President Meloni’s address to the Senate ahead of the European Council meeting on 20-21 March

Mr President, honourable colleagues,

we are at the eve of a European Council meeting that is coming at a time that is extremely complex for global dynamics and at the same time decisive for the destiny of Italy, Europe and the West. I have come to this hall with the hope that today’s debate will be met with everyone’s awareness of the seriousness of the times we are experiencing, and that we can try to reason together, respecting everyone’s viewpoints, on what the best choices are for our nation, with the sense of reality and responsibility required at moments like this.

March’s European Council meeting, which traditionally focuses on economic matters and competitiveness, will inevitably also deal, as all the last ones have, with the major geopolitical and geostrategic issues that have been an inevitable priority for some time now.

The main focus of the European Council meeting will certainly be on revitalising and boosting competitiveness. Competitiveness may seem like a vague, abstract concept, but it is not. It concerns our production systems, certainly, but it also provides our children with the chance to find skilled, well-paid jobs without having to leave their nation. For individual states, competitiveness means being able to offer adequate and ever-improving social services to citizens. In a broader sense, competitiveness is about having enough means and resources not only not to have to be dependent on others, but also to be able defend our values and our vision at international level.

Essentially what we all need to be asking ourselves is: is a Europe that is desertified from an industrial point of view and behind in researching and developing new technologies destined to have its voice heard more or less? This sums up why it is important for this European Council meeting to take concrete steps forward in a number of areas that are necessary in order to address and overcome the challenge of international competition, instead of condemning ourselves to a subordinate role.

For my part, I shall strongly insist on continuing with the paradigm shift that Italy has long been calling for and that the Commission has begun to outline through the ‘Competitiveness Compass’; this, however, can no longer remain on paper, but must be turned into concrete action.

The main goal must be to ensure a sustainable decarbonisation path for our companies and citizens, in order to bridge the innovation gap Europe is facing and reduce our too many dangerous strategic dependencies.

We will continue to insist on an effective industrial policy that is able to combine environmental targets and competitiveness, abandoning the ideological excesses that we have unfortunately seen and denounced in the past. The Clean Industrial Deal presented by the Commission goes in this direction, but let it be clear that we intend to prevent this from turning into a new Green Deal with a different name.

To do this, we are calling for concrete actions. The first simply must regard the automotive industry, an industrial sector that is strategic for Europe and must not be left to its own fate. This is why, together with the Czech Republic, we submitted a non-paper, so a working paper, that now has the support of several Member States.

It is also thanks to these constant efforts of ours that the Commission presented an industrial plan for the automotive industry on 5 March. This plan contains some positive initial developments, such as the prospect of a solution, albeit temporary, to the issue of fines for manufacturers failing to meet vehicle market share targets, and bringing forward the review of emissions targets. All these matters are covered in our non-paper and we are working on them also being included in the conclusions of this European Council meeting. 

Regarding the more general review of the legislation, which the Commission has announced for the second part of this year, we must insist on full application of the principle of technological neutrality, for example by including biofuels again – in addition to e-fuels and hydrogen – which are useful technologies for decarbonisation, as well as on due attention being paid to the heavy goods vehicle sector, which has been culpably ignored until now.

The Commission made an important announcement a few hours ago that it intends to take action, as requested by Italy, regarding the distorting effects of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which have been so harmful for Europe’s steel industry.

Among the concrete instruments that can give a boost to production sectors, Italy firmly backs a simplification and reduction of administrative requirements. Let me be clear: if Europe thinks it can survive this phase by continuing to insist on over-regulating everything, instead of unleashing its many energies, then it simply won’t survive. A new vision is needed, not a continuation of the mistakes made until now. And, above all, it is politics that must chart the course, not bureaucracy. 

We therefore support the simplification measures launched by the Commission with the Omnibus packages, the first of which was presented a few days ago and is dedicated to simplifying sustainability reporting and due diligence rules.

