Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are not opposed to this measure, on the contrary, it will bring us a vote in favour, just so to speak, because of its integrity, even having opened up to nuclear power as a sustainable source gives us the possibility of finally taking Europe one step further. But it is one of the few measures, a drop in the sea in the many measures under the aegis of the so-called Green Deal which can be supported. Unfortunately, we have seen so many measures dictated by haste, perhaps dictated more by ideology than by necessity. Often dangerous or even harmful measures. Measures such as the so-called Green house, where in my country a few days ago the Bank of Italy suggested no longer renting houses that did not have a certain energy class. Or the provision, such as the one on theautomotive, where studies predict that up to 40 000 jobs could be lost by 2030 and a wealth of €7 billion could be lost in Italy. Measures that are deeply unfair and that risk putting European industry in great difficulty, especially hearing what the European Court of Auditors said that it paid great attention and criticized the plan, for example, on batteries saying that the plan is delayed, that it is advancing slowly and that above all it opens us to dependence on Chinese materials. Fortunately, all this has come to an end. Today is the last day of this legislature and I hope that European citizens can change. Let me close with a thank you for this legislature, first of all, to my staff Mario, Cristina, Maria Elena, Lorenzo, Giovanni and Gaetano, who have contributed to doing an extraordinary job and a thank you to my group leader Marco Campomenosi and to my president Marco Zanni and to all the colleagues with whom I had the pleasure and honor to collaborate in this legislature. Good luck to you all.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank my colleague Andrey Novakov for his extremely balanced report. Cohesion policy 2014-2020 has been a key pillar for European progress, with a significant allocation of funds and an absorption rate of around 89%. Europe has been facing unexpected crises in recent years: the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis. The implementation of programming in its last phase has been used as an emergency response tool, which has severely compromised time and results. However, I am convinced that it is imperative that cohesion policy is not seen as a crisis and emergency response tool, that it should consolidate its own medium- and long-term objectives. There is an urgent need to improve flexibility and simplify the management of funds; the current complexity not only hampers their absorption, but also undermines citizens’ trust. Here, too, a little common sense should be at the centre, beyond bureaucracy. I close with an appeal, dear Commissioner: In my country, a bill has recently been passed on mountain areas to give centrality to these areas. I hope that in the next programming period, on the basis of what is being done for the integrated strategy for maritime areas, the same thing will be done for mountain areas. Having clear indicators on a part of the territory, which is 35% of the European continent, will also help to understand how cohesion policy can have a positive impact on the areas of the highlands of our continent.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although the directive is far less insane than the Commission's original proposal, you will forgive me if I do not join the chorus of those who are celebrating today. I see the pockets of European citizens emptying to fill those of solar panel and heat pump manufacturers in China. You will forgive me if, after the disastrous experience of the superbonus, which devastated the coffers of my country, some doubts remain as to the application of this directive. You will forgive me if I see it difficult to intervene in the countries of the Alpine valleys and in the villages of the Apennines, where there are the most complex situations to apply the requirements of the directive. The reality is that only in Italy the estimates to fix the more than 5 million buildings that need interventions are spoken of over 1 100 billion euros and this money, simply, there are not. The rest is just talk.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that there is no Council for a debate which is addressed specifically to the Council is, at the very least, scandalous, a disrespect for this House which has always been emphasised. I tell my Green friends: nets, especially in the mountains, work little, very little, also because moving them from one valley to another is far from simple. So, I hope that after so many words we finally get to the facts, also to give concrete answers to the many breeders and farmers who have great difficulty in breeding, especially in mountain areas where the wolf now rages: not only in the pastures but now we see them also in urban centers. I conclude by expressing solidarity with Fr Gaudenzio Martini, a parish priest of a small community in Val Strona, in the province of Verbano-Cusio-Ossola, who, celebrating an ancient traditional Mass in support of farmers, who invoke the Lord for the protection of livestock from disasters, floods and predators, was denounced for inciting the killing of large carnivores. We are mad now, we are beyond. We defend our farmers.