Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report proposes to amend the European Treaties in a federalist way. He thus draws the logical conclusions from the principle of primacy, the claims of which I now wish to denounce. The principle of primacy could be acceptable if it ensured the superiority of European law only over national laws, but it also claims to take precedence over national constitutions. In any case, this is what the Court of Justice of the European Union has been trying to believe since 1970, as if by chance five weeks after the death of General de Gaulle. In my view, this is a betrayal of the most fundamental democratic principles. In a true democracy, the national constitution is the expression of the sovereignty of the people, so nothing can be superior to them in the hierarchy of norms. To claim otherwise is to replace democracy with an oligarchic regime. Personally, I do not want your supposedly enlightened despotism, and I solemnly remind you that the French people do not want it either. This was proved by the rejection by referendum in 2005 of the draft European Constitution, which sought to justify its coup by invoking the principle of primacy. However, since you still intend to amend the Treaties in an overtly federalist way, I challenge you to hold national referenda on this issue.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Wiesner report has the merit of pointing out that proteins are an essential component of our diet and deducing from this that the EU must produce them rather than import them. Our food security is in jeopardy, as we import 70% of plant proteins for animal feed, and even more so for soybeans. I therefore support the proposal to develop the cultivation of protein crops in our country. I also support the idea of preserving the consumption of locally produced animal protein. European meat is indeed the best in the world. But here we will have to fight to be successful, because the Commission has made the bad habit of treating livestock farming as an adjustment variable in its free trade treaties. It is also necessary to denounce the fashionable deadly ideology that presents livestock farming as an environmental nuisance and meat as a danger to health. This agribashing only lasted too long. As did the alternative resolution of the ID Group, I would finally warn you against the temptation to develop insect-based food and cellular meat without sufficient precaution. Let’s not use these novelties as an additional pretext to sacrifice our breeding.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Court of Auditors’ report on the 2022 financial year of the European budget is a matter of doubly serious concern. First, it notes a significant increase in irregularities in EU budgetary expenditure. Their overall level has indeed increased from 3% in 2021 to 4.2% in 2022. This has never been seen since 2014. In some sensitive areas, the balance sheet is even catastrophic. For example, the Court detected errors in almost half of the transactions relating to immigration-related expenditure. Secondly, the report denounces the opacity of spending on the implementation of the NextGenerationEU programme, which still amounts to EUR 47 billion in 2022. In it, the Court quite frankly admits – and I quote its own words – that it is not in a position to calculate an error rate. I had never seen that before. Aggravating circumstance: she was alarmed that there was no clear plan on how the loans contracted for this programme would be repaid. The cynicism of the name NextGenerationEU is therefore understandable: it refers to the next generation to manage to repay them. Finally, the Court denounces the subjectivity with which the Commission decides to suspend certain payments, which speaks volumes about the authoritarian drift of the Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, spyware is useful in protecting national security, particularly against terrorism. But they also pose a great danger to the privacy of citizens. Therefore, they should only be used within a clearly identified legal framework. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case in Europe. The European Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry found that 14 out of 27 EU Member States had used Pegasus spyware, sometimes outside any legal framework. There is also the problem of exporting spyware to countries outside the EU, which use it to monitor and suppress their populations. For example, it has just been reported that the French company Nexa illegally sold Predator spyware to Madagascar in 2020. This is all the more worrying given that the French judiciary has already opened an investigation against the leaders of this company for similar facts concerning Egypt and Libya. These abuses must, of course, be denounced, but since the use of spyware jeopardises national security, I believe that the Member States alone are competent to find the appropriate solutions. The European Union does not have to interfere in their reserved area.