What Jean-Paul spoke about.

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.

Madam President, as the European elections approach, some are taking the opportunity to advance their Europeanist agenda. This report is yet another text seeking to give more powers to the European Union and reduce, if not dominate, the influence of the Member States. However, low turnout in previous elections should be a wake-up call. Our citizens would find it easier to go to the polls if they felt that the European Union was close to their concerns. On the contrary, for them, the European Union embodies the source or a large part of their problems. And it is not the European Commission’s latest communication campaign that should reconcile Europeans with our institutions. At a cost of EUR 18 million, the campaign ‘L’Europe, c’est toi’ is not only difficult to understand, but, above all, it continues to be broadcast on French territory after 1 December 2023, the day on which the electoral campaign opens in France. It thus contravenes the second paragraph of Article L52-1 of the French Electoral Code, which provides that ‘from the first day of the sixth month preceding the month in which general elections are to be held, no campaign to promote the achievements or management of a collectivity may be organised in the territory of the collectivities concerned by the election’. However, those posters refer to an official website, which itself refers to different pages of the Commission’s website on the achievements of the European Union – such as the Green Deal or REPowerEU, to name but a few – which clearly display a certain political bias. The same applies to the participation of the President of the European Commission, on 7 October 2023, in the European back-to-school campus of the French presidential party Renaissance. While the issue of the 2024 European elections was at the heart of this event, his presence obviously marked direct support for the list that will support the Renaissance party on 9 June. The neutrality which its function imposes is therefore heavily tainted. This report comes in a context of general hypocrisy, where the European Commission itself is in breach of ethical and electoral rules. This text will in no way increase participation in elections: it will worsen the situation. The desire to establish a European suprastate will amplify the disconnect between technocrats and the people. Since 2010, almost 70% of French people have been wary of the European Union: Do you want to continue digging the ditch? Your project is to dissolve states by exposing our citizens to many dangers: We want to defend and protect them. In the face of this soulless European ensemble that you are shaping, we will continue to embody a proud and sovereign Europe of nations.

Madam President, a year ago our Parliament was splattered by the 'Qatargate' scandal. On behalf of my group, I had asked for the immediate establishment of a committee of inquiry, which I was refused. While the judicial case is bogged down, it would have been essential to examine in detail the growing influence of lobbyists within the Parliament. Another big scandal is the ‘Pfizergate’, which has just been revived by the European Ombudsman in person, which criticises the media for not talking about it and which does not understand why we do not hold the Commission and its President to account for the content of its exchanges with the CEO of Pfizer about the very obscure negotiation of the colossal vaccine contracts. The Ombudsman calls for transparency, and the Commission has nothing to do with it. And we don't ask for anything. Instead of moralizing the whole Earth, let's start by sweeping our door. This is a fundamental question of the integrity and credibility of our institution. This deserves at least a broad debate, which I would ask you to add to this last plenary session in 2023.

Mr President, it is not our habit to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. But as there are exceptions to any principle, the plausible risk of a break-up of Spanish national territory is of course the focus of our attention. Difficult to obtain a majority in the Spanish Parliament, the Prime Minister preferred unnatural alliances in order to keep his position and his government. Sad reality of a denial that is in the process of going very wrong. The promise of an amnesty law for Catalan separatists has set fire to the powder because it contains many provisions in favour of true secession and it would also contravene a notion often put forward here: the rule of law. Indeed, the Commission, always quick to pillory Hungary and Poland for non-compliance with this rule of law, is still silent when a socialist government is about to circumvent the judiciary out of pure political interest. These manoeuvres by the Spanish Prime Minister have provoked large-scale demonstrations that have occupied public space for weeks. There is a real movement of substance in the population. Through this legitimate and salutary anger, the Spanish people express their attachment to their country and their national identity. The different local and regional cultures, in Spain as in France, can coexist serenely within the national framework. We must therefore defend our nations and their integrity and win the fight against deconstructors of all kinds, some of whom also sit within the European institutions. In the interests of Spain and its unity, it is to be hoped that if this law has been passed, the Constitutional Court will keep a cool head by invalidating the text and that the king will stand firm in the face of pressure from socialists and separatists.

Madam President, ‘West, do you want to resume the fight between the Cross and the Crescent?’, it is in these extremely serious and provocative words that Turkish President Erdogan recently spoke, threatening the whole of Europe. He is also a loyal supporter of the Hamas terrorist organisation and is receiving some of its cadres at this very moment. The message of the Ottoman Sultan is therefore clear. But has the European Union really become aware of this? Even today, Turkey’s accession process to our institutions has stalled, but is still ongoing. Mr Erdogan has never hidden his contempt for what we represent, even though his country has accepted unreservedly the EUR 20 billion in pre-accession funds that Brussels has paid him since 1996. Erdogan has just declared that supporting Hamas is the most natural thing in the world. Such statements are unacceptable. Turkey’s entry into the European Union must be brought to an immediate and definitive end. We cannot finance a country that condones those who want to destroy us, those who commit unspeakable horrors, those who support Islamism. It is therefore absolutely unthinkable, Commissioner, to integrate Turkey into the European Union. This is absolutely obvious. The EU’s drive for ever-increasing expansion is clashing with realities. The utopia of globalist ideology faces the terror of those who are hostile to us. Enlargement should be prohibited. The same must be true of Bosnia, Albania, a country plagued by mafias, trafficking and Islamism. It is a matter of the security and protection of our peoples.

