Speeches

Madam President, the NATO summit to be held this June should allow us to recall a few key points. I will focus on one of them, concerning Ukraine. In a context of protracted war between Russia and Ukraine, there are still voices calling for Russia to join the alliance. As I say clearly, Ukraine must not become a member of NATO. It is not that the brave and bruised Ukrainian people do not deserve our support, on the contrary, but that support, whether diplomatic, logistical or humanitarian, in no way requires formal membership of NATO, because it would mechanically open the door to a direct confrontation with Russia, engaging, under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, all the members of the alliance in a generalized conflict. Are we really ready for this? Are we fully aware of the dramatic consequences that such a gear would have on our peoples? We need to maintain a red line. NATO cannot become an instrument of extension to Russia's borders. Let us not fall into permanent provocation, the consequences of which could be terrifying. "I am more afraid of our own mistakes than of the plans of our enemies," Pericles warned. Neither today nor tomorrow can and should Ukraine join the alliance. Escalation is not a strategy, it is a fatal chain for our peoples. At the same time, it is high time for Europe to redefine its place in NATO. For too long, we have been the proxies of American power. However, the interests of the United States do not always coincide with those of European nations and the return of Donald Trump demonstrates this week after week. We must demand more strategic autonomy, more balance in contributions, more respect for the security interests of each European nation. France, with its nuclear deterrence, defence industry and diplomatic heritage, must lead the way. It is not in blind submission to the United States that we will prepare peace, but in a powerful, sovereign, rooted Europe of nations. Lucidity must take precedence over ideology. The interests of peoples require composure, firmness and responsibility.

Mr President, the United States has been imposing a 25% surcharge on imports of European cars for a month. This is a real blow for our automotive industry, already exposed to severe Asian competition. This is neither an accident nor a surprise, Donald Trump had clearly announced his intentions; But above all, it is the direct consequence of decades of lack of European protectionism and the opening up of our markets to the whole world. Under the guise of ecological transition, the European Commission has destroyed most of our industrial sectors, sacrificed our thermal powertrains, imposed many destructive standards and delivered our automotive future to China on the altar of globalism and all-electric. While the United States and Beijing protect their industries, Brussels subsidizes billions of militant NGOs responsible for anti-car propaganda. Worse still, the Commission has just proposed the introduction of a mandatory annual roadworthiness test for vehicles older than 10 years and for all European motorists. This is a punitive, unjust and technically unjustified measure, which only aims to make our citizens feel guilty, taxed and dissuaded from using their vehicles. This harassment is unbearable for millions of families who depend on their cars in their daily lives. The results are as follows: a strangled industry, overwhelmed citizens and a Europe above ground, unable to defend its interests. It is time to suspend the Green Deal, restore European preference and national sovereignty, demand reciprocity and relocate our strategic productions. It is high time to get out of globalism, to restore the nation states within a European Union of co-operations. This is the only future solution for Europe.

Donald Trump has just announced a 25% increase in tariffs on European cars. A brutal decision, but, alas, not surprisingly. Why? Because the United States knows that the European Union is still giving in. Far from defending the interests of its members, Europe has locked itself in a technocratic obsession, cut off from industrial realities, unable to protect its factories, its industries and its employees. A power of facade, which prefers posture to action, as if submission had become a course of action. This coup by Washington is only the latest in a long series. The consequences are clear: it is our manufacturers, our equipment manufacturers, our subcontractors and our motorists who will pay the price. In the short term, through cost increases, in the medium term, through plant closures, and in the long term, through an irreversible loss of industrial sovereignty. But make no mistake, this economic attack does not fall from the sky. It is also the result of our own renunciations, a strategic blindness that has lasted for years. For too long, the European Union has imposed above-ground industrial policies, disconnected from the realities on the ground, in the name of an ecological transition that has become dogmatic. Under the guise of the Green Deal, it erases our know-how, sacrifices our thermal engines, imposes untenable standards and delivers us feet and fists related to a technology dominated for twenty years by China. A China that protects, finances, massively accompanies its industry, as the United States also does. Meanwhile, Brussels is failing to build a true European battery industry. Projects collapse one after the other due to lack of coordination, lack of will, lack of vision. Worse, the Commission continues to fund militant NGOs, often radical, that lead an anti-car crusade, undermine our industry, stigmatize our lifestyles and impose their ideology through reports and car smear campaigns. This guilt machine has replaced strategy. Today, the European project leads to a continent without factories, without energy, without jobs, to a Europe that advances without a compass, guided by unrealistic standards, contradictory injunctions and bureaucratic illusions, to a Europe that, by despising reality, ends up sabotaging what remains of its industry. It is time to say stop, to defend our industrial independence, to protect our jobs, our know-how, our competitiveness and to get our feet back on the ground. Because if Europe continues this economic suicide, tomorrow it will be too late, and we will only have our silence to mourn what we have allowed to disappear without fighting.

