Speeches

The leaders of the Western Balkan countries are meeting in Brussels on Thursday 23 June to call on the Commission, the High Representative and the Council to make significant progress in the EU accession process. This acceleration stems from the consequences of the war in Ukraine and responds to the discussion that will take place on the same day, when EU leaders should grant candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova, while Georgia would be offered an accession perspective. Following Jean Monnet's adage that Europe will be in crisis, German Minister Annalena Baerbock said that accession negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania should be opened immediately. A point of view that we absolutely do not share! Because the conflict in Ukraine must not turn into a sort of "pass-droit" for countries that share little or no "European way of life" and are still very far from the minimum standard of the acquis communautaire.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the deepening of the European Treaties and the enlargement of the European Union are in reality a double penalty. First, we do not want a revision of the treaties that would remove the unanimity of states for decisions, especially on diplomacy, defence or foreign policy, and that would remove their right of veto, which would be an attack on the will and choice of peoples. On the other hand, we also do not want an enlargement of the European Union to include the Balkan countries, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Turkey, as this would pose a threat to our security by integrating Mafia Albania, Islamist Kosovo or Turkey, which is constantly attacking or occupying European countries – I will mention only Greece or Armenia. It would also be a threat to our prosperity, exposing our producers to unfair competition from low-cost products and in particular those from Ukraine, which, if Ukraine were to join the European Union tomorrow, would sign the death of French agriculture. Finally, it would be a threat to our freedom and identity, integrating countries that do not correspond in any way to our roots and values, including Turkey, which would become the most populous country in Europe and threaten the balance of our civilisation. All this, you impose against the opinion and against the will of the European peoples. Then, on 9 June, the French, like all Europeans, will have the opportunity to express themselves and it will ultimately be a sort of referendum for or against the enlargement of the European Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, inflation is breaking all records, with electricity prices rising by 43% and gas prices by 37.5% over the last two years in France. I would remind you that France, thanks to nuclear and hydroelectric power, benefits from the lowest costs in Europe. Yet the bills of our compatriots are soaring and are among the highest in Europe. You want to reform the European energy market, but you insist on continuing to index the price of electricity to that of gas, and therefore you do not provide an effective solution to the price problem. The European Union is definitively unable to protect the purchasing power of our compatriots. We must, as the Rassemblement National has been proposing for years, free ourselves from the absurd rules of the European energy market, invest massively in nuclear energy, reduce VAT from 20 to 5.5% on energy products – we are tirelessly demanding it from the Macron government – and stop massive subsidies to intermittent energies such as wind energy. If you are not able to finally hear and apply these solutions, then I will meet the French on 9 June. They will be able to make the right choice to defend their purchasing power.

Dear Madam, I would like to point out that you were behind the ban on the sale of combustion engines in 2034, which will, of course, weigh heavily in Europe. 275,000 fewer jobs, and our modest French families will be the most affected. But that is not enough for you: in 2026 we must continue to force our producers – even though this is an important sector, a sector of excellence here – to change their production model. That's not enough for you. I would point out, however, that in your little imagination, it was you who, at one point, and fortunately that was rejected... (The President withdrew the floor to the speaker)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Corporate Due Diligence Directive is a dangerous text, as it obliges European companies to monitor what their suppliers, suppliers and sponsors do around the world, to put pressure on their business partners to change their practices when they themselves do not follow European law abroad, and, in the event of refusal, to break their business relations with those partners, at the risk of heavy penalties if they do not. It is therefore an extremely heavy responsibility and handicap for all our industries. We would not want successful companies like Total, which are known to be in sight, to be threatened in their energy supplies by far-left ideological activists. This permanent interventionism by the European Union in all areas is becoming unbearable. You spend your time interfering, when it is not threats or blackmail. Coping in ideas, coping in politics, coping on social media, and now coping in the economy. But for God's sake, let the European Union stop turning our French entrepreneurs into snippets! Protect them! Make them grow, instead of pissing them off! And stop the hypocrisy by sweeping in front of your door! I still remember Mrs von der Leyen banning