Speeches

Mr President, yes, we are at a decisive crossroads for the future of our small-scale fisheries in the face of rising massive imports and European regulations. But let us not be told about the Green Deal, inspired by globalist NGOs that prohibit our fishermen from practising, from living off their work here at home. At the same time, through fisheries agreements with third countries such as Mauritania or Senegal, the European Union allows sea financiers to plunder their resources and throw entire populations into emigration in order to survive. Because if we have to talk about small-scale fishing and marine resources, we also have to talk about the economy and food sovereignty, here as elsewhere. And if we are to talk about future prospects, we must keep in mind that these small arrangements between friends, these ‘deals’ that seem juicy to you, lead over time to catastrophic changes that lead to chaos on the other side of the world, but which inevitably come back to us, such as the flapping of wings of a butterfly.

Mr. Speaker, for 85% of French people aged 18 to 25, housing has become a real fighter's journey. It is a social and economic catastrophe. This has not escaped anyone, but the European Union has all its responsibility in these daily tragedies, because your pseudo-ecologist whims have excluded from the private rental market millions of homes, which are no longer accessible, because your zero-rate policy has led to an overheating of the real estate market. You were just talking about an increase of 11 to 13%, but in Paris, in 20 years, rents have increased 13-fold. Your political decisions have created inflation that has been unprecedented in the euro area for 20 years. You have thus forced the European Central Bank to raise its disaster lending rates to contain it, which has increased the cost of mortgage credit. In the end, the middle classes no longer have access to property: in the first half of 2023, one out of every two loans was refused. So, quite naturally, these candidates, these first-time buyers, fell back for lack of better on the rental market, more specific to young people: young workers, young students, young households. Housing supply was already insufficient and has become unaffordable. The market was already tight in terms of supply, and you restricted it even more; What was difficult became impossible. This is what a slump your policy has plunged our youth into. Today, I have the impression that you are paying for words, Commissioner, and your wishes are wishful thinking. To take just one example: one billion investments. In France alone, 70 billion a year would be needed for the energy renovation of our buildings. All the rustines stuck on all the financial and real estate bubbles you have created have thrown a whole generation into precariousness. They don't say thank you.

