Speeches

Madam President, foreign interference in Europe comes in part from actors already established on our soil, supported by our institutions and acting most often at our request. Yes, the wolf is in the sheepfold. One example is the Islamist entrism of the Muslim Brotherhood and its satellite, the Femyso, which is regularly hosted by the European Commission. Another example is the United States, which, through the extraterritoriality of its law, its digital domination and its political omnipresence, keeps Europe under its control. Although they have listened to our European leaders, they still have service contracts in our strategic areas. Never sanctions or precautions. The revolving door of former senior European officials in their structures is a threat. As a recent example, former Director of the French DGSI Patrick Calvar is now selling his services to a US company specialising in the application of US economic sanctions. This man has had the life of French spies in his hands and is going to work for the United States against us. Two years after the ‘Qatargate’ in this Parliament, no lessons have been learned. I propose you to bring up to date a value that you find obsolete if not hateful: patriotism. When you love your country, you don't betray it for a dish of lentils.

Mr President, their names are Lola, Philippine, Claire, Marion and Mégane. All have been victims of sexual violence, but above all, all have been victims of our lack of firmness towards immigration and have brought with them other victims. Delphine, Blandine and Catherine had to bury their child, unlike the natural cycle of life. Today, in the name of defending women, the trial of immigration policies and the Schengen sieve must begin. We must stop welcoming everyone and especially anyone. Yes, a significant part of sexual violence, and especially street violence, is committed by foreigners, many of them clandestine. Why encourage mass immigration when we see the over-representation of foreigners in sexual delinquency? Just to lower the wages of our workers? What civilization have we become to abandon women to such material considerations? Mass immigration is a scourge for all, indigenous as well as immigrant. On the road to exile, 90% of women are victims of sexual violence. Immigration is not an opportunity for anyone, and especially not for women. Obviously, a firm migration policy will not erase Michel Fourniret or Dominique Pelicot, but it will avoid predators from elsewhere, whose number continues to grow in our country. Immigrationists, you are guilty before our history and before all European women. On behalf of Lola, Philippine, Claire, Marion, Mégane and their mothers, let's save lives, let's have borders.

Mr President, the adoption of the law on the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice by the Taliban is causing fear as the situation of Afghan women continues to decline. Deprived of their fundamental freedoms, women are locked into a system of total control over their daily lives: prohibition to travel without a male guardian, impossibility to access education, prohibition to work in most sectors. Alas, let us be honest, our unanimous condemnation here will not change their fate. Moral support is good, active support is better. Therefore, if our legislative work cannot improve the lives of these unfortunate women, let us examine that of exiled Afghan women who consider that Europe is not up to the fight for women's rights. Thus, on August 26, the Afghan Olympic taekwondo athlete, Marzieh Hamidi, a refugee for two years in Paris, is outraged on social networks by this new Afghan legislation. The only response she receives is torrents of insults, death threats and rape. She now lives under police protection, hidden, and had to move twice in a fortnight. Here is his testimony: I've been living in Paris for more than two years and I didn't think my life would be in danger here. Many calls came from Afghanistan, but also from France, Belgium, Germany. They want to silence me in my home country, but now also here in France, in the heart of Europe. Denouncing the Afghan Sharia from Strasbourg is simple, but will you do the same against the one developing in Europe? A cultural war is being waged against us Europeans, and women's freedom is their priority battleground. Let us not deceive ourselves: the increase in migratory flows in Europe, coupled with the cowardice of our political institutions, are the cause of this Talibanisation of the lives of some women. Our vigilance must be unfailing. Let's throw away the political correctness and the fable of systemic racism that only abandons girls and women. The agitations of the left, so-called anti-racist but in reality cowardly and electoralist, must not deviate us from the only course of cultural preservation that we must all share here: the freedom of women, our mothers, our sisters, our friends and our daughters.

