigrant fanatics No Borders. We are also discussing the defence and security of the peoples of Europe: This is not a militaristic adventure, as the far left and the far right claim, but an assumption of responsibility towards our children. It is a question of recognizing how precious is the peace we have been living in Europe for a few decades, and how important it is to defend it from those who, unfortunately, love war. In short, in this beginning of the European legislature we are dealing with issues on which it is normal to have different opinions; But, finally, we are dealing with serious, real, big things, as a political institution that looks after the interests of half a billion people should. Do you remember what we were dealing with in the first 100 days of the last Commission? I'll tell you: how to open the doors to immigration, to all indiscriminately; how to weigh down the competitiveness of our production system with a mountain of pseudo-environmentalist directives and regulations; How fascist it was to deal with defense and security. In the last legislature, dominated by socialist and green forces, we dealt for months with the problem of the peti of cows that emit methane gas. We have prioritized the defense of LGBTQIAPK+ rights in Uganda. Now, I don't know how things will go in the next few days. But I know that every time European citizens went to vote in recent years they showed us another way: Let's walk it without fear.

Mr President, according to Rule 264, on behalf of the ECR Group, I would like to propose the postponement of the resolution on Ukraine. This resolution doesn't take into account what happened yesterday evening. The agreement between the US and Ukraine seems to be the good news we were waiting for. For the first time, a cease‑fire is possible, and it's what Ukraine wants. I'm afraid that a resolution that is not up to date can only serve to unleash hatred against Trump and the US, rather than favour the Ukrainian cause.

So thank you, President. The European Council represents a step in the journey back to reality, which we welcome. Yes, we would have liked greater clarity on the sources of financing for the plan, on long-term planning and on its integration within the overall framework of the Atlantic Alliance. Considering rearmed EU retaliation against Trump and the USA is a tragic mistake, just as it would be to see it as a concession to the Trump administration. Investing in defence and security is an act of dignity for our nations, and the mark of respect for our international allies. It was Obama and Biden before Trump who asked Europe not to rely solely on the sacrifices of the American working class. And what was Europe's response? The Green Deal, a massively expensive welfare system, tariffs on American cars, and some moral lessons towards those who ensured our security with their own money and even their own blood. Macron is right when he says that imagining the European Union as the only herbivorous power in a world of carnivores is pure utopia. The problem is that we don't stop breeding the carnivores. Look at the European imports of liquefied natural gas from Russia. Do you know how much France alone has increased its LNG purchases in the past year? By 81 %! Money that Putin uses for the missiles, with which he bombs Ukraine daily. When Trump says that the European Union has given more money to Putin than to Zelenskyy, he is telling the truth. I hope this hypocrisy ends once and for all. The Italian Prime Minister is right. Let us not call it ReArmEU, but DefendEU because the peace and freedom we enjoy must be defended. And defence is not only about weapons but also about strategic infrastructure, raw materials, communication systems and technological innovations. Meloni is right again, and not only her, when she states that the European defence detached from American allies and NATO is unthinkable. Politicians and legislatures come and go, but the West remains and must remain for a long time. We are bound by a common path and a common destiny. As they say in Latin, "Simul stabunt, simul cadent".

Madam President, 'I will spend the rest of my life in prison and die here. There will be no one to say goodbye to.' These were the final words of Alexei Navalny, spoken from a prison in the Arctic Circle where he had been confined. Sadly, he was right. Those words appear in a book that encapsulates Navalny's choice with a simple yet powerful title: Patriot. His wife Yulia said that 'sharing his story will inspire others to stand up for what is right and never lose sight of the values that truly matter'. In this Chamber, you all know me. I'm a conservative, a man of the right. I deeply love my nation, and that is why I hold profound admiration for this Russian martyr. And it is also why I despise those who, while calling themselves patriots, undermine his legacy and disregard his sacrifice. Personally, I can hardly imagine the courage it takes for a man who, after miraculously surviving yet another assassination attempt, kisses his wife and children goodbye and boards a plane to return to his homeland, facing a cruel and murderous regime head‑on. Was it worth it? The fact that we are here today, speaking about him is a proof that it was. I believe that the courage of a few can inspire the many, and that sooner or later, Russia will be free once more. The great Russian writer Tolstoy once wrote: 'Just as one torch ignites another, setting thousands of aflame, so too does one heart ignite another, setting thousands of hearts ablaze.'