So, ma'am, I'm going to answer you very simply. You come out of the elements of language that actually allow you to exist again for thirty, forty or fifty seconds, perhaps at a late hour, but perhaps some still have the courage to listen. This is a bit of coffee, because we see it all the way through columns, all the way through the media, when you know very well that between the d’Hondt rule and the agreement that exists here to systematically exclude all our applications for rapporteurships, to table amendments... (The Chair invited the speaker to conclude) It is you who are blocking the system, it is you who are preventing us from contributing and being able to work, precisely, to change this Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, no, the European Union has not defended and does not defend our economic security. The hubris of the Brussels technocrats led us straight into the wall, ruining our industrial fabric and contributing to the escape of our excellence and our living forces. Delocalisation, deindustrialisation: Globalist ideology has caused the misfortune and decline of the peoples of Europe. It was experienced dramatically in the COVID-19 crisis, which in no way served as a lesson. Against all odds, the European Union persists in its free-trade, ‘border-free’ policy, which is devastating for our food, industrial and energy sovereignty. It is in an ideological drift that commits it to refuse Russian gas, but has no qualms about negotiating with Kazakhstan or the Algerian military junta. The main dangers to our economic security are not in the congresses of the Chinese Communist Party, neither in the Duma, nor on Wall Street: They are in Brussels, which rejects protectionism and localism, which alone could guarantee our economic and industrial sovereignty. Because countries around the world cannot be blamed for being offensive, for being competitive and for defending their own interests. But we can blame the European Union for not defending, for never having wanted to defend our own. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Madam President, hell is paved with good intentions, and I would nevertheless like to solemnly reiterate here a principle: Tax consent is the basis of our democracy. Tax cooperation can only be done on a voluntary basis. It is the people who decide. It is up to the people to decide. The principle that the European Union would seize any legitimacy to guide, guide or decide the tax policy of the 27 Member States is a fantasized delusion. Is Brussels concerned about taxation? But let Brussels already take care of the real fight against tax havens! On the other hand, the reason given for calling for the abolition of the unanimity rule in tax matters, namely to combat fiscal dumping, is a false pretext, and I would even say dangerous, because it would simply consist in restricting the sovereignty of our nations; By dispossessing people of tax consent, the European Union is attacking the very principle of our social pact. But what is terrible is the relentless logic of adding more and more federalism, more and more technocracy, whenever something does not work within the European Union. More technocracy means less democracy, and it is our most precarious compatriots who pay the highest price each time, because the billions that Mr Gentiloni tells us about come out of their pockets. Then Europe will flourish only by respecting our nations, our freedoms and our people’s will. This is our vision of democracy.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I see little reason to welcome these new measures, nor does Mr Sinkevičius – the proof: he is not here to celebrate. This crucial vote on fisheries control comes at a time when the crisis is in full swing: the fishing industry is under threat from all sides. Instead of helping our fishermen and under the pretext of modernising their fleet with digital tools, Brussels is stepping up their coping by requiring the systematic installation of surveillance cameras on board all our vessels. We treat our artisanal fishermen like criminals. This is probably because the Commission wants to see these small businesses disappear, because, strangely enough, it hardly ever cares about industrial overfishing in third countries, or European countries, which take no account of the resource. On the other hand, the competence of inspectors mandated by the European Union is an attack on the sovereignty of states, since they will report directly to the Commission while they are operating in our territorial waters. In the dream world of the European Commission, there are no more fishermen, no more farmers, no more industry. The opposite must be defended: it is localism, a rooted economy, that drives our territories, that relies on men and women of trade and passion, and that contributes to our food sovereignty and our national independence.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, informing investors who wish to invest their savings in sustainable activities is commendable. However, the introduction of that additional green label, even if it is public, even if it is free of charge, will in no way make it possible to identify the virtue of those products. Indeed, it will be based on a partial and partial perception of the sustainable or environmental character that you yourself have defined and unfortunately backed up by the European taxonomy. Intrinsically flawed taxonomy, designed with ideological whims and shopkeeper compromises, of which the scandal of the treatment of our nuclear energy is a perfect example. You preferred to bet on wind, land and sea, which is very expensive and produces so little and so badly. Today, the French are paying a high price. Ecology must not be based on false labels, outdated or false visions, but on a coherent policy based on localism. Localism that can be fully applied to finance and free trade. Localism that promotes sustainable investments since local. Localism, finally, which relies on men and women rooted in their territory, on the nation organized as a sovereign state, fundamental framework of protection necessary to the defense of the freedom and security of individuals, families and peoples. The empire of norms will not be against the reality of nations.

Mr President, a year ago, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Jina Mahsa Amini was succumbed, arrested by the morality police for not wearing her hijab properly. No, to all the Islamo-Leftists in the world and in this Chamber, and to the European Commission which hammers it: The Islamic veil does not emancipate women. Nor is it a voluntary choice. Jina Mahsa died. But do you know that a survey in 2016 showed that 75% of women who wore the veil at home did so out of a social or family obligation? To not fight this fight for these girls and women at home is to be complicit. Denounce the death of Jina Mahsa and the fate of these brave women in Iran loses all meaning if, draped in the oripels of an individual pseudo-freedom claimed by fundamentalists, we do not fight against this tribal constraint that is imposed on women here at home.