Mr. Speaker, on August 14, the World Health Organization declared the monkeypox epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and neighbouring regions to be a public health emergency of international concern. Once again, the WHO announcement triggered a series of disturbing reactions from the European Commission. Let me begin by recalling a fundamental principle before this House, which is fed by European federalism: Public health falls primarily within the competence of the Member States. This European centralisation is problematic. It is often ineffective, costly and grossly lacking in transparency, as demonstrated by the contracting of COVID vaccines. Member States are better placed to assess and manage health risks directly affecting them, taking into account their local realities. In the case of monkeypox, many experts have pointed out that this disease, although of concern, has nothing to do with the COVID-19 pandemic. The transmission and mortality rate is relatively low and therefore it does not seem justified to take measures as extreme as those applied during COVID. On the other hand, re-establishing control at Europe's borders on people coming from the affected areas could prove effective in preventing a spread on our continent that has so far been preserved. The border is not a bad word, know it, quite the contrary. What worries us here is that the Commission's current approach risks leading to an escalation of disproportionate measures, threatening our individual freedoms. Health crises are becoming a pretext for the Commission, which is only seeking to strengthen its grip. Challenging the Commission does not, of course, call into question solidarity, particularly in sending vaccines to other Member States. However, if a country decides to build up a stockpile of strategic reserves for its population, this choice is automatic and should not be the subject of any wrath on the part of the Commission, as has been seen with regard to the Netherlands. Gentlemen elected and Commissioners not elected, do you know the principle of national priority? The Dutch government is sovereign and it is not up to Mrs von der Leyen to say what is good or bad in politics, or what is good or bad for the Member States.

Mr President, yet another text against violence against women, and yet the same figures for the last five years. One in three women has experienced sexual and psychological violence in Europe. One in twenty women has suffered rape. Every year, 180,000 European women undergo excision. For progressives, you have made little progress, preferring to agglomer all your causes to that of the end of violence against women, which explains your failure. The objective of intersectionality, here explicit in the text, mixes the defence of women and, for example, the defence of immigrants, who nevertheless bear a share of sexual violence. Recent figures support that, in Paris, 77% of the rapes solved are committed by foreigners. We also find the defense of trans women, who are by nature biological men with inherently non-feminine problems. We are talking about excision, not to mention the awful origins of this monstrous practice. In addition to the ideological fatras, the legislative overbidding. You are imposing new definitions of criminal offences by directive, overstepping your rights and creating legal instability. Let the European Commission therefore not forget that it is treading a continent where women have been able to be scientists, queens, saints, warlords, astronauts, empresses or writers, and that, as such, this heritage obliges it. Forcing him to what? At the very least, avoid importing or lying down in front of ideologies where the woman is only a belly to be filled, a body to be veiled or subdued, or a spirit to be silenced. Europe has set the principle that women are the greatest treasure of men. Make this your dogma, protect it, but really protect it.

Madam President, while energy prices have packed into an inadequate European market, while our economies are suffering from the indebtedness of the COVID-19 crisis, more than one in five Europeans is at risk of poverty or social exclusion, according to Eurostat. And France is a bad student. Unsurprisingly, the survey shows that inflation is the first concern of the French. This is followed by insecurity and immigration, which is out of step with the European average, which puts immigration at the top of the agenda. Despite the data provided by the Commission, the Commission calls on the Member States to become more economically insecure and to redistribute its funds and wealth to its citizens and their public services, to buy from the US or China, to finance Ukraine or the mass arrival of immigrant populations, which generates many social, economic, cultural and security imbalances. It is therefore not surprising that 65% of French people say they do not trust the European Union. When will you apply this principle of democracy? Make the policies you are asked to: protect us and make us prosper!

Mr President, last Saturday, a trans couple was hunted down by a violent mob in Thessaloniki. Whether or not you are a transgender person, it is urgent to remember that no one in Europe should have their integrity threatened because of their opinions, religion or way of life. Logically aligned with this principle of respect for human beings, the initiators of this debate will condemn, I am sure, with the same firmness all violence, including that against feminists such as Riley Gaines, who defends women in sport, and who on 7 April had to be exfiltrated from the room where she had barricaded herself for three hours to escape the beatings and threats of a rabid crowd of activists of the trans cause – the same scenario as the couple in Greece. It is strange, I have never heard you ask for a debate to defend these feminists threatened with death. Would there be prey and victims as a matter of principle for the left? Would the camp of good have a selective defense of values? If I know how to be a target for you beautiful souls, know that I, unlike you, speak out against all violence, and I have said all of them well.