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, freedom of the media is a fundamental principle that everyone sincerely committed to liberal democracy must uphold. For three reasons, however, I disagree with the text proposed by the Commission to protect it. First, freedom of the media falls within the exclusive competence of the States. The legal basis used to justify the European Union’s interference, Article 114 TFEU, is entirely artificial, as the French Senate, the German Bundesrat and the Hungarian National Assembly have also pointed out. Secondly, the chosen instrument, the regulation rather than a simple directive, reflects the authoritarianism of the EU, which wants to impose its ideological conformism on the national media. Finally, the intentions of the text are as clear as they are frightening. The aim is to bring to light the media that resist the Europeanist doxa in Hungary, Poland and also in France, with regard to Vincent Bolloré’s group. You say that media freedom is in danger. That is true, but in this case it is the European Union that is threatening it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report, co-led by a centrist from Renew and a Green, is totally unacceptable. Under the pretext of improving the arrangements for European democracy, he proposed speeding up the transformation of the European Union into a supranational federal state. Its main objective is to demote the Council, the last bulwark of the sovereignty of the Member States, by transforming it into a second chamber, in other words into a sort of European Senate. The European Parliament would be the major beneficiary of this reform. The report makes no secret of this, since it gives it powers equivalent to those of a national assembly, such as a right of inquiry and a right of legislative initiative. But again, I do not agree, because it means forgetting a little bit quickly that a national assembly only makes sense if there is a nation. However, the European nation does not exist. I would therefore like to solemnly remind this Parliament that it is not a national assembly, but a mere deliberative body of an international organisation.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the wolf is no longer an endangered species in Europe. For example, it is estimated that there are now more than 1 100 wolves in France, whereas there were none at all at the beginning of the 1990s. More than 10 000 farmed animals, the vast majority of which are sheep, are now killed by them every year. It is no longer possible to continue on this path without seriously jeopardising livestock farming activities. That is why I am calling for the wolf to be declassified within the list of species protected by the 1992 Habitats Directive. More specifically, I request that it be moved from its Annex IV, which concerns endangered species, to its Annex V, which concerns species that can be regulated. This would increase the number of samples taken to prevent the exponential growth of the wolf population, while continuing to safeguard the species. Let us be reasonable, let us try to reconcile the defence of the wolf with the necessary protection of our farming activities.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the protection of agricultural products by geographical indications has made it possible to enhance the know-how of our terroirs. Let's put it bluntly: it is a great European success. It was time to extend this remarkable system of protection to craft and industrial products, and that is precisely what the Walsmann report proposes, which I fully support. Thanks to this extension, local know-how in fields as varied as glassware, cutlery or porcelain manufacturing will be valued. Their protection will be all the more effective as the registration procedure will be simplified by allowing the use of electronic registration or, where appropriate, directly before the European Union Intellectual Protection Office. Finally, to ensure that micro-enterprises and SMEs can benefit from the system, the report has the merit of suggesting that national authorities reduce their registration fees. It is therefore with confidence that I support this text, certain that European companies will be able to seize the growth lever it provides them.

Dear Mr Biteau, I have never said that more pesticides are needed. I agree that there should be measures to take better account of environmental requirements. But let's turn instead to industries that pollute massively. Let us turn instead to the countries that have decided to replace nuclear power with coal. Let’s start by doing this and then we can talk about agriculture.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Green Deal continues to amaze us with unrealistic and dangerous legislation. After the amendment of the Industrial Emissions Directive, which wants farmers to pay the climate bill, the Commission is attacking agriculture as a whole, with its draft regulation aimed at – nothing less – restoring nature. She is attacking our land, the land that generations of farmers before us have worked on, maintained, preserved and passed on. The proposed measures are insane: restoring a large part of terrestrial ecosystems by 2030 and then 100% by 2050 would be catastrophic for our food security. And releasing 25,000 kilometres of rivers would be disastrous for water management. Not to mention the increased bureaucracy with the nature restoration plans that each Member State should develop. By rejecting this text three times, Parliament delivered a clear message: Stop imposing on us delusional environmental ambitions that destroy our agriculture and instead abandon your free trade dogma that only produces more pollution. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there were serious riots in France from 27 June to 3 July, following the tragic death of a young man killed by a police officer in circumstances that justice will have to clarify. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has denounced France’s handling of these riots, as has the European Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders. They criticise the French security forces for excessive use of violence. This is the wrong target. The illegal violence was perpetrated by gangs and thieves, not by law enforcement. 800 police officers, gendarmes and firefighters were injured. I pay tribute to their courage. The UN Committee also calls on France to adopt a law that would prohibit racial profiling. It is to ignore this reality that such a law already exists. The French police are not racist. Its members also come from a variety of backgrounds, such as French society. And when a police officer is suspected of having committed a fault, the French courts take legal action against him. France is not an apartheid country. It is a country that remains faithful to the Declaration of 1789, and Article 12 thereof, which states that the guarantee of human and citizens’ rights requires a public force.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, SLAPPs are legal proceedings whose sole purpose is to intimidate journalists or human rights defenders in order to discourage and silence them. When they are cross-border in nature, the European Union considers that it is up to it to combat them. At first sight, the intention seems laudable, as the stated objective is to protect freedom of expression and ensure that public debate remains possible. But three findings show that EU intervention in this area is not a good idea. First, the circle of people to be protected has been over-extended to include NGO activists. I am not convinced that NGOs are as vulnerable as journalists. Think, for example, of billionaire George Soros. Next, the definition of cross-border cases includes cases whose subject matter is – I quote the text – ‘relevant for more than one Member State or accessible online’, which makes it possible to encompass any case. Finally, the alleged victims will be able to request the early dismissal of the proceedings concerning them and thus benefit from a procedural privilege that appears shocking to anyone who considers that justice must respect the principle of equality. Personally, I do not want to endorse the establishment of two-tier justice. For all these reasons, I refuse to support this project.

Colleagues, the decision to set up a parliamentary committee of inquiry into the use of spyware in Europe was a good idea. I supported it because I believe that Europeans have a right to know to what extent they have been spied on, where and by whom. I was therefore hopeful about the success of this committee when I volunteered to be part of it, and even to become its coordinator on behalf of my group. Today, I have to admit that I find its outcome disappointing. Admittedly, the report resulting from his work has the merit of identifying the various cases of espionage found in Europe, and that is not nothing. However, I would like to draw your attention to a number of problems. Firstly, on a problem with the organisation of missions. The D’Hondt system was applied to determine the composition of missions abroad. This prevented me and any other member of the Identity and Democracy Group from participating in the mission to Greece and Cyprus. This is extremely unfortunate, as respect for pluralism is, in my view, an indispensable condition for the credibility of a committee of inquiry. Secondly, the final recommendation yields too much to the temptation to settle political accounts with certain governments, notably those of Hungary and Poland. Such a lack of impartiality casts doubt on the reality of the findings made, some of which are, however, correct. Third, the Recommendation flickers at the concept of ‘national security’, which justifies the use of espionage by European states, in particular to combat terrorism. However, I consider that national security must remain an area reserved for States. I do not want it to come under the guardianship of the European Union. Finally, the recommendation tends too much to underestimate the need for European states to use spyware, in particular to combat terrorism and organised crime. Using them can prevent future Samuel Paty cases, and this should never be forgotten. By proposing a moratorium that does not say its name, the recommendation is therefore making a serious mistake. Of course, I agree with the purpose of the committee of inquiry, which is to persuade EU Member States to pass national laws to provide legal safeguards against the misuse of spyware. Some countries, such as France, have already done so. But this objective in no way justifies a moratorium. In conclusion, the Committee of Inquiry disappoints with its lack of objectivity and prudence.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ensuring food security and the long-term resilience of European agriculture: This is the lifeblood of the Mortler report. In the EU, 33% of farmers are over the age of 65, and only 12% are under the age of 40. These figures speak for themselves: If we fail to attract young people to agriculture, our food security will be at risk. We must therefore act, and I fully support the solutions listed in the Mortler report: supporting the most fragile agricultural sectors – in particular livestock farming – combating land grabbing by speculators, developing short supply chains, taking advantage of technical progress to use new genomic techniques and precision farming, and cracking down on abusive retail practices. In a hardly credible way, the Mortler report also dares to stand out, albeit timidly, from the two ideologies of the Commission which jeopardise our food security: ultra-liberalism, which transforms our agriculture into a free trade adjustment variable, and radical ecology, embodied in the Farm to Fork Strategy, which leads to agricultural decline. One more effort, and the majority of the European Parliament will eventually join the analyses of the National Rally!