Speeches

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, Belgium, Poland, Denmark, Romania: drone incursions into EU airspace are increasing. They show those who doubted that the Russian threat does not stop in Ukraine. Europe, the whole of Europe is under threat. Europe must respond, and yesterday's failure of the third trilogue on the European Defence Industries Programme is pathetic. The truth is that the Commission is not responsible. Those responsible are the Member States, which refuse to put the financial means on the table. We're under attack. And what is the proposed answer? €1.5 billion. Suffice to say nothing or almost nothing. Our enemies rub their hands when they see that defence Europe is just a paper tiger. It is high time to change gears. Together with my fellow rapporteurs, we have opened up all avenues, such as tapping into the 150 billion SAFE instrument or the means of the Recovery and Resilience Facility. Grab them. Organize a financial round without delay and come back before us with a collective ambition worthy of the name.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, you know how much the S&D Group is committed to the European Social Fund. This is the social soul of Europe and we will fight to ensure that it does not disappear in the next multiannual budget. We support the possibility of redeployment to respond to new challenges. But allowing Hungary to take advantage of this to recover the funds blocked for non-compliance with the rule of law is incomprehensible and, I tell you, even shocking. Hungary is the central government's suppression of the press, trade unions and NGOs, under the pretext of protecting itself against foreign interference. It is the questioning of the independence of the judiciary, to leave the field free to corruption. It's the ban on protesting, as we've seen with Gay Pride. In trilogue, you made a commitment to ensure the maintenance of the rule of law in the evaluation of any request to amend the programmes. That is not enough. You must make a commitment here that not one euro of frozen funds will be redirected to Hungary as long as the violation of our most fundamental principles persists. Europe's hand must not shake when it comes to upholding the rule of law by one of its members.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, it is always useful to discuss, but now is the time for decisions. The Commission’s silence lasted too long. What does Trump want? He says it himself: first, money. With the 10% already in place, U.S. tariff revenue has risen from $5 billion a month to $25 billion a month. And this money, he is not ready to give it up. Trump's second goal is clear: to force our companies selling in the US to move to the US. And this is the biggest risk for Europe: not only to lose export jobs, but also to see the products of its companies destined for the European market now manufactured in the United States and then re-imported into Europe. And we can't let that happen in any way. What the European Union needs to do is simple: Ensure neutrality, regardless of Trump's decisions. If it is 10 %, then let us impose 10 %; If it is 25%, then we impose 25%. Neither weakness nor overbidding, but simply commercial justice, and let it serve as a lesson to us. Let’s stop being Bisounours. A business partner can always turn into a business adversary, and that is what happens.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, it is always useful to discuss, but now is the time for decisions. The Commission’s silence lasted too long. What does Trump want? He says it himself: first, money. With the 10% already in place, U.S. tariff revenue has risen from $5 billion a month to $25 billion a month. And this money, he is not ready to give it up. Trump's second goal is clear: to force our companies selling in the US to move to the US. And this is the biggest risk for Europe: not only to lose export jobs, but also to see the products of its companies destined for the European market now manufactured in the United States and then re-imported into Europe. And we can't let that happen in any way. What the European Union needs to do is simple: Ensure neutrality, regardless of Trump's decisions. If it is 10 %, then let us impose 10 %; If it is 25%, then we impose 25%. Neither weakness nor overbidding, but simply commercial justice, and let it serve as a lesson to us. Let’s stop being Bisounours. A business partner can always turn into a business adversary, and that is what happens.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe grows when it responds ‘present’ when its citizens need it. It has been doing so since 2006 with the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. This fund is a strong symbol of European solidarity. It gives concrete support to our fellow citizens faced with the harsh redundancies caused by globalisation. To these workers who lose everything overnight, he offers the hope of a rebound through support, to learn another job, to find a job. Since its creation almost two decades ago, the EGF has supported 172,000 employees in 20 Member States. This is a key policy. That is why I call on you to vote in favour of the implementing provisions submitted to you today. But it is precisely because it is essential, because it is one of the milestones of a social Europe that is still in its infancy, that we must defend this fund well beyond today's vote. Because, I tell you, it is threatened with extinction in the next multiannual financial framework, as is the European Social Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the Social Climate Fund. As Jacques Delors said, Europe is not only the creation of an area without borders, it is also a community of cohesion and solidarity that opens up opportunities for the men and women who make it up. And he added: "You can't fall in love with a big market" to mean that people would turn away from Europe if it wasn't able to be much more than a big market. With this vote, ladies and gentlemen, and the fight we will fight together to preserve the social soul of Europe, we will reaffirm the values of solidarity, justice and progress, which have always inspired the construction of Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe grows when it responds ‘present’ when its citizens need it. It has been doing so since 2006 with the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. This fund is a strong symbol of European solidarity. It gives concrete support to our fellow citizens faced with the harsh redundancies caused by globalisation. To these workers who lose everything overnight, he offers the hope of a rebound through support, to learn another job, to find a job. Since its creation almost two decades ago, the EGF has supported 172,000 employees in 20 Member States. This is a key policy. That is why I call on you to vote in favour of the implementing provisions submitted to you today. But it is precisely because it is essential, because it is one of the milestones of a social Europe that is still in its infancy, that we must defend this fund well beyond today's vote. Because, I tell you, it is threatened with extinction in the next multiannual financial framework, as is the European Social Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the Social Climate Fund. As Jacques Delors said, Europe is not only the creation of an area without borders, it is also a community of cohesion and solidarity that opens up opportunities for the men and women who make it up. And he added: "You can't fall in love with a big market" to mean that people would turn away from Europe if it wasn't able to be much more than a big market. With this vote, ladies and gentlemen, and the fight we will fight together to preserve the social soul of Europe, we will reaffirm the values of solidarity, justice and progress, which have always inspired the construction of Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is an important moment. With this multi-annual budget, it is basically a question of which Europe we want to build in the next ten years. We expected a visionary project, marking decisive progress on defence Europe, shaping with justice a society respectful of the planet and ensuring digital sovereignty. And what are we about to deliver? A budget as empty of meaning as it is of means, abandoning essential parts of the Europe we love. Let's be clear: we will never accept the abolition of the European Social Fund. I'm telling you: If Ursula von der Leyen's Europe is to defeat Jacques Delors' Europe, then it will be without us. We will never accept that the necessary effort in defence and competitiveness comes at the expense of the social and ecological. We will never accept the absurd rule of money against reforms. This budget goes right into the wall. As it stands, it does not have a majority because we Socialists and Democrats will not vote for it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is an important moment. With this multi-annual budget, it is basically a question of which Europe we want to build in the next ten years. We expected a visionary project, marking decisive progress on defence Europe, shaping with justice a society respectful of the planet and ensuring digital sovereignty. And what are we about to deliver? A budget as empty of meaning as it is of means, abandoning essential parts of the Europe we love. Let's be clear: we will never accept the abolition of the European Social Fund. I'm telling you: If Ursula von der Leyen's Europe is to defeat Jacques Delors' Europe, then it will be without us. We will never accept that the necessary effort in defence and competitiveness comes at the expense of the social and ecological. We will never accept the absurd rule of money against reforms. This budget goes right into the wall. As it stands, it does not have a majority because we Socialists and Democrats will not vote for it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the ceasefire between Iran and Israel is a relief, but it must not distract us from the Middle East, starting with Gaza, where civilian deaths must stop, where destruction must stop, where Netanyahu’s war must stop, where lasting peace must arrive. Above all, Commissioner, the silence of the European Union and the European institutions must stop. Europe must also be heard on the bloody repression in Iran. As a result of the conflict, three political opponents were hanged, and hundreds of arrests took place, including eight Europeans. An 18-year-old Frenchman is missing: He may have been taken hostage. For the 20 or so European hostages in detention, the situation has further worsened. I was yesterday and the day before yesterday with the families of two hostages, Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris, imprisoned in inhumane conditions. They're on their way! Since the war, their place of detention is unknown and the regime has added to psychological torture the threat of the death penalty on unfounded charges. Amnesty International also warns of the imminent execution of their Swedish co-detainee, Ahmadreza Djalali. So, Commissioner, I call on the European executive to mobilise all possible levers to secure the immediate release of the European hostages in Iran.