Mr President, the European Investment Bank should be a tool for the prosperity of the peoples, nations and vital forces of Europe. In fact, it is only a tool for political communication, a tool that essentially promotes a mad anti-nuclear ideology misguided by the far left. And to do what? Swap EUR 350 million in maritime wind energy in Calvados, with the effect of expelling our fishermen from their fishing zone? Or risky support for renewable energy, when our efficient, abundant and decarbonised nuclear industry deserves more investment? And why should the European Investment Bank not play a more positive and efficient role in our economy, for example by giving itself the means to invest in innovative companies? This would prevent foreign and powerful financial groups from eventually taking control and dispossessing us of industrial flourishes or depriving us of entrepreneurs who create jobs and wealth. Our territories have potential, energy, skills, knowledge and excellence, and the EIB must aim to preserve and protect them. Protecting our economic sovereignty, protecting our energy sovereignty.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as a symbol of French maritime power, located in the heart of a 30 million square kilometre high seas area, our magnificent Reunion Island has been designated as the seat of the organisation resulting from the SPAOI agreements on fisheries in the South Indian Ocean concluded between the European Union, France and six other maritime states. And I can only rejoice. While, of course, I agree with Mr Pimenta Lopes on the form, and in particular on the linguistic aspect, which my colleagues have just pointed out, I have more to say than just the substance. It is, however, worrying that, at the end of these agreements, European policies are going in the direction of unwavering, and I would even say systematic, support for those whom I would describe as financiers of the sea: macro-industrial fishing by multinationals. At a time when the environmental challenge is crucial and the development of the blue economy is fundamental, it is necessary to preserve our traditional fishing model, its induced jobs and the environment. Starting with everything that will help combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and piracy. And for this, we must rely on enhanced cooperation with all the states bordering the Indian Ocean, of course, all of them, including China and India.

Madam President, Mr Reynders, ladies and gentlemen, if tax scandals are multiplying and robbing our citizens of hundreds of billions of euros, it is because you have made all this possible with the abolition of borders and the promotion of the free movement of goods, capital and people. We could even add a strange dependence on nomadic investors, shell companies and trusts, against which the governments concerned do little or nothing. Pandora Papers, Panama Papers, LuxLeaks: all these names symbolize nothing more or less than the success of a global oligarchy always quick to impose austerity and sacrifices only on the people. Because, every time, profits are private and debts become public, and it is our citizens who pay the price, criminals who get richer and our nations who get poorer, according to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Unfortunately, the wish list in this report will not do much harm. Nothing will contribute or be able to solve the source of the problem as long as public representation and our institutions are obsessively monopolized by the desire to serve financialism. Connivance capitalism and our democracies are incompatible. Because a self-respecting state must be able to pursue, defend and promote the interests of the society it represents, we call for a return to borders. To fight against money laundering and tax evasion, it is necessary to restore the sovereignty of nations and above all to express a clear, political, assumed and international will, a sovereignty that refuses and really fights the brigandage of peoples to which these predators engage.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, while globalisation is a reality in which economic, energy and industrial crises multiply, the globalist ideology is a dogma, with which this annual report on competition policy refuses to break. By explicitly rejecting even a part of protectionism, the European Union condemns us structurally, economically, socially and even ecologically. Without protectionism, no reindustrialisation policy will prove effective. And most importantly, we are and will be unable to defend our economic, energy and strategic sovereignty. My only example is the response to the US Inflation Reduction Act: even though the United States has perfectly integrated nuclear energy into its plan as a decarbonised technology, in order to provide its industry with fiscal, competitive and considerable advantages, the European Union is leading us with the exclusion of nuclear energy from decarbonised energy, through REPowerEU and net-zero. The contradictions and tragic obsessions imposed by Brussels through this erroneous vision of competition commit us to bow to the American hyperpower, Beijing probably already, and maybe even New Delhi tomorrow. So, of course, the victims are the most precarious, but it is also and above all this middle class, which is always the victim of this policy of permanent renunciation, which works hard, which pays all the time, for everything and for everyone, with no prospect of a just and decent future, downgraded economically, bludgeoned fiscally and ignored politically. Any crisis in itself must be the beginning of something else, other methods, based on reason, lucidity and logic, such as reasoned protectionism or localism. You have a duty of intelligence that must commit you to getting out of this ultra-liberal dystopia and defending our economic and industrial champions instead of methodically scuppering them, as you do. Frankly, your dream is the nightmare of nations and peoples. But they wake up.

