Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here, we are at the last plenary session of this legislature and many of the things I have heard in this House today, we have already repeated many times. It has been mentioned that this House has called for pasdaran to be included in the list of terrorist organisations. The Commission has refused to do so. I understand some of the reasons, however, if we are in this situation, it is not because today we have to divide ourselves between those who support Israel and those who support the people of Gaza. I support Israel, but this is not the object of our debate, it is to understand why there is still someone in that area who has every interest in destabilizing and enlarging the conflict. Because the first objective of the Iranian regime is to distract that part of the population that still supports it from the repression of young people, young women and young men, who in recent years have courageously opposed it. There is the theme of the clash between the Sunni world and the Shiite world, which has even been little analyzed. There are bombings in Balochistan, there are bombings and influences on the Iraqi government, on the Kurdish people, on the Iraqi Kurds. My friends who live in Erbil told me about very serious things that happened there. It is a perpetual conflict, but it is also a symbol of weakness, because the Iranian regime kills many Muslims. He says he wants to defend the interests of the Palestinians, but he kills many Muslims, let's remember.

Mr President, Commissioner, the period is special and complex, we come from a legislature that has legislated a lot on environmental issues and often in an exaggerated, ideological, very political way. I accept the fact that there was a majority in this Parliament that was very different from what I would have liked, I accept that, but I recognise that on this issue, on Euro 7, we managed to improve very much an initial text, which was absolutely not positive. However, I invite you to reflect on some aspects, on what is also the social impact that increasingly expensive vehicles can cause, because by now all citizens associate this categorization in Euro 5, 6, 7 to the limits that cities impose and it would be a bit absurd and hypocritical, it has also been said from the left, that maybe someone will receive limitations on their mobility, not because the Euro 7 decreases emissions but for other reasons, which I would not like to be perhaps of an industrial type. Someone else said it too, we did not have the courage, the strength or the numbers to introduce instead a definitive opening to the theme of biofuels. I hope that in the next legislature this can be done, because the big issue, even if today we are talking about Euro 7, is the choice to give up technological neutrality, to go towards forced electrification. It is that ban on the internal combustion engine by 2034 that must absolutely be eliminated in the next legislature.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this has been an important legislature in which we have probably legislated too much, making an important impact on the business world. Many of the rules that we have introduced, some of which I have contested, represent costs for businesses and we live in a context, even at a global level, in which there is no reciprocity with respect to certain institutions and this has also been told to us on other issues in Abu Dhabi, at the WTO, some of us were present, including the representation of the Presidency of the Council. SMEs that are outside the scope of these rules would still be impacted, in a context where global supply chains are much more fragile, have and represent higher costs and uncertainties, there is a difficulty in sourcing raw materials, so when we need regulatory action on these issues we need more flexibility and we need to take into account that our companies need to be globally competitive. For this reason, I believe that the national governments have done well to curb this measure and I believe that it is sufficient to give us objectives in the next legislature, because the issues raised by the governance e due diligence are really important, but those objectives can be achieved in a different way, without imposing such detailed rules, but by enhancing voluntary schemes that already exist today, to which companies adhere. But they are schemes that must also be recognized by citizens and consumers, so in this sense we can work, enhancing those who do and those who engage in a certain direction and not generally penalizing everyone, because companies are already paying an important cost.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have probably come to a time in the legislature that is not the best time to discuss these issues, because there are exploitations, the groups are divided, my group is divided and probably my position is not that of many colleagues. But the issue of security is important, the rapporteur said: Those of us who speak with the association of family members of road victims are well aware of this emergency. The directive, of course, is controversial, but an update of these rules was necessary and the level of harmonisation that was achieved at the end of intense parliamentary work, in my opinion, is the right one, because we still have the possibility of improving this text on training, which plays an important role. There are amendments on this and first aid. We have already included a further facilitation to have access to the license for driving heavy vehicles, which is an important and urgent issue. And then on the physical fitness of drivers, we have to overcome this idea that driving skills can be self-certified, because unfortunately the reality is very different, especially when this issue is related to health and age-related issues. On accompanied driving we have taken the experience of some Member States that had very positive advanced points and on night driving there were no limits that would have affected the world of rurality. Dangerous driving behaviors, therefore even with the intake of substances, are confirmed with zero tolerance. Here, I believe that, beyond what has been discussed perhaps even in the newspapers in recent weeks, if you go to see the text it is a good and positive text and that it must see us all committed to the issue of security.