Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its judgment of 19 January, the Court of Justice of the European Union prohibited the use of neonicotinoids by the process of coating beet seed. This decision places French beet growers in a very worrying situation. One in four beet growers has already shown a willingness to throw in the towel and switch to other crops. In the short term, therefore, French sugar production risks collapsing. The French Minister for Agriculture has just undertaken to compensate 100% of any losses in beet production attributable to the lack of treatment. Responding to my inquiry, the Commissioner for Agriculture stated that he would accept this exceptional national aid. I therefore hope that these commitments will be respected in order to encourage French beet growers to continue their production.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate before us today is quite astonishing. It addresses the terrorist threats of far-right networks. Of course, all terrorist threats must be condemned and combated, wherever they come from. But it is clear that in Europe the main attacks have been carried out for several years by radical Islam. In France, we are well placed to know this. Therefore, turning a blind eye to this reality seems very suspicious to me. I am convinced that this artificial debate is only intended to ignite a counterfire to the Qatar Gate scandal that has set the left in the European Parliament on fire. I am not fooled by this pitiful attempt, which once again serves Qatar's interests. If you want to denounce terrorism, focus instead on Islamist terrorism and stop blindfolding yourself to the actions of your Qatari friends. Investigate Qatar's troubled links to Islamist terrorism.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the 2021 report on the fight against fraud is based on a worrying observation: the amount of irregularities exceeds EUR 3 billion, compared to 1.5 billion in 2020. It therefore proposes several measures to try to remedy this situation. Some are interesting, such as the suggestion to oblige the Commission to produce an annual report on corruption. Given the Qatar Gate, this is a welcome proposal. Others, on the other hand, are trying to take advantage of the situation to speed up the federalisation of the EU. I am totally hostile to it. I am against the proposal to increase the powers of OLAF and the EPPO, which have just given evidence of their blindness. Against the stigmatisation of the five Member States that refused to join the EPPO, which is their right. And against extending the conditionality mechanism to deny subsidies to states that did not cooperate sufficiently with OLAF and the EPPO. It is not by transforming the EU into a schlague Europe that its credibility will be restored.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament's report on the common security and defence policy is based on a lie. He would like to make believe that a European Defence Union is possible and desirable, but in reality it is an anthem to NATO, which he quotes 60 times. Therefore, its objective as a European Defence Union is only a decoy intended to support a new embarkation towards a federal Europe. This is evidenced by paragraph 23 thereof, which calls, on the one hand, for unanimity voting to be replaced by qualified majority voting in defence matters, and, on the other hand, for joint and permanent multinational military units to be set up, I quote. In other words, a European army. This, then, is the perspective that has been set out for us: a European army under NATO command. As a Frenchman, I protest vigorously against this disastrous project, which I consider totally contrary to France's vital interests and military sovereignty. France’s military infeodation of foreign interests will not pass.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for France, freedom is the right of every individual to extricate himself from his biological and cultural determinisms. For this reason, it does not recognise the existence of any minority or community that would constitute an obstacle between the individual and the nation. Conversely, the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic Minorities, adopted by the UN in 1992, seeks to institutionalise these obstacles. It is therefore incompatible with the French conception of freedom. Article 1 calls on States to protect the existence and national or ethnic identity of minorities living on their territory. On the contrary, France endeavours to promote the assimilation of persons from these minorities into the national community, which is the only community it recognises. By celebrating the 30th anniversary of this declaration, the European Parliament is proving that it is completely alien to French political tradition. It thus confirms its lack of legitimacy to speak on behalf of the French people.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the discovery by the Belgian judiciary of a corruption system organised by Qatar is discrediting the European Parliament. This "Qatargate" should prompt us to make three decisions. First, to demand the resignation of Mr Raphaël Glucksmann from the Chair of the Committee of Inquiry into Foreign Interference. Blinded by his prejudices, he accused me by name and without proof, on this podium, of being in the service of Russia, while real corruption flourished under his nose among his socialist friends. Next, investigate the strange dizziness of OLAF and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which preferred to look elsewhere rather than look into the massive corruption by Qatar, which public rumour had long denounced. Finally, immediately stop wanting to strengthen the European Parliament and the Commission, which are seen to be the prey of the most detestable lobbies. Instead, let us trust the Council, the only legitimate representative of the Member States in the EU. Let’s use the ‘Qatargate’ to raise the bar and replace the Union of lobbyists and money powers with a Europe of nations.