Speeches

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.

Madam President, the crisis we are experiencing requires us all to return to reality, especially in terms of energy, to get out of our dependencies, to protect the environment, we are no longer entitled to illusions. You want to develop wind power massively and you have cited Denmark as a model. But with nearly 10,000 wind turbines, Denmark remains dependent on its coal-fired power plants and has to import electricity. The one that neighbouring Sweden produces and exports is 50% less carbon-intensive thanks to nuclear power. How can we break the deadlock if we do not open our eyes, if we send gas to Germany to help it through the winter while letting it shut down its operating nuclear power plants? If to stop paying for Russian gas, we pay for Azeri gas, thus becoming dependent on another criminal dictatorship. And I dare to hope, Madam President, that we will jointly sanction the aggression launched yesterday by Aliyev against Armenia. This is not just about energy. To return to reality is to refuse these new rules, which will bring down agricultural production in Europe at a time when food prices are rising everywhere in our countries. It is to start producing again rather than relying on the multiplication of dated trade agreements. It is breaking the spiral of a common debt that will make us vulnerable tomorrow. It is defending Frontex and controlling our borders rather than weakening its mandate. It’s not just about recruiting talent from abroad, it’s about training our young people better first. Madam President, you want to include solidarity between generations in our treaties, and we share that spirit. But it probably starts there.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this night, shortly after midnight, Azerbaijan launched a full-scale military attack on Armenia. Intense shelling targeted several towns and villages on Armenian territory. Military sites, of course, but also places inhabited by civilian populations. At this point, the toll is at least 49 soldiers and three civilians killed. Nothing, nothing can justify this aggression. Two years ago, in violation of all the rules of international law, Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey, attacked Nagorno-Karabakh. This time it is attacking the very territory of the Republic of Armenia. Ladies and gentlemen, we supported the Ukrainian people without hesitation when they were attacked by Russia. We must denounce with such a clear voice the criminal aggression launched last night by Mr Aliyev’s regime. Madam President, we ask you to bring the voice of our Parliament to this emergency situation. Our determined position can prevent this war and can stop Azerbaijan in the project it is preparing. Finally, let's stop treating this criminal state as a legitimate partner and fund its threats by buying gas from it. Let us quickly take steps to prepare sanctions that are effective. Let us immediately demand a meeting of the United Nations Security Council. We owe it to the security of our continent, which will be directly endangered by this new conflict. But above all, we owe it to the Armenian people with whom we live these hours of mourning and anguish wholeheartedly.

Mr President, to conclude this debate, as we have said, it is a moment of truth that is emerging. Tonight, we heard from colleagues who call themselves environmentalists and who are willing to sacrifice the energy sector without which, says the IPCC, we will not be able to save the climate. We have heard from Socialist colleagues who are ready to sacrifice the energy sector that will make it possible tomorrow to control the costs of energy, which are soaring today for households, for families, for our businesses, for our industries. We have heard from colleagues who claim to be defending democracy, yet who are ready, by abolishing the nuclear industry, to make us even more dependent on these authoritarian states that now own gas, oil and rare earths. Colleagues, tomorrow we will all face our responsibility. This is a historic vote. This will be an opportunity to show not only our commitment to the future of our continent, which started with the Energy Union, the European Coal and Steel Community, but it will also be a time to show the sincerity of our convictions, our ability to face reality, to take facts into account, to listen to reason. It is also a certain idea of democracy that is emerging in our vote tomorrow.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you are part of the Group of the Greens and I believe that we have in common a desire to combat the climate crisis. How do you respond to the fact that nuclear emits half as much CO2 as wind and ten times less than solar energy, and what do you respond to the IPCC saying that we will not be able to solve the climate challenge before us if we do not do with nuclear energy, which is now the most decarbonised energy that European countries can have to face this challenge and preserve our energy model?

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, this Council will be marked by growing concerns, of course, on the economic front: inflation is reaching unprecedented levels and is now hitting millions of citizens in our countries who, by working or having worked all their lives, are no longer able to cope. Will we have the means to sustain the war effort that will have to be made to deal with the conflict in Ukraine after COVID? For this, there is an urgent need to rebuild the capacity of our states to act by finally returning to fiscal seriousness. Russia has a long way to go in its war. And do you know why? It is only indebted to 17% of its GDP. A country like mine, with 113% of its GDP in debt, is infinitely more vulnerable, especially when half of its debt is held by foreign actors. And that is, I believe, one of the keys to the fight that lies ahead. As we all know, we are facing very strong tensions for families, for workers, for businesses in our countries. It is urgent that the European states that still live in untenable budgetary illusions finally have the courage to return to the economic balances that are essential to act over time and face future crises and guarantee our sovereignty.