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wonder whether President von der Leyen has read the latest report on competitiveness. I guess not, because otherwise he would have announced his resignation instead of announcing his re-election, promising us another five years of bankruptcies and SMS regarding billionaire contracts that disappear into thin air. This is what the Commission says in a few lines of its report, not a dangerous site that spreads fake news: The Green Deal has tied our hands and feet to the supply chain China's critical raw materials, such as gallium and germanium, critical to technologies green and also for armaments. And now that a squeeze on exports could come from China, you no longer know what fish to catch. In short, the Green Deal will not only not save the planet, as some in here think, but will destroy the European economy. The grotesque thing is that, although you have also understood this, you are too proud or perhaps even politically obtuse to back down. Fortunately, on 8 and 9 June the Europeans will make you understand by their vote that it is time to stop doing damage.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, better late than never! One of the few common sense measures of this Commission comes to the last mile of an ideologically imbued legislature. If some common sense had been applied, you would have been concerned first about what was needed to make the transition – the tools, the materials, the technologies – but as there is little common sense in here, you started from the bottom, from draconian positions for industry, home, car, agriculture, realising only now that resources are lacking to achieve the objectives. You want to build a house, but you didn't wonder if you had the bricks to do it. Europe is dependent on third countries to import all the rare raw materials that underpin the change in the energy model and electrification; 90% of imports come from countries outside the main systems of the European Union alliance. It didn't take a scientist to understand that after energy the market of commodities It would have been the weak link in our economy, shifting us from energy dependence on Russian gas to dependence on raw materials from China. So, well this measure, as long as it is the beginning of a pragmatic, concrete and conscious approach and that, once and for all, the utopian ideologies that have dominated it in recent years are finally abandoned, forever.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the true European geopolitics now – let us hope never – since what has been done so far can be summed up in one word: failure. In recent years we have seen them of all colors, from Sofa Gate, where your geopolitics could not figure out who should sit where, at the Qatar Gatewhere you have been able to hide the dust under the carpet. Not to mention schizophrenia in the statements made at the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where everyone said their doing in a race to those who shot the biggest. What geopolitical Europe? You had a duty to actively engage in stopping the Russian-Ukrainian war, activating negotiations to stop the bombs, save civilians... Nothing. Even Turkey has tried to do more. Nothing about the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict, nothing about the Middle East. No, you did one thing here: You sent to make your special representative in the Persian Gulf one like Di Maio who, when he was Foreign Minister in my country, caused the biggest diplomatic crisis with the Emirates. Brilliant. This would be enough to certify the failure of your geopolitical vision, a short-sighted, weak and, at best, improvised vision. But since this is the case, do one good thing: Forget about it. Your geopolitics has only caused instability and weakness in Europe, leading to uncontrolled immigration with adjoining jihadist infiltrations whose consequences are borne by the citizens. Thankfully, next year we will be voting and it will be the European citizens who will explain to you what they think of your amazing results.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate has a very beautiful title, suitable for the demagogy that reigns supreme in this House and in the rooms of the European institutions, which should protect citizens, but which do not do so on time. I think it's time to say enough. Enough of the hypocrisy and rhetoric of proclamations for their own sake. Just make agreements that make us dependent on unreliable third countries, as you have done for years with Russia and its gas. Excellent result, moreover: the biggest energy crisis ever, the consequences of which are still being paid for by citizens. And now the circus repeats itself with the European Green Deal. You want the transition at all costs, but you don't have the raw materials to make it and this time we will be forced to bend to China. Of course, there is the Critical Raw Materials Act, a measure that comes ten years late. Your conception of free trade in terms of trade has often opened our market to imports that do not make it more convenient to produce raw materials here, encouraging a supply outside Europe, as in agriculture, which too often has had to pay the price of being the commodity of exchange for other sectors: see imports of Cambodian and Vietnamese rice, just to give an example.