Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the legislation we are voting on today aims to support the competitiveness of the European pharmaceutical sector vis-à-vis its external competitors. For some time now, the large pharmaceutical companies have been calling for a simplification and acceleration of the procedures for the approval of new drugs by the EMA and with this legislation they are satisfied. But the main concern of the legislator in terms of health should always and above all be the protection of the health of individuals, possible only through the use of drugs properly tested and controlled before their authorization. Unfortunately, the rush to issue a license often leads to accepting risks and dangers to human health that are paid for by consumers of emergency authorized products, as we have seen in recent years. We cannot allow the prodding of competition or the bogeyman of emergency to push us to play roulette with the health and life of European citizens. I very much appreciate the ENVI amendments and the rapporteur's focus on greater transparency, but for me the proposal remains overall unacceptable.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today it is all the more urgent to express our firm opposition to Macron's proposal to send European Union soldiers to Ukraine, a crazy idea that would undoubtedly trigger a war escalation, with disastrous consequences for the whole of Europe. European security policy must always be part of a defence framework, based on strategic cooperation between the Member States of the Union. For every military aspect, it is essential to continue to work within NATO, the alliance that has guaranteed peace and security in Europe since the post-war period. At the same time, we must promote a negotiating table between Russia and Ukraine to seek a peaceful and lasting solution to the ongoing conflict. Dialogue and diplomacy, accompanied by the deterrence guaranteed by the presence of the Atlantic Alliance, have always been the only effective ways to resolve international disputes and guarantee peace on our continent. I therefore invite everyone to reflect on the consequences of our actions and to work together to restore stability, security and peace to Europe, not forgetting that the defence of human life and respect for minorities are the fundamental principles that guide us.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal to set the reduction in CO2 emissions in the European Union at 90 % by 2040 is yet another demonstration of the irresponsibility and approximation with which the European Commission defines its green policies. On the basis of an analysis of the average one-degree increase in global temperatures over the last century, which does not take into account the much greater temperature fluctuations that have occurred in past centuries, we have credited the thesis that the anthropic component of global warming is prevalent compared to the natural one, a thesis denied by thousands of scientists in the world. It is scientifically proven that 2000 years ago the global average temperature was three degrees higher than today. These target decarbonisation will not affect the rise in temperatures at all, but will only result in the destruction of Europe's industrial and production system, prompting our companies to relocate to third countries in order not to die, as they are already doing. To continue on this path is suicide for the European Union. Weren't we all Europeans?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Michel, Commissioner, we are talking about responsibility. You are taking responsibility for allocating another 50 billion European taxpayers’ money to the bottomless pit of war spending in Ukraine – an expenditure that has so far not produced any retreat of the Russian army, which has indeed advanced – and do not even condemn, nor mention, the fact that the Ukrainian army also uses Western weapons to attack Russian territory, not only to defend itself, and also to attack, as it did in Luhansk, civilian cities and buildings, killing 28 civilians, including a child and several elderly people in a bakery. I believe that, at the very least, these war crimes – because that is what they are – should be condemned. And we should also understand if and when these loans that we are making to the Ukrainian government will ever be repaid, because this is an expense that affects the European budget and the possibility for member countries to give assistance to their citizens in serious difficulty.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal to extend the list of cross-border crimes recognised by the EU to include hate speech is totally untenable, as it is incompatible with the principles of criminal law, the determination of punishable conduct, proportionality and effectiveness. Such a criminal law should in fact describe precisely what expressive methods constitute incitement to hatred: It would certainly not be possible to punish any expression abstractly capable of inciting hatred, otherwise this Parliament too would become incriminable whenever it expresses criticism and accusations against European or foreign subjects or governments, because they are capable of fomenting hatred. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right of the EU and its exercise cannot be restricted by general criminal rules amputating it because it could cause negative feelings. Moreover, such a provision would lead to an explosion of criminal proceedings that would clog the prosecution offices, to the detriment of the effectiveness of the overall prosecution and the fight against crime. Other instruments more suitable and respectful of democracy must be adopted to counter hate speech in the awareness, however, that erasing negative feelings from society remains impossible as long as the human species exists.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this regulation on packaging and packaging waste is part of the European Green Deal policies, which aim at objectives such as the elimination of fossil fuels, the zeroing of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, the modification of climate trends, objectives to be achieved by the Commission at all costs, including that of the destruction of the European industrial system that has ensured economic growth and social progress for over a century. Even the most virtuous countries in the recycling of waste, such as Italy, will be forced to change the production model in a few years to eliminate plastics, the new enemy to be destroyed. But the proposal to reuse the packaging and containers of all consumer products, including food, is economically unsustainable, as well as harmful to the environment, given the enormous use of energy, water and detergents it would entail. Let us stop this ideological drift once and for all, before it stops Europe.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have heard from the Commissioner's words a long list of projects shared with the Biden administration by the European Union, some of which are not as shared by the peoples of Europe and the United States, such as unlimited military and financial support for the Ukrainian government, without any effort to reach a negotiation, or the pursuit of climate objectives in ways and timescales that have already proved unsustainable for our industrial system, from an energy and commercial point of view. What emerges from the results of this summit is the constant flattening of European policies on the objectives indicated by the American government, without any debate or care for the many points of conflict between the interests of the Union and those of the United States. The detachment and alienation of EU management from the demands of European citizens is gradually increasing and we will see the results soon at the polls.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the war is raging in Israel and the latest massacre of civilians in the Baptist hospital in Gaza City, hit by a rocket, is still increasing the tragic death toll. The cross-accusations between Hamas and Israel on the paternity of this rocket will have to be verified with seriousness in order to put an end to propaganda speculation. But today more than ever it must be reiterated: One cannot but stand beside 100 % of Israel as it fights with its men and women against the worst terrorism, because there can never be a Palestinian state or a peaceful coexistence between the two peoples as long as Hamas exists. Saving the people of Israel and Palestinian civilians is the goal to be pursued: Let's help the Israeli government reach it. Therefore, the European Union will have to carry out strict controls on funds destined for Gaza, so that they are no longer spent on building weapons or tunnels by terrorists. It will also have to provide concrete tools to prevent more terrorists from entering Europe through migration channels. The security of European citizens, both natives and immigrants, is our responsibility.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the stated objective of the sanctions on Russia was to break the kidneys of the Russian government and force it to withdraw from Ukrainian territories. More than a year and a half after the start of the war in Ukraine, Russia is still there and has advanced considerably. The Russian economy is healthier than the European one, which has been heavily affected by EU sanctions and Russian counter-sanctions, which have produced a very serious energy crisis and an unprecedented inflationary spiral in the EU. The reality is, therefore, that the sanctions on Russia have been a complete failure. Taking note of this would be a political defeat for the Union today, but persevering in error will have an even higher cost for all of us, for European families and businesses. If we really want to prevent Russia from winning the war in Ukraine, we need to promote a negotiation that stops it, and do it quickly. The lifting of sanctions today can be an important negotiating tool for an armistice that would save the lives of thousands of Ukrainians and avert the risk of a total Ukrainian defeat. Let's remember: It's better to lose than to overwhelm.