Speeches

Mr President, with this digital package, we have achieved the impossible. I would therefore like to thank Margrethe Vestager, Thierry Breton, all colleagues and the French Presidency of the Council. A more open and competitive market, more protection for our citizens, more instruments against illegality and disinformation, more transparency of algorithms: This is great. In the face of the digital transition, we take full responsibility as the Union. We act as global standard-setters and strengthen our digital sovereignty and rule of law. Now, two main priorities: ensure the full and effective implementation of all new rules as soon as possible and put our model at the centre of our relations with all our global partners – starting with the United States of America –, explain and promote it. This is the whole point of our commitment and I am sure we will be there again.

Mr President, the outcome of the Conference on the Future of Europe is very clear: Europe will be democratic and powerful or it will not be. We wanted this citizens' debate, launched, I want to remind you, in 2019 by President Macron. We need to live up to our commitments and now we need to start revising the Treaties. It is therefore very strange for me this morning to hear the criticisms of Manon Aubry and also, I am surprised, of Paulo Rangel, because if there has been a government in recent years that has been constantly committed to the reform of the European Union, it is the French government. In this age of global empires and powers, we have to decide whether we want to exist or disappear. And unanimity is the best guarantee of our disappearance. We need more efficiency, more power and more democracy. On this point, dear Sven Simon, President Macron has always been very clear. There is an urgent need to revise the treaties in order to free ourselves from national vetoes. We have said so, of course, but the urgency of saying does not dispense with the obligation to do so. Let's do it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a parliament proposes and adopts laws and controls the executive, otherwise it is not a parliament. Europe too often pretends. We pretend to have a foreign policy: we don’t have it. We are pretending to elect a full-fledged Parliament and we do not have it. This assembly must become a Parliament in its own right, with a wider power of initiative, as citizens called for at the Conference on the Future of Europe. This is necessary and urgent, especially at a time when we want to build a Europe of power. It is an even more indispensable question of democratic legitimacy at a time when we need to regain control, through our Union, over areas that were once the preserve of states: defence, borders, security, rule of law. Finally, it is the answer to the need to strengthen the bonds of trust and political responsibility between citizens and the Union. We want a more democratic European Union, and therefore we want a European Union with Parliament’s concurrent power of initiative. This power will also rebalance the gradual de facto erosion of the Commission’s right of initiative by the European Council, which we have been witnessing, helpless, in recent years. I would like to say, ladies and gentlemen: we need more democracy and less 'sherpacratie' in our Union. Here too, let's stop pretending. The European Council must provide political guidance to the Union, not regularly encroach on the legislative prerogatives of the Parliament and the Council. We need to stop distorting our system. The Commission’s de facto monopoly of legislative initiative no longer exists, dear Maroš, and is no longer justified. I would therefore like to thank the rapporteur, Paulo Rangel, for his excellent work on this dossier, which sends a strong signal. The time has come to amend the Treaties and give Parliament a general and direct right of initiative. At a time of great transformation, a European democratic refoundation is needed. This is the meaning of our fight, and we will win it together.

Yes, I will answer in Italian, so I hope she will understand better. Sono convinto che ci sia un'identità europea. Sono convinto che come cittadini europei noi possiamo esercitare i nostri diritti in qualsiasi posto dell'Unione europea. È per questo che da italiano ho deciso di candidarmi in Francia e l'ho fatto esattamente per portare avanti questa idea di politica transnazionale, di democrazia transnazionale, che noi porteremo avanti insieme. Sono sicuro, caro Damian, attraverso le liste transnazionali, perché questa è l'Europa, questa è la democrazia che vogliamo.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, we defended this conference proposed by Emmanuel Macron in March 2019 from the very beginning and forcefully. And for good reason! For a year, we have done Europe differently, with a completely new democratic exercise. Citizens are calling for radical change because the world has changed, war has returned to our continent, empires threaten our lives and values. And I would like to tell our far-right colleagues to be a little more respectful. Mickey Mouse, a circus! You make me feel like children who, when they play football... (some reactions and applause) ... Absolutely, you are from the far right, you are from the Ligua, so you are from the far right. You make me feel like these kids playing football, but when they lose, they stop the game, take the ball and get off the field. Your attitude is exactly this one! Citizens have done serious work, respectful work, we must respect them, and now Parliament is expected at the turn. We wanted this citizens' debate. We must live up to our commitments and follow up on the conference. We did it this morning with the transnational lists, and again you are in bad faith, and again you are lying, because they were clearly requested by citizens, and we must do it now by activating the revision of the Treaties without reluctance, without taboos, in full transparency. (The speaker agreed to reply to a blue card intervention)