However, we are also convinced that the simplification process should not only take place downstream, but upstream too, in all the EU’s new legislative proposals. Hence why we will join in inviting the Commission, and the co-legislators, to work towards achieving the goal of cutting the cost of all administrative obligations by at least 25% for all, and by at least 35% for small and medium-sized enterprises. We will do all we can to prevent Europe from being suffocated by its own rules.

Another key part of any serious industrial strategy at European level is energy security. Joint European action is needed on this. We have made significant progress over the last few years, but much more still needs to be done to overcome our vulnerabilities: excessively high energy prices clearly hold our competitiveness back, which is why we need immediate, structural measures. 

The Affordable Energy Action Plan, presented together with the Clean Industrial Deal, identifies urgent measures to deal with energy price volatility and boost the resilience of the European Union’s energy system. However, long-term measures are also needed. Among these, the reform of the European electricity market, adopted last July, is an important step forward towards a more resilient and flexible European electricity market that is able to guarantee price stability and predictability. It will of course be crucial to ensure this is swiftly implemented.

We must continue along the path we have embarked upon to improve our energy efficiency and increasingly strengthen our interconnections. In this regard, as you know, Italy has put itself forward to become a supply and distribution hub able to bring together existing and potential supplies from the African continent and Europe’s energy demands.

We are also giving a voice to this ambition through the Mattei Plan, with energy being one of its key pillars. The Government is working to increasingly ‘Europeanise’ and ‘internationalise’ this plan, strengthening its synergies with both the EU’s Global Gateway and the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment launched at G7 level. 

Another point we will be addressing during the European Council meeting will be completion of the capital markets union, a decisive step that is also needed in order to provide Europe with a financial infrastructure able to stimulate private investments, which we can no longer do without if we are to support competitiveness. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that more than EUR 300 billion of European liquidity each year ends up in non-EU investments. We can, and must, intercept these investments. The Euro Summit scheduled for Thursday afternoon will give us an opportunity to discuss these matters in depth. 

During the European Council meeting, we will also have an initial exchange of views on the revision and structure of the next Multiannual Financial Framework, so the EU’s budget. With regard to this multiannual budget, Italy intends to better allocate resources, to identify innovative and increasingly effective ways of funding new strategic priorities, and to defend in the best way possible budget items regarding cohesion and agricultural policies which, thanks also to the reforms implemented by this Government, can now perform better and better.

While not formally on the agenda for the European Council meeting, the issue of tariffs and trade relations with the United States is obviously something to be taken into great consideration, especially for an exporting nation like Italy that has had a trade surplus for many years. As you know, as things stand at the moment, the Trump administration opted on 12 March to reintroduce tariffs on imports of steel, aluminium and certain derivative products from the European Union. These tariffs were first introduced in 2018 and then suspended in 2021. 

The United States has also announced that it may introduce further tariffs in other sectors in April, the details of which, however, are as yet unknown. In response to the US measures coming into force, the European Commission announced rebalancing countermeasures, some of which will come into effect on the first of April while others are currently being studied and should come into force at a later date.

This is a complex and constantly evolving scenario, considering that the United States has also introduced similar measures against other nations too. I, however, am convinced that we must continue to work concretely and pragmatically to find possible common ground and avert a ‘trade war’, which would benefit no one, neither the United States nor Europe.

I also believe it is unwise to succumb to the temptation of retaliatory measures, which can become a vicious circle in which everyone loses. While it may be true that tariffs imposed on non-EU goods can in theory encourage domestic production, in a context as strongly interconnected as the European and US economies, the situation becomes more complicated.

Tariffs can easily translate into induced inflation, with a consequent reduction in households’ purchasing power and a subsequent raising of interest rates by the European Central Bank to counter inflation, as we have already seen. The result: inflation and monetary tightening that hinder economic growth. In short, I am not certain that responding to tariffs with other tariffs is necessarily a good deal. This is why I believe Italy needs to focus its efforts on finding common-sense solutions between the United States and Europe, guided more by reason than instinct, with a view to mutual respect and economic benefits.