Mr President, a hundred days have passed since the new European Commission was set up, and a sad observation must be made: continuity with the former Commission, which was largely disavowed by Europeans in the last elections. Far from hearing the message of the ballot boxes, the Commission persists in a policy that seeks to impose itself in the face of the will of the people. For example, in the area of migration, with the New Pact on Migration and Asylum; on the environment, with the Green Deal; on agriculture, with Mercosur and the prospect of new free trade agreements, which sacrifice our farmers on the altar of globalism. The Commission persists and signs in its centralizing and interventionist will, in areas beyond its competence, such as defence. The Commission is always taking advantage of international crises to advance in its grip, to the detriment of the sovereignty of our nations, even if it means interfering in the democratic process of certain Member States. Meanwhile, nothing to protect our external borders; nothing against the threat of Islamist terrorism, even though recently France, Austria and Germany have been hit hard; nothing to save our industries and stem the growing poverty across Europe. However, the findings are clear: The Draghi report, commissioned by the Commission itself, paints a damning picture of Europe’s economic and technological stall. Yet, instead of responding, the Commission is stepping up its failed policies. At a time when it is threatened by a Europe of nations, which we want, the European Union is stepping up the pace to become the anti-democratic supra-state it so desires. Europeans can no longer do so. The time for sovereignty and a Europe of nations is approaching, in the sole interest of our peoples.

Mr President, Rule 10 of our Rules of Procedure requires Members to preserve the dignity of Parliament, and Rule 17 states that Members are responsible for the acts of their assistants. Those rules were trampled on last night. Under the direction and in the presence of Mme Manon Aubry, group president, a crowd of French MEPs and far-left assistants tried to prevent a conference from being held here in the European Parliament by shouting insults and defamatory slogans at the entrance to the conference room. We call for sanctions. These are unacceptable violations of our rules of procedure. We will not be intimidated by Islamic-leftist and anti-Semitic revolutionary apprentices. These acts are serious. You must, Mr President, Madam President Metsola, take sanctions and thus avoid the next actions that these people are preparing. It is your responsibility, Madam President of the European Parliament. We look forward to the steps you will take to preserve the exercise of democracy.

Madam President, there is still time to defuse the agricultural bomb. There is still time for the Commission to abandon the free trade agreement between the Mercosur countries and the European Union, against which our farmers have been protesting for months. But you do not want to give up, Commissioner, I have just heard you. This agreement is, however, a misunderstanding, an archaism and a fault. A misunderstanding, since it calls into question our food autonomy at a time when all other powers seek to guarantee it in the face of the disorders of the world. An archaism, because it contravenes ecological reason and multiplies exchanges with products from the other side of the world, products that, moreover, do not even respect the environmental standards that are ours. Finally, this agreement is a mistake: through an obscure dispute settlement mechanism, you offer third countries, competitors, the possibility of calling into question the decisions of the Member States, thus their sovereignty and the free choices of the peoples. By promising farmers a compensation fund, you implicitly acknowledge that this agreement will cause havoc within our agricultural sectors. However, our farmers do not want us to subsidize their decline or, worse, their disappearance. They want to be protected and promoted. They want to live with dignity and freedom from their work, from this noble mission: Feeding Europe.

