What Damien spoke about.

Madam President, on the basis of Rules 164 and 72, could you explain to us on what basis you are accepting or refusing to take the floor before a vote on challenging a negotiating mandate, in this case the infamous ‘Return’ regulation? Political groups must assume their votes and alliances, however shameful they may be. Europeans have the right to know what lies behind these decisions. We owe them transparency, even more so on a text like this. Because this regulation is the worst human rights text put to the vote since the creation of the European Union. Negotiated by the extreme right of the EPP and the extreme right, this text was denounced both by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and by sixteen UN Special Rapporteurs. It seriously and permanently taints the European Union, whose motto is nevertheless "United in diversity", a motto that some here seem to want to apply only if this diversity is white and Christian. Madam President, I would ask you to explain your decision not to give the floor to the political groups for a debate on a text that commits our values and our humanity.

Mr President, the United States has violated international law in Venezuela for vile economic interests; Genocide continues in Gaza; Sudan is dying; in 2025 the 1.5 degree warming threshold was exceeded for the third time; the planet has entered the era of global water bankruptcy; floods, droughts and heatwaves in 2025 caused EUR 43 billion in losses for Europe; every year more than 3 200 Europeans lose their lives at work: there is no shortage of emergencies, and yet what topic does the EPP choose as a topical debate? The migration issue. Banco! For what results? In Calaisis, where I served as mayor for 18 years, far-right activists from Great Britain are stepping up racist raids against refuge seekers. Intimidations, dirty water supplies, and desecration of city walls with racist and hateful graffiti, swastikas. That, ladies and gentlemen of the EPP and LR, is what your shallot race with the far right produces, the one that will give the illusion of action and the most despicable and inhumane solutions. Violence, inhumanity, fractured societies, but zero solutions. In addition, you propose making official development aid or even humanitarian aid to third countries conditional on the management of their borders, on their cooperation on return, on the creation of hotspots on their territory, with great disregard for the fundamental rights of exiles. You even allow children from 6 years of age to be locked up. But for whom are these elected officials who want to regain control of migration? What a pretense! Because, ladies and gentlemen, we do not take back control of migration, and we certainly do not do so by lowering ourselves to the worst vileness. Mr Weber, by wanting too much to dominate, to win at all costs, through the union of the right to the extreme, you think you will eventually reign, but it will then be on a field of ruins. To this I will continue, together with my group, to stand in solidarity and humanity with those seeking refuge. Together with my group, I will continue to defend European values, which increasingly seem to be lacking in you.

Madam President, Commissioner, the far right dreamed of it; you did. In 2024, revelations about the AfD’s planned remigration scandalised and put one million Germans on the streets. Today, when all eyes are on the defence and rearmament of Europe, you are presenting us with a draft regulation that is nothing more or less than the legislative concretisation of this xenophobic delirium: deportation. The Pact on Migration and Asylum, the pact of shame, which contains very harsh provisions on return, is not yet implemented, as it is already reinforced by more inhuman and unworthy proposals. In recent weeks, European leaders have been waving at European values in the face of a Trump who would trample on them. But what European values are we talking about? The violation of the fundamental rights of the most vulnerable? Detention of refuge seekers, including young children? Forced eviction of people fleeing war or misery in return centres? Outsourcing our human and legal obligations to third countries, which will be described as ‘safe’ according to our own interests? Who in the end tramples on these European values, Commissioner? From Dublin to the proposed return to the Pact on Migration and Asylum, European asylum policy has nothing to envy of Donald Trump’s massive deportation delusions.

Mr President, Commissioner, today the PPE imposes on us yet another debate on security at our borders and the strengthening of Frontex, as if migration were the mother of all evils in Europe. It shares this sickly obsession with the Commission and the Member States. So let's stop this unnecessary as well as inefficient overbidding. Instead, let us worry about what has become of Frontex in 20 years. Frontex embodies the failure, but above all the excesses, of our ultra-safe and deadly migration policy. With an annual budget of 959 million euros, Frontex is a monster agency. Its activities and resources have developed as exponentially as its serious dysfunctions. We have allowed Frontex to break free from the rule of law with impunity and to escape almost all control. This agency is unable to prevent the worst human rights violations, when it is not itself directly involved in these violations. We must put an end to this flight forward and this Parliament must play its full part in this necessary start. As for the agreements with third countries, Commissioner, they are shameful, whether with Libya or Tunisia. All the reports of the NGOs, but also of the UN denounce them. So, with all due respect to the EPP and its allies, we will never compromise to ensure that human rights are respected.

