Speeches

Madam President, for almost 40 years now Hizbullah has taken Lebanon hostage and Europe has been slow to hear the courage of the Lebanese political forces in denouncing this threat, which is of direct concern to us, through terrorism, drug trafficking and large-scale corruption. What a shame! What a shame that political leaders in our countries, such as Jean-Luc Mélenchon, dared to deplore the death of Hassan Nasrallah, without even a word for all the peoples who had suffered this executioner. The truth, ladies and gentlemen, is that the war that he launched against Israel, the war that Iran wanted, is not that of the Lebanese people, and everything must be done to prevent civilians from falling victim to it on either side of the borders. At this crucial moment, we have our role to play: Finally, denounce any complacency towards this armed Islamist militia, which is not and will never be a legitimate political force, support the unblocking of Lebanese institutions and the election of a president, end the financing that fuels the Syrian refugee crisis, restore Lebanon's freedom and sovereignty, and support the Christian presence that is the identity of this country and the balance of the Middle East. This is the singular responsibility of Europe and our countries. We don't have the right to desert her today.

Madam President, thank you to Mario Draghi for coming here to present his report. A slow agony is what it promises to our continent, economically but also politically, of course, if we do not manage to get out of the torpor in which we find ourselves, in view of the speed at which our main competitors are advancing. A slow agony is also the feeling with which I come back from these months of campaign and so many meetings and exchanges. The business leaders, with whom we share the difficulties they face, make me think that today, without anyone having said it, Europe has changed its economic system. We have moved from an economic system, that of the market economy, in which the main challenge of a company is to satisfy its customers by managing its suppliers, to an economic system in which the first challenge of an entrepreneur is to manage regulation by seeking subsidies to achieve it. Dear friends, the bad news is that all this puts us in an extraordinarily dangerous situation. Because if we are no longer able to produce in Europe what we need, tomorrow it is our sovereignty that will be directly threatened. But the good news is that the problem is in our hands. To rebuild Europe's competitiveness, the primary goal is to do with our assets, and in particular with this nuclear energy that Mario Draghi has chosen to support in his report in a finally clear way, but also to get out of this absurd situation in which we keep putting balls at the feet of our own economic actors while they are able to produce what is most necessary for the prosperity of tomorrow. The fate of Europe will be at stake in our decisions in the years to come. Our problems and solutions are also in our hands and under our fingers, dear friends, on the voting buttons by which we will arbitrate the texts that will be submitted to us. Removing more rules than creating them is the challenge and the balance sheet that we must be able to ensure for our fellow citizens tomorrow.

Mr President, Mrs Strada said earlier: How to make the link between immigration and insecurity? The real question is: How can we not make the link between immigration and the violence that is rising in our countries? The illegal immigration that is at issue in Solingen, because we are talking about Solingen. And what happened there? He is an Islamist who entered our countries illegally, denied the right to asylum in Germany and yet, like so many others, has never been returned. Three dead. As always, political impotence paves the way for a very concrete tragedy. This impotence was organized by denial. Commissioner, you told us earlier that it was time to put our house in order and that we had to protect our borders from illegal immigration. However, three years ago, twelve Member States wrote to you asking for help to finance the physical infrastructure for the protection of Europe's external borders. You answered them, in this letter addressed to you, that Europe cannot become a fortress between barbed wire. This contempt, this silence, this denial of reality, is the one that leads us to the impotence of today. It'll take more than words now. It is time to act finally, to prevent Europe from falling into this situation of lasting crisis in which we find ourselves.

