Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is already struggling to function with 27 Member States, it will have even more if it enlarges to new members. Balkan states are mostly unstable, when they are not gangrene by the mafia, like Albania. One of them, Kosovo, is not even recognised by some of the 27 EU Member States. In its Communication, the Commission recognises that some of its policies will need to be reformed before further enlargement takes place. But "reforming" is a euphemism, I would rather say "bouleverser". The accession of Ukraine, an agricultural giant, will, for example, lead to the disappearance of the common agricultural policy, as the current Commissioner for Agriculture has honestly acknowledged. Today, I am making my last speech in plenary. Until the end, I would have warned you about the consequences of your crazy decisions. It will be up to my successors, in a significantly strengthened Identity and Democracy Group, to continue my efforts. I pass the baton on to them with confidence, because in our democracies, the will of the people always ends up imposing itself.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union gives the European Parliament the power to set up temporary committees of inquiry. The European Parliament would like a regulation to strengthen this right of inquiry. I am in favour of it, if it is a question of forcing the Commission to answer those questions, because I note that the Commission has sometimes been arrogant in refusing to cooperate with those investigations, as for example in the PfizerGate case. However, I would warn you against two abuses to which such a strengthening would expose the Union. The first would be to distort the right of inquiry into a means of political pressure on the Council or on certain Member States, as Hungary and Poland have already experienced. The second is to use it to defame political opponents, as the Committee of Inquiry into Foreign Interference, chaired by Mr Glucksmann, has already done against the National Rally, without seeing Qatargate, which involved socialists. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I understand and share the Council’s reluctance to grant you the increase in powers you are asking for.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European plant seed sector is flourishing. It accounts for 20% of the global seed market, with an estimated value of almost €10 billion and the involvement of 7,000 companies, mostly SMEs. It must therefore be modernised without weakening it. This is the purpose of the proposal for a regulation we are debating today. Its objective is to give farmers access to diverse, high-quality and climate-resilient seeds. I give it the benefit of the doubt, because I think the lessons have been learned from the failure of a previous modernisation attempt in March 2014, which was less well thought out. Respect for seed diversity is welcome, but much will depend on future Commission delegated and implementing acts, as too often. On the other hand, I am opposed to the proposal for a regulation on forest seeds, because France, like the other Member States of the European Union, is perfectly capable of managing its forests without the need for the supervision of the Commission. Forest management is also a national competence. As this speech in the hemicycle is the last of my mandate in the field of agriculture, I would like to take this opportunity to salute the agricultural unions with which I have worked and to thank all the farmers who have received me and honoured me with their trust. Serving European agriculture, and more particularly French agriculture, has been a great honour.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the five years of von der Leyen's term of office have been a period of unprecedented acceleration of European integration. The COVID-19 crisis and the war in Ukraine will have provided the EU with the pretexts it had been waiting for to interfere in two areas hitherto reserved for its Member States: public health and defence. In two other areas, the von der Leyen Commission managed to achieve what the Juncker Commission had tried in vain: to adopt a European Pact on Immigration and carry out a joint loan of EUR 750 billion. Finally, the von der Leyen Commission has achieved the feat of making people believe in its ability to save the planet by imposing a Green Deal, the only tangible effect of which has been to provoke the revolt of farmers. At the end of my political career, I will leave with the satisfaction of having fought with all my might against this disastrous acceleration of European integration. To the French people, I would like to remind them that they are sovereign and can therefore take back their destiny at any time.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s 2022 budget discharge reveals a number of worrying reports. First, the budget implementation rate is down compared to the previous year, with 76% for payment appropriations, compared to 78 in 2021. Then, the average payment time increased to almost 24 days, compared to 21 days in 2021. And thirdly, mission expenses have increased by 170% in one year. Admittedly, part of the explanation may lie in the youth of the EPPO, which only started functioning in 2021. But this is not enough to dispel fears of failing management. Even more serious, the EPPO breached the principle of individualisation of the procedure for waiving parliamentary immunity. He referred to the European Parliament by a single document two requests for waiver of immunity, one of which concerned Qatargate, and the other, a much less serious case. This amalgamation has caused serious harm to Members whose names have thus been unfairly associated with Qatargate. I therefore call on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to reflect on paragraph 69 of the report, which calls on it to improve its handling of requests for waiver of immunity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the regulation and directive that protect designs in Europe have been effective, but they are more than 20 years