Speeches

The deteriorating humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is staggering. However, with regard to humanitarian aid – a subject of primary interest to me in the context of my Committee on Development – the European Union cannot bow to the dictates of the Taliban. Let’s talk about the inexorable backsliding on the status of women. At the end of December, the Taliban banned female NGO staff from practising in Afghanistan. This decision is not surprising. It means, however, that many Afghan women will not have access to Western relief, for example in medical matters. It is easy to understand that the European Union, which in 2021 claimed to almost quadruple its humanitarian aid to the country, is in danger of endorsing such practices. Moreover, the debate over the classification of the Taliban as terrorist organisations continues to agitate Canada, demonstrating that fears of potential aid diversion remain high. In short, the European Union must clarify its position on a regime that Europeans reject and which is resolutely at odds with their values. Thank you.

Mr President, ladies, I will begin my last speech in this Chamber by quoting the great French writer Georges Bernanos, who is also partly from my region, Lorraine, who said: “True humility is first and foremost decency.” It is precisely this decency that the European Union lacks when it strikes us with empty words to mask the reality of the poverty that is spreading in France and elsewhere in Europe. The pompous title of today's debate speaks volumes about the impotence to which you condemn the peoples. You want to build a sustainable Europe by deconstructing millennial nations, imposing massive immigration, which threatens our culture, and suffocating our farmers, who are forced to abandon their fields. The European Union is pursuing a policy whose effects are increasingly irreversible. You claim to stand up for competitiveness, as you chain our economy to the ball of punitive ecology. Taxes and innumerable constraints accelerate industrial decommissioning at an insane speed. The word competitiveness is a cache-misère when we know that you deliver our markets to unfair competition and open our borders to the four winds of globalization. You keep talking about an inclusive Europe, when people are excluded from the Commission's big decisions. In fact, Europe was built without you. It has erected monuments that survive the passage of time, gone through a history marked by victories, achieved scientific prowess that have improved our daily lives and invented ideas that have shaped the world. One of them is called freedom, and we will never stop claiming it for our nations. This is the only guarantee of true diversity on our continent, never forget it.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your statements. After ten years in office, nothing has changed. I arrived in 2014 in feverish institutions, which austerity policies had made unpopular. I have seen you debate this eternal question: Why don't they love us anymore? You have reinvented yourself in social Europe, with your European Pillar of Social Rights, your Porto Social Summit and your European funds supposed to finance everything. You believed that in order for citizens to love your Union again, you had to do more. You did not understand. Instead of listening to Europeans, you have imposed your vision on them. You have encroached on their daily lives and ruined their lives with your wobbly and disconnected policies, it must be said. Your La Hulpe targets and your social Europe for 2030 are doomed to fail, because from your ivory tower you are not listening. Do you want to help the Member States? Let us defend the interests of our peoples. This is what they expect, so we have to do it.

Madam President, first of all, let us pay tribute to the victims of the atrocities of 7 October and let us think about the 130 people who, according to reports from April, are still being held hostage by Hamas. That figure, moreover, is an estimate. They must be released without delay. On the dire humanitarian situation, in March, the World Health Organisation warned of an imminent famine in the northern Gaza Strip. Humanitarian aid must be delivered under the best possible conditions in the circumstances. As of 9 April, Financial Times noted that Israel had announced that 322 trucks had entered the Gaza Strip on Sunday, the highest daily number since the start of the war. It also recalled that the road remains the safest, most efficient and most cost-effective way to deliver aid. These developments must continue to ensure that convoys can be conducted with an optimal level of safety for staff and that sufficient assistance, in both quantity and quality, can be effectively distributed. Similarly, I have often spoken in this Chamber about the protection of journalists. They may not carry out their task in the public interest at the risk of their life or physical integrity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as we approach the annual ritual of the discharge procedure with no less than 55 files to vote on, there is an urgent need to tackle the major problem, that of the EU bureaucracy growing steadily and becoming increasingly expensive every day. The operating costs of this device are skyrocketing, increasing the burden on our citizens without bringing clear benefits. We are faced with a labyrinth and with a Commission and multiple agencies duplicating the national level. As for the Commission, I note in particular its lack of transparency and accountability in the purchase of COVID vaccines, as well as its inability to deal with migratory flooding. We do not accept a Commission that does not value or respect the sovereignty of states. We do not accept that it is not accountable to citizens and that it targets only its own interests. It is high time that we reassess this excessive spending and centralisation of power that deviates from the original vision of cooperation and mutual respect among sovereign nations.