Mr President, Mrs Roose, I share your feeling. Today, in this aberrant debate, we are under attack because we have managed to get Europe to finally support our farmers. We are indicted because we would attack the climate. The truth, ladies and gentlemen of the Greens, ladies and gentlemen of the Left, ladies and gentlemen of the Macro, is that the attack comes from you: attack on our jobs, which have been weakened directly by the disastrous industrial choices you have made; attack on our sovereignty and independence, with your obsession with nuclear power; attack on our prosperity, with the programme of economic and agricultural decay that you will have continued to carry out, despite our warnings; Finally, attack the climate itself, because the climate is not endangered today by those who work and produce in Europe and who respect the most demanding environmental rules in the world. Two-thirds of global emissions are from ten countries, only one of which is European. The truth is that everything we have done, everything you have done to prevent Europeans from producing at home what we need, you have done to offer market share on our continent to those production models that most destroy the planet. We must return to rationality. Your responsibility will be immense. On 9 June, voters will vote and we will put Europe back where it is.

Mr President, even if the de-escalation that we all hope for is confirmed, the fact remains that Iran is a threat and will remain so. An existential threat to Israel that it has sworn to wipe off the map. A threat to Lebanon that it is taking hostage through Hezbollah. A threat to our countries, because yes, our countries are also targeted by Iran-funded Islamist terrorism. And of course, a threat to its own people, the Iranian people who fight with courage. But in the face of this threat, in reality, not everyone in Europe has their eyes open. We heard the far left again this morning seeking an apology from Iran, as it did on 7 October. Even more insidious, on 6 April, the French Socialist Party issued a statement calling on France to suspend, by means of an immediate embargo, all deliveries of arms and ammunition to Israel. To deny Israel the right to defend itself was to make Israel vulnerable to the attack that struck it on 13 April, a week later. And I ask Mr Glucksmann, since the same weapons were used to attack Ukraine: we have to defend Ukraine, do we have to disarm Israel? It is your responsibility to say today whether or not you support... (The Chairman withdrew the floor to the speaker)

Mr President, between 2015 and 2021, house prices in Europe rose by 40%, and according to Oxfam, this acceleration is four times faster than that of household income. This terrible situation in housing in Europe affects first and foremost the most vulnerable. The Abbé Pierre Foundation warns that the share of modest households that can no longer afford to pay their rent or borrow has increased by 20% over the last three years. Now, for many families in Europe, you have to choose between your roof and your food. This is where our debate on the energy performance of buildings comes in. Behind these few words, there is a new standard, a simple idea: all European buildings will have to be carbon neutral by 2050. On paper, a good intention, but hell is paved with good intentions. What this new rule means is that 35 million buildings will have to be renovated by 2030 – within the next six years. Commissioner, €275 billion per year: it is the Commission’s own impact assessment that quantifies the immense cost of this renovation – when the Commission managed to find 100 billion over 10 years from the already existing funds. New standards have already affected the rental stock in France, and the effect has been immediate. Since their introduction, the supply of rental housing has been almost halved. This time, the standards will also affect owner-occupiers, with, beyond the constraints of insulation and heating change, improbable standards on square meters of bicycle parking or on electric car charging cables. Obviously, we have managed to win an important battle by tabling an amendment to protect heritage, but that will not be enough to avoid a major environmental misunderstanding. Indeed, all studies show that massive energy renovation programmes have never served any purpose. The real key, if we want to decarbonise housing, is to electrify heating and massively produce decarbonised electricity, but the same environmentalists who want to impose this programme are those who vote against nuclear energy, and we have to look very far for consistency in all this. The fact is that, in the end, betting on "all-insulation" is aberrant. It is an economic and social disaster looming. But it is also a major political contradiction. Let us remember that Europe was built onOdyssey, on the adventure, told by Homer, of Ulysses who wanted to find his roof. If tomorrow we do not offer Europeans the home to which they are entitled, this will threaten the very idea of Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, in 2023, US GDP grew five times faster than European GDP. We started from the same situation in 1980. Today, GDP per capita in France, in my country, is 40% lower than in the United States. We see that Europe is bogged down in economic stalling and the causes are very easy to know. They're simple. First of all, demographic fragility, but also the dropout from our education, the low investment in research and innovation and the cost of energy for the disastrous industrial choices we are paying for today. But more serious than anything, the crushing cost of normative complexity suffocates our businesses. We are not in Europe today dropping out because we would have found it stronger than we owe it. We are dropping out because those who work in Europe, those who produce in Europe, know that public constraint, the burden of burdens, the burden of taxation have become their first problem and their first danger. This is the major scandal. Politics must support those who work, but it has become their obstacle. To get out of decline, we need to rediscover this simple wisdom, that of freedom. And as long as we continue to make life impossible for those who work in our countries, we will continue to find the path of poverty and the way out of history.

