Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you therefore regard Poland as a threat to the rule of law. But what right can you claim that? The European Union is neither a state nor, a fortiori, a supra-state capable of sending dictates to subordinate states. The sovereignty of states is not discussed. The rule of law cannot be used as a pretext for settling political accounts. You fear that the power in place in Poland will come out even stronger in the upcoming elections. It scares you to the point of doing anything. You want an election observation mission to Poland to report on alleged breaches of the rule of law. But what is it? It is a simple law on the organisation of polling stations, intended to facilitate access to its offices, including free transport for the elderly and the disabled on election day. The aim is to facilitate the exercise of democracy. No one can oppose it. This is not a breach of the rule of law, but rather to facilitate one of the fundamental rights: the right to vote. It is the European Commission, made up of appointees, that allows itself to infringe this fundamental right. This is the upside-down world. The rule of law is not your right, it is the right of the people, and you must respect them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the European concert I hear here, my voice will be totally dissonant. The agreement reached by the Council of the European Union is far from unanimous, with two countries resisting the immigrationist ideology of Brussels and four others abstaining. One had to be courageous to oppose this ideology, as sanctions can have far-reaching consequences, especially at the financial level. More needed to be done to propose an opposition coalition against this pact. We strongly welcome and support this Polish initiative. Meanwhile, France approved the deal with both hands on the very day of the terrible Annecy attack, when a Syrian who had nothing to do in France stabbed several very young children. The absolute horror. French Minister Darmanin, who is in charge of protecting the French, is pushing for the distribution of migrants throughout French territory. In this regard, the European Union and Mr Macron and his government want to impose a migration policy that our peoples do not want and they want to do so before the 2024 elections. We will do everything to oppose this disastrous project and, as soon as we are in power, we will trigger a referendum on immigration. First and foremost, the word to the people.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission therefore wishes to create a new body setting ethical standards for all the European institutions. This is a good objective, and scandals affecting the European Union could justify this measure. We all agree to ban corruption, influence and pressure, except that the titles and responsibilities of some do not produce the desired effects. Far from me the idea of ad hominem attacks, but the example must come from above. It would therefore be essential for the President of the Commission to communicate with the CEO of Pfizer. We are talking here about considerable contracts. Commissioner, you said that the text messages of the President of the Commission had inadvertently disappeared; today you would be in charge of this ethics committee: this is ironic. It is somewhat the same as Mr Glucksmann, chairman of the committee responsible for detecting interference, who saw nothing coming from his socialist friends in the ‘Qatargate’ case. Precisely, it is the same people who are pushing this draft ethics committee today who strongly opposed our request to form an immediate committee of inquiry into this ‘Qatargate’ case. This draft ethics committee is therefore an outright diversionary operation. The basic problem is structural: This is a whole system to change. Lobbies, NGOs, consultancy firms and countries outside the EU should no longer be able to exert any influence. Georges Bernanos said that there is no worse disorder at the moment than the hypocrisy of the powerful; Here we are! So, let those who are now at the controls start by doing their own examination of conscience before giving lessons in morality and good conduct! Well-ordered charity begins with oneself.

Mr President, in the face of Hungary’s resistance to preserve its sovereignty and in the face of all your attempts to force it to abandon it, this resolution in fact requires Hungary not to hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in July 2024, as provided for in the Treaties. That is the real purpose of this resolution. We were used to Brussels’ financial blackmail of states rejecting its immigrationist, societal and warlike policies, but this new initiative is literally flouting the spirit of the treaties and humiliating Hungary and its people. I note in passing that by supporting the tabling of this text, the MEPs of the French ‘Les Républicains’ party demonstrate that they are everything but Gaullists. Ultimately, the EU, as a self-proclaimed defender of the Treaties, prepares not to respect them when the political orientation of the country in question does not suit it. This totalitarian behaviour is no longer bearable, and the Europeans made this clear again last Sunday in Spain. Brussels should do its own self-examination, we will help it in 2024 with the upcoming European elections.

