Speeches

Mr President, Mr High Representative, it has now been almost six months since the Lachin corridor was closed and the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh have been living in what amounts to a modern siege situation. Now that this seat lasts, everything is missing: electricity and even drinking water. What is Europe doing? She still doesn't do anything. We in this Parliament have clearly determined the position of all our colleagues in condemning this absolutely intolerable situation. Yet the Commission remains silent, and the Council blesses a negotiation that is taking place today between a culprit and his victim. This situation, if we consecrate it, will obviously see violence prevail over law and brutality succeed in triumphing over elementary justice. The International Court of Justice has condemned this situation and the blockade organised by Azerbaijan, but this state terrorism has still not been subject to a single sanction by the Council. The Commission itself still does not seem to condemn what amounts to a very serious violation of the fundamental rights of this Armenian people of Karabakh. Mr High Representative, we finally expect strong words from you today and above all action, the only effective action that will make it possible to roll back Azerbaijan in its criminal project and to save the civilians of Nagorno-Karabakh, who are finally waiting for our action.

Mr President, Commissioner, since the beginning of this debate I have been struck by colleagues who are constantly opposing biodiversity and fisheries. But, let us remember, European fisheries today represent the most demanding model in the world from an environmental point of view. For more than 40 years now, fishermen, through their efforts, have made it possible to put all, almost all, fisheries stocks at MSY. In other words, European fisheries are sustainable for almost all species. Because of them, not against them, but because of them. And now it is on this fishing model that all constraints and sanctions fall. The closure of the Bay of Biscay in France, the closure of fishing in marine protected areas, or the development of offshore wind in the name of the environment, which will also destroy biodiversity. Colleagues, let us repeat it forcefully: everything we do to weaken European fisheries, we will do against the environment and biodiversity, only to give market share to all the fisheries that we import and which, coming from third countries, do not comply at all with the rules that we set for those who produce at home. Last word to say that I am surprised, and sadly surprised, to see some colleagues passing by here for a minute of speeches, which we have not heard about fishing in four years. For us, we work on it every day, and we will continue to work every day to defend European fishermen because we owe it to them.

Madam President, Chancellor, let us speak frankly: differences between our countries often become worrying. Mine, France, has its responsibility. But behind the words, your coalition ends up putting Europe at risk. You talk about a united Europe, but after imposing austerity everywhere, you launch the ‘Doppel Wumms’ without warning anyone: a massive support plan for the German economy, and much the worse for the other European countries that will come out of it permanently destabilised. You say we need to speak with one voice, but you go alone to China to keep our positions there at the cost of our dependencies. You speak of solidarity, but when you close your last nuclear power plants in the middle of the energy crisis, the bills get heavier in all our countries. Your elected representatives are doing everything possible to suffocate this sector, apparently in the name of ecology. But your ministers are expanding coal mines in Germany and they are polluting the whole of Europe. You say that Europe needs to control migration flows, but you do everything to increase them in Germany. You said, Chancellor, that none of us want to go back to the time when the law of the strongest reigned in Europe. It can't be just words. Hannah Arendt schrieb: “Eine Krise wird erst dann zu einem Unheil, wenn mit schon Geurteiltem, also mit Vorurteilen darauf geantwortet wird.“ Herr Bundeskanzler, es ist höchste Zeit, uns selbst in Frage zu stellen.

Mr. Speaker, here we are. Three years ago, everyone was delighted to see magic money raining down on Europe with this loan that was popping up. And today, this loan that no one knew how it would be repaid, we are faced with the cost it represents. This cost was to be 15 billion euros, the equivalent of all our space programmes in Europe over seven years. Well, today it has certainly exploded, even if we do not know it, since the Commission - Commissioner, as our colleagues said earlier - is not today publishing the updated cost of this loan in the context of inflation. Colleagues, we were talking about fresh money a few years ago. Today we are talking about taxes and everyone is talking about new taxes. Because these new own resources are, of course, about taxation. I believe it is time to recall two things that we owe to the citizens of our countries: transparency on the budgetary policy of the European Union, this transparency is crucial, and the fact that we must remember in the end that any tax is always, always, the result of the work of those who trusted us by giving us a mandate to represent them here. There is no tax that can be raised as if it were a magical solution to the problems we have not been able to solve. This is the condition for us to truly live up to the generations that come.