the import of Russian gas, but going to Azerbaijan to sign a commercial contract to import gas, which also came from Russia, via Azerbaijan. For our part, we are pleased that this text has been rejected by the Member States and that it cannot be adopted before the European elections on 9 June, in the strong hope that these will allow us to achieve a new patriotic majority, which will protect our businesses, our peoples and our countries. (The speaker refused a blue card question by Karen Melchior)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, for the first time legislation has come to regulate this new environment, artificial intelligence. This legislation was necessary given the impact force of artificial intelligence in all areas and the dangers it entails. I am thinking in particular of an example, the spokesman for the Renaissance party, Emmanuel Macron’s party, who posted on social media a montage of a mock video of Marine Le Pen claiming that she was speaking Russian and defaming her. I am pleased that our group has been able, through our work, to contribute to this text with proposals such as the enhanced control of artificial intelligence by humans – not machines – or the use of artificial intelligence by our law enforcement agencies to search for victims of kidnappings, to investigate risks of Islamist attacks or to combat child pornography. I also welcome the rejection of the outrageous proposals of the left. I am thinking, for example, of their desire to prohibit the anticipation of the crossing of borders by illegal immigrants or of the obligation for artificial intelligence to promote diversity. Of course, we are realistic. There are still significant shortcomings in this text, and we will remain vigilant. We have lost the fight for the creation of the European GAFAMs, so let’s try to win the battle of artificial intelligence in order to no longer be in the digital nut between China and the US and to advance our nations and businesses in the digital world of tomorrow.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the agreement with Chile is symptomatic of all the excesses of the European Union that the European Parliament hastened to endorse. This agreement indeed cumulates all the vices. Ecological vice, because Chilean nature will turn into a lithium mine to make batteries in the name of your Green Deal. Agricultural vice because Chile is 11 000 tonnes of olive oil, 9 000 tonnes of pork, 4 000 tonnes of sheep and 40 000 tonnes of poultry, because we have to take all that existed before. That's 45 million more chickens every year in France, when we already have Ukrainian chicken flooding our markets. Commercial vice because at no time did the European Commission try to impose mirror clauses to protect our farmers. Administrative vice, because the form of this agreement is intended to prevent unanimity in the Council and ratification by each Member State for the agricultural part. Finally, political vice by validating this agreement at the same time as the International Agricultural Show is held in Paris and when French farmers, like those from all over Europe, express their anger and dismay at the free trade agreements that create unfair competition. Even if Macron and his government pretend to defend our farmers in Paris while their MPs stabbe them in the back in Brussels, we, the Rassemblement National MPs, like all free trade treaties, will vote against and without any ambiguity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing one last time before the European elections the enlargement of the European Union, which you wish to extend to the Balkan countries, including Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and even Turkey. So let me, too, one last time, remind you why we strongly oppose it. First, we do not want to revise the Treaties, because you want to remove the unanimity rule, and therefore remove the veto power of states when it comes to whether or not to integrate a new country into the European Union. This goes against universal suffrage, against the will of the people and therefore against democracy, a value to which you are so attached when, of course, it suits you. Secondly, we oppose these enlargements because they jeopardise the security of our nations and compatriots. How can we be reassured by integrating into Europe Albania and its mafia, Kosovo and its Islamist majority, Ukraine in the midst of a war and whose accession, on the other hand, would signify the death of our French farmers, or Turkey, which, with its 85 million inhabitants, would become the most populous country in Europe and threaten the balance of our civilisation? Finally, this ideological obsession that you have with wanting to integrate what does not correspond in any way to our roots and our values would accentuate the migratory submergence that we know is in your home, not a problem, but a project. Stop all this! We call for a Europe of independent and sovereign nations. It is a Europe of free people whose word is respected that we want. In this, we are totally opposed to you and, on June 9, we will return the word to the peoples.

Listen, MEP, I will ask you a double question, because I hear your speech and I can agree with it. But explain to me why you support Mrs von der Leyen, who is going to sign a commercial gas import contract in Azerbaijan, which comes from elsewhere in Russia, what hypocrisy! And secondly, why do you still support Turkey’s EU accession process, since you are constantly supporting the Armenian people? Either it is hypocritical or it is political. I don't know, explain it to me!