Madam President, at a time when Israel, France and Belgium have just suffered large-scale Islamist terrorist attacks, at a time when there are major risks of these attacks recurring, the first duty of our institutions should be to combat, by all means, this Islamist ideology, Nazism of the 21st century. So, start by stopping all funding to associations and organisations linked to the madmen of Allah, such as the University of Gaza, a true Hamas campus, which has received more than €1.8 million from you since 2014. Stop receiving here individuals who advocate the superiority of Sharia law over all the laws of our democracies, and who, for some, have passed through Guantanamo. Stop organising and funding communication campaigns promoting hijab, which Iranian Muslim women are trying to get rid of right now at the risk of their lives. Stop promoting mass, uncontrolled immigration, which is well known to lead to insecurity, delinquency and even terrorism. Strengthen our external borders, finance the walls demanded by a dozen of our states, strengthen Frontex to become real border guards and thus put an end to all this trafficking in human beings, of which hundreds of thousands of people are victims. Remove all these aspiring push-ups from immigration, which are causing serial dramas and condemning Europe in the short term. Finally, create a special committee on the fight against terrorism, which I have been calling for in vain since the beginning of my mandate in 2019. Here are a few lines of work that you should follow right now. These are, in my opinion, absolute emergencies.

Mr President, at a time when Israel, France and Belgium have just suffered Islamist terrorist attacks of unprecedented violence, while we have been alerting since the beginning of our mandate in 2019 to the dangers and ravages of Islamism, I would like to express our indignation at the funding that the Islamic University of Gaza – the Hamas campus – has received from the European Commission. More than EUR 1.8 million has been spent since 2014 by the European Union at this university founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, where the brains behind the attacks of 7 October were studied. I leave it up to far-left and left-wing MEPs and those who are friends of Mr Macron to explain what support they have given to this anti-Semitic structure. I also leave it to them to explain to European citizens and my French compatriots why, on 12 July, they themselves opposed our amendments, claiming that Israel had the right to defend itself against terrorism and calling for EU funding to be prevented from being diverted to terrorist organisations. Once again, we were right before everyone else. There is a real urgency to radically change policy.

Madam President, France was once again touched by this attack last Friday, almost three years to the day after the horrific murder and beheading of Samuel Paty. Of course, we associate ourselves with the messages of pain – which we felt deeply – to the families and to all the victims. We have also – indeed – proposed a change to the title of this debate so that the term ‘Islamism’ is clearly indicated. So that the protection of our fellow Europeans, and French in particular, is put in place against this Islamism. It must be named and, in this very place – I would say it is a great step forward – that, finally, that word should be pronounced. Islamism. The fight against ideology Islamist. I hope, also on the far left, that we will agree with this. I would like to hear it from the other side of the Chamber. The concern for protection, the concern to fight against Islamism are fundamental. We have just added a word, which is:expulsion. “Theexpulsion of all known Islamist foreigners. We are ready to support the original proposal, in the interests of compromise, so that we can finally... (The President withdrew the floor to the speaker)

Mr President, at a time when the European Union is becoming increasingly overwhelmed by migration, at a time when more than a dozen Member States of the European Union are calling for funding to protect their territories and peoples against what should be called an organised invasion, this Parliament is preparing to do the opposite by making it almost impossible to control the internal borders of the Member States of the Schengen area. Following the same procedure and the same will as those used for the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which will increase the arrival of millions of migrants, our Parliament is therefore preparing to negotiate the reform of the Schengen Code as quickly and discreetly as possible. As soon as possible, to be adopted before the 2024 European elections and the likely arrival of a new majority that will block this text. As discreetly as possible, i.e. without a vote and without an immediate public debate in the Chamber, in order to prevent our fellow citizens from discovering the almost total disappearance of national borders that is being prepared here, even in the absence of solid European external borders, which have been promised since the creation of the Schengen area. Because the European Commission still refuses to finance physical barriers at its borders, thereby rejecting calls for help from a dozen EU states. However, the Commission is much quicker to establish a distribution of illegal immigrants in our States, with heavy penalties in the event of refusal. However, the external borders are the most beautiful demonstration of solidarity with countries such as Italy or Greece, on the front line, and are the first condition for the existence of the Schengen area. The policy you want to implement, our peoples, for the most part, do not want it. You want to impose once again a policy against the people. This is the very negation of democracy and the beginning of authoritarianism. You cannot refuse a debate and a vote on a subject that engages the future of Europe, our peoples and our civilisation. I therefore urge you to support my objection on behalf of the ID and ECR Groups and therefore to vote against the entry into trilogue.

I have said and I say again that there is no problem with any kind of discrimination. So, I repeat, it is the law, and there is nothing to add to that. I have dealt mainly with my subject of surrogacy and surrogacy is quite different from what you say, sir. So gestation for others, there is no question of it, one way or another. That's the answer.