Madam President, our continent has been facing massive immigration for years and this Parliament wants to make it worse with the Pact on Asylum and Migration. 966 000 asylum applications were registered in 2022 in EU and affiliated countries, a record since 2016. The figures for the first months of 2023 are a continuation of this trend and give rise to fears of the worst. So what do you want? What do we want? This is the debate that we have managed to impose on this Parliament. You want population immigration under the pretext of demographics, we want to give priority to our nationals. You throw miserable people into the hands of smugglers, we want to remove aspiring push-ups from immigration. You want to welcome all the misery of the world, even if it means destroying our societies, we want to preserve and protect our peoples, our identity, our civilization. Subsidising mass immigration is not inevitable. Solutions exist that you don't want to see. We have been proposing them for years, and some are being implemented in EU Member States such as Denmark, a social democratic country. Why then would the socialists here not do what the socialists there do? Denmark has an exemplary immigration policy which is a consensus among the Danes. This policy protects the population and shows great humanity. Denmark ‘stops’ settlement immigration and accepts foreign nationals only exceptionally, always subject to conditions, thus making the right to asylum its original meaning. Access to Danish nationality is very strict. This social democratic policy demonstrates that opposition to mass immigration affects everyone and transcends political divides in the best interests of the nation and peoples. In recent months, Rwanda has been planning to relocate reception centres for asylum seekers outside the European Union, in this case to Rwanda. An agreement has been reached between the two countries. It is now a question of organising the transfer. Brussels must support this initiative and facilitate its implementation. A majority of the peoples of Europe certainly agree with such a policy. However, the European Union is preparing to adopt, before the 2024 elections, the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which will allow the arrival of 60 to 70 million migrants in Europe. These will be distributed in the Member States by a coordinator chosen by the Commission and without any democratic legitimacy, in violation of the sovereignty of nations. I would like to remind the French Minister of the Interior, Mr Darmanin, who is always ready to give lessons to others as he has just done with Italy, that macronist MEPs have supported and voted for this pact, and are therefore in favour of the resulting migratory tsunami. It is therefore particularly scandalous for this minister to condemn Italy’s migration policy and thus create a major diplomatic incident between France and Italy, at a time when cooperation between these two states is paramount. The dual language of the French minister and the French government is obvious: Do what I say, but not what I do. The example of Mayotte, a French department, is also very significant in terms of the disaster of this migration policy. Faced with a migratory invasion from the Comoros, which refuses to take back its nationals, France continues to grant aid to that State and therefore encourages the aggravation of that invasion. Another double language of France: firmness in speech, laxity in deeds. The European Union must stop granting financial aid to States that refuse to recover their nationals. This is a principle that needs to be endorsed. The financing of third countries must be conditional on the implementation of return agreements. Such deterrent measures would be very effective and protect both European peoples and candidates for immigration who would no longer risk their lives in the Mediterranean. Otherwise, the unfortunate example of Mayotte will tomorrow be the future of France and the future of Europe. The ills that affect our country are not the result of chance, but the result of political choices and decisions that have been made, and to which we must return. The great Athenian strategist Thucydides said that the thickness of the rampart counts less than the will to take it. In this case, Europe has neither a bulwark nor the will to defend its peoples, a first in history. Europe, as it is, is encouraging its own migratory submergence. Concrete solutions exist, which combine firmness and humanism, as we are debating. Let's apply them.