Mr President, once again we are witnessing a complete reversal of reality in this Parliament. We are told that collaboration between conservatives and the far right would threaten the competitiveness of the European Union. But who are we laughing at? In his report, Mario Draghi himself, who is not far-right, I believe, sounded the alarm: the competitiveness of the European Union is in free fall. Yet who has governed the European Union for decades? It is not the patriotic parties, it is the left-wing parties, the social democrats, the centrists, the ecologists, who have carried out deleterious policies with their regulatory dogmatism, their fiscal bludgeoning and their Brussels ideology that have stifled our industry and our innovation. Now these same officials are blaming those who are not yet in power. This is a monumental hypocrisy. If Europe is losing momentum to the United States and China, it is not because of a conservative turn wanted by our peoples, it is because of the disastrous choices made by the Eurocrats and their allies. A glaring example of this ideological blindness: nuclear power. Even the word nuclear was forbidden here. The Draghi report made this clear: Without affordable and sovereign energy, it is impossible to remain competitive. Who is relentlessly attacking nuclear power, which is essential to our energy independence and the reindustrialisation of Europe? The left and the environmentalists, who prefer to hand us over to American gas imports, Chinese solar panels or German coal. This energy sabotage costs Europeans dearly and accelerates our economic decline. This debate is a crude attempt at diversion, but our peoples are not fooled. What they want is a policy that finally defends their interests, their economy and their sovereignty, a policy that protects them, especially from mass immigration, a policy rid of any ideology, pragmatic, realistic and effective, a policy that finally stops...

Madam President, Prime Minister, at the beginning of this year, marked by international crises and crucial challenges, the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union is of great importance. Prime Minister, you say that you will commit to act for the security and stability of our continent. We can only encourage you to do so, with one priority objective: the fight against mass immigration, which would otherwise overwhelm Europe. For years, we have been under intolerable migratory pressure, amplified by economic crises, conflicts and the porosity of certain external borders, amplified also – and above all – by a voluntarily immigrationist policy of the European Union, illustrated in particular by the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. Prime Minister, you say you want to commit to building an Eastern Shield to protect your 800 kilometres of border with Russia and Belarus. This is an example of what should be a new era for European politics. The European Union must protect its external borders and support all states that do so. We must reject the mechanisms imposed, such as the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, which aims to relocate migrants to our countryside without consulting the people concerned. These policies are contrary to national interests and the will of the peoples – our peoples do not want them, they should be listened to. However, it is essential to put nations back at the heart of decisions to build a Europe that respects identities and our sovereignty. Our European citizens expect clear actions: Stop uncontrolled immigration, strengthen controls and completely rethink the right to asylum. On the issue of defence, Poland is leading by example in strategic investments, with more than 4% of its gross domestic product devoted to it. However, all this needs to be accompanied by increased vigilance. Cooperation between European nations must not dilute our national sovereignty. That is why we cannot speak of ‘European sovereignty’ or ‘European defence’. The protection of our continent requires a Europe of nations, which defend their sovereignty, their identity, and cooperate with each other, respecting the will of the peoples who compose them. This is what we do.

Madam President, we have recently learned that Mr Thierry Breton, former Commissioner for the Internal Market, is going to join Bank of America. He who for years claimed to defend European sovereignty and production, proudly announcing the end of the naivety of the European Union, joins the symbol of American finance five months after his departure from the Commission. The self-proclaimed champion of independence therefore finds himself working for a very large bank, whose interests are the opposite of ours. Elon Musk’s defendant will now be the employee of the establishment that lent the most to the entrepreneur for the takeover of Twitter in 2022. It would seem that Thierry Breton’s main principles follow the same path as the action of Atos, which he managed for ten years: a slow descent to the number zero. This could be laughed at if it were not for a violation of all ethics and a betrayal of the most elementary morality. That is why I am calling for a debate on the integrity of the European Commission, conflicts of interest, and in particular the case of former Commissioner Thierry Breton, to be added to the agenda.