Mr President, Commissioner, in the European photovoltaic industry, bankruptcies follow one another. Austrian Energetica in December, Dutch Exasun in January, last week French Systovi shut down. The Swiss Meyer Burger is expected to close its Dresden plant in the near future. While European renewable deployment targets are expected to fulfil their purchase orders, European industrialists are suffering from both aggressive Chinese dumping, US protectionism reinforced by the Inflation Reduction Act, and the lack of a strategic vision of the European Union. Result: tens of millions of Chinese panels are waiting in our ports, our industries are closing, our citizens are losing their jobs and Europe is continuing its deindustrialisation. What is the European Union doing? Not solar, no, wind. Because this "net-zero" industry law is a huge missed opportunity to put in place an effective industrial policy and send a clear signal to industries and investors, it would have been necessary to focus on a limited number of strategic technologies. You have preferred to put on an equal footing renewable energy, nuclear fusion, carbon capture and storage, and to reinforce the energies of the past, which have led us into the climate wall. By giving carbon capture and storage technologies an exaggerated role, you allow the largest emitters to make this choice of ease rather than reducing their emissions. Worse, you are helping to create a new carbon market and thus offering a final reprieve to oil and gas companies, which are brimming with dividends. With the 74th anniversary of the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community just a few days away, you are making the same mistake when it comes to strategic industrial choices that have proven climatic. Except that at the time, in 1950, they were unaware of climate change. Tomorrow we won't be able to say we didn't know.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, thank you for your feedback and contributions. I would also like to warmly thank my co-rapporteur, Eero, for this long-term work that we have carried out jointly, but also all the shadow rapporteurs for their very constructive discussions during these exchanges and, above all, our assistants and advisers, who deserve all the credit. The European Parliament is united in its desire to put an end to the scourge of money laundering, and I welcome that. It is clear that it is better in this House to talk about money than about humanity in order to find a progressive majority. Since we have to talk about money, let me conclude by reminding you of a number: EUR 2 trillion per year is the amount of money laundering worldwide according to UN estimates. This figure reminds us that the fight against money laundering is a twofold imperative and that it is doubly beneficial: on the one hand, it prevents criminal activities, tax evasion, corruption and trafficking of all kinds; on the other hand, it makes it possible to recover funds and thus improve the public finances of the Member States. In view of the amounts in question, there is enough to finance public services for the benefit of all, generous social and economic policies, and the necessary transition of our societies. At a time when the social and ecological crisis is on the rise, there is an urgent need to recover these sums. This is the other issue at stake in this afternoon's vote. Only in this way can we build a fairer, more resilient and sustainable society for all.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, dear European citizens here, criminals, terrorists, tax fraudsters, football clubs and agents, oligarchs, arms traffickers or art lovers or politicians, here is the non-exhaustive list of money laundering enthusiasts, as many informed exploiters of the shortcomings of European legislation. No less than five European directives have succeeded each other in 30 years, with very mixed success. The tip of the iceberg is the repeated scandals: Pandora Papers, LuxLeaks, Suisse Secrets, or Cyprus Confidential a few weeks ago. Here I want to take the estimated amount of money laundering as proof of Europe's failings. According to estimates by the European Commission, transactions involving dirty money amount to almost €130 billion, or half of France’s budget. The gaping hole in the racket remains the manifest ineffectiveness of EU sanctions against Russia. How can we claim to support Ukraine, when Russian oligarchs close to Putin own luxurious villas on the French Riviera or mega yachts in our ports? Dirty money smears everything, right down to the bottom. It undermines our economy and, above all, the confidence of citizens in their governments and their representatives. We needed to act decisively and have a robust system that met the challenges. Today's vote is an opportunity to break free from this dim balance sheet and start a new European battle against money laundering, equipping us with new weapons. The texts put to the vote today propose to address European loopholes, with two simple requirements: on the one hand, to harmonise legislation within our Union and, on the other hand, to strengthen the supervision of sectors and individuals particularly prone to money laundering. Harmonising national laws means, first of all, that the obvious abuses and complacency of some Member States with regard to money laundering must end. The first of these is the sale of visas, or even European passports, in exchange for a financial investment. The European Union closes its doors, pushes back and lets thousands of refuge seekers die fleeing war and misery. On the other hand, when it comes to wealthy people, criminals or not, we welcome them with open arms and sell them residence permits and nationality. This double standard is unbearable. Between 2011 and 2019, at least 130 000 third-country nationals, including Russians and Belarusians subject to sanctions, were granted golden visas. These programmes have generated more than €20 billion for some Member States, notably Cyprus and Malta. These countries are stowaways in the fight against money laundering. They are getting richer at the expense of the rest and jeopardising our financial system. To put an end to this, the texts that are put to the vote today provide for a very restrictive framework for these practices. It will be necessary to check the source of the funds of any person concerned and ensure that they are not on the list of sanctioned persons, of course. The fight against money laundering also starts with a common, clear and objective definition of third countries that pose specific money laundering risks to the European Union. We saw this again yesterday, with the withdrawal of the United Arab Emirates, fortunately rejected by a united European Parliament: The European Commission's list is ultra-politicised and highly permeable to geopolitical pressures and challenges. To prevent these cases from reoccurring, the EU will finally have an autonomous list of high-risk third countries. New also, the new anti-money laundering authority will be able to report problematic banks, to avoid the case, for example, of Credit Suisse. All sectors must be covered. From now on, football clubs and agents, where scandals are commonplace, luxury goods traders – primarily private jets and yachts – and crypto-asset providers join the list of entities subject to due diligence and reporting, as do banks and real estate agents. The objective is simple: Wherever risks are identified, controls need to be strengthened. Similarly, all persons representing risks must be identified: oligarchs and criminals, but not only; Politicians and elected officials must also be subject to enhanced scrutiny, as the irreproachable management of public money is an essential component of citizens’ trust. Because there are no longer brothers and sisters of Russian oligarchs who own luxurious villas, family members of those at risk will also need to be closely monitored. Behind these nominees, a reality: The richest, Russian and non-Russian, benefit from complicated legal arrangements and right-passes, when normal citizens must satisfy all transparency requirements. This fiscal and social injustice must stop. Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, after years of delay and complacency, these advances are capable of effectively and sustainably consolidating the European anti-money laundering framework. This ambitious reform marks the beginning of the end for terrorist criminals and other Russian oligarchs who found the European Union fertile ground for concealing their ill-gotten money.