Madam President, our Parliament is preparing to negotiate its Pact on Migration and Asylum as quickly and discreetly as possible. As soon as possible, so that it is adopted before the 2024 European elections and the likely arrival of a new majority, which will block this set of texts. As discreetly as possible, i.e. without immediate public debate, to prevent our fellow citizens from discovering the migration catastrophe that is brewing here. Far from reducing mass immigration to our continent, this pact on migration and asylum will, on the contrary, make it worse. We demand an immediate public debate on these texts – we must not believe that we are against the debate. We want it now, because we know that you will do everything to ensure that this pact applies before 2024. We also want a vote in our assembly on these texts, according to which Member States will have to commit to welcoming asylum seekers arriving in Europe on behalf of a solidarity mechanism. The proper implementation of this mechanism will be monitored by a "European Coordinator for Relocation", a person without any democratic legitimacy. Worse: In the event of a crisis, the Commission will distribute migrants in our respective countries on a mandatory basis. As if that were not enough, migrants’ asylum applications will be facilitated and family reunification greatly expanded and encouraged. As for the initial measures proposed to protect the external borders, they will be kept to a minimum, when they will not simply be abolished. However, real external borders are the best demonstration of solidarity with countries such as Italy or Greece, on the front line in the face of mass immigration. The ideology of the European Parliament was no longer to be demonstrated, but here, in this case, we are burning the steps! As if the rise in power in all our states of an electorate that refuses this policy was feared by Brussels. Because, it must be said, the policy that you want to implement, our peoples, for the most part, do not want it. You want to impose a policy against the people! This is the very negation of democracy and the beginning of authoritarianism!

Mr President, in order to combat global warming, the European Union once again wishes to take binding measures for our people. At the ball of the hypocrites, the Europe of Brussels is queen. It prohibits the sale of cars with combustion engines to promote electric vehicles whose polluting batteries are imported from the other side of the world. It imposes the energy renovation of buildings in Europe, but at the same time it adopts a free trade agreement with New Zealand and pushes the one with the Mercosur area – two ecological aberrations. It sacrifices nuclear energy, energy yet decarbonized and cheap, which assured France an energy independence totally abandoned under the Hollande and Macron presidencies, for the misfortune of our fellow citizens. As my macronist colleague Canfin does not mind, there is no question for us of advocating more renewables on motorways, in the fields and at sea – as he wishes. This is eco-bobo delirium. Wanting to make people happy in spite of themselves is deeply undemocratic. For Brussels, it does not matter whether even more coercive, financially unsustainable measures are imposed on European citizens. In the end, it's always the same ones that toast: the middle and working classes, who are the victims of environmental dogmas. Yet Europe is making considerable efforts in the field of ecology, while China, India and the United States are the world’s leading polluters. Why do Europeans have to pay for the whole world when they are the best students in the class? Their efforts will have no influence on the climate crisis until other powers and so-called emerging countries do the same. If ideology could disconnect from ecology, if constraints targeted the biggest polluters, our old Earth would be infinitely better off.

Madam President, just 20 years ago, the United States decided to invade Iraq. This dramatic decision would produce a chain reaction that the Middle East is still struggling to heal. France honored itself by defying the Atlanticist consensus and proved that European states could have influence in the world if they acted independently. Since the US invasion of 2003, Iraq has returned to chaos that had not spared it in the 20th century. While the Western coalition had promised to install democracy in Baghdad, chaos still reigns in the country. Today, Iraq is disfigured by the consequences of the Islamic State war. Many Iraqis fear that tomorrow a new war will again destroy their daily lives. I am thinking of Christians in the East, especially those in Iraq, who are still living in fear of another eruption of violence. Stuck between community militias and Islamic State sleeper cells, many make the choice to flee the country. Iraq has still not recovered from the US invasion – a lesson we must learn from all the bellicose rhetoric that pushes us to war.

Mr President, in recent months human tragedies in the Mediterranean have multiplied. 441 migrants have died trying to reach European shores since the beginning of the year. A few days ago, the Italian coastguard had to rescue 600 migrants in a ship threatened with shipwreck. The European Union’s migration laxity has not escaped the smugglers, who encourage migrants to take all risks, as they know that they will be rescued and brought to European soil by coastguards or NGOs. The right to asylum has been misused to create a genuine immigration channel without us being able to expel those who have been rejected. Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, is facing European justice for simply trying to carry out its mission by preventing illegal migrants from stepping foot on our continent. Unable to protect Europeans from migratory flooding, the European Union is equally powerless in the face of the tragedies in the Mediterranean. However, the Australian example should inspire us. The country has taken firm measures over the past decade to deter migrants from reaching it. Smugglers have given up crossings and Australia has had no deaths at sea at the height of the 2017 migration crisis. We need to help countries at the external borders of the Schengen area, which face migrant arrivals alone. The only truly humane policy is that of firmness. The message to both migrants and smugglers must be clear: Don't take foolish risks. You will not set foot in Europe.

