Speeches

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.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for us European conservatives, Europe has never been a set of offices and rules, but a historical and cultural concept. That is why what happened twenty years ago was not a simple enlargement but a reunification. It was the day when, as hoped for years before by John Paul II, our continent was able to breathe again with two lungs: Western and Eastern. This reunification was possible thanks to the defeat of communism, which cut our continent in two, ideally and physically. I remember it because I find it curious that the orphans of that defeat pretend to give lessons of Europeanism to us who were fighting for a European Union, while they were fighting for the Soviet Union. Fortunately, we have a good memory and for this reason we reject the centralist and dirigist approach that we would like to impose on today's Europeans. This is why we keep intact the ardent desire for a European alliance of nations inextricably linked by a pact of peace, collaboration and development. What happened in 2004 was the epilogue of what happened on November 9, 15 years earlier. The decision to reunite ten new states with our geopolitical community was therefore just, dutiful and far-sighted. Today, in this moment of commemoration, my thoughts go to the men and women of Budapest, to the Jan Palachs and the boys of Prague, to the workers of Gdańsk, to the prisoners of the gulags, to the martyrs of the foibe and to all those who fought for their homeland, for their freedom, for Europe.

Madam President, I am one of the MEPs invited to attend the National Conservatism Conference last week in Brussels. Along with me and my colleagues were heads of governments, ministers, journalists, Christian and Jewish religious representatives. As you may know, three mayors of the municipalities of Brussels had decided a few days before to ban its holding because of the risk of violence by the extreme left and because they said they didn’t share the opinions we would express that day. One of these mayors even sent the police to suppress the conference by force. Thanks to the intervention of Prime Minister De Croo and other European premiers, NatCon was able to go on, but I believe that what happened in Brussels should be discussed in this plenary. Therefore, the ECR request you add a debate on recent attempts to ban political meetings, the importance of safeguarding the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly in Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I challenge everyone in this House to say that the European Union has acted well on the issue of migration in recent years. On the one hand, the too many deaths at sea, the big business of human trafficking, the political immigration battle of the NGO ships, praised and rewarded in this House, despite being the link with the smugglers. On the other hand, the loss of security in our cities, the increase in undeclared work with consequent compression of workers' rights, the odious exploitation of women, the spread of Islamic radicalism with its most violent manifestations. Improving the current situation: This is the only reason to vote in favour of some of the regulations in the new Pact. Few steps in the right direction, few but important, with the hope of continuing on this path with greater determination during the next European legislature. It is necessary to stop departures by collaborating with the countries of origin and transit of migrants, establishing first who has the right to enter Europe and who does not. This is the only possible structural solution, also helping developing nations to remove the causes of emigration. This is what we have been trying for years to make the left understand, that they would like everyone to enter, without distinction, and then give them the right to vote and thus supplant the will of our peoples. The 71% decrease in landings in Italy and the drastic decrease in deaths at sea confirm the effectiveness of the Meloni government's choice to prevent arrivals, working with patience and determination on the external dimension of European borders. Unfortunately, a lot of time has been wasted and today it is difficult to enter into the merits of the new regulations, a few weeks before the vote. But that's what you should do and that's what some of us will do.