At this European Council meeting, we will also be discussing the management of migration flows once again. The working group organised by Italy together with Denmark and the Netherlands will be meeting once again on this occasion, involving the governments that are most committed to fighting irregular immigration. This time around too, the now usual letter from President von der Leyen on implementation of the common migration policy has been sent before the European Council’s discussion on this issue.

The fact that these engagements have now become the norm and that implementing equal partnerships with nations of origin and of transit, defending the European Union’s external borders, strengthening the returns policy and building innovative solutions have finally become a priority, is thanks to the decisive role Italy has played over the last years in changing Europe’s approach to immigration.

These guidelines have directed our work, enabling us to achieve a dual objective: a drastic reduction in the number of landings along the central Mediterranean route, thanks especially to the drop in departures from Tunisia and Libya; and, an overall reduction in the number of irregular entries into the EU, also along other routes, such as the Balkan one. In 2024, the number of landings dropped by 60% compared with 2023, and by more than 35% compared with 2022. And, unlike what I have heard some claim, the numbers so far this year are in line with 2024, with minor fluctuations primarily due to the complex dynamics in Libya. 

However, there are other significant figures I would like to share with you. The International Organisation for Migration tells us that there were approximately 66,000 arrivals along the central Mediterranean route in 2024, and 1,695 deaths and missing people were recorded. In 2023, there were over 157,000 irregular arrivals, and 2,526 people were reported dead or missing. In 2014, the year of operation ‘Mare Nostrum’, the purpose of which was to safeguard lives at sea, there were approximately 170,000 arrivals and the number of deaths and missing people amounted to 3,126. What do these figures tell us? They tell us that cutting the number of departures and stamping out trafficking is the only way to reduce the number of migrants who lose their lives while trying to reach Italy and Europe. This is the result we should be most proud of.

In recent days, we have welcomed the European Commission’s proposal to reform the European legislative framework on returns, by shifting from a Directive to a Regulation that is directly applicable in the 27 Member States. We consider this development to be very significant, also to harmonise the various Member States’ procedures and make the repatriation process for those who are not entitled to be received in Europe even more effective. It is crucial that the European Union becomes effective in this: if you enter Europe illegally, you cannot stay on our territory and must be returned.

That is of course without forgetting our commitment to innovative solutions. These include, first and foremost, the Italy-Albania Protocol, which the Government is determined to pursue, also in light of the interest and support shown by an increasing number of European nations.

Also in this regard, propaganda aside, I think it is clear to everyone that it is thanks to Italy’s courage in paving the way also on this issue that the new regulatory proposal aims to establish return centres in non-EU countries.

Naturally, we are following with a great deal of attention the preliminary ruling proceedings before the Court of Justice regarding detentions in Albania, but not only, and I must say that I have been positively struck by how the majority of EU Member States, and indeed the European Commission itself, have intervened, between the written and oral stages of the proceedings, to support Italy’s position on the ‘safe country of origin’ concept.

The hope, of course, is that the Court will avoid the risk of jeopardising the return policies not just of Italy but of all Member States and of the European Union itself, as this would mean undermining the Schengen system and the very stability of Europe. However, we are in any case proposing that the Commission bring forward as much as possible the entry into force of the provisions under the new Pact on Migration and Asylum regarding the definition of a safe country of origin, also to definitively clarify a highly controversial matter which, as you know, has been the subject of judicial rulings often with ideological undertones.

Thursday’s European Council meeting will naturally also be addressing the current major geopolitical crises once again, as I said in my introduction, starting with the complex situation in the Middle East. We are following the latest news of fighting resuming in Gaza with great concern, with this jeopardising the objectives we are working towards: the release of hostages, all the hostages, and a permanent end to the hostilities, as well as the resumption of full humanitarian aid to the Strip. I wish to convey to this Parliament the gratitude that King Abdullah II of Jordan expressed yesterday for Italy’s fundamental contribution to his airlift initiative to guarantee humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. Italy also welcomes the reconstruction plan which Arab countries presented at the Cairo summit on 4 March. However, to be able to move towards its application, within the broader perspective of a stable and lasting peace and a political two-state solution, Hamas needs to release the hostages and lay down its arms.