Thank you, colleague. No, colleague, I want to reassure you: I am Italian, elected in France, but I don’t think I will be a candidate also in Sweden. But let me say that we don’t take anything away from the Swedish system. Nothing will change for Sweden. Your voters will elect you, or others, exactly in the same way, only they will have an additional democratic choice, an additional democratic power. They will be able also to vote directly for the European People’s Party. I don’t think that today your voters can directly elect your European party. So we only increase democracy, nothing else.

Dear Paulo, I am sure that we are now debating in good faith. And if we have a debate in good faith, you can remind our dear colleagues that, in the citizens' panels, the citizens had asked outright to elect half of the members of this plenary by voting directly for European political parties. You can't say otherwise because it's in citizens' panels, and you could be denied easily. The second point is that the conclusions of the conference clearly indicate the citizens' wish to elect some of the members of this parliament on transnational lists. So when I said and reminded people that they are asking us to do that, I told exactly the truth and I believe that this Parliament should live up to its commitment and act on it. (The speaker agreed to respond to a "blue card" intervention)

First of all, the age of sixteen is not an obligation dear colleague, it is an option. In some Member States, the right to vote is from the age of 16 and in others it is at the age of 18. If there are states that want to choose this possibility of granting the right to vote at sixteen for the European elections, thanks to this electoral law, they will be able to do so. Member States that do not wish to do so will be able to retain the right to vote at 18 years of age or at another age. So, as long as we leave free choice and given that there are states in which we can already vote at sixteen, I really do not see where the problem is. (The speaker agreed to respond to a "blue card" intervention)

Mr President, first of all it is a nice debate, I think we can be satisfied. The idea of transnational lists was endorsed at the Conference on the Future of Europe and this Parliament is committed to responding to citizens’ requests. Indeed, citizens are right, they see further than we do, I think, because European democracy can no longer be trapped in a strictly national logic and only in the 27 national debates. The lists do not take anything away from anyone, but they double the democratic choice of citizens who will be able to vote on two lists: one national, the other transnational. They will also be able to choose the Presidency of the Commission. On this point, our position is clear: There can only be a lead candidate for President of the Commission if we can vote on the lists. No lists, no head of lists. This is elementary, my dear Paulo Rangel. As in 2019, national lists are a necessary step, they are also a test. During the election of President Metsola, a mid-term agreement was signed and lists are a priority. The groups have committed to respect them: pacta sunt servanda. (The speaker agreed to reply to a blue card intervention)

Madam President, 77% of Europeans would rather repair their property than change it. Yet three quarters of them are forced to throw away without repairing. It is impossible to talk about a circular economy without the right to repair. It is unacceptable to deny consumers freedom of choice. We must ban planned obsolescence practices and the reparable choice must become the default choice. The challenge is twofold: creating a sustainable single market and increasing the purchasing power of Europeans. Right to repair and innovation can perfectly coexist, innovation should not be used as an excuse for not recognising the right to repair. We talk about our daily life and we talk about the planet, so let me conclude with a biological metaphor: The human body is the most beautiful machine. When you break a limb or have a health problem, what do you do? We're fixing it. So why should not what is obvious to man also be obvious to what man makes?

