Speeches

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.

Madam President, Commissioner, let us take the place of Ukraine or Moldova, two countries threatened in their existence. Both candidates for EU membership know that, alone, they are lost. They aspire to be able to solve their problems of security or economic vulnerability and precariousness. They need strong, united partners who can make timely decisions. Have we already become this long-awaited anchor for the candidate countries? Alas no, not yet! The war at the heart of Europe has made us rediscover what we have known for a long time: a political union, a defence union, a foreign policy rather than 27 external policies and decision-making mechanisms must be put in place to enable the EU to act, react and influence world affairs. We know this, we repeat it all day long and we have adopted a report calling on the European Council to launch a European convention to start the necessary reflection on changing our way of working. Let us have this audacity so that we can face with our heads held high the problems that are before us!

Mr President, if, during 2024, the European Union were to remain the only one willing to help Ukraine in its fight for its freedom, would we still be able to mobilise the necessary resources to that end? The crates are empty. We can scrape the drawer bottoms. That's not enough! We can ask the Member States to make an additional effort. It takes a long time. We can ask the European Union to finance Ukraine’s needs. The answer may come too late. Time is running out and all the solutions envisaged are likely to last too long and come too late. Let us therefore be open to the possibility of the European Investment Bank playing a role in financing the military equipment Ukraine needs. I have co-signed an amendment calling on the heads of the European Investment Bank to amend its eligibility list for its interventions. It is difficult, I concede, but let’s stop always looking for excuses to do nothing!

Mr President, if you had not reminded me of my age, it would not have been an insult. Thank you so much. Dear friends, the Global Gateway initiative seems to be coming out of its running-in period. Indeed, after a trial period of more than two years, we see a multitude of projects taking shape in terms of improving connectivity in the most diverse areas. In line with the principle of policy leadership, Global Gateway aims to close the infrastructure investment gap. We have repeatedly insisted on the gigantic amounts required to be able to meet the ever-increasing demand. The United Nations estimates that an additional $4.200 billion is needed per year - per year! – in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Of course, global official development assistance is only about one-fifteenth of that amount. It is therefore in the private sector that the missing amounts will have to be mobilised. To this end, the financial architecture for the development of the European Union is expected to be up to par. The European Investment Bank is arguably best placed, together with the national promotional banks and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to address these needs. It took a long time to start. It has become promising in the meantime. Now that the movement has started, it is important to act in such a way that as much private sector capital as possible is mobilised to achieve the desired goals.

Mr President, the role of national parliaments in European affairs is, in my view, greatly underestimated. National parliaments ratify the treaties. They have a final say over Member States’ contributions to the EU budget. National parliaments ratify directives and have control over the national executive involved in the European legislative process. Moreover, if they want to, they are involved in monitoring subsidiarity and proportionality, not to mention their role as a political impetus. To this end, the idea of a European week for European decision-makers to discuss the European agenda with national MEPs seems to me to be struck at the corner of common sense. As well as the proposal to increase from 8 to 12 weeks the time set aside for national parliaments to study legislative proposals in view of their compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. I am deeply convinced that any MEP who continuously inquires about the priorities and positions of national parliamentarians, and the MEP who inquires about the work being done at European level, are and will remain unavoidable. As for the European Parliament, we have an interest in rethinking how to exchange with our national parliamentary colleagues. Very often, these regular meetings in Brussels are quite disappointing because they are in principle limited to a series of monologues. The more people there are, the more monologues there are and the fewer interactions there are between the participants. It would be a pity to maintain this practice indefinitely.

Mr President, an NGO is by definition a non-governmental organisation. It should therefore not be reduced to the role of parrot of a government or administration. It is a separate entity whose objectives may be different from those pursued by the official policy of the country that supports it financially. This reduces, in addition to co-financing its activities, the role of political institutions to that of effectively monitoring the use of the money made available to it by public authorities. The measures proposed in our own-initiative report aim to respect the freedom of action of NGOs without jeopardising them. In any case, they are not designed to curb the ardour of the voluntary sector, but to ensure that sufficient and essential precautions are taken to ensure good management. Let me say at the end that NGOs also have legitimacy. NGOs are legitimized by a cause while the political world is legitimized by universal suffrage: Both are then legitimized.