Mr President, yesterday, 26 February, the Ambassador of Azerbaijan to the European Union, Vaqif Sadiqov, wrote: “Since 1992, Armenia has been ruled by bloodthirsty fascists. They will remain fascists until they end up in Erablur.” Erablur is the Armenian military cemetery to which Azerbaijani violence has condemned thousands of 20-year-olds in recent years. They asked for nothing but to live in peace on the land of their people. Today, Azerbaijan threatens the territory of the Republic of Armenia after Nagorno-Karabakh. Erablur is looking at us, too. If Aliev feels allowed, it is because after besieging a civilian population, after displacement and ethnic cleansing, after the aggression, the cluster bombs, the European Commission has declared him a reliable partner and bought him more gas. Why wouldn't he feel all allowed? Colleagues, it is time to finally act and understand that Europe no longer has the right to silence. It is time to tell Mr Sadiqov that Europe is not in Baku, that it is on the side of democracy and freedom, on the side of civilisation that we share with Armenia, that it is in this place where I have been and from which I have not returned the same. Europe is in Erablur.

Dear colleague, you say right now that the subject of agriculture should not be polarised, but do you remember when you voted for the Nature Restoration Act? And we were criticised in the EPP by you or by your colleagues because we were warning that this text would reduce the useful agricultural area in Europe by 10%? Do you remember when our delegation alerted you to the Farm to Fork Strategy, which you voted for? You say that we should not import the agriculture we do not want to produce. But remember voting for the agreement with New Zealand, which we did not vote for, because it will help bring to our soil tons of products that we do not produce at home: 30 000 tonnes of lamb, 20 000 tonnes of milk powder, developed with techniques that we refuse to our own farmers? It is also time to take stock of what everyone is assuming and to face up to the responsibilities of our respective groups. If we really want to defend agriculture, we owe it the truth.

Mr President, Commissioner, this may be one of the last debates we will have on fisheries during this mandate. Sad moment. Everywhere in Europe, fishermen, like farmers, say they can no longer work because of the current constraints, the avalanche of complexity that has been imposed on them. But the Commission, which refuses to listen, continues in the same direction, while in three days the Bay of Biscay will be completely closed to fishing. You present an action plan that would prohibit fishing techniques that are common and necessary in a very large number of sea areas. In France, for example, one third of the maritime area would be affected. All this is in addition to the Common Fisheries Policy. All this is in addition to the fisheries control regulations that we will have worked on during this mandate. Where is the regulatory coherence? Where is the scientific basis? Where is the impact assessment? The truth, Commissioner, is that we already import three quarters of the seafood we consume. Whatever we do against European fishermen, we will do against the cause of the environment and against the cause of protecting the oceans. And we say this in this report, thanks to our colleague Niclas Herbst, that it is absolutely essential that the mandate that has just come change direction radically. We will only save the oceans with European fishermen and never, never against them.

Mr President, I should like to go back to the substance, since the Council's conclusions refer to the reform of the Treaties, which is indeed indispensable. Let us return to the vote that our Parliament had a few weeks ago on a draft reform of the Treaties of the European Union. Le fait est que nous nous engageons, je le crois, exactement, dans la mauvaise direction, en voulant d'abord transférer toujours plus de compétences à l'Union européenne, comme une compétence exclusive sur l'environnement, en voulant créer la possibilité pour la Commission européenne de lever de la fiscalité à la majorité qualifiée, c'est-à-dire sans l'accord de tous les États membres – nous nous y sommes opposés, nos collègues de Renew et de la gauche l'ont soutenu – ou bien en voulant retirer aux États leur souveraineté sur leur mix énergétique qui est aujourd'hui garanti par les traités. It is basically a general weakening of the Member States that emerges with the idea of moving a large number of decisions from qualified majority to simple majority, or with the fact that the Council could not even take part in the decision on the composition of the European Parliament, which is not done in any democracy in the world. Colleagues, we are not here representatives of a federal state. We are an association of democracies and Europe's goal is to strengthen our democracies to make them more sovereign. Committing to the right direction is probably what citizens expect.

