Debate contributions by Nicola PROCACCINI

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.

Mr President, Commissioner Ribera, ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you in advance: Those of you who are allergic to reality will risk an anaphylactic shock by listening to my words. Decarbonisation at the price of deindustrialisation is Europe's most tragic mistake in decades. And I do not doubt the good faith of many of you but, as an old popular adage says, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". In four minutes it will even be impossible for me to draw up a complete list of all the catastrophic consequences that will manifest themselves in the years to come as a result of the Green Deal, whose poisoned fruits are beginning to ripen and, in the next few years, will poison the entire European economy, with all that this entails for the social resilience of our populations. Let's start with the most current and striking: the ban on thermal engines set for 2035, without distinction between fossil and renewable fuels, as in the case of biofuels. A suicidal choice that, also due to the fines already planned for next year, is causing the chain closure of production plants or their relocation away, as far as possible from Europe. And then there is another crisis coming, that of the aircraft industry. In a few days, European airlines will be forced to use sustainable fuels that cost six times more than those used to date and that all other global airlines will continue to use. Let me mention the obligation to increase the consumption of energy from renewable sources to 42.5% by 2030 and the zero-emissions of all new public buildings as early as 2028 and of private buildings as early as 2030. And think of the ETS, which will overwhelm the production costs of all European companies and the inability to compete with other companies in the rest of the world. The ETS Directive in maritime transport is even more penalising, with already obvious effects on trade and price increases and with the environmental paradox of the inevitable shift towards road transport and, therefore, an increase in polluting emissions. Unfortunately, you have never listened to us. All behind Frans Timmermans and Greta Thunberg, all running faster and faster to meet the wall of reality, thinking that beyond the wall there was a fragrant and clean world, while there is only the political, economic and social death of Europe. We told you, in here and out. In our past, more or less recent, there have been some schizophrenic measures, in total contradiction with themselves: I am thinking of the Packaging Directive, which would have dealt a fatal blow to the circular economy; I think about energy in general. "Methane gives you a hand" was the television advertising slogan a few years ago in Italy, which invited us to consume methane as the least polluting energy source among fossil fuels. Now it is almost unnameable and in a few months the directive on industrial emissions will come into force, which will not only affect industry but also animal husbandry. This is because the peti of some animals release methane gas and this is unacceptable for Brussels. Now I want to ask you a question, colleagues: Do you really think that our planet, which has existed for 3.5 billion years, is endangered by the petes of cows? Do you know what happened in 2023? That the world recorded the highest peak of CO emissions2 in history, despite the fact that the European Union has fallen to its lowest peak – 7% of global emissions. This tells us two things: that Europe is getting smaller and smaller in the world and that protecting the environment is a privilege that economically healthy nations can afford. Our choices, all of them, should always consider for whom and for what we fight. Not an ideology. Jean Guitton wrote: "A thousand billion ideas are not worth a single person. It's for people to live and die.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the ECR has its own political identity. We are a group that fights for the preservation of the values that founded Europe. We are men and women firm in our convictions but also measured in the way we expose them. We maintain a certain British style, if you will allow me, despite the fact that England left the European Union and with it the Tories who founded the ECR. In fact, we have witnessed with some detached fun the psychodrama of the left, in the throes of convulsions for a vice-presidency assigned to an Italian conservative. Mrs Aubry said yesterday: Leftist groups have succumbed across the board. I believe, however, more simply, that the citizens of Europe have expressed their views in the European and national elections and that this must be taken into account, especially by the President of the Commission, to whom I must acknowledge that I have resisted the pressures of the left with dignity and courage. Every time, and everywhere, the left has lost the elections, and the composition of this House is explained to us by more than 1 000 thoughtful political analyses. However, there is no centre-right majority, because there is no majority constraint: There has never been, not even in the past five years, when, thanks to numbers very different from the current ones, the socialists bullied the popular, Timmermans bullied von der Leyen and all together they bullied the European citizens with a fierce green radicalism. Fortunately the majorities here are formed on the contents and can change with each vote. We will remain true to ourselves. We supported the Commissioners indicated by national governments without sparing them our criticism during the hearings, but respecting the prerogative of the Member States to appoint their own Commissioner. And we will give freedom to vote today, because each of our delegations has the right to choose, to decide according to their own national interest. This does not mean being Eurosceptic or anti-European: This means loving the original and wonderful idea of a Europe of peoples, "united in diversity".