At the same time, we once again express our concern regarding what is happening in Syria, in particular following the latest brutal attacks that saw militias linked to the new transitional government kill hundreds of civilians, most of whom belonging to the Alawite minority, although this also affected the Christian minority.

Together with our European partners, we are committed to calling on the new government to ensure a democratic transition based on respect for and full inclusion of all ethnic and religious minorities, starting with the Alawite, Christian and Kurdish minorities.

We join Pope Francis in expressing the hope that, and I quote, “the Syrian people may live in peace and security in their beloved land and the different religions may walk together in friendship and mutual respect”. I would also like to take this opportunity, together with all of you, to convey heartfelt greetings to the Holy Father, who even at such a testing time has never failed to provide his strength and guidance. It is my hope, and I am sure that in saying so I am expressing the sentiment not only of those in this hall but of all the Italian people, that we will see him fully recovered as soon as possible.

The fight against terrorism is another crucial aspect. There must be no room for a resurgence of ISIS or any ambiguity towards groups intending to turn Syria into a base for terrorist organisations. It will only be possible to implement the withdrawal of sanctions and restrictive measures that commenced a few weeks ago if these conditions are met. 

We find the political developments in Lebanon, on the other hand, to be very encouraging, and Italy will continue to do its part to support Lebanon’s stability and sovereignty. In this context, maintaining the ceasefire remains a crucial factor, as is the commitment to support the most vulnerable members of the population, starting with internally displaced persons and refugees.

As has been the case for the last three years, a key geopolitical topic for the European Council will be Russia’s war of invasion against Ukraine. Over the last few days, I have heard many accounts that I do not agree with, and I would like to take this important opportunity to reiterate some key points, which are of central importance for me. Ever since that terrible night that shocked the world on 24 February 2022, our firm and total condemnation of the brutal aggression against Ukraine has never been in question, and nor has our support for the Ukrainian people. I was the leader of the only opposition party to the Draghi government at the time. I was about to fly to a convention in the United States when the first news reports came through about Russia’s invasion. I called the Ukrainian ambassador to express our solidarity, and I spoke with Mario Draghi to assure him of Fratelli d’Italia’s support. I then departed for the United States, reaffirming also from there our very strong condemnation of the large-scale attack against Kyiv.

We chose then which side we were on, and made that choice clear, strongly condemning the military aggression that threatened the very foundations of international law and providing our utmost support to the Ukrainian people, who reminded the world that freedom is the most precious thing any human being can have, and what love of country means. 

We did so without hesitation, because there are times when leaders distinguish themselves from followers, as I said back then, and those who have the national interest at heart don’t trade it in for a handful of easy votes. More than three years later, having become the government of this nation in the meantime, that choice has remained unchanged, not only for Fratelli d’Italia but for the entire ruling centre-right majority, which has always been united in voting for this line.

We stand by this commitment before the world, with pride and determination. Italy has shown it is a solid and credible nation, with a clear position, and it is claiming its place on the global stage. It is a nation that honours its international commitments, a fully-fledged leading player in Europe and the West, which is why it is a nation whose opinion counts. It is with the same determination that I would like to say that we stand by the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, whenever he may come under attack solely for recalling who the aggressors are and who are the ones being attacked.

If Italy, together with its European and Western partners, had listened to the many who, also in this hall, right from the very beginning of the invasion urged for Ukraine to be abandoned to its fate, as “there was no way of opposing the Russian army anyway” , then today we would have had no hope of peace. We would only have guiltily watched on as a sovereign state was invaded by an autocracy. We would have had eastern European states threatened by potential invasions, and with them the entire continent would have been in danger.