I will reassure you, Madame Loiseau, they are going extremely well. We are very consistent. We are not in Paris to say white and in Brussels to vote black, as you often do. And the agricultural crisis at the moment has given us so many illustrations! So we're very consistent. We are still on the side of the Armenian people. The whole political line, all our positions, all our statements, whether they are from Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella, who are for one, President of the RN Group in the National Assembly and, for the other, President of the first French political party, they are coherent. We are on the side of the Armenian people, on the side of their Christian roots, and we have never been on the side of the Azeris, believe me, in their attacks and in their attempts to exterminate the people in Nagorno-Karabakh. So there is no problem, Ms Loiseau, and if it can reassure you and make you have a good evening, I am happy to have contributed to it. (The speaker refused a blue card question by Karen Melchior)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when we talk in this Chamber about the long martyrdom of the Armenian people, some should lower their heads, starting with Mrs von der Leyen. By concluding a gas agreement with Azerbaijan in July 2022, Azerbaijan granted the Azeri autocrat Ilham Aliev and his Turkish protectors a licence to kill and purify on a large scale in Nagorno-Karabakh. While some question the identity of Nagorno-Karabakh, it has always been an Armenian land until it is truly the cradle of its eminently Christian civilisation. The ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh is a disgrace to some of the lesson givers sitting on our benches today. A hypocrisy coupled with a blindness, because you must know that we are in this region of the world facing a project to create a hegemonic territory for the sole benefit of the peoples of Turkish origin, the next step of which will be to bring Armenia into line, willingly or forcibly, while we will allow Erdogan’s Turkey to threaten our European nations by its armies, by its migrants, by its diasporas, without imposing any sanctions on it and without ending the absurd process of Turkey’s accession to the European Union, of which it is clear that neither the European peoples nor, for that matter, the Turks want. In both Azerbaijan and Turkey, the aim is the same: Eradicate European and Christian civilization and expand Turkish and Islamic civilization. So let us first of all affirm our solidarity with this people so close as the Armenians are, and finally support a European people, a true European people.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after yesterday’s ritual debate on Hungary, today we are holding our debate on Twitter, which the European Union has been watching since it was bought by Elon Musk and censorship was lifted there. I am talking about Twitter, because even though our debate today concerns all social networks, everyone understands very well which one is targeted. The evidence, this debate addresses the problems posed by social networks exclusively from a political and oriented perspective. Nothing about the time spent by online users, nothing about isolation in cognitive bubbles, nothing about the rush to buzz or the immediacy of information. The only thing you are talking about is the fight against hate speech and disinformation, i.e. in plain language against political opinions that you do not like. Hate speech is a notion, imported straight from the United States, that is totalitarian, arbitrary and ideological. Totalitarian because it criminalises emotion. We do not criminalize an emotion, we are not robots. Would Commissioner Breton want to criminalise love tomorrow? What is good? Do I like it? Do I not like it? Do I have the right? Am I not entitled? But you don't criminalize an emotion, it doesn't happen. We are not robots, as I said. Arbitrary because feelings are totally subjective. Ideological because, of course, it is the power that will dictate, according to its own ideology, what others have the right or not to think, with obvious differences in treatment. For example, when media or individuals write that European cities are too white – and beware, it is the newspaper Politico who had already titled it that way – you have no problem with that. But to say the opposite would be considered hateful and illegal. The same is true of disinformation which has become highly political and which no longer concerns only facts, but opinions or interpretations which pose a problem for the European Union. Because on the facts, all your reproaches are collapsing. Withdrawals of fake news take place even after the time needed for verification, and most of the European Commission’s criticism is that Twitter is now refusing censorship. A priori, I finally recall... (The President withdrew the floor to the speaker)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at the European Council held in Brussels on 1 February, Europeans will mainly hold the farmers’ demonstration in front of the European Parliament. They will remember that, while European farmers were shouting their legitimate anger, Emmanuel Macron and his counterparts stabbed them in the back by granting €50 billion in aid to Ukraine, 8 of which were financed by France, while our farmers would need it. I recall that in 2022 the European Union signed a free