Speeches

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this European regulation on artificial intelligence is certainly a first step in bringing order and ethics to an area that will have a huge impact on people's daily lives, but in which, until now, large multinationals have operated in defiance of fundamental rights. Prohibiting systems such as social scoring or the recognition of emotions in the workplace is in fact essential to prevent the installation in Europe of a Big Brother-style surveillance society model, contrary to a pivotal principle of our civilization called "freedom". Freedom that is also seriously threatened by another element: The Ideologization of Algorithms. Just these days, in fact, Google has ended up in the storm because its image generation program has been so overwhelmed with politically correct algorithms and woke To prevent, listen carefully, even the creation of portraits of male and white human beings. And this is just one of the many examples that show how artificial intelligence is not a neutral tool, but rather can turn out to be a powerful weapon to manipulate the conscience of individuals and align it with totalitarian methods to the ideology that you want to make dominant. This drift, dear colleagues, is incumbent concretely on our society and we must fight it with all our strength.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since, despite all the emergencies that Europe should face, the left has decided to waste time in this House on the commemoration of the Acca Larentia massacre, we want to propose a debate that is at least useful. Because, you see, the danger to our citizens certainly does not come from those who every year commemorate heinous massacres such as that of Acca Larentia, but also of Primavalle, Sergio Ramelli and Fausto and Iaio and many other victims on the right and left of the years of lead. The real danger comes if anything from their killers, who in these 40 years have continued and continue to circulate with impunity on our streets, sometimes even with the protection of foreign governments. That is why, if we want the past to stop being a source of division and resentment, we must first of all commit ourselves to ensuring that these victims and their families are finally given full justice. So, instead of making propaganda about non-existent neo-fascist alarms in Europe, we ask that we add the statements of the Council and the Commission on how, and this is the title of the debate we are proposing, to guarantee full justice for the crimes still unpunished by political terrorism, so that the memory of the victims can finally become a moment of shared memory.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this proposal for a regulation is an abuse of national sovereignty, which aims to defuse national legislation to prevent governments from opposing aberrant businesses such as the 'rent womb'. To imagine using the principle of freedom of movement for European citizens as an excuse to oblige all Member States to recognise as a parent those who go abroad to buy a child is in fact pure perversion. How can you, I wonder, have so much disgust for those who are poor as to consider it lawful to humiliate a woman in financial difficulty by buying her body for a pregnancy and tearing her off the child she gives birth to? How can you be so enslaved that you want to legalize the buying and selling of children? How can you be so racist as to support a business that borders on eugenics, with women to rent with differentiated rates based on the probability that the unborn child is born white rather than black, blond rather than dark? With what courage can you call this filthy "civilization" and who authorizes you to impose it on the peoples of Europe through a legislative subterfuge? I appeal - and I say this with my heart - to those in this House who still have a minimum of conscience, starting from the colleagues who sit among the benches of the EPP: Join us tomorrow and we vote against this abhorrent regulation, because we cannot deliver to our children a society in which everything, including women, children and even fetuses, can be bought or sold. The birth of a child is the most sacred thing that exists, and sacred must remain.