old. It was therefore necessary to modernize them. This is the task of the Drawings and Models Package presented to you today. The satisfactory architecture of the current system is maintained. Two systems of design protection therefore continue to co-exist. The European system, on the one hand, valid for the whole Union and managed by the European Intellectual Property Office, based in Alicante, Spain, and the national system of each of the 27 Member States, on the other hand. Each designer will therefore be able to continue to choose the system that suits him best. The most important changes are to adapt design protection to the evolution of digital technologies, such as the three-dimensional printer, and also to introduce into the Directive the repair clause that already existed in the Regulation. I would particularly draw your attention to this repair clause. It is very important because it will, in particular, liberalise the market for most car spare parts, which should lead to lower prices for the greater benefit of consumers. Another novelty is worth noting: the texts allow Member States to refuse registration of designs which would harm their cultural heritage, within the meaning that UNESCO gives to that expression. In conclusion, the texts presented to you are the result of a broad consensus. I thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their support, without which nothing could have been done, and I would like to conclude by underlining the constructive spirit shown by the Spanish Presidency of the Council and the Commission representative during the trilogue.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the compulsory licensing system allows public authorities, in the event of a health crisis, to take control of the production of vaccines or medicines without having obtained the consent of the patent holders. Until now, only the Member States had this power, which is normal, because public health is, according to the European Treaties, an area that falls within their sovereignty and not within the competence of the Union. In France, for example, it is the Minister responsible for industrial property who is responsible, under Article L. 613-16 of the Intellectual Property Code, for subjecting patents to compulsory licensing. I therefore denounce the intention of the proposal for a regulation that we are debating to give the Commission the power to grant compulsory licences that would be valid throughout the Union. There is no justification for such interference in the state-only area of public health, and especially not the unfortunate episode of the COVID-19 pandemic. I would point out that, on that occasion, the Commission took advantage of the powers recklessly conferred on it by the Member States to negotiate contracts for the purchase of vaccines under particularly opaque conditions. This sad experience should have been enough for us to resolutely say no to any further EU interference in the field of public health.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, should a statute be created for European cross-border associations? The Commission thinks so, as this is the subject of its proposal for a directive, which we are debating today. Its objective is to facilitate the free movement within the Union of non-profit associations. But some of its provisions are worrisome. Article 7 thereof, for example, sins by default, by failing to specify that the decision-making body of a cross-border association is necessarily a general assembly made up of all its members. I am afraid that this will contribute to the opacity that already characterises the functioning of some NGOs. Article 13 of that regulation raises the same complaint, seeking to prohibit Member States from restricting the ability of cross-border associations to receive funding. More generally, I denounce the anti-national ideology that inspires the directive. I do not share his faith in the work of NGOs, which would make it possible to build a beneficial European civil society in the face of the arbitrariness of the Member States. For me, states are the solution, not the problem. They are an expression of national sovereignty and not, from the woke or neo-Marxist perspective adopted by the Directive, instruments of oppression of minorities quick to endorse the status of victims.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, one would have thought that, following the war in Ukraine, the European Union would have blocked, as a sanction, all imports of Russian wheat. Well, no! It is surprising to discover that, two years after the start of the war, Russia still manages to export its cereals to the EU. For example, Latvia imported almost 424 000 tonnes of Russian cereals in 2023, an increase of 60% compared to 2022. In the same year, more than 2 million tonnes of Russian cereals transited through Russia, a quarter of which went to other EU countries. Under pressure from farmers, Latvia decided on 22 February to ban the import of Russian cereals, with the exception of those destined for transit. But several Member States, including Poland, are asking the EU to intervene in turn. I think they are right. Imports of Russian cereals should be banned throughout the EU for two reasons. First, to protect European cereal farmers from this low-cost competition. Secondly, to stop funding the Russian war effort in this way. We have a duty to our farmers, but also to Ukraine. We must not give up in the face of the wheat war imposed on us by Russia.