Madam President, an innovative and sovereign Europe is entering the world stage. As such, the Data Governance Act appears to be the most sustainable and relevant solution to harness the enormous potential of data. Indeed, we must promote and secure data sharing without anyone being forced to do so. This is how we will multiply transnational opportunities, for our citizens, for our businesses and for altruistic organisations, which do the common good. With the DGA, we will offer a European model and alternative to the data processing practices of major US platforms or the Chinese government. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we will take back control and create a safer space, which will finally allow European actors to access a large amount of data. This final agreement is the result of great teamwork, and here I would like to thank our colleague Angelika Niebler and Commissioner Thierry Breton. It is up to us now to build a market for non-personal data and set benchmarks that will, I am sure, spread all over the world.

Madam President, I would like to talk to you about ICTs. These four letters were until recently the pride of our democracies. Yes, the new information and communication technologies made it possible for as many of our citizens as possible to learn, exchange and live. I say ‘permitted’ because these four letters are now twisted, damaged by democrats such as China, Venezuela and, of course, Russia. These countries manipulate, falsify, rig the truth. These countries are interfering in our democratic processes – as we saw with the Brexit referendum, the Italian referendum in 2016, the French presidential elections in 2017. They would even use it to finance political forces present here in this Parliament. Investigations are ongoing. After that, if recent events push these forces – as we heard this morning – to sudden conversions, all the better. The modern-day dragon’s heads are called Xi Jinping, Nicolas Maduro or Vladimir Putin. They want our democracies dead. For our elections, for political advertising, we must impose new rules, Madam President, dear Eva, firmly. Let's join forces to defeat these multi-headed dragons.

Madam President, what does it mean to be European? While we are different in our languages and cultures, we share strong values: the rule of law and democracy are among them. The judgment of the Court of Justice reaffirms once again that our Union has a solid foundation. This is our European identity. The Polish and Hungarian governments have tried everything; They failed. We are on the side of Polish citizens, Hungarian citizens and all EU citizens, Mr Bellamy, yes, all EU citizens. The EU is not a supermarket where we buy only what suits us best. We cannot play Europeans when it comes to receiving European money and be nationalists when it comes to respecting our European values. So there is no invasion, I told ECR colleagues. Let us take action, Commissioner. Don't hide behind directions. The Regulation has never been suspended; activate it without delay, as it is a democratic emergency.

Mr President, Commissioner, the single market is the best European achievement, opening up a huge number of possibilities. This is a huge asset, which we must now make full use of and put at the service of our new priorities: strengthening our strategic autonomy and positioning Europe as a role model in the green and digital transition. Yet we are trampling. Barriers have been present for years, and the observation is clear: this weakening of the market penalises us, we waste time, we lose money. We saw this especially during the COVID-19 crisis. The reasons, we also know them: poor implementation of EU legislation, too much bureaucracy, insufficient access to information and too much protectionism from too many Member States. These barriers deprive consumers of better choice and hinder the potential of our businesses, especially SMEs. It is urgent, we need to break this deadlock. It is high time to achieve a fully single and efficient market, adapted to new challenges.

Mr President, Vice-President of the European Commission, Commissioner, two centuries later, finally, the Union is taking its responsibilities in the face of the digital revolution. Yes, two centuries, ladies and gentlemen, since the last great text on e-commerce dates back to 2000 – and 20 years in digital is two centuries. Digital is part of our lives and brings us many benefits, opportunities, but it also poses new threats to citizens and democracies. I am talking here about counterfeit products sold online, fake newsdisinformation, hate speech, harassment, cyber threats. With the DSA, an imperative: In Europe, what is prohibited offline must also be prohibited online. This is the end of the Wild West and I invite you to watch a video on Twitter, which the Commissioner has just put on and which I find very effective in this respect. I am convinced that the DSA will make Europe an example for the rest of the world. Indeed, in the face of the Chinese model where the state controls everything and the American model that advocates laissez-faire, we propose a balanced text that will ensure fair competition for European companies and better protection of citizens’ rights. With this text, we force platforms to face reality and assume all their responsibilities, a new system of sanctions will be put in place and, above all, we open the black box of algorithms. More transparency about algorithms is introduced. This is unprecedented legislation at global level and the EU is a pioneer in this area. I think we should be proud of that. The DSA is a good basis for future negotiations. And as President Emmanuel Macron recalled here this morning, the closure of these discussions under the French Presidency is possible and necessary. We must work to achieve this goal.

