Speeches

Madam President, needless to recall the very correct findings that we have just heard, I would simply like to recall one point that concerns us all, far beyond these walls. With the invasion of Ukraine, it is not only the freedom and sovereignty of the Ukrainian people that is under threat – a people to whom we owe our solidarity. These are also the principles necessary for world peace. Never, never should a great nation resolve any disagreement by violence. Nor does an army have the right to attack civilians, to bomb, as we have seen in recent hours, targets that have no military necessity and to evacuation corridors through which families flee the war. To recall this is not naive idealism, it is to recall international law. Even war has its rules. A thousand years ago, Europe knew that weapons did not have all the rights and it paid dearly every time it forgot. To all the Russian forces involved in this conflict, by the destructive will that would make us believe that violence again prevails over law, we must recall this simple principle: We all have a conscience, we are all responsible, definitely. One day justice will pass. And now it's time to show what it means to be a man. For us Europeans, who have believed for too long that war is behind us, it is time to finally recall that it is a betrayal of the principles we have inherited to be too disarmed to be able to defend them at a time of danger.

Mr President, we are facing an existential crisis and it is time to take the measure. 400% increase in the price of gas in just one year, it is obviously a major crisis, a crisis vital for, of course, European households and countries, but also for tens of thousands of companies that could be condemned to bankruptcy as well as for our entire financial system, which is threatened with collapse in the face of exploding financing needs. Urgent action is needed. We must do everything possible, use all the tools at our disposal to cushion the shock and overcome this crisis. And for that, the proposals made today by the Commission will not be enough. The Commission proposes to oblige Europeans to increase their reserves. But how can we store more of what we cannot produce or buy? This will only further soften the market. The urgency is to contain prices and, for that, to revert to the market logic that the Commission has been trying to impose on the energy sector for years. It is thanks to this logic that we are now paying €600 million per day to Russia. Prices must no longer depend on market variations, but on production costs – and we owe it to all consumers. The urgency is, and the urgency will remain, production: It is necessary to produce, to produce, to produce. And from this point of view, it is tragic that the Commission has not taken up the proposal by the International Energy Agency to extend the existing nuclear power plant. If only Germany and Belgium decided to maintain the four reactors that these two countries decided to close, Europe would save 1 billion cubic meters of gas per month on its imports from Russia. Do those who have shut down power plants in our countries now realize that they are making us more fragile in the current crisis and in some way condemning us to powerlessness in the face of the aggression that Ukraine is undergoing today?

Madam President, I hope we all agree here that the rule of law must be defended scrupulously and that Europe is a civilisation that carries with it the principle of freedom, which we do not have the right to negotiate, even in times of crisis. However, this respect for the rule of law must never become the occasion for a double standard trial, which ends up discrediting the case he claims to be defending. Here, as we have seen again tonight, it is always the same ones that are targeted. However, I also know a country – I know it well – that lives in a state of emergency, which has been planned to last 12 days, for two years now – and it is not Hungary – a country where two close members of the government were appointed yesterday to the Constitutional Council – and it is not Poland – a country whose Court of Auditors warned this morning about public finances being adrift because of the uncontrolled spending of a President of the Republic – without relaunching, two months before a presidential election – a country where 80% of orders have still not been ratified by Parliament, even though they are taken unilaterally by the government. This country, Minister, is ours. This is your government. So yes, let us be concerned about the rule of law. We have to worry about this, because a true democracy is a country that inquires about its own health from the point of view of freedom. But let us not make this cause of the rule of law the occasion of a political trial, because we will make all the fractures that would weaken the Europe of tomorrow.

Madam President, Mr President of the Republic, you have just opened this presidency with great promises, but we must tell you the truth: No one here really believes it. Not only because the calendar you have endorsed will serve your presidential campaign more than European action, but above all because you have contradicted yourself so much. You've played so much by deflecting to the meaning of the most important words. You have, sorry to say, often lied. How can I believe you? You say you want to control Europe's borders, but yesterday you denounced as a nationalist leprosy the countries that called for help to protect their borders in the face of the migration crisis. You talk about the environment and strategic autonomy, but today France imports gas and coal because you closed Fessenheim and undermined our industry. You speak today of European belonging while declaring that the roots of Europe do not matter. But where then to draw the sap to irrigate our future? You promised the end of the divisions and you will leave France, like Europe, fractured as never before. Here too, we know that your "at the same time" is just a rhetorical trick to cover up calculated inconsistencies. As Pierre Manent writes, the contradiction between Europe's ambitions or pretensions and its reality has become a major political fact. You embody this contradiction today, and we must resolve it. Of course, together with our group, our delegation, we will do everything to make these six months as useful as possible for our countries. But in truth, Mr. Speaker, the essential is no longer there. The main thing is to say to all of you, French and Europeans who look at us: another policy is possible. A policy that takes you seriously, that prefers the sobriety of action to the obsession with communication. A policy that does not claim to strengthen Europe by weakening the states that make it up. Who does not believe that European solidarity is about over-indebtedness. Who does not pretend to defend the rule of law by marching in your freedom and sovereignty, who does not despise you at the first coming disagreement. Who respects you and gives himself the means to make you respected by the great powers of the world. You do not ask too much if you hope for all this, and we have a duty to prepare together for the recovery of our countries, of Europe, to prepare for the succession to which you are entitled.