Mr President, Commissioner, the priceless value of blue gold is well established. The problem is that our public policies are struggling to hear it. This is evidenced by the untapped potential of algae in Europe today, which accounts for only 1% of global production. Our algoculture is in the embryonic stage, while scientists, nutritionists and industrialists agree to praise the interest of aquatic plants in multiple fields: chemistry, new generation antibiotic, bioethanol, food supplement, cosmetics, compost, biogas. Opportunities are manifold, provided that they are measured, exploited and profitable. Even the phosphates and nitrates released by the green algae that accumulate on our Breton coast could be exploited to grow virtuous algae under control, the added value of which could contribute in particular to compensating our impacted municipalities, and give them the power to upgrade their territory. But in the face of big operators, chemical lobbies and multinationals, I do not think there is a need for a report or an expert commissioned by the Commission. We must show courage, boldness and political will now. And if we do not innovate, if we lag behind in research, this natural wealth will escape us and our local production will be doomed. We all know that our food sovereignty will be at stake tomorrow. We need to defend blue gold, our seas, our oceans now.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ten years ago no one knew about cryptoassets. Today, these are investments, quasi-currencies and money laundering. However, the potential of these innovations must not over-emphasise the risks to our citizens and societies. Their volatility and the high level of financial risk they entail require us to be cautious. The FTX case was mentioned earlier, but there are also scams and smoky projects promoted by pseudo-influencers, which threaten our small savers and retail investors every day. That is why it is essential to finally lay down a rule – that of transparency, in particular – in this jungle that does not have one, a rule that allows us to enforce the law and justice. However, we must not lag behind in this sector, as with many other technological innovations that will profoundly change our world and the future, and perhaps even beyond what we could imagine today. We must not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by events and especially by the rapidity of these technological advances. We need to support technology and its progress on human principles, which go through the human and work for the human, in order to allow not our enslavement but our emancipation. And the first of the freedoms is to accept the rules.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, finally take up your responsibilities. It is because you encourage migrants to make this dangerous journey from hiding that they tragically die at sea. With your continuous calls for immigration, your support for the principle of non-refoulement, the assurance given to illegal immigrants that they will never be returned to their country – 90% of OQTFs in France are not applied. And finally, impunity for mafia networks of smugglers and your benevolence towards complicit NGOs are your responsibility. The only way to prevent these deaths is for migrants to be convinced that the crossing should not be attempted. We will not welcome them. Australia did so in 2015, bringing the number of deaths at sea to zero. This is what the United Kingdom wants to do, which has committed the British to Brexit. This is the only way to prevent people from boarding by risking their lives. This is the only way to prevent the planned disappearance of our civilisation under migratory submergence.

Madam President, under the guise of economic coordination, the Brussels European Semester pursues its ultra-liberal objectives and imperial aims. For example, the Commission ‘recommends’ – soft euphemism – to France to ‘harmonize’ – another euphemism – our pension system. In other words, to abolish our schemes specific to certain professions which are justified by the hardship of these professions or because of the demographic situation between beneficiaries and contributors, or sometimes even both, and I am thinking in particular of the schemes of our seafarers. We definitely do not have the same values. While the European Union defends the right of peoples to self-determination on the other side of the world, it blithely tramples on popular sovereignty in Brussels. Ah, it is true that Mrs von der Leyen's predecessor said: “There is no democracy in the face of the Treaties”. Well, in France, there is only one sovereign, the people.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this has been said several times this evening: The ECB’s role is primarily to ensure monetary stability and strengthen Europe’s strategic independence. Today, the ECB’s policy of ideological greening, as understood by the European Union, diverts it not only from its objectives, but also from its role. On the other hand, our monetary stability and strategic independence require support for the nuclear sector, the cornerstone on which France has built its prosperity. Decarbonised, abundant and affordable, it must be the foundation of our reindustrialisation, a condition for our independence and competitiveness. This is the spirit of the Biden Plan, launched in support of US industry. The fact that Brussels calls it unfair competition proves that it has misunderstood the political, economic and geopolitical challenges we face. Because it is towards a relocation of our energy policy and an economic patriotism that we must move. Our energy sovereignty would then allow us to protect our compatriots, and particularly the most precarious, against rising food, electricity, gas, rent and cost of living prices. Because, faced with the abuses of this financialised world, they are the ones who are sanctioned, because they are the ones who live in the real economy and who pay the high price for the abuses of Brussels.