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the depths of the unprecedented crisis, we Europeans have been able to come together to find the way forward. The major investment plan, financed for the first time by the European loan, which we are talking about today, was one of its major instruments. This momentum has enabled us to overcome the pandemic, make the ideal of European solidarity a reality, protect our economies and jobs, and accelerate the green and digital transition. So let's not learn bad lessons from this experience. Yes to new European loans to finance the public investment wall needed for a just economic and digital transition. But no, no, a thousand times no to this disastrous idea of making the payment of European funds conditional on the prior completion of reforms – ‘money for value, payments against reforms’. But finally, Europe is not here to make money, but to do good for people! Europe is not there to coerce nations, but to transcend them. This blackmail of reforms was a mistake for the Recovery Facility. It would be a mistake to replicate and generalise this approach in the next multiannual European budget. And you must know, Commissioner, that is a red line for us European Socialists and Democrats. That's what it says.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, bequeathing a livable planet to our children and grandchildren is the honour of politics, it is the moral duty of our generation. The European Global Warming Plan is arguably one of Europe's greatest and most beautiful achievements. To succeed, we must be pragmatic, as we do here with the carbon border tax. Taxing carbon at borders is a great idea, protecting our economies and jobs by avoiding unfair competition from countries that do not have the same environmental standards as us. Today, we are smartly adapting this tax by reducing the administrative burden for 90% of companies, VSEs, while maintaining 99% of the emissions covered. To succeed, this European plan to combat global warming must also find the way to justice. To tax carbon or impose constraints without social accompaniment is to create injustices and fuel eco-anxiety. In future budgets, everyone will have to be given the financial means to isolate their home, to replace their car with an electric car or their boiler with a heat pump. This, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the most important decisions we will have to take in the coming months.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, this will be a landmark moment: between pro-European groups in this House, we have agreed on powerful budgetary choices for the future of European integration. I would like to pay tribute to the work of our two co-rapporteurs, Carla Tavares and Siegfried Mureşan, as well as to that of the team of shadow rapporteurs. Together, socialists, environmentalists, Renew and the EPP, we call for breaking the 1% of GDP ceiling that muzzles European ambitions for lack of financial means. Together, we are calling for new own resources to be allocated to the European budget. Together, we see European borrowing as a viable option for dealing with crises with a European dimension. Together, we reject this disastrous project, which makes European funds conditional on national reforms imposed by Brussels: they would do nothing but damage the very idea of Europe. Commissioner, at your hearing you stated this obvious fact: we cannot simultaneously respond to emergencies, repay COVID debt and not increase the resources of the European budget. You now have a clear answer from the European Parliament to this dilemma: the need for a change in the scale of the European budget. I would add this, on behalf of the S&D Group: At a time when you, in turn, are going to draw up the European fiscal trajectory, be sure of our determination. We will not give our consent to a budget that would not allow the constitution of a European defence powerful enough to no longer depend on that of the United States. We will not give our consent to a budget that does not finance the investments needed to decarbonise the economies, which are the key to the success of the Green Deal without social breakdown. We will not give our consent to a budget that sacrifices social and cohesion or does not sufficiently protect European agriculture and jobs because of a lack of resources for research, innovation and business. Politics requires dialogue – we will be there – but it also requires clarity. Here it is stated.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in a world on the brink of collapse, where imperialism is emerging, where our allies are moving away from us, where inequalities are growing, where war is at our doorstep, Europe is erecting itself as the last vessel in the wake of humanism, peace and prosperity. Europe must continue to lead the way, and for that it needs our common will. But it also needs a budget. This budget must be at the service of our fellow citizens. It must allow, Commissioner, more investment to respond to the security emergency, the climate emergency and the social emergency. It must reject cuts in social and environmental policies designed to pay interest on the debt generated by COVID-19 and to finance defence efforts. We will have to find the resources to do both. That is the key message of this text, which we are going to vote on Wednesday, and I want to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Halicki, and the shadow rapporteurs – Mr Ušakovs, as far as we are concerned. Today, the compromise reached between the four pro-European coordination groups is threatened by the introduction of debates that have nothing to do with the budget – on immigration, on funding aid to Gaza. With the same causes producing the same effects, this budget is in jeopardy – I tell you, it is going straight to the wall. Colleagues from the EPP Group, you are about to vote on amendments that are unacceptable to our group. Nothing would be worse than for Parliament not to be able, in these troubled times, to define its budgetary guidelines. We fought together to reach a compromise. This compromise is good, it is not too late. Let us rise to our historic responsibilities! Let’s put Europe on a fiscal path!