Madam President, Prime Minister Orpo, it is a great pleasure to welcome you on behalf of the European Conservatives. Viewed from here, your victory in the elections in Finland was more important than you can imagine; You have defeated the rising star of the European socialists, one of the greatest exponents of madness. eurogreen, an icon of the global progressive agenda, and they will never forgive it. And even more significant was the decision to govern together with the party of the Finns, an authoritative member of our political family; He managed to resist the pressure of those who did not want the union between a political force of the EPP and one of the ECR, because if the centre-right is united it wins, everywhere in Europe, and the left knows this well. Unfortunately, sometimes they still manage to divide us. Do you remember the words of Paavo Haavikko? When decisions are important, not everyone is able to make them. Fortunately, the left did not make it to Prague, Stockholm, Rome and Helsinki. And the facts tell us that your government is reviving the economy, reducing bureaucracy, defending the family and preserving national traditions. You have a firm and pragmatic approach to immigration and have made the historic choice to join NATO, strengthening our common security in one of the most difficult borders of our continent and our freedom. This is Europe! This is the Europe we love and for which it is worth fighting! Good work.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have spoken many times in this House, yet I never feel the weight of words more than today because of the emotion that runs through us all, because of the meaning of history that we seem to be able to grasp at this moment. I listened to Ms. Navalnaja's words, trying to maintain a respectful detachment so as not to be influenced by emotion. But it was difficult. Personally, I have been following Alexei Navalny's political affairs for years. I have always appreciated the courage and imagination, the serenity and faith with which he carried out his ideas, even when few could understand their meaning and value. An extremist: They labeled it sometimes. mainstream It's usually Putin's public television. In fact, Alexei Navalny was just a man in love with Russia, its history and its people. Christian, born into a military family, Alexei was not a pacifist. But he has always fought for his homeland, without weapons or fear. They tried to kill him many times, in the most cowardly ways. They had almost succeeded: but nothing. So he kissed his wife, greeted his boys, took a plane and returned to Russia, where he knew that the most terrible of prisoners and the most obvious of deaths would be waiting for him. His existence is over, but not his dream of a Russia free from tyrants and at peace with the world. Someone said, "Blessed is the people who don't need heroes." I disagree. All peoples need it, in peace as in war. It is those men and women who speak to others and for others, even when everyone is mute and lonely. Like that boy, who in August of so many years ago faced death alone, burning himself in front of the Soviet tanks that invaded Prague. The day Jan Palach died he won freedom and the Europe we love was born. It will be the same for Alexei Navalny. On February 16, they killed a free man, but thousands were born in Russia, Europe and the world.

Madam President, Mr von der Leyen, ladies and gentlemen, this debate comes at the end of the parliamentary term and with great delay. In the last five years in this House we have talked much more about electric scooters and butterflies than about geopolitics and military defence. The idea of the red and green left to make Europe a herbivorous superpower has entirely occupied the agenda of the European Commission and consequently the parliamentary one. We have been overwhelmed by great speeches about the need to ride a bike in order not to emit CO2. We fell asleep in a dream but in the meantime the world has continued to live in reality and reality is a beautiful but dangerous place. We European conservatives have always had clear ideas in this regard: we have always thought that the European Union should not take care of everything, but of a few things, even if important: "Doing less, doing betterIt has always been our message. The common defence of Europe's borders and interests is one of the few things the European Union serves, if you will! Because it is obvious that security lies in numbers and interests do not always coincide on this side and on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Making the European pillar of NATO stronger and more efficient also serves to strengthen the Atlantic Alliance. Please don't be shocked when Trump comes to wake us up from our "green dream": It can't always be the others who pay or die for us. However, today it is not necessary to divide on the prospect of a European army that – allow me personal digression – the Italian right has been supporting for 50 years, when today's pro-European supers supported the Red Army. What we can agree on, for now, is a better integration of national armies and a common production of armaments, which costs but is necessary, which if done together, can allow us to spend less and better. We need courage, realism and common sense. Despite delays and some hypocrisy in its aims, the European ASPIDES mission in the Mediterranean is the right path to follow. These are difficult times, it's true. But in reality they have always been. Publilius Syrus, a Roman slave who became free many years ago, wrote "It is not easy to defend alone what many desire: our freedom.