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the idea of requiring companies to ensure that their partners respect the environment and human rights throughout their supply chain is attractive. It corresponds to the ambitious goal of a kind of moralisation of capitalism. But it also means putting new and heavy administrative burdens on businesses. This should therefore only be done with caution, after ensuring that entire sectors of the European economy are not destabilised. Certain guarantees have been obtained, for example the exemption of SMEs, which will only be subject to due diligence on a voluntary basis, or the application of the system to large non-European companies trading in Europe. However, uncertainties remain, in particular as to the extent of the environmental obligations to be implemented or as to the disproportionate nature of the supply chain to be taken into account, which is unfortunately not limited to direct business relationships between undertakings. These uncertainties do not allow companies to benefit from an acceptable level of legal certainty. That is why I do not support this text.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in solidarity with Ukraine, the European Union decided in 2022 to welcome its agricultural exports without restriction. The result was not long in coming: Five neighbouring states, including Poland and Hungary, were overwhelmed by Ukrainian cereals. This was foreseeable but, as usual, the Commission did not anticipate anything. Fortunately, she has just reacted after several months of procrastination. Better late than never. It first released EUR 100 million from the emergency fund to help cereal farmers in these five states. It then announced on 2 May that Ukrainian cereals could no longer be sold in these five countries, they could just transit there for dispatch to third countries, in particular North Africa. But there are fears that other EU Member States will in turn be destabilised by their massive arrival. Morality: the Commission fails to have a coherent medium-term agricultural strategy. Just like its Farm to Fork programme, its management of Ukrainian cereals has failed to take into account the realities of the agricultural world.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, European farmers are major players in the green transition. They have already made a lot of efforts to reduce the use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides. Technological progress also allows them today to use virtuous processes, such as local methanisation or precision farming. The new Common Agricultural Policy is designed to encourage them to diversify their efforts, in particular through eco-schemes. Thanks to farmers, the green transition has already begun. However, we must remain reasonable and resist the rush of the Farm to Fork strategy to force it on. The priority of European agriculture is to feed the peoples of Europe. It must never be forgotten. The war in Ukraine has reminded us that our food autonomy is a necessity. However, the Farm to Fork strategy would lead to an agricultural decrease of 15% if applied. For me, this is the real problem that we should be talking about today. Not to suspect farmers of being poor ecological learners, but to denounce the contradiction between this European strategy and the requirement of food autonomy. While we are at it, we should be more concerned about the loss of a sense of the Commission’s realities. For example, von der Leyen and her team want to convert 25% of the agricultural area to organic farming by 2030, while the economic crisis is diverting Europeans from organic products deemed too expensive. In France alone, the consumption of organic products decreased by more than 6% in the first nine months of 2022 and the number of farmers converting from organic to conventional continues to grow. Your Farm to Fork strategy is inadequate, but your pride and certainty of knowing everything better than the people prevent you from admitting it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its latest report, the IPCC denounces the powerlessness of world leaders to limit global warming to +1.5°C, a target set by the 2015 Paris Agreement. Half-measures are no longer an option, he warns. But as he himself points out, the answer must be provided at the global level and not at the level of a single continent. It is therefore necessary to prepare for COP28, which will be held in Dubai next November, in order to achieve this. I warn you against the temptation of the European Union, under the impetus of the Commission, to set itself as a model of virtue and unilaterally impose heavy sacrifices on the various peoples that compose it rather than negotiating comprehensive solutions. Europe does not have to take on all the climate sins of the world on its own. Sacrificing, for example, the productivity of European agriculture will be useless if it leads to increased imports of non-virtuous agricultural products. The EU’s agricultural decline is not a solution but a worsening of the problem. Continuously raising European objectives will be futile if we fail to convince the rest of the world to make efforts comparable to our own.