Speeches

Mr President, of the 95 amendments tabled on this interim report on the MFF 2028-2034, a very important part comes once again from our Patriots for Europe Group. This proves that we have worked, proposed and alerted; However, despite this, we will clearly vote against this text. Why? Because it embodies everything that Europeans no longer want: more centralisation, more debt, more bureaucracy, more new own resources, and therefore more taxes, more constraints imposed from above. This report prepares a financial framework where Brussels decides more, while nations pay more. We are talking about simplification, but you are actually building a machine that is increasingly opaque, more technocratic and more distant from citizens. It also opens the door to the trivialization of the common debt. After so-called exceptional measures, the majority now wants to transform massive borrowing into a sustainable method. It's irresponsible: We're spending today, we're charging tomorrow, and our kids will pay the bill. This text also reinforces political conditionalities, which are too often judged to sanction governments that do not follow the dominant line. Meanwhile, the CAP is weakened and farmers are neglected, as are our overseas territories, our businesses, our borders and our purchasing power. For France, a major net contributor, it would be deeply shocking if the 2028-2034 budget were locked in without respecting the democratic choice that the French will make in 2027. Peoples demand common sense, control of spending, democratic respect; We answer them with more debt and more centralization. We reject this dangerous logic.

Madam President, the Commissioner has indeed just said: The adoption of this report is important, because there are recommendations that are totally factual in this report and that are important to recall the real subject. I would like to thank the speakers who spoke a few moments ago, in particular the right-wing groups, who spoke to explain that we need to look at the substance of the matter, because our fellow citizens are waiting above all for us to protect the financial interests of the European Union. That is the subject of the report. It's nothing else. And I believe that only Mme Grapini, in the left-wing groups, has remained on the substance of the matter, because she has had this notoriety and legitimacy in the Committee on Budgetary Control for many years. And I thank her for talking about the subject, because that's the subject today. It's nothing else. And those who make us a Grand Prix of cinema, here, in this session, while being in the socialist group, outside Mme Grapini, or being in the Group of the Greens, they have never participated in any of the meetings of shadow rapporteurshave never worked on this file and have never come to the dozens of meetings that have been held. It's a scandal to do that. Your way of doing politics disgusts the citizens, because we, when we vote in the sitting, and I when I vote in the sitting, on your amendments, gentlemen, on budgetary amendments, I look at the substance of the subject and sometimes we vote on your amendments, because we agree on the substance. You look at who the author is before you decide on the vote. And this is a scandal. So you judge people on ongoing investigations. It's extraordinary. So all NGOs are guilty too, in this case. I think we really need to stop doing politics. This is what will make you lose the elections in your respective countries, because today people want us to talk about the substance of the subjects. This report is not far-right. This report is a report that focuses on the financial interests of the citizens of the European Union. And if it were an extreme right-wing report, the EPP would not vote for it. I think it is a report, quite simply, that defends the general interest. That is what we are doing in the Committee on Budgetary Control. That's why we're here. We're not here to do political show like you do, gentlemen.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, after several months of work, I am delighted to be before you today as rapporteur for this text on the protection of the Union's financial interests for the financial year 2024. This annual report is, in my view, an important report. It is not only a report that talks about the past, it sets out areas for improvement through concrete proposals to better protect the financial interests of our fellow citizens who want their money to be well managed, with efficiency, transparency and a spirit of responsibility. It is our duty at all and that is why this subject must remain transpartisan, technical. This report must be constructive and forceful of proposal and must not be used for political purposes, because the theme of protecting the financial interests of the Union, protecting our European budget, which is fed by our nations and therefore by the taxes of our compatriots – bearing in mind that some countries, including France, are net contributors – is all the more important in times of limited resources. A few months ago, the European Public Prosecutor, Mme Laura Codruța Kövesi, herself, said in a trilogue meeting that before thinking of creating new own resources, in other words new taxes and new taxes, we might already have to get the money that is automatically due to the European Union and that escapes us, in particular through fraud or under-declarations. I fully agree with this analysis, which I have always defended. It is essential to prevent any failure to recover these resources or any abuse, and to correct all cases where such abuse has occurred. We must also constantly adjust our mechanisms so that errors can no longer be repeated so easily, and improve controls. Because yes, it is billions of euros that do not enter our coffers every year because of fraud and under-reporting. With this in mind, I wanted to present a project based on verifiable facts, also based on the reports presented by the main actors, the authorities of the anti-fraud landscape who, through their daily work and efforts, aim to protect the financial interests of the Union and the Member States, which I would like to welcome here and to thank for the time that these authorities have given me. Yes, I have held many extended information meetings with them. They were organised at the end of 2025 in Parliament. According to the staff of the Commission, this was an ambitious and rare preparatory work for such a dossier. I wanted to involve all the shadow rapporteurs who were invited to all meetings, regardless of their political group, and were able to ask all questions to the different authorities: European Public Prosecutor's Office, Europol, Eurojust, OLAF, Court of Auditors, Directorate-General for Budget of the Commission... We even did written questionnaires. All the data and information collected have been incorporated into this draft report and the same documents from which this information originates have been made available to all shadow rapporteurs for their consideration and analysis. I wanted to concentrate on the core of the subject, dealing only briefly with the subjects dealt with elsewhere in other reports, such as the one on anti-fraud architecture or cross-compliance. This allowed me to provide a set of targeted recommendations aimed at providing answers to issues that did not receive the same level of attention. Indeed, it is not optimal to close the door once the horse has escaped from the stable. Therefore, it is important to act in prevention and therefore act on prevention and detection. It is also necessary to strengthen the role of the European Parliament, the role of the legislator. It is important that we have real consultation upstream on the functioning of the systems and the development of the programmes. We have seen this particularly on the problem of the RRF and Next Generation. It would have been nice if we had been more concerted, just like the actors in the fight against fraud who know by heart the modus operandi of those who do not want to respect the rules. It is also necessary to ensure that the resources of the supervisory authorities are sufficient, because I repeat that this expenditure on the supervisory authorities is an investment, since behind it we are bringing in money. The project also makes requests for greater transparency in access to data on beneficiaries, including final beneficiaries. This data must be accessible. As we have seen, in the case of the RRF, we only have access to the top 100 beneficiaries. As a taxpayer, I don't like people hiding things from me. And as a parliamentarian, it's even worse. Any data relating to an expenditure or revenue should be public. The limitations inherent in performance-based financing instruments, as they currently exist and as they are being considered at this stage, are also a matter of debate and need to be highlighted. Finally, it is also important for everyone here to set an example by using the resources available in the most effective and efficient way. So when I see that Parliament is planning to spend EUR 500 million on work in a building in Brussels – half a billion – I think that not everyone has a sense of reality. I am thinking of local elected representatives and citizens who are close to the euro. I think that everyone here should also have this reflex by keeping a sense of reality. So I would like to thank the groups for their amendments, in particular the EPP, ECR and Renew groups, which have made proposals throughout the process. I will vote for a number of them tomorrow. I thank all the colleagues who have worked on this report.