Mr President, High Representative, the fall of the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad could have been a great hope for the Syrian people, but it risks dragging them into even deeper chaos. The end of the brutal regime that has oppressed Syrians for years has given way to jihadist militias, synonymous with terror and obscurantism. How can we not be horrified at such a situation? These men, these women, these children, these religious minorities – especially Christian minorities – are seeing their future terribly darkened. Syria, a land of cultural and historical riches, is becoming a field of ruins, where instability and disorder reign. But it must be seen with what lightness, with what blindness some Western chancelleries – including the Quai d’Orsay in France – hastened to salute the victory of the rebels – so called – when they are Islamists, and moderate Islamism does not exist. The past examples of Iran, Iraq and Libya should have called for more restraint and less naivety. Beware, moreover, of the consequences for Europe! Such upheavals are causing mass migration flows. Violence and chaos must not be imported onto our soil. The European Union must react with clear-sightedness and firmness, firstly by protecting our external borders, and secondly by returning to the European migration pact, which wants to force the automatic distribution of mass immigration. It is a duty to our peoples, a guarantee of security in the face of threats, but it is also a call to act, to support forces fighting Islamism and to protect persecuted communities. Finally, all asylum applications must be processed outside the European Union. This is a minimum security requirement in the international context of great instability that the world is experiencing.

Madam President, a radical change of policy is essential in the area of migration. The European Commission and several states such as France want a rapid implementation of the migration pact, making believe that this would protect our countries. This is completely untrue. The migration pact will only accelerate mass immigration. With regard to return to the countries of origin, if Mme von der Leyen is now in favour of a firmer policy and is doing everything possible to encourage entry. Before talking about returns, the first priority is to block entries, but the Commission does not want to. Our policy must involve rigorous management of our external borders and controls at our internal borders, as Germany has just decided. Our policy must be similar to that of Italy and Denmark to outsource asylum applications. The financing of third countries should be conditional on the implementation of return agreements. Europe must guarantee the security of its citizens and the sovereignty of its nations. It is a question of justice, security and respect for the will of the people.

Madam President, Prime Minister, for years you have been defending the fundamental values of sovereignty in a Europe that you, like us, wish to be the Europe of nations and cooperation. In the face of constant adversity, you represent those who refuse to see their country dispossessed of its powers by an ever more centralizing European Union. The electoral thrust of the sovereigntist forces, Mr Weber does not mind, and our many joint initiatives have enabled us to form the Patriots for Europe group, the third force in this Parliament and representing 13 nations. Despite all the attempts of Brussels and the anti-democratic cordon established against us, the Maastrichtian model that wanted to impose itself is collapsing. Many nations, for example, want to regain control of their migration policy and re-establish controls at the Union's internal borders, even in Germany, Mrs von der Leyen. The sacrosanct principle of freedom of movement open to the whole earth will soon yield. After having so often supported Hungary during the previous mandate against the interference of the European Union in the internal policy of your nation, I would like to welcome the priority that you, Prime Minister, give to a cause that should bring us all together here: peace. How many times have I heard in this House the warlike speeches of the representatives of the European Union who want to allow the bombing of Russian soil by long-range missiles? This would be the surest way to lead us to an all-out war. In this context, you preside over the destinies of the Council of the European Union. This is a great opportunity for Europe, for all of us. Faced with aggressiveness and serious and untruthful accusations, in particular of Mme Hayer here, you can count on all our support to achieve the very essence of the political fight: democracy and peace.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to make a point of order on the basis of Rule 10(1) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure. On Monday 30 September, one of our colleagues on the far left of this Chamber was co-organising a conference day with the Femyso association in Parliament in Brussels. This is not the first time that this organization close to the Muslim Brotherhood has engaged in a real exercise of proselytism on Parliament's premises. Despite our many warnings and the letter I sent to you, Madam President, on 24 September this year, Parliament continues to accept the holding of these events, which seriously undermine the reputation of our institution, at a time when many countries in the world, but also in Europe, are facing Islamism. As we commemorate today the appalling terrorist attack carried out by Hamas against Israel, it is high time that our Parliament ceased to serve as a forum for all organizations closely or indirectly linked to Islamism. No naivety or complacency can be accepted towards these activists. I would ask you, Madam President, to prohibit in the future the entry of any organisation directly or indirectly linked to Islamism into our institution.