Mr President, the reintroduction of public executions in Afghanistan will no doubt have surprised only a few ingenuities, who called for a moderate Taliban government. The dramatic deterioration of the status of women had already shown that the country’s masters had not renounced their fundamentals. Indeed, nothing has been spared the interested parties, from their exclusion from higher education or – at the height of pettiness – from Kabul’s public parks to the ban on working in NGOs – which places international donors at the foot of the wall, I will come back to this. This is not to mention the silent tragedies, the massive domestic violence, or the wave of suicides affecting Afghan women, on which the authorities are obviously unfamiliar. While we cannot prevent these abuses, we must at least ensure that the ‘For women, by women’ principle is strictly applied in humanitarian aid. Let us not accept any compromise with regard to their fundamental rights, nor with regard to transparency, with regard to certain allegations of possible misappropriation. Now that's enough!

Mr President, Commissioner, given that France is a net contributor to the EU budget, we are denying the Commission the right to lay down regulations to deprive us of our money. However, that is exactly what is at stake at the moment. Non-compliance with fiscal rules, economic choices contrary to European will or even violation of the sacrosanct rule of law: the EU believes that it is allowed to do so by blocking and releasing our money according to the customer’s head. The latest tool for submitting nations is called social conditionality. In short, if a state's policy does not meet the standards set by Europe, it will be able to cut aid in order to put pressure on national governments. Social security policies that are not inclusive enough or a national priority policy on social housing can attract the wrath of Brussels. For us, this is a unconditional step forward. We will not accept any compromise when it comes to defending the freedom of our nations.

Mr Vice-President, Commissioner, the EU is about to throw months of work in the trash. This is the sad fate that should be left to the famous Platform Workers Directive. What surprises me is that no one learns from their mistakes. After opening our borders, pushing to deregulate our markets and letting multinationals bypass our national laws, the EU is agitating as it can to put a few bandages on the wounds it has itself opened. The chaos generated by platforms must teach us one thing: Those who cause the problems cannot solve them at any time. In this case, it is those who claim to defend Europe who sabotage everything, like Emmanuel Macron who protects Uber. Faced with this, we have taken our responsibilities and we have supported this text which makes it possible to defend our labour code. We must act to protect delivery workers and drivers whose platforms use and abuse at will. We must also be intractable in the face of platforms that turn a blind eye to the work of illegals: Let's not let this happen.

Mr President, Commissioner, as my colleague Jean-Lin Lacapelle pointed out in the text that is the subject of this debate, a real parliamentary right of scrutiny over the association agreements, particularly for the Horizon Europe programme, is essential. As regards, in general, the involvement of third-country entities, I have been warning for a long time, through a series of parliamentary initiatives, about the risks to intellectual property. In this respect, the restrictions imposed on China for its participation in Horizon Europe seem to be struck by common sense. This should be maintained in the joint roadmap for cooperation on security and reciprocity. The European Union must divest itself of its naivety in a context of heightened global competition. Finally, the presence of the Western Balkans under Horizon Europe is not new. However, the process of accession of the countries of the region to a series of European programmes or funding could be interpreted as part of a gradual integration into the European Union, while the majority of my compatriots reject any enlargement of the European Union to the Balkans.

Mr President, Commissioner, the EU has been trying to interfere in our national rules on traineeships for almost ten years, fortunately without success. As usual, this obsession with harmonisation is a slap in the face for the Member States. Our labour markets are diverse and all unique. They are the result of our national policies, our concern for our young people, how we integrate people into their work. Once things are transparent between the two parties, both the trainee and the employer enter into an informed relationship. Who can claim to judge? My country, France, has been supervising internships for a very long time and this framework is very clear. A trainee is there to learn and be made aware of a quality world of work in order to ensure a taste for the trades and not to replace an employee or a regular worker. You want to help us? Stop trying to impose your ways on us, let us apply all our laws and track down abusive companies when necessary. There, we will be completely in agreement.

Madam President, Commissioner, France, a country of churches, basilicas and cathedrals, has the largest surface area of stained glass windows in the world, from the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris to those that shine beautiful colours, as can be seen in the Basilica of Saint-Epvre in Nancy, in my region of Lorraine. We want this know-how because their beauty makes the reputation of our country. Unfortunately, like this beautiful industry, many sectors use lead, which poses serious health problems for workers exposed to it. These problems exist in Europe, but our country has already been acting for a long time to protect the health of workers. On the other hand, we refuse to let the European Union dictate new constraints without taking reality into account. First of all, we believe that guarantees for companies are not sufficient. As is the case with farmers, standards are set, and those who impose them are never the ones who suffer them. For ‘zero lead’, it is the same. SMEs are sounding the alarm in the face of the surge of regulations that fall on them every year. Then, what guarantees for our know-how? None. While exemptions were initially foreseen, this is not the case in the final version of this text. I have met many actors and I can testify to the goodwill and efforts that are being made to find solutions. However, we must remain serious. In addition, craftsmen need time to adapt. To refuse to accept it is to sink them. To act politically is to weigh things up and understand that, by offering no help, the European Union is blaming people for i-nap-pli-ca-bles standards. Protecting our own is a priority. It's about health, but it's also about our jobs. Is this not a common sense conclusion?