Speeches

Madam President, in order to manage a future enlargement to eight new countries, i.e. 60 million inhabitants, which colleagues seem to consider as already agreed, their conclusion is obviously that the Treaties must be reformed. The treaties on free and undistorted competition or on the dogma of free trade are not reformed. No, what is proposed by colleagues, but also by eminent leaders – I was reading Mr Draghi not long ago – is obviously a federal leap, i.e. the creation of a European state in which most of the powers would be exercised in Brussels and in which the right of veto of states would be abolished, including on diplomacy and defence. There, I can tell you that it is still a big problem, because that is what I call forward flight. Those who believe in the virtues of forward flight fall into illusions, because it does not solve any problem. How can we avoid the implosion of the common agricultural policy in an enlarged Europe, particularly in Ukraine? How can the risk of social dumping be reduced even more violently than it has been since the 2004 enlargement? How to find a center of gravity at a set so stretched and disparate? You do not provide any answer to these questions, and the convention you intend to set up to rewrite the treaties and cut back on national sovereignty will not be different from the one that failed to convince the French and the Dutch in 2005, because it will work in a vacuum with proposals disconnected from reality and people’s lives. If on such serious issues you really want to convince, the best thing is called democracy. Consult people everywhere and all the time.

Mr President, my turn is to greet the daughter of Goubad Ibadoghlou, this renowned economist, this peace activist who has just spent a year in the jails of the Azeri regime on the basis of accusations that have been fabricated. The inhuman and degrading treatment he suffered in prison has so deteriorated his health that the government finally agreed on Monday to commute his sentence to home detention; But he remains a prisoner and the complaint is upheld. The Commission does not like to be reminded that the country with which it acted in 2022 is in the bottom of the rankings on democracy and civil liberties. Let me remind you that Azerbaijan is behind Russia and Belarus in terms of civil liberties. With Azerbaijan, double standards have reached their climax. So that we no longer have to buy gas from a dictatorship that has attacked its neighbour, Russia, we are being forced to enter into a gas contract with a dictatorship that is also attacking its neighbour, as is the case with Armenia and the 100 000 Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. In such circumstances, it is not enough to punish Azeri officials who have committed violations; We must immediately suspend our gas agreement with this regime. Azerbaijan is not a reliable partner; Parliament repeats this tirelessly. This must be heard by the Commission and the Council.

Madam President, today’s capitalism, that of hyper-consumption, is a huge accumulation of goods that generates phenomenal amounts of waste. This waste, as has been said, is neither sustainable nor tolerable, both from an ecological point of view and from a moral point of view. On a continental and global scale, the numbers are dizzying. Billions of mobile phones, washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators and vacuum cleaners rot in open dumps, which we usually send to the poorest countries. It is therefore necessary to promote the repair of capital goods, by combating planned obsolescence, extending warranty periods, making spare parts available and strengthening networks of repair companies. It is very important to restore the human connection between the consumer and the producer. I am not saying that less must be produced in Europe. On the contrary, I believe that we need to go back on relocations and therefore continue to produce more in Europe; But producing does not mean throwing away: Recycling and repair must be an integral part of the production process. This is what consumers ask of us and this is what our children ask of us. So this text is welcome and I am sure we are moving towards a more virtuous model.