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, thank you for having carried out a much more balanced work than other more ideological positions, despite some unforgivable geographical gaps. In fact, important regions that have historical, cultural, economic and linguistic relations with Switzerland are not mentioned, such as Lombardy, Valle d'Aosta and above all Piedmont. I would remind you, my colleague, that almost a third of the frontier workers who cross the Swiss border every day come from these regions. Although I agree with the text as a whole, I would nevertheless like to stress that Switzerland remains a sovereign, independent and seriously democratic state, with which the European Union must commit itself to cooperating without paternalism or pretensions going beyond its mandate. On 22 October, Swiss citizens will be called to vote in federal elections. I hope that Parliament and the Commission will have the intelligence to respect the outcome of the polls, committing themselves to continuing a constructive and concrete dialogue with the Swiss government in order to protect workers, businesses and citizens on both sides. Switzerland is a strategic partner for Europe and especially for neighbouring countries, let's never forget that.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the multiannual financial framework is fundamental to European policy, because without adequate financial resources, major projects remain empty proclamations. It is crucial to remember that we are using the money of citizens, who are living in an unprecedented economic crisis and from whom we cannot and must not ask for even more resources. Instead, we must work to ensure that every euro spent is used efficiently for the common good. Although the financing of new projects is crucial for the development of the European Union, it is undeniable that we cannot neglect the maintenance of existing infrastructure, from roads to the maintenance of degraded and abandoned land, also from a hydrogeological point of view, due to the lack of resources. The new approach at all costs, forgetting what already exists, has proven to be unsustainable in the long term. With limited funds available, it is necessary to maximise the effectiveness of their use. We can do this by investing them in an extraordinary maintenance plan to preserve and improve the efficiency of what we have already built. Investing in infrastructure restructuring will be a driver for the economy, create jobs and increase Europe's global competitiveness. It is also imperative to address the problem of excessive bureaucracy, which too often hinders access to finance: Only by simplifying the procedures will we allow more projects to see the light of day by exploiting the full potential of the available funds.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, let me understand: With the millions of euros that the European Commission has spent on the LIFE WolfAlps programme, don't you have the data? Interesting to know, especially for European taxpayers. I would like to thank the Members who proposed the debate, with the hope that we will finally move from words to deeds and hoping that this debate will not take place for the sacrifice of a pony. More than 20,000 wolves in Europe: more than 3 000 in Italy, half of them in Piedmont. And let's just talk about the official figures, which we all know are very down compared to the real situation. The same can be said for bears. Over 43 000 predations from 2015 to 2019; today we can safely reach 50 000; over 9 million euros spent to compensate farmers, I am talking only about Italy, not counting the money spent - some say wasted, and perhaps for good reason - by the Committee on LIFE programmes. But these are only part of the problem, because we do not take into account all those who no longer even denounce the attacks or the psychological consequences of those animals that witness the assaults, showing that the situation is much worse than it seems. In light of these numbers, the question is not whether to downgrade the wolf or not but why it has not yet been done. We always talk about cohabitation: but two entities that live together in a territory where one is untouchable and the other forced to suffer, is not coexistence, is subjection. And if any of my colleagues still have doubts, or you, Commissioner, it will be my pleasure or my honour to invite you to visit the farmers and pastures of the Ossola, Val Susa, Val Varaita, Val d'Aosta, Valtellina and Valchiavenna valleys, where there is no day when there is no predation. Today we have a duty to give a signal to all those who have been victims of this situation for too long: these citizens feel abandoned by this institution that does not seem to care in the least about those who live in the European valleys and mountains, demanding an ideological and utopian vision. The wolf is no longer in danger of extinction. It is the inhabitants of rural areas who, as far as I am concerned, have priority over any environmentalist and animalist ideology. At least you have the good sense to understand that.