Madam President, Commissioner, this subject of State aid may seem technical, but I would just like to tell you a little story. When I visited the fishermen in Mayotte, who go out to sea on out-of-age canoes, they told me that they had not received a single cent of the funding they had been promised for years now to renew their fleet. All the major world powers help their fishermen to finance the renewal of their fleet. For us, the challenges of feeding our outermost regions, our European countries, but also ensuring a presence at sea in those regions of the world where Europe has the chance to rely on them, are major strategic challenges. Well, we haven't unlocked a euro. Why? Because, even though our Parliament voted in favour of this state aid, even though it voted in favour of European funds for fleet renewal in the EMFAF, even though the European Commission has committed to it, today the subject is blocked. The Commission refuses to commit the necessary funding. Yet, at the same time, these fishermen from Mayotte, but also those from French Guiana, those from Réunion, are seeing the arrival of new, brand-new boats, financed by European funds under development aid: vessels from Suriname to Guyana, vessels from Mauritius to Mayotte and Réunion. We see that Europe finances with European funds boats created in third countries, while it refuses to allow our own states to support our fishermen in our own countries. How could this subject not revolt the fishermen of our outermost regions, the fishermen of our overseas territories? It is urgent that this issue be finally unblocked and that we abandon the delaying tactics of constantly refusing to make this support, which has been voted for by our Parliament, a reality.

Madam President, we are talking about relations between Europe and Iraq, and there is so much to say, so much to say about the increasing droughts, about these major difficulties for irrigation of Iraqi agriculture, which threaten the food of so many Iraqi citizens. Why? In particular, of course, because of the blockades at the Türkiye level on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Turkey, too, is at stake in the incursions – so many colleagues have reminded us – into Iraqi territory, which is now killing Iraqi civilians. And again, Europe could act. The news also reminds us of our responsibility to all those Christian families in Iraq who are still leaving a land that has been theirs for more than 1500 years. A land that they are now forced to abandon in the face of the spectre of violence that continues to threaten them. I was with them for Christmas in Qaraqosh, a city that could be a symbol of hope. They managed to return, to rebuild on those lands that the Islamic State had occupied, and they succeeded in defeating the evil that befell them. And yet, if we are not by their side, they will leave this country, and with them it is this whole country that will be disfigured. With their departure, the Middle East will lose a part of its soul. It is undoubtedly Europe’s responsibility to support these people and to tell them that, through them, it is also a part of us, of our common heritage, which is represented in this distant Middle East, yet so close to us by so many essential issues.

Mr. Speaker, there are times when politics keeps its word and the promise becomes reality. By voting for the creation of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, we will finally see the coming of this long-awaited protection mechanism. Finally, Europe is emerging from naivety and environmental policy is not just about imposing increasingly complicated rules on those who produce in Europe, while opening up our markets to the wider world without restrictions. Finally, we will ensure that those who import into Europe assume the same rules and the same carbon contribution. Obviously, it has taken time and it has taken all the work done since 2019, and I would like to thank all the colleagues who have contributed to it. How much time has been wasted in recent decades, how much time we have seen destroy jobs, destroy value in our own continent. But today, finally, we see this first point taken for granted and this battle won. This was the promise we made during the European campaign, that of an ecological barrier. It becomes reality. Now this vote must not be a point of arrival, it is a starting point. We have to keep working. Tomorrow we will try to complete what is still missing in this mechanism – to make sure that it includes manufactured products so that we cannot see new waves of relocations; to also ensure that we protect our continent against all those who may try to cheat, to circumvent this mechanism; finally impose, tomorrow, a real carbon barrier that will enable all the world’s producers to decarbonise in order to preserve our environment. This is the challenge ahead of us. But this first game won must allow us to continue.