Madam President, although asked to do so by the European Commission, Mr Draghi makes an overwhelming observation about the state of competitiveness in Europe: electricity prices are exploding, the energy transition, in its current state, is a failure, technological innovation is stagnating. But what use has been made of the billions invested by the European Union in terms of competitiveness so far? The Draghi report also confirms what the Rassemblement national has been proposing in France for years. Yet we have been so criticized and discredited! Mr Draghi, like us, defends nuclear energy as a key element in ensuring the energy transition. Like us, he denounces the incalculable number of European standards that burden the Member States and suffocate our businesses. It deals, as we do, with the need to decouple electricity prices from gas prices, and so on. The problem, however, with this report is that, while it is possible to share certain findings, the solutions presented are absolutely not the right ones. European competitiveness policy is bad. Yet, for Mr Draghi, we need even more Europe. It is therefore a new leak forward that is proposed: more and more indebtedness, with plans financed by billions that we do not have and that will be the responsibility of future generations, and ever less sovereignty for the Member States, with, for example, the end of the right of veto for our nations. And what can be said about the insistence of this report on the need for a Europe of defence which will sacrifice our national sovereignty for the benefit of a European army which will respond only to supranational interests, sometimes incompatible with the interests and protection of our peoples? European Europe cannot continue to drag us into this maastrichian cycle where, although it has demonstrated all its shortcomings and failures, it proposes to go even further. The only solution is to change the system, thanks to a Europe of nations, free and sovereign, able to unite and cooperate in projects of general interest. It is this conclusion that Mr. Draghi should have reached after his findings.

Madam President, the publication of the Draghi report, commissioned by Mrs von der Leyen on the subject of European competitiveness, is postponed until after the elections on 9 June. Why this postponement? Is it because the European Commission and the majority of this Parliament are trembling at the idea of unveiling their fiasco before voters have a say? Remember on 24 February, Mr Draghi himself unveiled part of his report, saying that the European Union urgently needed to find a huge amount of money, in this case more than €500 billion, to improve its competitiveness. A colossal sum, impossible to pay for our taxpayers and our states, some of which, like France, are already bankrupt. Meanwhile, our companies are suffocating under the weight of mind-blowing European standards and burdens, costing EUR 120 billion a year. This is the reign of bureaucratic inefficiency. Our group demands the immediate organisation of a debate with a resolution to the key. We want full transparency and the immediate publication of the Draghi report. Our citizens deserve to know the truth so that they can put the clock back on time.

Madam President, the European Union is dreaming of a superpower with its own defence in the long term. This is yet another direct attack on the sovereignty of our nations, which cannot be shared with a European sovereignty that exists solely in the ideology of the Eurobedats. The soldier is not ready to die for Europe. The former Chief of Staff of the French army, Pierre de Villiers, stated: One dies for one's leader, one dies for values, one dies for one's homeland. We are not dying for a European Economic Community. Promoted as a way to strengthen Europe in the face of all threats, the utopian vision of a conglomerate of national armies under the command of officers of other nationalities is unfeasible. Alternatively, NATO should be sought as a pillar of this European defence, which would mainly protect American interests. And what would become of French nuclear power? For how can we create a European defence zone without sharing it, which in no way can be envisaged? The temptation is great for President Macron to try to exist internationally when he is so challenged at national level, he who has just been disavowed with a slap in the face by European nations and the United States over sending troops to Ukraine. His warlike statements, along with those of other European officials, persuaded me that if the European Union had had an army, it would have engaged it, even if it meant dragging us into a deadly escalation in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. To have a strong Europe, we first and foremost need strong states. So, before we want to create a European defence, let us strengthen our own armies. They need it so much.

Madam President, motorists are once again in the crosshairs of the European Commission and environmentalists. This text, put to the vote, will have a direct, dramatic and binding impact on the daily lives of millions of drivers across the European Union. The limitation of the validity of driving licences to 15 years until the age of 70, and every five years thereafter, the obligation to provide a health check, the additional restrictions for people with certain pathologies, the introduction of the digital licence to increase surveillance are all measures that are unfounded, discriminatory, liberticidal and very costly for our citizens already pressurised by the multiple taxes and levies of all kinds. After the technical checks on vehicles, you want to impose a technical check on people. For us, this is not the case at the Rassemblement National. And you want to impose nothing less than eight new permits for tractors, while the legitimate anger of our farmers is raging all over Europe. But what provocation and disconnection from reality! This policy, the Europeans and the French, no longer want it. Above all, reject this text!

