A. I took an active part in this discussion with the ambition to correct what, from our perspective, or rather from my perspective, was an error made by the European Commission regarding the entire package for the future of sustainable mobility. The error was not, as some have said, in setting high environmental ambitions. Europe must continue to lead globally, both on environmental sustainability and social sustainability. However, the worst enemy of innovation, even when it aims to protect the environment, is the imposition of a technology from above. In fact, by imposing a technology from above, there is a risk of reducing the capacity for research and innovation. Competition upwards is the best ally, even for the best technology in terms of sustainability. So, we said: set the objectives and let society, with its richness, in collaboration between universities, businesses, and citizens, find the best technologies each time, asking citizens to choose these best technologies, integrating their possibilities, their maturity from a sustainability standpoint. Europeans have shown themselves to be very serious about this, as well as considering their pockets, so that a technology is not forced but accompanied. This is also a way for Europe, as has always happened, not only to innovate and thus create new models, new products, new technologies but also to avoid job losses along the way because innovation is accompanied, thus making it increasingly acceptable to civil society. And this is a central point for social and economic balance. Q. Do you think there will be room in the next legislative term to advance the concept of technological neutrality and potentially reconsider the ban on thermal engines by 2035? A. Certainly yes. Why do I say this? One, because there is an increasing sensitivity in this regard, and I’m not just talking about a likely increase in parliamentarians from those political parties that have shown more sensitivity, but it seems to me that this awareness is increasing among everyone. That is, to ensure true sustainability in the mobility sector, as in many other sectors, the best approach is to evaluate the entire life cycle or Life Cycle approach. It’s not enough to say we change the type of fuel, but we must consider the life of that fuel from when it’s born to when it’s used. So, this model, which I would also call technological freedom, not just technological neutrality, has entered the debate and fortunately, I think it will gain ground both on the right and on the left. It’s already in the center, but I mean it’s somewhat in everyone’s heart. And we will be able to intervene because there are processes for revising regulations and directives. So, this will definitely allow us to intervene also on the Regulation that governs emissions from light vehicles that you mentioned, so that by 2035 it is not overhauled, but certainly placed in a position to not harm but to promote the well-being of citizens. Q. In this sense, a first step could be at the end of 2026, when there should be a first partial review, correct? A. Yes, there are ongoing assessments of the impact of these measures even as they are being implemented, before they produce their effects. Q. Moving on to the topic of health, there has been discussion about the possibility of establishing a permanent Health Commission (SANT) as a sign of increasing attention towards health. What do you think about this? A. This is an exceptional event, which has seen the European Union react so decisively to the Covid emergency. However, it needs to be calibrated within the competences of the European Union, in relation to those of the member countries. As is known, healthcare falls within the areas entrusted to the autonomy of each individual member state, just like taxation. Let’s say social policies and fiscal policies are not the Union’s competencies, but rather those of the individual member states. However, the point is to find, while maintaining this national competence intact (which, unless there are radical changes to the treaties, will remain unchanged), where a harmonious solution can be promoted in these areas. It is not necessary to replace the competence of the individual member state in areas such as healthcare, tied to how the relationship between territorial and hospital medicine is conceived, and other related matters. These are a series of elements that the member state will continue to regulate as it sees fit. However, there are common points that can provide significant benefits to citizens and also facilitate the lives of governments in regulating these matters at the local level. Q. During this legislative term, Parliament has expressed support for harm reduction policies multiple times, as evidenced in both the BECA Report and the NCD Report, by promoting innovative and alternative technologies. Do you believe that this approach will be reflected and continued in the legislative texts of the next legislative term, in coherence with the views expressed by Parliament? A. I believe so. I think the attempt is one that originated with strong cross-party consensus and harmony, without distinctions between groups. And this appears to be an element that could increasingly characterize the life of European institutions, especially when dealing with highly sensitive issues for citizens’ lives. Q. Do you therefore agree with the underlying approach of seeking policies that aim to reduce harm rather than more drastic policies that aim to eliminate the consumption of certain products? A. Certainly. Q. What are the most important objectives and challenges that, in your opinion, await the European Parliament in the next legislative term? A. The paramount challenge lies in the realm of defense. Peace cannot be achieved without a robust defense strategy, which serves as a crucial deterrent. Institutions without foreign and defense policies lack credibility; politics cannot be taken lightly. The plight of the Ukrainian people underscores this reality. We must recognize the significance of defense, not to glorify war, but to explore all possible avenues to prevent it. It is evident that effective defense requires