Madam President, yes, of course, the French are going through a trying time and, of course, in these moments of tension in particular, any police officer who fails must be punished. However, this does not allow amalgamation or interference. And our Parliament does not have to take the place of justice, which can be freely seized by any citizen in France. But we do not refuse a debate. This afternoon we heard something extraordinary, ladies and gentlemen, we heard the extreme left condemn the violence. But why did you not go all the way, dear colleague, why did you not talk about the rain of stones and fire that fell on the police and gendarmes on Saturday, in a demonstration banned by the courts in which you were participating? Violence is incompatible with democracy and we must never, ever, ever tolerate it. And that is the only thing we should have to say together. All together, around the police and gendarmes who are there to defend the public force that protects us from violence. Over 800 people have been seriously injured in recent weeks and I hope you will be ashamed to have insulted them here. I hope you will be ashamed in front of them, in front of their family, in front of this young gendarme who is now on a hospital bed for being seriously injured a few days ago. I hope we can all say together that we are with law enforcement to defend freedom.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, yesterday we discovered with great relief the plan to reform the European electricity market. Finally, the long term regains its place in the energy strategies we need to be able to invest in our future. Now it's not just about the market. The energy crisis we are going through is not just a trade issue, it is first and foremost an industrial issue. And if we want to overcome it, we must produce, produce more, produce better, produce decarbonized electricity and for that, use all sources of decarbonized energy and in particular, of course, nuclear power. And what a misfortune to see that within the European Commission, a battle of another age continues to disqualify nuclear power. We hope that, in the Net-Zero Industry Act which will be published soon, nuclear power will have its place, not only in the form, Commissioner, of SMRs, but also through large-scale production, because that is what we need. Those who are now fighting against this energy, whether in the Commission or in Parliament, like the colleagues who yesterday voted against the inclusion of nuclear energy in the energy transition of buildings, are also fighting against the environment, against our sovereignty, against our independence, against our democracies. And I believe that today we need to be serious and consistent in these essential fights.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today the Armenian people are facing an existential threat. Tonight, it has been 92 days, 92 days that the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh must live without being able to leave their enclave, deprived of everything, deprived of food, supplies, gas to heat themselves, deprived of education for their children. 92 days for the world to remain silent. And Europe in particular. Obviously, things have improved thanks to the work that preceded this report. We strongly condemn, as Parliament makes clear, this existential threat organised by Azerbaijan a century after a genocide that the Azeri dictator still denies, a century after a genocide, it is time for Europe to stand by the Armenian people. The European mission, as you said, Commissioner, sent to protect Armenia's borders, to check that they will no longer be the object of these repeated offences, these deadly attacks, this mission is also a sign that Europe is becoming aware of its responsibility. But we have to go further. Not everything has been done. And it is finally time to sanction the Azeri regime that is guilty of these crimes against international law and the essential principles of humanity. Colleagues, when we say this, we are sometimes accused of defending Armenia, of defending one side against another. But we are not defending Armenia, we are defending justice, we are defending the principles of international law, we are defending the security of Europe itself. For if these principles are undermined, then we are all in danger. It is not us who defend Armenia, it is Armenia who defends everything we care about and we owe it the support that it is finally time to give it clearly.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we are going to vote on a directive on the energy efficiency of buildings. It is very simple to vote, but what matters is to think about the consequences. It requires major thermal renovation works to be carried out on 40 million buildings in Europe by 2033 – 40% of the total building stock in Europe in less than 10 years. For this, the Commission promises 150 billion European budget. But according to its own calculations, the cost will be 275 billion per year. Every year, ladies and gentlemen. And this cost, whether with public or private money, in the end we know who will pay for it. Ordinary people, those who work, who contribute, who save a lifetime to buy the place where they live and who will be forced to work whose prices will explode because of the brutal demand that these new standards will provoke. And all this why? Why? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we all want to reduce carbon emissions. But all available data show the aberration of a policy of undifferentiated renovation of buildings. In the United States, feedback from mass campaigns shows that energy savings are three times lower than expected at costs twice as high as expected. The University of Cambridge showed a few weeks ago that, five years after the works, energy consumption was not even falling. In Germany, after EUR 340 billion of investment in thermal renovation, a study shows that the impact is not even measurable. The only undeniable consequence for the environment, ladies and gentlemen, is the explosion in the use of the necessary materials. What an absolute paradox that politicians who want to be environmentalists want to put half of all European buildings under construction within ten years. Behind this is the persistence of an outdated obsession: change everything, redo everything, disqualify the old, the heritage, the inheritance, to start all over again. It is this logic that has created the ecological crisis and we unfortunately understand why major industrial interests are supporting this project, of course. But behind this situation, there is actually a major crisis, a social and political crisis also that this text could lead to. The only real solution to decarbonise is to switch from fuel oil, from the gas that heats our homes to electricity and to use all decarbonised sources to produce much more. But by chance, those who want to regulate the lives of Europeans even in their private space are also generally those who fight, for example, nuclear energy. We have tabled an amendment to ensure that a zero-emission building is also a building that benefits from this and other energy sources. Tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen, when we vote, let us reflect on the consequences.

