Speeches

Mr President, first of all I would like to thank our colleague Mr Arvanitis, who has sought consensus on this text, a dialogue with all the political families, including those furthest from his own. It's all the more appreciable because it's rare. Every year, the same ritual begins again. The Commission shall publish its Rule of Law Report. Some, immediately, seize it to make it a political instrument. So we proclaim values subject to interpretation, moralizing recommendations and partisan injunctions, but often forgetting the essential, that is to say, the impartiality, the neutrality of the institutions. The truth, ladies and gentlemen, is that the rule of law cannot be of variable geometry. It cannot depend on the political colour of a government, nor on its docility towards Brussels. When some conservative governments defend their borders, their identity or popular sovereignty, they immediately become the target of the Commission, subsidized NGOs and all the usual relays of European conformism. But when others, more in line with progressive dogmas, restrict freedom of expression, tolerate communitarian excesses, weaken the state, the authority of the state or trample the verdict of the ballot boxes by means of apparatus maneuvers, or even by unilateral and scandalous cancellations of elections, as was the case last year in Romania, at that time the Commission looks elsewhere. This is the real problem: not the rule of law, but the political instrumentalization of the law, the law used not to protect peoples, but to coerce and corporalize those who vote poorly. The European Union does not need a Ministry of Thought to distribute good and bad points according to the political color of governments. It does not need militant institutions that claim to arbitrate democracy while challenging its results when they displease. The rule of law must not become the reign of militant judges, nor that of partisan commissioners. The rule of law is democracy, the sovereignty of peoples and the law applied to all in the same way.

The geographical proximity to Turkey does not justify paying billions to Turkey for years. I would remind you that it is not just the funds of the European Investment Bank; there are pre-accession funds, which Turkey continues to receive; there are funds under immigration control, which it does very badly. In total, over the last twenty years, Turkey has received 50 billion euros of European money, even though it very often behaves, at best, as a competitor, at worst, as an enemy of the whole of Europe.

Madam President, the European Investment Bank, despite its name and its role, often intervenes both far from our financial needs and even far from our European soil. While our farmers suffocate under the standards, while our industrialists face unfair competition, while our SMEs struggle to finance themselves, the EIB mobilises billions outside our borders. First example: Turkey. According to official figures, the EIB has granted more than EUR 30 billion in loans since 1965. 30 billion gifts to a regime that multiplies provocations and attacks against Greece and Cyprus, and uses migratory pressure as a diplomatic weapon against all of Europe. Second example: China. The EIB is about to finance a €320 million project in Senegal that will benefit a Chinese state-owned company, even as Beijing massively subsidizes its companies and weakens our strategic sectors. Is this how we defend our workers, our producers, our economic sovereignty? Europe lacks investment in its industry, in its energy, in its infrastructure, in its reindustrialisation. That's where every euro has to go. Clearly, it is time for the European Investment Bank to be truly European.

Madam President, the world is undergoing an unprecedented geopolitical recomposition, Africa is experiencing a demographic explosion and Europe urgently needs to reassert itself as a great world power. The Global Gateway plan must be reoriented in this perspective: to enable our strategic autonomy, to defend our interests through mutually beneficial partnerships with the African continent, while respecting each other's political and cultural traditions. And so we need to get out of the policy of sprinkling, which is as costly as it is ineffective. For example, the European Union and Member States disbursed €88 billion in development aid in 2024. But for what results? A new political philosophy must be established. First, to make any economic or trade agreement conditional on strict control of migratory flows and automatic readmission of illegal immigrants; to allow European companies to conquer markets, particularly in the development of road, electrical and digital infrastructure, by hiring and training local labour; to ensure a privileged supply of resources; to buy at the right price, in contrast to the predatory and looting model practiced by China. Europe must stop being a naive donor. Every euro invested abroad must finally serve our interests, our security and our prosperity.

Mr President, Frontex announced this on 1 January: In 2025, we had 178,000 illegal entries into Europe. A figure that is certainly declining, but which obviously remains very high, especially since everyone knows very well that most clandestine entries are actually not officially accounted for. These illegal migratory flows, they jeopardise Schengen as an area of free movement, and this anarchic arrival of populations from elsewhere, well, in reality, is totally unassimilable by our European nations. The situation in the Middle East, Iran and Syria risks further worsening in 2026, and the Pact on Asylum and Migration will enter into force in June. But it is an instrument that is very insufficient. We know very well, even, that there are provisions on allocation and mandatory allocation that will even go in the wrong direction and have a negative impact. So we have to take very strong measures. The strengthening of the EU's external borders, of course, the simplification and acceleration of returns – this is the meaning of the regulation being debated in committee –, the increased resources for Frontex, the relocation of asylum applications outside Europe and agreements with countries of origin to effectively control the departures of migrants.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the face of decades of repression by the mullahs’ regime against its own population, and while popular protests are now being suppressed in blood, our Parliament has a moral and political duty to clearly reaffirm its support for the Iranian people and to condemn such crimes unambiguously. That is why I propose this oral amendment, after paragraph 9: "Recalls the EU's continued support for popular protests against the mullahs' regime in Tehran; recalls that this regime has been violently repressing its own population for decades, as illustrated in particular by the murder of Mahsa Amini on 16 September 2022 by the Iranian morality police; Condemns in the strongest possible terms the fact that thousands of people have been murdered by the Iranian regime since the protests began at the end of 2025;”