unity across the entire European community. I echo Mario Draghi’s sentiments, advocating for defense expenditures to be removed from national budgets and integrated into the European budget, mirroring the model of the Next Generation EU initiative. This would ensure centralized funding and governance at the European level. The second challenge involves reimagining the Green Deal to avoid penalizing exemplary European business models, which have often felt neglected by existing regulations. It’s as if their significant strides in technology and sustainability have gone unrecognized, despite their leading global positions. Just as I wouldn’t constantly criticize my own children, we must acknowledge and build upon successful practices to foster further progress. Thus, the Green Deal should evolve from mere regulatory enforcement to a collaborative agreement, providing clear pathways for improvement. Q. Do you think the new relationship being forged between EPP and ECR could help in developing a Green Deal, an environmental vision that is less ideological and more rooted in reality? A. There is no doubt, as even the final phase of this legislative term has demonstrated. Without this strong awareness, which seems to be ingrained in the DNA of the European People’s Party since its inception, we wouldn’t see a portion of the right deciding to relinquish certain peculiarities, excesses, and messages that attempt to oversimplify complex issues. Because certain challenges persist, they are visible, certain risks are evident, and certain potential deviations are apparent to all; we observe them in our daily lives. Therefore, sitting at the table are two parties with a shared tradition, despite culturally different starting points and irreconcilable differences; for the EPP, the individual is the focal point, while for the Conservatives, it is the nation. Thus, there are aspects that need to be kept distinct and which can converge. However, this collaboration you mentioned will undoubtedly be very beneficial and will not make certain projects less ambitious, but rather more grounded in reality. Therefore, it’s not about environmentalism, but about the environment. Q. One last quick question. Going back to the space program of which you were also a rapporteur, could it serve as a model for developing other joint programs like defense? A. Exactly. Look, I appreciate your question because the model we have implemented with the European space program, particularly considering the structure of our satellite constellations, is that they are European infrastructures. There isn’t a piece of the Galileo constellation for satellite navigation that is Italian, French, or Danish. It’s one large infrastructure, one big constellation for all Europeans, just like Copernicus for observation and Iris in the future for connectivity. This serves as the reference model for European defense as well, envisioning not 27 separate military infrastructures, but one unified, possibly less costly, more innovative, and harmoniously governed by the European Union.
Interview with MEP Massimiliano Salini
A. I took an active part in this discussion with the ambition to correct what, from our perspective, or rather from my perspective, was an error made by the European Commission regarding the entire package for the future of sustainable mobility. The error was not, as some have said, in setting high environmental ambitions. Europe must continue to lead globally, both on environmental sustainability and social sustainability. However, the worst enemy of innovation, even when it aims to protect the environment, is the imposition of a technology from above. In fact, by imposing a technology from above, there is a risk of reducing the capacity for research and innovation. Competition upwards is the best ally, even for the best technology in terms of sustainability. So, we said: set the objectives and let society, with its richness, in collaboration between universities, businesses, and citizens, find the best technologies each time, asking citizens to choose these best technologies, integrating their possibilities, their maturity from a sustainability standpoint. Europeans have shown themselves to be very serious about this, as well as considering their pockets, so that a technology is not forced but accompanied. This is also a way for Europe, as has always happened, not only to innovate and thus create new models, new products, new technologies but also to avoid job losses along the way because innovation is accompanied, thus making it increasingly acceptable to civil society. And this is a central point for social and economic balance. Q. Do you think there will be room in the next legislative term to advance the concept of technological neutrality and potentially reconsider the ban on thermal engines by 2035? A. Certainly yes. Why do I say this? One, because there is an increasing sensitivity in this regard, and I’m not just talking about a likely increase in parliamentarians from those political parties that have shown more sensitivity, but it seems to me that this awareness is increasing among everyone. That is, to ensure true sustainability in the mobility sector, as in many other sectors, the best approach is to evaluate the entire life cycle or Life Cycle approach. It’s not enough to say we change the type of fuel, but we must consider the life of that fuel from when it’s born to when it’s used. So, this model, which I would also call technological freedom, not just technological neutrality, has entered the debate and fortunately, I think it will gain ground both on the right and on the left. It’s already in the center, but I mean it’s somewhat in everyone’s heart. And we will be able to intervene because there are processes for revising regulations and directives. So, this will definitely allow us to intervene also on the Regulation that governs emissions from light vehicles that you mentioned, so that by 2035 it is not overhauled, but certainly placed in a position to not harm but to promote the well-being of citizens. Q. In this sense, a first step could be at the end of 2026, when there should be a first partial