Speeches

Ladies and gentlemen, In Europe, in 2025, women and girls continue to be beaten, raped, exploited, sometimes even silenced by fear or shame. This is our collective failure. Because as long as a woman cannot live free and secure, no democracy is fully achieved. The EU Directive against violence against women is a major step forward. But it will not save any life if it remains a dead letter in the drawers of the Member States. Europe must stand firm: transpose, apply, sanction. Protecting victims means acting quickly, training police officers, judges, doctors, ensuring a dignified reception and safe havens all over Europe. And let us not forget the new forms of exploitation, especially around motherhood, where women’s bodies become a market. We cannot tolerate vulnerability becoming a business. Europe must remain a bulwark against violence and commodification of the female body. It is a question of justice, dignity and humanity.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome the Commission's willingness to support a real European dynamic for small nuclear reactors, to facilitate the financing of renewable energies and the involvement of citizens. These are steps in the right direction. But I have to admit that I stay a little bit hungry. Having clean, abundant, cheap European energy is the biggest challenge for Europe. This is an existential issue for Europe, for our future and for our businesses. Commissioner, would it not be possible to propose even more disruptive ideas, commensurate with this challenge, in a constrained budgetary context and with competition more exacerbated than ever? Could we not, for example, imagine a European energy levy that would apply to all products, wherever they were manufactured, and that would be used to lower the price of decarbonised energy in Europe? This would make it possible to win over those who are the most virtuous, rather than short-termists who continue to abuse the Drill, baby, drillwithout paying the consequences.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for too long our young people have been left to their own devices on the internet, exposed to dangerous content, to systems designed to make them addicted and to the massive exploitation of their personal data. Finally, this text sets clear rules, a harmonised age limit of 16 and enhanced protection for those under 13, but also the end of targeted advertising and the most addictive features. It does this by imposing a privacy-friendly verification system – and this is important – but also by ensuring that platforms and their managers can be held accountable for repeated breaches. The stakes are huge because 10 years, 13 years, 16 years, 18 years is different. Because it is not up to the digital giants to dictate their law and because what is forbidden in real life must also be forbidden on the internet. It is a strong signal for Europe, for our citizens, for our children.

You talk about China's coal mines, but you forget to say that China has installed photovoltaic panels twice the equivalent of all photovoltaic panels installed in Europe and the United States. China has a clear strategy to move forward, and it is because of people like you that we remain stuck in the past.

Madam President, lulled by the utopia of virtuous globalisation, Europe has not cared about its industry. Meanwhile, China has built its own, patiently, methodically. Today, the awakening is painful. Even as we finally realize that, in a world governed by the balance of power, dependence is not an option, we discover that China dominates us over wind, batteries, electric vehicles and uses rare earths as a geopolitical weapon. So, ladies and gentlemen, we are either going beyond our taboos or condemning our future prosperity. I tell you straight away: it is time to dare to protect our markets, our industry, this industry which applies the highest social, environmental and health standards in the world and which has suffered unfair competition for too long. Rather than pouring into a new utopia of simplification as the only solution, let us dare to speak of fair tariffs, quotas of sovereignty. For, in this merciless war, we must make a coup to impose fair competition. It is time to protect our territories, otherwise we condemn them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are a number of positive points on the Commission's agenda. But to have a strong, independent, credible Europe, it must be given the means to achieve its ambition. And its means are its own resources. Without it, with each budget, we replay the same piece, that of each for himself. This dependence weakens our common action. Whether it is financing the green transition, supporting our farmers or investing in defence, we have the concrete levers. A European digital tax on web giants who take advantage of our infrastructure without making a fair contribution to its financing. A tax on imported parcels to restore justice between our SMEs and foreign platforms. And why not a European social VAT that would reduce the cost of labour while strengthening our common social policies. These own resources are not new taxes on citizens, but tools for fairness, competitiveness and sovereignty. Because a Europe that assumes itself financially is a stronger, fairer and freer Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the mother planet is in danger. It's a reality. The oceans are essential to the proper functioning of the planet. They provide half of the oxygen we breathe. They absorb a quarter of the CO2 of the atmosphere. Three billion people around the world depend on it. And yet, they suffocate. Or rather, we make them suffocate. It is therefore urgent, even vital, to change course. The European Ocean Pact must be a political response commensurate with the climate, economic and geopolitical challenge at sea. It must also be the basis of our multilateral relations. Protecting ecosystems and biodiversity, developing sustainable marine renewable energy is our shared responsibility and we cannot accept that some people give it up or benefit from it, whether American or otherwise. To give up is to attack us.