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, thank you for being here. We all agree that the rules of the WTO need to be changed, especially its functioning. But I would not want us to be too optimistic about a defense of World Trade Organization orthodoxy that our international partners, primarily the Americans and the Chinese, do not pursue. The U.S. IRA was a demonstration that we may want to achieve our own ecological transition goals, but by attracting investment. We have introduced a system of rules so complex that we risk, on the contrary, not improving on environmental issues, but even removing possible investments. On China, of course, we could talk for hours about how it also abused WTO rules. So, if we are the continent that has grown the least in the world in the last twenty years, we must ask ourselves some questions. It is not because I come from a group critical of the actions of the European Commission that you should not listen to me. The subject is really important. We must have more courage in the use of the defensive instruments that are regulated by the WTO. They are rules that are there and must be used, in a context, the geopolitical one, that of the logistics crisis, what tells us that, oh my God, we had very fragile production chains, so long, so difficult to protect in a situation as complicated as that of now. Trade agreements that damage the primary sectors, agriculture and fisheries, and we see this also in the protests of these weeks, because we think that even these goods can enter our continent, with different rules, with much lower standards than those we impose on our own, but all this ultimately leads to contradictions. Trade agreements that are negotiated for a long time, for years, years and years, according to principles perhaps old and not current, except then, for campaign needs, say: No, no, no, let's stop, because if not, the voters will not follow us. Here, on all this we hope that even in Abu Dhabi we can reflect for the future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the Commissioner for being here. Important amendments have been adopted on this text, including by my group, because a majority is being created in this Parliament in favour of a new approach, against hyper-regulation and criminalisation of the fisheries sector, fed up with certain policies that in the past have also been excessively punitive, and perhaps even unjustifiable. The fishing world, however, has adapted, respected and cooperated because the management of fish stocks is important also and above all for them. So, in my opinion, the European Commission should change its approach because the fisherman must be an ally in the management of the stocks, which today are thriving and important also thanks to certain restrictions that have been made in the past. But we must make sure that the navies do not empty, that that profession can continue to be important for the tradition of our continent, also because we are a market open to products that are taken certainly not respecting our criteria and standards. This is absurd and does not even help consumers in a conscious and quality choice. In my region, a study was carried out on juvenile sardines – the so-called biancotto – with the collaboration of the University. The Commission has this document: can give a signal of openness to have and start a management plan, because on this and other issues it is necessary to give a signal of change.

Madam President Metsola, Mr President Sánchez, Madam President von der Leyen, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware that these debates then also become a little national debates, as we have seen in many six-month periods of the Presidency. This is normal, we understand it well, it cannot even be a list of things done and things not done, also because sometimes it is beyond the will of a Presidency. There are positive results, obtained, perhaps, only thanks to the evidence of some surveys, which say that citizens are quite tired of an ideological will to impose a whole series of rules that risk creating problems. You spoke of European primacies and optimism, I may be pessimistic by nature and I do not feel far right, so I do not know if you referred to my political group when you said that there are anti-European forces here, but the reflection cannot be reduced to saying "We are the good ones and you are the bad ones", because many of the issues that we have brought forward in the past years, on the theme of immigration and on the theme of economic governance that does not work, today are the key to solving some of the problems that finally some of you have understood to emerge and be important. So, of course, thanks to your very good diplomats, we have closed some important files, but many remain to be closed. I said the Stability Pact; There is the theme of migration pact It's a little bit better, but it's certainly not the revolution. We even hope on Monday to close on the infrastructure networks of the TEN-T, therefore also elements that do not concern the small policy. Well the reference to the fight against terrorism. I would like to recall a former Vice-President of this European Parliament who was hit by a very serious attack in Madrid a few weeks ago. Here I would not like, and this is my appeal, that in order to defend a status quo and to say "We are the good ones, we have always done everything" we give up understanding the proposal of so many millions of citizens, even through the parties of this extrema derecha You talk a lot about it, because in Holland the signs seem to have arrived loud and clear.