Mr President, strengthen the economic prosperity of the European Union and regain the advantage of international competition. This is a great ambition, which is none other than the Coué method, Mr Breton! How can you talk about prosperity in a continent that you have already deindustrialised for decades, which sees a level of business failures at the highest level since 2008, which increases free trade treaties that favour our competitors rather than us, which sees its scientific and technological nuggets being downgraded by emerging powers? Let's face the realities: European attractiveness is fading while other continents, especially Asia and North America, are making their mark. For example, the European Union has been unable to anticipate the consequences of theInflation Reduction Act, which distorts free competition with European industry through the massive subsidisation of US companies. The result? Countless strategic sectors escape the Europeans under the weight of US subsidies and the total lack of support from the Brussels authorities. Whether in the automotive, energy or digital sectors, European companies end up preferring to invest abroad rather than on our continent, for lack of competitiveness on our own soil. A pinnacle! The economic war is ruthless. It would be naive to believe that we can win it if we do not fight on equal terms with our opponents and reject crucial levers out of dogmatism. Yes, we must reindustrialize, yes, we must relocate, yes, we must set economic sovereignty as a framework. Without it, we will continue to become poorer. With this, with these weapons, we will once again become a true world power.

Mr President, as a diplomatic weapon, in addition to being a cyber weapon with devastating effects, the Pegasus software continues to crack down by spying on the devices of some of our colleagues here. Beyond the obvious impediment to respect for privacy, this must lead us to question the passivity with which the European Union approaches the subject of cybersecurity and, more broadly, that of digital technology. Yes, the European Union is very strong when it comes to over-regulating the digital field or restricting freedom of expression on the internet. The implementation a few months ago of the Regulation respecting digital services (Digital Service Act) is here to prove it to us. But as it muzzles its citizens, the European Union seems helpless in the face of the belligerent action of the Israeli company NSO, which is behind the spyware. This double standard reflects all the hypocrisy of the Brussels authorities. In terms of personal data protection, by rightly initiating a commission on the misdeeds of the Pegasus software, we let almost all our data flow across the Atlantic at the same time. Choosing to use US companies such as Microsoft, Amazon or Oracle, in many areas, creates the risk that the US will grab our data and use it as it sees fit because of the extraterritoriality of their right. With the FISA law or the provisions of the Cloud Act, the data managed by these companies can indeed end up in the hands of the United States at the simple request of the national security agencies of the country. While this interference is more subtle, it is no less intrusive than the spyware found in our colleagues’ mobile phones. In the face of cyber threats, it becomes urgent for Europe to ensure its digital security independently in order to safeguard its vital and strategic interests.

Mr President, on Christmas night, while millions of Christians around the world celebrated the birth of a child more than two thousand years ago, another 200 Christians died of this simple adoration. Around the crèche, the ultimate joy of the arrival of life, 200 Nigerians from Plateau State were massacred in the most terrible way. The cause of these killings is not explained, as some have argued, by simple tensions between farmers and Fulani nomads linked to land sharing, against a background of desertification, no. The main motivations lie in the anti-Christian hatred of jihadists. 2023 was another black year for Christian communities. According to various studies, 360 million Christians are now heavily persecuted and discriminated against worldwide. Despite this, we have to fight, including in this Chamber, to get the opportunity to talk about it. And never, never was there a tribute or a solidarity march in Europe to denounce these massacres, which in Africa are permanent. Of course, the necessary respect for Nigeria's sovereignty prevents us from interfering in its internal affairs. However, the Commission has designated Nigeria as a pilot country of the European Union for humanitarian, development and peace-building projects, to address the needs of vulnerable populations. We therefore expect the Commission to direct its action towards greater protection for Christians at risk.