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, unanimity is a fundamental principle of European integration. It is the weapon that allows each EU Member State to block a decision that would harm its vital interests. General de Gaulle recalled this, on behalf of France, in 1965, when he practised the empty chair policy to force Europe to give up imposing a reform that he did not want. Its victorious resistance resulted in the Luxembourg compromise of January 1966, still in force, which enshrines this national veto power. Unanimity is still enshrined in the European Treaties. It is required for decisions of the European Council and for the most important decisions of the Council. I therefore condemn his questioning by President Macron and by today's debate. The majority of this Parliament criticises Hungary for vetoing aid to Ukraine in protest against the freezing of its subsidies. On the contrary, I consider that Hungary was right to do so. Moreover, its firmness has just enabled it to find an arrangement with the EU. Let us protect unanimity, as this is the only principle that allows Member States to retain their sovereignty within the Union.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report before us today makes a fair observation: there is a worrying decline in rural areas; they are deserted by public services and neglected by the younger generations. Symptom of this disaffection, the expected disappearance of 62% of farms by 2040 is dramatic, as it is a direct threat to our food autonomy. The solutions proposed to us reflect a sadly ideological view of the problem. The report aims to develop new sources of income for rural areas, including the production of renewable energy. I believe that it is up to us to protect the unparalleled wealth of our agricultural heritage before scattering into risky energy policies. It then seeks to roll back campaigns under the assaults of the European Green Deal and its Farm to Fork Strategy. I challenge this objective of agricultural degrowth, because it leads us to an economic and environmental impasse. Finally, it responds to demographic desertification by protecting the rights of migrants in the countryside. I believe that it is imperative to first protect the rights of European farmers, who are victims of Brussels’ harmful trade policy. Full of cynicism: The Commission announces the doubling of imports of chickens from Chile, in addition to the concessions currently being negotiated with Mexico and Mercosur. Agriculture is no longer a variable for adjusting European policies; She has become a martyr. The revitalization of rural areas will not require yet another European monitoring body, which will decide instead of the Member States, let alone an intensification of Brussels' free trade policy. The solution is primarily agricultural. Let us not lose sight of the real subject: trust our farmers to meet the challenges ahead and finally provide them with a decent income.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, equality between men and women is a fundamental principle of European civilisation. That is why I am in favour of this directive, which calls on EU Member States to achieve a better gender balance on the boards of large companies. From that point of view, the objective, together with adjustments, of reserving at least 40% of non-executive director posts to the under-represented sex by 2026 seems reasonable to me. In the short term, it is obviously women who will benefit from this measure. As Iranian women fight for their freedom in the face of the mullahs’ obscurantist regime, I welcome the beautiful message of hope we are sending them today. Yes, real equality of rights is possible between men and women. No, there are no insurmountable obstacles on the road to it, be it economic, social or religious.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the name of respect for the rule of law, the European Union now has the exorbitant power to exercise ideological tutelage over its Member States. When the Conditionality Regulation, which gives it this power, was voted in December 2020, I protested against this authoritarian drift. The facts now prove me right. The EU is threatening to deprive Hungary of the €7.5 billion in grants to which it is entitled, as well as almost €6 billion in aid under the post-COVID recovery plan. The reason for this is the alleged lack of independence of the Hungarian judiciary. However, Hungary has just announced a reform of its justice system to reassure the EU. Nevertheless, European blackmail persists. In those circumstances, I consider it normal that Hungary threatens to block certain European decisions by way of retaliation. Like every state, Hungary has the right to defend its vital interests. I therefore unambiguously support Viktor Orbán in his standoff against the Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, racism and anti-Semitism are unacceptable. Each of their manifestations must be sanctioned with the utmost severity. French republican universalism and EU values require that all individuals be treated equally, regardless of their ethnicity and skin colour. Equality between men and women is also a fundamental principle, which must be defended without weakness. All discrimination and violence against women must be combated and repressed. Barbaric practices such as forced marriage or genital mutilation must be eradicated and not tolerated under the pretext of respecting traditions or religions. The Incir report has the merit of recalling these main principles. Unfortunately, it is a pity that it spoils while yielding to the excesses of wokism. There is nothing missing. He bluntly denounces, I quote, ‘structural and institutionalised racism’, ‘intersectional discrimination’, ‘police violence against racialised groups’, ‘negative stereotyping with racial connotations of the media’ and even ‘structural prejudices of judicial systems’, which he sums up in the shock phrase ‘racial justice’. I denounce these despicable accusations, which