Speeches

Mr President, the people of Sudan are currently experiencing a threefold tragedy: one, security, the other, development and the third, humanitarian. These dramas have in common that they are all - all three - of human origin, the fact of man. If, on the one hand, we feel powerless, starting with the principle of non-interference in the affairs of others, we run up against the weak humanitarian resources made available to the Sudan by the international community. In a world where everything tends to become transactional, humanitarian and development budgets are shrinking. The European Union and a few countries in the world are still trying to provide the necessary relief. If the others do nothing to put an end to this abominable situation, they could at least give up delivering weapons to the parties in conflict. This would probably not end the civil war, but would help not to unnecessarily aggravate the conflict. If the Arab Emirates felt targeted by my remarks, they would not be wrong.

Madam President, I fully agree with the priorities mentioned by the Cypriot Presidency of the Council. However, I would like to recall that the former President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, said: We know what to do, but we don't. So, it is on the "how to" or the "do" at all that we will have to focus. We will have to start implementing the proposals contained in the Letta and Draghi reports now. Europe's openness to the world will not depend exclusively on the trade agreements that Europe is about to conclude, but above all on our competitiveness. On the other hand, in the area of defence, we are waiting for information on the essential coordination of military equipment. When everything is possible, so is the worst. Here, too, we would like to be reassured about the resilience of our defence system, at a time when President Trump is casting doubt on his willingness to be with us. First of all, thank you to the Cyprus Presidency for calling for the principle ofEworm Closer Union.

Madam President, the Committee on Development is proposing budgetary amendments in excess of the amounts set by the Council. At the same time, the Committee on Budgets suggests increasing the appropriations for humanitarian aid, which is sorely under-resourced. Indeed, the multiplication of crises is a real headache for development and humanitarian action. The withdrawal of USAID created a $60 billion vacuum. Europe is unable to compensate for this gigantic amount, according to the principle of communicating vessels. At most, we can redefine our priorities as the leading humanitarian and development actor, together with the few countries that still remain committed to the compassionate dimension of politics. The international of the radines achieves successes that, alas, give an end of inadmissibility to children, women, refugees who, without our solidarity, are doomed to disappear. Let everyone take responsibility.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe, like a car, has a brake and an engine. To enable him to follow his path, it is in our interest that these two functions be conducted with foresight and determination. Sandro Gozi told us about the price of non-functioning and excessive use of the brake. Now, the owner of the Europe car is preparing to increase the number of its passengers by a third. Anyone with a weak idea of what is happening in the world in 2025 must admit that this car no longer meets the expectations of a powerful Europe. So she has to go to the garage, not to help her slow down better, because there are many who want to brake four irons, but if we want to reach the cruising speed, we should boost her engine. Garage owners Letta and Draghi have let us know that, if we leave the operation of the Europe car unchanged, very soon, China and the United States will no longer see us in their rearview mirror.

Madam President, Prime Minister, dear Luc, we come from the same country, but that is not the only thing we have in common. Since our independence in 1839, we have known that the answers to our economic, trade and security problems depend largely on the attitudes of our neighbours and partners. The European Union, for its part, is experimenting on a global scale with our experience in the 27 Member States. Being small is not necessarily virtuous and being big is not shocking. But a country can be more useful for European integration than a large Member State which vetoes the importance of defending the rule of law and our liberal democracy. This, as we know, is under threat within the European Union itself. We count on you to exert your full weight in the European Council to protect our values. The European Union intends to welcome new States to its membership. We are counting on you to put an end to the illusion that enlargement is possible without changing how it works. We would like to see you contribute to preparing the ground for starting the reflection on the amendment of the Treaties in the framework of a European Convention. Economically, we risk being torn between Chinese dumping and US protectionism. We also count on you to help make the recommendations of Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta a reality. What the future holds if we let things drag on has become clear to us. Indeed, in the European Union, there is not much world left on which we can really count. Over the years, however, we have vowed to live for liberal democracy, for a rules-based multilateral order and for the sustainability of the European Union. We want to live for these values. In Ukraine, they are currently dying for the same cause. What Moscow fears is less the enlargement of the European Union or NATO than the consolidation of democracy at its borders. What our main American ally fears is a rules-based multilateral order and a European Union that wants to defend it. Not only does our American ally fear the European Union, but he frankly hates it. In the meantime, we are, so to speak, alone in defending these acquired rights. This "we" is no longer all twenty-seven, perhaps twenty-five. Since Sunday, maybe more than twenty-four. This 'we' is just over half of the colleagues who make up this Parliament. This "we" is each of us, called to remain united within the von der Leyen platform. In 2025, we experienced humiliation and betrayal. We can still fight against future capitulations, starting with the European Parliament, where political families must be aware of their historic role in these uncertain times. You're a man from the center. It is on personalities like you that we count for the center to remain the center. And it is at the center to assume its responsibilities...

