Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Council at the end of June was supposed to be an opportunity for real change on a number of issues. Listening to this morning's debate, however, I must say that perhaps we have, Mr Sassoli, the wrong title because it seems to me that little is said about the outcome of the European Council and much is said instead of what happened a few hours before the European Council and that therefore it is very curious that a debate like the one we are witnessing has taken place, which is certainly a very questionable debate for some aspects, including formal ones, President of the Commission, because if the President of a parliamentary group, Mr Cioloş, officially announces that a national plan has been suspended, obviously in the absence of a Commission decision, this is very serious, because the Commission should and could activate a procedure in this regard, but certainly has not decided anything from what is officially apparent. It is also very serious that today there are a number of speeches and positions that have nothing to do with the real content that we should be discussing here today in this House, dear President Michel, on certain issues. And I am referring to the issue of immigration to make a very clear reference, which is an issue where, once again, it was preferred not to decide by postponing any solution to October, when instead we would have needed immediate, urgent progress, but little is said about this. We will talk about it hypocritically in the coming months when we may see dozens and tens and tens of thousands of landings on the coasts of southern Europe starting from Italy, and there instead we will tell the whole system that in October the European Commission will make a proposal, but in the meantime we will attack Hungary because this is more convenient at this time, rather than addressing the real issues, the issues for which even on the subject of immigration nothing is done on the one hand, but much more is done on the other, because it is decided to renew the 2015 agreement and make about 3.5 billion euros of contributions to Turkey, highlighting once again the contradictions and hypocrisy that reign within the European institutions, especially because, in that case, the issue of condemning the lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law disappears from our reach. We don't talk about it anymore. We are giving three and a half billion euros and we are moving forward with an urgent need which affects parts of Europe and which does not, on the whole, seriously and credibly address the context we are dealing with. And so I think it is unacceptable to look at the situations on which we are confronted in this House, ignoring what is happening, because in these hours there are some NGOs running around the Mediterranean full of illegal immigrants and that we do not know what the point of arrival will be and above all we are not able at European level to give an answer in this sense, because the situation is being addressed with an agenda that does not look at the real and true needs. Here, we would have liked to talk more about this in this debate, we would have liked to talk more about the national recovery and resilience plans than the effectiveness of their action, we would have liked to talk about economic recovery and what must be a system of interventions on the subject of companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises that must resume and must be the central point of relaunching economic action in the European context. We must try to look at a context in which it seems to me that today's debate has missed a great opportunity to be able to address the real issues and above all to be able to take refuge on questions of principle and of a general nature on which no one is called out. We will discuss the rule of law, we will discuss the issues that are being pursued, but it is not possible for a parliamentary debate such as this to indicate a solution, to issue a judgment, to decide in advance on something on which there is nothing real comparison, but above all it was not discussed in detail and it was not given the opportunity to open this debate. That is why I am disappointed by this debate and I would have preferred today's debate to focus on the issues that really concern citizens and above all that there was, within these institutions, a concept that is that of respect, even of those who think differently and not of the idea of carrying forward with force and determination a unique thought to which we personally can never in any way convince and surrender.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam President of the Commission, Prime Minister Janša, your Presidency is starting while the pandemic is not yet over, with a situation that is certainly improving, but our continent will still have to face very complex and important challenges in the coming months in order to definitively emerge from this dramatic crisis. I believe that the Eurorealism I have heard today in many of your passages can be an excellent synthesis and a concrete opportunity for the Europe of tomorrow to be guided by a spirit of solidarity and cooperation between the different states and peoples. Cooperation and solidarity are often hampered by political prejudices, which undermine respect and fair treatment for all EU countries. In this regard, we are reassured by your words and your approach to the fundamental values and principles of the Union, including the rule of law. And in this regard, the controversy over the European Public Prosecutor's Office seems to me to be quite instrumental both in terms of the timing and the manner in which it is put in place and, above all, in terms of the clarifications that you have abundantly indicated on several occasions. The rule of law monitoring mechanism must operate in an objective and transparent manner while respecting the equality of the Member States, not following the approach that is often highly politicised and that uses mechanisms agreed at EU level only to punish opinions that differ from those carried out by some political parties. All this, unfortunately, only fuels divisions, discord and mistrust between the States and the peoples of Europe. The main objective right now that we should all have is to ensure a stronger and more resilient Europe. Countering the pandemic, strong and lasting economic recovery, integrity of the internal market, commercial interests and strategic autonomy, but also security and defence of our borders to counter phenomena such as terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration: on these issues our group is ready to collaborate guided by pragmatism and common sense. We say yes to environmental protection, but with the right compromise between environmental sustainability and economic and social sustainability. It is also very positive, I want to emphasise, your focus on managing illegal immigration and building a functioning asylum system. We welcome your particular attention to the issue of the Western Balkans, but in order to do so we must not forget the further importance of the Eastern Neighbourhood for ensuring peace and stability in Europe. Finally, this Presidency is at the very start of the Conference on the Future of Europe. Your Presidency will take a fundamental and decisive step forward on this issue. We only hope, without going into the substance, that the Conference on the Future of Europe will not be an opportunity to exclude, but an opportunity to include and take into account all legitimate different views in developing common views on solutions for the future of Europe. I conclude by reiterating that I appreciated the reference to dialogue, cooperation and equal treatment as essential conditions for improving the conditions, well-being and security of our citizens. Our hope, in wishing you a semester of important results, is that this spirit can concretely guide your action. Good work.