Madam President, Commissioner, after reinstating budgetary austerity in February, the Commission invites us to debate 'aging well' in March. I do not know whether it is blindness or hypocrisy, but I find it rather astonishing that it cannot be imagined that there is no connection between the two. I will still recall some facts: the gap in life expectancy between the poorest and the wealthiest in Europe is still well over 10 years. A man over 60 with only EUR 500 per month will only live 72 years, while a man with EUR 6 000 per month will live 85 years. For women, the gap is only slightly smaller: 80 years of life expectancy for the poorest, 89 for the richest. So I am well aware – and you have said this since the beginning of this debate – that there are other parameters that come into play in the life expectancy and quality of life of older people. You talked about sport, preventing a healthy lifestyle, fighting loneliness. All this is true, but without decent incomes and quality public services, it is impossible to age well, let alone lead, as you said, to active ageing. The most effective way to reduce income inequality between pensioners, and thus give everyone the chance to age well, is first and foremost to support a collective pay-as-you-go system, not to encourage economic policies that destroy that system in the name of deficit reduction. The longer the pension contribution period, the more capitalisation is used, the longer the statutory retirement age, as the Commission requests each time in the name of reducing expenditure, and the more the phenomenon of senior poverty worsens. We have examples, tragic examples, of seniors having to make up for their income shortfall by continuing to work. You have recent reports where people aged 67-68 are forced to work, especially for Uber Eats, to become delivery girls only to be able to age in pretty much decent conditions. This is true everywhere in Europe, including France, where, after five pension reforms, we are witnessing a very worrying phenomenon. So this is the effect of the structural reforms that we are invited to do every day here, and which have concrete consequences for the lives of older people. So, if you really want to age well, stop this "austerity" logic, stop always cutting social budgets, and middle-class and working-class retirees will be grateful for it. Because if not, the whole debate is actually hypocrisy.

Madam President, the Commission cannot arrogate to itself all the powers. The sending of EUR 150 million in donations to Tunis, as part of a memorandum of understanding signed between the European Union and the Tunisian authorities, would have merited a serious debate in this Chamber. This debate did not take place, because there was this incomprehensible choice of urgency procedure. This is a lack of respect for us parliamentarians. It is also a problem because we cannot exercise our control role, which is fundamental. This is all the more difficult to understand given the negative developments in Tunisia. Of course, politically, as has been said, there is really an authoritarian slope against trade unionists, human rights defenders and opponents, who are imprisoned or hunted down. There is also a very worrying economic situation, a continuing social crisis, rising inflation and rising unemployment. It is true that, without the agreement of the international financial institutions, it is the Tunisian banking system that risks collapsing. The Tunisian people must not pay for the imperiousness of their government. But suffer that, when it comes to making such decisions, the role of Parliament cannot be discounted. This is what the Commission has done. She was wrong. This is of no service to Europeans or Tunisia.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the agreement with Chile is really a digest of European hypocrisy. It is a dual-speech model, and when I hear you, I think that you have really become the world champions in this area! That is to say, we were told that the old-fashioned treaties were a thing of the past and that we had to share the benefits with the countries of the South, particularly on the extraction of their raw materials. What do we see? Not much, if not the exact opposite. The Commission's negotiators have knowingly ignored the will of Chileans to change their model. They refused to renegotiate with the President-elect in 2021 a number of things they wanted, including the protection of ecosystems, the sharing of mining value, and we got Chileans an agreement that is clearly asymmetrical and unbalanced, where we dictate our conditions on exports of industrial goods, on investments, on the capture of lithium. So, yes, it is true, there are additional quotas for zero-duty agricultural products. But what I remember most of all is this logic of predation! And I am speaking to progressive colleagues whose attachment to the countries of the South and to equal and balanced trade is familiar to me. There, clearly, we are not in equality, we are not in balance, we are still in a logic of predation. And that is not how we will convince the countries of the South of the merits of our new Green Deal. So, fellow progressives, wake up!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we are moving a little quickly. I do not, of course, dispute the usefulness of an in-depth debate on the institutional consequences of a hypothetical enlargement, but I ask the question: What will public opinion think of this eagerness to adapt Europe to the accession of eight new countries with a population of 60 million? This haste gives the impression that there is no longer any debate, that enlargement has taken place and that we have already moved on. Precisely, however, enlargement is a matter of debate and there are a number of reluctances among Europeans. First, from a social point of view; integrating countries with such low wages can only exacerbate social dumping within Europe. There is also the question of the feasibility of enlargement. What will happen, for example, to agricultural policy if Ukraine is linked? How will our farmers, who are already suffering from the removal of tariffs on poultry and cereals, cope? How can we finance this enlargement with a constant budget, given that the new countries do not have the means to contribute? I cannot find any serious answers to these legitimate questions, and I do not think that the European project is being served by pretending that these questions do not arise.

