Speeches

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.

Madam President, while the European Commission uses the concept of the rule of law to criticise countries that reject its immigrationist and Wokist policy, it completely spares the French government. Yet, as a rule of law issue, there would be a lot to say about macroist power. Thus, in the case which set France ablaze, the President of the Republic flouted the presumption of innocence of the police officer in question and thereby infringed the principle of the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. We can also mention the President’s desire to censor social networks, the criticisms of his education and culture ministers towards media that do not suit them, but also the retention of the Minister of Justice, who was doubly indicted and sent back with charges in support to the Court of Justice of the Republic. As for the Minister of the Interior, blind to the profile of the rioters and denying the obvious link between mass immigration and insecurity, he must understand that the Mateo and Kevin are very minority among these scumbags. As for the Commission, it allows itself to make assessments of the conduct of French police officers, which has nothing to do with its powers. The rule of law is not variable geometry, so start by applying it to yourself.

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.