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union stands before the world as a model and bulwark of democracy, going so far as to issue injunctions and impose sanctions on those who do not respect its democratic standards. But in reality there is still a long way to go for the European Union to translate the noble ideal of its founding fathers into a genuinely and solidly democratic system. This report goes in the right direction, aiming at the essential objectives, namely to give the European Parliament the legislative initiative, greater transparency and accountability for the Commission and the Council and the European referendums. Reforming the Treaty in this way could give the European Union the legitimacy and credibility it does not have with many of its citizens today. The Council will have to show what it believes in the European Union and in democracy in this process. Otherwise he will end up, as in De André's song, giving good advice after setting a bad example.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the conclusions of the European Council consistently reaffirm the commitment to military, financial, etc. support for Ukraine for as long as necessary. But, forgive me if I ask you, necessary to get what? The end of the war, with the unconditional Russian withdrawal and the capture of Putin, how does President Zelensky's peace formula foresee? Is this really a credible plan? And if the fall of the Russian government were to happen, would Europe be ready for a post-Putin scenario? Is a Libya in Russia what you want to achieve? In that case, know that the US and NATO do not want it and will not support you. The risk of Russian atomic bombs falling into the wrong hands is too much for Biden. So if that's your goal, you'll have to do it yourself. Well, good luck! But if not, for what purpose are we arming and funding ad libitum the Ukrainian government, without even asking about how our money is spent? A little clarity would be welcome.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the definition of this report has been particularly difficult in view of the large number of amendments tabled, but the outcome that we will vote on tomorrow is completely devoid of the critical contributions of various Members on numerous and very serious mistakes made in the management of the pandemic. From the mismanagement of the joint purchases of vaccines by the President of the Commission, with opacity and compromise of the EU and national budgets on which an EPPO investigation is ongoing, to the failure of the COVID digital certificates, which have facilitated the spread of contagion by instilling in the vaccinated the false security of being protected from infection and not being able to infect others; from discrimination and violation of the fundamental human rights of those who do not have valid certificates, although immune to recovery, to the denial of open scientific debate on key issues, to the massive economic damage due to unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions. There is no trace of this in the report. One year's work has been wasted and Parliament's credibility will be further weakened. Let us not be surprised if the Eurosceptic movements gain support, we are the ones who give them the votes.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, this regulation on artificial intelligence is the first, at global level, to regulate the matter and to lay down precise conditions for the use of these devices. The risk-based approach leaves some gaps uncovered. However, many improvements compared to the Commission's initial proposal have been introduced by the rapporteurs in the compromises. The important thing, of course, is that the prohibited practices and the rules introduced are made effective by appropriate sanctions in the event of violations. There remains doubt about the risks of the possible out-of-control development of artificial intelligence, as signalled by the call for a moratorium by more than 1,000 experienced entrepreneurs in the sector, including Elon Musk. I therefore hope that effective and stringent regulation will also be introduced in the other more developed countries as soon as possible to minimise the security and human rights risks associated with the dizzying development and widespread use of these new technologies.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Vice-President Šefčovič, I have a question for you today: What macroeconomic science underpins the 60% debt-to-GDP benchmarks of 3% of the deficit, which still do not want to be removed or changed? Because, you see, I've been looking for this answer for years, but I can't find it, since the study of the two Oxford professors who supported the 60% debt ceiling on GDP turned out to be completely wrong. Da anni si parla di riforma del patto di stabilità e ci si aspettava che si intervenisse sul suo principale problema, cioè le soglie, specialmente dopo che il patto ha dovuto essere sospeso nella pandemia COVID-19 proprio perché non erano soglie sostenibili. Instead we find ourselves, again, with a system of unfounded and strengthened constraints that will force Italy to cut between 8 and 15 billion euros a year in spending and to make reforms and investments decided in Brussels, which leave out crucial works for the relaunch of the country and will erode current spending on welfare and maintenance of essential infrastructure. This is not the recipe for recovery, nor for the social stability of a Europe that does not want to leave anyone behind.