Madam President, our market is unique and it creates more opportunities for businesses and 450 million consumers. Yet it is not yet fit for the digital age. Paradoxical, because Europe accounts for 15% to 20% of GAFA turnover and offers huge business opportunities that these players cannot and do not want to ignore. I would therefore like to thank Margrethe Vestager, Thierry Breton, the rapporteur Andreas Schwab and all colleagues for their excellent work. With the DMA, the Digital Market Act, we are taking back control of the global digital giants and can finally demand responsible behavior. There is no place in our single market for abusive practices and unfair conditions imposed on businesses and consumers. The DMA ensures more pluralism, competition, guarantees for SMEs and choice for consumers, more efficient governance and more innovation. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the DMA is a centrepiece of our new digital sovereignty.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the mobilisation against the severe attacks on the headquarters of the CGIL has sent a very clear message to the whole of Europe: Italy has the antibodies to defend itself against the fascist virus. Of course, it is true, there are those who pursue some minorities, no vax, no pass, there are those who blow on discontent, there are those who, it is incredible, still give political residence to people who in the twenty-first century think of doing politics with their right arm stretched out, who attack Jews, who attack migrants, who attack sexual freedoms. That is why, Mr Fitto, it is essential that all parliamentary forces, including the far right like your group, completely cut bridges with the violent without ambiguity. We are waiting for clear words, we are also waiting for convincing acts. I say this in particular to the ECR Group and the ID Group, and I believe that today too you have missed an important opportunity because, instead of attacking the real problem of this continent, which is not fascism, but nationalism and populism, you have attacked the European Commission. Extraordinary. And this is the deep division in my opinion, beyond the debates on History, which do not interest me, I do not believe that there is a fascist danger, I do not believe that there are fascist parties neither in Italy nor elsewhere. But the difference between us and you, when it comes to extremism, is that we believe that the European Union must act for the rule of law, it must act for fundamental freedoms, that when we debate the rule of law it is not an undue interference in the sovereignty of a Member State. Instead, you think that sovereignty is absolute, so absolute that in an absolute way it can also compress fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. If there is a real debate, for which this debate today is also useful, it is to mark the differences. I believe that we should continue to fight for the rule of law and fundamental freedoms across our continent.

Mr President, by challenging the primacy of European law in a systemic way – and I am saying it in a systemic way – Poland is attacking the jackhammer at the heart of the European edifice. If this were accepted, each Member State would be a member of nothingness, as there would no longer be any unity. It looks like yes to Europe à la carte, in which everyone takes what is right for them. A continental ATM, a securities supermarket. It is a model of non-Europe. But we are fighting for a community of destiny. This community was fought by a great European and a personal friend, Bronisław Geremek. So we are also fighting tirelessly for the Polish people, against a government that is deliberately attacking the independence of the judiciary. No, Prime Minister, this is not blackmail. You missed an opportunity this morning. Your provocations are desperate and useless. Instead of protecting our common rules that you freely accepted, you are now flagrantly violating them.

