President Meloni’s address to the Chamber of Deputies ahead of the European Council meeting of 18-19 June

Mr President, honourable colleagues,

the next European Council meeting will once again be held at a time of profound transformation and complex challenges. From the war in Ukraine - which, as of today, has lasted longer than the First World War – to the Middle East crisis, from the tensions that are impacting the global economy to the need to strengthen common security and defence, from the initiatives needed to guarantee competitiveness for our production system through to the new international health emergencies, the European Union is being called upon to demonstrate its capacity for initiative, unity, and strategic vision. This is also the context in which discussions on the future Multiannual Financial Framework are taking place, with the need to provide the EU with adequate resources, not only to respond to the challenges of our time but also to support its political ambitions. 

More than four years on from when Russia first began its aggression against Kyiv, despite its continuous proclamations, that aggression has never turned into a victory. This has been made possible thanks to the Ukrainian people’s heroic resistance and the support the nation under attack has received from European and Western allies, Italy included. Following the failure of the winter offensive, the announced spring and summer offensive has not been successful for Russia either. The frontline is basically at a standstill and, from 1 January 2026 until now, Moscow has not managed to increase the percentage of Ukrainian territory under its control. 

This is also a source of frustration for Moscow, resulting in fresh, large-scale attacks against the civilian population as well as ultimatums sent to Kyiv and repeated violations of EU and NATO airspace, even involving civilian targets in Romania. Italy has firmly condemned such unacceptable behaviour and continues to do so.

We maintain our full, unwavering, and concrete solidarity with Ukraine. We are actively supporting its defence, the resilience of its energy system, the safety of its nuclear facilities, and its plans for reconstruction.

Our stance remains unchanged: in our view, supporting Kyiv and maintaining pressure on Moscow still represent the only serious way to create the conditions to force serious negotiations to start. This is why we support the twentieth package of European sanctions: it will be necessary to keep up the political and economic pressure for as long as Russia refuses a ceasefire and the start of serious negotiations.  

However, standing firm is no longer enough on its own; this must also be accompanied by a long-term vision.

We must help build the conditions for peace by working, together with our allies, on solid security guarantees for Ukraine and a new European security architecture that can help ensure long-term stability.

To achieve this goal, preserving Euro-Atlantic unity is clearly essential, as is strengthening coordination between Europe and the United States - not always an easy challenge, but a necessary one.

Coordination, however, does not mean delegation. All serious peace scenarios between Ukraine and Russia involve several conditions that depend on Europe, concern Europe, and affect Europe, and it is Europe that must negotiate them.

What I mean to say is that our firm stance towards Russia must not turn into diplomatic blindness or self-exclusion. I continue to raise the issue of the need for Europe to begin reflecting together, and pragmatically, on how it can interact with Moscow. Defending the frontiers of the law does not prevent us from keeping open the channels we need to achieve our goals: the European Union must be ready to guide this dialogue, while it would be a mistake to let it be dictated.

However, to do this – in our view, once it has been unequivocally established what the end goal of the negotiations is – we need to choose who can represent European interests at the negotiating table. Moving forward by trial and error with variable formats that are not representative enough only causes fragmentation, confusion, and weakness. In other words, I believe the real issue is not about who is part of this or that format, but rather the fact that, as things stand at the moment, no format can legitimately speak on behalf of the whole of Europe.

This is why I have long supported the need to choose a highly respected figure, who has the trust and the mandate from all Member States to represent Europe’s point of view, and this is the direction in which I am continuing to work.

That said, we view Ukraine’s European future as an important factor for the security and stability of the continent. Ukraine has made significant progress and must continue along its path of reforms, with particular regard to strengthening the rule of law and combatting corruption. Italy will continue to accompany and support this path. However, the accession process must continue in accordance with the principle of merit and equal treatment among all candidate countries, including Moldova and the Western Balkan countries.

In short, our positions regarding both Ukraine and the Western Balkans remain the same, and we present them with clarity and courage in every forum, regardless of whether or not we participate in individual meetings. I actually think that if there were fewer overlapping forums in Europe, with fewer superfluous meetings, and there was more discussion on concrete responses, then we would perhaps succeed in offering a more effective contribution to solving problems. 