Mr President, the Brussels crusade to impose its own conception of the rule of law on the whole of the European Union continues to grow in intensity. While there is no legal basis and no truly legal definition, this concept is used by the Commission and Parliament to criticise countries that reject the ‘immigrationist’, ‘wokist’ and falsely progressive ideology. It also serves to impose not federalism but the imperialism of a supra-European Union. This is not new. What is true, however, is that the European Commission, in its third annual rule of law report, makes what it calls ‘recommendations to Member States’, but which are in fact genuine obligations. France, for its part, is largely spared by the Commission, despite its serious breaches of the rule of law. Brussels is clearly not aware that its Minister of Justice is being indicted and referred, with supporting charges, to the Court of Justice of the Republic for trial. Brussels also says nothing when this same minister outrages the national representation by making several arms of honor to deputies in the middle of the session of the French Parliament. Still silence when the President of the Republic unacceptably bypasses Parliament during the pension reform and health crisis, causing chaos in France. As for the European Commission, has it not given itself powers, in defiance of the European Treaties, in the wake of the health crisis and recent international crises? Is it not she who, while asking for transparency from the states, at the same time refuses to communicate the exchanges of her own president with the CEO of Pfizer? The rule of law is therefore very variable in geometry depending on the political ties with the countries concerned, and we do not want that.

Madam President, the Special European Council on Migration has embarked on the path of protecting our populations by demanding a strengthening of the EU’s external borders. The Commission expresses its readiness to finance infrastructure for this purpose; we take note of this and will ensure that these announcements are effective. It is certainly wrong to be right too soon, but it is quite extraordinary to see today the beginning of the implementation of what we have been asking for for years. Nevertheless, much remains to be done: Why does the Commission always refuse requests from several Member States to participate in the financing of walls and fences? There are already thousands of kilometres of them in several states at the borders of the European Union, some of which are governed by socialists. So why are the socialists here refusing what the socialists there are asking for? It is high time that you get rid of your ideological blinders and respond to the legitimate aspirations for the protection of peoples. Of course, it is regrettable to build walls in a Europe that wanted to be generous and open to the world, but all this is the result of your policy. Moreover, if certain protective measures are announced, you are also rushing to negotiate the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, which promotes mass immigration, not to mention Chancellor Scholz’s future law. So much remains to be done if the European Union is to focus on Europeans. This will continue to be our priority.

Mr President, the European Parliament, entangled in the so-called ‘Qatargate’ scandal – revealed through an investigation into criminal association, corruption and money laundering targeting former or current members of the European Parliament, mainly socialists – is now trying to divert attention. It calls for the creation of an independent ethics body that would deal with all EU institutions, agencies and bodies, with investigative or advisory powers. Contrary to what is stated, its implementation is, first of all, complex. Indeed, how could the European Union create a structure independent of itself? It is also a denial of already existing structures within, inter alia, the Commission and the Parliament. For example, in addition to its Code of Conduct on Financial Interests and Conflicts of Interest, it has set up a Committee on External Interference. Ironically, the chairman of this committee, a French socialist, spent his time accusing the Rassemblement National of all evils, while his own socialist friends took part in the biggest scandal the European Parliament has ever known. All these structures did not see or want to see ‘Qatargate’ and the other suspicions it raises. There is no need for any more generalist structure, which would certainly lead to the same lack of result. This request for a new ethics body is above all a pretext for opposing the creation of an immediate parliamentary committee of inquiry, which I have been insistently calling for since the beginning of this case. By wanting to drown the fish and make it appear that the "Qatargate" concerns only a few corrupt people, the European Parliament wants to avoid questioning itself. The major problem, however, is structural. It is the system set up by the Europeanists that is at stake, and this is the one that needs to be transformed. But a majority of MEPs will do everything to avoid this much-needed change, which is why they voted against our request for a committee of inquiry and tried to ignite counter-fires. This ethics body is the latest. We denounce this new scheme and resolutely oppose its creation.