discredit the EU Member States and in particular my country, France. No, ladies and gentlemen, France is not a racist state. Justice fully respects the principle of equality. As for the police, I would point out that they work under their control and that any personal misconduct on the part of a police officer is punishable under criminal law. Let's be proud of our civilization. Let's face it without disfiguring it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the globalisation of capitalism promotes the violation of human rights and the degradation of the environment. Large companies in the European Union, like those in the United States, rely on supply chains that are sourced in poor and therefore vulnerable countries. Everyone remembers the tragedy of the Rana Plaza in 2013, a dilapidated building in Bangladesh that housed workers working for major Western brands and whose collapse caused more than 1,000 deaths. It is in an attempt to address this kind of abuse that the Durand report, which we are debating, proposes to compel large companies to publish information on the human rights and environmental impacts of their actions throughout their supply chain. During the discussions, I had laid down two conditions to support this text. First, exempt SMEs from this constraint, except on a voluntary basis, as most of them would find it difficult to cope with it. Second, subject large non-European companies operating in the EU to it in order to avoid distorting competition vis-à-vis large European companies. Both conditions have been met. I therefore support this text, which should respond to the legitimate aspirations of European nations by making a start on the moralization of capitalism.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the exponential increase in the price of fertilisers puts European farmers in a very worrying situation. The Commission seems to have taken stock of the severity of the crisis, but its reactions are disappointing. It has, of course, just enabled EU Member States to provide EUR 250 000 in financial support for agricultural holdings. This is a welcome emergency measure, but it will not be enough, and the Commission seems to be struggling to come up with alternative solutions in the short term. For example, it is reluctant to use the crisis reserve for 2023, which seems to me to be planned to deal with this type of event. On the other hand – and above all – it has just refused to lift the surcharges imposed in 2019 on fertilisers from Trinidad and Tobago and the United States, even though that lifting had been requested by COPA and Cogeca, which represent a very large number of European farmers. The urgency is not to reflect on the European strategy for fertilisers in the medium term – as the Commission has just done in its communication of 9 November, which is also a good communication – but to help farmers as quickly as possible.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Political Community met for the first time on 6 October. It brought together in Prague the presidents or heads of government of 44 European states, including the 27 members of the European Union, but also states such as the United Kingdom, Armenia and Ukraine. This new body could have been a good idea if it had foreshadowed the creation of a confederal Europe of Nations. In the long term, it could then have been an alternative, respectful of the sovereignty of the European States, to the overly centralised model of the European Union. Unfortunately, the opposite is the case. It was only created, at the initiative of President Macron, to attract independent European states into the EU’s orbit. This explains why the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission were invited to take part. Far from announcing a Europe of nations, the European Political Community is therefore only an expression of EU imperialism trying to take advantage of the fragility of the United Kingdom under Liz Truss and the plight of Armenia and Ukraine to advance its pawns. The failure of the 6 October meeting, which resulted in nothing, shows the vanity of this undertaking. The European Political Community is dead, long live the Europe of Nations!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the construction of democracy is not a tranquil river, but rather a path fraught with pitfalls. We French people know something about it. It took the revolution of 1789, the terrible episode of Terror, and then a long succession of more or less authoritarian regimes, for us to finally succeed, in the 1870s, in stabilizing our democracy. Tunisia is living this difficult but exciting adventure of building its democracy. The 2011 revolution proved the determination of the Tunisian people to take their destiny into their own hands. However, serious economic difficulties have delayed the achievement of these objectives, so much so that part of society has been able to give in to the temptation of Islamism. It was in this context of crisis that President Saïed took full power in July 2021. I want to believe in his sincerity when he shows his willingness to right his country and establish a true democracy. He kept his commitments. A new Constitution was adopted by referendum last August and parliamentary elections will be held in December. Ladies and gentlemen, let us bet on trust, let us support President Saïed, let us help Tunisia.