Madam President, Bernanos wrote, ‘you may wonder if there will still be Christmas nights with their angels and shepherds for this world so foreign to the spirit of childhood’. Amazing, but true, the day has arrived: We must now try to save Christmas, which the European Commission seemed to have planned to condemn. Commissioner Dalli considers that the term is not inclusive enough. Crazy! Reaching the hatred of the roots that have made Europe. Ms Dalli may have forgotten: Christmas is not just the pretext of winter holidays, as she says, it is the day on which the world we inherit was born, the beginning of our era, the reference from which we count our years. Mrs Dalli, do you intend to withdraw us to this common landmark? Crazy! Because to deny what connects us is to destroy any possibility of belonging to a common culture, any hope of assimilation and thus open the way to the break-up of our societies, to the communitarian demands that are preparing for the coming confrontations. In the same month, the European Commission condemned Christmas, because it needed to be inclusive and funded a campaign proclaiming that joy was in the hijab, because it needed to be inclusive. You think we don't understand? When you call us to avoid Christian first names, to favor, I quote, "Malika" rather than "Maria". You are not attacking superfluous symbols and I say this here to all our colleagues who would be tempted not to take this problem seriously: you are attacking what unites Europe and you are paving the way for all the fractures of tomorrow. Jean-Paul Sartre, wrote - Jean-Paul Sartre! -: "you have the right to be shown the crèche" and you wanted to withdraw this right from us. And you are not the first, Ms Dalli. But you have to take responsibility, even if you did not have the courage to come and answer here, I know you hear us. You did everything you could to deny Europe and your mission was to serve it. But it is in vain. Madness, indeed, to believe that you can destroy that. All Ms Dalli in Brussels will never prevent Christmas Day from emptying the Commission’s offices because of the infinite hope that Hannah Arendt spoke of, proof that Christmas is inclusive, through what she described as the greatest of the good news, the good news of the Gospels: A child is born to us. Mrs Dalli, we are talking here, but the truth is that we do not need to save Christmas. Once again this year, Christmas will save us as much as Europe lasts. Merry Christmas!

Mr President, in Eastern Europe, the Belarusian dictatorship is organising a migration crisis and right now, as we speak, Poland is facing thousands of people massed at its borders. This is not Poland's problem, this is our problem. These people want to enter Europe illegally and Poland is defending the whole of Europe. If we do not help him, we have no future, because the one who does not control his borders is necessarily the toy of the first migratory blackmail that came and he abandons the essential. Those who attacked Frontex here a few months ago said they were defending fundamental rights, but it is only our weakness that allows Lukashenko, like Erdoğan yesterday, to put the thousands of people he is pushing towards Europe in danger of death in order to destabilise us. Today, when Poland is on the front line in the face of this clear attack, the same attacks Poland as if it were the one to be targeted. Is Europe able to unite to meet the challenges that affect us all and preserve its principles? In the face of such a serious crisis, solidarity is non-negotiable, starting with financing the infrastructure needed to protect our borders. Now.