The next European Council meeting will also discuss the crisis in the Middle East, which continues to be a cause for serious concern from a humanitarian point of view and in terms of both regional security and global economic stability. 

The consequences of this crisis have a direct impact on international balances, freedom of navigation, energy markets, supply chains – from fertilisers to critical raw materials – and therefore also on European economies, including the Italian one. Our position on this too has been the same since day one: Italy is not part of the conflict, and it does not intend to be. Our objective is for the war to end as soon as possible, for a further escalation of the crisis to be avoided, and for the conditions to be created to bring the debate back within a political and diplomatic process.

This clearly does not mean standing still or ignoring the consequences of the crisis globally, as well as directly on our national interests. Quite the contrary, this means acting responsibly and safeguarding Italian citizens, our businesses, and our military personnel present in the area as well as ensuring secure supplies and free trade routes. This is what the Government has been doing since the beginning of the crisis, working on each of these lines of action: going to great lengths to repatriate the Italians who were stranded in the Gulf; helping countries in the region to defend themselves against Iranian attacks, also in order to protect the numerous compatriots and military personnel present in the region; guaranteeing the gas and oil supplies our country needs, as I did by personally travelling to Algeria, the Gulf, and Azerbaijan; working for a full restoration of freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

In this regard, I wish to reaffirm that we consider any attempt to unilaterally alter the rules that ensure free transit through the Strait to be unacceptable. Freedom of navigation is a global common good and cannot be the subject of blackmail; allowing someone to choose who can and cannot pass through a key maritime hub would mean opening the door to a world in which all major maritime routes would become tools for political pressure or military coercion. 

What is happening in Hormuz is therefore not just about Hormuz. This is why the international community as a whole must respond in a firm, coordinated, and responsible way. This is why we have worked in close coordination with our main European and Atlantic partners over the last months to assess what options are necessary to ensure safe navigation and protect trade routes in the area of Hormuz. Italy is ready to contribute to the necessary international efforts, including the crucial technical and operational work needed for a full resumption of maritime traffic, but only in a post-conflict framework and solely for defensive purposes, in accordance with the Constitution and the prerogatives of Parliament, as also demonstrated by the briefings provided by Ministers Tajani and Crosetto.

In the meantime, at a diplomatic level, we continue to support the back-and-forth dialogue between the United States and Iran, and the important facilitation work being carried out by several countries, particularly Qatar and Pakistan, bearing in mind that negotiations are still fragile and there are still many unresolved and complex issues — provided that negotiations are still possible in light of the latest news, of which you are also aware.

It is clear that a lasting stabilisation must address several key issues: full assurance of the purely peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme; the security of countries in the region; the need for all actors to cease fuelling instability through attacks, militias, or threats to strategic routes.

Next week’s G7 Summit in Evian will be an important opportunity to discuss with our partners – starting, of course, with President of the United States Donald Trump – the outlook for this crisis, and indeed the outlook for Ukraine, and what initiatives are needed to consolidate any possible diplomatic progress. Following this summit, at the European Council meeting, we will work to ensure the EU expresses a shared, serious, and credible position.

Europe has the means to make its voice heard, starting with the system of sanctions. If Iran demonstrates through its actions that it wishes to return to a serious, verifiable, and constructive process, Europe must be ready to support that process by easing sanctions in a gradual and reversible yet swift way. If, on the other hand, Tehran continues down the wrong path – threatening freedom of navigation, carrying out attacks, supporting militias, and violating international obligations – then the European Union must be ready to up the pressure, also through new, targeted measures.

It is about providing diplomacy with a clear direction, and interlocutors with a clear message: the path of cooperation can bring benefits; the path of destabilisation will have consequences. 

This is the position Italy will be bringing to the European Council: to work for an end to the war as soon as possible; to guarantee freedom of navigation; to support the security of partners in the Gulf; and to keep the realm of diplomacy open, with realism and responsibility.

The resumption of the conflict in Lebanon is also connected to the crisis in Iran. Italy shares a deep friendship with Lebanon as well as a long-standing commitment to peace and stability, as has been demonstrated for decades by our soldiers, whom I wish to thank once again for the valuable work they carry out in Lebanon with professionalism, courage, and a sense of duty.