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, according to the European Treaties, public health is a matter for the Member States and not for the European Union. Unfortunately, an ambiguous article of the TFEU, Article 168, still allows the EU to, I quote, ‘complement national policies’. It is on the basis of this article that the Commission is today proposing an EU strategy on global health. There are appalling elements of language that promise us, I quote, ‘universal health coverage by Team Europe’. I give thanks to the people who listen to me about the long self-celebration exercise that is there. The reality is more sinister. The Commission has demonstrated its inability to manage public health during the COVID-19 pandemic: unsuccessful attempts to prevent health controls at national borders, purchase of an inefficient medicine, remdesiviring it for €1 billion, negotiation of vaccine purchases under particularly opaque conditions. In light of this experience, I condemn this new attempt by the Commission to manage public health worldwide. Let the Member States and the World Health Organisation do it! As a Frenchman, I do not want to put the Commission in a position today to decide tomorrow, guided by the ultra-liberalism that inspires it, to dismantle our public hospital service.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the ideal world described by the European petition entitled 'Save bees and farmers', our agricultural production could be completely free of synthetic pesticides. But reality rarely corresponds to the dream. The aim of the petition, which is to eliminate 80% synthetic pesticides by 2030 and 100% by 2035, is unrealistic. Such a programme might save bees, but certainly not European agriculture. If you are not convinced, look at what is happening to French beetroots that the unfortunate combination of a national law and a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union has just completely deprived neonicotinoids. It is of course necessary to reduce the use of synthetic pesticides, but this must be done rationally and scientifically, without linking to dates that do not correspond to anything. This reduction can only be achieved at the pace of research progress that will allow alternatives to be found. New genomic techniques offer promising prospects in this regard. But until then, we must resist the demagogy and whims of the green ayatollahs. The European Union’s priority at this time of international crisis must be to ensure its food autonomy, which means continuing to use synthetic pesticides to the strict extent that they are necessary.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, last month eight Croats were accused of child trafficking in Zambia. They were arrested while trying to leave the country with four African children they claimed to have legally adopted in Congo. This case highlights the potential abuses of international adoption. Admittedly, intercountry adoption must continue to be accepted because it allows a child without a family to find one, which is in his or her best interests. But its recognition must, in my view, be subject to two conditions. First, it should only concern children who are truly isolated and not children who have been torn away or bought from their families. This requirement is laid down in the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993, which distinguishes between international adoption and trafficking in children. On the other hand, recognition of adoption should only be possible if it respects the national law of the host State. I believe, for example, that no one should compel a State to recognize an adoption following surrogacy if that State prohibits surrogacy in its territory. This is what the Commission wants to do with its draft European Parenthood Certificate. That is why I am totally opposed to this project. The determination of the anthropological choices on which family law is based must remain a national competence.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region must be resolved by diplomacy and not by arms. Azerbaijan must put an end to its acts of blockade and harassment and give priority to the negotiations proposed by Armenia. A peace treaty is within reach if Azerbaijan agrees to provide reasonable guarantees to ensure the security and rights of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. Such guarantees could include, inter alia, the establishment of a demilitarized zone around that region or an international presence in the territory populated by Armenians. It is regrettable that Azerbaijan considers the issue of the rights and security of Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh to be exclusively within its internal affairs. This uncompromising attitude unfortunately confirms the fears of the US intelligence services that this country is preparing to launch a new military offensive against Armenia, as it already did last September. This is also what the Prime Minister of Armenia thinks, who has just today called on European Union observers to be vigilant in the hope of avoiding it. Faced with this situation, the Member States of the European Union must unambiguously support Armenia, which is here the victim against Azerbaijan, which is the aggressor. This is all the more necessary since the Armenian people are historically and culturally a European people who fought valiantly against the expansionism of the Ottoman Empire and paid dearly for their spirit of resistance. Victim of genocide by the Turks in 1915, he then came under Soviet rule. Having become independent again in 1991 after the fall of the USSR, Armenia must not be abandoned by the European Union in the face of Azerbaijan's Turkish-backed offensive. European solidarity must work for the benefit of Armenia.