Madam President, a thousand days ago, what was disguised as a major Russian military exercise on the border with Ukraine turned out to be a full-scale invasion. The first in Europe after years of peace. A failed invasion, as this very moment of commemoration reminds us. Failed thanks to the strenuous defence of Ukrainian men and women. Failed thanks to the courage and determination of the Ukrainian President. He was surrounded, threatened, mocked by internet trolls, but he did not flee, neither to a remote dacha in the forest nor to a Manhattan hotel. He stood where he belonged: with his family, carrying out his duty. The Putin regime was convinced that it would only take one night to take over Ukraine. It did not. Since that day, the Ukrainian people have been enduring under the weight of indiscriminate shelling, targeting civilians, critical infrastructure and everything essential for survival. Since that day, Ukrainian children have been going to school underground. For 1 000 days, Ukraine has been forced to fight and die in order to continue to exist. What are the Ukrainian people teaching us? Three things, above all. That homeland is not a word that belongs to the past, but is still what holds the meaning of men and women in history. It teaches us that freedom is not a political slogan, but a necessity of the soul. Finally, it teaches us that Europe is not a treaty signed in the last century. It is not a set of – sometimes unjust – rules, a collection of bureaux and offices, but is a community of destiny to which we belong without having to choose it. In a few hours there will be another anniversary. On the evening of 21 November 2013, some young people took to the main square of Kyiv. They were beaten and killed. They became thousands and gave rise to a popular revolution called Euromaidan. None of us western Europeans can imagine a generation of high-school kids and young workers defying death by colouring their faces in the blue and stars of Europe. But in Ukraine it happened. They died wrapped in the bloody flags of the European Union. The flag that for us is not much more than an office object. They died like that under the bells of St Michael's Monastery, while someone played Chopin on a piano set up on a pile of snow soaked in the blood. That is why we will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Not only because it represents the right side of history, but because we know that not defending the principles of freedom and human dignity today would mean accepting a future of chaos in which the law of force prevails over right and the weakest are destined to succumb. Those watching this war in China, in Africa and Middle East, in Latin America are waiting to know whether the entire West still believes in its founding values. Among them, the value of peace, which is not an inescapable condition, unfortunately, but is a treasure to be protected with courage and sacrifice. Winston Churchill wisely said that accepting peace on hard terms is like feeding a crocodile, hoping it will eat us last. Let us do what is right for as long as it takes.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the outcome of the American elections will not change the relationship between the European Union and the United States of America. We have a bond of culture, history, blood and dreams that cannot be scratched by anything or anyone. The US elections will not damage relations with the European Union, but they have burst the "Brussels bubble". We are not used to celebrating the elections of others, yet the frustration of the European left deserves to be celebrated. High Representative Borrell, I hope that your funereal and sad tone is a child of the previous debate and not of this one now. My feeling is that you did not expect the victory of Donald Trump and you cannot understand it, you cannot understand how it could have happened, because the European left does not know any of those who voted for it. Indeed, those men and women are disgusting to you and you are not afraid to hide it: You don't know the workers of the rust belt, nor small entrepreneurs who fail and recover; you do not know farmers and ranchers in rural areas; You don't know the families who live every day in terror in big cities ravaged by drugs and illegal immigration. But you know the Hollywood singers and actresses, the CNN reporters, the academics of the Columbia University, None of them voted for Trump. The truth is that the people always have their own wisdom and the left is not able to understand it, neither on this side nor on that side of the Atlantic Ocean. We will have to deal with the new American administration without political prejudice. We know that US foreign policy has historically been much more stable than that of Europe. We do our part, strengthening the European pillar of NATO, relaunching our competitiveness without curbing it with the ideological excesses of the past years. In America a conservative Republican won, because the real revolution today is to preserve, not destroy: anywhere in the world, including in Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, two messages came loud and clear from all the peoples of Europe five months ago: No more "green madness" eco-chic No more illegal immigration. We, who really believe in the word democracy, without having to write it in the name of the party or parliamentary group, think that the will of the people should not be betrayed. So far, the line has been followed in Europe. no borders on the left: We have had thousands of migrants die at sea, a million have not been repatriated, and our cities have been consigned to degradation and insecurity. I would say it's time to change course: It's time to govern immigration. Not everyone enters but only those who are really persecuted, who we can welcome with dignity and the possibility of integration. To do this, we must deal with the phenomenon of migration before it arrives on European territory. Connect Perez, outsourcing is already in the new pact. It is the reason why a dedicated economic fund has been set up and it is the reason why the new pact can be seen as a first small step in the right direction. Addressing the issue of migration outside European borders prevents migrants from paying thousands of dollars to hand over their lives to smugglers; prevents them, once they arrive, from becoming labour for the mafias; It prevents a socialist chancellor from deciding to restore the borders within the European Union, while, unbeknownst to German citizens, with their taxes, it finances NGO ships that fuel human trafficking in the Mediterranean. Helping the countries of origin and transit of migrants by promoting their economic and social development, asking for help from democratic third countries, such as Albania, is neither right nor left: It's just common sense. And this is what Italy began to do, obtaining results unimaginable until recently. Some socialist governments, such as the British or Danish governments, have finally understood this. Honestly, no one can know if and how much a new European immigration policy will work. For sure we know that it has not worked the one practiced to date, that is yours.