Mr President, Commissioner, the regulation on gas storage is essential for us to spend the winter and its revision gives Member States more flexibility while maintaining sufficient ambition. This is a step in the right direction, because we will need gas in addition to renewable energy. But we will not heat ourselves with percentages and, in a hectic global context, the priority must be our strategic autonomy. That is why I would like to take this opportunity to ask you to go one step further. Gas storage should not just be a winter reflex, it should become a pillar of our economic and energy sovereignty. In this context, the former empty gas fields of the North Sea could form the core of a robust, shared and sovereign European strategic reserve. The United States and Japan are already using their reserves as a geopolitical tool. Are we the only ones who think that geopolitics is played without fuel? That is why I ask you to consider, as we are already doing for oil, a reserve obligation at European level of 90 days for gas. We have the infrastructure, we have the technology, we now need the political will.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Clean Industry Pact is the only credible way to guarantee our strategic autonomy and competitiveness. Today, even more than yesterday, no sustainable solution will be possible without combining ecology and economy. For too long, our dependence on imported fossil fuels has made us economically and geopolitically vulnerable. It is urgent to regain our strategic autonomy, combining renewables, nuclear, flexibilization and storage solutions. To do this, we need to accelerate our investments in infrastructure by providing additional resources and simplifying procedures. It's about our security and our defense. In the same spirit, this pact must also make Europe the leader in the circular economy – among others – in the world, in order to reduce our dependence on critical raw materials. That is why we welcome the fact that you have included in this pact the principle of buying only once: Once the materials enter our territory, we have to keep them here and they have to stay there. By recycling and reusing them, we reduce our dependency, lower costs and secure our resources. Through clean energy and a circular economy, we will build a stronger and more autonomous Europe.

I have a simple question for you – do you know that we don't have enough fossil fuel in Europe? Do you really think that using and buying fossil fuel from the US and other countries in the world will make us in a context where we can be competitive? Or don't you think that we need our own sources of energy?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, we cannot stand by and watch what is happening in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Thousands of deaths, almost half a million displaced people, the situation is simply dramatic. So yes, Europe must use its full weight to encourage peace. Yes, everything must be done for the protection of civilian populations and respect for Congolese integrity and sovereignty. We are witnessing a drama and to be a spectator is to be an accomplice. It is time to act and this reaction must be firm and immediate. That is why we ask you to suspend the agreement with Rwanda as long as massacres are perpetrated and the region is destabilized. Our priority must be peace, the well-being of the people and respect for human rights and international law. Economic interests and trade agreements are just ways to get there. We're counting on you.

Madam, I broadly agree with you on your findings. But, like you and the whole European Parliament here, we received last week... Last week you received an email, like everyone here in this hemicycle, asking for Elon Musk to be a Nobel Prize candidate, coming from the EPP. My question is, how is it feasible or what is your opinion in regard to this request? Is it normal for the EPP, or for the group? Do you support that initiative? Do you think it's normal to have someone making some interference, disinformation and supporting having abnormal words against the Prime Minister of Great Britain and making all this disinformation, who would be a candidate for a Nobel Prize?

Madam President, Commissioner, in the European Union, almost 100 million people suffer from some form of disability, and their situation remains far too difficult. I will only point to one example, which I myself have been able to experience in recent months: accessibility. Yet essential, this accessibility is far from guaranteed in too many European states, due to the absence of sanctions for compliance, or because it is only recommended. This is unacceptable! How can we, for example, in 2024, accept that taking the metro in Paris or Brussels is still a fighter's journey? When we talk about accessibility, we must also focus on sensory accessibility. People who are deaf or blind have very few adaptations, even in public places, when they desperately need them to be able to participate fully in society. That, too, is not acceptable. The list is too long. So, Commissioner, together, let us rise to the challenge, so that all citizens are finally truly equal before the law.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the experts' assessment is clear: the land, seas and living beings they harbour are under threat. It's time to "make peace" with nature to avoid a bill with no refund possible. After the adoption of the global biodiversity framework at COP 15, the goal of COP 16 was to move from promises to action, but despite some progress, governments have not been able to achieve this ambition, nor have they been able to commit to mobilizing the necessary financial means to achieve it. Sad spectacle to see the COP suspended for lack of government in the room. Sad and yet revealing. Whether at European or international level, in the face of the efforts to be made here today, more and more citizens and politicians prefer to look away, perhaps hoping that this will remove the obstacle. However, acting on biodiversity or fighting global warming is not being generous, or a luxury: It's just being responsible. Changing is always difficult, but inaction would be fatal. That is why we must continue to fight with both pragmatism and will, day after day, to combat the blindness of some, including in this Parliament.

Mr President, Commissioner, access to housing is an essential right and, as you mentioned, so is access to decent housing. In this context, you know that insulating buildings is necessary, both economically and environmentally. Yet it is an unattainable dream for many of our citizens, who live in energy sieves. There is an urgent need to facilitate investment and support those who want to advance the economy and ecology. There is a simple and effective solution, based on a third-party investor system proposed by my party, Les Engagés, which could be a source of inspiration at European level. We called this plan "three-fold zero insulation": zero costs, because the work would be financed by a public fund at zero rate, this financing being reimbursed over the long term, thanks to the absorption of part of the savings made directly on the energy bill; no worries, because the authorised agents would take care of all the paperwork and ensure that the work was carried out as efficiently as possible, at the lowest possible cost; zero emissions, as buildings account for almost 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. This is an idea that could be implemented at European level.