Mr President, Commissioner, the Seville conference was an opportunity to meet the expectations of people who find themselves in distress. Unfortunately, the United States had already decided to turn its back on the suffering countries by making a cross on $60 billion in official development assistance. Against this backdrop, the Seville conference was an opportunity to respond, if only partially, to expectations regarding famine, insecurity, precariousness, disease and underdevelopment. Unfortunately, the European Parliament had not been able to adopt a position before the conference that could influence the course of events. We can talk at length about whether, in the meantime, the indifferent or calculating side of the Trump movement will have contaminated this Parliament, leading to the rejection of my report. However, positions that were rejected by the European Parliament last month found a very large majority in the House this morning. I therefore call on you to respect the line agreed this morning on sustainable development goals and to return to the well-established practice in this House of seeking compromises. the Center political chessboard.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Seville conference was an opportunity to meet the expectations of people who find themselves in distress. Unfortunately, the United States had already decided to turn its back on the suffering countries by making a cross on $60 billion in official development assistance. Against this backdrop, the Seville conference was an opportunity to respond, if only partially, to expectations regarding famine, insecurity, precariousness, disease and underdevelopment. Unfortunately, the European Parliament had not been able to adopt a position before the conference that could influence the course of events. We can talk at length about whether, in the meantime, the indifferent or calculating side of the Trump movement will have contaminated this Parliament, leading to the rejection of my report. However, positions that were rejected by the European Parliament last month found a very large majority in the House this morning. I therefore call on you to respect the line agreed this morning on sustainable development goals and to return to the well-established practice in this House of seeking compromises. the Center political chessboard.

Mr President, there are two comments on this. The first is that both the candidate countries and the Union itself must be ready for enlargement. The European Union must show that it has sufficient absorptive capacity to host new States and the candidate States must be able to fulfil all the conditions laid down in the Copenhagen criteria. Second remark: I am constantly astonished at the recklessness shown by some Member States with regard to enlargement and its implications. It is clear that the Member States do not show the slightest willingness to consider amending the Treaties, which is considered to be more than necessary and an essential condition for the better functioning of an enlarged European Union. Finally, it is irresponsible to turn a blind eye to the governance difficulties that lie ahead for an enlarged Europe. The European Council should have already, at the time when the status of candidate country was granted to several countries, launched at the same time a European convention capable of preparing a change of treaty.

Madam President, there is no need to take stock of all the distress situations faced by people fleeing conflict, eaten away by poverty and precariousness, they number in the millions. All these victims, who live mainly in Africa, have four things in common. First, their suffering is often the result of developments for which they are not themselves responsible. Secondly, already in dire need of livelihoods, they have been deprived of $60 billion in official development assistance since the beginning of this year, following the withdrawal of USAID. Thirdly, they look at the European Union, which remains for most of them the first and, it must be agreed, often the last bulwark against indifference, against the destructive rage of any surge of solidarity. So a utilitarian orgy is being set up in Europe itself, wanting to remove from our solidarity those countries that have neither lithium, nor oil, nor gas, nor coltan, and so on. Fourthly, none of these people I have just spoken of, living in developing countries, are going to vote for us, neither for the EPP, nor for the S&D, nor for Renew, nor for the Greens, nor for the Left, nor for ECR. This is no reason to remain indifferent to their fate. What this report proposes is that the European Union should live up to its standards and remain faithful to its principles and commitments in the field of international solidarity and, in particular, in the financing of official development assistance. What this report proposes is to keep pace with the spirit of the architects of our development policy, architects like Willy Brandt, Simone Veil, Emma Bonino, Bernard Kouchner, Commissioners Piebalgs, Louis Michel and Urpilainen or with development ministers like Gert Müller, to name but a few. The more united we are, the more the European Union will be able to convince the international community in Seville to get involved in active solidarity with our partners in the South. I invite you to vote overwhelmingly in favour of this report.

If you listened carefully, I did not thank the Red Army for occupying Poland or other countries. I thanked the Red Army for resisting the Nazi forces.

Madam Speaker, we are inspired by the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War: First, recognition by saluting the merits of those who have liberated us. By this I mean, of course, resistance in all our Member States, the contribution of the Americans and also the contribution of the Red Army – the Red Army, in time, was different from what Russian soldiers are doing in Ukraine at the moment. Second, to learn the lessons of history. Under no circumstances can "appeasement" be the guiding principle of the European Union's foreign policy today. We saw where that led in the 1930s. Thirdly, in a world where only the balance of power seems to count, we must be more united and further develop the European project. Fourthly, Europe is alone, but it is still there. We must continue to work on the project. This morning, when I came here, I heard on Deutschlandfunk a historic phrase uttered by Richard von Weizsäcker 40 years ago: ‘8 May was a day of liberation.’ I believe that we must take inspiration from this phase, which has an exemplary historical depth.