Madam President, last Sunday in Owo, Mass was coming to an end when the first shots were fired. More than 50 people were killed and dozens injured, including many children. What was their crime? For having been to Mass. Less than a month ago, still in Nigeria, young Deborah Samuel was lynched, stoned, her body burned by her classmates in the name of Islam. What was his crime? She was a Christian. In the aftermath of that murder, a majority of this Parliament had refused to include this topic on its agenda. We talk a lot here, but persecuted Christians have only the right to silence. A silence that should shame us. Who said anything about Owo’s deaths? Who? Where did you see their images? Where did you hear the witnesses? In fact, we are talking about it tonight, but this Parliament is almost empty when, on the contrary, this subject should concern us all. Because Europe is concerned; Our continent owes so much to the Christian faith! When will we finally understand that Europe has a duty to protect persecuted Christians around the world? Those from Nigeria, of course, but also those from Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, those from India, those from China, of course – I am thinking of Cardinal Zen, who was arrested just recently. What is Europe doing? What does she say? She lets things go, and in a way everything is summed up by the fact that she has not found anyone for months to take on the role of Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion. Ladies and gentlemen, if we do not react now, this silence will remain a symptom of the greatest denial of European leaders.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, there are moments that count in a mandate and this one, I believe, is part of it because, for years, Europe has allowed all the imbalances of globalisation to settle. And when it was concerned about the environment, it set increasingly demanding standards for all those who produced in our countries. And these constraints eventually installed a form of unfair competition. We have not promoted ecology, we have especially weakened our economy. For the first time, we will make the single market that we have been able to build a lever to protect our environment. Tomorrow, those who import into Europe will also have to pay for their carbon emissions. And by imposing this mechanism on our borders, we are pushing the world towards cleaner production and we are also giving oxygen back to our own industries. This is the awareness that was long awaited. Simply imposing constraints on those who work in Europe is not a progress for ecology, it is a problem for ecology. It is not to stop polluting, it is to export pollution and to become dependent on the model that we refuse. Now, ladies and gentlemen, this awareness must come to an end. We will not build a cleaner industry without European industrialists. And when they need to invest the most, we don't have the right to take the money away from them.

Mr President, the situation created by Russia’s war against Ukraine risks putting us in a situation of shortage in the medium term in the European area and will continue to raise energy prices for consumers and businesses in our countries. That is when the coalition currently in power in Germany decides to backtrack and vote against the delegated act of the taxonomy, including nuclear energy sources that can serve the decarbonisation of our continent. There is something like a purely ideological madness that cannot be explained otherwise. The Commission itself, in the REPowerEU plan, would like to get us out of our dependence on Russian gas without investing a single penny. However, funding is provided for nuclear energy, which now accounts for a quarter of Europe's electricity production. It is fundamental that we are able to get out of magical thinking. We will not avoid these shortages and rising prices if we are not able to take advantage of all the energy sources currently available. And to begin with, let’s say it again here, Germany and Belgium must keep in operation the plants that still exist in their countries today. It will be, just that, a billion cubic meters per month of Russian gas that we will import less. It is also our honour that is at stake in this choice.

Madam President, a word to go back to the discharge of Frontex, because we see that this procedure risks being instrumentalised by all those who would like to prevent the agency from carrying out its mission. Its task is not to control the Member States, but to help them, in particular to deal with illegal immigration, which we can clearly see could jeopardise the very balance of our countries. Today, we are being proposed to postpone the discharge of Frontex on the basis of an OLAF investigation, which we do not have, which we have not been able to read, and we see that this postponement of the discharge will only serve this political trial, which is being conducted against the agency, against its teams, against its management. At Frontex, we are re-emphasising our trust here. We reiterate that nothing should undermine the mandate entrusted to it, including attacks that sometimes come from within the European Commission itself. We believe in this mandate, we believe in its mission, and that is why we believe it is fundamental to refuse to allow this discharge process to be politically instrumentalised today.

Madam President, Commissioner, it seems to me that our debate is marked by an ambivalence that some are seeking to exploit. Of course, the principle of non-refoulement prohibits a state from pushing someone out of its borders who would be in danger in the country to which it is being returned. But the principle of non-refoulement does not say that it is forbidden to control its borders. The principle of non-refoulement does not say that it is forbidden to push back, for example in Turkey, when that state seeks to use our fragility in terms of migration, people who will obviously not be in danger if they are returned to that country. Today, this confusion is causing the humanitarian drama that some say they want to avoid. I went to the island of Evros, I met those who are now trapped by what some say is an eldorado and which is proving to be a dead end. Behind the beautiful statements here is the obvious complicity with the trade of smugglers who, on our naivety, build the dreams on which they thrive by creating so much misfortune. And we need to be clear today: if we continue on the path of this absurd criminalisation, if we continue to explain that a border guard does not have the right to guard a border, if we continue to make people believe that we do not have the right to refuse entry to people who obviously do not have the right to come and settle illegally in Europe, we will only provoke the humanitarian disasters that we will come to deplore next, and that we will cause the deaths that are mourning, around Europe, the Mediterranean Sea and the borders of our continent.