Madam President, last week the European Council was held, where many Member States called for Brussels to finance the construction of walls at the external borders in order to protect their territory from mass immigration, which was refused by the President of the Commission. At the same time, German Socialist Chancellor Scholz is preparing to pass a so-called "liberal" law to facilitate the arrival of 400,000 immigrants a year to address, according to him, Germany's demographic problems. More than 5 million people are expected to come by 2035. Once they arrive across the Rhine, these immigrants will be free to move around Europe. This choice that Germany wants to make concerns us all and will have an impact on all the policies of our territories. It is therefore essential that we discuss it, hence our request to add it to the agenda. It is inconceivable that at a time when there is an urgent need to strengthen our external borders, an EU Member State unilaterally decides to open the immigration floodgates wide. A debate is needed here. I therefore urge you to vote in favour of our request.

Mr President, the years are passing, and migratory pressure continues to suffocate Europe. In 2022, Frontex counted 330,000 irregular crossings of the EU’s external borders. These alarming figures should wake up the European Union and make it aware of the seriousness of the current situation. While we are experiencing a real migratory flood, which would require strong measures, Commissioner Johansson still refuses to finance walls and barriers at Europe's borders, on the pretext that the European Union would not have funds to spend on this. However, the Commission is much less concerned about the financial means when it comes to subsidising certain associations and promotional campaigns on the future of Europe with the Islamic veil. What credibility should be given to the measures announced by Ms von der Leyen to address the migration crisis, while at the same time maintaining a pro-immigration stance? By wanting to step up the so-called ‘humanitarian’ corridors to encourage mass immigration and by wanting to attract more allegedly skilled workers, Brussels continues to create air calls, aspiring pumps, which many migration candidates will follow. However, the European Union must control its borders, stop funding NGOs for migrant water taxis, stop legalising illegal immigration, send back to their countries of origin all those who must leave and no longer give a euro to states that do not take back their nationals. This is a vital issue for the future of Europe. It is high time to show common sense and firmness because, if Europe cannot be inward-looking, it must protect its nationals, its businesses, its identity. Europe will only be strong if its Member States are strong. The exact opposite is happening. We resolutely oppose it.

Madam President, Commissioner, last Wednesday, a Libyan illegally present on French soil was committing extremely violent knife attacks at Gare du Nord, injuring several people. During this attack, the assailant shouted ‘Allah Akbar’, giving his infamous gesture an Islamist connotation. For years, this terrorism has proliferated in Europe, often financed directly or indirectly by foreign states linked to Islamism. By ideological blindness, some MEPs, and generally the European Union, are obsessed with far-right terrorism, which is in fact a minority compared to far-left and Islamist terrorism. The reality of the situation is that there is an undeniable link between Islamist terrorism and the mass immigration that we are experiencing. It is this terrorist scourge that has shaken European democracies, as recalled in July 2022 by Europol’s report on the situation and trends in terrorism. Who in this Chamber can seriously suggest that the democratic constitutional order in Europe would be endangered by the far right? It is also a vague term, encompassing everything and anything. Perhaps our Parliament was wrong in the title of this debate: He wanted to point out the threats posed by Islamism and the far left in Europe. The latter, the extreme left, regularly commits violence in demonstrations, particularly in France. Anti-fa activists and black blocs are wreaking havoc there with impunity, attacking the security forces abandoned by their minister. This is the reality that is denied here. Democracy falters in our countries because its representatives are disconnected from citizens’ expectations. And indeed, the reality experienced by Europeans differs from the priorities you have set for yourself. While Islamist terrorism is hitting our continent, we are discussing a threat that exists mostly in your imagination. Colleagues, it is time to remove your blinders and open up to the world. The safety of our compatriots depends on it.