Madam President, colleagues, first of all, there is a mistake in the title and in the meaning of the debate proposed by the Greens. The Italian court ruling mentioned by the colleagues deals with something else. It does not call into question the Italy-Albania agreement. Any international agreement, of course, cannot be judged by a civil code. So next time, please colleagues, collect more accurate information or go back to school. Regarding any other proposal debates, I understand that there is a desire to discuss how to deal with the legal and illegal migration. Fortunately, a debate is already planned for Wednesday morning where we can compare our points of view for almost two hours. We will do it. You bet.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Orbán, we share several objectives of your programme. I only say a couple for reasons of time. The peoples of the European Union are experiencing a chilling demographic winter season, which must be addressed by caring more and better for the primary cell of any political community: the family. Immigration cannot be the solution to declining birth rates. On the contrary, if immigration is not carefully governed, stopping departures, collaborating with the nations of origin and transit of migrants, Europe risks imploding together with its heritage of civil rights laboriously obtained over time. We too believe that the European Union's green transition needs to be changed, and we are already beginning to see clearly the limits and problems that we had foretold. These include the loss of competitiveness, the loss of economic resources to defend the environment and the weakest social classes, but also the growing industrial and political dependence on an insidious regime like the Chinese one. Here, as a friend, I must also tell you what we do not share about your political project. We have an internal adversary and it is the progressive fury that wants to erase Western culture from within and with it the reasons for our being together. But we also have a much more dangerous external enemy, of which you do not seem to be aware. And it is the alliance between China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, the so-called "chaos quartet", which is the antithesis of any Hungarian, European, Western patriot. The antithesis of freedom and beauty, of justice and democracy, of those values that define us and that we intend to defend, as the Buda boys of 1956 taught us.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is right to talk about competitiveness in this House today. It's late. I thank President Draghi for his valuable analytical contribution. I only regret that it comes later, indeed, because of the mistakes made during a political season, last year, dominated by the red and green lefts. For years we have asked to use common sense in pursuing a fair and shareable goal such as the conservation of the environment. For years we have struggled against measures that seemed furiously radical and short-sighted, looking at the international geopolitical picture. The result of those errors is in the Draghi report: a sudden, heavy, but not unexpected loss of competitiveness, which does not correspond to the benefit for the planet that we all would like. 2023 was the year with the highest global CO emissions2 This has always been the case, despite the collapse of the EU's emissions. We are the only major region in the world to have introduced a price on its CO emissions2This translates into an increase in production costs and the final price, in a market that is increasingly global but also increasingly uneven in terms of starting conditions. It has already been said: European companies are facing two to three times the cost of electricity in the United States, not to mention China, where the price of natural gas is five times higher than in the United States. Of course, with large investments we would still be able to change course, but if the European Union continues to self-sabotage its economy, it will be like wanting to empty the sea with a teaspoon. We need to come back to the awareness that environmental conservation, as well as social inclusion policies, are a privilege that only thriving and dynamic economies can afford. Even this morning, in the conference of group presidents, I happened to hear from the left words that betray a feeling of annoyance with economic competitiveness, as if it were something to stigmatize, to contain, to sacrifice on the altar of environmentalism, something sinisterly similar to the concept of "happy degrowth" with which we had to deal a few years ago. It is socialism that returns from the window after coming out the door in the last century. On the contrary, we believe that we need a self-limitation of European legislative and regulatory activity. Today, as yesterday, we believe in innovation, technological neutrality and the free market. We believe in human beings who, if left free to pursue their own happiness, make the world grow.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, ladies and gentlemen, I want to immediately disappoint those who expect an indication of vote from the ECR: Our parliamentary group is made up of parties that do not renounce their national prerogatives and each will speak out on the basis of its own national interest. We are conservative because we defend the values that have shaped Europe, as well as Western civilization. But we are also conservative because, unlike others, we defend the founding treaties of the European Union, where it is written that the choice of the presidency of the Commission, taking into account the result of the European elections, belongs to the national governments and its ratification to the European Parliament. President von der Leyen, four days ago the Politico newspaper wrote that his fate is not in the hands of the European People's Party, nor of the European Conservatives or even of the Brothers of Italy, but it is in the hands of the great losers in the elections a few weeks ago: the Greens first, the socialists like Timmermans, but also the liberals dragged down by the débâcle Macron's party. He will understand that something is going wrong. We have nothing personal against her, mind you. For almost your entire term of office you have been forced to pursue the claims of the left, because the European Council, the Commission and Parliament five years ago were held hostage by a left-wing majority. No more today! Today, thanks to the result of the European elections, but above all thanks to the result in the national elections held in all the states of the European Union, our fellow citizens have overwhelmingly embraced the common-sense ideas of the centre-right. I think you should take this into account. We will remain what we are: people measured in tones, but firm in principles. Like that young university student of the Italian right, who has become a transversal symbol of justice and courage that you, President Metsola, rightly mentioned on Tuesday and whose 32nd anniversary of his cowardly killing will be celebrated tomorrow: Paolo Borsellino. To paraphrase one of his best-known statements: It's good to live for what you believe in.