Mr President, at this last meeting, the European Council addressed, in particular, the issue of competitiveness. This is one of the most important challenges that the Council does not seem to take seriously. A year and a half ago, Mario Draghi made a very severe diagnosis. The European Union is lagging behind worryingly economically and technologically, a real decommissioning, while its growth is running out of steam. So what can we do to restore our businesses and our economic players in general to their competitiveness? Well, it's actually pretty simple. They must be freed from the regulatory straitjacket that stifles them. That is the opposite of what the Commission has been doing for 60 years now. Instead, it continues to enforce suicidal regulations, such as the carbon border adjustment mechanism that, since the beginning of this month, has forced European importers of raw materials to pay for emissions from foreign powers. The omnibuses of simplification and deferral of bonds will not be enough to free European companies. Lasting decisions are needed, not just temporary dressings. We must go further and faster to have lasting effectiveness and give our economic actors real legal certainty. The whole policy of the EU must change. And if we want to compete with Chinese and American giants, we must free companies from unnecessary standards and also protect them from international competition, especially when it is unfair. Without an immediate start, the European Union will continue to sacrifice its economic power on the altar of ideology while the rest of the world advances at best without it, at worst against it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our group of European Conservatives has always supported the withdrawal of this directive by the Commission, and our position remains unchanged. First of all, this proposal poses a major problem: it never clearly defines what is covered by the concept of discrimination. However, we know very well why the left is asking for this debate: it seeks to add more and more Wokist ideology to European law, under the guise of anti-discrimination. Next, it should be recalled that Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights already prohibits any discrimination based on, inter alia, ‘sex, race, colour and ethnic or social origin, religion, political opinion, disability, age or sexual orientation’. So a simple question: what additional discrimination would you like to see added to this directive? Moreover, the national laws of the Member States already provide protection against discrimination. In reality, you don't want to fight discrimination: you just want to blame or even discriminate against Europeans, whites, Christians, heterosexuals, under the guise of fighting against largely fantasized and imaginary discrimination, of which certain minorities would be the object.