Mr Lagodinsky, I am not a spokesperson for the AfD, I do not know at all whether they were executives or representatives. In the present case, I dare to hope that, if that were the case, they would indeed be ousted and removed from their manu militari party.

Madam President, the European Parliament likes variable geometry indignation. It calls for a necessary fight against anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred, but forgets the first victims in the world because of their faith, namely Christians. We are still waiting for a coordinator responsible for this, as you have called the one against antisemitism and Islamophobia. The European Parliament also likes to give pledges. Even as Israel still mourns its deaths and the atrocities of 7 October led to an explosion of anti-Semitic acts, you put anti-Muslim hatred and the recent outbreak of anti-Semitic violence on the same level. In the name of buying social peace, you are not depriving yourself of a level playing field that is somewhat unworthy. All anti-religious violence and humiliation must be banned. All of them. Only, do not remain blind on the internal movements of certain religions whose precept is the destruction of those who do not think like them. You say you want to lower antisemitism. So stop letting them come to our soil or subsidizing with our money the hatemakers, when they are not the terrorists themselves. The wolf came by your fault into the European sheepfold. Let's chase him. And only in this way will we find a pacification of interreligious life. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Mr President, like fakirs, our European Commissioners are marching on the fire of our broken up industries and crushed agriculture. Far from worrying about it, they even advocate a net 90% reduction in our greenhouse gases by 2040. Ten countries, including France, have followed Denmark's lead on this goal. Are you only aware that you are announcing a return to the Middle Ages? How can this be achieved? To give up any mode of motorized transport or to become hunter-gatherers? Will you tell us that international trade and free trade will end? Can you tell us clearly what your roadmap is to achieve this goal, please? And will you also continue to play into the hands of national governments which, like the Macron-Attal government in France, make promises to farmers with one hand, but which, in fact, put everything in your hands and docilely administer this destruction that you are organising? We suspected it, but now we are sure: our farmers will be sacrificed on the altar of your diminishing ideology. Just have the honesty to admit it out of respect for democratic transparency.

Madam President, we are once again caught in this unhealthy vice that is killing our agriculture. On the other hand, we have the apostles of decay, who magnify the Stone Age without taking into account the fact that their ideas kill agronomic science like our farmers in the name of an infallible Mother Nature, totally fantasized. On the other hand, we have the gurus of the wild economy, for whom science is a lever for profits and an excellent means of exerting pressure on the food independence of nations. Yes, this report is ill-tuned and obscure. This is what ANSES has said in France. No precautionary principle, no risk assessment, no transparency for consumers, no protection of conventional or organic crops. What will we have on our plates? We'll never know. Who really wants this text? Farmers? No, it is the seed merchants who, by technical means, will take over our agricultural independence a little more. It becomes vital to get out of this sterile binarity. Let us help science to preserve our agriculture, but let us stand firm on our clear principles of sovereignty and respect for the consumer.

No, that is not my point at all. In the present case, there is no cancellation of contracts drawn up in certain countries. Except that, we are not going to lie, this text just serves to provoke an attack, an offensive, against countries that have freely and sovereignly chosen not to recognize certain unions and especially not to help and "sponsor" the system of surrogacy, which is the case with this text.