In 2015, I was mayor of Grande-Synthe, near Calais. I experienced the reception crisis – not ‘migratory’, Fabienne Keller – head on. I welcomed with the greatest possible dignity, in my municipality, the more than 2 500 Syrians who were arrested in that municipality. And at the same time, I lowered the score of the far right in the elections that followed. With this experience, as an MEP, I have tackled the causes here, I have said the real thing to change these despicable migration policies. From this reform, I expected humane solutions, solidarity, an end to violations of the rights of exiles. From the European Parliament, let us stand firm on our values. From the right and the far right, I did not expect anything, because they spread hatred of each other to mask their failures. From Renaissance, I would have liked a burst of humanity. Socialists, I naively hoped for courage. But Parliament has chosen total submission to the Council in order to achieve this abject pact. Renaissance and socialists talk about humanity, solidarity. Foutaises! Under the guise of fighting the far right, you have yielded to a pact with the devil that NGOs and the research community unanimously denounce. By adopting it, you strengthen and finance the walls of fortress Europe, you generalise the detention of exiles, including children, you legalise the worst practices, you welcome criminal policies, as denounced by the UN rapporteur in Libya. This pact is the shame of Europe. He's your shame.

Madam President, Commissioner, this is a missed opportunity. This is the bleak future imposed on us by the dogmatism of the conservatives, liberals and social democrats, coupled with the powerful voices of the oil and gas industry, which, through fake NGOs and real lobbying, intend to carve out the lion’s share and reap new profits in the new market for carbon capture and storage. We were going to compete with the ambitions and billions of the US Inflation Reduction and Climate Change Act. We end up without priorities, without vision and without a euro. By focusing on existing clean and safe technologies and developing a legislative act promoting the purchase of European products (buy european act), we could nevertheless develop an ambitious European industrial strategy focusing on the transition to a net-zero economy to both save the climate, guarantee our industrial autonomy and create quality green jobs. Instead of these guidelines, it is the business as usual and technosolutionism that have been favored. We have chosen to support industry without decarbonisation, to relaunch the energies of the past while betting on immature and unreliable technologies, such as CO2 capture and storage, and at the same time to rely on Natura 2000 areas, the Birds and Habitats Directives, the precautionary principle and the ‘do no harm’ principle. In short, we do not change anything, we emit more and more CO2, we destroy a little more the climate and we cross our fingers so that in 20 or 30 years, we can sustainably store CO2. We are losing 30 years and our chances of staying below 1.5 degrees of warming when the temperature in Rio today is 50.6 degrees. This is the bleak future that emerges from this text, ladies and gentlemen, when solutions exist and we all know it.