Madam President, in this Parliament we spend a great deal of time on subjects on which the Treaty does not provide for competence, and when we have competence, we sometimes refuse the debate. Indeed, the European Parliament did not consider it useful to plan a debate on the evaluation of NDICI-Global Europe funding. This is a pity, because the instrument for financing the European Union's external policies, from which the countries of the South and the neighbourhood are beneficiaries, seems to bear the brunt of the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework. Frugal or radiant states, call them whatever you like, tend to view aid to the weakest as an adjustment variable. This makes little mention of the difficulties faced by the weakest and most vulnerable people on our planet. This means making little mention of the image of our partners in the South, who have already been sufficiently ill-treated by successive crises. That is to say little about the commitments made by all our Member States at the 2015 Financing for Development Conference in Addis Ababa. This makes little mention of the growing difficulties faced by African countries, whose indebtedness is taking on worrying dimensions. It is ultimately silencing those who have difficulty being heard or who simply do not have a voice. If we are not their amplifier, they simply will not be heard. Madam President, I would like to thank the co-rapporteurs, Mr Tobé, Mr Marques and Mr Gahler, for the excellent cooperation, as well as the services of the European Parliament, those of the AFET and DEVE Committees and our assistants, for lending us a hand in the implementation of this report. Let us hope, however, that the debate can find a place in this chamber later.

Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent work and I would like to stress only one point: the role of European political parties and foundations in the campaign, which is set to last and will be extremely important. We are currently still dependent on the application of a regulation dating from 2014 which is a real administrative straitjacket that stifles any initiative by European political parties to get involved in the campaign. This situation seems abnormal to me. This needs to be remedied. We are discussing this with the Council in a trilogue on the adaptation of this system and I hope that we will succeed in time, so that the European political parties can intervene and exert their full weight in this campaign, which is still forbidden to them until now. It would be particularly unfortunate to leave the ground open for the trolls, Rupert Murdoch’s press empire or all those who will unleash tsunamis of untruths on the web by 9 June 2024.

Mr President, is there a single colleague in this House who can say that the European Union still has an impact on the international scene? Is there only one of us who can honestly claim that the situation will be better when we are at 30, 32, 35, without having first adopted our institutional mode of operation? Is there only one of us who believes that China, India, Brazil and Russia will give us a moment of respite to allow us to adapt to the pace of international diplomacy? That time, he lived. For too long we have been full of illusions. This recklessness ended at the latest on 24 February 2022, in the early morning. When it turns out that a widely shared idea is just an illusion, you have to have the courage to challenge that illusion. If nothing is done, the illusion quickly becomes a collective lie. Yes, to believe that everything will be better if nothing changes is not only to lie to the citizens of the 27 Member States, but also to the citizens of the candidate countries. That is why I would not hesitate for a second to vote in favour of the report on the change of the Treaties.

Madam President, everything invites us to restore the Sustainable Development Goals to their rightful place in the public debate. This is first of all a promise made in 2015. To achieve them, by 2030, there are only six years left. The economic, political and security context makes it much more difficult to achieve them. As a result, rising interest rates are exploding the debt of poor countries, as much as they are jeopardising many projects and programmes. The diagnosis is therefore clear and ruthless. And the role of the European Union in all this? Well, the instruments it has put in place or is in the process of putting in place are those of an obligation to achieve results. We will need to be active in mobilizing capital for development. The European Union will have to spearhead all initiatives that can reduce the burden of debt, promote access to healthcare, improve connectivity in developing countries and help fight climate change.

Madam President, in this multi-annual funding period, we have, so to speak, experienced only crises. The fact that the budgetary crisis in most of our Member States and a new euro crisis have been spared us so far is due to the fact that the European Union had the wisdom to have a recovery plan worth some EUR 800 billion. This inspires me to make two observations. First, all the frugals and radishes of this world were wrong to insist on pleading the lowest budget or the financial suffocation of our Member States. Secondly, thanks to this increase in budgetary resources, we are living in a kind of state of grace which has the effect of sparing us new serious crises at the level of the European Union and of silencing those who once advocated the exit of their country from the European Union. If you are less optimistic, at least acknowledge that these crises have been frozen thanks to the fiscal effort. These considerations invite us to be clear-sighted in order to enable the European Union to meet the challenges before us. The answer is not only budgetary, but also budgetary.

Mr President, we have just had a very interesting debate. The questions that have been asked are very relevant. I'm still hungry. Together with several colleagues, we have seen that you have allowed some of our colleagues to ask two questions. May I make a suggestion to you: in the future, maybe let several colleagues intervene and let them ask a question? That is a question. I'm a little hungry. There are many of us in the Committee on Development who are very interested in this region, who care most about this region in the European Parliament, and who are disappointed to have been excluded from this debate.