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, no one questions the objective of preserving public health: We would miss him! But we cannot do this by undermining the productivity and well-being of entire regions. The regions of the Po basin, for example, Piedmont and Lombardy in particular, live a reality where for geographical reasons it is not possible to guarantee that air recirculation that would guarantee the achievement of the objectives, despite being the first regions in Europe in terms of reduction of pollutants. In Piedmont we have just averted the blockade of 500 000 cars, which would have caused enormous damage to families and businesses. Achieving an objective cannot result in deprivation of the right to move or to do business. With the new levels, which once again do not take into account the morphology of the territories, there is a risk of closing, between Piedmont and Lombardy, more than 70% of companies and blocking 75% of polluting vehicles. The Commission's reply cannot be: Arrange yourself. We need less ideology, more awareness and more resources. If a person does not change the car or does not make his home efficient, he does so because he cannot, because he does not have the money. If you do not take this into account, you will propose yet another class measure that pretends to help the weakest but actually punishes and strikes them.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the level of confrontation that you have fuelled over the Nature Restoration Act over the last few hours shows how many of Europe's citizens have already called themselves out of line, invented at the table and based on environmental rhetoric and the sacrifice of many for the benefit of a few. You have given birth to a distorted project, trying to build a house from the roof, starting from a partial scientific basis while science serves to stimulate a debate, not as a shield for choices that instead have only a political matrix. The green deal It will fail because you have decided to sacrifice on the altar of ideology the middle class and entire supply chains, from cars to agriculture, for the benefit of our competitors, with China in the lead. It will be necessary to understand if it was done for ineptitude or for someone's interest. Dear Commissioner, the wind is changing! I say this not only because of the Dutch tractors marching against you and your former Prime Minister Rutte, who was forced to resign, but because people are asking to be put at the center of the ecological transition and not to stay under it. Pursuing this goal as a whole community has the same value as achieving the ultimate goal, but you may not understand that. Next year, the citizens of Europe will democratically explain to you how things are and we will finally be able to leave behind this nightmare in which you have made us live for too long.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, ethics is by definition the doctrine or the speculative investigation of man's practical behaviour in the face of the two concepts of good and evil. It is a philosophical doctrine which the Commission and the majority of this Parliament are inconvenient for trying to hide their faults. What is ethical, for example, about President von der Leyen's lack of transparency on SMS with the CEO of Pfizer? What is ethical about the Commission's funding of President von der Leyen's husband's companies? What is ethical about Qatargate and all those, not just parliamentarians, who have been involved? What is ethical about compromise amendments written by NGOs and copied equally by rapporteurs? What is ethical about the cordon sanitaire? Now you want to tell us that you want to be champions of transparency and control of the common good only to absolve yourself. I do not think it is necessary to create yet another useless bandwagon that will burden the pockets of European citizens. I think it's enough, from time to time, to simply apologize and admit your faults and maybe, from time to time, resign.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I have never spared criticism, even fierce criticism, of the Commission. I recognize, however, that in this case, together with Parliament, they have taken the right path, perhaps also dictated by the awareness of not being able to put in place the necessary resources, especially economic ones, to keep up with China and the United States. So I believe that it is right and proper to want to create a regulatory framework that guarantees the safe use of this instrument, that can offer great opportunities but that brings with it a huge destructive potential. We have heard many distinguished personalities from the world of technology raise doubts about the safety of this tool. The same Elon Musk or Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, just to mention the most famous who have preached caution in the management of this powerful resource, without forgetting that the implementation of these technologies could lead to the disappearance of millions of jobs. None of these people will have to be abandoned. I conclude by making only two considerations. The first: be careful not to let yourself be taken by the regulatory bulimia that often pervades these buildings, creating the risk of a disincentive to use in our companies, burdening with further heavy obligations especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. The second: do not be afraid to use artificial intelligence, for example, to prevent heinous crimes such as international terrorism, because Western democracies have the capacity and the tools to guarantee that they can use these technologies not only to improve our lives but also to guarantee us the right security.