Madam President, we know from experience that a child who is separated from his or her parents for a few years, sometimes for only a few months, can lose all emotional connection with them. Thus, it was found that at the end of World War II, Jewish children placed in non-Jewish families while waiting for their parents to return from concentration camps often no longer had emotional ties to their father or mother. For this reason alone, the deportation of Ukrainian children is one of the most heinous crimes. It is essential to put an end to this barbarism. In a world largely dominated by cynicism and where power relations prevail where the rule of law once prevailed, political leaders seem to make little mention of the fate of some 20,000 Ukrainian children. Nowadays, when you do not have lithium, you are unlikely to see the powerful of this world take an interest in your fate. However, I dare to believe that, in the absence of any prospect of the return of the children at this stage, initiatives are being deployed as part of a secret diplomacy with Moscow. If that were not the case, it would not only be regrettable, but frankly irresponsible.

Mr President, millions of people in developing countries have their food rations halved or fear that they will no longer have access to medicines, particularly those for AIDS. The situation has become even more dramatic since the end of USAID's operations. These people are at risk of being condemned to disappear. We can give them a voice as we prepare for the next Multiannual Financial Framework. A combination of particularly unfavourable circumstances seriously jeopardizes the solidarity effort that we have been renewing for more than 50 years. Let us have the necessary height of view, after the withdrawal of USAID, to engage resolutely with the international community or, for what remains, in favor of the losers of globalization. It is up to the European Union to reorganise international solidarity in official development assistance. It is up to us to do so, despite the stupid or nasty attacks expressed even in the ranks of this Parliament. It is up to us to fight against the Member States who are tempted to see official development assistance as only a fiscal adjustment variable. It is up to us to stay the course when it comes to international solidarity, even if our partners in the South are not our voters.

Madam President, let us remember that starving children, abused or raped women, cut off from American aid, owe their abandonment by USAID to a gentleman. Another gentleman glorifies this policy to the rhythm of his algorithms. Of course, the Americans are our brothers, our cousins, but they are not our guardians. So let's focus on our own responsibilities for humanitarian aid. If, on a battlefield, you see people deprived of the essentials or women who no longer have access to the most basic reproductive health care, you look suffering, even death, right in the eye. What is the EU's role in this situation? Can we replace USAID? We cannot compensate for everything, but we can do more. We can't do everything, but we can do better. We can do more, with better diplomacy, with greater imagination and with more budgetary means. Between what we are currently devoting to official development assistance and humanitarian action, on the one hand, and the commitments made, taken up and renewed by the 27, on the other, there remains a very significant margin to mitigate the disastrous consequences of the Washington executive order to stop humanitarian aid.

Mr President, the most recent problem of possible collaboration between the Conservatives and the far right is currently in Austria. Let us hope that this can still be avoided. In Germany, the subject was invited in the election campaign. The candidate of the Chancellery, Friedrich Merz, most solemnly denies any possibility of collaboration with the German AfD. It seems to me that this is an unequivocal undertaking. Let's take it at its word. As for the leaders of the German far-right party, they too must be taken at their word. Let us ask them, for example, what they mean by the word 'remigration'. Who, in terms of remigration, should leave Germany permanently, according to them? What are the selection criteria? Where will these people have to go? Will all those who will be affected by the remigration be thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions to have to leave Germany? Let us take them at their word, because we would like to be enlightened. The impact of remigration on Germany's competitiveness in the EU would result in the ruin of the EU's main economy. However, I think it would be wise to first thematize the blow to our liberal democracies by the words of the extreme right once in power, before assessing their possible impact on the internal market.

Mr President, the problem we are discussing is not a new one. It boils down to the question of how to transform the vicious circle of exploitation of scarce resources in the face of the lust of actors from all over the world. With declaratory art, we're not going to make it. The repeated convictions have resulted in nothing, it is not clear why it would work this time. In my view, the only way to bend those responsible for the violence in the eastern part of the DRC are targeted sanctions decided by a broad coalition of countries that are no longer willing to condone the tragedy that is taking place in the Goma region. In addition, the broad coalition I call for should support the holding of a summit on the plundering of resources in Africa and more particularly in the DRC. This would make it possible to clarify each other's responsibilities and to punish unlawful behaviour. Having repeatedly articulated this claim, I would like this time it to be followed by a little more effect. The suspension of the EU-Rwanda Memorandum of Understanding on raw materials seems to me to be the least that can be done in this case.