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Tunisia has been in a situation of political crisis since President Saïed assumed full powers on 25 July 2021. I very much hope that the presidential election scheduled for the end of the year will allow him to regain more serenity. However, I do not underestimate the danger of Islamism against which President Saïed stood as a bulwark. In any case, the European Union must help Tunisia restore its economic stability within the framework of a sound neighbourhood policy. That is why I agree with the Commission’s decision, taken pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 16 July 2023, to disburse EUR 150 million to the Commission. However, there must be formal guarantees that this money will be well used to finance the economic reforms announced. On the other hand, and above all, this partial implementation of the MoU should not be enough. There is also an urgent need to relaunch the application of its pillar on controlling emigration to Italy. For the European Union, the real challenge is to help Tunisia regain sufficient economic and political stability to put an end to the migratory flooding that is sweeping through Lampedusa from the Tunisian coast.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, farmers across the EU are revolting. But locked up in its ivory tower, the European Parliament has no cure for it. The evidence, he just betrayed them three times in four days. On Monday, its Committee on Agriculture violently attacked French farmers, allegedly for violating the sacrosanct freedom of movement of goods by destroying Spanish products. On Tuesday, it adopted the regulation on nature restoration, which will accelerate agricultural degrowth in line with the Green Deal. And this Thursday, he is about to give the green light to the free trade agreement with Chile, which will invade us with low-cost chickens that do not meet our standards. Personally, I have lost confidence in this Parliament’s ability to protect European agriculture. I hope that the new majority that will emerge from the elections on 9 June will have a greater sense of responsibility.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European system of geographical indications is a great success. It protects 3,500 denominations of wines, spirits and agricultural products. The aim of this reform is to further improve it, in particular by clarifying the rules for registering geographical indications and ensuring their protection on the internet. Two concerns surrounding this reform have been addressed. On the one hand, the provisions relating to wines are maintained in the Regulation on the common organisation of the markets, as professionals in the sector wished. On the other hand, the reform clarifies the role of the European Union Intellectual Property Office. In line with the expectations of the agricultural community, the reform only entrusts it with administrative tasks of managing registrations, with the power to decide on the content of geographical indications being left to the Commission. The objective of improving the protection of geographical indications is therefore achieved. It is to be welcomed that the European Union has succeeded in supporting the excellence of our agricultural and wine products.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, standard-essential patents, called SEPs, are intellectual property rights that protect a technology, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, 4G or 5G, which is considered essential to manufacture or operate a standard-compliant product. Their holders are therefore in a strong position to grant operating licences to users of the standard on the financial terms they impose. Abuses have been found, notably by the Chinese company Huawei, which owns many SEPs. The reference judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 16 July 2015 concerns Huawei. It was therefore necessary to intervene to protect business users of SEPs, including many SMEs, but also renowned French companies, such as Renault, Valeo or Thales. This is what the Commission's proposal for a regulation does, which has been considerably improved by Mrs Valsmann's report. At the heart of the reform is the involvement of the European Intellectual Property Protection Office, whose effectiveness can no longer be demonstrated. This office will keep a register of SEPs and verify that they are truly essential to combat the phenomenon of false SEPs. It will create a database to inform users about the various aspects of SEPs for the sake of transparency. Among its users, SMEs will benefit from free advisory services. Finally, the Office will pilot a dispute settlement mechanism through the recruitment of experts to be used by SEP holders and users when negotiating operating licences. In conclusion, I am convinced that, as a result of this effort to moralise the market, SEPs will henceforth be exploited on fairer financial terms than in the past.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 13 February, the French Council of State amended the rules for assessing information pluralism for television channels. Until now, it only took into account the balance of speaking time granted to political figures. From now on, he also orders to take into account the interventions of columnists, animators and guests. This is extremely worrying for freedom of expression, as these new guidelines tend to force TV channels to file all their speakers based on their alleged political opinions in order to sort between them. This requirement of widespread registration is not worthy of democracy. There's even worse. These new rules were laid down in a case concerning CNews, i.e. the television channel most critical of the power in place. By attacking it, the Council of State gives the unfortunate impression that justice lacks objectivity and that its aim is not to ensure pluralism of information, but on the contrary to impose conformism and political correctness.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a water policy is needed more than ever in response to the drought in several regions of France and Europe. As regards agriculture, it must make it possible to build water reservoirs wherever drought threatens. When reasonably designed, reservoirs make it possible to draw on groundwater in winter, at a time when it can be reconstituted, in order to water crops in summer. Farmers should therefore not be pitted against other water users. Water reservoirs are precisely a solution to satisfy one without harming the other. A 2022 BRGM report on a project in Deux-Sèvres is encouraging in this regard. Of course, water policy must also promote other measures, such as better adaptation of crops and agronomic practices to the climate. Water reservoirs are indispensable, but they are not by themselves a miracle solution.