Mr Gotink, another usual defamation of a sovereign government: Mr. Orbán was elected, re-elected. I hear that this is a problem for you because it is not your political family, but the greatness is to respect the ballot boxes, to respect the choices. Sir, you make 3% in your country, respect the result of the polls!

Madam President, you claim that the rule of law conditionality regime would protect EU values from EU enemies. But what are we actually talking about? We are talking about discrimination that you use arbitrarily against a single Member State, Hungary, because it has the extravagance to resist your harmful and deadly policies, because it has, for example, the nerve to resist your immigration/invasion policies, which distort Europe and expose it by their massive nature to endemic insecurity, to a clash of civilizations, in short, to many everyday problems, unlivable for all those who do not live, like you, in unspoiled neighbourhoods, where the only immigration present is your Uber delivery man or your housekeeper. Yes, Hungary is right to refuse these policies that expose Europeans to the worst. Yes, Hungary is right to block a number of decisions in the Council, favouring the interests of the European peoples and their identity. This is what you charge them. Between us, I prefer to walk at night in Budapest than in some areas of Berlin, Brussels or Paris, because in Budapest, at least, we still feel in Europe. You seem to be happy to show yourself as the only balance sheet of the blockages you make to Hungarian universities, Hungarian students, civil society, which is sanctioned, deprived of funding by your baseless discriminatory policies. You say you uphold the rule of law everywhere and all the time: What hypocrisy, when, at the same time, Romania cancels democratic elections, prevents candidates from standing for election, without foundation! Is that your rule of law? And there you will find nothing to complain about? These are the values of the EU: the confiscation of power against these peoples? And in Ukraine, a real mafia, is this also the rule of law? Where's the conditionality? I am ashamed of your small end-of-reign mechanisms, applied to variable geometry for political purposes. Soon, the European Patriots will come to power throughout Europe through the ballot box and put an end to your persecution, blackmail and discrimination by guaranteeing the true rule of law: He who gives the word to the sovereign people and listens to them, in a Europe of nations and cooperation.