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Šefčovič, the Commission's work programme includes topics on which we fully agree: the relaunch of competitiveness, the need for simplification, the focus on security, which I imagine is closely linked to the fight against illegal immigration. I am struck, but not surprised, by the fact that, with regard to simplification, the first package of proposals concerns a halt to certain measures resulting from the green drunkenness of the last parliamentary term. And let me say that this constant reminder of the need to reaffirm European competitiveness is implicitly an admission of past mistakes. Colleagues, the history of the last century teaches us that only economic development makes people free and strong, not the imposition of rules and prohibitions. In the competition between liberalism and socialism we have learned that only wealth gives us the opportunity to defend civil rights, to help citizens in poverty or illness, to preserve nature. Unfortunately, we have experienced a European political season imbued with socialism, in which the right environmental ambitions have been the motivation to impose senseless measures that have made and will make Europe poorer and less just. We must have the courage to abruptly correct the course taken. On the return of common sense and freedom we conservatives aim all our ideal capital, not on the repetition of the mistakes of the past or on the initiatives of the past. woke, which are also largely included in the work programme. In the first case we will be favorable and proactive. In the second case, however, we will fight.

Madam President, President von der Leyen, President Costa, ladies and gentlemen, the European Council has addressed a number of decisive issues. I want to focus on one in particular: European governments are finally realising the urgency of taking concrete measures to combat illegal immigration. The most effective response – it is now clear to everyone, let’s say almost everyone – is to tackle the phenomenon outside Europe’s borders. In fact, we need bilateral agreements with the countries of origin of migrants, which must be helped in the fight against trafficking in human beings, without sterile or snobbish attitudes on the part of the European institutions towards those who govern those third countries. Only in this way is it possible to offer a fair and limited share of men and women the opportunity to contribute to the development of our nations, having a job to do, proper documents and a safe means to come to Europe. How much time have we lost behind the so-called 'no borders' ideology that has severely influenced this Parliament? How many lives have been lost because of the immigration doctrine? And how many European cities have been sacrificed in his name? Finally, the European Union is starting to align itself more and more with the idea of having to stop departures, while, at the same time, working to create legal opportunities for immigration according to the different needs of the member countries. It is the pragmatic and common-sense approach of the government led by Giorgia Meloni, whose numbers and consensus are visible to all, but it is also the geopolitical destiny that Europe must give itself, rather than whining about the newfound ability of the United States of America to shake off the naive torpor of recent years. Being present in Africa and Asia with its own politics, with its productive and commercial enterprises and with its innovations is the mission that the European Union must give itself to give meaning to its existence, rather than consuming itself in miles of regulations that European citizens, frankly, do not feel either the need or the urgency.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President Virkkunen, thank you for your presence, ladies and gentlemen, frankly this debate comes at a suspicious time. The fact that the Left wanted it above all, and the words I have heard now from my Socialist colleague, fuel this suspicion. My suspicion is that the loss of political dominance on social platforms is driving the left crazy at every latitude. When you exercised asphyxiating control over political debate through social networks, establishing who could speak and what could be said, you didn't feel the need for a debate like this. On the contrary, we European conservatives felt the need at that time, and we felt the need for a tool like the DSA, to protect children first of all from the dangers of the network and to defend the freedom of speech that was being hatefully compressed. The vast majority of us voted in favor of this, because it seemed incredible to us that Twitter could close the account of democratically elected President Donald Trump and leave Ayatollah Khamenei undisturbed to threaten the world with his tweets. We wanted to guarantee users the right to bring an action before a real judge, not a judge. fact checker, if unjustly deprived of freedom of speech. Unlike you, we do not think we possess the truth, we are only passionate seekers of the truth and we know that we can only find it through an open debate between different opinions, which must always be guaranteed, on the internet as in reality. The DSA is a tool: It must be used in the right way, avoiding prejudice, abuse and the imposition of a "single thought". The truth is that for about two hundred years, since the time of Alexis de Tocqueville, it has always been the same story: We stand on the side of freedom, you on the other.