Mr President, yesterday we were celebrating here a sad anniversary, that of the sinking of Lampedusa. On 3 October 2013, the tragic death of nearly 400 exiles off this small Italian island led to a welcome surge in European solidarity and the establishment of Operation Mare Nostrum. That was ten years ago. What have we done since then? Mare Nostrum is no more. Frontex is responsible for the security of the external borders and occasionally participates in illegal pushbacks. Worse, Commissioner, when you said earlier that Europe is the champion of human rights, the UN recently concluded that Europe, with its agreement with Libya, was complicit in a crime against humanity. Rescue actions at sea are now largely based on seafarers and NGOs who are increasingly criminalised. Ten years of deadly migration policy and more than 28,000 deaths breaking more than 28,000 lives in the Mediterranean Sea alone. Ten years of dismantling our reception and protection systems for exiles, denial of reception and solidarity, trampling on the law, deprivation of liberty against the backdrop of a resumption of the nauseating rhetoric of the extreme right. The need for reform has never been more urgent, just as it is urgent to remind the Council, the Commission and this Parliament of their responsibilities. Stop brandishing the swift adoption of the Pact on Asylum and Migration as the miracle solution to these ten years of shame, when this hasty reform based on no research could be done at the expense of respect for the law and at the cost of denying our values. Let us return to our fundamentals and live up to the challenges of our responsibilities. We must continue. Parliament will continue to negotiate with the Council, but will relentlessly defend unconditional respect for European law and values.

Madam President, with every drama there is a debate and more and more shame. The European Union is now surrounded by marine cemeteries where relief is hampered. Its budget finances the Libyan mafias, accused of crimes against humanity by the UN. 2023 is a chilling example of the consequences of your deadly policies. 2 January: Italian decree, humanitarian action at sea hampered. 26 February: 86 dead off Calabria. 25 March: Libyan coastguards open fire on the Ocean Viking. 27 April: Commissioner Johansson, you are asking Tunisia to keep our borders against EUR 105 million. 25 May: 500 people in distress in Maltese waters returned to Libya. 2 June: Two humanitarian ships detained in Italy for saving lives in strict compliance with the law. 8 June: In the process of reforming our asylum policies, Member States are abolishing the solidarity mechanism for relief at sea. 14 June: More than 600 people perish off the coast of Greece. 21-22 June, 1 July: at least four shipwrecks off Italy, Spain and Tunisia. 7 July: new Libyan shots at the Ocean Viking. 10 July: Three boats missing between Senegal and Spain, hundreds dead. 12 July, Strasbourg: Together with thousands of supporters, we call on you to stop killing. We will never give up. Let us at least adopt this resolution.

Madam President, Commissioner, $11,300 billion is the astronomical sum hidden in tax havens, according to the revelations of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. This 11 300 billion in tax evasion and money laundering must be put in parallel with the 17 000 billion GDP of the European Union in 2021. The numbers make you dizzy. The list of beneficiaries of these financial arrangements generates a deep feeling of unease. Former and current European leaders, others in office at the time of the Pandora Papers, and therefore able to prevent any tax advance for their own personal interest. Yet no name in this resolution, no naming and shaming: this is the rule in some political groups here in Parliament. Why mention Wopke Hoekstra, current Dutch Minister, Andrej Babiš, then Czech Prime Minister, or John Dalli, former Maltese Minister and former European Commissioner? Recently, PwC leaked confidential documents about the Australian government’s anti-tax avoidance plans for multinationals. One more tax scandal for PwC, already at the heart of the LuxLeaks, in 2014, and, never far away, its Big Four acolytes, these four major firms that share 87% of the global tax advisory market. The Pandora Papers confirmed this: it is through this type of intermediary that the richest 0.01% escape about 25% of their tax obligations. Yet what negotiations to quote PwC, Ernst & Young, Deloitte and KPMG in this resolution! No naming and shamingDo you remember? Member States propose advantageous taxation to attract digital nomads, at the risk of exacerbating social and economic inequalities. But, again, no naming and shaming. Why recall that Cyprus, Croatia, Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal offer potentially harmful regimes for the Single Market and tax revenues? Why? Because ‘to name things wrong is to add to the misfortune of this world’. To this quote from Albert Camus I would add that not naming them at all is to refuse to put an end to the misfortune of the world. Let's learn from the Pandora Papers: Let's name it, let's blame it, let's be ambitious. By speaking for the first time on better taxation of the capital of wealthy people and capital gains on digital nomads and the financialisation of housing, our Parliament is paving the way for fairer tax systems. Ladies and gentlemen, let us adopt this text, strengthen it with the rapporteur's amendments, some of which have been suggested by my Group of the Greens/EFA, and reject any lamentable attempt to weaken it.