Mr President, I think there is a tendency here in Europe to talk too much about economic issues from the point of view of competitiveness alone. We should also be concerned about weak growth, particularly in the euro area. Excluding the post-Covid period, it has exceeded 2% only twice in 15 years. This performance is among the poorest in the world, and especially when you look at the United States, where it is the opposite, there is a real drop-out. The difference between the EU and the US, for example, is the conduct of macroeconomic policy. We have to face up to the fact that budgetary austerity has slowly killed us, and instead of drawing the conclusions, we have chosen, as was said a few days ago, to start again on this disastrous path. However, competitiveness cannot be separated from growth and, in particular, from investment because, without them, competitiveness ends up depleting. There is another reason, and the Commissioner was sensitive to it. The big difference between Europe and its trading partners is the religion of economic openness and free trade. The United States, China, Brazil, these countries are protecting themselves. On the contrary, we continue to be free trade clerics, or when we protect ourselves, it is too little and too complex, as we have seen with the STEP programme. So if we really want to be competitive, we have to radically change our economic policy.

Mr President, the anger of European farmers is not diminishing. This is obviously legitimate anger, but what is at stake in this movement goes beyond the mere economic aspect, because it is also, in a way, about our way of life. And this is where I connect with our topic. Without food sovereignty, there is no gastronomic and culinary heritage. We have to keep the two together. And that is why we need all the farmers in Europe. It is true that the peasant world is crossed by contradictions, productivism sometimes outweighs quality. But it is a world that is also united, where the most ingrained traditions and the most demanding know-how are passed down from generation to generation, and in particular with regard to geographical indications and controlled designations of origin. We are fortunate to have the best agriculture in the world, the one that meets the highest standards and high standards. I do not know whether we will be able to maintain this level, including for our PGIs and PDOs, without further protecting our agriculture against unfair competition that does not meet standards. So by strengthening our legislation on PGIs, by giving them a specific regime in free trade agreements, we are proving that this is possible, and I wholeheartedly hope that we will make further progress in this area.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on standard essential patents is still one of the many indicators of European stalling. I would remind you that in 2000, Europe paraded in Lisbon to announce in the next ten years ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’. Almost 25 years after this thunderous promise, the observation is cruel: Our ambitions have broken on the wall of our collective impotence. And it could also be said that the liberal laissez-faire was right in any attempt to steer the economy or to push forward a real industrial policy worthy of the name. I would point out that, initially, Europe was at the forefront of telecommunications with 2G and 3G standards, and that it gradually allowed itself to be competed with and distanced from the Americans and the Chinese. We missed the turn of 5G and 6G, but also new standards for wifi, Bluetooth and USB ports. Today, and this is the important number that I remember, European companies now hold only 15% of standard-related essential patents, a drop of seven points in seven years. At the same time, the share of Chinese companies doubled to over 30% in 2022. This drop-out is not only technological, it is obviously also economical. And I think all this is due to short-sighted policies, which have sacrificed the research effort, and in particular fundamental research without which no technological application is possible. And this sacrifice was made on the altar of fiscal austerity and structural reforms. That is why I am worried when I hear the same leaders proposing the same policy again. We now have no choice but to legislate to mitigate the effects of these successive abandonments. First of all, there is the phenomenon of what I will call ‘patent boxes’, those companies that buy all possible patents to impose exorbitant royalties on their users, which our SMEs suffer enormously. Reinforcing access to patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms means restoring some balance. And that, I think, is not bad. The other interesting aspect of the text is the maintenance of a register to check whether a patent is essential or not, as there are more and more holders who have the unfortunate tendency to regard any patent as essential, always for the same purpose: maximizing profits. Finally, I note that the conciliation procedures to arrive at the right price have been improved. Obviously, I would have preferred the opinion of the committees to be binding. Thank you anyway. I had other things to say, but it is worth it.