Mr President, Commissioner, Madam representative of the Spanish Government, ladies and gentlemen, of course these meetings are important and I absolutely agree with the Commissioner's words, but we also need, at European level, to become aware of what our political and macroeconomic objectives are. Continuing to pursue, with a certain orthodox vision, the visions of a WTO that are no longer current today risks isolating us, because the United States with the IRA has shown us what needs to be done to attract investment and China, with the tightening on rare earths that will export less and less, will create difficulties for us. So we need to make policies that defend our steel production and our defence industry to attract investment and – beware – to protect value chains that, as the very serious geopolitical crisis we are experiencing globally teaches us, are increasingly fragile. Obviously, other issues, such as cyber terrorism, must also see us as protagonists. Attention also to another aspect: At the legislative level, we have introduced emissions taxation for European companies with the ETS and other instruments, such as the CBAM at the borders, which will potentially create a risk of competitiveness for our companies, because our international partners have told us that these instruments will not want to adopt them. So, in my opinion, in the coming years we will also have to change the type of approach: less dirigism and greater attention also to the social crises that will occur and that will require a different economic and macroeconomic attention and less attentive to the constraints of markets that do not look at the social impact of certain international norms and agreements.

Mr President, I’m quite shocked about the support that this Parliament has given to the European Commission because honestly, right of speech should be something on which you should be more attentive. Less than one year ago, this Chamber approved the Digital Services Act, and we are already witnessing the dangers of arbitrary enforcement of its policy. Of course, the aims are agreed by all of us, but if you are sincere, dear Commissioner, you should know very well how complicated it is to reach these aims. In the dramatic clashes between Israel and Hamas, the Israeli Government, Ministers and army are using social media such as X, for example, to share information, documents and press releases. Both sides of the conflict are doing that. Social media are not the holders of a truth, but a mirror of the war, reflecting what is happening. Our role should not be to say what is good or bad, what is fake or true. In particular, it has just happened during the last terrorist attacks in Brussels. We have seen all of this. But regarding the activity of social media, because this is particularly facing against X, X is the only platform which has open source algorithms, which is public access and which allows journalists to independently verify the news. It is a model of transparency in that way. ‘Freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach’ is a principle that they use, and which is deleting hateful content. Community rules, one notes, are working quite well, and you did not consider the fact that they deleted a lot of illegal content on child pornography and violence against children. You did not mention what happened with the so-called Twitter files, what has been done in the past against content which was not illegal, but which was not liked by the shareholders of the social media owners. This is the risk. The risk is that the DSA will cause the deletion of legitimate content and not content which is violating rules. So I am afraid citizens are not enough informed, because traditional media are playing a game because they believe that they will have an advantage.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, competitiveness, growth and strategic autonomy are all objectives that we share, absolutely all of them. The problem is that what is happening in recent years is exactly the opposite, and it is certainly not the fault of the Commission, it is the fault of so many factors and perhaps we are doing too much analysis on ourselves and less on what is happening in the rest of the world. There is a fact: The United States – given that we talk so much about China – has been importing more from Mexico than from China for a few months now. This has not been the case since at least 2003. And we would have our Mexico, there is a whole area of the Mediterranean where we must channel investments, growth and stability to shorten supply chains from which we have depended too long and which are too fragile. Therefore, the impact that free trade agreements can have – of course, some are very positive – I do not think it will be so crucial if we do not reduce dependence on certain actors. The Green Deal, as we have legislated it, only increases our dependence on China. We talked a lot about raw materials and energy resources. There are tensions in the so-called commodities which are important. von der Leyen did well to say, a few weeks ago, that he wants to open an investigation into the Chinese car, but it is a bit late, it is already the best-selling electric car in Spain and other EU countries. On the GSP, the generalized system of preferences, we are blocked because there are political groups that do not want to include in what is a complex, ambitious and important text the commitment of the countries that benefit from trade agreements with us, the relocation of those citizens who have no right to be on our side. I could talk about the scrap steel that we export to Turkey, which then sells it to us processed, but it is an important resource that serves our industry. In short, I would not like us to continue to be the only ones here to defend the WTO and its system of rules, creating deindustrialization on our continent and a process of relocation of missions that seems to me rather hypocritical.