Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for the second time this month, and in a completely new way in the history of our Parliament, far-right groups are calling for a secret vote, this time on the climate law. I do not know, Mr Bardella, what you have to hide, but probably something. I do not know, Mr Procaccini, what you are afraid of – probably something. We will not allow ourselves to be done. We will not allow you to manipulate European democracy, because you are depriving us of the fundamental right to know, in democracy, who voted for what, Mr Bardella, Mr Procaccini. That is why the Renew Group will be submitting a request to amend the Rules of Procedure next week in order to put an end to this manipulation of democracy by the far right.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, a compromise is a compromise. Obviously, it is always too left for some, always too right for others. But a compromise is better than the spirit of extremism and the spirit of polarization. And so we in the Renew Group will value and support this compromise, no matter how imperfect, like any compromise. For it is out of the question to leave hands to the extremes of these hemicycles. It is out of the question to let the spirit of polarisation, cleavage, division of anti-Europeans divide Europe and our ability to compromise between pro-European forces. So we will all be united, all united in the Renew Group to support this compromise.

Madam President, Commissioner, on behalf of the French delegation from the Renew Group, I wanted to say how much we support the European Commission's action plan for the automotive industry today, in all its dimensions. The first dimension is demand side support. As you said, a lot of public money and private capital has been invested in supply; We must now absolutely support the demand. The second element is to support ‘made in Europe’. For the first time, there is an extremely clear element in this plan for the automotive industry that all European public money must be reserved for those who produce in Europe, be it cars or the entire value chain, including subcontractors and batteries. Unfortunately, we have bad news today, with Northvolt, but we need to support our European battery industry. The third element is that we must stay the course we have set. We are ready to do what you ask us to do, namely to move fast in supporting the amendment of sanctions in 2025, in a targeted, stable and rapid manner. I hope that all the groups in this European Parliament will have the wisdom to follow this proposal.

Mr Executive Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the Renew Group strongly supports your Clean Industry Pact. Why? By supporting demand for decarbonised goods, it puts an additional 100 billion on the table, supports industry made in Europe and provides funding for innovation. I would also like to say that you have put your finger on something that is key, and that is very important for Renew: there is no competitiveness without decarbonisation and there is no decarbonisation without competitiveness. This is the heart of the pact that you are proposing to us today and that we support. I would like to tell the far-right colleagues, who are supposedly patriots and sovereignists, that by constantly supporting fossil fuels, which we import 100%, they are one day constantly supporting Putin’s Russia, the next day Trump’s United States, the third day Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the fifth day Kazakhstan and Algeria... It is these countries – which finance terrorism, which finance the war in Ukraine, which finance radical Islam – that you support, through your positions against the Green Deal and today against the Clean Industry Deal. You are the least sovereignist in this House. You are the least patriotic in this House.