Mr President, I am taking the floor because, following this debate on the ‘Qatargate’, I am amazed to hear our colleague Mr Engerer, from the Socialist Group, attack the EPP, the European right, in the lead. I would just like to ask a few questions to Mr Engerer, who has conveniently left the Chamber: Which group belonged or belonged to all the persons now mentioned in the legal inquiry into ‘Qatargate’? To the Socialist Group. Which political party belonged to the Prime Minister of Portugal, who last month had to resign over a corruption case? To the Socialist Party. Which party belonged to the Prime Minister of Malta, under whose government a journalist was murdered for having investigated too closely the corruption cases affecting him and his relatives? To the Socialist Party! To which party does the Spanish Prime Minister, who came this morning in scandalous attacks, try to justify the corruption by which he tries to remain in power by ceding the fundamental principles of the law of his own country in order to be able to keep the fragile majority on which he relies? To the Socialist Party again. Colleagues, don't take moral lessons. Let us ask the real questions together, and in particular the question of NGO transparency, which is still not asked because your group opposes it. Yet this is where our institutions are today vulnerable.

Mr President, what an absolute sadness that we are now seeing Spain, such a great country hostage to such miserable and dangerous manoeuvres. In my country also, in France, we had an amnesty law after immensely painful historical divisions. But it was announced ahead of elections, not improvised after. It was debated in public with the citizens, not agreed in secret with condemned people. It was for the future of the country, not for the survival of a weak government. I have a very simple question to the Socialist colleagues here, to the friends of Pedro Sánchez. Did anyone of you defend this rupture of inequality among the Spanish people ahead of the vote of the Spanish people? This is a very simple question. And why are you Socialists always repeating that this is only an internal issue and nothing that concerns Europe? You have always been so vocal and so insistent when you were criticising Hungary or Poland about the rule of law. And indeed this is about the rule of law that we are speaking right now. The fact that law rules over politics and not short-term political interests over the legal order confirmed by the people, is the very basis of democracy since it was founded at the birth of the European spirit 25 centuries ago. And we are here because of this. Those of us who write the law, do not have any right to destroy it. This would have a name, this is called corruption. A final word to all the people of Spain who are defending now this rule of law and freedom, Queridos amigos españoles, ánimo. España no se rinde.

Madam President, Commissioner, this is a great day, because finally the European Union, which had long focused on the issue of competition and the regulation of the internal market, is committed to a common industrial strategy towards the decarbonisation of our continent. I believe that this vote will be an important moment and a moment, let me say, quite revealing too. We heard our colleague from the Green Group explain that the vice of this text was that it relied on energies from the past after alerting us to the urgency of global warming. Of course, we agree on decarbonisation, of course we believe in the need to move away from production models that have damaged our environment. But I think we can say together that our fellow environmentalists are not sincere when they talk about global warming. They are no longer there to answer – I am sorry, perhaps other colleagues will speak in turn – but when the Greens' priority on this text is to table an amendment to exclude nuclear power, perhaps it is this energy that our colleague referred to as the energy of the past, to exclude nuclear power from this European strategy for decarbonisation. Nuclear power is not an energy of the past. Colleagues, as you may know: Nuclear power now accounts for 25% of all electricity produced in the European Union, and is now the largest source of decarbonised energy in Europe. Drawing on nuclear power when pretending to defend the climate is actually demonstrating that we do not really believe in the climate emergency. It is to show that, in reality, what we are defending is first of all the decline of our continent, first of all the impoverishment of the whole of Europe, it is the end of industrial production in our European countries. And unfortunately, during this mandate you will have found many allies in your rearguard cause. I believe that the battle is finally won – and I have no doubt that it will be won – in this week’s vote. We have a duty to make sure that we defend the climate with science, with technology, with our engineers, with our technicians, with all those who know that it is in the progress of knowledge that we will save the climate, that we will preserve the environment and not in regression and degrowth.