Madam President, we were told that this plan was intended to strengthen Europe’s strategic independence by allowing Germany to do without Russian gas in 2027. Today, we are dependent on US shale gas. I told you, I repeat: the categorical inclusion in this plan of decarbonised, abundant and affordable nuclear energy would have allowed us to contribute to our reindustrialisation, a condition for our independence and competitiveness, especially in the face of the United States, which is boosted by the Biden plan, which has probably not escaped this parameter. From Mr Weber's European right, to Chancellor Scholz's German left, to Mrs von der Leyen's centrist presidency of the European Commission, all are ready to sacrifice us. Because, meanwhile, who is sanctioned for all these mistakes, all these mistakes, all these aberrations? Who pays the price? Ce sont nos compatriotes, les plus jeunes, les plus précaires, les plus vieux et tous les autres. Ils ne vous disent pas merci.

Madam President, the future of small-scale fishing is under threat because it is, to its greatest misfortune, the exclusive competence of the European Commission. It is against these directives, which impose deadly European centralism and dogmatic pseudo-ecolos that our fishermen must fight to survive. Thus, most of the European funds are paid to intensive and predatory fishing without the small-scale fisheries really benefiting, except in general to finance the scrapping of its vessels. A tide of random technocratic norms and prohibitions ruins the profitability of artisanal fishermen’s trade. And more importantly, the maritime domain is currently the prey of private interests where marine protected areas are multiplying, followed by offshore wind farms that exclude our fishermen from our fishing areas. And yes, ladies and gentlemen, we must already, in the midst of the energy and inflationary crisis, make the exemption from fuel taxes for the fisheries sector permanent. We must also be able to give priority to our fishing professions and their production through the localism that Brussels has forbidden us in favour of imports from the other side of the world. The future of small-scale fishing for its greatest misfortune is the exclusive competence of the European Commission. We must defend it sovereignly.

Mr President, ‘God laughs at men crying about the effects of the causes they cherish’. I often repeat this sentence, here, of Bossuet, but the facts are there, they are stubborn: the European Union does not know how to fight, the European Union does not fight tax evasion. We should already put an end to the globalist model, but you refuse to do so. The failure of the black and grey list policy is a cruel and obvious example of this. This system has not prevented multinationals or other tax-avoidance specialists from getting considerably richer. On the other hand, it is very good to work hard on the middle classes, on our SMEs, on our VSEs, on our craftsmen, who are always asked to pay more. We owe our fellow citizens something more than bequeathing them the widespread tax injustice, while they pay a heavy price for Brussels’ mistakes: energy crisis, inflation, declining purchasing power, relocations, unemployment. Yes, establishing or enforcing regulations to prevent the use of ghost companies for tax evasion requires courage and determination. Yes, because we need to strengthen transparency, justice and democracy in the European Union; we owe it to our compatriots because everyone must contribute to the common effort. The shell companies and speculators too.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, God laughs at men who cry about the consequences of the causes they cherish – unless the European Union tries to make us believe that it is fighting in good faith against what it has built with such perseverance. Indeed, who favored the economic model that allowed these drifts? Who gave all the power to speculation, doing more and more for banks and high finance in the face of the real economy? Who put downward pressure on wages, creating social dumping with posted labour, uncontrolled immigration and free trade fraud? Who has allowed a system of tax evasion and corruption to flourish within the European Union itself? The worst is yet to come: with the sacrifice of our nuclear industry and this European Union that sanctions, while the United States subsidizes, it is the evasion and flight of our jobs and our companies. It is smart protectionism that we need, but you refuse it. It is cooperation between states that wants it on relevant topics and the fruit of a common political will that we need, but you refuse it. Do not look elsewhere for the solution. The problem is you.