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we obviously support the resolution too, which seems to me to be common sense. But I remember very well the reactions of the Commission when the United States presented this project. I am not a defender of the Biden Presidency, but in order to achieve the same goals that we set ourselves with the ecological transition – of course, they probably violated some WTO rules, probably were rightly accused of protectionism – they were able to attract private investment that we dream of and that we were not able to attract at this important historical moment. And they did it with a simple measure. It is clear that we must ask them now, hat in hand, to go there and see if our companies will also benefit from these tools. But talking about protectionism, being the only one in the world to defend the principles and rules of a WTO that in fact no longer exists, of a world that sees the United States on the one hand and China even more on the other making interests totally opposed to what are the objectives of a WTO that today, perhaps in 2023, no longer makes sense compared to how it was born, here, I do not think it is useful to our production system and our economy. Even here we started with a very intense legislative process on the ecological transition and only after we realized that, yes, maybe we need a strategy on raw materials or maybe we need to move on critical raw materials in particular, which then have a whole theme related to refining that is clear that sees us in a difficult situation but we knew this many of us said it before. And today von der Leyen, in his State of the Union speech, also made it clear that he will want to intervene on the Chinese car because there are subsidies. All right, I agree, but it's very late. Today, that car is already the best-selling in some EU countries, such as Spain. There are cost capabilities that were fairly easy to predict and that are quite different from what the cost of transition in our economy is. There is a competitiveness problem that needs to be solved concretely and possibly quickly.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too am angry at Borrell; But I know it's not just your fault. Unfortunately, we are here to commemorate, after a year, the death of Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Iranian Kurd who sacrificed herself for freedom; We are here at a commemoration which I hope makes political sense because, of course, the Commission has not done what we have asked for, but the governments, national states, friends and American partners have also, in my opinion, lessened the pressure on a regime which must be fought. The repression of ethnic and religious minorities continues; There is support for terrorism; executions are, in 2023, at least 510 and are almost all summary; poisoning of young people, arrests of Europeans as a weapon of blackmail to free terrorists. President Raisi we know that he has precise responsibilities in the repressions of 1988, when he was a judge and therefore held another role. And so we divide, we also divide in support of the opposition. This is also something I didn't like at all. There is also hypocrisy that the murder, the death of Mahsa Amini stems from a fanatical interpretation of a religion. This is also an issue that needs to be mentioned. And then - you said it - there are external influences, of course, in the war in Ukraine but not only there, also in Iraq, in Lebanon and in Nagorno Karabakh even. So let us make sure that the sacrifice of these young people is not in vain because it is really embarrassing with regard to a role that we want to give ourselves in front of the rest of the world, because, frankly, this Parliament has written about things that are applicable and on which we must all work together.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would also like to greet the Swedish Presidency. Unfortunately, in these four years there has probably been an excess of rhetoric on the part of everyone. On the part of the Commission in announcing certain instruments and on the part of us Members, both those who are in favour and those who are critical of the Commission's work. A desire to announce instruments that have not actually created what we are talking about, that is, a situation, an environment conducive to investment. It is from the famous Juncker Plan that perhaps we should have learned that certain tools need a whole range of circumstances. When President von der Leyen then speaks of a sovereign wealth fund, I also run to the vocabulary to understand what a sovereign wealth fund is in relation to what it proposes. We have been through incredibly serious crises, but we have not taken advantage of them in some important areas. We have not improved and modernised state aid rules, we have not updated competition rules and we have not overcome austerity in the economic field. We're working on it, but it's a very, very difficult process. In my opinion, the policies green "Fit for 55" creates additional difficulties in making Europe a place where investment arrives. The choice not to favor technological neutrality and the enormous increase in dependence that we will have on large companies in the future player Asians make everything really complicated. Unfortunately, the European Commission arrives late on raw materials. We should have had a plan before these rules. Then why do I say that? I say this because the United States simultaneously with the IRA activates an extraordinary tool that is shifting interests and investments in a decisive and important way. The Commission does well to negotiate with the Americans because the transatlantic relationship will be important, but as it was initially assessed that instrument was exaggeratedly negative, whereas instead we should take a cue. On trade policies we should be a little more active and unfortunately in my opinion we have lost a lot of time and time. nearshoring It must truly become an important tool in the interpretation of globalisation. Then there are positive things: the European Investment Bank, innovation policies, the revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework, which must be a time when we can better target certain instruments because the risk is that our continent in the coming decades is irrelevant because of the lack of ability to be competitive on global scenarios, and this is what I would like to avoid.