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one in two teenagers in Italy is bullied and cyberbullyed, a worrying figure that is constantly increasing. In 2022, 31% of children were at least once victims of cyberbullying, compared to 23% in 2020. It is a form of violence that can have serious consequences on the mental and physical health of our children: anxiety, depression, social isolation, eating disorders, self-harm, up to suicide. Preventing cyberbullying is possible, it must become a priority for all of us and we must also proclaim in this House our determination to combat it. We must educate our young people about the responsible and safe use of new technologies, but we must also consider that today 22% of children spend five hours a day on their mobile phones and 63% do so unchecked. We parents, before politicians, have the moral and social duty to be at the forefront of this battle, because the role of educators starts from us, and we must do so by explaining to children that the simple sending or forwarding of a photo, which somehow teases a classmate or a friend, is already an act of bullying. We must take concrete steps so that families start a path of awareness and sharing, which can be collected by the institutions to implement and coordinate concrete actions aimed not only at preventing but also severely punishing bullies. There are not always perfidious persecutors behind the acts of cyberbullying but certainly, always, there are victims. For the former it takes awareness and education to definitively abandon harmful behavior, for the latter it takes attention and help from families and institutions, which only together can fight and defeat this phenomenon. Guys, always report, don't be afraid!

Madam President, Commissioner, it is clearly necessary to review the role of de minimis, especially in the mountainous areas of our continent. We know how to do business, do industry, do agriculture in mountain areas already has inherent difficulties in the role that the territory makes available to the people who live there, so it is necessary to take into account these peculiarities, as argued by colleagues who have preceded me, some for islands, some for remote areas, some for the outermost areas, and review this mechanism taking into account the peculiarities of the whole European territory. Europe is not a big flat box, all the same, but it is a big territory made with different needs, different demands, different peculiarities. If we want to allow these territories to develop and achieve cohesion at levels acceptable at European level, we must take these difficulties into account a priori, otherwise we risk always leaving the usual behind and always favouring others.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am delighted that this debate is taking place, because at last on the issue of rare earths there will emerge all the paucity of European energy policy, all the hypocrisy of the Commission and all the obtuseness with which you claim to save the world without realising that you are massacring it, imposing on us a model of sustainability that is not sustainable at all. And yes, because while you force us to buy electric cars, which contain nine to eleven kilos of rare earths, which in their production cycle consume, according to researchers at the University of California, three to four times the energy needed for a thermal motor car, do not take into account the consequences of these choices. Which ones? For example, the environmental consequences. To obtain a single kilo of gallium you need 50 tons of rock, and even 200 for a kilo of lutetium, processes that take place with the consumption of thousands of cubic meters of water, sulfuric acids and nitric acids, then discharged into the soil or into the sea. Moreover, supporting the change in our energy model already requires doubling the production of rare metals every fifteen years or so, and over the next thirty years more minerals will need to be extracted than humanity has extracted in the last 70,000 years, and some may already be depleted in the next four to five years. Not to mention the geopolitical consequences. Some of these metals, which are crucial for the production of communication systems, armaments and goods in common use, are in 90-95 % in the availability of China alone and in the remaining part of countries allied to it, putting Europe in a condition of dependence far worse than that on Russian gas. The reality is that you base your environmentalist ideologies on lies and omissions. Yes, because Germany, Sweden, France and many other European countries have rare earth deposits, but they do not extract them because it pollutes and therefore they have decided to relocate the environmental impact and pollution from extractions in poor countries, ready to sacrifice their environment to enrich themselves, without considering that the consequences, however, we will all pay them. On the rare earths, about which there is always too little talk, the end of European leadership will probably be consumed, but some will be happy because, even if we have a poorer continent, we will have reached climate neutrality, but once again on the skin of citizens who can't do anything about it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we learn from press sources that the Commission's latest stunt is to knock out gas boilers. Perhaps the worst crisis is not the war in Ukraine, COVID or inflation, but it is embodied by the European Commission itself. Because after having brought the European automotive industry to its knees, put the Mediterranean diet and Italian excellence under attack and opened the way to drown the real estate market, it now wants to take away from citizens what it has painted for decades as the source of clean heating, namely methane. I would say that we are facing yet another genius of the Eurobureaucrats, who as always live in their bubble detached from reality, a reality made up of ever higher bills and ever higher taxes and increasingly difficult daily challenges to get to the end of the month. I dare not imagine the economic and employment fallout of this thunderous idea. I think the time has come to get back on the ground and structure policies that can be implemented with realistic timelines, without tearing down entire sectors and without all the costs falling on our citizens.