trade agreement with the same Ukraine, which saw Ukrainian wheat and chicken flooding European markets and creating completely unfair competition. As for those who benefit from this aid, it is unfortunately less Ukrainians than a handful of oligarchs, who monopolize Ukraine’s agricultural trade, and corrupt people, who have already embezzled tens of millions of euros. On 1 February, the European Council sacrificed our farmers on the altar of free trade. To save our farmers, we would have had to put in place an ‘agricultural exception’, which removes agriculture from free trade treaties, renegotiates the ideological and punitive measures of the Green Deal, prohibits the import of foreign products that do not comply with our standards and eliminates normative over-transpositions: quite the opposite of the priorities of Emmanuel Macron and the European Council.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament is once again holding a plenary session and is once again putting on its agenda a debate hostile to Hungary. This week's pretext is the condition of the prisoners, including Ilaria Salis. As no one among self-proclaimed human rights defenders is going to do so, I will recall what the facts are, so that Europeans know which criminal the European Parliament is taking sides with. Ilaria Salis is an Italian antifa. Motivated by an ultra-violent far-left ideology, it arrogated to itself the right to enter a foreign country, Hungary, and to impose its political law on Hungarians by attacking Hungarian nationalists by surprise, in the street or at home, with hammers, and eight to one. How many of those who are complaining to her today have seen the video of this unsustainable attack? If the opposite had happened, if nationalists had crossed borders to hammer left-wing activists into their homes, the whole European Union would scream to death. But, as it is the far left that attacks nationalists, the European Union is concerned about the health and comfort of the aggressor, without a word for the victims, while it opens its compassion to the most innocuous acts usually. It is in fact a political complicity that drives you, and the proof is that for years the European Union has criticised Hungary with dozens of reports, this is the very first time that there has been any mention of living conditions in Hungarian prisons, which, before the imprisonment of this criminal, had never been mentioned. Once again, the European Union is using this case to interfere in Hungary’s domestic politics and denigrate the Hungarian government. As far as we are concerned, we will always be on the side of sovereignty and the rule of law. We say the same thing as the Italian government: there are judges and justice in Hungary; We trust them; let them do their duty!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am quite outraged by the organisation of this debate on the elections in Serbia, which once again reveals the political bias in this Parliament. What exactly do you blame the Serbs for? The elections were held at the very request of the opposition. The electoral process was the most closely monitored in the history of Serbia with more than 5,000 observers present. The OSCE found only 13 serious irregularities and approved 93 per cent of the voting operations. With such figures, the result of the vote cannot be called into question. But it is not the facts, but the ideology, that motivates you. What's the problem then? Is it the victory of President Vučić and therefore the defeat of your political friends, of the opposition that you do not digest? And so, is that why the European Union is trying to destabilize Serbia? Marinika Tepić, leader of the Serbian opposition, boasting yesterday in the press that this debate today is being held at her request. Once and for all, ladies and gentlemen, it is not up to the European Union to decide Serbia's internal affairs or interfere in its policy. Every country is free, sovereign and independent, even when you don't like its democratic choices. This is called democracy. So, ladies and gentlemen, I come from a movement which, in its 50 years of existence, has never contested the legitimacy of the results of an election. So let me be pleased with the outcome of these elections in which the Serbian people freely chose their destiny and wish President Vučić every success for the good and future of Serbia.

Madam President, as every year, the European Parliament examines the human rights situation in the Member States of the European Union. Or rather, the European Parliament approves of all human rights violations when committed by its political friends and considers, on the other hand, that everything that comes from its opponents is in itself a violation of human rights. For example, in Poland, the progressive Donald Tusk banned the broadcasting of the main television. The European Union says nothing, but it was unleashing itself against the previous Conservative government by accusing it of censoring the media. The same applies to arbitrary arrests of deputies or purges within the judiciary. Forgive your friends, condemn your opponents. The European Union remains silent in the face of violence and crimes committed for the cause of progressive globalism, but it criminalises the legal actions and even the political thoughts of its enemies. For her, liberal globalism and conservative patriotism are not choices. For her, one is good and the other is evil. This text proves this by taking up all the progressive theses from the outset: systemic racism, gender oppression, police criticism. It's like reading anti-fa extremists. Well, we will be able to remind you that politics is the art of choices and solutions and that another choice than yours is possible. Long live the 9th of June.