Madam President, one in three French people who give up medical care, a middle class that is collapsing, laminated and downgraded, an increasingly violent precariousness that affects more than 11 million of my compatriots, our companies that are relocated, social dumping institutionalised by posted work, a pension reform at 65 imposed by Brussels, a dizzying increase in the bankruptcies of our SMEs, small businesses and craftsmen, accelerated by the energy crisis, a suicide of a farmer every two days, our fishermen sacrificed, French people in the dark and cold this winter, after the sabotage of our nuclear industry, in which we had been able to invest, which was sacrificed by Brussels and which ensured us energy independence, double-digit inflation, a climate of recession in a context of scourge and massive immigration: This is the Europe in which my compatriots live. Mr Séjourné, this is your Europe, this is the Europe of Brussels, technocracy and globalism. It’s Europe, we leave it to you! Our Europe is the genius of the people, colleagues. It is the birthplace of nations that have allowed us, through emulation, diversity and progress, to shine throughout the world over the centuries. This is the Europe we defend and cherish, including economic patriotism and respect for the sovereignty of nations. As you will have understood, our Europe is not your European Union. They are not only fundamentally opposite, but also irreconcilable. But rest assured, it is our Europe that will survive you.

Mr President, going from a budget of 1% of euro area GDP to 10% shows only one thing: The European Union wants more power. And to achieve this, it strips the Member States of control over the tax levied on our people and businesses and, more importantly, on our strategic energy choices. As proof of this, Commissioners Dombrovskis and Gentiloni confirmed yesterday that the REPowerEU plan would not finance the restoration of our French nuclear fleet. This has at least the merit of being clear, after all these weeks of silence or ambiguity from left to right. But in the midst of the energy crisis and despite the fact that the French have rightly financed a sector of excellence for more than 50 years, they are being deprived of it when they need it most. As our duty is to prioritise the general interest of our compatriots, we do not endorse the increase in your resources or your policy, which is being waged against France and the French.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating the state of play of the negotiations between the Commission and the Hungarian government on whether it qualifies for the recovery plan that all other states have already benefited from, i.e. whether, according to Brussels, there is indeed a rule of law in Hungary, which the Commission and some seem to deny it. No, no, no. Is it really about corruption or defending public money? It is a question of sanctioning, in fact, a country that does not do what the Commission asks it to do when it asks it to do so. Because Hungary primarily defends the will of its people, who have clearly expressed themselves at the ballot box, because Hungary defends its national sovereignty and because national sovereignty is a fundamental principle at the heart of our identities and democracies, challenging this right would be a violent and undemocratic act.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for decades a falsely ecological ideology has systematically undermined the energy independence of our nations and tried to make us give up nuclear power. However, this decarbonized energy, in which France has been able to invest and excel, has proved its worth. Until now, it has been the most effective, both from an environmental and an economic point of view. Ladies and gentlemen, the national interest of our citizens must take precedence over the dogmatism and fanatical incantations of green mayors. In these times of crisis, moving away from nuclear power would be counter-intuitive, at a time when millions of families, children, students, pensioners, isolated people have to make the choice between eating or heating, and for some perhaps giving up both. We need to talk about the sovereignty of states and the choice of energy mix if the European Union refuses to include nuclear energy in its green energies. That is why we tabled our amendments: Include nuclear energy in green energy. Because it is not up to the peoples of Europe to pay the bill for the errors and political wanderings of the Commission, the German Greens and Mrs von der Leyen.