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Europe of defence, finally! It took Putin’s military aggression against Ukraine; foreign interference was required; cyber-attacks have been necessary; Sabotage had to be done; Finally, it took Trump's release. It was necessary to react quickly, and it was done. We welcome the Commission’s plan, but the account is not there. ReArm Europe relies far too much on the Member States; indeed, even assuming that the expected €650 billion is there, without more common borrowing, without more recourse to a European budget with new resources, without using the 200 billion frozen Russian assets, we can say goodbye to the accelerated pace, interoperability and anti-missile and anti-drone shield; we can say goodbye to France’s extended nuclear protection and strategic autonomy. More Europe in defence is the way to a defence of Europe without the United States. Finally, Commissioner, we solemnly ask you to refrain from drawing on cohesion funds to finance the defence effort. This is our social red line for your White Paper on defence. Europe's strength will not be built on the weakening of its people.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, have the latest negotiations improved the draft trade agreement between Europe and Mercosur? The answer is yes, but none of the efforts we could make to keep improving it will change this fact: a free trade agreement is sometimes a good thing for the consumer, winning sectors, but it is always a myriad of losers, whose compensation funds never repair broken lives and destabilized territories. A free trade agreement is a loss of sovereignty, as Trump's decisions have just reminded us. When the time of mutual benefits fades, comes the time of blackmail, which is very difficult to resist when dependence on the other has settled. Sweet trade, in reality, does not exist. Free trade is certainly more individual freedom to trade, but less collective freedom, this freedom to choose, in Europe, to be a continent that puts the human first and poses the preservation of life as an imperative. So yes for a partnership with the Mercosur countries, but there are 1,000 other avenues of cooperation.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, some of you have not understood the absence of Ursula von der Leyen. We socialists understand it too well. This programme of work drawn up without us is that of unkept speech. We have signed for a Europe of the three P's: Peace, People and Planet,Make Europe great for peace, people and planet''. We have not signed up for a program that fits into three words: deregulation, deregulation, deregulation. The Omnibus: deregulation; Budget: deregulation – with all the budgets that will be conditioned on what you call reforms, which are in fact a new deregulation –; The so-called Competitiveness Compass: deregulation. So my question, Commissioner, is this: with which majority do you intend to implement this programme? Because don't count on us to give our consent on a deregulation agenda. To deregulate is to strengthen the strongest and weaken the weakest. And you know that without our consent there will be no agenda for Europe. It is time to return to the original roadmap. We're ready for it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Baku, Cali and Riyadh, the different COPs follow and resemble each other. They are always useful by their very existence, but never at the height: 40% of the world's soils would be degraded and 75% of the world's population would be affected by it by 2050, 75%. As we know, the most vulnerable are the first victims. Let's call a cat a cat: This COP was a disappointment. And while Europe has been proactive in promoting drought resilience, its role has been more ambiguous: Opposing a legally binding protocol on drought, insufficiently addressing sustainable agricultural practices and an insufficient financial contribution. The Global Drought Resilience Partnership and its 12 billion promises have the merit of existing. But that's a drop in the bucket, if I may say so, compared to the $2.5 trillion needed to restore the billion hectares of degraded land. As Donald Trump comes out of the climate deal, let's show leadership. Let's go to Mongolia for COP17 with concrete proposals and help, otherwise the planet and future generations will not forgive us.