Madam President, many of us in this Chamber have awakened to politics by fighting racism and anti-Semitism. It is a struggle that is consubstantial to my commitment, to my deep convictions, and that is why the return of the anti-Semitic monstrosity in Europe amazes and upsets us. Theses, statements and slogans that were believed to have definitively disappeared from the rubbish bins of history are read and heard in public debate, in demonstrations, or simply in the streets, in London, Berlin, Paris or elsewhere. In my country, France, the number of anti-Semitic acts has increased by 1 000 % since the terrorist attacks of 7 October. And today, anti-Semitism is not whispering, it is no longer whispering: He speaks out loud, he has become uninhibited. And what is terrible is that some justify this horrific relapse by the massacres perpetrated in Palestine by the Israeli far-right government. Well, I tell you, using this tragedy to spread age-old hatred again is unworthy and dangerous, and to support this is to smear the Palestinian cause. It would be a shipwreck for our continent to allow hatred of the Jew to flourish, as if we had forgotten everything about a painful, yet not so distant past. Together, let's say it: Never again!

Mr President, I find that some colleagues here have a goldfish memory. I am not even talking about the Commission, which is shedding crocodile tears about a situation for which it is largely responsible, because this is the second time in ten years that Europe has experienced a surge of Chinese solar panels. Already in 2013 our photovoltaic industry had been massacred, it had collapsed. Why? Because the European response to unfair competition had been belated and soft, as usual when it comes to international trade. And this is still the result of a policy: the Commission's free trade policy, which is destroying an industrial base that was emerging, developing and becoming competitive. So now we have to act, because the situation is even worse: For 10 years, the Chinese state has paid 50 billion in subsidies to its industry, which has rounded up most of the raw materials and supply chains. What have we done? We sprinkled: barely €5 billion in the face of this unfair competition. To avoid another disaster, immediate action must be taken: we buy European industrial stocks and, above all, we decide not to pay any public aid to solar panels that are not manufactured in Europe. Save European industry! It is still possible, but it is now!

Mr President, if there is one area in which the strategic autonomy of the European Union remains to be demonstrated, it is that of the transatlantic relationship, because Europeans and Americans are far from always having the same interests, and the fall of Trump has not resolved any of our differences. Take the US Inflation Reduction Act or the Chips Act: you have Americans who give hundreds of billions to companies to leave Europe and move to their territory. They are still pursuing their extraterritorial sanctions. And we, what do we do? Well, nothing. At least not much. Sometimes we even ask for more. Yes, we are asking again, because I find it incredible that we are going to negotiate behind the scenes, and indeed may be in breach of the Treaties, a trade agreement that we already know will be uneven in the end. I am talking about the EU-US Trade and Technology Council, wanted by Mrs von der Leyen and Mrs Vestager, which is actually planning to donate our data and digital businesses to the United States. And I could talk about standards, too, by quoting the European Institute for Standardisation, which is run by an Intel employee at a time when crucial things are being discussed. We must then look reality in the face and above all anticipate. Anticipate, eventually, a return of Trump. What are we going to do? I'm asking you the question.

Madam President, let us tirelessly repeat their name: Mahsa Amini, 22, and Armita Geravand, 16. The Iranian government’s morality police killed them because they no longer wanted to wear the veil. As for Narges Mohammadi, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and Nasrin Sotoudeh, Sakharov Prize laureate, they still languish in prison in unworthy living conditions. After the failure of the Vienna agreement on Iranian nuclear power, which had been provoked in particular by Trump, the mullahs and the sinister guardians of the revolution unleashed an indiscriminate repression against their own people, killing more than 500 demonstrators and executing dozens more. Today, however, women dare to go out without a veil. They don't flinch. They overwhelm the morality police by their determination and their number. And Europe must say that it stands by their side. It must support sanctions against Iran's leaders. It must, of course, call for an immediate halt to the executions. She must also, and we will do so next month, support Iranian women by awarding them the Sakharov Prize, which will be one of the best symbols of this end of the year.