Madam President, Mr President of the European Court of Auditors, ladies and gentlemen, the report of the European Court of Auditors reveals an increase in suspicions of fraud in EU spending: Fifteen cases in 2021 compared to only six in 2020. This is a worrying finding. More generally, the report also notes a significant increase in the percentage of errors: 3% vs. 2.7. However, this increase seems to me even more worrying than that relating to fraud, because it reveals collective wanderings and not only individual abuses. I would like to cite the example of contracts for the purchase of COVID vaccines. The Court openly accuses the Commission, I quote, of not having properly verified whether the financial conditions of those contracts had been complied with. We discover with astonishment that the Commission has given blind trust to vaccine manufacturers. It did not verify the accuracy of their production costs, the use of the advance payments they received, or whether they should benefit from secret blanket disclaimers. It is clearer from these damning pages why the European Parliament set up a committee of inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic on 10 March. I expect the Commission to determine whether these surprising errors are solely due to gross negligence or whether they reveal criminally reprehensible conflicts of interest.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with the Commission on the urgent need for a European fertiliser strategy. It is indeed urgent to help our farmers get them at an affordable price. This is important for them, but also to ensure our food security and that of third countries. However, I regret the errors made by the Commission on this file. On 10 August, it published guidelines by which it decided to block the export of Russian agricultural fertilisers. However, that embargo was at odds with an international agreement signed on 22 July under the aegis of the United Nations. This situation led the UN Secretary-General to protest to Ms von der Leyen. However, it was not until 19 September and pressure from several EU Member States that the Commission lifted the fertiliser embargo. Morality: We lost five weeks, during which we worsened the fertiliser crisis instead of trying to solve it. The strategy we are presented with today is therefore welcome, but it is coming very late. This reinforces my conviction that the Commission is unfit to deal with crises, whatever their nature. In any case, let’s move forward: I take note of what the Commissioner for Agriculture has just said, I share his clear-sighted assessment of the seriousness of the fertiliser crisis, but I believe that the financial aid to farmers that he has presented is not sufficient to respond to it. I am waiting for a real strategy, which will make it possible, among other things, to bring home the manufacture of the fertilisers we need.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to France, the European Union is a great space power. This gives him responsibilities, including participating in the international management of space traffic. I therefore welcome these efforts to try to address the problem of space debris, the increase of which jeopardises the security of space operations. The sustainability requirement should not be limited to terrestrial space. It must also extend to outer space. That is why I agree with the two guidelines set out in the European Parliament resolution: avoid generating new space debris and clean up existing debris. These efforts will honour the EU, if we agree to implement them despite their financial cost. Thanks to them, I very much hope that space will stop being turned into trash. Space conquest is a technological challenge, but also a formidable human adventure. Let's lead it in an exemplary way.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the face of war, international law requires the aggressor to be denounced and the aggressor to be defended. I therefore strongly condemn the aggression against Ukraine and Russia's annexation of four Ukrainian regions. This is an unacceptable attack on the territorial integrity of a sovereign State. Refusal of armed conflict resolution is a fundamental rule of international law. From Grotius to Aristide Briand to Victor Hugo, the defenders of a society of peaceful nations have always rejected the use of armed force. These demands are, of course, primarily addressed to Russia and its president, who has unfortunately chosen to call for armed aggression against a sovereign country. But they also concern the President of the European Commission, who recently came to tell us that only the military outcome should conclude this dramatic conflict that is tearing the peoples of Europe apart. No, the European Union must not give in to blind warmongering. Let everyone be aware of this here. This conflict can only be definitively resolved through a ceasefire and negotiation. The belligerents who sit in Brussels must stop this mad escalation that obeys Washington's slogan of humiliating Russia. Following the example of General de Gaulle, I wish for a multipolar world in which France and Europe would play their role as a power of peace rather than agreeing to be the stepping stone of the American omnipotence.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report by Mr Goerens and Mr Wieland seeks to strengthen the role of European political parties. In particular, it aims to make it easier for them to participate in European campaigns as well as national campaigns on European themes. I am, of course, hostile to this, as it would be an additional means of spreading Europeanist propaganda at the heart of national election campaigns. The report makes no secret of this, since it states that it wants to contribute to the creation of a European political area. In addition to the fact that millions of euros are squandered on this adventure, the company has the disadvantage of reviving the project of creating transnational lists, since each transnational list is intended to be carried by a European political party. In theory, nationalist movements like the RN and its allies could at least defend themselves by forming their own European political parties. But in practice, they would sooner or later be prevented from doing so, as the report already suspects them of being corrupted by Putin. The ideological censorship tool is already in place with the supervisory authority. After democracy without people, the European Union is inventing one-way electoral competition. I'm not fooled by your shenanigans. In the face of the oligarchic and anti-national offensive that you support, I advocate the abolition of European political parties, the banning of transnational lists and the organisation in each Member State of a referendum on the transformation of the EU into a federal state.