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Iceland’s decision last month to allow whaling until 2029 is disastrous. Just a few weeks ago, several of us here expressed our support for Paul Watson, who was unjustly imprisoned in Greenland because of his commitment against this type of fishing. While a recall was still necessary, whaling has been subject to a moratorium since 1982. But three countries in the world – Iceland, Japan and Norway – are circumventing this obligation. Let's put pressure on these countries. Our Parliament has already done so, in particular in September 2017, when it called on Norway to put an end to this practice. As already requested by the European Parliament that year, we need to make sure that whale meat cannot pass through EU ports in any way. Only firmness towards these three countries may be able to save whales in the oceans of our continent.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the day began with a relief: the end of the nightmare of the Hungarian Presidency of the European Union. She also started with some good news: Europe is and will remain strong, says Prime Minister Tusk. To be strong is to have a defence capability. Yes, but it also means sticking to a social and ecological Europe. And I fear that, by questioning the Green Deal this morning, the Polish Presidency has opened Pandora’s Box – this debate shows that. If you are well understood, dear colleagues on the right, your vote for the European Green Deal would be the result of manipulation by NGOs. But finally, did DANA not exist? Was Mayotte not devastated? Isn't the Los Angeles area burning? Let's be serious. Do you know how much Shell spends on lobbying? €4 billion. And for NGOs, the EU is investing €2 million by subsidising the operation of the LIFE programme. And it is disputed today that this funding can come to support the advocacy actions of environmental organisations? Commissioner Serafin, on behalf of my group, I ask you to reconsider this unfair decision. Transparency, yes, whistleblower gag, no.

Ladies and gentlemen, the cyclone that devastated Mayotte promises to be one of the deadliest of our time. I want to tell the Mahorais: we cry with you, we suffer with you, we are with you, and we will be until Mayotte comes back. This tragic event is part of a series of climate disasters affecting our territories, from Valencia to Central Europe. The new Restore solidarity mechanism, which we are voting on, is an indispensable first response. But the reserves are insufficient. The necessary budgets will have to follow, and we expect you, Commissioner, to make the commitment. It will also be necessary to continue to act against the causes of climate change. I say this to all those who want to turn their backs on ecology: The European Green Deal is not an option, it is an obligation. We owe it to the Mahorais, we owe it to the Valencians. We owe it to all the victims of these repeated tragedies.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ensuring industrial renewal based on decarbonised processes, putting Europe at the forefront of research, pursuing the objective of energy sovereignty: we can only agree and share these objectives of the recent declaration of European leaders calling for a competitiveness pact. On the other hand, how can we not be worried about the cult of the single market, deregulation and free trade conveyed by this text? Europe's compass cannot be consumerism or productivism: Europe is about well-being rather than having everything, it is about attention to others and to future generations. It's the human first. The other blind spot of the Budapest Declaration is financing. The Council cannot, meeting after meeting, tell us that it is working on new resources without ever succeeding. Procrastination is enough! Parliament and the Commission put their proposals on the table in 2023. They are strong and could provide an additional €40 billion, €400 billion over five years. The Draghi report talks about 800 billion euros. Here's half of it. Ladies and gentlemen, the Letta report is entitled 'Much more than a market'. This is the compass for the further construction of Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, who can claim that Trump's United States will still be there to ensure the war effort in Ukraine? Who can claim that Putin will never attack any of the 27 member states? Who can claim that extreme weather events, such as the Valencia tragedy or pandemics and cyberattacks will not multiply? Yes, we Europeans are exposed to unprecedented risks that threaten our integrity. It is our duty to face it lucidly. These dangers know no borders. The answer must therefore be European. It is in everyone's interest. Then it will take powerful financial means. This is the blind spot of your report, Mr President Niinistö, and it should not be the blind spot of our action. Let's break the taboo. The orders of magnitude are several hundred billion and they are needed, not in ten years, but right away. It will require new resources and new and large-scale borrowing. From the desire for security was born the European project. From this same desire, he could be reborn. Let's rise to the occasion.