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, it is a pleasure that in the end, once again, the facts proved us right. We have spent years posing the problem of NGOs, but we have only received insults and offenses, even from someone who came to this House to be a moralizer, the one with a straight back. Well, that someone's in jail today, sorry. We remain, however, guarantors, everyone will be able to prove their innocence, perhaps. In the end even the European left had to discover hot water, better late than never. However, one question remains: If all this chaos hadn't happened, would you have had this debate? Would you have allowed some light to be shed on the NGOs? Obviously not, because the link between the NGO and the left is too strong. We know well that there are thousands of NGOs who really work for the good of others, not for profit, without doing politics, with a spirit of self-sacrifice, which we can only thank for their commitment. But precisely for this reason we wonder why. Why didn't you make rules to protect healthy NGOs from those used to do other things? Why are all of us rightly subject to strict financial controls and NGOs not? Why are lobbyists equally rightly subjected to strict controls and compliance and NGOs not? Why do we have rules that still allow an NGO like "No Peace Without Justice" to have already cashed in over €1.3 million and still owe another €1.4 million without anyone having ever checked? Instead, you have tried to mystify reality, because that is your way of doing it. You did this when you welcomed Carola Rackete as a sort of heroine into this Parliament, making her tell her the truth. You did this with the Conference on the Future of Europe, where you involved citizens' associations that no one knows who or what they represent and above all who and how you finance them. You have done this every time you turn the other way when the various Soros finance parliamentarians and parties as if nothing happened. Maybe you should have run an errand for him on meddling, not the League. But unfortunately, for someone in this House, reality and truth are stronger and in the end they always win, as happened today in Lombardy and Lazio. And so good work to Attilio Fontana, good work to Francesco Rocca and, above all, thanks to Matteo Salvini.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, eighty years have passed since 26 January 1943, when the Alpini survived the Russian army at the Battle of Nikolajewka. A survival born of sacrifice and a deep sense of duty in facing a harrowing retreat from an unmotivated, tragic, unjust and wrong war. Even today, eighty years later, the Alpini evoke those values of solidarity, brotherhood and self-denial that lead them to make themselves available to their fellow citizens and not only every time a flood, an earthquake or, even worse, a war bring helpless populations to their knees, but every day, at the service of their communities, in gestures large and small, with the sole purpose of doing good. Today more than ever the Alpini, in their unwavering fortitude, concretely embody those fundamental values on which we want to build our societies: peace, sharing, solidarity and altruism. That is why I consider it my duty to honour the glorious Alpine Corps in this House. Long live the Alpini, "you don't pass through here".

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the arrogance of the left in this House is no longer limited. The use of spurious debates has now overcome ridicule. We're at the theater of the absurd. Everyone was expecting a serious and honest debate on the role of NGOs, given what happened in this very Parliament less than a month ago, but no. This evening we are here to discuss how these helpless little puppies, NGOs, are being hunted down by ravenous wolves from states. And you know why? One is because in Italy there is a democratically elected government. I know that democratically it is a word that scares you, even this morning you demonstrated it. And two because you want to try to divert attention from the real problems, that is yours. You don't care if the European Commission itself, of which you are the majority shareholders, with Recommendation 1365 of 2020, says that rescue operations at sea from private ships must be coordinated and managed by the Member States. And you don't care if the regulations on which the Italian government has now intervened are those written by a certain Marco Minniti, Minister of the Interior of the Democratic Party. No, you care about mystifying reality to hide facts. Which ones? The Italian rules that hinder NGOs have been written by the left. It's a fact. Most departures equate to more deaths. It's a fact. NGOs act as pull factor They