Madam President, on 15 December last 436 MEPs voted against our amendment calling for the immediate establishment of a parliamentary committee of inquiry into the Qatar Gate affair that has shaken our Parliament for a few weeks. However, the Committee of Inquiry is the only effective measure to combat the excesses of all these networks of influence that are plentiful in our European bodies. In order to avoid this immediate commission of inquiry, it is objected that this would not be possible until the judicial case is completed. This is not true, as in 2016 our Assembly set up a committee of inquiry into the so-called Panama Papers case, while legal proceedings were ongoing. The same applies to the so-called Pegasus case, where our Assembly set up a committee of inquiry in March 2022, while here too the judicial case was ongoing. My group therefore calls for the immediate establishment of such a parliamentary committee of inquiry into the political responsibilities of the Qatar Gate. It will not interfere in any way in the judicial case that follows its course. By refusing our proposal, you become complicit in a system that ultimately works for you. This is not a question for us. The committee responsible for monitoring external interference, chaired by Mr Glucksmann, saw nothing coming. It is therefore essential to create this commission to remedy the shortcomings of the commission responsible for monitoring external interference, without waiting several years for the end of the judicial file.

Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden is taking over the presidency of the Council of the European Union for six months, at a time when there are many challenges. Firstly, in terms of migration, because our continent has become a kind of giant sieve because of the European Commission’s ideological policy, which favours mass immigration at all levels to the detriment of the nationals of each of our countries. As recently as 13 January, Frontex announced that 300 000 illegal entries into the European Union in 2022 had been recorded, representing an increase of 64% compared to 2021. This is the highest level of arrivals since 2016. We are counting on Sweden, and in particular on the Democratic Party within your majority, to stop this crazy migration policy. It is about preserving our civilization and our national identities. Economically, a smart protectionist policy is an emergency in the face of unfair competition from the United States and its $500 billion mega-plan. The EUR 200 billion German plan to support its economy, adopted without any consultation with the other Member States, must be called into question because it also creates unfair competition. Sweden also has the priority of strengthening the common foreign policy and continuing to build European defence. However, we consider that these areas must remain within the competence of the Member States themselves. This is a question of sovereignty, especially in view of the results of the European Union’s belligerent policy in the conflict in Ukraine. If your presidency, Prime Minister, could bring about the return of diplomacy, it would be a considerable step forward. We can only encourage you to commit yourselves forcefully to this indispensable path to peace in the world. Especially since at the current risk of a war that can spread at any time, the conflict increases a major energy crisis and aggravates inflation that stifles households and businesses. Over the next six months, your country will prolong the European debate on what is called safeguarding the fundamental values of the European Union, especially in Hungary and Poland. We hope that your presidency will not play into the hands of the Commission, which is using these values to punish States that resist its policies. Banning the European Union, punishing and stigmatising these two great democracies that have always fought for freedom is outrageous. We hope that you will bring reason and balance back into this one-sided and very ideological debate.

Madam President, of course we support a general debate on the ‘Qatargate’ case. On the other hand, as far as our proposal is concerned, it is particular and it differs from the others because we are calling for the creation of an immediate special committee of inquiry. Then it is objected that this immediate commission of inquiry is not possible as long as the judicial case is ongoing. I can demonstrate the opposite since this assembly appointed special committees while there were ongoing court cases. For example, in the case of Panama Papers and in the Pegasus case, in 2016 and 2022, there were special commissions set up while the judicial cases were ongoing. We consider that it is absolutely necessary to have an immediate special committee of inquiry, and that not creating one would be totally incomprehensible, while this case is shaking Parliament properly, since it is a major scandal. So we also want this issue of the creation of an immediate committee of inquiry to be included in the debate.