Mr President, I understand the people who want to join the European Union, starting with the Ukrainian people who are being attacked and with whom we stand in solidarity. I understand the sincere colleagues in this Chamber who consider that it is our moral duty to welcome them and that it is also necessary from a geopolitical point of view. But contrary to the obvious, I ask the question: Are we ready to absorb such a shock? Are the economic and political conditions in place? I don't think so. The political conditions, you talked about: The countries we are talking about obviously do not meet the Copenhagen criteria. But there is also our own situation: the economic crisis we are facing, the social crisis, the explosion of inequalities. And I am not sure that European employees are ready to pay for further enlargement, both because of budget transfers but also because of social dumping. I tell you to think about this: Europe is a very fragile construction and I am not sure that we are ready today to absorb an additional 50 million people in the European Union.

But, Ms Melchior, you know that for a very long time Europe had sheep farming, that is to say, lambs of very high quality. But it is precisely because of unfair competition that we now have an entire sector of European agriculture that is not doing well. But still, find out how sheep meat is brought from New Zealand to Europe to be sold completely hypocritically as fresh meat in European supermarkets when it has spent several days, if not weeks, on cargo ships in plastic packaging that, frankly, asks a number of questions. So I totally disagree with you. And if we are able, as we have been for years, to produce sheepmeat or goatmeat in Europe, then we can continue to do so.

Madam President, this free trade agreement with New Zealand is a bit like the epitome of hypocrisy and dual European language. That is to say, we have been talking about the Green Deal for years, we absolutely want to reconcile the climate and economic development, and we are gargling at the fact that we have finally signed an agreement with a country almost 20 000 kilometres away. So intensify trade through large boats and polluting cargo ships, to import what, milk, sheep, apples? That is to say, things that we are fully capable of producing in Europe. So I do not understand the argument that it is a progressive agreement. What is progressive? Yes, the text will respect international labour standards. Still happy! What is progressive? Yes, but beware, there are sanctions as a last resort if we do not respect the Paris Agreement. But we know very well what it means, "as a last resort": there will be none. And then there is one last argument, and here I totally disagree with Mr Caspary, I say that we must stop sacrificing European farmers, and in this agreement they are once again being sacrificed. Agriculture is becoming more and more the adjustment variable every time we trade. Well, it cannot last, and that is why I think this agreement should be rejected. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Madam President, geopolitical Europe starts with the coherence of the message and the cohesion of the leaders. Excuse me for telling you, but it's a mess! On the one hand, you have a Commissioner who unilaterally announces that he is suspending aid to the Palestinians, on the other, a Commissioner who denies him during the day, and we wait two days to get the Commission's position, which ultimately triples the aid. Ms von der Leyen went to Israel and had a totally unbalanced message, and the President of the Council, Mr Michel, had to convene a meeting today to call her to order. I apologise, but that does not give the impression of seriousness. The same applies to the consistency of the message and dual language. On the one hand, they say: As soon as there is one country attacking another, diplomatic relations are stopped and economic sanctions are imposed, and Ms von der Leyen goes to Azerbaijan with great pomp to celebrate a gas deal, while ethnic cleansing has already begun in Nagorno-Karabakh. With this dual language, I apologise, but geopolitical Europe is not serious either. The third and most important thing, in my opinion, is our independence. However, very clearly, in the European Commission, and particularly with the President of the European Commission, there is a problem of systematic alignment with the position of the Americans. We can therefore say whatever we want about geopolitical, sovereign, independent Europe, but for now these are words that are not followed by deeds.