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for years the European Commission has persecuted Poland for ideological disagreements, in total disregard of the independence of states. Now that Poland has changed its government, you suddenly have nothing to blame for it. All the alleged serious violations of Europe’s values disappeared, like this, overnight. Then, in the absence of Poland, the European Union found a new scarecrow to attack: Slovakia. Slovakia, where Robert Fico, whom the Slovak people elected as president, suddenly sees accusations of undermining the rule of law raining down. Only two months after his election. Frankly, between us, you have not wasted time. Definitely, democracy has no value for the European Union. The pretext, this time, is the possible dissolution of anti-corruption bodies, which would be a threat to the rule of law. It takes frankly boldness – and I am addressing Mr Štefanec of the EPP, it must be acknowledged – in the European Parliament, which has been shown to be corrupt to the core on the occasion of the ‘Qatargate’, to give lessons in corruption and to dare to make such accusations – and I am not even talking about the potential ‘Pfizergate’ scandal. However, a government has the absolute right to create, transform and abolish judicial institutions. But it is always a revolting ideological bias that drives you. When, in France, the courts withdraw Anticor’s authorisation to take legal action, no debate on the rule of law takes place in the European Parliament. It is true that in the same political and ideological family there is no attack. As for the French Minister of Justice, the Keeper of the Seals, Éric Dupond-Moretti, when he is tried and released by elected members of his own party for illegal taking of interests, the European Union is silent. She only shouts scandal at her opponents. This permanent hypocrisy is now obvious and unbearable for all. So give national sovereignty its prerogatives, respect democratic choices once and for all, but remember that it is always the people who have the last word.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. In a democracy, only the people are sovereign. He alone chooses his political destiny, directly or through the representatives he has elected. There is nothing above him. But the European Union is anything but democratic. I would remind you that it is led by Commissioners who are not elected, but who are appointed, who believe that their ideological principles must be above the decision of the people and that the sovereignty of nations must bow to Brussels. The best proof of this is last month’s report on the revision of the Treaties on the European Constitution, a genuine Europeanist coup d’état that tramples on the outcome of the 2005 referendums, referendums that you betrayed. That is why it is extremely worrying that today the European Union is taking over democracy and starting to set the criteria for what the sovereign people have the right to say, do or not do, and for parties that will or will not have the right to exist according to their ideological orientation. This is particularly worrying when, in the same week, you indict the Slovak President, who is elected precisely by democracy, because his foreign policy is not aligned with yours. Worrying also when you plan, next January, to vote on a text censoring opinions and feelings under the absolutely Orwellian and totalitarian term of "hate crimes". The European Union tolerates no freedom, no nuance and even considers non-alignment with its policy a crime. Democracy is a matter for the people and for them alone. No one, and especially not the European Union, has to limit their choices or censor certain opinions. When the people express themselves, they must be able to do so in full independence.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Copenhagen criteria which celebrate their 30th anniversary are a list of criteria relating to economic health, stability and respect for democracy, criteria which must be met by all countries wishing to join the European Union. Then I'll take you at your word. Where is the stability of Ukraine under attack by Russia? Where is Moldova’s stability, in the Transnistrian region that seceded with 20 000 tonnes of weapons? Where is the respect for democracy in Kosovo that persecutes the Serb minority? Where is economic prosperity when most of the Balkans are subject to enormous poverty and massive corruption? Where is the social economy in Albania plagued by trafficking in arms, drugs and prostitution? Where is democracy in Turkey where journalists are imprisoned and opponents thwarted? Stop hypocrisy. It was Erdogan who best demonstrated the futility of these Copenhagen puppet criteria when he said he had no intention of recognising the Armenian Genocide because it was not among those criteria. These criteria are in fact of variable geometry, ideological, secondary since the European Union has decided that it wants to continue its expansionist project, but terribly disastrous for the future of Europe.