Madam President, Commissioner, President of the ECB, I would like to join the thanks of my colleague Sven Simon and all my colleagues in saying that we are very grateful that you stayed so late – despite the difficulties of the day in the European Parliament – for this important discussion. You quoted Thomas Jefferson, who said that ‘the price of freedom is eternal vigilance’. Vigilance must be ensured with regard to the dangers that have not yet passed, but that are before us. And one of them – I believe – is the one to which we are exposed the consequences of the long-term carelessness of many Member States of the European Union, which have lived, for a long time, in an almost fictitious world. ‘Whatever it takes‘whatever it costs’. These well-known words of one of your predecessors represented a kind of authorisation to face all crises with the same maxim: “whatever it costs”. Yesterday it was COVID-19, today it is the rise in energy prices that has caused public debt to rise steadily in many of our countries. However, as we can see, inflation – which you have said is burdensome for many European households – is forcing the European Central Bank to raise its interest rates. For a country like my own, France – a country like ours, even, Madam President – each point of increase in interest rates represents, in the medium term, EUR 20 billion in additional expenditure over five years and EUR 40 billion over ten years. Every point of increase! And you said it: Unfortunately, this may not be enough to bring down inflation. We may find ourselves in a terrible situation: our states would no longer have the means to intervene socially, faced with the asphyxiation that a new debt crisis would create. So, Madam President, I have only one question for you: Are you also afraid of a new debt crisis? And don’t you think it’s time to go back to Thomas Jefferson’s other well-known maxim: ‘Do not spend your money until you have earned it’?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since the beginning of this debate, I have heard some colleagues from the Greens or Renew ironize about our concern for the future of our businesses, our industries, our farmers. Well, yes, ladies and gentlemen, we are concerned, because many of the texts voted here will weaken our economy without in any way saving the climate. The European Union wants to achieve zero emissions by 2050. There is a very simple way to do this: zero production, zero creation, zero energy, zero prosperity, zero work, zero food, zero sovereignty too, zero freedom, zero life. And it is this scenario that often prevails here: a maximum of standards and a minimum of strategy. Will we have to import everything we need tomorrow? Then we will not have saved the planet, but we will have offered our market to the modes of production that destroy it. There are as many plans to open coal-fired power plants in China as there are planned shutdowns in the rest of the world. This is the model on which those who voted yesterday to electrify, for example, all cars in Europe depend. The same people who always vote against nuclear energy and make us buy gas by selling us wind turbines. It is time, ladies and gentlemen, to get out of hypocrisy: less standards, more strategy. This is what is needed for the climate and for Europe today.

Mr President, finally, the Council will address the migration issue, which is critical for the future of Europe, especially in the coming months – at least 330 000 illegal entries in 2022: a record since 2016! The explosion in comparison with the previous year can also be seen in the fact that almost one million asylum applications have been received in our countries, including 150,000 in France alone. Let's be clear: There is no doubt that none of us here will directly experience the consequences of these massive, long-lasting and growing migratory flows. And when I hear our dear colleague Manon Aubry laughing at the fact that this migration debate would serve to hide the deep social unease in our countries, I am still surprised that the left does not make the connection and that it does not take up the cause for the most modest social circles, those who do not have, unlike the rich, the means to put themselves away from the consequences of this great upheaval in their world. The Commission says it wants to take the scale of this challenge seriously, but in order to achieve results after so long a delay, it is necessary to get out of the ambiguity. We supported the massive increase in Frontex’s budget, but Commissioner Johansson got her director ousted on the grounds that her border guards were preventing migrants from entering Europe illegally. Europe said it wanted to organise a real partnership with the countries of emigration, but Member States such as France and Germany persisted in finding workers at home who compensated for the shortcomings of their economies and demographics. We want to speed up returns, but European case law on asylum contributes every day to the misuse of this right. The President of the Commission says she supports neighbouring countries, but she still denies them any support to build the walls that would protect their borders. What contradictions! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to achieve results on this very important subject, we must finally get out of the ambiguity.

