Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, your position on the issue of refoulement at borders is emblematic. It is emblematic of your political, political and ideological objective, which is not to preserve our countries, but to organise their migratory flooding. A flood that is not a problem for you, but a project. It is emblematic of your methods since, as in the time of the Soviet Union with communism, you argue for your failures to impose ever more Europeanism. Above all, it is emblematic of your desire to flout all real principles of law. You start from a soft right, i.e. vague statements, in this case respect for human rights, to allow illegitimate authorities to enact coercive measures. They are then brought to mutate according to the interpretations, judicial or even extrajudicial interpretations, since you subcontract their control to ideologized NGOs. A law that fluctuates according to partisan interpretations is not law. When it comes to migration, your concern is not the law, but a project of demographic globalisation in defiance of respect for the rights of the peoples of Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you are wondering today whether the public money paid by the European Union to Turkey is well used and well controlled. The answer is no. Gradually, secular Turkey, which was an ally of the free world, became, let's say, a proselytizing Islamist country with an imperialist aim. We see this on the international stage with a neo-Ottoman policy or even at home, when Mr Erdoğan’s regime tries to politically instrumentalise the Turkish diasporas in our countries. It is Turkey, in constant search of a showdown, that develops unfriendly attitudes when it does not directly threaten members of the European Union, particularly in the Mediterranean. What about his ambiguous attitude in the fight against terrorism? We Europeans, who have been wrong to outsource the control of our migration policy to him, are now being blackmailed on a large scale with the threat of being overwhelmed. Financial and political blackmail, blackmail that no power can accept. The European Union has been outraged by the use of the migration weapon by Belarus against its European neighbours, in particular Lithuania. The sanctions were immediately considered by the European Union. Why this firmness with Belarus and this complacency towards Turkey? Why continue to fund a partner that is not one and continue an increasingly anachronistic accession process?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is at least one area where the European Union is struggling not to measure the budgetary impact of its decisions, for itself or for the Member States: This is immigration. On 23 September 2020, the Commission presented the outlines of its Pact for Asylum and Immigration, which is based on a coercive logic towards nations, including forced relocations or the placing of Member States under surveillance, which will result in widening access to Europe to unlimited global immigration. Concretely, this pact for immigration will pave the way for 70 million candidates for migration to Europe, according to the Gallup study on the intentions of extra-European migration to our countries. What is striking about the procedure, it is true very opaque, for the adoption of this pact is, given the masses at stake, the total absence of an impact assessment. Welcoming tens of millions of people, assisting them in everything, caring for them, feeding them, housing them, training them: It's going to cost a lot of money. To give you an idea, ladies and gentlemen, think that in France, the Association des Départements has estimated the cost of a single unaccompanied migrant minor at EUR 50 000 per year per person, i.e. a bill of EUR 2 billion for France, with an exponential increase. A study by the University of Amsterdam puts the cost of immigration in Holland alone at EUR 400 billion for the period 1995-2019 and EUR 600 billion for the next 20 years, or EUR 1 trillion in 40 years. For a country like France, this would amount to more than €3 trillion. And again, I do not take into account the fact that my country is experiencing greater immigration and offers a more generous welfare state. That is why I am asking you, in the name of reason and the democracy that requires you to tell the truth to citizens, to assess the impact of your crazy migration policy, both for the EU and for the Member States. If you do not want to do so, it is because you are in favour of immigration at all costs and the flooding of our countries is not an announced disaster for you, but a project.