Madam President, the far right shamelessly imposes this debate and its nauseating words on us, as we celebrated yesterday the values of Europe, and on Monday commemorate the heavy legacy on which our Union was built. How far will we push the boundaries of indecency? Instead of ignoring it, let’s measure the severity of the moment. Across Europe, the dangerous rhetoric of the far right permeates discourse and politics. When are you going to put an end to this leak forward, Commissioner? Surely not by endorsing this pathological obsession with returns, and by travelling to Tunisia and elsewhere to engage in dangerous haggling with third countries, as Commissioner Johansson recently did. What remains of our values when the EPP calls on the Commission to finance walls, when they already cover more than 2 000 kilometres in Europe? What remains of our humanity when a barge is set up in a port to lock up asylum seekers for months when they cannot be sent directly back to Rwanda? To perfect our fortress Europe, we violate the law, spend billions to caulk, but above all we break thousands of lives. Calls to break free from our international obligations are multiplying everywhere, with no consequences. It is time for us, Parliament, Commission and Council, to act and remember that we will never compromise on our values, on migration as elsewhere, or Europe will have failed.

Mr President, Commissioner, in 2021, the IPCC report was a red code for humanity, according to the UN Secretary-General. Two years of Fit for 55 negotiations later, this time the IPCC synthesis looks like a survival guide for humanity. There is therefore an urgent need to act. Yet, right here, some are pretending to ignore the catastrophe that is looming. They probably think they are safe from its consequences. They pinch on dates, cling to free allowances, etc. These big advocates of European companies are more eager to apply a carbon price to fuels used in road transport or building heating – basically, when it comes to making citizens pay for the efforts that the biggest polluters have not made. Yes, we need to reduce and then stop CO2 emissions. Carbon border adjustment will contribute to this and I welcome it. No, this should not be done on the backs of the most vulnerable. We Greens say it loud and clear: The green transition is not just about greening capitalism with ridiculous social measures. These rustines only serve to preserve the economic and energy model that led us to the climate catastrophe. The green transition is necessary because on a dead planet there is no longer competitiveness or jobs. It is up to us to make it desirable by accompanying companies towards decarbonization, yes, but above all by giving everyone the means to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels without losing their power to live.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, criminals play by the rules of the game to finance terrorist attacks here or launder money there. Unscrupulously, they exploit our flaws. The Commission and the Council cannot stand by when a third country presents a specific and serious threat to the financial system of the European Union. Last example to date: United Arab Emirates. We know that this country serves as a refuge for oligarchs and criminals wishing to escape our rules of the game and sanctions. The Financial Action Task Force, the FATF, an international benchmark in this area, identified the country as a serious threat to the financial system as early as March 2022 – this has been said on several occasions. However, it took nine months for the Commission to update our blacklist. Nine months to which the Council added additional time, making us more vulnerable to external threats and pressures. Our European list should be aligned with the FATF list as soon as possible. The revision of our blacklist is too politicized, opaque and slow. As co-rapporteur with Eero on the Anti-Money Laundering Regulation, I advocate a thorough reform of this procedure. The future European authority must also have a key role. We need to go faster. We need to hit harder. Every week of Council inertia exposes our financial systems and societies to the attacks of the worst criminals.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we should never again accept atrocities in Europe. Never again. This has never been embodied again in the construction of Europe, where we have raised the values of human dignity, freedom, equality, fraternity and solidarity to the highest level. It is shameful to see how all these founding values and European law are being flouted today. Women, children and men die at our borders every day, without seeming to move European leaders in the least. No one can say that he does not know. As in the most disastrous periods of our history, we seek to intimidate and harass selfless and courageous citizens. Yet humanitarians are only bridging the inaction of Member States. They are just people, human smugglers, certainly not criminals. Instead of honouring those humanitarians who defend our values, they are criminalised. Commissioner, it is time to fight this climate of impunity and the nauseating rhetoric and fantasies of the far right. It is time to stop letting racists and xenophobes dictate our policies and values. Will we finally act concretely instead of talking to prevent these tragedies from being perpetuated? We urgently need a humanitarian surge, a political surge.