Mr President, it was important for the Socialist Group to hold a debate on discrimination here. However, I have heard no one here today stand up for discrimination. We are therefore looking for the usefulness of this debate, if we all agree; Unless some here are lying. Because, yes, some in this Parliament claim to fight discrimination, but defend what they call ‘chosen’ discrimination on a daily basis. But emptying Africa of its talents is not a positive thing. Others prefer so-called ‘positive’ discrimination. Granting additional rights to people because they come from minorities or certain neighbourhoods is not a positive thing. I believe in meritocracy. I am well aware of discrimination: As mayor of a commune in France for ten years, I had to sue, in court, the socialist president of my regional council for discrimination. I had him convicted on appeal and also by the Court of Cassation, the highest court in my country. It then referred the matter to the European Court of Human Rights, which annulled the decision. Here too, there is discrimination, and it is you, the lesson givers, who practice it, all shame drunk. You have thus violated all the rules to ensure that the third group of this Parliament, resulting from the citizens’ vote, has no vice-presidency, no position, while the Left group – some of whose supporters are regularly accused of anti-Semitism – has been entitled to your votes. This will be understood: discrimination at home is variable geometry when it comes to defending your interests and your bowl. For us, it is always no. With your cordon sanitaire, you are not legitimate to teach about discrimination.

Madam President, you propose that we take the floor on the outcome of the 2026 budgetary conciliation. I will simply say that this conciliation is a masquerade. Indeed, the European Commission, the Council and Parliament meet every year for a sham conciliation on a tiny part of the annual budget, making a photo all smiles at the end by self-congratulation, while they have discussed during all these hours only details and commas. The real debate is not here. The real issue is the 2026 budget itself, in its entirety and in detail, the allocation of EUR 192.7 billion in commitments and EUR 190 billion in payments. From this point of view, one must have the courage to say things as they are: year after year, the Union repeats the same mistakes, but more seriously. One fact alone sums up the irresponsibility of this budget: the EURI interest line, which exceeds the financial programming for 2026 by EUR 4.2 billion compared to the forecasts in the financial framework. Crazy. I would also like to point out that the European budget is poorly managed. The European Court of Auditors is categorical: the error rate in expenditure is 3,6 %. His recurring alerts don't change anything. No control worthy of the name. No transparency. As an example, of the RRF funds, more than €650 billion, we only have access to the list of the top 100 final recipients per country. What about the others? Is that a joke? This is shocking for our fellow citizens, who are transparent. On the substance, we are not in agreement with this budget, as you know, since we alone have proposed more than a quarter of the budgetary amendments, both on the budget lines and on the text of the resolution. The Patriots Group's wish for Europe is that the budget priorities be reviewed. We want the money to serve the priorities determined by the citizens, namely to cooperate on subjects on which to be united can be an added value, to support agriculture, to ensure the security of our borders, to fight against immigration-invasion, to stop imposing dumb standards on our entrepreneurs and to really support the economy, to fight to work on research and to spend only what is useful and necessary in order to reduce the participation of the net contributing states. Let me conclude by saying, as a Frenchman – France being one of the few net contributors whose participation will increase sharply –, my disgust at the inconsistency of my own government, which does not defend the interests of the French, while we are net contributors. It's like the cuckold's paying for the room. Fortunately, all the polls seem to show that this situation will change in 2027. We will be able to put France back where it should be. Long live 2027! In the meantime, we will vote against this budget.