This is precisely why we have always been, and will continue to be, very clear: any attack against UNIFIL, against its personnel, against its bases, and against the mission’s freedom of movement is unacceptable. We have unambiguously condemned this and will continue to do so. The Blue Helmets’ safety must be guaranteed by all actors on the ground. Those who attack or threaten UNIFIL are not just attacking a United Nations mission: they are also attacking the international community and one of the few safeguards to have helped prevent an even wider conflict in recent years.

That said, the priority is now to support the political process initiated thanks to the decisive contribution of the United States and President Aoun’s brave decision to accept the invitation to enter into direct negotiations with Israel. President Aoun, who is a patriot, is well aware there will be no future for Lebanon unless it can live in peace with Israel and fully exercise its sovereignty, and unless it has institutions able to guarantee security and stability throughout its national territory. 

This is the exact opposite of the logic followed by Hezbollah, which claims to be fighting for Lebanon but is actually exposing the Land of the Cedars to a war that the Lebanese people do not want and that risks destroying all prospects for recovery. Equally, we watched the bombings of Beirut with great concern, and we reiterate that Israel’s actions to target Hezbollah’s leaders must guarantee the utmost protection of the civilian population. We believe that a political solution must include the disarmament of Hezbollah, just as it must provide for Israel’s withdrawal from all of southern Lebanon. These two steps are essential for building a lasting security architecture.

In this context, Italy will continue to strongly support the Lebanese Armed Forces, which are a vital safeguard for national unity and Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Furthermore, we will continue to take action to help civilians, especially in southern Lebanon, where the destruction of infrastructure makes access to aid more difficult and worsens conditions for a population that has already been severely tested. To this end, we recently approved a new aid package worth EUR 15 million.

At the European Council meeting, we will also discuss the post-UNIFIL scenario, in light of the options presented by the United Nations Secretary-General: the decision to close the mission means that timely preparations need to be made – in close coordination with the United Nations, the United States, European partners, Lebanese authorities, and Israel – for an international presence capable of preventing a dangerous gap in security.

Italy – especially if, as we hope, the direct negotiations in Washington are successful – will continue to play a leading role in supporting Lebanon and peace between Lebanon and Israel, as it always has done and is continuing to do even during these difficult days.

With regard not only to what is happening in Lebanon but also to the situation in Gaza and the West Bank, the European Council clearly needs to reflect on the direction of the European Union’s relations with Israel.

On this point, for once, I would like the debate here to go beyond sensationalist criticism, which may well yield an immediate return in terms of visibility, but does not reflect the strategic importance this issue has for Italy.

I sincerely hope that the friendship between Italy and Israel, Italy’s long-standing support for the rights of the Palestinian people, and the need to pursue the two-state solution are principles that all of us in this hall can agree upon. We may perhaps have different views on the immediate and concrete steps to protect those principles, but I hope we can acknowledge each other’s good faith in pursuing approaches which, I would like to remind you, are the long-standing and traditional approaches of Italian foreign policy, pursued until now by Governments of all political colours.

I believe we must clearly state that Israel has the right to live in safety, without the threat of terrorist attacks, missiles, drones, or armed militias at its borders, and that Europe must recognise this need as being an essential part of any prospect for regional stability.

However, the Government and myself personally have equally not shied away from acknowledging, when necessary, – both in Parliament and in international forums – the unacceptable seriousness of the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the illegality of the settlements in the West Bank, condemning violent settlers and the ‘fait accompli’ policy. We did so together with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, reiterating our strong opposition to the settlement plans in Area E1, the forced displacement of Palestinians, and the annexation of the West Bank. We called on Israel to end its settlement policies, ensure justice for settler violence, respect the Holy Sites of Jerusalem, and remove the financial restrictions that risk crippling the Palestinian Authority.

This is also why Italy intends to support targeted measures against those who, like the violent settlers, foster hatred and extremism, jeopardising the prospect of a two-state solution; or those like Minister Ben Gvir, for whom we have called for sanctions following the unacceptable behaviour towards Italian citizens in which he played a leading role. I would also like to take this opportunity to reject the statements that same Minister made about our nation a few days ago – statements I consider unacceptable for Italy, as well as rather undignified for Israel.