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, how can we talk about protecting the oceans without mentioning the need to protect whistle-blowers? Paul Watson has been languishing in prison for nearly a hundred days for trying to enforce the moratorium on whaling. We must fight for his freedom. I welcome this initiative by the City of Paris, which has made him an honorary citizen of the capital of my country. I also call on the President of the Republic to grant him French nationality, which he requests, and I again call on the European Union to offer him the protection of the 2019 Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of European Union law. The list of destructions at work in our oceans is as long as the time to act is short. To act is to get out of industrial fishing, it is to establish real marine protected areas, it is to adopt a moratorium on deep-sea mining, it is to ban pollutants that destroy marine life, it is to guarantee powerful financial and control resources. The oceans are vital for the preservation of life. Ladies and gentlemen, let us protect them!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, cohesion policy – which Jacques Delors wanted more than anything else because of the solidarity that unites us – is the beautiful idea that no region, city or village should remain on the side of the road. Recent media leaks, which all suggest are well-founded, signal the EU executive’s intention to bring down this beautiful building. I say this to you with determination: we will never accept that regional funds are reduced to pay the COVID-19 debt. We will never accept that regional funds are placed under the control of national plans, because that is also what this is about. And never, never, never will we agree to make the allocation of regional funds conditional on the implementation of structural reforms that can easily be imagined to be drawn from the worst squandered revenues of the neoliberal greenback: ever fewer rights for employees, ever more money for shareholders and never any consideration for planetary boundaries. I told you: No, no, we will never agree to tell Secours populaire in Cantal that Europe wants vital support for food aid for the most deprived, because France would have refused to raise the retirement age to 67, 69 or 71 – because they never stop. Ladies and gentlemen, let us unite, let us unite so that Europe does not turn into what the IMF has had worse, a cure worse than evil: reforms imposed, at best ineffective, and often deadly.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this budget is the first in the new legislature. It was therefore necessary to reflect the commitments we made to the electorate and to our fellow citizens. My group, the S&D Group, for which I have the honour of being the coordinator in the Committee on Budgets, is of the opinion that this budget is going in the right direction. It goes in the right direction when it preserves the Cohesion Fund or when it proposes to increase funding for our flagship programmes, such as Erasmus+ for education, Horizon Europe for research or the European Civil Protection Mechanism to respond to natural disasters. It also goes in the right direction when it uses our financial opportunities for those of our citizens who need it most, when it responds to their daily priorities – housing, employment and European industry – and when it continues to support the transition. This is also the first project we are discussing since the reform of the Multiannual Financial Framework, which sets out new rules. These rules simply require us to use financial flexibilities where they exist before reducing them, and they must be respected. This budget, which I have just mentioned, is not that of the Commission, it is not that of the Council, it is the one patiently drawn up by our rapporteur Victor Negrescu. I would like to congratulate him on the work he has done and on this first success, as it was adopted in our Committee on Budgets. The message we need to send to the Council is clear: The first budget of the new legislature will not be a regression budget. The first budget of the legislature is not intended to repay COVID-19 debts by the most disadvantaged of our citizens. Colleagues, we must remain united until the end. The discussions around the budget resolution are not about our positions on UNRWA or asylum and immigration policy. Let's not be mistaken. The challenge is to vote on a budget for social, ecological and economic progress.