Mr President, Commissioner, Council representative, yesterday we celebrated here with great pomp the 70th anniversary of this European Parliament. It has been widely recalled that what has founded our community are European values, but in reality, in the Mediterranean, in the Channel, at all our borders, these values are trampled on. In the face of the plight of 234 exiles, France and Italy have shamed these values. Human lives, however, are much better than these political postures. The so-called republican governments in Europe must not follow in the footsteps of the extreme right, but on the contrary, they must unite, strong and sure of our values, to combat its ideas, its despicable processes and certainly not by using its rhetoric, Mr Weber. I would like to remind you of the figures of the International Office for Migration: 87% of the world's migration takes place in the country neighbouring the one that is fleeing. We must collectively welcome only a tiny part of these people. However, for years, the European Union has dealt with migration issues mainly through a security overhang. And it is a total defeat. Worse, a moral defeat. And, top of the outrage: Some irresponsible politicians are now accusing the NGOs that carry out the rescue at sea, because we are not able to organise it, of complicity with the smugglers. Let us stop criminalising the work of NGOs and volunteers. It is really time to get back together and come up with solutions, a pact that meets the humanitarian requirement.

Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union and the Member States have shown exceptional solidarity since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine by hosting more than 7 million refugees. This welcome is mainly due to European citizens, as you stressed. This summer, 49% of people who fled Ukraine sought refuge with their families or volunteers. But as the war unfolds over time, long-term solutions must be offered. While Member States host some refugees fleeing Ukraine, they discriminate against others on ethnic grounds; they are repressing others, with the support of Frontex. As the war continues, and the destabilisation of markets raises fears of the return of hunger riots, some colleagues in this Chamber are more concerned about the migration flows – what a horrible expression – that could overwhelm Europe than about the fate of the countries hardest hit. While more than ever the situation would require intra- and extra-European solidarity, the same political groups that refuse to act on these well-identified causes would like the European Union to react preventively and violently on their consequences so as not to have to rethink a deadly and breathless model. Commissioner, this is far beyond a revolting double standard. We must propose a desirable, ecologically and socially just model of society.

– Mr President, Commissioner, it is true that what we are about to vote is a step forward in environmental and social terms. Thank you, therefore, to the elected environmentalists who, for years, have been calling in particular for the introduction of a carbon tax at the borders and actions towards the most disadvantaged. But EUR 25 billion is the profits made by polluting industries in Europe through the resale of free emission allowances, to the detriment of the climate and our health, and neither the reports of scientists, nor the calls of citizens, nor the condemnations of several Member States for climate action change anything. The absurdity of the system means that not only will we continue to fatten polluting companies with free polluting rights, but we will not give anything to those who have invested in the environment and have heavily decarbonised their production. And it is not a recital in the text that will change anything. Today, we are being proposed the end of free emission allowances for 2032, 2034, 2036 even... As if the climate emergency could wait 14 years. This is delusional! 1025 days: this is what we do have at our disposal to change everything. So, finish the reports at a discount! No more false excuses! Today we have a choice between ecology and chaos: Let's not be mistaken.