We are awaiting proposals from the European Commission regarding possible restrictions on products coming from the settlements, the merits of which we will evaluate, including from a technical and legal point of view.

The approach, however, must be pragmatic and must prioritise the end objective. I do not believe that isolating Israel should be a European goal or strategy. Isolating Israel is a dangerous phenomenon, which drives away peace and makes it more difficult, serving only to strengthen the most extremist positions both in Israel and among Israel’s enemies, who have always worked toward such isolation.

I am saying this above all in relation to the idea of suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Punishing Israel’s civil society through restrictive measures would not only be a mistake; it would be counterproductive.

Among other things, it would jeopardise Europe’s presence on the ground, in both the West Bank and Gaza, at a time when I instead believe that Europe must seek to increase its presence and do more to support the civilian population as well as to preserve the two-state solution.

Furthermore, we cannot take our attention away from Gaza where the situation is still incredibly difficult, despite the – albeit fragile – ceasefire holding. Italy is continuing its humanitarian efforts for the population: student evacuations are continuing, food is still being delivered to the Strip, and we are working with our partners to create the conditions for a resumption of essential services in Gaza.

However, we cannot forget that the Peace Plan adopted by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 provides for a series of steps towards a political prospect and long-term stability in the Strip. It is clear that the European Union must play a greater and more direct role, including through the missions it already has on the ground. This is the position Italy intends to support.

The next European Council meeting will also discuss defence issues. It seems clear to me that, in the face of an increasingly unpredictable reality, considering our defence and our security as mere window dressing, or as a means to score easy political points, would be short-sighted and certainly not very responsible. This Government has, in fact, made a different choice: it has chosen the truth – to explain to citizens that it is now more necessary than ever to invest in our defence in order to ensure our ability to count, make independent decisions, and defend our interests. Investing more, strengthening our industrial capacity, supporting Open Strategic Autonomy, which means, on the one hand, bolstering our industrial base in the defence sector and developing our autonomous capabilities, while, on the other, promoting industrial and strategic partnerships with key partners, starting with other NATO members, but not limited to them. Here I am above all thinking of the Gulf countries, Japan, India, and South Korea. I would also like to take this opportunity to announce that President Jae Myung of South Korea will begin a State Visit this evening, and Prime Minister Takaichi of Japan will be in Rome on Monday, while Prime Minister Modi visited Italy three weeks ago. This shows the growing willingness among Indo-Pacific countries to cooperate with us. In short, we support the approach and initiatives aimed at bolstering the continent’s security and defence. We are ready to take on our responsibilities and do what is necessary to protect Italy and its citizens, starting with the issue of security. We will reaffirm this at the NATO summit, where Italy will be presenting itself with 2.8% of its GDP now invested in defence and security, marking an increase of 0.71%, although this is primarily guaranteed by expenditure linked to domestic security.

It is precisely because we do not shirk our responsibilities and are brave enough to tell it like it is that we must consider the change to the scenario in which we are operating.

Of course, defence is important, but it is equally important to safeguard Italian households and businesses against the current crisis. These two priorities are interconnected. Without security, energy would end up costing more and more. Without energy, there would be nothing left to defend with weapons. 

We raised this issue clearly by writing a letter to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, calling for greater budgetary flexibility to be provided to Member States in order to tackle the energy crisis, using financial mechanisms similar to those provided for defence. Following long and complex negotiations, we received the response we were hoping for.

The possibility of voluntarily activating the so-called ‘National Escape Clause’ will enable us to invest EUR 14 billion over the next three years in order to mitigate the impact of energy price rises that above all affect vulnerable households and energy-intensive companies, but also, more generally, all Italians.

This is a very important result which many considered impossible, but we achieved it, demonstrating Italy’s ability to affirm its interests in Europe and to propose effective and common-sense solutions.

I have heard surreal controversy about this as well, often based on unfounded claims - as is typically the case when those speaking don’t have much to say. The Government’s position regarding a number of Green Deal measures – and I’ll come back to this – is known and has not changed. 

