Speeches

Madam President, dear Madam, thank you for your shocking testimony. I have seen your pain in the hearts of other mothers who are also suffering from the death of their murdered daughter. And for 50 years, feminism has been taken hostage by the left, which has made women victims of a so-called patriarchy to impose its false deconstruction, leaving today women alone, single mothers and young girls insecure. Even today, we would like to be led to believe that movements called transgender, anti-gender, are the only danger facing European women. But where is feminism when no one denounces sexual assaults, rapes and murders committed on women in Europe when their perpetrators are foreigners? Where is feminism when we refuse to see the danger of immigration for our women and girls? Where is feminism when those who denounce the murders of Lola and Philippine or the rape of Claire are accused of political recovery? Where is feminism when we demand, in France, the dissolution of the Nemesis collective, whose supporters are lynched until death? So let us defend women's rights, yes, provided that the first of them is the right to security.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of this amendment is to strengthen the responsibility of the Member States in the use of the Union reserve, recalling that solidarity, even in times of crisis, cannot imply gratuitousness. As the European Union has a supporting competence in the field of health, this amendment aims to ensure a sustainable financing of the reserve by providing for the reimbursement of transferred medicines. I therefore propose that the following paragraph be added after the fourth paragraph of Article 20h(5): ‘in order to ensure predictable and stable funding of the Union reserve, the cost of medicinal products transferred from the Union reserve to a receiving Member State shall be reimbursed by the latter no later than 30 days after the date of receipt.’

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, equality, freedom of choice and self-determination: this is the usual creed of mental socialism, which the West is still struggling to get rid of, and this 2025 Strategy for equality between women and men is its archetype, with its usual litany of pious and utopian vows. This report, which praises the convergence of struggles, is far removed from the real concerns of those who would be eternal victims: women. To read you, Europe would still be a hostile land for women. We quickly forget that our civilisation is the first, since the Middle Ages, to have given it a unique place in society. But this equality is nothing but a decoy, which requires women to be men like any other, this freedom of choice a lie, which pushes women to abandon motherhood in order to become producers, this self-determination a chimera, which ignores biological reality. If we really want to defend women, let's start by recognizing, admiring and valuing their specificity: This wonderful motherhood. This is what makes it irreplaceable, this is what needs to be defended, this is what makes us women!

Mr. member, you accused the Conservatives of being prisoners of the patriarchal system. I'm a woman. I am a member of the Conservative Group. I'm a politician. I am not dependent on the opinion that my husband might have on me, to ban me or allow me to be engaged in politics. I wanted to make this first remark and then ask you a question. You failed to talk about women's addiction, women's slavery regarding surrogacy. I would like to hear your views on that.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is gratifying that this debate on the exploitation of maternity and therefore, let us not be mistaken, surrogacy is finally taking place in this Chamber. Because, after the UN report condemning surrogacy in all its forms, after its condemnation as a universal crime by Italy, after the inclusion in the Slovak constitution of its prohibition, it is up to the European Union to decide and our condemnation must be unequivocal. We must remember that surrogacy contravenes the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. We must point out that surrogacy contravenes the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the sale of surrogacy. We must also affirm that, by using the reproductive functions of one woman for the benefit of another, surrogacy contravenes the Convention on the Abolition of Slavery. For surrogacy is nothing more than that, a modern, appalling slavery, in the name of individual rights and technical progress, which ends with the tearing of a child from the arms of its mother. We must therefore immediately and definitively call for its abolition. Slavery is not framed, it is abolished.

Madam President, Commissioner, on a matter as serious as the environment and the economy of our territories, I deplore the fact that ideology is involved. The resolution tabled on the future COP30 only scratches the surface of nuclear power without presenting it for what it is, the only solution for low-cost, stable and decarbonised energy. At the same time, gender equality occupies a prominent place, thus demonstrating the ideological intention of a text without credibility. The disastrous Green Deal, which has shattered Europe's competitiveness and caused it to lag far behind China and the United States, permeates the intentions of this resolution. No, climate change cannot be used as a pretext to leave history! Encouraging innovation rather than prohibition, smart ecology rather than punitive ecology, technical progress rather than degrowth, these are the principles that should inspire us. Blindness serves the cause of the environment, which deserves to be taken more seriously. The ecology of the left is abyssing, the ecology of the right is preserving.