Madam President, Mr High Representative, I have listened with interest to your speech, and I share some points, but if we are still debating today the need for a true geopolitical Europe, it is because the European Union has failed in its mission. I wonder, in fact, what Europe should have been in your opinion if not, first of all, a geopolitical power and what was done to make this happen: Nothing. We took care of agendas green and LGBT, but we did nothing, for example, in Ukraine, letting it rush to a war with global consequences, nothing in the Mediterranean, letting Africa implode and unleashing an epochal migration bomb, nothing for Eastern Christians, leaving peoples like Armenians at the mercy of ethnic cleansing campaigns, and nothing in the Holy Land, letting a clash of civilizations that is fatal to us boil over. Instead of consolidating our borders, we have brought them down, causing all these wars to reach us inside our homes with the blows of terrorism. You spoke of strategic autonomy, European army, etc., but to be a true geopolitical force you must first have a mission, and the natural mission of Europe is to act as a bridge between the West and the East, between the North and the South of the world. As long as we renounce this role, we will be condemned not only to be powerless spectators of chaos, but also to be a land of conquest of the geopolitical ambitions of others.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate is truly surreal. In the midst of epochal crises such as war and waves of migration, we have been summoned tonight by Renew and the Lefts urgently to discuss what? Of phantom anti-LGBT plots carried out, for example, by the Italian government using RAI as a weapon, as also said by his French colleague Karleskind, who narrated surreal attempts to censor LGBT people on Italian public television. And the most surreal thing is that the only proof that Karleskind and his comrades have been able to give to justify this hoax is a proposal that asked RAI to give, I quote, a positive representation of family ties according to the provisions of our Constitution. It seems clear to me that the war against the concept of the family has become a real obsession for you, so much so that colleagues such as Karleskind and comrades, who live in countries torn apart by alert terrorism, ethnic conflicts and economic inequalities, may consider it more urgent that the European Parliament lose time in clumsy interference on TV schedules in Italy, instead of solving the real problems that grip Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 50% of the world's wealth is now in the hands of the richest 1% of the population, while the poorest 50% have only 2%. An inequality resulting from years of savage liberalism, promoted in many cases precisely by so-called left parties that now, after enriching the rich and impoverishing the poor, realize that wealth must be redistributed. Now we welcome every redemption with joy and are obviously willing to work together to remedy this shame. I have a doubt, however, and I wonder if behind this sudden social strain on the part of those who have always been champions of unbridled capitalism there is really the desire to create a more just society, and not rather that of plundering what little remains of European wealth to hand it over to multinationals and foreign ducks, as we see, for example, in those countries where the left has imposed inheritance taxes that have given the legacies of European families to Americans, Russians and Chinese Arabs. Because, I read, that the goal of this campaign Tax the rich It is not taxing the rich from the American world to give to the poor, but to finance the ecological transition, that is, a business in the hands of large multinationals, which would be a betrayal of the 100 million Europeans in poverty who need help, not to be exploited to fill even more the pockets of the 1% of the world's privileged who wallow in the social desert into which Europe is falling.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimous condemnation of an inhumane practice such as the rented womb should be taken for granted and not debated. But when this majority decided to reject an amendment of ours that introduced the crime of rented uterus throughout the European Union, we were born with a suspicion. The suspicion that for you to lure women in economic difficulty by offering them four dollars to impregnate them on behalf of third parties and then kidnap their son is not a barbarism, but normal mercantilist activity to be legalized. A horrendous suspicion, I admit, but whenever we ask you to dispel any doubt, calling it a crime, flee. Now, I do not know why you are afraid to take a clear position, but this House can no longer escape an unequivocal condemnation of this infamous practice. And it must also do so because they are approaching entry into the European Union countries, let's think of Ukraine, where I remind you that the rented uterus is legal and that they are used by surrogate children's factories all over Europe, and some EU Member States are also legalizing it. It is therefore urgent that Europe re-establishes its non-negotiable civilisational principles and respect for human dignity and life is and must be the basic foundation, and I repeat the basic foundation, of our civilization.