Dear colleague, it is not for me to ask the question. Ask the colleagues in your group why they refuse to say that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, why they refuse to say, again this morning, that on 7 October, what we witnessed, outraged, was a large-scale terrorist attack. Why don't you say that word? Why refuse to say what is obvious, namely that when we see Jews targeted today because they are Jews, we should all together, without nuance, without concessions, denounce it with one voice? Why not do it together today?

Mr President, Israel has been touched in the heart. Repeated attacks are bereaving our continent and, again this morning, there are modesty of expression that is cold in the back. This morning again, we heard our colleagues from La France Insoumise speak of Hamas' crimes as "war crimes". But words make sense, colleagues: If we talk about ‘war crimes’, then Hamas is a regular army and its victims are collateral victims. Of course not! The deaths on 7 October were targeted by a terrorist attack, organised by an Islamist terrorist organisation, whose sole purpose was to kill as many civilians as possible and to kill Israelis because they were Israelis, to kill Jews because they were Jews. Is it so hard to say that? Those who want to defend the Palestinians of Gaza here must begin by condemning Hamas, which is projecting innocent civilians into this endless tragedy. Colleagues, what is cold in the back is that it is now clear that political forces on the left have chosen to turn a blind eye to the hatred of everything we should stand up for together. To turn a blind eye, through electoralism, to this hatred that is rising in our countries and striking in our countries. And if we are not able to name it together and fight it together, without "but", without nuance, without concession, then this hatred will take away what makes our historical responsibility. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Mr President, Mayotte is thirsty. In one French department, a department in Europe, there are now residents who cannot turn on the tap for several hours a day or several days a week. People who cannot drink tap water without fearing for their health. Today, there is a French department where children need to be treated because they became ill for drinking supposedly drinking water. This is the reality of the situation that our citizens are experiencing today. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not only the Mahorais who are in this situation, but also the inhabitants of Guadeloupe, Martinique and our overseas territories. Today, in many parts of our countries, it is a real challenge to ensure that all citizens have access to what is not one good among others, but the most essential good: water, the most necessary for life. The European Union is providing massive development aid, including in this part of the world. But where did the European funds that were supposed to offer Mayotte the means to desalinate water go? By the end of October, Mayotte’s water supplies could be completely empty, and residents have to pay for overpriced water by simultaneously paying their bills, rather than being able to rely on the water they could produce. Dear colleague Rougé, we have not waited to take up this issue. For several weeks, Parliament has been alerting on this subject, but we are now waiting for action from our governments, the European Union, to get out of this untenable situation.

Madam President, three years ago today, Samuel Paty was murdered. Just a few days ago, a teacher was killed in his high school for what he embodied: the work of transmitting a culture, a legacy, which obliges us today. These killings did not take place by accident. They are motivated by an ideology, and this ideology, we have to name it. That is why we have proposed a change to the title of this debate, to make it clear that what we are facing is Islamist ideology. Because Islamism is killing today, in our countries, and killing teachers first, which it wants to silence by instilling fear in them. If we do not know how to name the enemy, then we will not be able to fight it. That is why I would like to thank our colleagues for actually accepting this change in the title of the debate. This fight is ahead of us and it engages us all.