Madam President, we are talking about human rights at risk. They are particularly so this evening, in general indifference, in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Lachin road, the only possible access to this territory, was closed more than a month ago by Azerbaijan. 120,000 Armenians, 120,000 innocent civilians are being held hostage, including 30,000 children. A population that lacks everything and first of all food, rationed now. A population that lacks the most essential care. Already, a person has died, a patient, because he did not receive the care he needed. More than 13 children are in intensive care and need urgent treatment. It is simply, ladies and gentlemen, state terrorism that we are talking about here. Terrorism of a state, Azerbaijan, which wants to do everything to drive this people out of its land. What is the difference with Russia, which we are fighting? What is the difference with Russia, which is complicit in this terrorism? And in the face of this, what is the Commission doing? It finances these operations by purchasing Mr Aliev's gas and treating him as a responsible partner. Ladies and gentlemen, this Chamber may be heated this evening at the cost of the suffering of the Armenian people. It is time to get out of this denial of reality and complicity. It is time to send a European mission to provide urgent humanitarian care. It is time to impose sanctions on the Aliev regime and finally tell it, eye-to-eye, that violence does not always triumph and that one day justice prevails.

Madam President, Prime Minister, welcome to Strasbourg. The Swedish Presidency is opening in a context, as you recalled, of a major crisis. I would like to thank you because, in this context, you are demonstrating with your government that it is possible to repair Europe. As you said, you want a greener, safer, freer Europe. Greener, not by less work and science, but on the contrary by relying, as you do, on the best of European genius and in particular on the nuclear industry, which allows us to count – and will allow us to count tomorrow – on safer decarbonised energy, not by managing our impotence, by distributing the quotas of illegal migrants that we have not been able to prevent from arriving in Europe, but on the contrary by controlling our borders. And of course freer, you are a strong voice to say that it is not because we spend more public money that we increase the prosperity of our societies; It is only because we unleash creativity and leave our states where they are, in their role and responsibilities. Prime Minister, today we face key challenges. Selma Lagerlöf said in The wonderful journey of Niels Holgersson intelligence and wisdom make beggars princes. We do not doubt for a moment, quite the contrary, that you will be able to demonstrate this intelligence and wisdom, and you will be able to count on your political family, on the EPP, to support you in this way, despite all the adversities and sometimes, unfortunately, despite the denials of reality that continue to flourish in our European institutions. We need a strong Swedish presidency to be able to repair and strengthen Europe in the terrible international context we are experiencing. Dear Prime Minister, lycka tillGood luck!

Mr President, this text on culture is an opportunity to talk about a threat that, I believe, through a purely technical regulation, could directly affect European heritage, because the Commission is about to publish a revision of the REACH and CLP regulations on chemicals. Through this, there is a major risk: that of new standards that would prohibit productions that are vital to our heritage. Take lavender, for example. Improbable, but true: the Commission could treat as a chemical to ban the extract of this plant, a Provençal marvel with which men have perfumed and cared since the Roman Empire. I am also thinking of lead, which is explicitly threatened. If lead were involved tomorrow, it would become impossible to work the stained glass, for example. When it takes tens of thousands of euros of files for a simple temporary authorisation, which craftsman will be able to continue working? Crafts have already disappeared, not because of lack of work, but because of excessive standards. ‘Two thousand years"Peguy wrote in his prayer at Chartres Cathedral, ‘Two thousand years of hard work have made this land An endless reservoir for new ages Thousand years of your grace have made this work An endless resting place for the lonely soul". . . After these centuries of efforts, we will threaten the restoration of Notre-Dame-de-Paris with administrative forms, as well as the maintenance of any village chapel. The pride of our predecessors, what made Europe, was the greatness of the works they left behind. We cannot undo it today by the height of the administrative walls we are erecting against all those who are desperately trying to create, transmit and nurture what we have received. Dear friends, ladies and gentlemen, this is basically the same subject: We will not save nature by weakening culture. Together with our group, Commissioner, we are tabling an amendment to restore this simple principle: the Commission must provide for an exemption – taking into account, of course, health and the environment – whenever a new standard would endanger a cultural or heritage sector. We're counting on you.