Madam President, on behalf of the ECR Group, I therefore call for the inclusion in today's plenary of a debate without a resolution entitled 'Commission statement on interference in the European political agenda by non-European organisations behind the work of radical environmental movements in the light of recent investigations by the German authorities'. In fact, this House cannot ignore what is emerging from journalistic investigations that reveal how the "Last Generation" movements, which in recent months are intensifying actions against the energy and industrial policies of our governments and the Commission, are sponsored, financed and maneuvered all by the same organization, behind which there are politicians, media and industrialists of the American left. In 2022 alone, we are talking about several million dollars used to provoke tens of thousands of actions, often illegal, and which are already the subject of judicial investigations in Germany. It is therefore urgent that this House also investigates whether behind these movements there is an attempt at extra-European interference in our national and Community policies and whether the environmental parties present in this Parliament are also involved in this operation.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to reply to my colleague from the EPP because, perhaps, the presence of the European Commissioner for Agriculture has a reason in a debate on immigration, given that most of the migrants who arrive irregularly in Europe are then used as slaves in our fields to collect oranges and make labour for little money. In 2022, 330 000 irregular migrants arrived and more than one million were found illegally within the EU, numbers that attest to a migration crisis of gigantic proportions, with migratory flows increasing in a single year by 59%, with peaks of 108% for the Mediterranean and 136% for the Western Balkans, thus increasing the number of asylum applications by 50%, which reached almost one million. However, despite the fact that every year about half a million of these people are ordered to leave the territory, since less than 80 000 illegal immigrants were not entitled to asylum in 2022, for example. These derisory figures show that it is not the migration policy of the Italian government that is ineffective, as Macron's minister, Gérald Darmanin, grotesquely said, even being denied by European Commissioner Johansson, since no nation alone has the strength to face such an emergency. If anything, the European Union's migration policy has been ineffective, since the only possible solution is precisely a European solution and even the European Court of Auditors has pointed out this, denouncing the poor progress made by the EU in concluding negotiations with third countries, underlining the lack of synergy between Member States and the lack of capacity to implement the necessary actions to induce third countries to take care of the readmission of their citizens. On the other hand, it is enough to remember that the EU is the world's largest donor of development aid, providing 43% of the world's funds, a figure that reached EUR 70 billion in 2021 but which we have not been able to make use of either in terms of geopolitical influence in the beneficiary countries or even in terms of simple agreements for the effective management of migration flows. So, in short, a real political disaster on which finally, thanks also to Italy, more and more governments are opening their eyes, therefore asking to reform the rules that regulate European migration policies. Rules which require cooperation with third countries, but which must be made conditional on their willingness to safeguard the integrity of our borders. These are essential actions for Europe's economic and identity resilience, but they are hostage to the left-wing parties in this Parliament, which are willing to detonate social bombs in their own territories in order to fatten the pockets of some immigration businessmen.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the amendment tabled by Renew is a blatant forcing to attack the Italian Government, not because it violates the law, but because, by enforcing it, it hinders the use of practices such as the rented uterus. Now, since I know very well that the left, LGBT associations, which now represent the same thing, say that what I say is not true and deduce, therefore, that this House is all in agreement in considering the rented uterus an abomination, we consider it useful to clear the field of any doubt and clearly express that we are against this practice. Therefore, we table the following amendment which, needless to say, we expect to be adopted without problems, otherwise we would confirm the suspicions that behind the battle for the recognition of the children of homogeneous couples there is an attempt to impose from above on all Member States the de facto legalization of the rented uterus. The text we are asking you to insert is therefore very simple and is as follows: Expresses concern about the practice of surrogacy that exploits women’s bodies and reduces children to commodities and believes that it should be recognised as a universal crime. To you now to express yourselves.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I cannot fail to draw your attention to the seriousness of what happened yesterday in France, where the Court of Cassation once again denied Italy the extradition of ten terrorists, accused of heinous crimes as murders, but who for decades have been living unpunished under the protection of a Member State of this community. Now, I ask you how it is possible to tolerate within the European Union, which makes respect for the rule of law a founding principle, that there can be a country that protects terrorism, still applying the Mitterrand doctrine in 2023 and preventing another Member State from carrying out in its own country that justice long awaited by its people. We therefore call on the European institutions to take a strong position to protect those families of the victims of terrorism, who are European citizens as much as everyone else and who therefore have the sacrosanct right to obtain justice, because the rule of law is a principle that must apply to all and cannot be a weapon to be used at will only to politically strike unwelcome governments.