Madam President, thank you, Commissioner, for being here, thanks to the colleagues who were also with me both on the election mission in 2021 and on the most recent visit we made as a delegation. There are so many things I will never forget in my life. A people that comes out of forty years of wars. Important responsibilities also of us Westerners. External influences such as those of Turkey and Iran have very negative and problematic effects. A Kurdish issue still to be resolved. These are just some of the themes that make the idea of the complexity of a reality that we have to deal with. Political parties that have military militias, militias that become political parties. A political and religious sectarianism that looks so much like the one that destroyed Lebanon. Western men and women, men, our soldiers who train and train Iraqis and often also make a sacrifice in this sense and minorities that need to be protected more, even with our interest. The Yazidi community is celebrating the beginning of the new year. I visited their temples, the temples that have come back to life. The Yazidi people have suffered a genocide, which the German Parliament in the Bundestag has recognised and which I would like to see recognised here one day. I also visited the Christian churches that have repopulated. These communities, along with the Kurds, along with the Iraqis, fought and helped us liberate ourselves from ISIS. I mean, we all owe them something. And it is thanks to them that ISIS today is a residual phenomenon, almost completely defeated. Here, the fragility of this people, its future, the future of Iraq and Kurdistan concern us and we must deal with it more. So I stress what the Commissioner has said and I absolutely agree with everything.

Mr President, Mr High Representative, I agree with you and your approach. It is clear that we must hope that the Peruvians will be able to decide democratically on their future. The fact that this is a scenario of crisis and instability we have known for many years, for a long time. I also refuse to take a biased position. Among other things, as a Ligurian from the province of Genoa I know many people, I also have them in my family, who chose, many years ago, to migrate to that area. There is a theme of investment instability, there is a theme of China replacing European companies in some major investments. The scenario of the 2024 elections will be very delicate and will have to be observed carefully, but I stress yet another aspect, that of natural resources. North America has very strong interests, Mexico has proposed to Peru a sort of lithium OPEC. I would not like to see strong interests behind certain movements. We too, as European legislators, moving towards a transition of a certain kind, must consider the geopolitical effects of our choices on the issues of natural resources.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I was a young militant on 10 April 1998 and followed the Irish question with passion. With the Good Friday agreement I learned a lesson that I carry within me, which also concerns the necessary attempt to understand the reasons of the other when one arises with respect to a political theme. In this case, then, we are talking about an agreement that has served to end decades of bloodshed on our continent. It is for this reason that, among the appeals that have already arrived in recent days, I emphasize that of the Christian Churches, precisely because religion has been used by both sides in some phases of the conflict to make it more bitter. So their appeal, in my opinion, is one of the most important. I remember well how in these twenty-five years the agreement has proved to be partly also fragile, but a fragility that has always been in the context of a discussion or, why not, of a political conflict that has never seen weapons speak again, of a political debate as in democracies one should do, a debate that must remain only political. The 25th anniversary is timely today because, as the President of the Commission has pointed out, the United Kingdom has reached an agreement with Brussels which, I believe, will promote trade and development and, in this sense, I hope that this House, in the