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am sorry that Timmermans, who has run away, is not in his place. For years we have asked you to listen to us, we have fought you, even though we do not have the numbers to stop the red-green majority that gave birth to this crazy programme called . Every four months you slammed into our faces a law against farmers, ranchers and fishermen. You told us that it was necessary to protect nature from them, they who live and work in nature for generations and generations. With the Farm to fork You crushed them and promoted the consumption of insects and larvae. With Nutri-Score you wanted to hit the Mediterranean diet. With the packaging regulation you have banned packaging that guarantees freshness to fruit and vegetables. With the green claims you have established that vegetables cannot be defined as green if they then travel by truck. With the cancer strategy you have declared war on meat and wine. With a directive you have equated stables with industrial installations. With another, you want pharmaceutical companies to produce meat in the lab. In some countries the left-wing government has also removed subsidies for the purchase of diesel. With the Nature Restoration Act you have decided that human beings are harming the planet, so you have to abandon the cultivated fields, remove the embankments from the rivers and exhume the swamps. And thank goodness that half the crap of the CAP has passed, because, if it had gone as Greta Thunberg and the living room environmentalists wanted, it would have been even worse than it is. Now, what did you expect from farmers? That they'd thank you? Revolt is the language of those who are not listened to. Now back off, but it's late: The minority has become a majority across Europe and in a few months it will put people back in the place of ideologies.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, ladies and gentlemen, the outcome of the last European Council is, in our view, in the dark. We are pleased with the work that has been done on enlargement to the Western Balkans and on the start of negotiations for the entry of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova. Among other things, the proposal to use frozen funds to Russia to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine is right. However, some questions remain on several issues and the revision of the 2021-2027 financial framework, on which the necessary unanimity has not yet been found, is still pending. The enlargement of the European Union to new nations is certainly important, not least because, as President Meloni has often said, it would be more correct to speak of the reunification of Europe. There is a cultural identity, in fact, that comes even before the political identity and there is the need to face together the difficult geopolitical challenges of these years. That is why we must not make the tragic mistake of removing nations that are already part of the European Union, as happened with Britain and as it risks happening again. To be even clearer, I find short-sighted the constant attack on Hungary that even today, in here, is pouring against it. A political bombing that spares nothing and no one, not even Hungarian students who, if an amendment had not been approved yesterday, would have been excluded from the Erasmus programme. This is despite the progress made by the Hungarian institutions in their relations with the Commission, for example with regard to the reform of the justice system. I believe that the Budapest institutions should be asked for more solidarity and sharing, but I believe that in return they should be offered more willingness to listen to their reasons and the right serenity of judgment. The European Union must be cohesive within it and must regain that centrality on the international stage that it has lost or perhaps never really had. To the old issues related to birthlessness, loss of competitiveness, management of migration flows, many others have been added: Chinese and Russian expansionism, the Middle East crisis, the supply of raw materials and energy, artificial intelligence. President, ladies and gentlemen, we are already in the electoral campaign and it would be hypocritical to deny it, but Europe is either something bigger than our small political skirmishes, or it is nothing.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this empty Chamber, deserted by the same Members who wanted this debate, explains how much more important it is for anti-fascists in the living room to find a place in the restaurant than in their stalls here in Parliament. On the other hand, their goal was to defame Italy and the goal was achieved; It is regrettable that the Italian left, which is still unable to understand the reasons for its political and electoral failure, also lends itself to this. Let's start with the title of this debate: The fight against the rebirth of neo-fascism in Europe, also in reference to the parade that took place in Rome on January 7. First of all it was not a parade but a funeral commemoration, the same that has been taking place for 40 years, every year. The same in which, in addition to the homage composed of citizens and institutions, unfortunately some militants of the extreme right are used to give the Roman greeting, but that over the years have become less and less. Yes, because in these more than 40 years of government of Italy there have been parties of all political colors: Prime Ministers such as Draghi and Conte, Craxi and Andreotti, Prodi and D'Alema. The commemoration of Acca Larentia has always remained the same. Only the number of people making the Roman greeting has changed: Today there are a few tens, while in the past there were a few thousand. And that greeting, so anachronistic, in some ways even grotesque, has never even had the political meaning of the apology of fascism, so much so that almost never the judiciary has recognized it as a crime, considering it for what it really is: a funeral gesture, a small gesture within a tragedy too great to be forgotten, that of innocent young boys massacred by communist terrorism. We would have liked to have talked about the victims of political terrorism in this House, all the victims, of whatever party they are. It was not possible because the Italian Democratic Party and the groups of the European left also prevented it yesterday; Obviously they can desert this debate because they are hungry, but they are not yet full of political hatred. Have a good appetite! We will continue to have respect for other people's ideas and love for our people.