Madam President, my colleagues each had an extra minute, and I hope to have the same kindness. On 16 July, the European Commission put forward its draft multiannual financial framework 2028-2034. In presenting the EU's fiscal and financial trajectory to the press before presenting it to elected officials, the tone was set: No elegance, no respect. From the very beginning, the Patriots for Europe have been alerting to the content of this MFF. First, it has a disastrous financial situation. Indeed, because of your mismanagement of post-Covid NextGeneration borrowing, the budget is in the red for thirty years. To address this, instead of eliminating bad spending, fetching money from fraud and defending the EU’s financial interests, you choose the Facility by providing for new own resources, i.e. new taxes. For us, it is no. Your draft MFF also provides for the abolition of the sanctity of CAP funds, which have been hard-won. For us, it is not also, it is even a red line. What did the farmers do to you? Why do you still want to go after them? What will you eat when you have ransacked European agriculture: bitches fed antibiotics and growth hormones? Defending agriculture means defending public health and our food sovereignty. You also want to merge many other funds, such as those dedicated to our overseas. For us, that is not the case either. You plan to keep your crazy priorities on the Green Deal, which is killing our businesses and our agriculture, while our competitors in globalisation are moving forward and making fun of you. Finally, you plan to strengthen the conditionality mechanism to target sovereigntist-led states that refuse immigration. By contrast, for the billions paid by Europe around the world, in corrupt third countries such as Ukraine, there are no cross-compliance issues. Today, some groups in your majority feel that your proposal is unacceptable to the public. They pretend to oppose it: imposture, bullshit! By not voting on our motion of censure against you, they are effectively validating your proposals and policies. That is the reality. The rest is just cinema.

No, I believe, Mr. Member, dear colleague, that you have misinformed yourself. We are not asking for the Frexit, we are asking to change the European Union from the inside and we deplore in particular that the one you support, that is to say Emmanuel Macron, does not defend the interests of France here and that all posts are generally trusted by Germans, because France does not know how to defend its interests. I regret it, I regret it. And so I try to defend French interests and I say that indeed it seems to me little to help Spain to 5% and to help France also to 2.5% when there are disasters of this style. And on the other hand, to distribute billions to Moldova, Ukraine and others.

I believe, Madam, dear colleague – I was mayor of a commune in France for ten years which was along the Rhone, a European river – and I believe above all that what will not bring back the dead, as you say, are the failures of the rulers and leaders who presided over the destiny of Spain at that time. And I believe that, from that point of view, it would really be necessary for the rulers to act and not wait for disasters to react. Unfortunately, we have seen too much in Spain.

Mr President, we are here to talk about the aftermath of the terrible floods in the Valencia region of Spain a year ago. First of all, I would like to reaffirm our full solidarity with the Spanish people. This disaster was of a dramatic scale, with thousands of homes destroyed and more than 200 victims. The whole of Spain has been traumatized and we understand it. My colleagues at Vox will talk about the responsibilities and failures that could of course happen again. As far as I am concerned, I would like to focus on the budgetary aspects of the dossier. EU aid under the EU Solidarity Fund represents only 5.23% of direct damage. We are constantly being told about European solidarity, but I would like to say here that, in my opinion, this European aid is not at all up to the stakes of this major disaster. It is even ridiculous in the light of real needs. Unfortunately, we are used to it, since the disasters on Reunion Island and Mayotte also received only 2.5% of the direct damage. And on the spot, in Mayotte, it is still desolation. For these three disasters, it is only 1 billion aid for 22 billion damages. This disproportion is unacceptable, especially since the Union can easily find billions of euros to finance special programmes tailored to non-EU countries. Our citizens should not have the ubuesque feeling that Europe prefers to help others before our own. So let's find some decency and common sense. Let's refocus the budget priorities.

Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I would like to thank the European Court of Auditors. It gives an alarming picture of the management of the EU budget, with an overall error rate of 3,6 % in expenditure in 2024. If the European Union were a company, its management team would be disembarked. As regards the Recovery and Resilience Facility funds, the Court of Auditors expresses a qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of expenditure, denouncing imprecise milestones, arbitrary assessments by the Commission and insufficient national controls. It also documents breaches of eligibility conditions, cancellations, a case of double funding, as well as a persistent lack of traceability of funds in several Member States. As for NextGeneration, the finding is equally alarming, with payments exceeding commitments by nearly €50 billion, reflecting a total lack of financial discipline. So this lightness is no longer a mistake, it is a method. The Union spends without control, without transparency, without accountability. I would remind you that we are talking about instruments worth hundreds of billions of euros. Appointed by this Parliament as rapporteur for the report on the protection of the financial interests 2024, I will be keen to work with everyone to propose solutions to combat fraud, organised crime and under-reporting. Instead of creating new taxes or own resources, let's get the money we're owed and track down the fraudsters.