That is not how things went. After more than three years of war, unspeakable suffering endured by the civilian population and significant losses of men and equipment, Russia controls around 19% of Ukrainian territory, and not only did it not succeed in seizing the whole of Ukraine, as it thought it would in just three days, but it also doesn’t even have full possession of the four regions it declared as being “officially annexed” in September 2022. As I have said many times, it is the stalemate on the ground that can today lead to the opening of peace negotiations, and we are proud to say that this would not have been possible without the united and resolute support that the West has provided to the Ukrainian people.

We therefore welcome this new phase and support President of the United States Donald Trump’s efforts in this regard. Italy considers the ceasefire proposal agreed by the United States and Ukraine in Jeddah on 11 March to be an initial, significant step along a path that must lead to a just and lasting peace for Ukraine, with solid, effective and long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, for Europe as a whole, and for our American allies, who cannot afford to sign a peace agreement that can be violated. This step forward was positively accompanied by the immediate resumption of American military supplies and intelligence services to Kyiv.

This step forward must receive united support, and it now places the responsibility of making a decision on Russia, from whom we are expecting concrete and rapid steps in the same direction. These are delicate days and I believe it is more necessary than ever to refrain from commenting on every single statement made by every player involved; we must instead work hard at diplomatic level, away from the noise, trying to find a difficult balance that can above all ensure a safe future for Ukraine and, for us, the peace of mind that citizens want to be able to enjoy once again. However, to do this, we intend to keep insisting on what we believe is not only a cornerstone of culture and civilisation, but also a simple fact of reality: building effective and lasting security guarantees is unimaginable with division between Europe and the United States.

It is right that Europe equips itself to do its part, but it is at best naïve, at worst foolish, to think that today it can go it alone, without NATO, outside of the Euro-Atlantic framework that has guaranteed Europe’s security for 75 years and, over the last three years, has enabled Ukraine to resist.

Those who obsessively repeat that Italy should choose between Europe and the USA are doing so for instrumental purposes, for reasons of domestic controversy, or because they haven’t realised that the American election campaign is over, and, like it or not, it gave Donald Trump the mandate to govern, with Western partners therefore having to deal with this America. Fuelling a different narrative for different reasons, trying to create a divide between the two sides of the Atlantic, only serves to weaken the whole of the West, benefiting very different players indeed. 

We believe that Italy should focus its efforts on building bridges, not on creating divides. And, despite the situation being anything but easy, it can do its part. Likewise, we believe that Italy should work, in dialogue with its partners, on effective proposals to build a just and lasting peace.

We are not interested in words playing a leading role, but facts. This also means that Italy’s role is not to unquestioningly follow European or US partners, but is rather to offer its frank point of view and, if necessary, also voice its disagreement, because the stakes are too high. This is what a serious nation does, and this is what we have done in the face of proposals that we respect but that do not convince us, always in any case expressing our gratitude to those who are taking on the responsibility of making proposals at this stage. So, to be clear once again, also before this hall: sending Italian troops to Ukraine has never been an issue on the agenda, just as we believe that sending European troops, as first proposed by the United Kingdom and France, is a very complex, risky and not very effective option.

This is why the proposal I have made to our European and Western partners provides for security guarantees to be introduced between Ukraine and the nations intending to sign up to them, which are based on the mechanism under article 5 of the NATO Treaty, without this necessarily implying Kyiv joining the Atlantic Alliance.

Considering there has been some confusion on this point too, I would like to remind you that the terms of article 5 of the NATO Treaty do not provide for automatic entry into war should a member state be attacked. They state that the nation under attack should be helped with the actions deemed most necessary. Use of force is a possible option, but is not the only option possible. The mechanism we have in mind would obviously not be one-way, but would rather allow the nations intending to sign up to the guarantees to be able to also count on Ukraine with regard to defence, and today Ukraine has one of the most solid armies on the continent. We believe this is a very serious proposal, on which I am finding growing consensus. In our view, this would also be considerably less complex, less costly and more effective than the other current proposals. Security guarantees remain the keystone of any enduring peace scenario in Ukraine and Europe, and are the best way to force Russia to show its hand: if Moscow has no intention of launching a new invasion in the future, then why would it oppose security guarantees that are purely defensive in nature?

