Speeches

Madam President, the Conference on the Future of Europe was to be the highlight of this Parliament’s term of office. Unfortunately, it has remained too ignored by the general public, as it has been stifled by both the pandemic and the weak involvement of governments and political parties. Unfortunately, it has also been affected by a certain desire to limit its content. However, a debate has begun, and it must continue. This is essential for the future of Europe. Among the crucial issues ignored in the adopted conclusions is the right of peoples to decide their future democratically. This question is asked, for example, in Catalonia or Scotland. It has also appeared dramatically in Ukraine in recent weeks. On the digital platform that allowed free expression of citizens, the proposal to discuss a European democratic clarity mechanism to contribute to the resolution of possible sovereignty conflicts was the second most supported proposal, but it was discarded from the conference conclusions eventually published. If Europe does not have the courage to formulate democratic proposals to resolve sovereignty conflicts, including against the will of nostalgic Member States of the last century, it risks being affected by serious political crises in the future. For our part, we will continue to support such a proposal. Europe must ensure that it contributes to the future of all its citizens and to the future of all its peoples, by ensuring that they can exercise their right to self-determination, which is a fundamental right. This right cannot be violated by the veto of the Member States. It must be open to all the peoples of Europe who wish to do so.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would first like to thank those who have put the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh on the agenda of this session. Eighteen months after the aggression carried out by the Baku dictatorship against the Armenian people of Artsakh, the situation remains worrying and tensions very high. The defeat of Armenian forces has created serious imbalances in relations between Armenia and neighbouring aggressor states, Turkey and Azerbaijan. With the proposal we are voting on today, we are providing welcome support to those who are rightly worried about their future. Denial of Armenian cultural heritage, and the destruction of buildings by the Azeri army in the territories they have conquered by the force that bears witness to it, are the prelude to further aggression. Artsakh is still under threat of ethnic cleansing. By our support, the Armenian people are stronger and the bellicose intentions of their neighbors will be more easily ruled out. There are no two belligerents in Nagorno-Karabakh who are neutralising themselves: There's an aggressor and there's a victim. The aggressor is a dictatorship. The victim is a democracy and is very weakened. Europe must stand with Armenia and contribute to averting the risk of a new war.

Madam President, Commissioner, at every historic stage, cohesion policy has made it possible to integrate new peoples and countries into the Union. It has thus become fundamental to the construction of Europe. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Europe has faced a very serious economic crisis, to which it has responded with ambitious recovery programmes. A new crisis is emerging, with the war in Ukraine, in our immediate neighbourhood. Bordering countries and regions are at the forefront and new emergency policies will have to be decided. But if this succession of crises leads us to engage in immediate responses, we must not depart from the fundamentals of cohesion policy, which are an essential pillar of the Union. We must therefore be alarmed by the delays we are seeing. It must be ensured that they are reversed and, above all, that the course of cohesion policy is firmly set for the future of Europe. In these turbulent times, Europe must focus on the strength of its fundamentals. Cohesion policy is one of them. It has an essential role to play in implementing the priorities voted on in this Parliament in all European territories. We are counting on you to firmly hold this course.

Mr President, Commissioner, the common agricultural policy that is being proposed to us today is an outdated document that has a very negative impact on Europe. Europe has made new commitments against global warming. This PAC, in perfect continuity with the previous one, ignores them openly. Among the emergencies that needed to be addressed was the territorial impact of the productivist agricultural policies that the CAP will continue to encourage; Its consequences are disfigured and desertified territories. This is due to the hyper-productivism that destroys soils and landscapes and economically expels the largest number of peasants from intensive agricultural areas. They are also affected by huge areas abandoned because they are considered too incompatible with the dominant agricultural model, again with the loss of their landscapes and their populations, because agriculture is the backbone of their traditional economy. We needed a CAP reconciled with nature, reconciled with its territories and effective against global warming. Your CAP proposal does not bring any break with the past on any of these vital topics. We will vote against it and we will fight it.

Madam President, Commissioner, the life of political parties is an essential pillar of European democracy. It allows, beyond the electoral deadlines, to animate the political debates and to build the choices of our fellow citizens. A regulation has been introduced to regulate the life of these European political parties and in particular to contribute to their funding. The report on which we are going to take a decision takes stock of the application of this regulation and makes proposals for improving it. Several points were supported by all. Firstly, the inclusion by European political parties of members from former EU members, future EU members and parties from third countries in the European area. This is essential, especially after Brexit. Second, reducing excessive standards that penalise smaller parties that cannot bear the burden of work and funding. Finally, the simplification of taking into account the income of parties that are linked to their militant activities such as document sales, and the broadening of their scope of action allowing them to become more involved in political campaigns in Europe. One point led to a major disagreement: so far, the amount of funding for each political party is based on the affiliation of Members. Our rapporteur proposes that it be linked to the number of votes cast in the European elections. This proposal is ineffective and potentially dangerous. It is ineffective. To imagine that the treasurer of a political party could mobilise abstentionists by making a call to bail out his party’s coffers is clearly more than illusory. This is exactly a misconception. And then she's dangerous. Each election generates coalitions and it is the freedom of the parties to be able to enter into electoral agreements. With Mr Wieland's proposal, components of these coalitions – the minority components – would be clearly exposed to losing their resources if a disagreement arises with the majority representation of the coalition. Therefore, the risk of such a situation cannot be taken. This would be detrimental to European democracy.

Mr President, this fund decided to help the activities and territories most affected by the consequences of Brexit is a good thing. During the discussions we had under the authority of our rapporteur, Mr Pascal Arimont, we advanced this regulation to achieve key objectives. The first is to reserve a substantial part for fishing activities. This is an important issue for the maritime territories concerned, including in terms of preserving the resource and defending coastal fishing activity. Secondly, it made it possible to focus solidarity on maritime border regions and on activities actually impacted with exclusion from financial activities. Finally, it sends a message of unity and European solidarity to territories that will increasingly suffer from Brexit, starting with Ireland. The consequences of Brexit are likely to escalate as the negative effects accumulate. The duty of solidarity is a requirement for the most impacted Europeans to be able to cope with its consequences. The crucial issue of the Northern Ireland protocol provided for in the treaty must be resolved. To do this, we must demonstrate our solidarity and determination. The establishment of this fund participates in it.