Mr President, I would first like to pay a warm tribute to the work of Werner Hoyer during his presidency of the European Investment Bank. Today, the EIB has twice the weight of the World Bank. It became the first climate bank. She leads the dance in many construction sites, both in the periphery of the European Union and in the wider world. Werner Hoyer was able to help make the European Investment Bank what it is today thanks to his know-how and his talent as a diplomat and external relations expert. This bank also plays a very important role in mobilising private capital, which is the answer that all those who support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals expect. With global official development assistance reaching just €250 billion, the European Investment Bank and its peers need to mobilise at least 20 times more than what is mobilised under official development assistance. And I count on the European Investment Bank and those who draw on its experience to raise so much capital. I believe that those who hope to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals know that this will not be possible without the experience and know-how of the European Investment Bank. Congratulations on what you did.

Madam President, we need an additional $4.200 billion to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, according to the United Nations. Official development assistance accounts for barely 10% of this amount. This is a titanic task. The European Union and its Member States, the G7, the G20 and the United Nations: Everyone is challenged, everyone must assume their responsibilities. All these institutional actors, however, remain doomed to fail unless they can mobilize much-needed resources. The resources that will have to be mobilized by the private sector represent roughly 4 per cent of the world's gross domestic product. Is this feasible? Yes, it is feasible, but we need to make choices, reorient policies and reallocate resources. We have a political framework, but do we also have the instruments and means to achieve our ambitions? We have a toolbox that is quite well supplied, with the Global Gateway, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Investment Bank, the German KfW, the French AFD... All that for that! If all other continents were equipped in the same way, I believe that the hope of being able to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals would not remain illusory.

Madam President, I subscribe to the general approach advocated by most of those who preceded me on this rostrum. We know how difficult it is to bring Europe closer to the citizen. For the 2024 elections, as for all other elections, the choice of voters will be based on ideas, people and parties. Every voter would like his or her vote to be taken into account. However, the will of the European Parliament, or the majority of it, to confiscate the votes of small parties that have not reached the 3.5% threshold is far from being shared by all Democrats. Indeed, there is little convincing reason to insist on defending this provision, other than the appetite of large parties that want to eat away at small parties. This risks adding an extra dose of Euroscepticism to the one that already exists. That said, of course, I would like to join those who would like the negotiations to take off as quickly as possible.

Madam President, allow me to begin with a quote from our friend Philippe Lamberts by addressing to you, Prime Minister, a warm "Gudde moien" to you and your team. One wonders about the added value of a small country in a world where everything seems to be reduced to a balance of power: China-USA, aggressor countries against oppressed countries, authoritarian regimes against liberal democracies... Well, the added value of a small state is its refusal to accommodate itself to a world in which the number of gunshots, the capacity for disinformation or its means of intimidation are essentially counted. Let's get it right: a country is not necessarily virtuous because it is smaller, far from it! One country is not necessarily exemplary because it does not have the means to crush others. But a small country can be useful, if not very useful, because it is able to understand at an early stage the existential threats posed to it by small, medium and large powers. The Prime Minister of a small state therefore knows what he is talking about when he tries to convince others (who, so to speak, are all bigger than himself) of the indispensability of European integration. Like his fellow citizens, he felt the need to unite, to cooperate, to pool the efforts of the 27 and, above all, to alert his partners to the consequences of non-action, of non-Europe. So European integration is an answer? No, it’s the response to all these concerns. You want proof of that? Well, Robert Schuman, the foreign minister of a large country, lived his first twenty years in my country, which is Xavier’s country, which is that of his predecessors Jean-Claude Juncker, Jacques Santer, Gaston Thorn and Pierre Werner. Do you think it is a coincidence that we have seen them all or that we see them all tipping in the same way, giving priority in all circumstances to law rather than force, friction to the harsh realities of a world where only the balance of power seems to count? I think it is a good idea to remind those who are big in the European Union that there is even bigger than them outside the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, the implementation report is both an assessment of how the United Kingdom and the European Union have come to terms with their separation, and an absurd demonstration of a situation in which the populists have manipulated us. Clearly, the report confirms the lose-lose situation created by Brexit. The European Parliament was right from the very beginning to opt for a damage control strategy. Nevertheless, the absurdity reaches its climax when European citizens unable to present a work visa to the authorities are detained in detention centres. What a regression! At this stage, similar behaviour on the part of the European Union is not reported. Hopefully this will continue to be the case for years to come. Another evidence of regression is supply chain disruption. At a time when the West should be cohesive, we are more busy closing gaps than focusing on common challenges. A final word on the Windsor Framework, negotiated after the adoption of our report by AFCO. This agreement certainly takes into account the imperatives of realpolitik. The Stormont brake, however, should remain an absolute exception, in no way creating a precedent that could pollute the discussions of subsequent agreements.