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on the tragedy at Cutro, we have seen a chaotic left, even accusing President Meloni of having his hands dirty with the blood of those dead. They are actually dead because of criminal organizations that every year traffic hundreds of thousands of human beings who, thanks to the immigration propaganda of the left, are convinced to seek their fortune in Europe and crammed into increasingly dilapidated boats by traffickers, aware that those means could sink, but convinced that they can count on the help of NGOs at sea that of the ideology. no borders They're on a mission. They died because they were spotted too late by those who have the task of monitoring our borders, but they do not have enough tools to do so, also because they are crippled by the boycott work carried out by the left, as the Frontex case teaches. As you see, then, there would be much to debate about the moral responsibilities of these tragedies. But our duty now is, if anything, to think about urgent solutions for out-of-control migration flows, destined to cause so many more of these deaths. Solutions that the Commission is finally starting to see by announcing that it will accept our demands, such as the strengthening of Frontex, the empowerment of flag states and more effective returns. And the place to welcome them is the reform of the Dublin Treaty, on which we will soon begin to vote in the LIBE Committee. Here, therefore, we ask the left, if it really wants to put an end to these tragedies, to recognize the failure of the approach it has always had and to accept our request to strengthen external action at the borders, so that we do not just redistribute migrants who survive the sea, but work first and foremost to deter them from risking their death in the sea.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after years of blinding 'no borders' ideology, it finally seems that Europe is beginning to open its eyes to the dramatic consequences of uncontrolled immigration. The conclusions of the last European Council to the Operational Strategy for the Mediterranean presented by the Commission show that it is being understood that the only possible solution is the one indicated by Fratelli d'Italia and by all the right-wingers. A European response to the migration crisis is indispensable and must be based on the defence of our borders through border patrols with external entry filters, effective return systems and strict rules of conduct for NGOs. But this response the left, precisely on behalf of NGOs terrified of losing the enormous source of business given to illegal immigration, wants to prevent it at all costs. And this is why it has unleashed the institutions it presides over in an operation to boycott the decrees put in place by the Meloni government, to which more and more countries and political forces look as a model to follow. Decrees that, yes, it is true, harm the economic interests of certain fake humanitarian organizations, but which are necessary to protect the economic, social and identity cohesion of our continent.

I don't think there's much to answer. You allowed a colleague to do a further rally without any real questions to ask me, especially going totally off topic. She even talked about migrants, a subject that was not the subject and that was absolutely not touched, so I don't know, in short, you thank her for having done this umpteenth rally, but I have nothing to answer sincerely.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I find frankly unacceptable the constant attempt by this House to use every possible and conceivable theme to impose the LGBT agenda on Europeans by subterfuge, sneaking it between the lines of every document that happens to us at hand. The goal today is to exploit a serious and sacrosanct theme such as the fight against violence against women to transform an important convention such as the one in Istanbul into a masked DDL Zan, crippling its nature to affirm gender ideology as a mandatory principle, imposing its diffusion in schools, censoring any dissident opinion, branding conservative political forces with the accusation of homophobia, overcoming legitimate national sovereignty to force states to align themselves with those dictats. But we are well aware of the consequences of all this: destroying the foundations of our identity, diverting attention from what we really need, namely ending the wars between the sexes and valuing the complementarity between men and women. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot accept these requests for amendments and we are concerned that the only concern of these political groups is to remove the word 'left' from this title, which leaves us concerned about the possible complicity of certain political forces. I remember that in this House countless hours have been lost in useless debates on alleged risks to democracy due to the rise of right-wing political movements and you have taken great care to specify the name "right" in these debates, but, coincidentally, now that it is clear that the real danger to our democracy is found in movements that are close to areas that are not at all right-wing, but are rather more attributable to the left, what is your goal? Trying to hide this small, but very important truth. So we will not accept this specific change and this change.