Mr President, an expression says that a donkey does not stumble twice on the same stone. Tariff barriers, anti-dumping, industrial strategy: the EU has conducted this debate several times, for example in 2013 on photovoltaic panels. However, for fear of reprisals, for lack of vision, for the selfishness of certain countries, we were ultimately unable or unwilling to put in place a real European strategy. Result: only 3% of photovoltaic panels installed in Europe are manufactured here. Today, 4,000 workers at Audi's Brussels site are victims of arrogance, lack of anticipation and lack of vision in the automotive sector. In ten years, our trade deficit with China has tripled and France has become a net importer in economic terms. This must stop. It is about our credibility, I would even say our democracy, because the risk is to leave the field to the extremes, whose only solution is to fall even further behind China and the United States, to refuse the obstacle and to remain turned to the past by sticking to a dead branch. Let's be clear: Tariff rules are not the answer, but they can help restore fairer competition and save time for a comprehensive strategic plan, investment and innovation.

Mr. Speaker, Paul Watson has been languishing for weeks in prison. At the origin of his arrest, an international arrest warrant issued by Japan in connection with its campaign against whaling. Can we accept that, on European soil, we put in prison for several weeks a whistleblower who puts his life at risk for biodiversity, for the defense of animals, for the protection of the environment and therefore for the general interest? If we don't act, Paul Watson could spend the next 15 years of his life in prison in Japan. It's not acceptable. Every day the number of poaching acts multiplies. Every day increases the number of killers of endangered species. Every day increases the number of animal crimes. Every day, we hear or see malicious acts by multinationals that destroy biodiversity for a few financial benefits. If we do not change anything, one day, the human being could be endangered and we will have looked for it. Free Paul Watson!

Mr President, intra-European tax competition is Europe's cancer. While together we could be strong, we continue to compete with each other, each trying to pull the cover to itself to attract a few more companies and ultimately make everyone lose. We need to be clear: This game makes all of Europe lose. This game is not a zero-sum game and this Europe of disunity has an impact on citizens. Ireland has almost three times as much corporate income tax revenue as Belgium, while it has a lower rate. Corporate tax has fallen by more than a third over the past 20 years. This is so much less income for Europeans. By dint of competing, the only thing that can still be taxed is work, and it makes no sense. It is because of this that we are stifling our citizens, our competitiveness. The EU must ensure a higher corporate tax and avoid competition with state aid, which is specific from one state to another. There's an emergency. Faced with Apple and all the multinationals, we must be clear: As long as we are disunited, we will lose.

With all due respect, I think we need to stop hypocrisy. Yesterday, with the far right, you criticized the environmental measures that make it possible to fight against climate phenomena, you reviled any idea of solidarity in terms of civil protection. You denounce initiatives to invest in anticipation and resilience. So please, yes, I repeat, we must stop the false ass ball. I'm sorry, but the victims deserve better than your hypocrisy.

Mr President, Commissioner, investing or dying is Mr Draghi's warning. A shocking sentence, but which, alas, also reflects the sad reality regarding the state of the Energy Union. We are not going to lie, Commissioner, that the energy policy that has been pursued in Europe for 30 years is a fiasco. We don't go fast enough, we don't go far enough. For 30 years, Europe has considered energy as a commodity and entrusted its future to the market. This is a mistake and we must acknowledge it today in order to change the paradigm in order to succeed. Because no, energy is not a commodity like any other. Because choosing a low-carbon energy mix is a political decision, not a market decision. Because ensuring the competitiveness of our companies is a political decision, not a market decision. Because European autonomy is a political choice and not a market decision. Because the creation of green energy capacity is a political decision and not a market decision. And a political decision must be framed strategically and financially. Europe faces an essential, strategic, existential challenge. Either we will be able to invest EUR 750 billion to meet the challenges before us, or the very existence of the Union is in jeopardy. Will we be able to create joint loans, mobilise private savings and develop European own taxation to achieve this? History will judge us.

Madam President, the facts are there. You were the first President of the European Commission in history to be truly environmentalist. You were the first to really care about the climate transition for the future of our children and grandchildren, and for that I thank you and we should all thank you. Since the beginning of your mandate, as you were committed to it, you have set up gigantic environmental projects. I am thinking of course of the Green Deal, the Farm to Fork Strategy, CO2 and pesticide reduction targets, biodiversity protection policies and so on. But the geopolitical and agricultural crises have gone through this and ambitions have been lowered. Moreover, the climate issue was largely absent from the election campaign. So my question is simple, Mrs von der Leyen: Will you be as ambitious as you were five years ago? What do you intend to do to close the gap in order to enable future generations to live on a viable planet?