Mr President, I would like to address the EPP representatives in front of me today to say that you have the choice today to go fast, with us, in this simplification process without falling into the excesses we have just heard from the right-wing and far-right groups. You have a choice, and we, Renew, are ready to move very quickly, on the basis of the Commission's proposals. We can discuss the details, but the balance point, for example on the CSRD, which is one of the texts of this omnibus package, is generally acceptable to us, since there are carry-overs, but the elements that seemed absolutely essential to us, such as the so-called principle of double materiality, are maintained. Otherwise, you have the choice not to negotiate with us, but with the far right. If you are negotiating with the far right, then it means that you are breaking the ability to have confidence in this majority von der Leyen, who elected the President of the Commission. But you need this majority von der Leyen; Europe needs this von der Leyen majority to respond to the geopolitical crisis we are experiencing and build the Europe-power we need more than ever. You will not do this with the far right. It is not with those who have just recalled that the worst responsibility on the steel sector would be the text on the CSRD, when it is obviously the friends of the far right, such as Donald Trump, who want to impose tariffs that will hurt the steel sector very badly. You have a choice: either you make a smart simplification with us, or you make the chainsaw with the far right. History is your concern.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, we welcome the European Commission's compass for competitiveness because it does not oppose, on the one hand, competitiveness and, on the other hand, the Green Deal and decarbonisation, but, on the contrary, it deals with both at the same time. Beyond all the ideological battles that sometimes animate us, if there is one figure that we should all have in mind, it is that last year, we Europeans spent $450 billion to buy gas and oil and that, at the same time, Americans earned, by selling oil and gas, $150 billion, which makes a difference, in a single year, of $600 billion, which makes a difference, over the last five years, of $2.5 trillion. It is there, the difference between the growth of the United States and ours, $2.5 trillion difference. The only way to reduce this gap is to decarbonise, to electrify, to move towards energy efficiency, to move towards green industries. It is to do exactly what you are about to put on the table with the Clean Industry Compact, which we look forward to.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like to say to all the far-right colleagues who are hitting on our climate action day after day, on the one hand, that it will cost us a lot, a lot, a lot more tomorrow, if we do not act today. All studies show this. Look at them, please, rather than saying absolutely anything in this Chamber. On the other hand, we Europeans bought, spent, pulled out of the coffers of our Europe almost $500 billion last year to buy oil and gas that we do not have. The Americans earned $150 billion by exporting gas and oil. This means that, in a single year, last year, we recorded almost $600 billion in a year’s gap between the European and US economies. Almost one recovery plan per year. One recovery plan per year of gap. Why? Because we buy oil and gas instead of developing the energies we know how to produce at home: renewables, nuclear, energy efficiency. For our sovereignty, for our independence, for our trade balance, for our prosperity and for our jobs, we must therefore redouble our efforts for climate action. This is not only a moral issue, it is also our economic interest. We should therefore act even more and, above all, not listen to those who are Trump’s allies, Milei’s allies, the allies of the fossil powers, and who are now on the far right in this Chamber.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you. Mr Procaccini, you have proposed to us a debate based on facts, and I welcome this debate based on facts. You know that last year, Europe, all of us, all businesses, all households, all European families, we bought €400 billion worth of oil and gas abroad. Meanwhile, the US exported $150 billion worth of oil and gas in a single year. That is almost 600 billion difference between us and the United States. Why? Because we are dependent on fossil fuels. Over the last five years, that's $2.5 trillion difference between the United States and us. Over five years! Why? Because we are dependent on fossil fuels. That is why the Green Deal is at the heart of our project to regain autonomy, sovereignty and competitiveness. You want to develop nuclear power in Italy. I welcome this as a Frenchman. What does that mean? That means more electricity. But for there to be more electricity, there must be supply and demand. And what is demand? It is the electrification of our mobility, it is electric cars. Call them 'nuclear cars', if you like. Why do you oppose it? Electrification means more electricity in our industry. This is the carbon market, to decarbonise our industry. Why do you oppose it when, at the same time, you want to do more nuclear? Be consistent, Mr Procaccini. Look reality in the face and come and support the Green Deal with us.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased, as are others, that we seem to have a consensus to introduce more tax justice in the world. We managed to do it for companies; there is no reason why we should not be able to do this for individuals. This process takes place at G20 level and must be strongly supported by the European Union. I am delighted that this Parliament seems to be moving in that direction. The Commission and the Council, of course, should do the same. This is a very clear appeal to Ursula von der Leyen to explicitly and strongly support this process. Remember, this process does not fall from the sky; it stems from the action of a number of G20 countries, the Brazilian Presidency in the first place, but also from countries that, from the beginning, supported President Lula's action. I would like here to salute the role of France and the President of the Republic, Emmanuel Macron, who was the first to co-sign papers with Lula to convince the other G20 countries to go in this direction. It is now up to the European Union to do the work and support as strongly as it can this new international push for more tax justice.