However, unlike those who view energy policies through the lens of ideology, our Government has been working hard to implement a national energy mix, in the interest of citizens and businesses. This is why we have approved a draft enabling law on nuclear energy, which we believe is the real solution to our level of energy dependence over the medium and long term. This is why we continue to support the importance of biofuels as a transitional energy source. This is why – hear ye, hear ye! – under our Government we have reached an all-time high in electricity generated from renewable sources.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that, on Monday this week, the European Commission approved an additional EUR 23 billion in state aid to support domestic production of electricity from renewable sources. The plants are thereby expected to add a total of 37.15 gigawatts of electricity production capacity, resulting in a 48% increase in the current power generation capacity from renewable sources in Italy.

With the same pragmatism, over the coming weeks, in close cooperation with the European Commission, we will be defining a package of measures that are eligible for funding thanks to the flexibility we have obtained. Among other things, this will enable us to ease the strain on the national budget and have more resources to support households and businesses in this challenging economic climate.

In short, colleagues, long gone are the days when Italy had to express its willingness to receive more illegal immigrants on its territory in order to gain greater budgetary flexibility in return. Those were different times. Today, there is a Government that has managed to obtain greater flexibility at the very same time that it can boast an 80% reduction in illegal immigrants landing on its shores. 

Energy will clearly be the focus of a specific European Council session on global economic challenges. In this regard, the conclusions from the last Council meeting indicated a clear and pragmatic direction, calling for concrete action to reduce prices, address excessive short-term volatility, and mitigate the impact of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) on electricity prices.

This was a difficult result to achieve and was not a given. There is a key point here which I believe must be clarified. The compromises reached through politics following extremely long discussions are not an exercise in dialectics; they are an exercise in democracy. Each of us attends European Council meetings based on a mandate from our own parliament. Those parliaments in turn work based on a mandate from their people. This is why the decisions we make must be respected and implemented, and cannot be called back into question, or even overturned, by surreal interpretations disguised as technicalities, by bureaucrats who do not have to answer to anyone for their decisions, which is perhaps also why they have ended up losing touch with reality.

We have seen this happen with the implementation of the principle of technological neutrality, we have seen it with the recent delegated act concerning the revision of ETS benchmarks – of which we are urgently calling for a review – and we are seeing it in the initial previews of the comprehensive ETS revision expected for July. Moving away from a focus on reducing the impact on energy prices, we are gradually shifting towards the possible introduction of new mechanisms that could even end up complicating the system rather than simplifying it as requested.

I am saying this here, after reiterating it also during the video conference on competitiveness we organised on Monday together with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, because I am asking for a clear mandate to stand firm on this issue. This is another area that tests Europe’s political and strategic step change. It is only by simplifying and speeding up administrative processes, it is only by putting politics back at the heart of things and in a position to decide, that we can hope to revitalise investments and boost growth opportunities for the continent.

Another crucial matter regarding competitiveness is linked to international trade. At a time when unfair commercial practices are putting pressure on the competitiveness of European industry, including in sectors that are strategic for our economic security, it is essential that the EU strengthens its trade defence instruments, in order to ensure a level playing field, protect production capacity, and safeguard jobs and investments.

Italian and European manufacturing sectors are strongly voicing this demand, calling for more effective and swift tools to combat increasingly frequent market distortions. This is why Italy, together with other Member States, has put forward proposals aimed at making the EU’s actions more effective.

This is not about closing ourselves off to international trade or acting against specific countries; it is rather about ensuring the reciprocity without which our civilisation is a burden rather than a beacon, regarding rights, safety standards, fairness, and justice.

This context also includes the new European foreign investment monitoring system, which will allow for more thorough assessments of transactions that may affect national security or generate strategic dependencies in key sectors. It is important to highlight that, thanks also to Italy’s efforts, the final decision will continue to lie with Member States, with full respect for their respective national prerogatives.

Strategic economic dependencies, particularly in the field of critical raw materials and rare earths – as well as fertilisers, which are so crucial for our food security – are one of today’s main geopolitical challenges. To address these dependencies, we first of all need to diversify supply sources, by expanding the European Union’s network of strategic partnerships and trade agreements.