Madam Speaker, the cost of inputs to agriculture has become a real headache. Fertiliser price volatility no longer has anything to do with the seasonal fluctuations to which we have been accustomed. Farmers work in the long term: Predictability has therefore become existential for them. Among the political priorities, I will mention only three, the three most important. First, to aim for a lasting fall in gas prices. Second, going beyond short-term supply and providing for reserve stocks large enough to cap sporadic or even sustained increases in input prices, including fertilisers. Thirdly, to help generalise less demanding cultivation practices with regard to the use of fertilisers.

Mr President, international maritime law is formal: assistance should be given to persons in danger on the high seas. It is unfortunate that many EU Member States are unable to adopt a stance that goes beyond mere repression. The surge in migration policy, for which a majority of Member States are responsible, is, in my view, a real scandal. It is therefore important to ensure the triumph of this so little humanity to which those who are prohibited from staying in Europe are also entitled. What needs to be criminalised is not the rescue on the high seas, but the destruction of hospitals, schools and infrastructure in Ukraine. What needs to be criminalised is the placement of hundreds or even thousands of Ukrainian children in Russian families. What must be criminalised is the barbarism to which citizens have been exposed since 24 February, but not those who are honoured to help those in real danger.

Madam President, at a time of meagre budgets, the institutions that have made the strategic choice to accompany the political guidelines of the European Union are naturally required. We are thinking first of all of the European Investment Bank, so I think it makes sense to put its action in this perspective. As the world’s largest climate bank, the EIB has considerable potential to continue to deliver on the energy and digital transitions. In addition, the EIB is also increasingly involved in financing developing countries. As the only multilateral bank to fully meet the fundamental rights requirements of the European Union, it is now called upon to consolidate its leading position in financing the policies of the future. In addition, the EIB has its place in the future development financial architecture, where it plays a unifying role by constantly seeking synergetic effects with other development banks, in particular the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Madam President, the European Parliament is constantly calling for a mid-term review of the current EU funding period. When it comes to budgetary planning, it is important to look at the medium and long term – this is a matter of course. I have already had the opportunity to say in a previous speech that what our colleagues will look at in 2040 on what we are doing today in this area is what really matters. The Ukrainians – but not only them, the developing countries too, those who depend on our support and who suffer enormously from the telescoping of the crises that have been shaking us since 2008 – will then be able to judge the degree of relevance of our political and budgetary choices, and see if we have been up to the task. We will see whether we have been able to defend our freedoms and rebuild an international order based on law, or whether we have allowed frugal countries to be right about the choices that are needed at the moment.

Mr President, the debate in plenary confirmed that there is a wide range of views on the objectives set out in my report. The Sustainable Development Goals are a goal for the entire international community, including the European Union. The Paris Agreement is a commitment of the entire international community, including the European Union. The pledges made in Addis Ababa in 2015 are a commitment of the entire international community, including the European Union. I accept the criticism of those who say: But China has to do its job. Of course, it is not China or the European Union. It is the European Union and China and all others who have a duty to respond to the situation caused by a financial chasm of more than 4 trillion that is missing each year to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. So, to those who criticise access to borrowing, I would still say: but where will we find the money if development banks and financial institutions are not able to collect savings for investment for development purposes, in line with the Partnership Agreement, in the spirit of ownership? All of this is a huge list of burdens that financial institutions must meet. In my view, the use of borrowing is quite defensible if it makes it possible to invest in the long term and if, as long as the country in question has to repay, future generations can still benefit from it. Finally, I would say to those who say that the plundering of resources must stop: Of course, he has to stop. Mr Wallace said so. But it is not looting or financial contributions through official development assistance or funds mobilised by financial institutions, it is both. It is not one or the other, it is both. Finally, the European Union can do a lot. She can't do everything. As Michel Rocard said, we cannot welcome all the misery of the world, but we must take our part.