Madam member, I come from a region, the Hauts-de-France, where there are many members of the Rassemblement national. In Dunkirk alone, 40,000 jobs will be created. In this city alone, 40,000 jobs, thanks to the decarbonization of our automobile and industry, and the development of nuclear and renewable energies. That is the Green Deal. Go and tell the 40,000 employees in Dunkirk that you, in fact, at the Rassemblement national, want to destroy their jobs. I don't want to, I believe in the future, I believe in innovation and I believe in European talent, unlike you.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today's debate is entitled 'The automotive industry in crisis'. I recall that European manufacturers – and this is all the better – made historic profits in 2023, and I recall that almost all of them made significant profits in the first half of 2024. Again, so much the better. Nevertheless, let us not confuse financial realities, which are objective, with political discourse and ideology of wanting to blame the Green Deal for anything that would not go to Europe today. We must continue to support the automotive industry in its transformation, of course first and foremost industrial policy. That is why we need to create a battery industry across Europe – something we have been doing for the last five years. We must continue, and above all not go back. The second element is to bring justice to trade. That is why I am delighted, on behalf of the French delegation from Renew, that the European Commission and the Member States have finally put in place tools to combat unfair competition from China.

Mr President, Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if there is one word I want to take away from the outcome of this strategic dialogue, it is the word 'hope'. After months of agricultural crisis, after weeks and months of demonstrations and polarizations, tensions, conflicts, there was the result of this strategic dialogue with trade unions, non-governmental organizations, companies and scientists. And when all these people, a priori with very different points of view, spend weeks working together to define a common path, they succeed. This document is signed by both NGOs and agricultural trade unions. Who would have thought it would be possible? So we MEPs need to take the result of this strategic dialogue – we do not agree with everything, I myself do not agree with everything in this strategic dialogue, but it is a very good balance point, a very good compromise point. Our responsibility, and that of the Commission, is now to translate it into action in the coming months.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of this parliamentary term, I think we can be extremely proud of the work done on the Green Deal. When we started, we were completely out of line with our climate targets; Today, we have adopted all the rules of the game on mobility, energy and industries to meet our climate commitments. We did it together and we did it by pulling out caricatures, not by diminishing our solutions, but by adding them together. It is our position, in the Renaissance Delegation and in the Renew Group, to add up the solutions, rather than subtract them. We voted with the left for the development of renewable energies, but we voted with the right for the development of nuclear energy. We voted with the left for nature-based solutions and we voted with the right for technology-based solutions, such as new genomic techniques, because we need all solutions, pragmatically, ambitiously and not dogmatically. I would like to conclude, because the right, at the end of this mandate, tends to join the caricatures of the extreme right by saying that the Green Deal would be a decreasing programme, but what is decreasing in agricultural matters, colleagues from the right and the extreme right, is for example the fact that in Andalusia it is no longer raining. It is no longer raining and this means that there is 50% less olive oil production in Andalusia. This is what is decreasing in two years. It is not the Green Deal that is decreasing; it is the impact of climate change, which will make our agricultural production unstable, if not impossible, and which will ruin and limit our agricultural sovereignty. So get out of the poses, get out of the caricatures, join us in the action for nature and climate, which is also another action for sovereignty, for the competitiveness of our businesses and for our jobs.