Mr President, the accusation against Russia of deportation of Ukrainian children was made for the first time by the Ukrainian Ombudsman Lyudmila Denisova, then dismissed by the government in Kiev for the too many lies propagated. Unfortunately, however, his accusations, which have never been proven, have been taken up by other Ukrainian politicians and disseminated by various media outlets. In reality, the so-called deportation concerns orphaned children welcomed into safe Russian families, or children entrusted to the Russians by their parents and brought to Russia temporarily and then returned to their families. Those children became orphans because the Ukrainian armed forces use the civilian population as a human shield, Amnesty International reported. But Russian President Putin is blamed for these alleged deportations and therefore affected by the arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court, never recognized by Russia, but not even by the United States and Ukraine itself. We do not see how this measure can produce any results, except that of further tightening relations between Europe and Russia and inhibiting any possible attempt at a negotiated solution to the conflict. Let's stop the instrumental and biased accusations, let's work for peace if we want to save the children.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Michel, the European Council has reiterated its support for the Zelensky peace plan, which prohibits all negotiations and aims to attack the territories that have met with Russia through referendums. Now, with the European Peace Facility, we will provide €2 billion worth of ammunition. So it's clear: For you, war is peace. In addition, Ukraine is already in debt to the European Union of €34 billion. When will he return them? Never. We'll have to give up getting them back so we don't send her in. default, and you know it well. But who will then cover the hole in the European budget? Then you talk about food security and support the export of Ukrainian products to the EU, but after the British depleted uranium munitions explode in Ukraine, who will buy more contaminated Ukrainian wheat? You guys? And what about the plan to save the planet, when the nuclear superpowers have abandoned their disarmament intentions and are increasing their arsenals in the face of growing tensions with the West? Do you care more about diesel cars than atomic bombs? Meanwhile, protests against your policies cross Europe and will not stop. If you have decided that the European Union should commit suicide, then success is guaranteed. Congratulations!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there has been talk for years of regulating access to and sharing of personal and non-personal data in this Parliament. At the beginning the declared intention was to introduce the concept of ownership of the individual on their data with the related rights. Then they went in the opposite direction. Today we are debating a proposal that, in the name of competition and playing on the ambiguity of mixed data, effectively strips people of legitimate control over their personal data, trampling on the very essence of the right to privacy. The important thing is that companies can freely dispose of them for their own business and profit. And we know that with our data they will be able to guide our lives, even our voting intentions. Why is this House now more concerned with the interests of multinationals or other third parties, to the detriment of the rights of European citizens? Many think that the answer can be inferred from the dynamics of Qatar-gate. If we continue like this, it will be very difficult to convince them otherwise.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations and thanks to the rapporteur and the Ombudsman for their excellent work. The work of the European Ombudsman focused on issues related to the lack of transparency and the persistence of conflicts of interest within the European institutions. In particular, most of the dossier they concerned the European Commission and several cases of maladministration against it were detected, which also involved its President. It seems that here, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that we want to support the efforts of theOmbudsman, ensuring more transparency, less conflicts of interest, more democratic participation of European citizens. It is a pity, however, that then, in practice, the chairmen of the majority groups, but also of the Left and the Greens, voted in the Conference of Presidents against the COVI Committee's request to invite President von der Leyen for a hearing. Is this your courage and consistency when you are asked to act for transparency? I only see so much hypocrisy and no seriousness.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the serious acts of corruption which have come to light in recent days against Members and officials of Parliament rightly arouse indignation and dismay in all of us. Personally, I have long argued that the current rules on transparency and lobbying are completely inadequate to prevent or limit the risks of corruption, but this is not limited to Parliament alone, but certainly also concerns the European Commission. It is well known that the President of the Commission is also under investigation by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for how to manage the joint procurement of COVID vaccines, but I have not heard a single word of outrage, no one has asked for her resignation in this House. Why? Tell me, do we think that giants like Pfizer or the digital or defence lobbies have less strength and unscrupulousness than Qatar in influencing the decisions of the European Union to its advantage? We need strict rules on lobbying everything and we owe the citizens a commission of inquiry also on these facts, not only on Qatar.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the amendments to the Renewable Energy Directive proposed by the Commission set even more unrealistic and unsustainable targets for Member States than those already set out in the Fit for 55 package of July 2021, requiring a 13% reduction in energy consumption by 2030, which can only be achieved through massive deindustrialisation. The measures aimed at accelerating authorisations for renewable energy production plants will certainly benefit companies that produce and sell solar panels, but it is simply illusory, indeed misleading, to think that with these we can make up for the energy deficit that currently afflicts Europe, due to choices based only on ideological reasons and geopolitical objectives that have nothing to do, indeed conflict, with the interest of European industry and the European economy. A new list of unnecessary and self-defeating homework is the last thing we need: European policies stop stifling member countries with absurd prescriptions and trigger reversing before we get to the crash.