This is the proposal Italy is discussing with its partners. The European Council will therefore be called upon to take steps forward in this direction and, as always, we will do our part.

We will do the same on the other major issue being discussed: defence.

As you know, an informal European Council meeting was held on 6 March on defence issues, which have been dominating the political debate over the last few days both at national and European level. This discussion will continue at the ordinary European Council meeting, during which we will exchange views on the defence white paper. 

Also in this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to clear up a number of points, away from any biased simplification or instrumentalization. 

On 6 March, President von der Leyen presented the ‘ReArm Europe’ plan. Leaving the content to one side for a moment, which I will come back to, I pointed out even then that I did not agree with this name.

It has been said that I asked for the name to be changed because I want to confuse citizens, but I did so because I instead believe that the name ‘ReArm Europe’ is misleading for citizens.

What I mean by that is that today we are undoubtedly being called upon to strengthen our defence capabilities in the face of new geopolitical challenges, our greater responsibilities within NATO and the need to strengthen Europe’s role in this context. Today, however, boosting our defence capabilities does not simply mean purchasing weapons. Firstly, because it is not about purchasing them, perhaps from foreign countries, but if anything it is about producing them, strengthening competitiveness and supporting the investments of our companies and our productive fabric. And, even more importantly, because boosting our defence capabilities means dealing with many more things other than just strengthening arsenals.

In an era of hybrid threats, security is a very vast topic. We are thinking of defending borders, fighting terrorism and the importance of cybersecurity, especially in this age of artificial intelligence, when an attack by hackers can jeopardise the running of essential services in an instant.

We are thinking of the need to develop and defend the undersea domain, where the majority of our communications and data pass; we are thinking of how important it is to safeguard gas pipelines and other energy infrastructure, guarantee safe and secure trade routes and food supply chains, and protect the space domain. These are all things that cannot simply be done with weapons.

Without this comprehensive approach, there is no defence. Without defence, there is no security. Without security, there is no freedom, because without security we cannot protect Italy, its companies and its citizens. So, when we proposed to change the name of the plan, using the words ‘DefendEurope’ for example, we weren’t merely raising a point about semantics or terminology; our proposal was a matter of substance, of merit.

We believe it must be clear that the resources available can also be used to finance all the things I just listed. These matters should not be of concern only to me, but to everyone in this hall.

Another point I would like to clarify regards the financial size of the plan. President von der Leyen has indicated EUR 800 billion in total. For the benefit of Parliament and even more so of the citizens listening, I think it is very useful to specify that this EUR 800 billion does not refer to resources taken from other areas of spending, nor to additional resources from Europe.

With regard to the first point, I would actually like to remind you that Italy firmly objected to the possibility of a share of cohesion funds, which are fundamental resources for us, being automatically transferred to defence spending. We won this battle. It is still possible for Member States to voluntarily use part of their cohesion funds, but I would like to take this opportunity to announce that Italy does not intend to take a single euro away from its cohesion resources. I hope we can all agree at least on this.

Moving on, the plan’s total of EUR 800 billion is made up of two items. The first, worth EUR 150 billion, should correspond to loans that Member States can take out, if they believe it is appropriate to do so, which are guaranteed by the European Union. So, this is about possible loans on a voluntary basis, but we will wait until we have all the details to comment further on this measure. 

The second item, worth EUR 650 billion, is essentially theoretical in nature, in that it is the estimate of how much additional national debt could amount to should each Member State decide to resort to an additional deficit of up to 1.5%, outside the constraints of the Stability and Growth Pact’s safeguard clause.