Madam President, the dramatic situation facing our farmers is not the result of fate, but of political choices decided in Brussels and voted on here in Strasbourg. Last example to date: the free trade agreement with Chile voted in committee two weeks ago. Here, the elected macroists vote for free trade agreements. Far beyond the plight of our farmers, stifled by regulations, impoverished by unfair competition, who break prices, this is a societal crisis. The farmer, the peasant, is passionate about his profession, he is rooted, often for generations, in his land. He has a visceral link with nature, traditions, the transmission to his children of this passion, its exploitation. This traditional, ancestral model, which has shaped the evolution of our societies, clashes head-on with the ultra-liberal, globalist and disembodied model that the European Union wants to impose on us. This is why the crises that are sweeping across Europe are fundamental movements that are not about to stop. That is why support for our farmers is massive. That is why the macronist power is afraid and mobilises the gendarmerie, with armoured vehicles, to stop the progress of our agricultural tractors. Yes, this peasant revolt is popular, it is just, it tends to change the system and it is underpinned by deep values, which have proven themselves over the centuries. Brussels’s macronist ideology does not bear the brunt of what has built and strengthened our civilisation. Two models are totally opposed. For our part, the choice has been made for a very long time, and everything is proving us right.

Mr President, while the situation in Ukraine deserves attention, it must not lead to situations detrimental to our own nationals. However, integrating Ukraine into the European Union would be disastrous for our breeders and our farmers, especially in France. I would like to focus on this particular aspect of agriculture. Since the beginning of the conflict, the European Union has given in to all of Ukraine’s demands, allowing mainly its poultry and cereals free access to the European market, even if it means sacrificing our farmers. Yet even Ukraine’s strongest supporters, such as Poland, had to re-establish barriers to the entry of Ukrainian cereals in the face of deadly competition for their own agriculture. In 2018, Ukraine was the world’s fifth largest maize producer and eighth largest wheat producer. We measure the threat to our producers. The import of Ukrainian food intended to transit through Europe for export worldwide has caused enormous difficulties for many sectors, including France. Every month in Europe between 15 000 and 25 000 tonnes of poultry arrive, the purchase prices of which are two to four times lower than those produced in France. However, these millions of Ukrainian chickens do not meet our standards and are still found in mass distribution, resulting in broken prices, fatal to our own quality products. Macronists and Republicans in this assembly, who pretend in Paris to defend the French agricultural world, voted for this customs facilitation. The latter will expire next June. The European Union must refrain from extending it. This is a matter of survival for our European and French industries. Far from speeches of circumstance and boniments, we will see then who votes what.

Madam President, farmers have been demonstrating for months to express their anger. I had to speak in this Chamber on Monday so that Parliament could finally take up this subject and take account of this intolerable situation. What hypocrisy, however, in the title of this debate. You say you want to improve the socio-economic situation of farmers and rural areas and guarantee them fair incomes, but it is here that the policies that endanger European farms and livestock are decided. It is this same European Commission which signs free trade agreements with the whole world, which wants Ukraine to join the European Union, which would sign the death of our agriculture in France. Similarly, with the Green Deal and these standards that will strangle our farmers. These farmers have our food sovereignty in their hands, let them breathe, work, produce. France is the breadbasket of Europe. It is unacceptable to look elsewhere for what we already have at home. We really need to declare a state of agricultural emergency.

Madam President, farmers across Europe are making their voices heard. They are protesting en masse because they are suffering. They don't want to disappear. They reject the Green Deal and its procession of obligations and degrowth objectives. The European Union is directly responsible. By imposing environmental standards above ground, by imposing lower yields, by free trade agreements signed with the whole world, by ending traditional family farms, by increasing our imports, it is killing our agriculture. The message from farmers and ranchers is simple: they are passionate about their profession, their land, their animals, their farms. But they are at an end, faced with the accumulation of European standards and unfair competition. Every two days, a French farmer commits suicide, a figure never reached so far. It is vital to debate, ladies and gentlemen, the future of our agriculture and our food sovereignty in the face of the ideology and globalist policy of this European Union. This is a very important subject, which is why my group is asking for this addition to the agenda and this is an urgent request.