Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimity rule in the Council protects the sovereignty of the EU Member States in sovereign areas, particularly in tax matters. I am not surprised that the French presidency seeks to call it into question since Emmanuel Macron has always wanted to replace national sovereignty with so-called European sovereignty. In today's fight between Hungary and the French Presidency, I therefore support Hungary. That State has the right, in order to defend its national interests, to veto the adoption by the Union of a tax reform. Admittedly, I agree with the content of that tax reform, which consists in taxing the profits of large multinationals at a rate of 15%. I therefore regret its blocking, but the responsibility for it lies with the EU: pay Hungary the European Recovery Plan funds to which it is entitled instead of freezing them for purely ideological reasons, and Hungary will lift its veto. Morality: the unanimity rule is the best weapon at a state’s disposal to defend its sovereignty, as General de Gaulle demonstrated in 1965.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, should the European Parliament be recognised as having a direct and general right of legislative initiative? It all depends on how we think about the European Union. If, like the rapporteur Paulo Rangel, we want to transform the Union into a state, then this must be done so that the European Parliament has powers comparable to those of a national parliament. But if, like me, we think that the Union must remain a mere international organisation, then there can be no question of that. For in this vision, it is the Council, as the representative of the Member States, which must hold the legislative initiative, as already provided for in certain areas in Articles 76, 121 and 241 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. It is therefore necessary to withdraw the power of legislative initiative from the Commission, a body democratically unworthy of exercising it, but to transfer it to the Council and not to the European Parliament. In my view, the European Parliament is only the deliberative body of an international organisation and not the representative of a sovereign European people that does not exist.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament seems to take great pleasure in attacking states that dare to resist the EU’s doxa. The Reintke report thus uses the examination of the rule of law situation in the EU as a pretext for falling into an overbidding position vis-à-vis the Commission. It is attacking Poland and Hungary incomprehensibly, at a time when these two states are hosting millions of Ukrainian refugees in an exemplary manner. And in paragraph 16, he dares to assert that EU law prevails over national constitutions in defiance of the will freely expressed in those same constitutions by sovereign peoples. Faced with these claims, I assert that France and its European partners are not incapacitated persons under guardianship whom the Commission and Parliament could reprimand on the basis of subjective and biased considerations. It is the Member States that are the real driving force behind European cooperation, and this must never be forgotten. It is the States that are the custodians of the sovereignty of the peoples and not the European Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the creation by the European Parliament of a committee of inquiry into the Pegasus scandal is good news. Admittedly, this spyware case falls primarily within the competence of the Member States, since national politicians have been victims of it, such as the Spanish Prime Minister or, even if he disputes it, the President of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron. Several of these States have already set up their own committees of inquiry. But the European Union is also affected by the fact that, among the figures spied on, there are several MEPs and the Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders. Moreover, the large number of citizens of all EU nationalities, spied on via their smartphones, justifies the European Parliament joining efforts with those of the Member States. Our committee of inquiry will therefore have to clarify several points. First, it will have to determine the extent of the espionage carried out, identifying its victims as precisely as possible. Then, it will have to unmask the states or organizations that were the sponsors of this espionage. In this regard, I will ensure, as a member of this committee, that no charges are published in the final report without sufficient evidence. Finally, we must draw the consequences of this case by proposing solutions to prevent such serious espionage from happening again as much as possible. I am pleased that the first meeting of the Committee of Inquiry on 19 April was instructive. The experts interviewed have already given me a lot and the investigation programme, which we have agreed on, promises to be exciting. It is therefore with confidence and determination that I will participate in this survey, the importance of which for the future of our European democracies seems to me essential.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 2020 was marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted the work of the Court of Justice of the EU. The Court nevertheless managed to decide 1,540 cases against 1,739 in 2019, which is meritorious. In particular, it has innovated by organising remote oral argument via videoconferencing with simultaneous interpretation. It also used 99% of its appropriations, which is all the more satisfactory given that the appropriations used were mainly for expenditure on staff and infrastructure, in particular IT. Finally, the average length of proceedings for cases before the Court of Justice and the General Court fell to less than 15 and a half months, the highest level of speed ever achieved. For all these reasons, I am in favour, like the Committee on Legal Affairs, of discharge in respect of the implementation of the Court’s 2020 budget. I would point out, however, that the Court of Auditors, whose President I welcome, issued a reserved report on 21 December 2020 on the effectiveness of doubling the number of judges of the General Court. This issue will therefore need to be further explored in the future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a technological revolution is taking place. The development of artificial intelligence will transform our lives in ways that most men and women still have trouble imagining. The European Union must encourage this new manifestation of human creativity, as it is a tremendous promise of economic progress. It is more than time, because in the face of competition from the United States and China, we Europeans have already fallen far behind. If we are not to become a digital colony of external powers, we need to support European research, foster the emergence of start-ups in our Member States and avoid market concentration by ensuring SMEs’ access to the artificial intelligence economy. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Axel Voss, for ensuring that these priorities are reiterated. Of course, artificial intelligence is not safe. In the hands of authoritarian regimes, it can lead to mass surveillance and a serious restriction of freedoms, of which the questionable generalization of the sanitary pass has given us a first idea. It is therefore necessary to regulate its use by obliging it to respect human rights, including patients’ health rights. As the author of the report of 20 January 2021 on the use of artificial intelligence in the military and sovereign domains, I would also like to reiterate the need to regulate, under the aegis of the UN, the use of lethal autonomous weapons systems, more commonly known as killer robots. Again, Mr Voss' report has the merit of recalling this. The Identity and Democracy Group places particular emphasis on the risks of censorship and the denial of pluralism that this technology could foster. Under no circumstances should the use of artificial intelligence, in particular to filter online content, hinder freedom of expression, in particular freedom of political expression. As one famous French revolutionary put it: “the storms of political discussion are only the pains of the birth of freedom”. A final danger lies in the temptation to use artificial intelligence to aggravate the social segregation suffered by rural residents in several Member States, such as France, to the benefit of metropolitan residents. This will require a fair roll-out of 5G across our territories: the challenge is fundamental, because if we succeed, we will even be able, thanks to this democratisation of access to artificial intelligence, to reduce inequalities and make this technology an instrument for social progress.

Dear colleague, I spoke about a very specific situation in which states are instrumentalising hundreds of migrants. I cited two examples, Belarus and Turkey, to bring migrants to France. And it is obvious that in this case they are probably not asylum seekers. And therefore, I think our role is to negotiate with the countries that send these migrants to stop such actions. Because if we give in, well, we'll disappear.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the refoulement of asylum seekers cannot be denounced without distinguishing between two very different situations facing the Member States of the European Union. When genuine refugees apply for asylum, they show a great sense of hospitality. This has been seen with Ukrainian refugees. On the other hand, when Turkey or Belarus instrumentalize migrants to organize our migratory submergence, we can understand that the frontline states, such as Poland or Greece, refuse to let them in. Rather than attacking these two Member States, the European Union would do better to thank them for defending our civilisation. Because if we give in today to the few thousand migrants, who come from other continents abusing the right to asylum, we will encourage millions more to do the same in the medium term. Personally, I don't want to. Between resistance and submission, I choose resistance. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question.)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament and the European Union more generally have the art of acting in a hurry. You are attacking Hungary for violating the rule of law, but the Hungarian people have just denied your fears by making Viktor Orbán triumph over the heterogeneous electoral coalition you supported. You are attacking Poland by accusing it of violating European values, but the Polish people have just proved the inanity of these reproaches by welcoming Ukrainian refugees with admirable generosity. Hungary and Poland, respectively, have just given you lessons in democracy and humanism, but you have such ideological blinders that you do not even see it. The European Union does not live up to European civilisation when it sinks so deep into hubris. The rule of law theory should respect democracy and not be instrumentalised against it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Kalniete report has the merit of denouncing foreign interference in the democratic processes of the European Union, in particular through disinformation. This is, in itself, a good thing, as foreign disinformation, notably Russian and Chinese, is a reality. The report also has the merit of providing an acceptable definition of disinformation, which it presents as misleading information, intentionally disseminated with the aim of destabilising society. It thus distinguishes it from misinformation, which it defines as false information disclosed in good faith, without intent to harm. Wisely, he notes, and I quote recital (V), that there is a fine line between freedom of expression and disinformation and that it must not be crossed. This is the best moment of this long report, sad as a day without bread. The rest is dark in the defamation of the opponents of the European federalists. In short, he is attacking the ruling parties in Poland and Hungary by accusing them, in recital (X), of having received, I quote, millions of euros in foreign funding to promote traditional or conservative values. Even more brutally, he accuses by name, without any evidence, the National Rally and the Lega, I quote his recital (BG), of being willing to accept political funding from Russia. If we want to find French politicians with proven money links to foreign states, it is not on the side of the leaders of the Rassemblement National that we must turn. Let's look instead at former Prime Ministers Jean-Pierre Raffarin and François Fillon, respectively hired by Chinese and Russian companies. But obviously, the report prefers to distract, because the first of the two is support from President Macron. Finally, it is questionable whether the Kalniete report itself is the best example of foreign interference, as it suspiciously insists on increasing the already huge European funding of NGOs, under the pretext of allowing them to combat foreign influence. However, NGOs are often financed by non-European capital, such as that of US billionaire George Soros. And they destabilise our European societies just as much as some foreign states, especially when they organise our migratory flooding. They are, therefore, bodies of foreign interference which the report should have denounced and which I denounce in its place, on this rostrum.