Madam President, Commissioner, the report we are about to vote on finally puts the spotlight on the disastrous consequences that Brexit will have had for European fishermen: the consequences of the application of the agreement, since our fishermen will lose 25% of their activity in value in British waters – no economic sector will have been affected to this extent – but also the consequences of the non-implementation of the agreement by our British partners, who have used all possible bad faith in the past months, for example not to issue fishing licences to vessels that were nevertheless entitled to do so under the agreement that had been signed. This should allow us to open our eyes to the tug of war that is before us today, to ensure that we will be able to enforce this agreement at the end of the transition period that will end in 2026. We want to have loyal cooperation with the British, but this cooperation must be in good faith and must be done in accordance with the commitments that each of the parties has signed. I would like to say that the work that we have done here to defend European fishermen, the fishermen of our countries, who are now hit hard not only by the consequences of Brexit, but also by the crisis triggered by the exponential increase in energy prices, finds its full meaning in the moment we are living, because fishermen are one of the essential supports for our food. At a time when we are experiencing the reality of food insecurity in Europe and around the world, we must reiterate our trust and appreciation for the work they are doing. Far from all those who would like to attack them, sometimes even criminalise them, we know that it is to European fisheries that we owe part of our capacity to resist the turbulence of this world. We will need them to avoid this global food insecurity that threatens to affect Europe and the countries around it.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, the current situation is obviously a terrible crisis for European households, which are seeing their fuel bills explode, and reveals our continent’s dependence on Russia, which we are paying at the price of our honour in the current crisis situation in Ukraine. Of course, urgent action is needed, and many of the measures you have announced, Commissioner, are obviously necessary. However, in order to move forward, we will have to start producing again, and it will take time. You spoke of this view, Commissioner, of the massive deployment of renewable energy. I am afraid that we have not yet realised the need to base our energy mix of tomorrow on all controllable energy sources. Every time we install a wind turbine or solar panel in Europe, we need to import gas to compensate for its intermittentity. How is it that this very simple equation has not yet been understood? It sheds a stark light on the funding from Russia of many so-called environmental organisations that have contributed in recent years to destroying our energy mix. We must urgently step out of naivety. It also means being able to rely on nuclear energy. Let's say it again: it is part of what allows us today to produce decarbonised energy, which guarantees our independence and sovereignty.

Madam President, Russia’s attack on Ukraine not only endangers the lives of Ukrainians, it also endangers living conditions for many others and for a long time by threatening planting and harvesting in Ukraine, but also by cutting off from the world a region that today produces 30% of the world’s wheat. Meanwhile, in our countries, farmers and fishermen are in extreme difficulty because of the rising prices of fuel and all raw materials, which directly endangers the continuation of their activity. However, it is the condition of life that we are talking about, and today we must reiterate our support for farmers in the face of the suspicions that they still face and that we still hear here. To this end, Commissioner, it is also necessary to revise our policies in this area. I am thinking in particular of the Farm to Fork Strategy. How can we pursue this strategy, which the European Commission study group itself says will bring down European food production, raise prices for consumers, lower incomes for farmers and increase our dependence on global imports? It would be foolish to persevere on this path. Mrs Noichl, how can you accuse those who dare to put on the table this debate, which is necessary in the moment we are going through? Those who endanger our sovereignty, those who make us fragile in the face of Russia’s attack, are those who want to bring down European production when we need to strengthen it.

Madam President, Commissioner, one war must not make us forget another. Even today, families in Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, are waiting for the return of ill-treated prisoners of war illegally held by Azerbaijan, used as bargaining chips. Military personnel and civilians are regularly targeted by Azeri soldiers, in defiance of ceasefire commitments. Just yesterday, the village of Khnushinak was targeted by mortar fire, and this morning, that of Khramort. But it is not only the living who die. President Aliyev also wants to kill history, like the Taliban in Bamiyan, like Daesh in the Levant. Since the end of the war, dozens of monuments, churches, khatchkars, have been deliberately destroyed in a senseless denialist drive to erase the millennial traces of the Armenian presence on these lands, which the Azeri government very officially declares to be a fiction. The ultimate violence which, by depriving a people of their right to decide their destiny, also wants to rob them of their presence. Violence that concerns us all, because this priceless heritage is also ours. It is a treasure of humanity. Our resolution today affirms the urgency of a UNESCO mission to verify the protection of Armenian heritage now. If this resolution is not followed up, the EU must suspend its funds to Azerbaijan, as no support is due to a state that violates international law and its own commitments. Europe has become aware of this today, it must finally be present concretely alongside Armenia.