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the right of peoples to self-determination is a fundamental right. We cannot, without contradiction, as the European Union has done, defend its principle while prohibiting the British people from benefiting from it. The British people decided in 2016 by referendum to leave the European Union. It is his sovereign choice that must be respected. I regret that, like the Commission, the European Parliament has not stopped stigmatising the United Kingdom since then, as it still does in the Silva Pereira report. Paragraph two of this report, for example, states with some acrimony that, I quote: Brexit has proven detrimental for all parties involved and even more so for the UK. However, I believe that the European Parliament does not have to judge what is good or bad for this country. This is the business of the British people. Let's be positive and move forward. What matters is whether the 2020 Withdrawal Agreement has been properly implemented. In this respect, the pessimism of the report seems to me to be misplaced for two reasons. First, because it voluntarily focuses on implementation difficulties rather than successes. Difficulties in application were inevitable. It was not to be hoped that all the problems generated by such a complex withdrawal agreement would be resolved within two years. What matters is that successes are indisputable. For example, the United Kingdom did establish permanent resident status for some EU nationals, as it had committed to do. Another example of success is that the Independent Review Authority is functioning and has even appealed to the UK courts, which has resulted in a conviction of misapplication of the agreement by the UK government. The second reason why the report's pessimism is misplaced is because of the Windsor framework, which has just denied its gloomy analyses of Northern Ireland. This win-win agreement preserves the EU's common market while addressing the UK's legitimate concerns in two ways. First, by creating green corridors that will allow it to export from Great Britain goods destined solely for Northern Ireland, with reduced red tape. Secondly, by introducing an emergency brake enabling the British Government, at the request of the Belfast Parliament, to prevent the application in Northern Ireland of certain new EU provisions. Only one point seems to me to be problematic at the end of the day: it concerns the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is not well accepted by the United Kingdom, and which it would probably be preferable to replace by an arbitral tribunal specialising in Northern Ireland.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, fertilisers are essential for ensuring sufficient agricultural production and food security. The increase in their cost, due to war and speculation, puts European farmers in a critical situation, which requires finding solutions in the short and medium term. In the short term, the absurd Farm to Fork target of reducing fertiliser use by 20% by 2030 must be abandoned. The urgency is to provide financial support to farmers to enable them to cope with the exponential increase in the cost of fertilisers. This requires using the crisis reserve, releasing state aid and looking for other sources of EU funding outside the CAP. It is also necessary to prolong the temporary suspension of import duties for all mineral fertilisers, except those of Russian or Belarusian origin. In the medium term, States should be encouraged to amend their national strategic plans to promote the use of organic fertilisers, such as slurry, digestate, frass and sewage sludge. The mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework should also be used to strengthen the CAP budget. Last but not least, a well-functioning European fertiliser industry needs to be developed. These solutions are within our reach, but they require strong political will to be implemented.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the revolution of 2011 gave Tunisia the hope of becoming a prosperous democracy. Unfortunately, those hopes were dashed when the Islamists of Ennahdha came to power. It is in this context that President Saïed decided on 25 July 2021 to take full powers and suspend the Tunisian Parliament. This was a matter of concern to the European Parliament in its resolution of 21 October 2021. Subsequently, President Saïed held a referendum on 25 July 2022 to change the Tunisian constitution, but only 30% of Tunisians participated. The recent parliamentary elections in December and January saw an even worse turnout: Only 11% of voters have moved. It is almost a world record for a democratic country. The legitimacy of the new regime therefore seems fragile. Nevertheless, President Saïed’s popularity remains important, and the opposition is unable to embody a credible solution. That is why I believe that the European Union must continue to support Tunisia, of which it is the largest trading partner, by betting that the situation will gradually improve there. It is not sanctions that Tunisia needs, but our help to return to the path of stability and prosperity.