Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the end of the summer puts the European Union in a position to face up to its responsibilities on two major fronts. The first is our green reconversion: across the globe, climate disasters remind us of the urgency. And what the IPCC report says, nature confirms. Of all the hypotheses considered, it is indeed the most serious version of climate change that is at work. Not in 2050 today. And not just at the end of the world, here, at home. In the face of this existential challenge, in your words, Madam President, we can no longer discard future generations. The answer to the urgency lies with us, the generation that, here and now, holds the levers of political and economic power. Accelerate implementation, raise ambition, align our objectives and the means that serve them. Faster, higher, stronger: It is time to apply the Olympic motto to our efforts to save the climate. The proposal for a common agricultural policy, deaf and blind to social, climate and biodiversity issues, is therefore the perfect example of what not to do. Colleagues, a start is still possible. Do the right thing, vote this CAP down. As for the ‘Fit for 55’ carbon neutrality package, it needs to be accelerated and its ambition increased. Why wait until 2032, yes, 2032 to tax kerosene? And why not set the goal that by 2030, renewables represent half of our energy? But above all, Madam President, how can we explain that fossil fuels still benefit from tens of billions of euros in public subsidies every year? Parliament has positioned itself for the total and immediate cessation of these subsidies, but the Commission is doing half-way with a phasing-out spread over ten to fifteen years. Madam President, you have all the cards in hand to put an end to this scandal. The credibility of the Green Deal is at stake. I would also like to remind you that the ecological transition can only be in solidarity. Producing sustainable and fair costs more. We must therefore transform our tax and social systems so that everyone can afford to live with dignity. And here the levers are largely in the hands of the Member States. But it is the responsibility of the Commission and the European Union to free them from the infernal social and fiscal competition so that they can equip themselves for this transformation. This is particularly true on the taxation of multinationals and, as the IMF itself puts it, on the taxation of capital. A word to those who renounce climate action on the grounds that it would be at the expense of our economy and our jobs. One of two things: either we fail and there will simply be no more economy because the planet will have become uninhabitable to humans, or we succeed and it is then vital, absolutely vital, that the European Union is at the forefront of the transition, because that is where the heart of our future competitiveness lies. Otherwise, we will be reduced to acquiring green solutions from the rest of the world. After losing digital leadership, the European Union cannot afford to miss the green revolution. I then turn to the second major issue: make the European Union a geopolitical player that lives up to its capabilities and ambitions. After the humiliations suffered in Moscow, Ankara and, to a lesser extent, Beijing, the ultimate affront came from Washington. The Afghan disaster caused by the US unilateral withdrawal has once again demonstrated European powerlessness. Like you, Madam President, my thoughts go first to the Afghans, and in particular to the Afghan women, who have suffered the war for two generations and are once again under the rule of Islamist fundamentalism. They also go to all our fellow citizens sent there, in uniform or not, who have paid with their lives or their health for the lack of strategic vision of their leaders. Let this disaster be at least a start for us, because the European Union can be a major geopolitical player, but it must then give itself the means to do so. To give oneself the means to do so is, first of all, to choose the sharing of sovereignty. Only by uniting our visions and our means can we Europeans exert influence beyond our borders. Individually, our states, even the largest of them, remain dwarfs vis-à-vis the other great powers. And this applies both politically and militarily. Empowering ourselves means reviewing our economic priorities and strengthening our autonomy. As long as the EU puts its supplies, especially energy, and mercantilist interests at the top of its agenda, we will remain tied to our suppliers and customers. And believe me, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping know this all too well. Empowering ourselves means strengthening our status as a normative power, especially in the digital sector. Far from American-style surveillance capitalism and the Chinese-style surveillance state, let’s build a European model that puts technology at the service of humans instead of enslaving them. Empowering ourselves also means investing both inside and outside our borders so that neither our Member States nor our partners who feel left behind by the EU have any choice but to give in to the self-interested advances of our strategic rivals. To give ourselves the means to do so is to fully assume our duty to set an example: How can we defend and promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law if we are unable to uphold them within the European Union itself? How can we obtain sufficient climate commitments from the rest of the world if our efforts do not live up to our historical responsibilities? Finally, giving yourself the means to do so means choosing reception and human dignity. So, of course, the European Union is not the only one responsible for 85 million people being forcibly displaced around the world today. But who here dares to say that we have no responsibility for climate change, for depleting resources, for keeping an oppressive regime in power or for armed conflicts around the world? As such, I am outraged, outraged that just a week before the fall of Kabul, six Member States, including my own, had the abject indecency to insist on continuing deportations to Afghanistan. Scandalised that even today, far from standing with Afghans, Madam President, the sole and unique concern of the 27 Member States is to ensure that no Afghan asylum seeker puts even one toe on EU territory. Not only are Member States trampling on our core values, but they are putting the EU at the mercy of autocrats like Erdoğan. I tell you, never, never will a fortress Europe be a respected geopolitical actor. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at the time of Brexit, we constantly reminded the British Government that we cannot have butter and butter money. It is high time for us Europeans to apply this popular common sense to ourselves. Being a leader in the energy, ecological and solidarity transition and a respected and influential player in the world is within our reach, provided we want to roll up our sleeves to give us the means.

Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, just on the eve of the Council, I urged the members of the European Council to be concerned only with one thing, namely the preservation of the values of the Union. Values that, I recall, are the foundations of our common home. And I said it in my speech: A house whose foundations are not protected runs to ruin. I am, of course, delighted that for the first time, or at least for one of the first times, a genuine debate has taken place in the Council. This is all the more so since, even though the trigger was the situation created by the Hungarian government, it is true that the rule of law and the fundamental values of the Union are in decline. As Manfred Weber said, it's not just about Hungary or Poland, which we often talk about here. We are seeing these setbacks both in the north – I am thinking of the measures adopted by the Danish government on asylum and immigration. I am thinking of the corruption and money laundering that can be observed in the Mediterranean basin. I am thinking of the capture of personal data in a country like France. I think that many European states today are trampling on the fundamental values of the Union. It is therefore high time to go beyond the outrage, consternation, worries and concerns that one may have. It is time to take action. So what does it mean to take action? I note that, quite often, governments that impose setbacks on the rule of law take as their argument – and I quote them in their recent statements – the defence of the traditional Christian values of the EU against the Brussels monster. As a Christian, I cannot help reminding Mr Orbán, Mr Bay, that the Gospel invites us to welcome strangers, to care for the most fragile, to unite rather than divide. But beyond this false fight, what is happening is that breaches of EU law, rule of law and fundamental values actually have an objective: cementing the power of a party, the power of a man, with the sole purpose of taking advantage of the exercise of that power to enrich themselves, for leaders to enrich themselves, for their friends to enrich themselves. So, contrary to what some say when they claim that there should be no link between money and the defence of values, I think that those who try to abuse our good faith should be touched on the portfolio. So, Madam President, I look forward to hearing what you have decided to do, but please show us action! I know you're preparing a lot, but at some point, you have to see them. They need to become visible and, on the side of the offending states, they need to feel the impact, in particular the financial impact. Mr Michel, one thing I want to tell you is that I have noted the protests of 17 Heads of State and Government in the Council. I remind them that it is also open to them to go to the European Court of Justice individually and that they might be a bit more credible by taking action. And on that one last word – thank you, Mr President, for letting me conclude on that. I understand the concern to ensure the collegiality of the European Council, but at some point conflict must be assumed. This is true on the rule of law, it is also true on migration, it is also true on climate. We cannot always want unanimity. We have to accept that at some point a majority decides.