coming months and years, will be able to stop having the often hostile attitude towards London that still derives from not having accepted the result of Brexit. I believe that this year the geopolitical crisis we are experiencing, not only in Ukraine and in other parts of the world, has taught us that the relationship that our capitals have with London is based on values, on adherence to international bodies and on the fight against international terrorism, which overcome any possible division and distance. But it is clear that our debates here are often rhetorical, but events are the result of every historical period. Every era has its protagonists. The work of women and men is what determines, then, the achievement of political objectives. That is why I believe that in our activities as politicians it is important to take an example from those who twenty-five years ago knew how to work for peace in Ireland and the United Kingdom, putting an end to decades of conflict. Here, if I may make an appeal, let us all be equal to those who preceded us, to the men who have made our continent great, to achieve goals of peace, well-being and freedom in all scenarios.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, one minute is not enough to talk about these issues, but I would like to highlight a few points. The resolution we are going to vote on is important and positive, and I believe that all the groups are going to support it, and it puts agriculture back at the centre of the issue with regard to environmental pressures, which have been strongly felt in this sector in recent years. But the issue of fertilizers concerns many aspects, several colleagues have also said. There is a geopolitical issue, there is a difficulty of finding for our farmers, there is a theme of costs, and this concerns many aspects of those who produce on our continent, and a need to increase production capacity. This, the need to increase production capacity, which is why fertilisers are born and are important, is an issue we discussed in the CAP and throughout the package.Farm to Fork" and we had to find compromises, and it was not easy to consider this aspect. We need pragmatism. We should, for example, stop the directive on plant protection products, but we already know that. Organic fertiliser alternatives need to be facilitated, because they have nothing to do with the nitrates directive, for example, but rather do not deplete the soil, because what we have to face is a productive capacity, I repeat, which must be able to meet the needs of our continent. We need energy plans, we need economic support, we need the ability to give our agriculture a competitive framework, which unfortunately is global and which must face competition from those who are not subject to a system of rules like ours. On fertilizers, in short, we can do a lot and I hope that the European Commission will be able to take note of what we are going to vote on today.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, I am also a member of the Delegation for relations with Iran. We had many debates on the situation in Iran, even before the crisis and the conflict that began in September, and some of us had already denounced certain things. Perhaps some of the blood that was shed could have been avoided. The case of Akbari is a very serious case, but I hope that next month we do not have to repeat the same kind of debate, because there are too many very serious cases. In addition to the blood that has been shed there is the issue of cyber attacks against a European country, in Albania; drones, as we said earlier during the debate on Ukraine, supplied to Russia; sanctions that are too timid; We must support those who are fighting against that regime, because here too, in this House, there were those who were a little too openly defending an agreement, the nuclear agreement, which I do not think should be defended at all, because we cannot afford to give Iran the status of an atomic power. And also another gesture of courage, albeit symbolic, to include the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps among the terrorist organizations. I expect a stronger commitment from the Commission in this regard.

Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would say that the Committee on the Internal Market has done an important job, because we have included in the text so many elements that rightly must be taken into account in a Parliament, which had already done something useful and important with the Committee on Culture, because, of course, we are talking about the internal market of the Union. We need the same rules for everyone, but in a market that is global and in which in the past, and the digital world unfortunately is an example, we have had shortcomings. We do not have European champions in certain areas, but in the production of video games we have them and it is a pleasure that there is this in a sector that concerns content that is also of important quality and that is beginning to give value also in terms of quality jobs, which especially concern many young people. So it is clear that there are problems, however, that affect the most fragile consumers. You can intervene especially in that narrow border between gambling and gaming, which must be a pleasure, even eliminating certain educational elements, such as the fact that, if you insert money maybe you no longer need your ingenuity to move to a next level, but you can avoid difficulties. That, too, is a moral aspect. Of course, as legislators, we don't have to point the finger, because we don't even have to criminalize a business model. We need balance. In this sense, we must certainly fight against addictions and also help the health authorities. Voluntary models already exist. In my opinion, the Commission must strike the right balance to keep everything, including in the interests of consumers.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, some of our colleagues and I are now experts on this side of the world. I am part of the Delegation for relations with Iraq, I have been to the election observation mission and we know the complexity of a difficult area. We have all expressed our solidarity with the attacks that also hit Istanbul, İstiklal Caddesi, but nothing justifies what Turkey is doing. It has not done so only in recent weeks, it has not done so only as a result of certain attacks and it is creating consequences on the complexity of local populations and a displacement of populations that makes those balances even more difficult, not only to maintain but also to restore. Other colleagues have already said this, the extremists are taking advantage of the situation, the pro-Turkish militias of Ahrar al-Sham are destroying infrastructure and agriculture and there is an impact on minorities, the Christian one but not only that, we have also rightly spoken about the Kurds, who feel threatened. ISIS, in all this context, can re-emerge and do so in a serious way, with consequences, we have all said, also on the departure of refugees to Europe. Also beware of Erdoğan's plan to send two million refugees to that area, who are now in Turkey but who come from other areas of Syria, which would create a further shock on an area that, instead, deserves a different attention. Europe can choose to be present in that sector, where my country is currently leading the NATO contingent and my government is expressing solidarity with both the Kurdish region of Iraq and the new government of Baghdad, but we must realize that those populations come from decades of suffering and we must intervene as soon as possible if we are to say that we are bearers of positive values.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you, Commissioner, for being here with us, for these two and a half years in our societies we have been divided and torn apart within our parties and within our governments. Citizens have been subject to restrictions, which in my view are often unfair. Some mistakes have been made, I admit, in good faith, others probably in bad faith. I think the time has come, because if we have a committee dealing with COVID that has a full mandate, that can ask itself and ask what happened in Wuhan to make sure that the European Commission itself is more transparent, because there is no way that we find out that the European Commission had funded the Wuhan centre only thanks to WikiLeaks in Assange. There is no way that we can't see contracts except with so many parts cancelled. Mr von der Leyen replied to our questions that he had nothing to say about SMS messages to Mr Pfizer's administrator, when the European Ombudsman and the Court of Auditors criticised and strongly criticised the European Commission. We are a Parliament, we express the representation of citizens, we demand answers and transparency.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank President von der Leyen, not least for the attention she has given to this House, because, unlike many of her colleagues, you have been here from the beginning until now, and I must say that, even as an opposition group and party, we have appreciated that. The world of before will not return, we are aware of it. We also supported the sanctions. Then we will also have to find a moment to ask ourselves what are the responsibilities on why we have come to have certain dependencies on Russia and avoid, as you said, having others in the future vis-à-vis China, which are already quite relevant today. There are some unresolved issues we need to address: The Stability Pact is one of them. We have a serious problem and a serious risk on competitiveness; We have a country, China – and I return to China – which has impressive stockpiles of raw materials and rare earths and which is going to reopen 174 coal mines. You mentioned the Italian ceramic sector, I was pleased: But that, for example, when it comes to trade issues, is one of the areas that has never been supported and defended by the Union's trade policies. Less rhetoric, more transparency and attention: On the subject of the Mediterranean, Italy has always been left alone in recent years. Let's also remember that emergency.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you, Commissioner, for being here, the consequences are there for the social and productive fabric of the countries of the European Union, but of course there is also the positive element of the fact that we are all united in supporting sanctions, including the new package, which is a fair instrument and which is bringing results, certainly it is also bringing consequences and costs to our system, to our business model, but we must move forward because it is one of the most important strategies. The unity we have demonstrated here is a value, but it must not prevent us from also making an analysis of the situation that is being created, an analysis also of the mistakes we have made in the past, of why we have come to this dependence on Russia, of why until a few weeks before the outbreak of the war, someone in this House continued to defend projects such as Nord Stream 2 and Eastmed, on the other hand, nothing was said. I plan that of the Eastmed that maybe we will relaunch soon, but that will take a long time to become active. We have some elements that have arisen in recent weeks: the problem of storing energy resources ahead of next winter; the issue of payment with rubles or the euro, so businesses need clarification. So it would be important for the European Commission to provide clarity also on this aspect that is creating tensions, tensions that are also on the markets. Inflation, the purchasing power of households has already been mentioned by my colleagues, because after all, what is at stake is the competitiveness of our system. The agri-food industry is already suffering the consequences and work and our social fabric risks paying very dearly. Then perhaps we will not have to deal with the consequences, but with our fellow MEPs at national and regional level. But that will be a very important element because – I would add what has also been said by my fellow Members – we must not, however, make the mistake with the Stability Pact of returning to the wrong rules that have made Europe the least developed continent in the last twenty years and with the Fit for 55 of adding costs to businesses. Costs that come from standards designed even for a pre-pandemic Europe, let alone for a Europe like today that is experiencing a dramatic war at its doorstep. Thank you and hopefully we can make some corrections.