want to replace national states in search and rescue operations, pretending to dictate the rules. It's a fact. Frontex says so. The left uses NGOs as ATMs to take money from third countries. Unfortunately, this is also a fact, but in the theater of the absurd anything is possible. Know, however, that outside that door the theater ends. You will have to deal with reality sooner or later. In fact, some of yours have already started doing them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a few weeks ago in a municipality in Valchiavenna the head of a wolf was found hanging from a road sign. It was a despicable, violent act, to be condemned, which, however, testifies to the degree of conflict between large carnivores and local populations and demonstrates the failure of the LIFE programmes, with more than EUR 24 million spent. The reality is that the wolf population in Europe is constantly increasing: there are now more than 21,000 verified units, although we know there are many more. Farmers and breeders, the true guardians of the mountain ecosystem and biodiversity, feel abandoned and even mocked by those institutions that should support and protect them. In Italy alone, 18,000 predations have been recorded in five years, with 44,000 animals killed by the wolf. And these are only a small part, because now the breeders do not even denounce anymore. It is said that in order to solve a problem, the first step is to take note of it, Commissioner, you see, take note of it, we have been doing it for a long time now. You, on the other hand, do not turn your head to the other side, allow all possible tools to be put in place to overcome this situation. The watchword must be management, otherwise the clash will only get worse. There are proposals that can be supported - I am thinking of the Swiss one - that can find a sustainable meeting point between the needs of local people who, as far as I am concerned, will always have priority, and the needs of nature and biodiversity conservation. Non vanificate secoli di storia, tradizione e sacrificio nella ricerca di un falso mito nelle nostre montagne, che invece rischia di riportare il lupo ma di far sparire l'uomo.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are here today to talk about justice, justice that should be fairly reserved for states and therefore for citizens, who need to hear that the European institutions treat all cases of infringement fairly. We have put Poland and Hungary in the dock and – God forbid – Italy, too, for their too right-wing governments, which questioned the so-called rule of law, we have feared for democracy in these countries, adopted resolutions and made severe judgments against those who have manifested a legitimate distrust in the European system. But nothing has been said about Malta. Journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia has lost her life barbarically for denouncing the shady trafficking that sees Malta as a crossroads of migrants, drugs and oil. The Muscat government allowed money laundering and corruption to enter European soil, all this under the silence of a left-wing European Union, too busy denigrating right-wing governments. Then I join the voice of Matthew Caruana Galizia and ask whether the death of his mother is the price to pay for the construction of the Mellitah gas pipeline, already partly financed by European funds and included in the fifth list of projects of common interest of the European Union. We are facing a serious form of injustice in which greater involvement was expected, greater attention from the upper echelons of Europe, perhaps with the imposition of appropriate countermeasures, and nothing at all. Because this was and still is the case where greater media and institutional attention would have been appropriate and necessary. This is the case where there is a serious breach of the rule of law, culminating even in murder. But as always, double standards are used in this Parliament, and when a state governed by the left is wrong, forgiveness is granted easily and the gaze turned elsewhere, even at the cost of sacrificing justice.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am very disappointed that such an important debate will be relegated to the last debate of the evening, with an empty Chamber, as if it were something to hide under the carpet, as if it were something to be ashamed of. 5,898 Christians were murdered in 2021 alone, 16 people per day killed for their religious beliefs. Of these, 78% are in Nigeria alone. Someone in this House even had the courage to reject a debate on this issue at the last plenary session, only then to have to back down because a few days ago an attack with 50 deaths, of which many children, made someone change their mind. That's why we're here tonight, even if a little secretly, not that you want to offend anyone. Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Europe has its Christian roots in its foundations, whether you like it or not. It is therefore an obligation, it is a moral duty for Europe to become a bulwark for the defence of Christendom in the world. There are 360 million Christians in the world who are persecuted just because they dare to make the sign of the cross, even in Nigeria. We can't turn the other way, these people expect something from us. It is a political duty, it is an institutional duty, but above all it is a moral duty to defend Christians threatened in the world.