At the same time, it is fundamental to consolidate cooperation with our closest partners in order to build more reliable and more secure value chains in the most advanced technological and industrial sectors.

The Mattei Plan, through which Italy fosters long-term partnerships with countries that are rich in strategic resources, based on equal cooperation and mutual benefits, forms part of this strategy.

In short, economic security is an integral part of national and European security. Defending the competitiveness of our companies, reducing strategic dependencies, and strengthening the resilience of our supply chains mean guaranteeing growth, employment levels, and Europe’s autonomous decision-making power in the future.

All these priorities must clearly also be included in the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), or in other words the European Union’s budget. 

Thanks also to Italy’s efforts, progress has been made in the negotiations over the last months: Member States have been granted the possibility to increase resources for the Common Agricultural Policy; guarantees to protect regions have been strengthened; we have managed to obtain greater provisions for SMEs in the Competitiveness Fund; and the principle of technological neutrality has been recognised with regard to industrial decarbonisation.

However, there is still a long way to go for the proposal to represent a mature and satisfactory compromise. With regard to the method, I would like to once again point out to the European Council that we do not intend to go along with, or be bound by, predefined and artificial negotiation timeframes. Italy will only take responsibility for an agreement once we are sure the best compromise possible has been reached, for our nation and for Europe as a whole.

That said, the next Council meeting will for the first time be discussing the numbers of the next MFF. It is therefore worth reaffirming three concepts that are key for us: 

1.    we will not accept a budget that means Italy paying higher contributions only to risk having fewer resources available;

2.    the so-called ‘rebates’ must be eliminated. If this outdated system ends up being kept in place, then we will ask that Italy, as the third largest net contributor to the EU’s budget, also enjoy the same privilege; 

3.    anyone wanting to provide funding for the new priorities by making cuts to traditional policies must look elsewhere. For our part, we are ready to invest in competitiveness and defence, but this cannot be done at the expense of the CAP, Fisheries and Cohesion policies. Instead, let’s start by cutting spending on European administration, which the Commission is proposing to increase by more than 20% – this sends a signal that is completely at odds with those we are trying to give on a daily basis and what is being asked of us.

Moving on, as I was saying, new priorities call for new resources. We are analysing and discussing the package of new own resources, including those proposed by the European Parliament. We are open to analysing a number of these proposals, such as an intervention on profits derived from cryptocurrencies or forms of a European Digital Tax. However, our guiding principle on own resources remains the same: EU budget revenues can only be increased on the condition that this does not have repercussions on businesses, citizens, and public finances.

Alongside the broader issue of the figures, we will also be paying the utmost attention over the coming weeks to a number of aspects that seem more technical in nature but which have key implications for our ability to spend EU funds and for fair treatment among Member States. I am referring to the issue of conditionality here, in all its forms – this could pose a real obstacle to effectively implementing the next budget. We are certainly in favour of clear rules, but we are not ready to grant anyone the tools to exert undue pressure on the work of national and sovereign governments. 

Let me start with the ‘Do no significant harm’ principle. According to the Commission’s intentions, application of this principle could lead to entire categories of investments, deemed incompatible with environmental targets, being automatically excluded from European funding. This is precisely what we do not want and are not willing to accept: in a world in which the United States and China are mobilising billions upon billions to incentivise their own industry and competitiveness, Europe cannot make the exact opposite choice, namely, to itself become a hindrance to its own industry and competitiveness.

Another key issue is conditionality linked to respect for the rule of law. Now, in this regard, before the opposition begins its ridiculous rhetoric about this being an illiberal government, I would like to reaffirm something that is glaringly obvious for anyone with the slightest shred of intellectual honesty: this Government is not against the rule of law. Quite the opposite. However, this Government knows that, in Western societies, the cornerstone of the rule of law is equality before the law.

So, if we want to talk about the rule of law, this principle must be respected by everyone in the same way, the European Commission included. It is unthinkable that an informal document – the Annual Report on the Rule of Law –, drawn up by Commission officials on the basis of newspaper articles rather than by judicial bodies, can be binding in nature and able to block funds being disbursed to a Member State, without a right of reply.