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the midst of a farmers' revolt, the European Commission has unveiled its target of reducing the EU's greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040. However, this new project is worrying for agriculture as it focuses on the supposed lack of progress on the part of farmers. It therefore seems to announce an additional turn of screws for certain sectors particularly pointed at, in particular for livestock farming, which is accused of emitting too much methane. Faced with this grim prospect, I would like to recall the specificity of our agricultural sector, whose main role is to ensure our food security. We must therefore put an end to this absurd policy of agricultural decline. The Commission must achieve its climate goals in ways other than sacrificing European agriculture. There is an urgent need for an ‘agricultural exception’, both to the Green Deal and to free trade treaties.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament has adopted a report on European historical awareness, whose aim and ideological inspiration I strongly denounce. Its aim is to ‘change the teaching of history into perspective’ – I quote –, to put European history ahead of national history and to foster a supranational understanding of history. In this perspective, learning about European integration will occupy a prominent place, as well as the veneration of Jean Monnet, the only historical figure cited in the report. Like totalitarian regimes, the EU thus gives in to the temptation to rewrite history for propaganda purposes. As for the ideological inspiration of the text, it is that of Wokism. In a sort of detestation of the West, the report calls for a focus – I quote – ‘on the tragic periods in Europe’s history in order to make future generations aware of the aberrations of the past’. For my part, I do not think we should be ashamed of our civilisation, whose wonders are innumerable. Don’t try to rewrite history, leave it to historians.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in a statement of 31 January, the Commission approved a new derogation on set-aside for 2024. This was one of the demands of farmers who have expressed their dissatisfaction in recent weeks, and with whom the ID Group spoke in Brussels. However, the Commission's response leaves them unsatisfied. The derogation from the requirement to maintain a minimum of 4% of non-productive land will only work if 7% of their land is cultivated without plant protection products. For French farmers, this does not change anything, since this alternative was already provided for in the French strategic plan – and all European farmers fear that it will be unfeasible anyway. I therefore regret that the Commission has not really heard the farmers’ demands. What they wanted was an unconditional derogation from the 4% set-aside requirement until 2027 and not the trompe-l'oeil concession it imagined. The Commission should therefore be able to explain this.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission and the majority of the European Parliament are proposing to include hate speech in the list of European crimes under Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union. I strongly oppose it for two reasons. First, because the notion of hate speech is so vague and subjective that it would open the door to censorship and political persecution. The report before us makes this clear by giving as an example the allegedly xenophobic statements of populist movements against migrants. What he proposes is therefore to criminalize the mere denunciation of migratory flooding, in defiance of freedom of expression and the pluralism necessary for democratic life. Secondly, the Commission's proposal raises a problem of compliance with the French Constitution, as it reproduces the terms of the Avia Law, which the Constitutional Council annulled on 18 June 2020 because of the violation of freedom of expression. However, under French law, the national Constitution is superior to all treaties, even European treaties. This was recalled by the Constitutional Council in its decision of 19 November 2004. The European institutions therefore do not have the power to impose on France a rule that is deemed unconstitutional.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Angel report has the merit of reflecting on ways of strengthening the influence of the national parliaments of the Member States of the Union on the European political process. But I am not fooled by his attempt to turn them into substitutes for the European Parliament to help it overthrow the pre-eminence of the Council. And I tell you clearly, this instrumentalization, I do not want it. On the other hand, I really want to strengthen the influence of national parliaments on the European political process and I propose three solutions to achieve this. One: to revitalise the yellow and orange card procedures, which should have allowed the third party and the majority of national parliaments, respectively, to ask the Commission or oblige it to re-examine its proposals, which have proved to be a scathing failure. Their thresholds would have to be lowered to one-quarter and one-third respectively in order for the system to become viable. Two: create a red card procedure to allow a majority of national parliaments to repeal a European directive or regulation they do not want. Three: strengthen interparliamentary meetings to allow national parliaments to consult each other in order to weigh more heavily on the European Parliament, which is too inclined to legislate in the isolation of its Brussels fortress. This is a change of philosophy that I call for so that the natural interlocutors of the European Parliament are no longer the Commission and the lobbies, but the national parliaments and the peoples they represent.