Madam President, last Thursday, as today, Commissioner, you said that it was really a time to be proud of being European. Of course, I welcome and congratulate you that the European Union has reached an agreement to trigger the 2001 Temporary Protection Directive and to give a dignified welcome to those fleeing this terrible war in Ukraine. Many argued here, not long ago, that this directive was of no use and that it should be deleted. Its activation proves to us that when political will is there, anything is possible. But there is nothing to be proud of, however, when the European Union simply shows humanity and strictly complies with international law. It is only the strict respect of its commitments, human rights and our values. It is rather uneasy to see that triggering this directive can be so simple and quick, when we were told that it was too complicated for Syrian or Afghan exiles. A deep unease, even, to hear our leaders advocate the reception of this high-quality immigration, European of culture, when last August, we had to protect ourselves against the significant irregular migratory flows from Afghanistan or against the testimonies of discrimination suffered by African students and exiles at the European borders. Discomfort, but no pride. We can be proud to be Europeans when, beyond the directive, we have redefined our European asylum and immigration policy in line with our values to protect and welcome all exiles with dignity. Our responsibilities in terms of reception and protection do not end with the Ukrainian conflict. Here, and only there, pride will prevail over unease.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, while at the border innocent people are dying, you are triggering an emergency mechanism, but not to organise solidarity, no! An emergency mechanism to legalise, whatever you say, the violation of human rights and the right to asylum. It’s a shame! ‘Arbitrary and prolonged detention’, ‘accelerated procedures’, ‘return’: these words make no sense. What is the point of condemning Lukashenko’s instrumentalisation of these refuge seekers, when you practice it shamelessly? Yes, there's an emergency. A humanitarian emergency. 4 000 children, women and men are dying and burying in the forest and in the cold because of your lack of humanity, which is plaguing the whole of Europe. 4 000. A drop in the ocean of 450 million Europeans and under no circumstances a threat. There is an urgent need to get out of this situation by welcoming these human beings. To do this is not to give in to Lukashenko’s blackmail. On the contrary, it is to guard against future blackmail of this kind by demonstrating that the arrival of a few thousand migrants cannot destabilise a continent. Building a wall, on the other hand, is like giving in. This is the admission of weakness that Belarus hoped to obtain. Finally, the urgency is to remain unwavering on our European values, on the immutability of human rights and international conventions.

Madam President, the biggest attempt to destabilise Europe since the Cold War, just that! This is how the Polish Prime Minister describes the presence of a few hundred exiles dying of hunger and cold on his border. Have we fallen so far into infamy that the aspiration of women, children and men for a better life threatens us? It is by stirring up fears of exiles, by talking about them as a problem, as a threat, that we are giving dark dictators the sinister and cynical idea of using these human beings as weapons. Building walls, laying barbed wire, applying a state of emergency to our borders exposes the fragility of our democracies and values to those who fight them. Everywhere, by governments of all stripes, the state abuse inflicted on exiles sinks us into the abyss. Fortunately, citizens are mobilising and rehumanising, providing support and warmth in the Polish swamps, in the alpine snows, on the roads of exile. To the Member States, I say one thing: Your inhumanity is not ours. Your barricaded and inhuman societies are not ours. We do not fight dictatorships or the far right by applying their ideas. We fight them by reaffirming our values loud and clear.

Madam President, Commissioner, you recently said, as regards an anti-migrant wall at the EU’s borders: “I am not against it, but whether European funds should be used to finance the construction of fences instead of other equally important things is another question.” It is shocking for a member of the European Commission to say that she sees the construction of a wall at our borders simply as an accounting problem. Commissioner Johansson, diplomacy has its limits. In the current context, the rhetoric you employ at that time has a fundamental scope. You cannot condemn the instrumentalisation of the exiles by the Belarusian President, while turning a blind eye to the instrumentalisation of the situation by the followers of militarisation and refoulement at the borders. They will always demand more security, always less rights. You must condemn firmly and immediately the long list of horrors taking place at our borders and start infringement proceedings against the offending countries without delay, otherwise we will sink even deeper into infamy. Commissioner Johansson, your role, that of the Commission, is to be a bulwark against those who vomit their hatred and want to make believe that the other is a danger by repressing it abjectly. Don't give them an inch of our principles and values.

Mr President, Commissioner, yes, the whole evening could be spent on this tax agreement, which sets a corporate tax rate of 15% worldwide. This is a first, it is true. But the reality is that this agreement sets an effective rate of 15% when it could have, when it should have been 21%. The reality is that this agreement concerns only a handful of multinationals. The reality is again that this agreement favours developed countries, again leaving the poorest countries behind. Always the same story, over and over again. So poppy would be indecent. Tax, social and climate justice are the same fight and this fight requires a real change of course, a real ambition. This agreement is here. So we'll have to deal with it. On the other hand, nothing prevents us from doing better in Europe. Since France will take over the presidency of the EU from January, I am challenging its Minister for the Economy, Bruno Le Maire, who welcomes this case. First of all, in order to be completely transparent, can it publish the effective tax rate of the multinationals concerned in France and Europe? And finally, are you ready, Minister, to propose to your colleagues to increase the ambition of this agreement by setting an intra-European minimum effective rate of at least 21%?