Madam President, the rise in prices that we are experiencing is particularly cruel, because it primarily affects basic necessities: energy and food. Energy prices are skyrocketing because of the absurd rules of the European electricity market and the deliberate sabotage of the nuclear industry, which guaranteed us cheap energy. The flight ahead in globalisation, which has led us to give up producing our food at home, makes our food supply dependent on foreigners and puts us at the mercy of an external conflict, such as the one that broke out in Ukraine. In the face of this dramatic situation, the European Union is stretching its powerlessness. For more than a year, the reform of the European electricity market has been an Arlesian that will never see the light of day. The Commission's proposal to cap gas at a stratospheric price is an affront to our citizens, who will suffer from the cold this winter. This exceptional situation does not call for interminable Brussels compromises, but for emergency measures at the level of each State. Countries that have chosen to act on their own are able to protect their people. Spain and Portugal pay three times less for their electricity than other EU countries. Italians, Dutch, Germans and Poles can breathe a little, thanks to lower VAT on energy. Immediate and effective solutions exist. They only require a little political courage. Taxes on energy and basic foodstuffs need to be lowered. We must put an end to the stagnation of wages by proposing a win-win pact to companies, which must be exempt from charges when they increase their employees. All of these measures can be financed through the taxation of super-profits that arise directly from the price explosion. It is not acceptable for a few to get rich through widespread speculation on life-saving products, while eating properly and heating up become a luxury for many.

Madam President, in January 2021, France closed many of its border crossing points with Spain, including the Banyuls pass, on the grounds of a terrorist threat, uncontrolled immigration and health risks due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Three large rocks were arranged across the road from the pass. Of course, this does not prevent the epidemic, illegal immigration or terrorism. The situation is absurd and surreal. It defies simple common sense. Many local actors have mobilised, as this closure only annoys one category of people: honest people. In addition, this closure prevents any assistance from crossing over, for example to fight fires, and it also prevents many seasonal workers, especially for vines, from coming and going to these areas. Controlling a country’s borders does not mean having three pebbles in the middle of a road. I therefore ask that France restore real control at this level of the border, without this negatively affecting a whole local life already in great difficulty. The President of the French Republic, travelling to Perthus, had ensured that police reinforcements were provided to guard our borders. There were no police officers, but instead rocks. We want real controls that do not prevent local life. This is entirely possible. It is enough that in Paris, this little piece of the Catalan Pyrenees is finally considered.

Mr President, according to Frontex, the number of illegal entries into the European Union increased by 73% between January and November 2022 compared to the previous year, reaching the highest level since 2016. NGOs, in association with smugglers, organize this traffic by arming taxi boats with illegal immigrants directly from the North African coast. NGOs that are sometimes subsidised by Europe, some states and local authorities such as the City of Paris. However, the European Commission announced last Monday that there is a need to step up cooperation with these NGOs and improve the distribution of migrants in the Member States. This plan is perfectly relayed in France, where Mr Macron is preparing to welcome these migrants throughout the territory. By doing this, you encourage the migratory phenomenon and you send to death thousands of unfortunate people who perish in the Mediterranean. On the contrary, these boats must be taken back to their port of departure, confiscated if they arrive on our coasts and any subsidies for them must be abolished. You want to welcome and distribute migrants all over Europe. We want to rescue them and take them home.

Madam President, while the existence of an area of free movement must have been counterbalanced by the creation of impassable European external borders – which has not been the case –, whereas Europe was invaded by 2 million people in 2015, whereas the European Commission refuses to finance physical barriers – despite being requested by 12 Member States –, whereas Greece has blocked the entry of at least 150 000 migrants at its borders – land and sea – since the beginning of the year, whereas Brussels has just forced the Executive Director of Frontex to resign because he wanted to do his job of protecting the EU’s external borders, whereas the same Union does not intend to interrupt the payment of European funds to countries that refuse to take back their illegal or disenfranchised nationals, whereas the perpetrators of the attacks that took place within the European Union in 2021 are all of extra-European origin – thus confirming the existence of a link between immigration and terrorism – while the daily news in Europe shows the major link between immigration and insecurity, while the Pact for Asylum and Migration, negotiated at the moment in Brussels, could lead to the arrival of 50 to 60 million people in a few years, the debate taking place here today is aimed at enlarging the Schengen area, so that an ever-increasing number of people can move around Europe unchecked. What a discrepancy between what is happening in this Chamber and the aspirations of our peoples! The dazzling victory of the sovereignist forces in Hungary, Sweden or Italy marks the refusal of these peoples to continue on this path. Any enlargement of the Schengen area, while Europe’s external borders are non-existent, is for us excluded. Any enlargement of the Schengen area, while Frontex does not have the task of refoulement of illegal migrants, is for us excluded. Protecting Europeans is a top priority. Expanding Schengen would expose them even more. There can therefore be no question of that.