Mrs Aubry, you know very well that we voted for the free trade agreement with New Zealand, as did the majority of this Parliament, including the Socialist Group and the Green Group. Why? Because this agreement contains extremely positive, historic provisions for the fight against climate change, because it also contains provisions that are favourable to part of our agriculture. On the other hand, we are totally hostile to the EU-Mercosur agreement and I think I can say that if France and President Emmanuel Macron had not last week been extremely offensive in saying no to Mercosur, today we would have Mercosur. Because of what? Because of the action of the European People's Party, because of the action of Manfred Weber, because of the action of Ms von der Leyen and the Trade Commissioner. So, look for your leaders.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we can refer to the search for scapegoats in the face. For some, it is ecology, for others, it is free trade, for the third, it is mass distribution. That won't change anything. What is needed, on the contrary, is to depolarise this subject, stop referring to bird names in the face and depolarise the subject around three key issues: first, income; secondly, the green transition; thirdly, the fight against unfair competition and the necessary protection of our agriculture. Can we find a compromise between us on these three issues? Because if you want to make the green transition with free trade agreements that do not protect our farmers, you will not succeed, and if you want to make income for farmers, but without the green transition, you will not succeed either, because the first threat to yields, therefore to income, is climate change. But if we want to share value better and don’t do it in Europe, then it’s bypassed. In France, we have an Egalim law, which makes it possible to better share value between farmers and large retailers: it is bypassed by European central purchasing bodies in your own countries. So instead of sending us names of birds, let’s go to work looking not for scapegoats but for solutions. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, you are proposing today – and this was an obligation that we set together in the European Climate Law – a target of reducing CO2 emissions by 2040 by – 90%. This figure is based on science, and so we support it. But it must also, of course, not simply lead us to set a goal, but to achieve it. And to achieve it, we see two conditions for success. The first condition for success is to have the appropriate funding. If we do not have the right funding, we will not be able to do so. The example of the United States, with the Biden plan, which, according to the latest estimates, would be able to mobilise USD 1 200 billion over ten years, must inspire us, so that we have, after the European elections, a serious discussion about our collective capacity to finance this transition as Europeans. The second condition for success is that we may stop targeting farmers and not the rest of the value chain. I am struck by the fact that while farmers have made efforts, the rest of the value chain – large distributors, processors – is not subject to any rules. I see that in your communication today you are moving in that direction, and that is good news. So support this goal, and also support the conditions that will make us succeed in achieving, in real life, in an acceptable, fair and competitive way, our climate goal.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our position is extremely clear: we are in favour of new genomic techniques, but not under any conditions. For new genomic techniques, because we want to bring a new solution to farmers facing new challenges: reducing plant protection products, pesticides and adapting to climate change. But we are not for any condition. For example, we are not in favour of a product being a new genomic technique if it is associated with a herbicide, because this is typically the GMO model, which we do not want. And that is exactly what we have done in the parliamentary work, namely to remove this possibility, which was opened by the initial Commission text. We have also further relayed this opportunity of new genomic techniques with the objectives of the European Green Deal: ensure that these new techniques are allowed if and only if they serve the objectives we set ourselves in the Green Deal. For example, adapting more easily to the effects of climate change, which threaten farmers’ yields and therefore incomes, and moving more towards less dependence on plant protection products and pesticides. This is the model we stand for. I am surprised that on the left there is a rejection of technology-based solutions. When on the right, there is the rejection of nature-based solutions. The reality, ladies and gentlemen, is that we need both, and that is why we support both the Nature Restoration Act and the New Genomic Techniques Act.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I wanted to remind you that we are a few days away from COP28 and that this text is absolutely fundamental for trucks and buses, since we will decarbonise all road transport in Europe, after having done so for cars and vans. It is therefore a structuring text for the next 20 to 30 years. Our responsibility is to be both ambitious and pragmatic. Ambitious means that we must not give up on the objectives and that is why the Renew Group will support the Commission's initial proposal. We are even ready to go a little further, a little faster, to go as far as possible in the decarbonisation of road transport. With regard to buses, we also want 100% of the new buses that will be sold in cities to be zero emissions by 2030. But we are pragmatic about school buses, for example, for which the technology is less mature and so we leave more time for school buses to adapt. And we make sure that cities and local authorities that have invested in biomethane buses can have their investments protected over time. And then there is the issue of road transport concerning the specific technology of e-fuels. The vast majority of the Renew Group will oppose amendments that want to disrupt this text. As the Commissioner who is part of the EPP Group pointed out, as all truck manufacturers point out, we do not need e-fuels in this text because, precisely, we need e-fuels elsewhere, to decarbonise the aviation and maritime sectors.

Yes, colleagues, I just have the pleasure to request the referral back to committee for interinstitutional negotiations, as a surprise, following Rule 59(4).