Mr President, the EU has taken too many financial risks on Ukraine. That is what the European Court of Auditors has stated in its last report on European Union budget. In 2022 the Union has committed EUR 7.2 billion of loans to Ukraine. European borrowing operations funding this support involve serious risks: Ukraine’s default first, fraud and misuse of money as the second. Nobody knows how the war in Ukraine will end, and if in the future the country will be able to repay its long—term loans. The IMF predictions for Ukrainian economy are baleful. In case of default there is not enough room in the budget of EU to absorb losses if Member States refuse to step in. In such a case, massive cuts to all EU programmes will be unavoidable. Nevertheless, the Commission now is proposing an MFA+ instrument to provide Ukraine for 2023 with up to EUR 18 billion in loans in 12 months. If the Commission wants to gamble, let us not forget that is handling taxpayers’ money, and in case of losses, we all will be held accountable, not the Commission.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I disagree with the Council's conclusions and, in particular: on the attribution to Russia alone of all responsibility for the energy crisis, which started well before the beginning of the war in Ukraine because of unsustainable European policies, which demonized fossil and nuclear sources by investing everything in renewables, insufficient to cover our energy needs and consolidating dependence on foreign supplies, today unchanged. On the general condemnation of the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, which flies over the suspected Western matrix of the attacks. On the persistence with boomerang sanctions against Russia and on additional billionaire loans to Ukraine, a country at high risk of default, threatening the economic and financial resilience of the Union. On the rejection of the popular will expressed through referendums by peoples to whom we should guarantee democracy, because the results differ from the European desires. And finally, on the criminalization of dissent, including calls for a negotiated peace in Ukraine through legislative proposals that undermine freedom of expression. This is not the Europe in which I recognize myself and claimed the right to affirm it and fight for democracy and peace, today and always, here and in every possible place.

Madam President, President Murphy, congratulations, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the ECA once again issued a negative opinion on the European Commission's management of the budget in 2021, seeing a high percentage of error in several specifically identified spending chapters. These include operations carried out under direct management through the ESI, where the Commission granted payments to producers of COVID vaccines, while failing to comply with the financial conditions of the preliminary agreement, also noting weaknesses in the procurement of services and supplies. The ECA therefore recommended that the Commission ensure that vaccine manufacturers comply with the terms of the Advance Purchase Agreements. The Court also highlighted the risk to the European budget from financing and lending to Ukraine at high risk of turning into liabilities, recommending that measures be taken to reduce ongoing financial commitments and mitigate the risk of Ukraine's insolvency, but so far the Commission has totally disregarded these recommendations, exposing the EU budget to certain future losses. Therefore, it is brazen to ask Member States for more resources to address the difficulties arising from the decision of a Commission that does not intend to correct the course to put the EU budget back on sustainable ground. European taxpayers' money must be managed diligently and wisely, and if the Commission does not intend to do so, we will draw the necessary conclusions.

Madam President, (start of speech off microphone) meeting the Council will reaffirm the EU military, humanitarian and financial assistance to Ukraine. The Commission could propose a more structural solution by granting Ukraine EUR 1.5 billion per month in 2023. As for military aid, the EU has so far provided EUR 2.5 billion to Ukraine and the Foreign Affairs Council a few days ago agreed an additional EUR 500 million and a new EU military assistance mission for Ukraine with an envelope of EUR 106 million. How will this new expenditure be justified in front of the European Court of Auditors, which in its last audit report has issued an adverse opinion on EU budget expenditure, and on this precise chapter explicitly recommends the Commission to take appropriate action to reduce outstanding commitments in the long term? Moreover, after adopting eight packages of sanctions on Russia, the European Council wishes to introduce additional sanctions that, as previous ones did, will just heavily harm EU citizens and assets. At the same time, the only concrete measures so far introduced to contain high energy prices is just rationing to curb demand, which will lead to further downturn in economic dynamics. We are on the edge of an abyss. Shall we dive into it to understand that it will kill us?

Madam President, I oppose myself to this request because I think that, on the basis of the facts that we have and that we know, labelling the Russian Federation as a state who supports terrorism is arbitrary. We could do the same thing against Ukraine after the US have assessed that the murder of Darya Dugina has been made by Ukrainian secret services, and that is no doubt a terrorist assault. So if we do want to label some states for terrorism, that would be ones that we could label like at least formally.