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our partnership with the countries of the Mediterranean must be strengthened. This is necessary to address the consequences of the health crisis and the war in Ukraine that have hit our partners on the other side hard. It is in our interest to provide them with financial assistance and to develop our economic and cultural exchanges with them in order to contribute to their stability. Because if some of these countries were to sink into instability, like, alas, Libya, we would bear the terrible consequences: migration submergence, insecurity, terrorism. But of course, the European Union must stop its angelism. The disbursement of this aid must be conditional on the achievement of objectives that we must negotiate firmly. I give an example. In return, the States that receive our assistance should agree to take back the illegal migrants of their nationality whom we decide to return. In foreign policy, only states and international organizations that defend their interests without failing are respected.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, forests cover 43% of the surface of the European Union. Their sustainable management is therefore a major challenge, both economically and ecologically. But contrary to the Müller report, forest management is a national competence and not a competence shared with the EU. I therefore do not agree with the EU interfering. France is perfectly capable of managing its forests. It has even acquired expertise in this area with its National Forestry Office. It therefore does not need the supervision of the Commission and its punitive and retrograde approach to environmental protection. Finally, I would add that this interference is intended to be financed by levies from the Common Agricultural Policy budget. However, I also oppose it, because farmers do not need to be made worse by reducing the budget allocated to them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is a need to improve the European legislative process, which lacks transparency and clarity for citizens. The Wölken report has the merit of indicating several avenues for improvement, which is why I support it. Among the good recommendations of this report, I will mention in particular the respect of multilingualism against the omnipotence of English, the preparation of real impact assessments for legislative proposals, or the systematic consideration of the specificity of SMEs to reduce their administrative burdens. I particularly support the suggestion to strengthen the weight of national parliaments in the European legislative process, because the European Union will not be able to survive if it does not clearly show its respect for the sovereignty of the nations of which it is composed. The mirage of a federal state with European sovereignty on behalf of a so-called European people must be dispelled. The European Union is and can be nothing but an international organisation. It is with this in mind that I support it. If it tries to transform itself into a federal state, as President Macron’s Conference on the Future of Europe calls for, then a red line will be crossed in the eyes of the nationalist I am and I will become its determined adversary.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate on the alleged relations of the Russian government with the populist parties of the European Union is nothing more than a web of defamation intended to mislead public opinion. This process of low politics is doomed to failure. We saw it in France: its use by President Macron did not prevent the Rassemblement national from achieving a historic result in the parliamentary elections. The deeper aim of this debate is to create a diversion in an attempt to conceal the special report presented by the European Court of Auditors on 30 June. This report denounces the systematic recourse by the Commission to consultancy firms for sums that give rise to vertigo: EUR 1 billion per year. In it, the Court clearly denounces the lack of transparency of that process and the risk of a conflict of interest arising therefrom. The European Parliament should take up this issue, which raises the problem of the proper use of public funds and the interference of private and often non-European interests in the drafting of European laws. I note, alas, that he prefers to hide this scandal.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, facilitating the export of Ukrainian agricultural products is vital for the Ukrainian economy, but also for global food security. According to a report published on 29 June by the FAO and the OECD, an additional 19 million people could suffer from hunger as early as 2023, mainly in Africa, if the situation remains stalled. This would cause serious humanitarian problems, but also an increased risk of migratory flooding. Every effort must therefore be made to enable Ukraine to resume its exports. The priority is to lift the blockade of Ukrainian seaports through diplomatic channels. This is urgent, because with the blockade, more than 22 million tonnes of cereals are already blocked in Ukrainian warehouses, even before the new harvest. Regardless of the success of this undertaking, new export corridors must also be created, as the Commission has stated. This is a huge logistical challenge, as it is hard to imagine how 22 million tonnes of cereals could be trucked out. It is therefore also necessary to use rail transport, with the technical difficulty that Ukrainian rails do not have the same gauge as European rails, which requires transhipment at the border. In addition, there is a need to convince Member States to speed up customs controls and increase their storage capacity for Ukrainian cereals. These are challenges that must be addressed in the name of a priority public interest: ensuring global food security.