We should also reflect, colleagues, on the fact that countries accused of violating the rule of law when they are governed by what are deemed ‘unwelcome’ majorities, then suddenly become fully aligned with European principles when the government changes, despite the contested laws remaining unaltered. We will continue working to correct these distortions, as they are far from the idea of Europe that we have in mind.

At the same time, we intend to counter any proposal aimed at increasing controls and conditionalities as allocated European funds increase. Our position on this is clear: the rules must apply to everyone in the same way. This is one of the basic principles enshrined in the Treaties. 

Ultimately, we will keep working tirelessly to ensure the budget is effective and supports Member States without becoming a way of exerting pressure for purposes for which the Treaties and European regulations in force already provide dedicated instruments, starting with infringement procedures and the role of the Court of Justice.

Lastly, we will once again be talking about immigration at this European Council meeting.  Last week, an agreement on the new Return Regulation was reached in Brussels. Thanks to this historic agreement, which is above all the result of our work, those who have no right to remain in the European Union can be repatriated more quickly and more effectively. Thanks to this agreement, it will also be possible to open return centres in third countries, following the path paved by the much-resisted Italy-Albania protocol. Many contested this innovative solution but, thanks to this Government, it has now become a tool available to the whole of Europe.

Defending our borders, drastically reducing the number of irregular landings, fighting human traffickers, strengthening cooperation with countries of origin and of transit, and immediately returning those who have no right to be here: Italy has charted the course, and today Europe is following it. 

We achieved similar success on the issue of international conventions, through a process Italy and Denmark launched last year, which led to the ‘Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights’ declaration being adopted in Chisinau on 15 May, signed by all 46 nations belonging to the Council of Europe. Such a result was unthinkable just a year ago, when Prime Minister Frederiksen of Denmark and I launched an initial open letter on this. Among other things, this declaration acknowledged that Member States can legitimately pursue innovative solutions, precisely such as the processing of asylum applications in third countries.

However, border security cannot only be viewed in terms of migration. This must extend to the other major emergencies of our time – areas in which Italy is increasingly taking on a leading role, helping guide the debate and foster concrete solutions. I am first and foremost referring to the commitment against drug trafficking currently taking shape in the main multilateral contexts, from the UN to the G7, from the EU to the European Political Community, where we have launched the European Coalition against Drugs (ECAD), together with France. This coalition today counts more than 30 European nations among its members. Furthermore, over the coming months, our country will be hosting two important international events: the first, dedicated to port security, will be held in Palermo; the second, on drug prevention and rehabilitation, will be held at the Community of San Patrignano – a world-renowned example of Italian excellence in this field.

I am also referring to the epidemiological situation in central Africa, linked to the recent Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. I wrote to the EU leaders a few days ago to ask for a stronger coordination of border surveillance activities, while fully respecting national prerogatives in the field of health protection, including by adopting common rules to manage the direct and indirect arrivals of people who have potentially been exposed to the virus. This initiative led to meetings between the relevant ministers, and this will enable the European Council, during its meeting, to make concrete, coordinated decisions to protect European citizens. 

Mr President, honourable colleagues,

as you can see, the context is complex and delicate. In this scenario, Italy knows that the most important challenge is being able to choose what is more just over what is easier. To do this, we will continue interpreting the changes in the international scenario with clarity of mind and fostering pragmatic and effective solutions, defending our values and our interests.

In other words, we will continue to act with realism and determination, without giving in to simplifications and without hiding the reality of the facts, because the most important decisions for the future of Europe above all require the courage to tell the truth.

It is with this awareness that we will attend the next European Council meeting: not to follow the course of events, but to help chart that course.

That is, after all, the line we have followed until now – a line based on making clear choices, on undertaking serious commitments, and on defending the national interest, within the framework of a European dimension.

This path promises no shortcuts, but results. It seeks not the easiest consensus, but the most just decisions. And it is on this path that we once again ask for the support of this Parliament.

Thank you.

[Courtesy translation]

Lingua
Inglese

Tipologia Pagina: 
Intervento

Immagine in Evidenza: 

Codice video Youtube: 
eLSE8nWfDSk

Tipologia intervento: 
Intervento

[This video is available in Italian only]

Sottotitoli in inglese: 

Italiano ...