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are asking, on behalf of the ECR, for an urgent debate to be included in this House on this issue, and therefore on violent left-wing extremism and the terrorist actions of anarchist movements in Europe. As you know, in fact, in recent weeks the Italian institutions are the subject of a multiplicity of intimidating actions, of real terrorist acts carried out by anarchist movements as retaliation for the imposition of a harsh prison regime for one of their leaders, Alfredo Cospito, convicted of having shot a company manager and having placed two explosive devices outside a barracks. The fact that these terrorist actions take place not only in Italy, but also in Spain, Greece and Germany demonstrates the worrying level of organisation and branching at European level that characterises these realities, the stated aim of which is to destabilise our democracies. So, even more worrying, among other things, is that there may be extreme areas of the left, already protagonists of many episodes of political violence, solidarity, if not even conniving, with these organizations. That is why there is an urgent debate leading to a clear, strong and unanimous resolution condemning these... (The President took the floor from the speaker)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, beyond the judicial aspect of the judiciary, the Qatar scandal raises a political issue that this House cannot ignore: the doors of the European institutions are now wide open to the action of external lobbies and equipped with enormous instruments of influence, be they foreign countries, multinationals or NGOs. And it is precisely the Qatargate shows that the case of NGOs is a case that deserves special attention. It is enough to read most of the proposals that arrive in the committees to find out how much pressure there is to give certain pseudo-humanitarian organisations important roles in the decision-making process of our institutions, creating situations of great ambiguity such as, for example, in the case of the conflict of interests between NGOs and the European Court of Human Rights, where many judges are a direct expression of precisely these realities. These are realities that legally have a significant impact on European democratic life, but without having any democratic mandate to do so, without knowing who they are answering to, or what interests they really protect. That is why I believe that the Committee of Inquiry into Qatargate It is necessary but not sufficient. If we want the European institutions to recover transparency and credibility in the eyes of the citizens, we must free it from the grip of opaque lobbies, leaving it to those who have the popular mandate to do so to guide the action.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the great mistake of the European Union is to think that people unite in the name of a currency, forgetting that the only glue that can forge them is identity. If we have a common destiny to pursue, this is not simply a common market, but that millenary European civilization created by our ancestors, which has been a beacon for the whole world. To revive this destiny, we need a European programme to enhance our historical and cultural heritage, involving monuments and works of art, as well as local languages, customs and traditions. A source of identity that, however, in recent years the European institutions have ignored and even hindered, preferring to import pseudocultures from abroad that have done nothing but destroy it piece by piece. The New European Agenda for Culture is an opportunity to correct the shooting. That's why, rather than invading it with gender ideology, LGBT or wokeWe must make room for the saints, kings, heroes, battles, arts and philosophies that have shaped our tradition. An inestimable patrimony, adored and imitated all over the world, which the left wants instead to incinerate with blows of fire. cancel culture, well aware that the solidity of our roots is the embankment to the imposition of its own ideology.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, two women, one Bulgarian and one English, decide to have a child with assisted fertilisation in Spain, where the law allows them to be recognised as parents. Then they go to Bulgaria to have the birth certificate transcribed there, but clashing with national legislation that does not recognize the two women as parents of the child. Here then is the left immediately waving the banner of the right to freedom of movement, showing for the umpteenth time how devious it is to cripple apparently Lapalisian principles, such as the free movement of European citizens, to undermine national regulations, not having the consent to change them democratically. The goal, in fact, is to ensure that favorable legislation of some Member States regarding issues dear to the LGBT agenda, such as gay adoptions, rented uterus, gender identity changes without operations and so on, can be automatically imposed under the excuse of the Schengen area to other States with legislation not pleasing to the left, disregarding its regulatory sovereignty. In short, a real legal fraud against our democracies, which I wonder how it can be accepted by a Parliament that makes a flag of democracy. Either way, we certainly won't be the ones to accept it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Africa is a continent of 1.2 billion people, half a billion of whom live below the poverty line. We are talking about half of the world's hungry, people who, having no future in their own land, plan to seek their fortune in Europe, convinced by the propaganda of human traffickers that they can find Eldorado. Only we are not the Eldorado at all, we have a constantly growing poverty and one in five citizens who struggle to get to the end of the month. To imagine that we are a potential destination for half a billion poor Africans, as much as the entire European population, is a mad and inhuman utopia. That is why we cannot afford to outsource our migration policies to NGOs that make "welcome them all" theirs. core business. That is why the states that grant their flag and funding must take responsibility for their actions. That is why agreements cannot be disregarded with countries of origin for the creation of external hotspots, but also for serious development policies, which allow these people to live in dignity in their own land. It is absurd, in fact, to think that the solution is simply redistribution, because the problem is not what country should welcome immigrants who arrive in Europe illegally, but prevent them from arriving in a place that will not be able to offer them the well-being they hope to find. Thanks to the determination of the Meloni government and the action plan for the Central Mediterranean just announced, the European Commission seems perhaps to be beginning to take on board what we have been repeating for years, namely that the European Union is starting to operate as a united community in the defence of its borders and no longer as an employment agency for those who illegally cross them.