Madam President, let me say this straight away: I do not share the unbridled enthusiasm of the majority of colleagues here for globalised trade. And I think that there is nothing lasting about wanting to multiply free trade agreements, nor is it in the interest of our supposed strategic autonomy to open Europe to goods from all over the world, often manufactured in deplorable conditions. I would point out here that trade-related greenhouse gas emissions account for a quarter of the world's total emissions. The truth is that widespread free trade is incompatible with the fight against climate change. The debate on the draft Mercosur agreement illustrates this perfectly. If we say yes to this agreement, then we will say yes to deforestation, yes to agribusiness, land predation and the destruction of biodiversity. Beyond this specific case, we cannot talk at the same time about Green New Deal continue as if nothing had to be imported from countries that continue to build coal-fired power plants such as China, India or Indonesia. And for me, we need to completely overhaul our economic and commercial system by focusing on the relocation of activities and businesses and jobs in Europe. It is on this basis that we can continue to have lasting relations with other economic powers, and certainly not by perpetuating a globalization where it is the poor of rich countries who finance the rich of poor countries.

Mr President, the situation in Moldova, which is still the poorest country in Europe, neighbouring Ukraine, remains extremely precarious. It has not yet managed to overcome the crisis that struck it in 2020 and which, of course, has increased in intensity because of Vladimir Putin's war. We have an inflation rate that is very worrying, but it is also the case of the public debt, the public deficit, which are not sustainable in the long term. And this has not prevented Moldova, as other colleagues have said, from taking more than its share in the reception of Ukrainian refugees, 100,000 in the first half of the year. And so it is a brave country that deserves our help. And that is what we are doing by mobilising a number of schemes such as macro-financial assistance or the civil protection mechanism to the tune of more than EUR 1 billion over the past two years. Then there is the question of accession and, I tell you, I remain very cautious, because I am not sure that Moldova is ready today to start accession negotiations. Moreover, I think that any decision in this direction would be hasty, even counterproductive, as the political, administrative and judicial structures of Moldova, where there is endemic corruption, cannot adapt as quickly as we want. What Moldovans need most of all is help. And that, I think we can understand and do together, especially in the field of energy. But for the rest, on the question of enlargement, I urge you, ladies and gentlemen, not to give the impression of a leak forward. We have the impression that Europe, not knowing where it is going, has as its principle to expand ever more, without us ever asking the basic question of the reason for this enlargement. I would add that there is a lot of intra-European competition, a lot of social dumping, and the consequence of all this should not be the people's rejection of Europe.

Madam President, for the past year and a half we have been relentlessly and unambiguously supporting the Ukrainian people who have been attacked by Mr Putin's regime. We do not let the Ukrainians down. So, I am addressing the Commission, why are you letting the Armenian people down? The truth is that you are doing worse than dropping them since you signed a gas agreement with Azerbaijan in July 2022, congratulating yourself with great pomp, I quote Ms von der Leyen, on this reliable partnership, even though ethnic cleansing had already begun in Nagorno-Karabakh. And today, the situation is catastrophic. It has been said that more than 100,000 refugees, out of a total population of 120,000, were thrown on the roads of the exodus by Mr. Aliyev. And we cannot simply be satisfied with promises of humanitarian aid. It is not knowing the situation because today, there is a blockade that today food and medicine can not pass. We must, of course, go further, and listen, Commissioner, to the Members of the European Parliament who are telling you not only to stop this gas agreement, but to impose sanctions on a regime which today does not respect any principle and which we must condemn without any ambiguity.

Mr President, when faced with a technology as revolutionary as generative artificial intelligence, there are two pitfalls to avoid. First, catastrophism inspired by science fiction films, let's say anxiety-provoking, but also technophilic naivety, which consists in worshipping everything new as a matter of principle. We are trying here in this Parliament to have a rather average position, a rational position which is to say that generative artificial intelligence can bring us progress, provided that it is used wisely. In particular to be able to be disconnected mechanically, which has not been said from the beginning, but I say so, if he ever had the idea of taking control. In other words, we need to regulate AI before it regulates us. So our ambition is obviously artificial intelligence ‘made in Europe’. And for that, we have many assets. With the regulation and support of public authorities, our researchers, developers and entrepreneurs are perfectly capable of building a human-centric model of generative AI. But when I say ‘made in Europe’, I think we have to distinguish ourselves from the Chinese model, of course, but also from the American model, because our views are different, particularly on data protection, transparency and copyright. And I tell you, the US-Europe Privacy Shield ersatz, which was negotiated by Ms von der Leyen, seems largely unsatisfactory to me. There is still work to be done to address the risks of data mining and data looting, to protect our creators and to better inform the public who today must be able to distinguish fake images from real ones. I wholeheartedly hope that the Council, which is not here, will take into account the aspirations of parliamentarians to arrive at a kind of open European AI that is ambitious and worthy of our continent.