Mr President, as there is no area that the European Union does not want to escape from its totalitarian impulses, we are now dealing with the European Certificate of Parenthood. Moreover, these awful terms give the impression that being a parent depends more on administrative compliance than on nature itself. Using the same arguments of apparent benevolence and practicality, each State will have to recognise the parenthood of a national of another Member State – that is to say, it is understood – ‘regardless of the form in which that parenthood takes’. The devil hides in the details, it is said, and the detail here is of size: on the basis of hypothetical cases of children in a situation of legal uncertainty, the Commission invents situations of distress in order to interfere in the family policy of the Member States and impose its ideology. This certificate will require the recognition of the parenthood of same-sex couples who have used medically assisted reproduction, while some European countries have freely chosen not to recognize this parentage. Even more serious is the practical recognition of filiation after surrogacy, i.e., as a reminder, renting a woman’s belly to produce a life acquired by contract and scheduling the abandonment of a child from conception. A terrible regression, which is none other than the commodification of human bodies. Human rights, EU law, state sovereignty: nothing frightens the compressor roller of this divine law commission. With this legislation, member countries may be led to recognise more rights for families formed outside their borders than for their own families, or even to recognise multi-parenting. Let's not fool ourselves: a clear offensive is being carried out by the European Union against Poland and Hungary, which have sovereignly made parenthood a fundamental issue. Moreover, it is always surprising that the European Union is doing so, with such energy, to threaten and trap its own members. This raises the question whether, in substance, on this issue as on others, unity is less important than ideological victory, an ideology that too often develops, all the same, here, against the rights of women and children – is the most vulnerable. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Madam President, after imposing the digital certificate of vaccination against COVID-19, the European Union is back by the big door to interfere in the sovereign competences of states – health, in this case. The European Health Data Space marks Brussels’ growing desire to establish itself as a superstate vis-à-vis European nations. Do we really want the European Union to look after the health of Europeans as it does the rest, i.e. as a totalitarian hyperstructure? In addition to being part of the digital identity portfolio, this liberticide project will capture the health data of Europeans for the benefit of Microsoft. Digital sovereignty therefore takes a hit, and with it your ability not to constantly submit to GAFAM and their depredations. You are flouting the interests of European citizens, and worse: you do not prevent private actors such as banks or insurance companies from using our data. Whatever the consent of Europeans, they must give their all to be better controlled. We reject this liberticide drift, which is an attack on states and individuals. No, the European Union is not an empire. No, the freedom of Europeans is not negotiable. No, Europe is not for sale in the United States.

Mr President, on 4 August 2023, in Cherbourg, Oumar N., who had already been convicted of sexual violence, including one on his 12-year-old sister, entered Mégane’s house to beat and rape her with a broomstick. Perforation of the colon, small intestine, peritoneum, diaphragm, pneumothorax, fractures at the ribs and high risk of septic shock. The abuse was such that the caregivers were shocked and in tears. On 14 October 2023, in Argenteuil, Samir B. broke into the rooms of women aged 93 and 95 and sexually assaulted them. Already known to the police for similar facts, he is released 48 hours after the facts. Both women died shortly after the violence. Here are two images of the mosaic of daily horrors that European women experience. A special feature is that we are taking steps in horror. The aggressors no longer just want to enjoy, they want to destroy, and dirty. These are not miscellaneous facts. What is different, banal, is your cowardice. The cowardice of not acknowledging that immigration has contributed significantly to the 170% increase in sexual violence in ten years. The culprits are those rapists, but the culprits are you! You are the one who sees immigration as an election manna or cheap labour. You who refuse to see the extent of the hatred of some and who make them come with great support from laws, NGOs and subsidies. You who encourage this submersion, you bear a responsibility. So if you want violence against women to decrease, have the courage to stop these human flows gangrene by inhumane elements, whose violence is matched only by the contempt they have for us women.

Madam President, hell is paved with good intentions, and so is this regulation. While the objective of reducing pesticides is laudable, the fact remains that achieving it poses significant scientific and social challenges. Noting the failure of a previous directive, the European Commissioners set constraints by proposing a regulation to reduce pesticides by 50% by 2030. These numbers came out of nowhere, without any justification. This 50% decrease will be compared to the average consumption of the years 2011-2013. Since 2011, the consumption of pesticides has increased. So imposing so many constraints so quickly will not work without causing huge problems, especially in the agricultural world already greatly affected by your standards. Funding for the search for alternatives is also very insufficient, and the question of implementation will also arise. Will we review the tolerances for imported coffee and tea, or will they be banned? Will quotas be established for pesticide consumption per farmer, still sovietizing the agricultural market? Again, we deal with eco-friendly fads without any sense of reality or scientific basis.