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, ladies and gentlemen, the latest Eurostat data tell us that 100 million Europeans today live in poverty, we are talking about one in five citizens, with Italy at the top of this ranking of economic hardship. And in this dramatic social context, the Ukrainian conflict has suddenly brought 11 million refugees to Europe, to add to the 2 million already present on our continent. People fleeing a conflict in which we are directly involved and who therefore have a moral duty to help, without having sufficient resources to do so, because they are engaged in another emergency caused by the suicide policies of the European Union. In addition to the 13 million refugees, it is estimated that around 5 million illegal immigrants live on our continent today, a number that continues to increase due to landings that, in 2022, led to a record 230 000 arrivals. An illegal migratory flow that fattens the pockets of many NGOs, but that empties those of our social protection systems, today at risk of implosion also because of the "no border" ideology. In a world of scarce resources, it is now more urgent than ever for the European Union to put an end to the logic of "welcome them all", closing the doors to illegal immigration, proceeding with more courageous returns, thus concentrating humanitarian instruments on those who, like Ukrainian refugees, are really entitled to our help. This is the only possible way to prevent Europe from becoming a gigantic "Squid game" between Europeans and migrants where, under the sadistic gaze of the progressive elites, 120 million poor people will be forced to slaughter each other to grab the few resources available to them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, in the last ten years alone, Southern Italy has lost almost one million inhabitants, as much as Molise and Basilicata combined, and it is estimated that in the next twenty years it will lose another four million, as much as the whole of Puglia. Depopulation, as we know, is due to poverty, lack of jobs and services that have caused immigration and a 40% drop in births over the last two decades. Now I do not believe and believe that it is not acceptable that the answer to all this is what the left calls the so-called Riace model, which was for example applied by Mimmo Lucano in Calabria, that is to compensate these exits with the entry of masses of desperate immigrants who arrive from other areas with even greater problems. What is needed, however, is a great development plan that brings roads, trains, airports, hospitals, schools, incentives for investment, business, work, family and even life, about births, and all that is needed to guarantee to Southern Italy what is guaranteed in other parts of Europe. The point is, and this is my question, why, however, the European Commission, so attentive to cohesion, did not monitor, during the definition of the NRRP by the Draghi government, so that there was this attention in the allocation of resources for southern Italy, which we all know did not happen.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Ukrainian crisis has finally made the European Union discover how important the relationship with Africa is, a continent that is home to 24% of the world's usable agricultural area, huge deposits of natural and energy resources, and a population that will soon exceed two billion, a quarter of the world's. Too bad that while the EU was asleep, powers like China took away from us the role of privileged partner, taking over African lands and equipping them with infrastructure, covering their debts and, in return, taking control of natural wealth. asset It has also imposed the study of Chinese in schools. Our response to this colonization should be a development aid plan capable of giving back to Africans the right to live in their own land, in exchange for a geopolitical cooperation that makes Europe and Africa the only protagonists of the stability and prosperity of the Mediterranean. Instead, what you propose to them are partnership agreements linked to the achievement of objectives of ecological and digital transition or gender equality, which have little to do with the real urgencies of an underdeveloped and hungry continent, demonstrating once again how much the European Union's strategy is obscured by ideology and detached from reality.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the misuse of software such as Pegasus for spying is only part of a much greater threat to the fundamental rights of European citizens. Seduced by the luxury of smartphones and appliances to be given voice commands, we have allowed private individuals to create the largest spy program ever seen. Every day, 500 million Europeans are unknowingly monitored and looted of myriad personal data by companies that analyse their behaviour, tastes and opinions for commercial, but also social and political purposes. Advances in artificial intelligence and the metaverse are leading to solutions to enable full control and predictive ability over people's feelings, thoughts, and actions to determine each choice. Many think that surveillance is just a tool of capitalism to maximize its profits. But the reality is that governments and public institutions are increasingly making it a weapon to control and limit the freedom of their citizens, just like in China. A nightmare that we thought existed only in science fiction films and that instead is now reality. A nightmare against which this Parliament must fight to avoid turning Europeans into guinea pigs and Europe into a horrible Big Brother.