Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, will recalling the millions of deaths and hundreds of thousands of displaced people caused by the M23 have an impact here? I'm not sure. To affirm our unwavering support for the Congolese population nevertheless seems to me to be essential. The M23 must halt its advance and engage in peace negotiations. Each party involved in this conflict must make a definitive commitment to work for a way out of the crisis, otherwise we can continue here to deplore the appalling human toll, it will not change anything. In the meantime, there is an urgent need to ensure that humanitarian actors have safe access to civilians and that international law is respected. Every human life lost is a catastrophe and the situation has lasted too long. All actors in the conflict must move towards a peace process, as a matter of urgency. The European Union has the means to act and must act quickly.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in 2024, the International Committee of the Red Cross announced that, for the African continent alone, more than 71,000 people were missing as a result of armed conflicts, violence and migration, 75% more than in 2019. These disappearances are one of the most disastrous and lasting humanitarian consequences of conflicts. Let us remember that behind every missing person, many others suffer from uncertainty and this is inconceivable. If this were to happen in Europe, it would be unimaginable not to look for the missing, especially children. There is an urgent need to talk about these people, to recognise the suffering and despair of families and to draw the attention of the European Union, to prevent and resolve the disappearance of people, whatever the circumstances. Finally, I would like to recall that many migrants disappear during their journey, which is all too often perilous, to Europe, or once they arrive. It is essential that the European Union assesses the impact of its migration policies on the risk of migrants disappearing and facilitates rescue operations at sea in order to avoid tragedies, which too often make headlines in our newspapers.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 'physical border protection structures' is the title of this debate. It's actually just politically correct verbiage to talk about walls, barriers, barbed wire. This semantics reminds us of a very dark period in our history. The European Community was built on an ideal of peace, unity and openness. Our goal is not to erect walls, but to bring them down, as was the case on 9 November 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Financing such infrastructure would be an insult to European integration. Rather than building walls, we should dedicate our budget to defending democracy, which is threatened by populists and not migrants. As I said yesterday, right here, in the debate on the links between crime and migration: Only by taking on positive migration, putting in place legal pathways for migration and engaging in serious partnerships with other countries can we achieve this. No, it's not idiocy, it's common sense. Respect for fundamental rights is common sense.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, studies show that: migrants are more victims of organised crime than perpetrators. We must stop distilling this kind of populist ideology, which only brings hatred and withdrawal. Maintaining the negative discourse on migration by putting this discussion on the agenda of our debates, as well as wanting to build walls at borders, is not the solution. Migrants do not leave their country with the aim of participating in organised crime. They leave their country because war, famine, poverty and other climatic events force them to do so. The fight against criminal groups and the establishment of legal channels of migration are needed in order to destroy the economic model of smugglers. Only by taking on positive migration and engaging in serious partnerships with other countries can we achieve this. I say it again: the fight against crime must be a priority and not an excuse for a strong European approach to migration.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 150 000 dead, more than 11 million displaced, the use of rape as a weapon of war, the United States’ designation of Darfur as a ‘genocide’, are apparently not enough to make headlines. Yet this is the terrible reality of what has been happening in Sudan for almost two years. This evening's debate is therefore essential, although we can deplore its advanced schedule and the low presence in the Chamber. The European Union must put pressure on the actors in the conflict, including foreign ones, to restore peace in Sudan. The arms embargo must be respected. Effective access to populations must be guaranteed, and humanitarian organizations must be able to do their work. We have the diplomatic, human and financial means to put an end to the atrocities committed in Sudan. It is up to us to rise to the occasion and tell the Sudanese that we do not forget them.

Madam President, Madam Ombudsman, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the European Ombudsman’s annual activity report is an opportunity for me to congratulate Ms Emily O’Reilly on the immense work she has done for almost a decade. It also gives me the opportunity to thank her on behalf of European citizens for her tenacity, stubbornness, rigour and absolute willingness to be transparent with the highest European authorities, when it comes to ensuring the functioning of public life, but also respect for the rule of law – the rule of law that most people in Europe do not seem to care about. These qualities will be indispensable for his successor, whose election will take place tomorrow. This role, which is too little known, is nevertheless essential in order to keep European democracy alive and to protect it. I very much hope that the next Ombudsman will be up to the challenge, as Ms O’Reilly has been.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, the protection of the external borders is an essential condition for the preservation of free movement within the Schengen area. The exchanges we had on Monday, during the debate on the reintroduction of internal border controls, are proof of this. However, border protection does not mean fortress Europe. This is neither realistic nor desirable. Strengthen Frontex, why not, but above all we need safe and legal migration routes and a Frontex agency that respects fundamental rights. This is essential. It seems silly to say so, but in the current context, and even more so in view of the forces that are going through this Parliament, I would like to recall that migration is an integral part of our histories and that it will continue to exist, regardless of the walls erected.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all familiar with the principle of the Schengen area, namely the freedom of movement so dear to European citizens. Under the Schengen Borders Code, the reintroduction of internal border controls is the exception, not the rule. Their effectiveness against security threats is not obvious and real. Since 2015, citing a threat to public order, more than half of the Schengen Member States have reintroduced internal border controls. The Commission cannot oppose Member States in their decision to reintroduce border controls, but it must use infringement procedures when these controls are abusive and do not comply with the rules. So I ask you these questions here in this Chamber, with all the symbolism that it represents. Are we really prepared to call into question one of the fundamental principles, one of the most important reasons for the existence of the Union, the freedom of movement to which we are so attached? Are we ready to return to the pre-Schengen situation with border posts all over the Union? Do we really want to see the gradual disappearance of the Schengen area? For my part, I dare not believe that this need for security goes through this withdrawal into oneself and this regression of our freedoms.