Mr President, Commissioner, on 13 September last 120 boats landed in Lampedusa; within a few hours, thousands of people enter European soil without right. On 21 September, the Court of Justice of the European Union replied to the French Council of State: a Member State shall not have the right to return a person seeking to cross its borders illegally. Before considering a possible expulsion, be sure to allow the person concerned a period of time to voluntarily leave the national territory. The only right that remains for our States is to politely ask people not to violate their borders. And when they cross them by the thousands – 330 000 last year, according to Frontex – we still have the possibility to invite them not to stay. Colleagues, all this is just one more proof that European law has turned against the law. ‘Summum jus, summa injuria’: the maximum of the procedure, the maximum of the complexity, the maximum of the case-law reaches the maximum of the injustice. Injustice against the victims of smuggling networks, who have made European powerlessness the key to their sordid business. Injustice against the citizens of our countries, whose democracies are deprived of any means to decide who they welcome or not and to control their destiny. Injustice against the law itself, because this public powerlessness in migration matters makes the whole world a lawless zone. Colleagues, Commissioner, there is an urgent need to put the right back on track.

Mr President, does the European Commission now finally understand why we keep warning about the seriousness of the threat in Nagorno-Karabakh? Do the leaders of our countries realize that inaction, hollow words, the "we call each party," the ever-new pretexts to always turn a blind eye, that all this has allowed a dictator to overthrow international law at the gates of Europe, impose an accomplished fact that will threaten us tomorrow and destroy lives? What will the European Commission say to the parents of Nver and Mikaèl, ten and eight years old, shot dead by Azerbaijan, to the families of the hundreds of Armenians killed in a few days in this anti-terrorist operation? Do you also believe that it is terrorist or separatist to simply want to remain at peace at home? Do you know that the Armenian people are not a minority in Artsakh, where they have lived for more than 2,000 years? Will you allow the borders dictated by Stalin to be re-established everywhere? Why? Why has the slightest beginning of sanctions not yet been applied today, after months of inhuman siege amid this ethnic cleansing assumed by Aliyev? Is buying gas in Baku less guilty than buying it in Moscow? And besides, isn't it the same gas? What do you think of the fact that the first measure of the winners was to name the main street of Stepanakert after Enver Pasha, organizer of the Armenian Genocide in 1915? Is this camp still Europe's reliable partner? Does this Europe still remember that it was born so that genocide would never happen again? These questions require answers.

Madam President, in referring to the Commission's record, you are talking about the strength of Europe and its effectiveness, but the reality sometimes seems far removed from this Chamber. As we speak, the Secours populaire announces that 20% of French people live in the open. Across Europe, one in three people miss a meal to hold. Millions of households, craftsmen and businesses are no longer able to pay for their energy. Despite this return to poverty, the Commission will have continuously increased the burden on those who work and produce in Europe. The Energy Directive on buildings will exacerbate the housing crisis. The "farm to fork" strategy is driving down food production. Taxonomy further accelerates industrial stalling. You have talked at length about electricity to speed up the installation of wind turbines, but still not a word about nuclear power, which is the first source of decarbonised and accessible energy in Europe. You promise to reduce standards, but they have been piling up in recent years. The multiplication of constraints does not protect the environment. It only makes us dependent on other countries in the world that do not bear the same costs. We will not save the planet by buying electric cars in China. Similarly, we will not relaunch our economy by increasing skilled immigration, as you said, but by qualifying the millions of young people you talked about, who are still so far from employment today. The only answer to the demographic winter in Europe is to support families and not to further destabilise our countries, relying on them, on the talents of our countries, on the knowledge and culture of citizens in Europe. Yes, we can regain the prosperity and momentum of our continent, but that means opening our eyes to reality.