Mr President, it is gratifying that the European Union is deciding on a strategy to protect our protein supplies. Finally, relocation is in the spotlight! Let us hope that European policies will bend to this new situation, namely: stop multiplying free trade treaties with the whole planet, which overwhelm us with lower quality and low cost agricultural products and suffocate our agriculture. Or also: to put an end to this rengain on the reduction of livestock and the cessation of meat consumption, which is only the killing of our farmers and millennial pastoralism in Europe. Also, how dare you, the left, ask for a decrease in the consumption of animal proteins? In France, the excess mortality of farmers by suicide is 28% compared to the general population, and it amounts to 127% – 127%! – for cattle farmers. Your amendment is a disgrace, a spit on the grave of herders and on the face of their orphans. You have accustomed us to indecency by your diminishing ideology, but do not try, by your undermining amendments, to drag us with you into abjectness.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are all aware of the financial impact of the energy transition on the key sectors of our European industries. The transport industry is undoubtedly the sector that is being asked to do the most to reduce carbon emissions today. Despite a clear desire to develop alternative energies, the European Commission's delegated act on the taxonomy for the financing of green energy takes into account only electric energy in the field of transport. This is totally disloyal compared to research and development investments and the efforts made by European manufacturers to find less polluting solutions, especially in sectors where the "all-electric" is embryonic, if not impossible at the moment. In aviation, the use of hydrogen-based alternative fuels, which are four to eight times more expensive than conventional kerosene, is now mandatory. In shipping, some have spontaneously invested in natural gas. In view of the efforts made, why prevent these sectors from being able to meet the criteria of the taxonomy for green financing? This text, which the Commission deliberately limited, will also result in higher production and operating costs for consumers. Let us not close the doors to new solutions or condemn in advance technical progress that will reduce our industrial and commercial pollution. Do we not have a political responsibility in building our industrial and environmental future? Yes! It is for this reason that my group has tabled this objection, which seeks a much more accurate recognition of the contribution of alternative fuels to the fight against global warming, in the same way as electric energy. They must therefore be taken into account in the new criteria set by the Commission for European green funding. We therefore ask you to support this objection.

Mr President, in a world where fresh water accounts for only 3% of the world stock, where the least optimistic forecasts estimate that the flow of rivers in the Paris region or in the French South-West, for example, could fall by 50%, it is becoming necessary to worry about this essential element for all life on Earth. As such, Europe, in its entirety, must recognise the universal nature of water in order to extract it from the speculative logics of pre-emption by NGOs or privatisation. This means that waste must also be tackled. First, there is an urgent need to repair the damage to the supply structures, some of which may lose 40% of their water, as is the case in Martinique. The work is colossal but necessary: The population cannot be forced into sobriety if the pipes leak. It is also time to involve agriculture and industry, without fines or constraints: automatically integrate rainwater harvesting systems in construction sites, develop wastewater reprocessing systems, provide foam taps in plumbing and seize the CAP, finally, to open a line dedicated to the protection of our water resources. Indeed, we need to encourage, including financially, reforestation and replanting of hedges to combat soil drying and sealing. "On a cosmic scale, liquid water is rarer than gold," said the late Hubert Reeves. It is up to us to guarantee, today and tomorrow, this blue gold to all European nations.