Mr President, today in Europe, millions of our citizens live close to border regions. They cross the border to go to work, to educate their children or to access health services. However, the incompatibility between national legal regimes hampers their mobility and possibilities. The pandemic has sometimes exacerbated this trend. Yet we need more cooperation in areas such as health or the environment. Too many barriers still exist, be it health services, labour law, tax rules or differences in administrative culture. However, we all know that there is a direct link between the removal of obstacles and the further social and territorial development of border regions, which is an essential element of European cohesion policy. These mechanisms to remove these obstacles to cross-border cooperation can offer a European solution to a European problem and I can say that this Parliament has been there. The same cannot be said of the Council. The Council remained silent and its Legal Service put forward arguments that were questionable to say the least. As often happens – and I have some experience as a former member of this institution – the Council Legal Service has created new political obstacles instead of removing legal ones. This story is well known and repeated today. Colleagues, our fellow citizens deserve better. The discussed European cross-border mechanism has a solid legal basis in the Treaties, promotes territorial cohesion and meets the requirements of the Member States, while leaving them the freedom to choose whether and when to use the Regulation. It is a specific action, which will have a positive impact on the economic and social situation of a region and a territory, in full compliance with Article 175 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The cohesion rules are uniform, but do not in any way imply a one-size-fits-all approach to development projects. My question is therefore addressed to the Council: When will you become aware of the urgency and relaunch the dialogue with us? I would ask the President-in-Office: What are your proposals and alternatives? We are open to dialogue, you cannot just block everything, because we need a clear legislative solution and above all, because our citizens need answers and above all more open borders so that they can live their daily lives better and feel even more European. So let us not waste any more time and resume the legislative dialogue.

Madam President, disinformation comes first and foremost through social networks. This is a fact and it is also a threat to our democracies. Practices such as hidden foreign funding and other online interference are also a fact, except for the representatives of the far left and far right in this Chamber, which we heard again this evening. Moreover, platforms themselves seem to choose to always protect their interests rather than the public interest. Always protect their income rather than democracy. Therefore, we must stop turning a blind eye to the risks of deviance from these platforms. They know the problem well, but simply refuse to solve it. They have parameters to reduce the spread of disinformation, but they use them very little, because they prioritise growth over security – as you rightly pointed out tonight, Commissioner. Self-regulation, voluntary measures and unilateral strategies have all shown their limits. We need a regulation with effective instruments ensuring more transparency and dissuasive sanctions. There is a need for regulation that effectively tackles disinformation, regardless of the language in which it is disseminated. We need to step up our efforts to develop digital education and independent media, thus enabling our citizens to have a better capacity for discernment. In this respect, the Digital Services Act has great potential. It can be a new model for the rest of the world and must become the spearhead of the fight against disinformation.

Madam President, cybersecurity is a necessity to preserve our democracies and sovereignty. While software such as Pegasus can be useful in the fight against terrorism, it is vital that we establish a clear legislative framework to control its use. Journalists, political opponents, but also several of us, ladies and gentlemen, have been victims of different types of cyber attacks, and I know something about this personally, Commissioner. The battle against cybercrime must be fought at national and European level, but also from a multilateral perspective, reflecting on an international cybersecurity agreement to ban certain practices, based for example on the model of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. Pegasus has also highlighted threats and violations from within the EU and we must demand full transparency from the Member States that have used Pegasus, starting with Hungary. Which other Member States used it? We have the right to know, European citizens have the right to know.

Madam President, since Friday Lebanon has had a government. This small step was one of the conditions for international aid, but we need to be very careful; The fact that Lebanon has a government does not mean that the European Union must refrain from punishing some of its corrupt leaders who are guilty of the country’s non-stability. Our policy of sanctions against Lebanese leaders, even with a government, must be implemented in the coming weeks with the vote on a first list of names, since we now have a very clear political and legal framework, voted last July. We also expect this new government to guarantee the holding, smooth running and transparency of the elections in 2022, with a view to the legislative elections on 8 May, followed by the municipal elections and the presidential elections. Ladies and gentlemen, for the Lebanese, we Europeans must be there.

Madam President, in 2016 in the United Kingdom and Italy, in 2017 in France, during the COVID-19 crisis in several countries, we witnessed serious interference that undermines our democratic life and supports far-left and far-right nationalist and populist forces. And the speeches by some colleagues in this Chamber today, from ECR, ID and the Left, only confirm all this. However, the observation is very clear: Russia has been playing a dangerous game for too long. It has been joined by other countries, such as, above all, China and Venezuela. Europe must be there. We need to fully integrate disinformation into the common foreign policy and decide by majority on sanctions in case of interference. Proven funding of political parties from abroad must be constantly identified and blocked. To repeat what you said, Mr High Representative: even if being right for a while is good, acting is even better.