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 8 January, in Germany, farmers expressed their revolt by blocking their country. They intend to protest against the government's decision to abolish the diesel subsidy they had previously received. But their discomfort is much deeper. What they question, beyond this suppression, is the European Union's free trade policy that puts their activity in jeopardy. This European dimension explains why Alsatian farmers have supported them. She also explains why, everywhere in France, farmers have been putting city signs upside down for several weeks. This is a good way to signify that Europe is walking on its head. There are three major criticisms of the EU: its policy of agricultural degrowth, initiated by the farm-to-fork program, its free trade treaties that distort competition, and its unreasonable bureaucratic demands. For having protested for several years against these three abuses, I am now relaying the message of farmers and expressing my solidarity with them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today's debate is one of the most technical in which I have participated for almost a decade, and it does not fascinate the crowds. It concerns Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union. This Article relates to international agreements negotiated and concluded by the Union. The Union is a party to agreements which provide for the accession of third States by means of clauses establishing a so-called silence or non-objection procedure. In all legal logic, the conclusion of such agreements containing such a clause should not have the effect of excluding the application of Article 218. This seems to imply that for each accession of a third country to such an agreement, the Commission should submit to the Council a proposal for a decision, in which case the Council may, with the consent of the European Parliament, in certain cases decide to object to accession. I take note of the explanations which the Council and the Commission have just given, which adopt a flexible interpretation of Article 218. I note, however, that the result of this is to marginalise the role of the European Parliament.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the family is one of the foundations of Western civilisation. It is the first link in our social organisation and guarantees the vitality and necessary protection of children. That is why I have long defended the preservation and strengthening of a family support policy. But this can only be done at national level, as each state has its own conception of the family. On the contrary, this report aims to Europeanise the protection of the family by creating a European Certificate of Parenthood. This is an interference, all the more serious in national competences because it will oblige each Member State to recognise the various forms of parenthood established outside its borders and thus to impose the de facto recognition of surrogacy throughout Europe. The report acknowledges this in a thinly veiled manner, seeking to remove the exception provided for in private international law, which allows each State to refuse to recognise parenthood that is incompatible with its public policy. However, I am radically opposed to surrogacy, which is nothing more than a new form of exploitation of the bodies of women from poor countries by couples from rich countries. Respect for women’s dignity calls for opposition to the commodification of their reproductive function. For these two fundamental reasons – preservation of a conception of the family and hostility to surrogacy – I will therefore vote against the European Certificate of Parenthood.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union must prioritise cooperation over integration wherever possible. In any case, this is a point of view that I have been advocating for a long time. Cooperation respects the sovereignty of the Member States better than integration. For example, civil, criminal and commercial justice are sovereign areas that must continue to fall within the competence of States, and even within their exclusive competence with regard to the first two. But for cross-border cases, it is legitimate to promote cooperation between the various national courts at European level. This makes it possible to better defend the commercial interests of companies working in several States, or to better organize the criminal repression of terrorism and organized crime, which, in essence, know no borders. I therefore endorse the Commission’s plans to improve cross-border judicial cooperation, including by promoting its digitalisation. And I support the Radev reports, which have been able to make substantial changes to them with strict respect for national sovereignty. In particular, I agree with their concern to surround the conduct of court hearings by videoconferencing with numerous guarantees, because, like Mr Radev, I believe that videoconferencing in justice matters should be accepted only with the utmost caution.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its recommendation of 15 June 2023, the European Parliament established that certain European states have committed abuses in the use of spyware such as Pegasus or Predator. On European soil, journalists and politicians have been spied on using their mobile phones, and outside Europe, mass spying has taken place through the export of spyware by or with the agreement of EU Member States. For example, a French company, Nexa, appears to have sold the Predator software to Egypt, Vietnam and Madagascar. These abuses must, of course, be denounced, but should they be used as a pretext to try to justify the European Union’s interference in the field of national security? I don't think so. Like the European Parliament, the Council must remind Member States of their responsibilities and encourage them to continue their efforts to use spyware only within a legal framework. However, it is by no means for the Commission to present a plan of measures, as this is an area of national security and therefore the sovereignty of the Member States. I tell you solemnly that the European Union is not intended to interfere in all areas.