Madam President, if, according to Talleyrand’s famous reflection, ‘everything that is excessive is insignificant’, the fact remains that we must rightly be concerned about the rise of extremist propaganda speeches that threaten the stability and civil peace of our European democracies. But once again, the target must not be mistaken and the EU institutions would be well advised not to play firefighters. Indeed, we are witnessing an accelerated and genuinely delusional criminalisation of Europeans who, on the pretext that they intend to defend their identity, culture, values, social protection, environment, security and the sovereignty of their country, are now accused of extremism, and are sometimes silenced by discriminatory and liberticidal measures. In short, if we decipher the title of this debate session, the problem would be that political groups that do not correspond to the ideological norms of a small European elite, which is becoming smaller and more and more decried by the peoples, are not immediately thrown into the camp of evil. I do not believe that in this House, fortunately, there is room for racist or anti-Semitic discourse. And those who are afraid for their term next June, rather than calling their opponents extremists as easily, would do better to question their policies, which have inflated the ranks of the bearers of misfortune and violence. If some teachers can no longer address the Holocaust in class, it is not because of the extreme left or the extreme right, but because of extreme collusion with populations from countries with beliefs and visions that are often hostile to Jews, Christians and, more generally, Westerners. How many times have the European institutions funded and promoted openly anti-national and Islamist associations and NGOs, structures led by foreign powers and whose ultimate aim is to crack our social pact and European civilization? I therefore invite the great consciences who have initiated this debate on the fight against this normalisation of discourse to sweep their doors. For many of them, they have contributed to the spread of a totalitarian and deadly ideology, without ever accusing the real culprits.

Madam President, the European Union has a strange tendency to deplore the situations to which it contributes through its policies. We are worried today about the extreme temperatures that workers experience, but less than 24 hours ago, the European Union signed a free trade agreement with New Zealand, an agreement that is expected to lead to a 30% increase in trade with one of the most distant countries in the European Union. Without being a guess or a climatologist, we can say that this kind of decision is lamentable from the point of view of the carbon balance which should mechanically inflate, in addition to being a criminal decision vis-à-vis European agricultural jobs. As long as the EU practises the religion of global free trade, its choices in large-scale environmental policy will be sabotaged. As long as the European Union encourages the concentration of individuals and the mechanical concretisation of this necessarily urban concentration, we will not stop fanning thermometers. We can and must reforest. We can and must slow down the flow of rainwater to the seas and oceans. But what use if our countries are only rural deserts punctuated by furnace metropolises? If we do not break with this logic of crowding or urban sprawl that degrades the quality of life of Europeans, impoverishes the soil, is unable to retain rainwater, causes flooding or raises mercury, we will only make cautères on a wooden leg. Wanting to cover Europe with business districts such as defence or Bankenviertel or industrial and commercial areas made up of sheet metal cubes acting as offices and shops where strolling will always condemn workers exposed to high temperatures. We therefore have on the agenda a subject to give environmental pledges. But, basically, nothing will change, because you do not want to change the philosophy of this union. Long live 2024!

Madam President, Article 4 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings states that trafficking in persons ‘means the recruitment, transport, transfer, accommodation or reception of persons, by threat or use of force’ or any other coercion such as abduction, abuse of a situation of vulnerability or by offering or accepting payments or benefits. Exploitation includes the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or slavery-like practices. The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons does not matter when one of the stated means has been used. What is pregnancy for others? GPA is the contracting of a human life, here of a baby, at a cost ranging from $10,000 to $100,000, after a sorting process that is none other than eugenics. Is the woman reduced to an incubator, to an object, which is often stored, particularly in Asia, on baby farms, for the time of gestation, after promises of compensation equivalent to three to ten years’ salary? In light of the texts and our ethics, it is clear that surrogacy is human trafficking. Those who use it are therefore traffickers, in the same way as pimps or slave traders. Everyone who operates in the surrogacy market breaks with any humanist or feminist value. They exploit women’s bodies, their economic or psychological misery, to make a child a marketable good. Our legal system cannot endorse this despicable trade and cannot make life easier for those who are nothing but traffickers. Because yes, imagining a European parenthood certificate, in addition to being a legislative hold-up on national rights, is the way to organise these trafficking of children from surrogacy. Just because some people are holding European law hostage, and obviously our natural empathy for babies, does not mean that we have to give in to our fundamental principles of respect for women and children. The future of the world lies here, in our women's wombs. That is why, in the name of our humanity, neither the market, nor rights-of-way, nor trafficking have a place in our bodies – neither in fact nor in law, ever. Article 35 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly states that States Parties shall take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent the abduction, sale or trafficking of children, for any purpose or in any form. So the European Union must now take a firm decision: Is it on the side of human dignity, here of women and children, or is it on the side of traffickers?