Madam President, it is always moving to hear our colleagues on the right, whether they are conservatives, liberals, macronists in France, defend with great consistency the privileges of those who get rich by sleeping, as President François Mitterrand said. Because that is exactly what it is all about. We went back almost a century, when the privileged enjoyed considerable tax advantages. The truth, the reality, what we are talking about is that, in less than two decades, the wealth of the big capital holders has literally exploded. Multiplied by three in Germany, multiplied by six in France. And we have arrived in a crazy situation, where today the middle class pays more taxes in proportion than the rich. In addition, there is an unprecedented situation – stemming from the COVID-19 crisis – where we have inflation that is not driven by wages, but by profits. And that is what Europeans are going through today. And this explains the feeling of profound injustice that today, of course, we have to tax the richest, we have to make proposals. For example, I think there must be an exceptional tax on crisis profiteers. I also believe that production should be encouraged and dividends should therefore be taxed more heavily than reinvested profits. We must move towards social justice, we must move towards tax justice. This is the path we can take together.

Madam President, I too, on behalf of the Left Group, wanted to express our compassion and solidarity with the Serbian people, who have just been affected by two horrific shootings on 3 and 5 May, which killed 17 people, including eight children. And we are on the side of the tens of thousands of Serbs who have stood up against this murderous madness, against the laissez-faire in the possession of weapons, and against all those, including politicians, who have participated in a climate of violence. Like us, the Serbian people aspire to peace and democracy and that is, I believe, the sense of sincere and positive dialogue that the European Union must have with a country that has been a candidate for accession since 2012, and which has shown in at least half of the negotiating chapters that it has made undeniable progress. So, is that enough? Clearly, no. Serbia needs to act to expand its media space, to place more trust in civil society, and of course to continue its policy of appeasement vis-à-vis Bosnia. And also that it finds a lasting solution with Kosovo. But still, I would like to say that sometimes I feel that Serbia is treated very differently from other Balkan countries. And I regret this double standard. On the pretext that Serbia is not fully aligned with our foreign policy, it should be treated harshly. I don't agree with that. I think it would make no sense to open up to the Balkans without taking Serbia into account. And I believe that this is an attitude which in reality leads exactly to the opposite of the aim pursued, that is to say that it serves neither the interests of Serbia nor those of the European Union. So let us be consistent and continue to reach out to Serbia, which has so much to expect from us.

Mr President, for us Europeans and for me French, Tunisia is more than an economic or political partner, it is a friend. And friendship means support, respect. It also implies sincerity. And in friendship and sincerity, it must be recognized that the situation is seriously deteriorating in Tunisia. It is deteriorating economically and socially and this is what concerns Tunisians the most. It is also deteriorating in terms of freedoms and the rule of law. I think of course of Noureddine Boutar, the director of Mosaic FM, who was worried, harassed, imprisoned. I am also thinking of the unionists of the UGTT who have been harassed by the power in place. I am thinking of Mrs Lynch of the ETUC, who was expelled from Tunisia. I am also thinking of the dismissal of local elected officials replaced by civil servants. So what can the European Union do about it? First, it must support all those who, in Tunisia, not necessarily parliamentarians but above all outside the political sphere, who have solutions. I am thinking in particular of the big union UGTT, I am thinking of the national quartet and that is important to know. And also, nevertheless, we must know that the economic and social situation is dramatic. And if the European Union has a role to play, that is particularly the case. We absolutely must not mess with our financial support, our economic support. Here too, it will allow the Tunisian people to control their destiny.