Madam President, 12-year-old Lola Daviet, cut into pieces by Dahbia Benkired, an Algerian woman under an obligation to leave French territory (OQTF). Philippine Lenoir, 19, killed in the Bois de Boulogne by Taha Oualidat, Moroccan under OQTF. Johanna Blanes, 24, raped and killed in Mont-de-Marsan by Syrian refugee Hussein Ahmed. Nadine Devillers, 60, and Simone Barreto Silva, 44, slaughtered and stabbed in the Basilica of Nice by a Tunisian who arrived in Europe thanks to an NGO. Ladies and gentlemen, these examples represent only a tiny fraction of the victims of immigration, and the denial of reality kills our women and children just as much. This evidence of the direct link between immigration and insecurity no longer denies it. After the rapes in Cologne, after the "grooming gangs" in the United Kingdom, after the Paris attacks, there are still irresponsible politicians, in this assembly in particular, to close their eyes and accuse those who ring the tocsin of racism. To all these women, to all these mothers, to all these families shattered by cowardice, it will be necessary to be accountable. We will have to tell our children what we have done or not done to meet the main challenge of the 21st century.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 22 June in Damascus, 25 people lost their lives and 63 others were injured because they were Christians. A few hundred meters from their church, Saint-Élie, the Rue Droite was borrowed by Saint Paul two thousand years ago. Yes, Syria was one of the cradles of Christianity, and therefore of our civilization. Today, Islamism is at the head of this fragile state, and it is getting the good graces of the international community. For the European Union, the line has always been the same: Everything will be better than Bashar al-Assad, including the worst of Islamists. Emmanuel Macron even rolled out the red carpet, in Paris, to Ahmed al-Charaa. This guilty naivety claimed the lives of hundreds of Alawis and Christians last March. The Druze, the Ismailis and the Yazidis are the targets of similar abuses perpetrated by militias more or less linked to the ruling regime, of which Christians are a prime target. So the naivety of the European Union must stop in favour of demands and pressures commensurate with the situation. The Syrian people and their minorities, especially Christians, cannot be sacrificed on the altar of passivity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 22 June in Damascus, 25 people lost their lives and 63 others were injured because they were Christians. A few hundred meters from their church, Saint-Élie, the Rue Droite was borrowed by Saint Paul two thousand years ago. Yes, Syria was one of the cradles of Christianity, and therefore of our civilization. Today, Islamism is at the head of this fragile state, and it is getting the good graces of the international community. For the European Union, the line has always been the same: Everything will be better than Bashar al-Assad, including the worst of Islamists. Emmanuel Macron even rolled out the red carpet, in Paris, to Ahmed al-Charaa. This guilty naivety claimed the lives of hundreds of Alawis and Christians last March. The Druze, the Ismailis and the Yazidis are the targets of similar abuses perpetrated by militias more or less linked to the ruling regime, of which Christians are a prime target. So the naivety of the European Union must stop in favour of demands and pressures commensurate with the situation. The Syrian people and their minorities, especially Christians, cannot be sacrificed on the altar of passivity.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposes that we continue today the gradual unravelling of the disastrous Green Deal with the simplification of the carbon border adjustment mechanism. The regulatory and bureaucratic madness of the European Union shows its limits and we welcome this return to reality. But that's not enough. Applied as it stands, the carbon border tax, established to protect our businesses, will only accelerate the deindustrialization of the continent. With the current system, for an aluminum door made in China, no carbon tax at the borders, unlike a door produced in Europe. Under the current system, the products we export outside Europe will gradually be subject to the European carbon tax, unlike those of their international competitors. The EU succeeds in this feat of penalising its own production! If we want to restore our industrial power while limiting emissions, let's start by developing stable and controllable energies, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydraulic, and put an end to the race for intermittent energies that are responsible for an energy cost three to four times that of China or the United States.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, EUR 30 billion a year is the most relentless reality that the text on the European Union's long-term budget shows us: 30 billion euros that will have to be paid each year to repay the insanity of the Next Generation EU loan. The guidelines of this budget appear to be a leak forward: creation of own resources, enlargement, reinforced egalitarian utopia. These guidelines want more and more European Union, more and more defence at the expense of sovereignty and freedom, and enshrine this mental socialism from which our Europe no longer manages to disintegrate. Yet there are savings to be made, especially in totally ideological cultural research programs, which cost taxpayers millions. One could, for example, abolish the Transgender Europe programme, which has already cost more than €3 million since 2019 to support a European transgender network. This is just one example among dozens and dozens. Here are some savings to be made that would ultimately only be missed by a few politicized associations. More freedom, less spending, less ideology. Let us give the Union a budget that is finally coherent.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we were promised that the European Union will ensure our competitiveness, well-being and resilience. Yet today we have to deal with the central issue of medicines, starting with the most critical ones. Would we have become a Third World continent? Since this problem needs to be addressed, let us do so by trying, for once, not to respond to the mistakes of the past with a forward leak. We need to reduce our dependence on Asian countries and develop our own pharmaceutical industry on a European scale, but not at the cost of the sovereignty of nations – sacrificed by the Critical Medicines Act, which clarifies that the stocks of one Member State must not be able to harm another – nor at the cost of transparency – that was so lacking during the COVID-19 outbreak, which caused widespread mistrust among Europeans vis-à-vis their leaders on these issues. Nothing in the Critical Medicines Act seeks to address this in a concrete way. Protecting the health of Europeans must also get rid of ideologies, accept the existence of divergent interests within the EU and leave European nations with a monopoly on their own competences. (The speaker refused to answer a blue card question from Sieper.)