Mr President, if there is one area where the European Union is constant, I must admit that it is the budgetary area. Indeed, as every year, your 2026 budget is both a shame and a scandal. A shame first, because the European Union is pursuing a completely crazy debt spiral. According to the European Court of Auditors, the stock of EU borrowing increased by more than 30% in 2024 and could exceed €900 billion by 2027, about ten times the level of 2020 before the creation of the European Union. Next Generation, your wonderful post-Covid emergency plan, totally thoughtless, that will one day be taught in schools to explain to students what to never do. This debt spiral will weigh on taxpayers until 2058, permanently reducing the EU's fiscal space. A scandal then, because because of the uncontrolled interest of your irresponsible debt, you are forced to reduce expenses. And instead of cutting the very many bad ideological expenses as we propose, you prefer to make the choice to sacrifice the real emergencies, the support for our agriculture, the security of our borders, the competitiveness of our companies. Worse, you add standards, you don't suspend the Green Deal, you are considering the creation of new taxes, including on companies, taxes called hypocritically own resources that my group and I refuse. Finally, according to the Court of Auditors, you have an error rate of 3.6% in your expenditure, or more than 115 billion. Amazing! So, to help you, the Patriots for Europe Group has worked, tabled more than a quarter of the budget amendments in this 2026 budget. They reflect a clear vision, a European budget refocused on the real priorities of citizens and the elimination of unnecessary spending. We invite you to read these amendments and vote on them. Adding the votes of the Patriotes, ECR, ESN and EPP groups, there is an alternative majority in this Parliament. If our common sense amendments are not voted on, we will consider that you are making the choice to present a socialist budget and we will therefore vote against it.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, while the European Union still claims to be the best for everything, it is cruel to note that certain diseases are reappearing in Europe. First of all, let us mention: measles, diphtheria, West Nile virus, chikungunya, dengue fever, tuberculosis, Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever. Many of these diseases are directly linked to open borders and your lax migration policies which, in addition to bringing us insecurity, also bring us missing diseases. With regard to mosquito-related diseases – the subject of our debate today – whole areas of Europe are now experiencing problems worthy of underdeveloped countries. So I have several questions. First, are you not ashamed to see such diseases appear and develop in Europe? Secondly, apart from debating, what is the European Union doing and what are the Member States doing to protect the public health of Europeans and eradicate these mosquitoes? Finally, Mme Does von der Leyen, who is very committed to public health, intend to send text messages and delete them immediately? Or is the protection of Europeans from mosquitoes not, in his view, a sufficiently juicy business?

Madam President, you propose that we speak on the International Day of Older Persons. Before I was here, I was mayor for ten years in France. One of the things that struck me the most and bruised me was the fact that many of our seniors live in isolation and in great precariousness, even great misery, on a daily basis. Yes, in France, many elderly people give up care for lack of means. In France, many elderly people do not warm up in winter, because they no longer have the means, sometimes sleeping with two or three layers of sweaters when they are in poorly insulated housing. In France, many elderly people do not eat enough. And the worst part is that they often ask for nothing, out of shame, out of modesty. So when we understand this, we can only hope that Europe will not only think about our elders one day a year; that it act, for example, to stop the European energy market in order to lower the bills of the French and taxpayers; Let it also act for our elders, before thinking of acting for immigration as you do, by betraying your peoples, who no longer recognize their own country, where risk zones and lawless zones multiply and where many of our elders feel undesirable and do not even go out anymore. When I see you wanting to welcome the whole earth, I tell myself every time that there are people here who are also in misery, so unhappy because of your policies, and that to them, you are incapable of the slightest humanity while they built our country. Because, despite your fables and lies, it is above all our elders who built our countries and who bequeath to us what we have. It is urgent to support them, to recreate a bond with them, because it is not necessarily those who shout the loudest who need it the most. It is often said that one can measure the degree of humanity of a society by the way it treats its elders. The Patriots for Europe group does not forget our elders and does not forget where we all come from. So, if you want to regain some dignity, have some memory. Think of your parents, your grandparents, and act for ours before acting for others. Personally, it is also for them that I do politics: for all those who do not interest you, who are obviously not your priorities and who need defenders.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today you are proposing a debate on the devastating fires in Europe this summer, particularly in my region of Aude. I could just think of the victims and salute the relief work, and then leave. But that's not why I'm here. I'm here to get things done, and these fires pose several problems that I'm going to address. First, they show once again that the best bulwark in the face of fires is the vine. However, by your criminal policies, anti-agriculture, anti-viticulture, by all these tearings that you encourage, you also participate in increasing the scale of these devastating fires. If you really want to improve the situation, help our winemakers, support the maintenance and development of agriculture and viticulture on these beautiful lands. Secondly, I would like to denounce the responsibility of Emmanuel Macron and his governments, who had promised the renewal and even the extension of the Canadairs fleet. Promise alas not kept. How can we understand that these governments are talking about global warming, increasingly pervasive risks and, at the same time, do not foresee the means of struggle commensurate with the stakes? Are our rural, our landscapes for them an adjustment variable? Finally, I cannot end without saluting the action of the firefighters: more than 2,000 mobilized in a few hours. What courage, what dedication! Here too, Europe wants to kill what works, since your European directive on working time directly endangers the status of volunteer firefighter, even though volunteering represents almost 80% of the workforce in France. How can you impose such an aberration on the peoples of Europe? In this area, the pyromaniacs, it is also you and it must stop now. The victims are watching you.