Mr President, these things are beyond us, let us pretend to be the organisers: this adage could perfectly apply to the speech that President von der Leyen gave us earlier. Indeed, behind this discourse is the claim that the European Union, the European institutions, should intervene in all areas. Even though there is no common vision of the Member States and even though there is no strategic independence, especially on conflict resolution, whether in Gaza or between Ukraine and Russia. At the same time, we have a multiannual financial framework, an increasing budget of the European Union, and therefore an increasing contribution from the Member States, and especially from the States that are themselves net contributors: That is to say, more and more efforts for our citizens. We have a European Commission that is totally deaf to the aspirations of the peoples. Peoples demand the protection of borders: you refuse to finance physical barriers at our external borders. They call for our rural territories and our overseas territories to be respected because they are part of Europe’s influence: you delete the POSEI. They call for the protection of Europe’s identity: you continue to fund wrongly and through Oxfam, Femyso, Islamic Relief... all kinds of associations that seek to make an Islamist programme prevail. It is time for the European Commission to come out of its ivory tower and finally be connected to the aspirations of the people.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the spread of lumpy skin disease is another scourge that jeopardises farming and the balance of many farms. In France, every two days, a farmer commits suicide. In the face of this new health crisis, the only response from the state is strength and violence, where farmers expect dialogue, anticipation and effective health responses. We must not take lightly the slaughtering of whole livestock, which sometimes takes several decades to build up – as if farmers were not already suffering enough with the millefeuille of standards, constraints under the pretext of environmental costs that are as costly for them as they are inefficient for the real ecology, not to mention the unfair competition that you organise methodically by multiplying free trade agreements with the whole world. Our breeders expect an attentive ear, a proportionate response from the public authorities in the face of this epidemic, and they are received by CRS squadrons with a deluge of repressive means. Once again, the macronist state is both ruthless with our farmers and insensitive to their suffering, but at the same time it systematically gives in to the Commission, as it is preparing to do for Mercosur. As always: weak with the strong, strong with the weak. On the contrary, in order to combat this new crisis, it is essential to fully involve representatives of the agricultural sector in decisions, to adapt and simplify health protocols, to ensure the availability of vaccines and to ensure rapid and full compensation for losses. More than ever, the French public authorities and the European institutions must stand by the breeders in this ordeal. They only ask for one thing in substance: be respected and be able to live with dignity from their work.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, France and Europe are plagued by drug trafficking, and – it is no secret – this scourge is a direct threat not only to the health and safety of our fellow citizens, but also to the stability of our entire societies. On our continent, 40% of criminal networks and 50% of homicides are directly linked to drug trafficking. In France, drug-related violence left 110 people dead and 341 injured in 2024. Behind these figures are broken families, such as those of Mehdi Kessaci, and members of the security forces killed, such as during the escape of Mohamed Amra. They are also institutions that give in to corruption and entire neighborhoods taken hostage by these increasingly violent and organized criminal networks. This is the result of too many years of political and legal laxity; while drug trafficking thrives, it is the honest people who pay the high price. If we do not take strong action, we too are reduced to becoming a narco-state. What we are experiencing so far in France is just the beginning. If we are to avoid having to come to the radical but necessary measures of Mr. Bukele in El Salvador, we must raise the bar quickly. The European Union must designate drug cartels as terrorist organisations and cooperate with the countries of Latin America and the Maghreb to stop production. It also means denouncing regimes that turn a blind eye or even clearly support and protect these networks, such as Maduro's Venezuela, supported by a large part of the left in this Chamber. Drug trafficking is a major challenge for the stability and security of Europe. It is time to act without naivety, with total determination, for the security of our nations, our peoples and our youth.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, China controls more than 60% of the world's rare earths extraction and 90% of their refining. As we have known for a long time, it has a quasi-monopoly on resources in this area. These raw materials are essential for the production of a wide range of modern technologies, particularly in the automotive sector, semiconductor production and the defence industry. The restrictions put forward by China are therefore a real threat to many of our key sectors. The one-year suspension announced by Commissioner Šefčovič a few weeks ago must therefore be used to combat this Chinese monopoly. Let's use it to prepare our industry. So let's stop being naive. This situation is all the more unacceptable as the European Union has multiplied beneficial economic and trade agreements to the benefit of the Chinese ogre. There is now an urgent need for a strategic and long-term vision to ensure the sovereign development of our economy. We need to diversify our suppliers and therefore partner with other countries with rare earth resources to secure the supply of our industries.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, last Sunday, 19 October, the Louvre, the most visited and arguably one of the most illustrious museums in the world, was the victim of a burglary. Jewels of the French crown, worth an estimated 88 million euros, were stolen. This national shame, resulting from risky political choices and particularly questionable budgetary choices of the director of the Louvre museum, Laurence des Cars, is unfortunately not an isolated case in Europe. Therefore, in order to improve the security of our museums and preserve our cultural heritage, I propose the amendment to paragraph 34a as follows: Calls for the next multiannual financial framework to include, without increasing spending on culture as a whole, a budget line dedicated to the security of European museums and the restoration of the architectural and historical heritage of the Member States, in order to better protect the common cultural heritage of our civilisation;

Mr President,me von der Leyen has just spoken to us about 2026 prosperity and competitiveness. But it was she who stifled our competitiveness with her Green Deal. He had to green the European economy, he only makes it pale. Like Macron who gives in on his pension reform to stay in place, she is now unraveling her own achievements to save face. But it doesn't go far enough or fast enough. We urgently need to debureaucratize so that our companies can finally breathe. They must be freed from the regulatory and supposedly ecological straitjacket. 150 billion euros in administrative costs weigh on our European businesses today. This costs them up to 2.5% of their turnover. 60% of companies consider that regulation hinders their investments. 55% of SMEs consider that European environmental regulation is a major obstacle to their development. Similarly, we must leave our farmers alone. They are riddled with standards and, at the same time, free trade agreements with the whole world are being signed, at the very moment when the whole world is restoring customs protections. Europe must get out of this punitive logic to enter into a logic of pragmatism and economic efficiency. Clearly, today we urgently need more omnibus simplification to foster flexibility and innovation and fewer regulations, standards and bureaucracy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we can obviously welcome the progress made by Donald Trump in the Middle East, the significant progress towards peace, the return of hostages, the return of bodies and a ceasefire, albeit fragile, but real. And we can a contrario regret, worry about seeing Europe totally absent while the Middle East is on our doorstep and we share with it the same civilizational sources. It is regrettable that Europe is totally absent from this conflict and above all from its resolution. The fight against Islamism, the fight against Hamas, against Daesh, against the Muslim Brotherhood, is a fighting unit that we must lead and that we must win both in the Middle East and on European soil. Finally, I would like to say that the far-left, far-left MEPs participating in the Gaza flotilla shame our Parliament, shame our nations and shame Europe with the kindness and connivance they express towards Hamas terrorists. On the other hand, I have just returned to Lebanon for a few days and I would like to say that we must not forget the Christians of the East. They are the forgotten ones of this conflict. I went to southern Lebanon, Christian villages were completely destroyed in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. We must support Lebanon and the Christians of the East.