Madam President, rapporteur, this report, once it is not customary, is a step in the right direction. Unprecedented, it puts in stone the idea of European preference for space launch vehicles and launch sites. And contrary to the usual hollow language of the European Commission, your text proposes a real European autonomy, without dependence either on Russia or on the United States, which already saw itself as the main supplier of the European space program. As you mentioned in your report, it is now necessary to sanctify the protection and storage of the data collected by observation satellites in order not to fall under the control of the GAFAM and, consequently, to become vulnerable to industrial, economic and political espionage. On the other hand, I believe that safeguards must be created in Europe so that, for example, the European Commission does not take advantage of the military and civilian dual-use of satellites to arrogate to itself powers in the space intelligence sector. As you can see, space is a strategic and forward-looking sector. In this sector, France, thanks to its industrial know-how and its base in Kourou, French Guiana, has all the assets to be a leader in European cooperation capable of competing with other world powers.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, human rights are fundamental principles, but they must not be instruments of blackmail. Yet the EU does not hesitate to use them as a weapon against Hungary. The result was a refusal to give Hungary the European funds, which were financed and guaranteed by all the Member States, including Hungary itself. The reason is that Hungary would not respect the values of Europe. Has the European Union become so totalitarian? Values, however, are political choices. Everyone has the right to have their own values, even if they are not yours. But in the name of human rights, you deny your opponents the most fundamental human rights, those of opinion and expression. You are suing Hungary for alleged attacks on Europe’s values, but Europe does not hesitate to trample on Hungary’s values. By what wonder are your values sacred to you and those of others despicable? Your hypocrisy breaks out in the open. I would like to express my support for Hungary, an advanced point in the response of the European peoples, today as in the past in the face of the Communists and the Ottomans. I am sorry, but the identity, the longevity and the security of the peoples of Europe are not monetised.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, digitising Schengen visas is a good idea, but of all the revisions to this system, it is surely the least urgent. At a time when France has, once again, been struck by Islamist barbarism, I remember the attacks of 2015, perpetrated by killers from Belgium who had taken full advantage of the ideology of open borders. As for the external borders of the European Union, which are supposed to compensate for the abolition of internal borders, the principle that prevails there is the right of entry, and expulsions are no longer even the exception, they are the exemption. To all this, the only response from the European Union is the rush to flee and the hasty legalisation of ever-increasing immigration flows, regardless of the consequences. How many Islamist killers in the waves of illegal immigrants welcomed with open arms in Lampedusa and elsewhere, with the support of NGOs complicit in the smugglers? How many victims among these so-called asylum seekers, whose applications are 75% unfounded, such as the Tunisian Abdesalem Lassoued, who just murdered two people last night in Brussels? These are the shortcomings of the Schengen system, and the European Union does not want to fill them, but only to defend the immigrationist logic that inspires them.

Mr President, if there are any particular responsibilities in the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo, they are indeed those of both the European Union and the so-called government of Kosovo and Metohija, the object of all your benevolence. Indeed, last spring, the Albanian government, led by your protégé Albin Kurti, decided by one of these provocations of which it is customary, to appoint Albanian mayors to head several Serbian mayors of Kosovo. That decision had only one aim: to marginalise the Serb population of Kosovo, the most legitimate in that territory, which, I recall, is its historic cradle. In the face of this unacceptable violation of their rights, which was accompanied by a brutal execution by the Kosovo police, the Kosovo Serbs were forced to defend themselves. I wish more than ever to lend my full support to the Serb people of Kosovo and to assure the Serbian people of my unwavering friendship. It is the so-called government of Kosovo and its Prime Minister that must be clearly condemned and sanctioned. But the latter, having recently stated that there is no alternative to the European Union, can in return afford the worst turpitudes. As a result, more than 300 attacks, some of them particularly serious, such as during Orthodox Christmas, have been recorded since 2021 against the Serbian population. None have been the subject of an international investigation. And the incident of 24 September, although we deplore it, does not erase them. The European Union, which was beginning to open its eyes to the actions of the Kosovo authorities, hastened to seize this pretext to close them. Are there second-class citizens in Kosovo? And it is this same Kosovo that you want to integrate into the European Union... For us, there is no question of integrating this so-called state which is not a nation and which several countries within our Union do not even recognise.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, real ethnic cleansing is taking place on our doorstep. The planned eradication on part of its historical territory of a civilization three thousand years old, that of the Armenian people, the first Christian nation in history. This glorious qualification could only attract the contempt of some Eurocrats who, by their insensitivity to the drama of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh, demonstrate once again their contempt for all that is Christian and which constitutes the true common roots of all European peoples. The Armenians, a people victim of the first of the great genocides of the twentieth century, still abhorrently denied by Turkey and who saw disappear in atrocious conditions almost one and a half million Armenians. In these painful moments, I wish to greet our French compatriots of Armenian origin who, still attached to their very ancient roots, have fully assimilated themselves to France and the Republic. Let them know that their struggles of today forever are the ones we carry in our group. But if Azerbaijan can now implement such abuses, it is because the Baku regime, supported by that of Erdogan, benefits from the complicity of the governing bodies of the European Union. Yes, the President of the European Commission is accountable. Through the gas contract with Azerbaijan, Ursula von der Leyen gave the autocrat Aliyev a permit to kill and purify in Nagorno-Karabakh. It also pledged €60 million in EU funds and up to €2 billion in investment projects to the Baku regime. This money, paid in spite of them by European taxpayers, is that of the blood of Armenians, blood that the President of the European Commission has now indelibly on her hands.