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, among those who are speaking today to commemorate Jacques Delors, I am probably one of the most politically distant from him, but this does not prevent me from giving him the right human respect, nor does it prevent me from positively evaluating certain features of his political experience at European and national level. First of all I like to emphasize the anchoring of his public commitment to a spiritual, religious and Christian dimension. One aspect, this aspect of faith, which was well present across the board among all the founding fathers of the European Union, but which today is banned from public discourse, especially among socialists, allow me to do so. As if being sincerely Christian can be an obstacle to the secularity of institutions or to respect for any other religious confession. There are valuable results of his political work that I like to highlight such as the creation of the single market, the free movement of goods and people within our continent, the launch of the Erasmus student programme, or the particular focus on the common agricultural and energy policy. On the other hand, there is one element in his vision that is a watershed with respect to our vision: The European Union as a Federation of National States. In our opinion, this is an obvious oxymoron, implicitly admitted by Delors himself when he defined this Parliament as "the first and only multinational Parliament in the world". That said, the possibility remains intact for our political group to converge on the need, repeatedly reiterated by Delors himself, to fill this Europe with a soul, otherwise it will be only a set of offices and rules, far from the people and history.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the geopolitical context requires us to look at reality as it is and not as we would like it to be. The world is much bigger than the European Union and it is not going in the direction we are pointing. It did not do so with sanctions against Russia or even in the fight against Islamic terrorism; It is not doing this on energy sources and climate warming. This is why Europe needs unity and pragmatism more than ever before. It is not the time, and it is not right, to change the founding treaties to strip nations of their prerogatives; this is not the time to re-propose old budgetary parameters and austerity, rather it is the time to cut red tape and invest in economic growth; This is not the time for green ideological radicalism, but for a technologically neutral approach. This is not the time for a Europe undergoing globalisation, but for a continent capable of taking the lead on the international stage and defending its interests, firmly if necessary. That is why it is right to proceed with enlargement, without hesitation but also without discrimination. There are not, nor must there be, first-class nations, other second-class nations, and still others destined to travel standing or in the freight car. For us conservatives, Europe exists only in its complexity, not in the leadership of a few governments that claim the right to decide for everyone else. Of course, it is not easy to seek a broad consensus every time on the decisions to be taken, but how can we make other nations join the European Union, depriving them of their political sovereignty? Never before has Europe made sense if it is able to confront, unitedly, those who aspire to a world of violence and abuse. In a few days it is Christmas and, no matter how much someone may ignore it here, Europe is a fruit of Christian civilization. I hope that the next Council can be a moment of light and not a mere political showcase; Never before has there been a need for an alliance of nations to pave the way for itself before the rest of the world. Merry Christmas to all, even to those who do not believe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are living in a strange time, when it is up to us European Conservatives and Reformists to preserve the Treaties establishing the Union and to defend them from the attempts at reform that are often proposed here. Nothing new, in reality, at least for us conservatives of the Italian right, who since 1957 have been supporters of the European Union, while those who today pose as "turbo-Europeanists" supported and coveted the Soviet Union and voted against the ratification of the Treaty of Rome. It is therefore probably no coincidence that the left tries to replicate here and today the dirigist, absolutist and anti-democratic model that was typical of that political system. It is the Council of European Governments, not Parliament, which according to the Treaty of Lisbon designates the President of the Commission; Parliament can only accept it or not, but it cannot arrogate to itself the tasks it does not have. It is quite clear that the attempt to revive Parliament's indication of the Commission's leadership is the result of the awareness that the majority of the 27 Member States of the Union are now governed by the centre-right. We would have defended what is written in the treaties even if it had been the opposite, because we believe in a Europe of nations, that of the founding fathers and not that of the degenerate sons; We believe in a confederal alliance of the peoples of Europe, united to do together what they alone would not be able to do. The exact opposite of the federalist project on which we are working in recent years and today: a project designed to dissolve the most expensive thing for European citizens, that is, a land to be called homeland. On this we will measure ourselves in the 2024 elections, and see who wins.