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the roadmap for women's rights presented last Friday oscillates between self-satisfaction and a declaration of principle, which is more useful in hushed chambers than against the real difficulties faced by women in real life in the 21st century. Do you really want to protect women? So, start by closing the borders and stop importing into our land millions of people who regard women as possessions, who veil them and forbid them from free will. Do you really want to protect women? Well, stop importing sexual predators that are over-represented in the attacks and because of which we cry Lola and Philippine in France. Do you really want to protect women? Pursue by condemning those who commodify their bodies, banning surrogacy, and controlling pornography. Do you really want to protect women? Well, give them the opportunity to be mothers, by restoring the family figure, whose destruction creates for them ever more precariousness and heavy responsibilities to bear. Then, and only then, will the action of the European Union be more than a wishful thinking.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, EUR 22.6 million is the amount of development aid granted to China by the European Union in 2024. It is our money that allows the world's second largest economy to destroy our industry. For the 2024-2025 financial year, EUR 1 000 600 000 will go from the pockets of European taxpayers to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Does this stop migratory flooding? Absolutely not. It is we, the peoples of Europe, who continually finance this aid from which we derive no benefit. Therefore, the suspension of US development aid is an opportunity for the European Union to ask itself the question of the relevance of the programmes it finances. The same goes for the WHO, which, plagued by ideology, is responsible for setting standards on the emotional, relational and sexual education of our young people, far from the real health issues. The same goes for the Pandemic Treaty, which threatens sovereignty and individual freedoms. So, American decisions remind us of our duty, too long forgotten: to face up to our responsibilities as Europeans before we take care of the whole earth.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the face of climate change, it is sad to see that ideological solutions too often take precedence over common sense. The issue of desertification is no exception and the answers to this problem, which no one denies, are often illusory. As such, the fierce and sometimes even violent opposition of French ecologists to common-sense solutions such as megabasins, which store winter surplus water for reuse in the summer, is an eloquent example. So, rather than seeing in man only a predator-polluter, man must be the solution, through innovation, technical progress and research. Desertification cannot be combated by an excessively punitive and prescriptive ecology, which is ruinous for our competitiveness, as the Draghi report pointed out. Our farmers, who have shaped our landscapes, are tired of being singled out as the main culprits and being crushed by standards. The latest ideological artifact, climate change is also used as a pretext to justify mass immigration from the South that no one wants anymore. So, ladies and gentlemen, to meet the climate challenge, let us finally get out of ideology.

How consistent is yours, since we also know that your group is the one that considers that man is an enemy of nature, a group that fantasises a nature empty of all humanity, man being the polluter par excellence? I therefore return the question to you.