Basically, it is not about spending EUR 800 billion in resources that currently exist in Member States’ budgets, perhaps by cutting services for citizens in order to find those resources or by ceasing to invest in other areas. It is instead about the possibility to resort to additional deficit spending, compared with what is normally allowed under the Stability and Growth Pact.

This is the framework that has been proposed to us and it is within this framework that Italy will very carefully weigh up the possibility of activating the instruments provided for by the plan. I am saying that because, at this historical moment in time, Italy boasts extremely positive economic and financial indicators, which is something we have no intention of giving up. According to the International Monetary Fund’s Fiscal Monitor, Italy is the only G7 nation to have returned to a primary surplus after Covid.

Our public finances are very healthy, as can also be seen by the low level of the ‘spread’ [the difference between the yield on an Italian BTP with a ten-year maturity, and the yield on a German Bund with the same maturity], which has remained at least 100 points below the level recorded when we first entered office. This is why I believe it is our duty to also propose alternative solutions to simply creating new debt. Hence why, with Minister Giorgetti, whom I thank for his important work over the last few days, we have proposed a European public guarantee mechanism, coordinated and integrated with national systems, based on the one that is currently used for the ‘InvestEU’ programme, in order to mobilise private capital in a more effective way and boost investments in the defence industry, where we should remember that Italy can boast absolute champions, as well as an extraordinary network of high-tech small and medium-sized enterprises which we want to defend and support, as they drive growth and investments.

Boosting growth, in all sectors, is the only guarantee of creating wealth, which can then be redistributed. And an expansive economic policy that dedicates additional, and not replacement, resources to investments in security, research, strategic infrastructure and new technology would have a significant effect on economic growth and employment, without detracting from other areas of public spending. As I have already said, that is of course while maintaining the overall balance of public finances which is a hallmark of this Government.

I’ll happily leave it to others, inside and outside this hall, to make the gross oversimplification that increasing spending in security means cutting services and funding for education, infrastructure, healthcare or welfare. That is obviously not the case, and those claiming otherwise are perfectly aware that they are deceiving citizens, because the reason why we don’t have more resources for healthcare, education or welfare at the moment is not because we are spending money on defence, but because hundreds of billions of euros were wasted on measures that only served to generate easy consensus.

I’m not interested in demagogy. As always, the Italian people will be the judges, and Italians have shown that they are much more intelligent than what certain political circles would like to believe. I think Italians are well aware that it was precisely politicians being focused only on themselves that left us with a weak Italy. Do not ask me to leave this nation vulnerable, unable to defend itself, forced to say yes simply because it has no other choice. I am not the right person for that. I know that freedom has a price; I know that if you are unable to defend yourself on your own then you also cannot decide for yourself, you cannot count, you cannot assert your national interest.

The paradox is that those who fly the peace flag against defence spending today also complain about excessive American interference in our affairs. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the two things don’t go together. You can either rely on others for your security and have others decide for you, or you can learn to defend yourself on your own and decide for yourself. The two things don’t go together. 

This is why we have always believed in the ambitious, but I believe now unpostponable, goal of building the solid European pillar of NATO that we have long been talking about and which must stand alongside the North American pillar, with a view to strategic complementarity. We have always maintained this position, and the current governing majority also included this in the programme it presented to the Italian people.

These are difficult choices but, colleagues, it is our job. We have to put the future of Italians before our own, our consciences before the polls, what is necessary before what is convenient. Especially at times like this, when any mistake made because of superficiality, demagogy or self-interest could mean a very high price to pay for the nation. 

In conclusion, colleagues, we have been given the task of leading this nation at a time that is not easy. The situation is constantly changing, and our certainties continue to diminish. One certainty, however, remains for me: with a clear vision and a bit of courage, focusing only on what is truly important and keeping the national interest as our main guiding compass, Italy has what it takes to weather this storm too. I am personally focused only on this, and will continue to be, together with the entire Government.

As Pericles said, “happiness depends on being free, and freedom depends on being courageous”. We will muster all the courage that is needed, so that tomorrow our children can have both freedom and happiness.

Thank you.