Madam President, once again, you are putting on the agenda here a debate targeting one Member State, still the same, Hungary. How weird! What do you want? Do you want to exclude Hungary from the European Union, or do you just want to govern Hungary instead of the democratically elected government? I'm asking you how many democracy catch-up courses we're going to have to give you. For months now, we have been hearing here about the need to combat foreign interference. That’s good. Especially since the groups that are the loudest on this subject are arguably the groups most corrupted by foreign states. Some of their elected representatives were bought by Qatar or other countries. I will not make a long list of scandals here, including ‘Qatargate’, we will have until tomorrow. You are constantly teaching about foreign interference, but that is precisely what you are doing. Indeed, many non-Hungarian MEPs, instead of dealing with the disorders that exist in their own country, went to Budapest to engage in foreign-interference tourism. It would also be interesting to know whether their air tickets were paid for by the Parliament to finance that foreign interference or whether they increased their carbon footprint at their own expense. Can we get an answer? How much did this small cinema cost taxpayers? The issue of defending gay rights and human rights is an important issue. Homosexuals have happily had rights in Hungary for a long time. On the other hand, homosexuals do not have one with your friends in Qatar, for example. To the French Members who were present in Budapest, I ask whether they would be able to organise prides in areas of mass immigration in France or at the homes of their friends in Qatar, Nigeria or Algeria. Do you think you would come back healthy and safe, as you came back very healthy from your sunny little weekend in Budapest? Finally, to Mrs Keller, elected member of the Renew Group, I would like to ask whether she is not ashamed to go and give lessons to Mr Orbán, who, while she was mayor of Strasbourg, where we are today, opposed, as the press has pointed out, a Pride March in her own city in January 2002.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not share your ideas, but I will fight to ensure that you can always express them. As an elected representative, I am deeply democratic, respectful of everyone's free expression, and here I would like to express my deep emotion at the tragedy that has affected Colombia. To see a candidate being the victim of an assassination attempt almost at close range is extremely shocking and these images remain engraved in our memories. These violent attacks, these attempts at murder, as Donald Trump may have known before his election, or Jair Bolsonaro who had been stabbed, we must not get used to it. They are sometimes the result of a climate of violence, first verbal, then physical, some movements of which are customary. Here, it is the violence of the cordon sanitaire and discrimination. In France, far-left movements that prevent opposing political meetings from taking place in certain regions or attack them, attack law enforcement or ransack businesses during demonstrations, embodying violence. Here I express our most sincere solidarity with Miguel Uribe, senator and presidential candidate of the Republic of Colombia, who was seriously injured in an abject attack that upset an entire country and is currently fighting for his life. Our thoughts are with him, his family and all those in Colombia who still believe in the strength of political commitment to violence. The attack on Mr. Uribe is not an isolated fact, nor are the 64 attacks perpetrated by the FARC over the past two months. I also extend my condolences to the families of Colombians murdered by the FARC. Because yes, this tragedy comes in a particularly worrying context, a brutal rise in insecurity and repeated attacks against police and military and now against political opponents. Last Sunday, thousands of citizens gathered in more than twenty cities during the march of silence to say no to terror, no to intimidation, and to demand a national start. They did so with dignity, with courage, in the name of peace and democracy. Today, Colombia is going through very dark hours. You're not alone. Your struggle is also that of millions of Colombians who refuse to give in to fear. We welcome your commitment and wholeheartedly hope for your recovery.