Madam President, Prime Minister, you referred to a Europe of concentric circles to meet the challenge of agility and speed that European decision-making today requires in the international context. Indeed, we must stop wanting to do everything at 27. Effectiveness is also about respecting nations and their democratic choices, and freeing oneself from a kind of Brussels Jacobinism that characterizes the functioning of the European institutions. Some want to go even further with the end of unanimity, the end of the veto, that is to say, to again thwart nations and their democratic choices. You also mentioned debureaucratization. This is the top priority. We must continue and amplify the unravelling of the Green Deal, which is a real disaster for our industrialists, for our agriculture, and in general, for all our economic players. Just a few moments ago, and on a recurring basis, we often hear the reproach made to Luxembourg, your country, of being a tax haven. But the real problem today is that a number of European countries, starting with France, are a fiscal hell and that Europe has become a regulatory and normative hell. That is what must be ended. Finally, you mentioned border controls, but today it is a necessity. Why? Because Europe's external borders are sieves. They are sieves when it comes to immigration and goods, which creates unfair competition.

Mr President, we are talking about internet governance, but the internet needs to be protected more than governed. This space, while of course it can sometimes be misused, is above all a formidable tool for the freedom of citizens, the freedom to be informed, but also, and perhaps first of all, the freedom to express oneself. Now, what do we see now in France and in Europe? Well, we see the same willingness displayed by authoritarian governments to use the pretext of cybercrime to control populations. I am thinking for example of the scandalous Avia law that Emmanuel Macron wanted to vote a few years ago, or the hunt for so-called fake news which are often simply politically incorrect opinions. Today, our citizens are legitimately concerned about the CSAM regulation, dubbed "Chat Control", because some states want to take advantage of it to establish mass surveillance. The indispensable fight against child pornography must not be used as a pretext for censorship. How can we talk about governance when our own leaders, in Paris or Berlin, want to undermine privacy and control opinion? Europe is the civilisation of freedoms, the cornerstone of our democracies; Let us protect them at home before we give lessons to the whole earth.

Mr President, on 27 June, Donald Trump succeeded where the European Union failed, chairing a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. We look forward to that, of course. The carnage taking place in the eastern provinces of the DRC is deeply destabilising an entire region. The crimes of the M23, supported by Kagame, and the Islamist abjections of the Group of the Alliance of Democratic Forces have not disappeared. Since the pro-Rwandan militia offensive, 7,000 people have died and 500,000 have been displaced. However, there is hope that Kinshasa’s sovereignty will cease to be abused in Kivu and that the Congolese will cease to be the atoning victims of European colonial repentance in the face of Kigali. I can only share with you my emotion when I think of all the victims of the Kasanga church, beheaded because they were Christians, last February, by the machete holders of Daesh in Central Africa. While the European Union had tolerated the plundering of the resources of many Congolese provinces by their neighbours, we should not be fooled by another reality. It is to compete with China, the beneficiary of a historic contract in Congo, that the US administration has just mobilized. It is therefore because the European Union has been ineffective that it will not benefit from any positive impact. Europe exchanges financial aid with Africa for migrants instead of seizing economic opportunities. The Democratic Republic of Congo, the second-largest French-speaking country in the world, must be a strong partner for European influence in Africa. Let us stop our blindness to Rwanda, and that will become possible again.

Mr President, on 27 June, Donald Trump succeeded where the European Union failed, chairing a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. We look forward to that, of course. The carnage taking place in the eastern provinces of the DRC is deeply destabilising an entire region. The crimes of the M23, supported by Kagame, and the Islamist abjections of the Group of the Alliance of Democratic Forces have not disappeared. Since the pro-Rwandan militia offensive, 7,000 people have died and 500,000 have been displaced. However, there is hope that Kinshasa’s sovereignty will cease to be abused in Kivu and that the Congolese will cease to be the atoning victims of European colonial repentance in the face of Kigali. I can only share with you my emotion when I think of all the victims of the Kasanga church, beheaded because they were Christians, last February, by the machete holders of Daesh in Central Africa. While the European Union had tolerated the plundering of the resources of many Congolese provinces by their neighbours, we should not be fooled by another reality. It is to compete with China, the beneficiary of a historic contract in Congo, that the US administration has just mobilized. It is therefore because the European Union has been ineffective that it will not benefit from any positive impact. Europe exchanges financial aid with Africa for migrants instead of seizing economic opportunities. The Democratic Republic of Congo, the second-largest French-speaking country in the world, must be a strong partner for European influence in Africa. Let us stop our blindness to Rwanda, and that will become possible again.