Mr President, Commissioner, yes, it must be said clearly, to use the title that the Greens wanted to give to this debate, Europe risks jeopardising environmental protection and failing in its international commitments in this area. But this is not at all because the EPP would oppose the protection of the environment, ladies and gentlemen. This is because today, with 12 votes, this Parliament has chosen to continue in denial of reality. The passing of the so-called "nature restoration" law is very disturbing news, not only for all those who work, produce and live in our countries, but for nature itself that this law promises to restore. The equation is quite simple. By imposing even more constraints, standards and administrative complexity on them, this law will help to reduce the production of what we need in Europe. Contrary to the false information disseminated by many of those who defended it, this text does require – and yes, it is a fact – that 10% of the land cultivated in Europe be set aside, for example. It will therefore lead to a ban on part of agricultural production. It will also lead to the prohibition of maritime spaces for our fishermen and will thus mechanically reduce food production in our countries. And the impact assessment of the European Commission itself confirms this, Commissioner. Has this Parliament learned nothing from the latest events? We experienced the shortage of masks during the COVID-19 crisis, the shortage of energy during the war in Ukraine. Should the citizens of our countries no longer be able to feed themselves in order for our institutions to realise that food decay is a serious mistake? Tensions in agricultural production are already a major factor in food price inflation, which weighs heavily on so many households. But the most aberrant behind this, the most aberrant, is that in reality, when we stop producing in Europe, we will not have done a service to the environment. We have the producers who comply with the most stringent environmental rules and we will do everything we can to reduce production in our countries, we will do it to offer competitive advantages to non-European production that is devastating the environment. Do we have to do better? Yes, yes. Do we have to do less? No, no. And to do less today is to endanger exactly the nature we claim to serve. This challenge is global. We will not only solve it by scuttling our economy.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this debate. I believe it will have been essential, not least because it has made it possible to show that voices from all sides are trying to warn about this very serious questioning of human dignity, namely surrogacy. Some colleagues have spoken, I have no doubt about their sincerity, about the possibility of ethical surrogacy. However, the cruel reality of surrogacy today, ladies and gentlemen, is that thousands of women – I think of them – are being exploited today by unscrupulous companies, who come to approach the richest in large hotels in Paris and in all the Western capitals. They are children bought in catalogues, contracted and sometimes even abandoned in the face of a business situation, such as those children from Ukraine who were stranded during the COVID-19 crisis because their sponsors could not pick them up. This is the reality, colleagues, and this reality, regardless of the degree of consent expressed, corresponds to a situation of trafficking in human beings. Yes, in our law, today, a consenting adult can be the victim of a situation of trafficking in human beings, when it is clear that it is first a situation of vulnerability exploited by the strongest that is being played out. We have the possibility to ban surrogacy, and this European Parliament must do so as part of our anti-trafficking directive. I hope that we will be united and I would like to thank all the colleagues on the left and all the fellow environmentalists who, faithful to their struggle, are now able to denounce the false progress that this technique constitutes.

Mr President, all colleagues have said this: Lebanon is now in a situation of major collapse. The economy is bankrupt, institutions are paralyzed, Lebanese savings are confiscated by failed banking institutions, health is inaccessible, and the Syrian refugee crisis threatens to destabilise the entire fragile social fabric of the country. However, once we have said that, we must move from the observation to the denunciation of those who organize this situation, because it has a responsible. This leader, ladies and gentlemen, is Hezbollah. Who is now blocking the election of the Lebanese President, preventing the institutions from loyally carrying out their activities in the service of the Lebanese people? Who is preventing justice from finally punishing the criminals responsible for the Beirut port explosion? It is Hezbollah, which is now acting to destroy the sovereignty of the Lebanese people in the service of foreign interests, armed with its militia, a terrorist and criminal organisation that threatens all our countries. Supporting Hezbollah’s candidate today is obviously confusing the solution and the problem. We absolutely must punish those responsible for this situation, so that we can finally liberate the Lebanese people.

Mr High Representative, I mentioned this negotiation, but can we accept that it takes place in the context of a crime, condemned today by the International Court of Justice, without doing anything against this crime? This would indicate that we accept that a situation of fundamental injustice now serves as a context for this discussion between, I repeat, a culprit and a victim. Once again, we do not have the right to accept this because, if we let it happen, then we will let all the situations in the world – we know a lot about them and rightly denounce them – in which violence tries to prevail over the law. I'll say it again: we can only conduct this negotiation with dignity if we first sanction Azerbaijan’s crime; However, no sanctions have yet been put on the table. It is obviously a fault for the European Union, if it is worthy of its role.