Mr President, Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman who died because she was beaten by the morality police in Iran for not wearing her Islamic veil properly. Hadis Najafi, 20, shot six times by police for the same reasons. Like them, thousands of brave women are fighting in Iran to free themselves from this veil, a symbol of the enslavement of women. But for years, the European Union has been involved in promoting the wearing of the same veil in Europe. And recently, in November 2021, the European Commission co-funded this campaign claiming that freedom is in the hijab. Last February, at the Conference on the Future of Europe, the following visual was published: The future is in your hands and features a woman wearing a hijab. This future of Europe, our peoples do not want it. On 21 September, as part of an Erasmus+ campaign, the Commission distributed this poster featuring a veiled girl. Also on 21 September, a delegation of the Femyso movement, a false nose of Islamism according to a former French minister, carried out on the premises of the European Parliament, on the occasion of an invitation from the Socialist Group, a genuine proselytizing exercise in favour of wearing the veil for women. But the European Union's support for this cause is also financial: 23 million euros paid by the Commission to ENAR, which brings together many associations refusing integration with our European values and some of which are received here to accuse France of Islamophobia. All this is no longer tolerable. Europeans do not expect the European Union to convert them to Islam. Let Brussels hear the Iranians instead of obeying the ayatollahs.

Madam President, as part of its crusade for its own conception of the rule of law and even more so for what it sees as its European values, the European Parliament is supporting a damning new report against Hungary. His government was accused of all the evils and the conclusion pointed out in no uncertain terms the emergence in that country of a kind of monster called the hybrid electoral autocracy regime, in order to push the European Commission to perpetuate the blocking of the payment of European funds to Hungary. Without any foundation, based on vague and highly questionable notions, this text again wants to impose this imperialist conception of an omnipotent supra-European Union. It is a kind of political settlement of accounts against a country that refuses this drift by remaining faithful to the fundamentals of European integration. You forget that the Hungarian people have decided and confirmed their government’s policy vis-à-vis a coalition of all the oppositions. The outgoing Prime Minister and his ruling Fidesz party won the parliamentary elections for the fourth time in a row, even improving these results by almost four points compared to previous elections. Democracy is about respecting the decision of voters. Hungary is a democracy. You forget this Hungarian people. The European Parliament, in fact, has nothing to do with this report drawn up by a very ideologically strong Member. It should be recalled that the President of the Commission decided, two days after these elections, to trigger the conditionality mechanism for the first time. In the words of Monsieur de Talleyrand, Napoleon I's minister, anything excessive is insignificant. With this report, the maxim remains perfectly topical.

Madam President, I am speaking – inevitably quickly – on a very important subject: Femyso, a close association to the Muslim Brotherhood, which advocates sharia supremacy over all the laws of all our democracies, has received hundreds of thousands of euros in grants from the European Commission since 2007. Together with the Council of Europe, she designed communication campaigns with veiled women, as everyone remembers, which led to the withdrawal of this communication campaign. It intervenes, this association, right here and will give conferences very soon. There is one that is planned very soon. It supports Islamist movements that have been dissolved in France. Even Macron’s ministers see this association as a false nose of radical Islam. So it would be high time, I think, to open a real debate on the subject, because it is not only a scandal to encourage such a movement, but also and above all, we reject this future for Europe. At the very least, we want to discuss it here.