review, correct? A. Yes, there are ongoing assessments of the impact of these measures even as they are being implemented, before they produce their effects. Q. Moving on to the topic of health, there has been discussion about the possibility of establishing a permanent Health Commission (SANT) as a sign of increasing attention towards health. What do you think about this? A. This is an exceptional event, which has seen the European Union react so decisively to the Covid emergency. However, it needs to be calibrated within the competences of the European Union, in relation to those of the member countries. As is known, healthcare falls within the areas entrusted to the autonomy of each individual member state, just like taxation. Let’s say social policies and fiscal policies are not the Union’s competencies, but rather those of the individual member states. However, the point is to find, while maintaining this national competence intact (which, unless there are radical changes to the treaties, will remain unchanged), where a harmonious solution can be promoted in these areas. It is not necessary to replace the competence of the individual member state in areas such as healthcare, tied to how the relationship between territorial and hospital medicine is conceived, and other related matters. These are a series of elements that the member state will continue to regulate as it sees fit. However, there are common points that can provide significant benefits to citizens and also facilitate the lives of governments in regulating these matters at the local level. Q. During this legislative term, Parliament has expressed support for harm reduction policies multiple times, as evidenced in both the BECA Report and the NCD Report, by promoting innovative and alternative technologies. Do you believe that this approach will be reflected and continued in the legislative texts of the next legislative term, in coherence with the views expressed by Parliament? A. I believe so. I think the attempt is one that originated with strong cross-party consensus and harmony, without distinctions between groups. And this appears to be an element that could increasingly characterize the life of European institutions, especially when dealing with highly sensitive issues for citizens’ lives. Q. Do you therefore agree with the underlying approach of seeking policies that aim to reduce harm rather than more drastic policies that aim to eliminate the consumption of certain products? A. Certainly. Q. What are the most important objectives and challenges that, in your opinion, await the European Parliament in the next legislative term? A. The paramount challenge lies in the realm of defense. Peace cannot be achieved without a robust defense strategy, which serves as a crucial deterrent. Institutions without foreign and defense policies lack credibility; politics cannot be taken lightly. The plight of the Ukrainian people underscores this reality. We must recognize the significance of defense, not to glorify war, but to explore all possible avenues to prevent it. It is evident that effective defense requires unity across the entire European community. I echo Mario Draghi’s sentiments, advocating for defense expenditures to be removed from national budgets and integrated into the European budget, mirroring the model of the Next Generation EU initiative. This would ensure centralized funding and governance at the European level. The second challenge involves reimagining the Green Deal to avoid penalizing exemplary European business models, which have often felt neglected by existing regulations. It’s as if their significant strides in technology and sustainability have gone unrecognized, despite their leading global positions. Just as I wouldn’t constantly criticize my own children, we must acknowledge and build upon successful practices to foster further progress. Thus, the Green Deal should evolve from mere regulatory enforcement to a collaborative agreement, providing clear pathways for improvement. Q. Do you think the new relationship being forged between EPP and ECR could help in developing a Green Deal, an environmental vision that is less ideological and more rooted in reality? A. There is no doubt, as even the final phase of this legislative term has demonstrated. Without this strong awareness, which seems to be ingrained in the DNA of the European People’s Party since its inception, we wouldn’t see a portion of the right deciding to relinquish certain peculiarities, excesses, and messages that attempt to oversimplify complex issues. Because certain challenges persist, they are visible, certain risks are evident, and certain potential deviations are apparent to all; we observe them in our daily lives. Therefore, sitting at the table are two parties with a shared tradition, despite culturally different starting points and irreconcilable differences; for the EPP, the individual is the focal point, while for the Conservatives, it is the nation. Thus, there are aspects that need to be kept distinct and which can converge. However, this collaboration you mentioned will undoubtedly be very beneficial and will not make certain projects less ambitious, but rather more grounded in reality. Therefore, it’s not about environmentalism, but about the environment. Q. One last quick question. Going back to the space program of which you were also a rapporteur, could it serve as a model for developing other joint programs like defense? A. Exactly. Look, I appreciate your question because the model we have implemented with the European space program, particularly considering the structure of our satellite constellations, is that they are European infrastructures. There isn’t a piece of the Galileo constellation for satellite navigation that is Italian, French, or Danish. It’s one large infrastructure, one big constellation for all Europeans, just like Copernicus for observation and Iris in the future for connectivity. This serves as the reference model for European defense as well, envisioning not 27 separate military infrastructures, but one unified, possibly less costly, more innovative, and harmoniously governed by the European Union.