Madam President, Mr High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe that the summit was a missed opportunity because, of course, the Chinese silence disappoints us, but it confirms that this is a country that lives with profound ambiguities and that does not want to use its potential influence to solve, or help us solve, a very serious problem, Putin's Russia's aggression against Ukraine. And we have to make decisions in these months that are very important for our future. We speak so rightly of strategic autonomy, we speak so rightly of the need, finally, to free ourselves from dependence on Russia, but with legislative proposals that I am partly critical of, which I would like to change in another direction; we know well how much there is also a dependence on China, which is not only on manufacturing but which also enters the whole "Fit for 55" package, because we need reciprocity, she said, but because we do not even have to make political and geostrategic decisions by making a choice between different dictatorships: the issue of Xinjiang, the bloody crackdown on protests in Hong Kong, the continued violation and threat against Taiwan. I don't think China is trustworthy. I believe that China wants to work to divide us, to divide the Western front as well; I believe that what China is doing in Africa is very serious and I believe that we have been too often shy, compared to the proposal we are working on in Parliament on hostile acquisitions, on value chains that need to be modified and made less problematic. And maybe we should also remember to ask what happened in Wuhan a little over two years ago. So, I hope that these dramatic months do not push us to make choices that give China an additional competitive advantage. In this sense, the European Commission must know that there is a great unity in the European Parliament and that we can all work together in this direction.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the Commissioner for being here tonight, perhaps this debate deserved a moment of increased turnout but it was clearly not possible. You are a politician with great experience in government and you have seen what has happened this year. I am part of a party that has decided not to just say no, no, no, as it could very well choose to do. We made a choice, in my country, to be part of a government at such a difficult time, which also had to take important, serious and sometimes conflicting decisions, or which did not satisfy us and perhaps did not fully respect my ideas. But, without bothering Voltaire, what happened this year was born from a very concrete need: we needed a standard instrument as a result of certain measures introduced suddenly by some Member States, I think of the Brenner in Austria when the rows of trucks meant that we had to respond to a document in German certifying the negativity of these workers, and therefore we took responsibility in many political forces, almost all here, to adopt an instrument that, however, attention, contained within it as many as 15 references to non-discrimination. I wonder, given that there is often talk of whether or not EU law prevails over that of national states, why the European Commission has entrenched itself behind an 'ah but yes, but then the Member States have taken other paths'. If that instrument had a limited duration of 30 June of this year, it is precisely because it is an extraordinary instrument, born in an extraordinary moment and that we must overcome. So I don't agree with your renewal. The situation has improved a lot and this does not mean that we have to stop the vaccination campaign, this will be told by those who deal with these aspects, but in some countries we have had a real creation of different levels of citizenship. Who has made choices other than mine, because they must in fact have such limited access to rights, in countries like mine, just because I have three vaccinations and they do not? If we have a deadline, I repeat, there is a reason. I believe that we can overcome this instrument. Coercive instruments, as the Member States have applied this year, I believe at this stage they make us lose much more than what makes us gain an instrument as we originally conceived.