Madam President, High Representative, our debate today is about rape as a weapon of war in Congo and Sudan. What is happening there is absolutely abominable. Other countries could have been added so as not to be limited to African countries, because at the heart of Europe we deplore the existence of the same scourge. Everything must be done to prevent this ignominy. If a country involved in a war has done nothing to prevent this unspeakable drift, it will not only be complicit, but also guilty of the nature and scale of these crimes. Rape occurs in conflict situations where respect for human rights and the defence of the weakest are not ensured. Those who assume the sovereign powers of a state at war are clearly responsible, if not guilty, and must be brought before the International Criminal Court. In the meantime, it is important to properly document the evidence that, sooner or later, will give hope to the victims, who are waiting for justice to be done. Ending impunity is also a form of prevention. It is a question of morality, it is a question of justice, it is a question of political responsibility.

Madam President, Commissioner, the fight against poverty must manifest itself both inside and outside the European Union. However, practice seems to confirm this point. The European Union has certainly not succeeded in eradicating poverty, as each of us would like. In his defense, let us recall that his skills are insufficient to solve this problem. The resources available to the Member States, on the other hand, are far greater than those available to the Commission. In this respect, it can be seen that the Member States that perform better in the fight against poverty at home are often the same as those that are most involved in development cooperation for the countries of the South. This correlation is not trivial. It makes us think that solidarity is indivisible. It is therefore a question of coherence, a question of fairness, which applies in the same spirit both inside and outside the European Union. To support my point, it is enough to read the annual reports of the United Nations Development Programme and compare their results with those achieved in the fight against poverty in the Member States.

Mr President, today we are facing a new health threat with mpox, a disease that, although long neglected, has returned in strength. This situation requires a rapid and coordinated response at European level. It reminds us that infectious diseases know no borders. We therefore need to strengthen our surveillance systems across Europe to quickly detect any outbreaks. This also requires increased investment in research and development of vaccines and treatments with equitable access for all. But this response should not be limited to emergency management. We need targeted investment in research and development of vaccines and treatments for mpox, ensuring that these resources are equally accessible in all Member States. I propose establishing a European vaccine solidarity pact to ensure that every country and every population, regardless of their size or means, has fair access to the necessary tools. It is also essential to conduct awareness campaigns to inform our citizens about the transmission and prevention of mpox, while fighting stigma. Working with civil society and health professionals will be crucial to maximizing the impact of these efforts. Finally, it is imperative that the European Union takes the lead on the international stage by working with global health organisations to share data and best practices. Together, we can not only fight mpox, but also prepare our health systems for the challenges of tomorrow. Now is the time to act. Let us protect our citizens and affirm European leadership in global health security.

Mr President, today's debate almost ends this parliamentary term, but it is far from an end to female genital mutilation. On the contrary, the draft resolution reminds us: 230 million women worldwide remain victims of these practices. And yet, there is no shortage of declarations of intent to put an end to it. One of two things: either the authorities of the States where such practices still exist are powerless to maintain an abominable tradition, or the authorities are malicious and let go. In the first scenario, we need to pool all our efforts – we, i.e.: the European Union, our Member States, the voluntary sector, the United Nations agencies and, in particular, UNICEF – to raise awareness among women and the political authorities in the countries concerned and provide them with the necessary budgetary resources. Unfortunately, too few examples show us that we can do something. When a government, as is the case in The Gambia, acts contrary to history, we still need to do more to put an end to a crime that will now risk being legalised.

Mr President, thank you to the rapporteur for successfully negotiating an agreement on this part of the budget. However, let us not ask for the impossibility of the current budget in particular and the multiannual financial framework in general. The budget is the instrument that allows us to respond to priorities in the immediate, medium and long term. Given the limited funds allocated to the European Union, Member States should urgently agree on the mobilisation of additional funds to safeguard a civilised life at home and in our immediate neighbourhood, including in Ukraine. I am convinced that our fellow citizens, eager for security and freedom, will have a great deal of sympathy for an extraordinary extra budgetary effort. To this end, our governments, concerned about the well-being of our citizens and aware of their responsibilities, should agree on the launch of a Eurobond whose mission would be to signal to Kiev that our Union will not let Ukrainians down, in addition to the efforts already made in this area to be able to meet our responsibilities.

Madam President, the problem is complicated; otherwise, the Belgian Presidency, whose quality is indisputable, would have already come to an end. Do we want to end forced labour, child labour and inhumane practices in exploiting the resources we need at home? In that case, and that is my position, the directive in question must be adopted. It is well known that, on the substance, everyone is rather in agreement. It is the question of feasibility and how to put due diligence into practice that may be problematic for some. However, this is a rather general problem and does not only concern due diligence. Faced with the criticism that this directive would entail additional administrative burdens, this could be remedied by reducing burdens in other areas of European policy. If the Directive is not adopted, Member States, or at least many of them, will be tempted to have their own legislation adopted at national level. The consequence of that approach would be the fragmentation of the internal market, which would not be in anyone’s interest.