Madam President, at this very moment, thousands of people used as a weapon of a new kind by the Belarusian dictatorship are being thrown against the borders of Poland, Lithuania, in an attempt to fracture entry into the European space. And this is another indication of this major migration challenge that our countries will have to face together in the coming years. It was at this very moment that some political groups, some colleagues here in the European Parliament and even part of the Commission decided to indict Frontex, the border guard agency, on the grounds that it guards the borders, as if this was an attack on human dignity. While, ladies and gentlemen, we see this clearly, it is against human dignity that our current powerlessness on the migration front will take place. Now that the accusations against Frontex have been gradually lifted, it is fundamental that we can secure the budget of this agency, but that will not be enough. We must also be able to guarantee the necessary legal framework to combat smuggling networks, to take those who have entered illegally out of our borders and, finally, to ensure that real pressure is put on third countries to ensure their cooperation in this area. This is before us, as 12 EU home affairs ministers recently recalled. Unfortunately, for the time being, for any answer, they have only obtained the fact that Europe would not finance the construction of borders, walls and barriers. However, we know that there is a need to finally provide an effective response to this issue. The Council will work on this by talking about the need to cooperate with third countries, but let us remember that no cooperation will be enough if we are not able to do this work effectively in the fight against illegal immigration.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning's debate is triggered by rising gas prices, but the truth is that the energy crisis has not yet started: It is very much in front of us. We can already be sure of this for a very simple reason: it is being prepared now by the decisions that are being taken here, in this Chamber and in the European institutions. As we know very well, these decisions lead us to become more and more dependent on this gas whose volatility we see is great and which will increase even more with the weight of renewables, the intermittency of which will make our dependence even more important. We want to electrify all uses, we need more and more electricity, but we are reducing controllable electricity generation capacity in all European countries. The result is absolutely inevitable. Some, like the French economy minister, want to change the rules of the energy market, but the truth is that you will not change the first principles of the economy. Introductory course on economics, first chapter: Economics is the science of scarcity and anything rare is expensive. If we prepare today the scarcity of the economy for tomorrow, if we prepare today a system in which shortages will be structural from 2030, then we will destroy the competitiveness of our industry, we will increase the insecurity of the European continent and its dependence on the powers that sell us gas, then we will aggravate the growing social malaise. We have known the yellow vests in France, we will see the same phenomenon at the European level and in the end, for having wanted to sell renewable energies that, in reality, make us dependent on gas, we will have increased our contribution to climate change. I believe that if we do not change now, then this moment will be remembered as a particularly milestone in Europe’s self-destruction.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the decision taken by the United States is obviously a wake-up call, but it must not make us forget three things that seem essential. The first concerns the persons who are implicated in this decision: there are already judicial procedures, and I think it is essential to reiterate that the necessary means of combating corruption is justice, and that nothing can replace the procedural work of a court which, by the means of information available to it, will be able to take the necessary decisions. The second point to be made is precisely this: The EU needs to strengthen its fight against corruption. This is a certainty. It cannot do so outside these procedural constructs. And of course, we welcome the reinforcements that the European Union has decided on in this area through the European Public Prosecutor’s Office or the strengthening of Europol. But it is fundamental, and this will be my last point, to recall that never can the necessary fight against corruption, the indispensable fight for the rule of law, become the instrument of a purely political trial. It is clear to us how instrumental these issues can be today, how exploitable they can be. And here I am talking about the European Union as a whole. There is no substitute for this fundamental conquest, which has been for the history of democracy the construction of procedures which lead to results after a fair debate, at the end of a full investigation, with the means of effective information. And it seems to me that today, the danger before us is to see this necessary requirement of transparency instrumentalised to serve political biases that are necessarily capable of casting suspicion, not only on those directly concerned, but also, and most importantly, on democratic procedures themselves. We have a major responsibility here and the European Union, on this fundamental debate on the rule of law, must be at the forefront of reason and responsibility.

Mr President, Madam President, you have drawn up a lucid diagnosis and an ambitious roadmap, but one that will require urgent breaks. You mentioned the dependence of our countries on Asia, highlighted by the health crisis, and you want to ensure better health protection. But the danger would be to prepare for the past crisis. Tomorrow's will come where we don't expect it. As you describe this vulnerability, the proliferation of European climate standards will increase our imports from China; taxonomy could make us permanently dependent on Russian and American gas; and a Commission study reveals that its own agricultural strategy will lead to a massive decline in food production. Sadness for European agriculture, which, I still regret today, will not have had a word, increased food insecurity for our countries and new dependencies. It is through the coherence of actions that public speech takes on its meaning. You want to prevent any product of forced labour from being marketed in Europe. But why then sign at the same time an economic agreement with China, which has still not ratified its ban? You refuse helplessness in the face of uncontrolled migratory flows and so do we. People who do not have the right to stay in Europe should be sent back, you say. But then, why is Commissioner Johansson indicting Frontex because it is carrying out this mission? You assure countries subject to migration blackmail of your support. But Mr Erdoğan, who keeps playing with it, receives billions of euros. And when Lithuania asked for help in the face of a near-invasion, Ms Johansson replied that the Commission was not funding walls or barriers. You say, and so do we, that European countries must commit to their security, and we look forward to your proposal to exempt the defence industry from VAT. But at the same time, European financial regulations are creating severe difficulties for the financing of this crucial sector. And the European Working Time Directive creates major legal uncertainty for the operations of all European armed forces. Finally, a final word for the young people who have been so tried, as you have said, in recent months. It is a bit sad to dedicate 2022 as the year of youth, after leaving EUR 750 billion of unfunded debt in 2021. Rather than the artifices of communication, let us offer the coming generation a Europe finally awakened that can guarantee our countries the means to control their destiny.