Mr President, the title of this debate is so cartoonish that it is stupid. The answer for us in France is simple. We are totally opposed to any discrimination and our legislation provides for penalties for those who contravene it. The debate is therefore closed. The rest is the ideological fantasy of macronist MPs who put their personal choices before the defence of the general interest. But this debate nevertheless has the merit of making it possible to deal with close subjects such as that to which I think, that of surrogacy, this commodification of the human body demanded by certain lobbies. It is very regrettable that Parliament has embarked on this path in defiance of the many laws of the Member States which prohibit it. The practice of using surrogate mothers to then buy their babies from them is despicable. It is also contrary to all our most elementary principles, such as that in French law of the unavailability of the human body. This form of modern slavery knows here two expressions that I have already denounced. The first is the creation by the Directorate-General for Personnel of a special leave to accommodate a newborn in the household, including those born from surrogacy. The second is a proposal for legislation entitled "European Certificate of Parenthood". This certificate is in fact intended to legalise surrogacy within the European Union in a devious way. President Macron says he is against the GPA, but MEPs on his side support these certificates, thus wielding the permanent double discourse. As for us, we will not weaken the defense of the integrity of the human body and the rights of children and we will not give in to any lobby. The general interest first. (The speaker agreed to answer a "blue card" question)

Madam President, this point of order is based on Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that Members shall preserve the dignity of Parliament and shall not damage its reputation. Last Thursday, two MEPs from the same far-left political group as Mr Mélenchon in France, and Mrs Aubry here, organised a conference in the European Parliament entitled "Fermer Guantanamo", one of whose speakers appears, according to the media, as a former Al-Qaeda recruiter and founder of an association considered Islamist by a service dependent on the French government. Also present was another former Guantanamo, questioned on his return in 2016 to Belgium for the help he would have provided to finance a jihadist sector. All these speakers demanded the release of all Guantánamo detainees and their distribution in our Member States of the Union. Madam President, it is unacceptable for Members of this House to organise such an event to the glory of individuals who advocate jihad, enslavement of women and disbelievers, as they call them. It is unacceptable for these individuals to speak here in the European Parliament, which nevertheless prides itself on being the temple of democracy. These Members have, to say the least, seriously damaged the dignity and reputation of the European Parliament. My group would like you to take up this crucial issue.

Mr President, a year ago, young Mahsa Amini died in detention after being arrested by the Iranian morality police for not wearing the veil properly. The young woman's brutal death sparked global outrage and provoked months of protests in Iran against the ruling Islamist regime. Repressed in violence and blood, this just revolt allowed Iranian women to alert the world to their situation. A year later, nothing really changed. Arrests, mock trials, abusive detentions, disappearances and executions are on the rise. And while in Iran, Muslim women are paying with their lives for their refusal to wear the veil, at the same time, in France, Islamists are conducting an offensive with the abaya, an outfit symbolising the enslavement of women. While the Minister of National Education banned it from school, irresponsible politicians from the Greens and unsubmissive France accused the Minister of introducing a clothing police. What an intolerable insult to the thousands of young women persecuted in Muslim countries by real morality police, and therefore clothing. As for the European Commission, it once again illustrates one of its communication campaigns with a veiled girl. The European Union must understand that by promoting the veil, it promotes Islamist entrism and worsens the situation of all those Muslim women who are fighting for their freedom. Our delegation is proud to have organised from the outset a number of official demonstrations to support and even rescue this Iranian people oppressed by obscurantism and Islamist totalitarianism. May his courage inspire the European authorities.

Mr President, by refusing the forced distribution of migrants and the financial sanctions imposed by the European Commission on recalcitrant countries, Poland and Hungary have shown the way, that of resistance. An absolute nightmare for Brussels technocrats who dream of a democracy without a people, Poland even dares to organise a referendum on the subject of migration policy, as we would also like to do in France with Marine Le Pen. The refusal of Poland and Hungary is not only the rebellion of two great proud countries. It is through them the echo of a powerful refusal, that of the European peoples who do not want your migratory submergence and who no longer support the small comminatory tone of the European Commission. People everywhere in Europe no longer want to be silenced and reduced to the rank of extras of a European project that takes place without them and even against them. They no longer want to be forced to welcome people who do not share our customs, values or culture. They want to regain their democratic rights, first and foremost the right to speak, the right to borders, the right to identity. In France, the explosion of violence we have experienced is symbolic of the failure of all this limitless migration policy. This is the failure of an impossible cohabitation between several peoples in the same territory. It was the failure of an above-ground project that transformed united European nations into a fragmented society, undermined by mistrust. Societies where, according to the prophecy of a former Minister of the Interior, we no longer live side by side, but face to face. After a process of disassimilation, entire populations have come to turn their backs on the nation, to spit in the face of the Republic. These riots must sound like an alert for France as well as for the European continent. It is time to finally open our eyes, decide on a moratorium on immigration and avoid the foreseeable misfortunes that your policy will inevitably inflict. There's still time.