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we are all keen to look at and follow science. And look precisely at what the European Food Safety Authority has said. You've all read his review. There are two messages. The first message is that glyphosate is not dangerous enough to be withdrawn from the market. And that is why you do not have a legal basis for, would you like, withdrawing it today. But read the second message. The second message is that there is a lot of data that is not collected, a lot of impacts on biodiversity that are not taken into account in the decision on measuring the overall impact of glyphosate. So the message of science is twofold. Some in this Chamber only hear the first message. Others in the Chamber only hear the second message. We try to hear both messages, because science is sometimes a little more complex than the simplism we would like to be followed. Our line is quite simple. We consider that the current position of the Commission, i.e. 10 years without any condition of restriction of use, is an unacceptable position. Unacceptable, because it does not take into account the complexity of the scientific message. And we are waiting for a new proposal that is much more balanced and that allows us to introduce, in accordance with science, restrictions on use, as we have been able to do in some countries, especially in France.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, tomorrow we are going to vote on tightening up the rules on combating air pollution. As we have all recalled, air pollution is one of the leading causes of premature death in Europe: 300,000 deaths per year, including 40,000 in France. I am amazed that, on the part of right-wing and far-right MEPs, the priority is to degrade not only the proposals that have been made by the World Health Organisation, but also the proposals that have been made – even though they are already lower – by the Commission to reach thresholds that are lower than those we have today. This is the opposite of ambition, it is regression. And I tell these right-wing and far-right MEPs that the people most vulnerable to air pollution are children, pregnant women, families and the elderly. Families and the elderly are two social groups of which you are supposed to be the great defenders. However, you are changing the rules proposed by the World Health Organisation and the European Commission to make them less protected from air pollution than they are today. This is an unacceptable lie. We will not let it happen and I really hope that tomorrow we will win this battle.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, this week we have two very important responsibilities. Our first responsibility is to save nature. I am addressing my colleagues on the right and centre-right: If you don't want to listen to unanimous scientists defending the need for this law, then listen to the European Hunters Federation. Hunters are in favour of this law. Listen to companies in the agri-food sector, which are in favour of this law because they know very well that the first threat to agricultural yields is the disappearance of the nature of pollinators and climate change. Listen to the European Central Bank, which reminds us that the vast majority of our economy is dependent on services rendered by nature. Go back to reason. Our second responsibility, besides saving nature, is to block far-right populism and the alliance led by part of the EPP with this far-right populism. It kills European democracy, it kills the spirit of compromise that has driven us from the beginning on the Green Deal. We must not let this far-right populism and the false information, the lies that it has been peddling for a year and that you have taken up again in a totally shameless way in this Chamber pass. So tomorrow we have a double responsibility: save nature, block extreme right-wing populism and its alliance with a part of the right. I hope we win.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to address my colleagues on the Conservative side. You are engaged today in an offensive against the Green Deal on the agricultural transition. Yet we managed to find agreements on industry, on mobility. Why can we not achieve this together, with the Socialists and possibly with the Greens, on the agricultural transition? Why would there be an exception where we could not succeed on agriculture what we were otherwise able to do? Because you have an ideological offensive on your part, which denies the reality of what farmers are experiencing, i.e. the impact of the climate shock all over Europe, the loss of nature, the loss of pollinators, which means that they have lower yields. The main cause of the decline in arable crop yields in Europe is the impact of climate change. So let's work together on the solutions. And the solutions – and here I am also talking to environmentalists – are based on nature, but they are also in technology. And that is why the package of solutions proposed by the European Commission, based on nature – restoring ecosystems, biocontrol to do without pesticides and, tomorrow, new genomic techniques to seek new technical progress – should bring us together rather than divide us. Because it is really no service to the European farmer, the European farmer and our farmers to oppose in a totally ideological way, peddling rumours and totally false things about the texts that are contained in the Green Deal. Let’s work together, let’s have solutions for the future and that’s how farmers’ expectations will be met.