Mr President, in fact, through this regulation, the Commission simply wants to impose on all Member States a change that is not within its competence: decide on the definition of the family, the recognition of filiation. No treaty has given this responsibility, no treaty has given this power to the European institutions. Respecting the rule of law may mean first of all respecting our democracies and our own treaties. This project would effectively oblige all our countries to recognize surrogacy. Because yes, ladies and gentlemen, behind all the fine words exchanged tonight, there is in fact an industry that makes a profit by exploiting the most vulnerable women. What strange progressivism could justify the worst regression, that of making a human life the subject of a market contract again? Yes, behind all this, you said, there are children. And I am very surprised, ladies and gentlemen, that you have all complained to Sarah that you do not have a passport. First of all, I complain about Sarah not having a dad.

Mr President, this morning we are talking about rescue at sea and asylum policy. Of course, of course, you have to save people who drown. No one disputes it here. But the best thing is to prevent them from risking their lives. What is bereaved today in the Mediterranean Sea? It is our collective powerlessness that means that if someone manages to enter Europe illegally, they are sure to stay there forever. It was the resignation of governments, including the French Government, whose decision to accept the boat was the publicity dreamed of by smugglers’ networks. This is the complicity of some NGOs, which have been shown to be in close contact with these trafficking networks. It is the misuse of our principles by abusive case law that renders our laws powerless. This is the relentlessness of those who, in the Commission, sometimes, or in Parliament, have relentlessly attacked Frontex’s management – not because it was not doing its job, but because it was doing its job. We no longer even pretend to fight these smuggling networks, the most criminal mafia in the world, which earns billions of euros thanks to our passivity. It is not primarily because they are fleeing war or misery that people drown in the Mediterranean. Those who leave are those who already have enough means to pay for the crossing. But we do not have the right, even if we understand them, we do not have the right to the cynicism hidden behind the beautiful speeches that rely on the living forces of developing countries to do at home the work that we no longer want to do or that our companies no longer want to pay properly. Europe is an ageing society, you said, Commissioner. Europe needs people of all skill levels and, I quote, the European Union will expand migration opportunities. But this utilitarian logic, behind the great moral lessons that claim to worry about the suffering of the most distant, does not listen to the suffering of the closest, the poorest, the most vulnerable in our own countries, those who live directly the terrible tensions born from the denial of this irresponsible migration policy. European solidarity must consist in responding together to this challenge, not by managing our impotence, but by finally putting an end to it.

Mr President, Commissioners, some news from France: At the end of September, the mayor of Neuilly-sur-Marne, Zartoshte Bakhtiari, warned that his municipality would have to pay 32 times the price of its electricity bills. At the end of October, the Safran industrial group decided to suspend the establishment of a plant in Lyon and perhaps to turn to the United States. A few days ago, the Arcelor Group closed one of its blast furnaces. Today we see that the price of electricity in Europe is three times more expensive than in the US or China. It is urgent to react if we do not want our continent to experience industrial desertification, technological collapse, even greater trade dependence and, of course, immense social distress in the future. For this, two actions to be carried out head-on. The first: increase by all means the production of energy in Europe. As deputy rapporteur on the REPowerEU plan, I tabled an amendment – I hope we will adopt it together tomorrow – to include nuclear energy, on which we must be able to rely. And the second measure, of course: now calling into question the dysfunctional rules of the European market to ensure that we get out of this very dangerous spiral.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is not cold yet, but winter is starting for Europe and the most worrying sign is the drastic reduction in the consumption of gas by our industries, which shows how close we are to a potential economic collapse. Once again, there is an urgent need to act – and we repeat this here – and an urgent need to finally effectively decouple gas and electricity prices; the urgent need for the Commission to put an end to the cessation of pilotable production in our countries. Why has Germany just decided to extend its nuclear power plants? That Belgium closed, last September, on September 23, a controllable power plant, that of Doel 3? This alone represents 200 million cubic meters of gas that we will have to import every month. This is obviously something that concerns all of our countries and solidarity starts there. I am very pleased that we have recently been able to include nuclear in RePowerEU funding through an amendment. We need all controllable production capacity to relaunch Europe. Finally, Commissioner, we must ensure that sanctions are not circumvented. Of course, we owe it to truth and justice to live up to this commitment. How can we explain, for example, that today Azerbaijan’s gas production has decreased while its exports are increasing? Can the Commission explain this? If we allow sanctions to be circumvented, we will have lost on all counts.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in 2021 the European Commission financed a communication campaign on the Islamic veil, which stated in particular that, I quote, ‘freedom is in the hijab’. These words are unjustifiable at a time when so many women in Iran and around the world are risking their lives, being killed because they resist the oppression imposed on them. Europe’s message cannot be to answer them – it was another of the slogans of the Commission’s campaign: Bring joy. Accept the hijab. Our Parliament must demand an immediate end to all such communication. We owe it to the memory of Mahsa Amini, all the women who were killed and those who risk their lives today, precisely in the name of freedom. Together with many colleagues in our group, we would like to propose this amendment: (Applause) ‘expresses its deep concern that the Commission has recently funded or co-financed campaigns promoting the Islamic veil, stating for example that, I quote, ‘freedom is in the hijab’; stresses that the European institutions must not fund any future campaign that could promote the hijab;”