Mr President, we have achieved this. Negotiation has been difficult, but I believe that we have been able to significantly improve the European Commission's initial proposal, in particular by improving the distribution of funds between our Member States, but also and above all, I believe this is the most important, to ensure that the sectors most affected – and I am thinking in particular of fishermen – will be offered the support they need to be able to retrain. We are giving the fishing industry the legibility and visibility it needed. We guarantee the simplicity of administrative procedures. We are ensuring that the fishermen who will be affected, even in Jersey, Guernsey and the Falklands, will be taken into account in the distribution of funds. This is fundamental because, let us remember, they are now losing 25% of the fishing capacity in value that they could operate in UK waters. And I believe that we must remember that it is also a key to the strategic autonomy of our countries: Today, we import half of the fishery products we consume in Europe. If we want to guarantee our food sovereignty, our countries do not have the right to abandon those who fish and that is, I believe, the message we are sending through this improvement of the Brexit Adjustment Reserve.

Madam President, in Hong Kong, the free press is now being treated as a threat to national security. But accusations of terrorism do not deceive anyone. Press freedom is only a threat to the Chinese Communist Party, which has undertaken to methodically destroy any democratic resistance to its totalitarian project. A few days ago, the last independent daily published its latest edition. After two police raids, the arrest of its founder, Jimmy Lai, chained in front of the cameras, the imprisonment of his main executives, the freezing of his bank accounts, the newspaper was forced to cease publication. This is obviously a message. From now on, all free speech is threatened in Hong Kong. From this Parliament, we must express our immense admiration for the courage of those who pay the price for this commitment, which they have never given up in favour of democracy: journalists fromApple Daily, but also Joshua Wong, Ted Hui, Claudia Mo and so many others. We stand by them because 10 000 kilometres away, Europe is directly concerned. And this is not, contrary to what the Chinese regime claims, an internal China matter. Firstly, because it is a unilateral breach of an agreement it signed with a European country only 35 years ago. It is therefore not only Hong Kong’s freedom that China is attacking, but also the entire Western world. It de facto weakens the whole climate of the relations that we can build with it, including on the commercial level. What will happen to the investments that we claim to secure with China, if this platform that Hong Kong has always represented for trade relations were to disappear permanently, in its freedom, for the benefit of the Chinese Communist Party? Europe must promote the principles of the rule of law that it is honoured to uphold in its trade and political negotiations. Here it must prove its consistency. We are expected because, in fact, the future of freedom is at stake. If we do not react, we will let China impose its model, which is actually a global counter-model.

Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, double standards, the latest Council conclusions are once again indicative of European biases in international matters. France and Germany offered to reopen a dialogue with Russia. The US President himself has taken an important initiative for this, but the European Council has blocked this proposal, I quote, because of ‘malicious, illegal and destabilising’ actions. However, the tone is very different when it comes to Turkey. The Erdoğan regime is continuing its migration blackmail, violating the territorial integrity of several European countries, mobilising terrorist organisations, staging its means of political pressure in our countries and even going so far as to prosecute its opponents at home, most recently. Do we need more malicious, illegal and destabilising actions? We could go on with the list for a long time. In response to all this, the latter Council, I quote, recalls that it wants to ‘develop a mutually beneficial cooperative relationship with Turkey’ and welcomes a more serene context. To continue the dialogue, he decided to grant Mr Erdoğan an additional EUR 3 billion. How can we take such an incoherent Europe seriously? A weak Europe, to the point that it finances Erdoğan in the hope that he will solve for us the migration problem for which he is in fact one of the main culprits. A Europe whose constantly claimed commitment to the rule of law is so variable in geometry. And then – because we have to talk freely, ladies and gentlemen – a disunited Europe, to the point where Germany sells Turkey the submarines with which it will threaten Greece, Cyprus and perhaps the French navy again in the Mediterranean Sea tomorrow. Colleagues, Mr President, I have the despairing feeling that these Councils follow one another and are alike. But what else can we do than say it again? It is time to open our eyes before history suddenly takes us out of the denial of reality.