Mr President, the whole world is receiving a lesson in courage from Mahsa Amini, Hadis Najafi, Ghazale Chelavi, and so many others who risk and lose their lives all over Iran simply for not living in hiding, trapped in a veil imposed on them in the name of Islam, even when they cry out that they did not choose it. These 20-year-old women are giving Europe a lesson in courage. And this continent, which has embraced the demand for freedom of conscience in its history and has paid so dearly for it every time it has forgotten it, must do everything it can to protect them. You do not know, Mr High Representative, whether the word 'sanction' is the right one: It does not matter, as long as you act to show Iranian criminals that Europe does not remain silent in the face of the murder of the youth of their own country. But let's start ourselves by not betraying these women: this Parliament voted last June a resolution that rejected any ban on the veil, any discussion on the veil, in the name of intersectionality. Where was the left, so quick to criticize religions? Where were the feminists, who chase patriarchy in our countries and in the United States? Everyone was indifferent when we denounced the campaign, funded last year by the Commission, which proclaimed that ‘freedom is in the hijab’. Doesn't all this revolt us, you Not a revolt now? Bring joy. Accept the hijab": this was the slogan of the Council of Europe. Council of Europe leaders, are you ashamed? Will you ask for forgiveness when you think of Mahsa, Hadis, Ghazale, who died shouting that hijab is oppression? It is time to finally shed light on the enteric strategies and culpable complicities that led to these terrible denials.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a very good report to support aquaculture. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Clara Aguilera for the work she has done to coordinate our work. Supporting aquaculture is a commitment that was expected by a sector that continues to transmit a legacy, a know-how maintained for centuries, which has constantly reinvented itself, but to which we must have shaped our landscapes, to have balanced our ecosystems. It is also an absolutely indispensable commitment to improve the food resilience of European countries. Today, 70% of seafood and fresh water products are imported. And if we don't want to endanger wild fish, then we need to increase our production by supporting aquaculture. This requires a long-term political will. We need trust in this sector and finally a comprehensive strategy for the protection of ecosystems. We will talk a lot about the cormorant, because the cormorant has been successfully protected for decades by the European Union. But today, this bird that has no predators is doing well. It has settled down and is now endangering species of fish that are likely to disappear. It also endangers the entire balance of this sector. Finally, we need to revise this protection under the Habitats Directive if we are to allow aquaculture to develop over time. It is restoring an ecosystem, it is really taking care of our environment and nature to put on the table this absolutely necessary debate.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, finally we have a discussion on the EU Ocean Strategy! And you said it, ladies and gentlemen: It was time! The European Union is the world’s first exclusive economic zone and must now take on this responsibility: It is legitimate to act. This negotiation on the text we are discussing together, this long negotiation, will have made it possible for obvious disagreements to emerge between us – let us not be afraid to face it –. Some would like to protect life and the environment by increasing the burden on those who work at sea, especially in our European countries, to the point of making any human effort linked to the sea and the ocean impossible. We have even heard some people say that the decline of European fisheries, for example, would be good news. This is not to understand that the essence of the environmental challenge today is not to further over-regulate the activities of European professionals – who already meet the highest standards in the world – but to ensure that the other world powers share a common responsibility with us. It is necessary for this text to reaffirm the imperative of combating illegal fishing worldwide, the need to implement a determined plan against plastic pollution and the need to advance research on the still largely unknown world of the ocean. Basically, we will not get out of the environmental challenge with less effort and work. We will only get away with more science, more research, more commitment from people to protect this heritage that is common to us.