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, racism is a reality that must be combated, but it must be fought in the name of our values, in particular equality, and not by invoking a communitarian thought of American origin. But what do we see today? Under the pretext of combating racism, the Yenbou report endorses the most harmful prejudices and fashionable ideologies. According to this report, structural racism would govern the institutions of European states. It expresses itself in particular through police violence, the victims of which, I quote, are persecuted by the public authorities. The media and school curricula are also said to have been guilty of spreading racist stereotypes, maintained in particular by the memory of colonization. This apocalyptic analysis is the fruit of the ‘woke’ ideology, which the report unabashedly endorses. There is nothing missing: neither the apology for so-called racialised communities, nor the paradigm of the intersectional approach, nor the hatred of our civilisation, which leads it to demand that history books be rewritten. The unbolting of the statues is not far away. The paradox is that, far from combating racism, this "woke" ideology yields to a new form of racism which consists in locking the individual in his ethnicity of origin by depriving him of the hope of merging into his nation. Where the French Revolution promised every individual freedom, emancipation through citizenship, ‘wokism’ yields to the determinism of biological characteristics and promotes a twilight world of racial communities doomed to endless confrontation. I strongly protest against this new obscurantism which is conquering the European Parliament. Colleagues, I urge you, on behalf of the Enlightenment that shaped our ideal, to resist its offensive.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, cancers, both occupational and non-occupational, are the second leading cause of death in the countries of the European Union, after cardiovascular diseases. They are responsible for about a quarter of the total number of deaths. They also put national health and social care systems, public budgets, productivity and economic growth to the test. For these reasons, the fight against cancer must be strengthened. There is a political consensus to support this goal. It is in this context that we are now undertaking to improve the protection of workers from the risks related to their exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work. Cancers account for 52% of occupational deaths each year, and that is far too much. To achieve this improvement, it is necessary to amend Directive 2004/37/EC, which is the basic text to protect workers against cancer. The Committee on Legal Affairs voted 15 amendments to make a difference. Among the main recommendations, one recommends, in the interests of transparency, that medical prescriptions be drawn up only after consultation with the economic and social actors concerned. Another suggests taking advantage of national and European recovery plans to fund research programmes on risks to workers' health. A third one draws attention to the particular case of workers exposed to a cocktail of dangerous substances, which would require a downward revision of the limit values to take into account the combined effects of these products. In the same vein, a fourth emphasises the carcinogenic nature of cobalt, which should give rise to specific limit values. Other amendments specify deadlines, including a period of at least every five years to review the limit values. I conclude with two more general considerations. The Committee on Legal Affairs draws your particular attention to the fact that SMEs and micro-enterprises have limited financial, technical and human resources. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the application of the Directive does not cause them to suffer disproportionate consequences. Finally, the Committee would like to point out that the Directive does not prevent those States which so wish from introducing even more protective provisions. In conclusion, the fight against cancer is a major European cause, to which the Committee on Legal Affairs is pleased to contribute.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 16 February the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Poland and Hungary against the European regulation of 16 December 2020, which creates a ‘conditionality’ mechanism. Both countries have attacked because they know very well that they will be the first victims. This mechanism consists in depriving Member States of all or part of European subsidies when they violate, I quote the regulation, ‘the principles of the rule of law’. Poland and Hungary will therefore suffer the brunt of this, as the EU accuses them, albeit boldly, of having reformed their national justice system. The Court has wronged them. This was expected, as it has always interpreted European law in a federalist sense and denying the sovereignty of states. However, two arguments should have led to the victory of both countries. First, the argument that that mechanism circumvents the penalty procedure laid down in Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, which requires a unanimous vote by the Member States in order to establish the fault and decide on the penalty. However, the Court rejects that argument by reasoning of Byzantine subtlety, explaining that it is a matter of protecting the EU budget and not of penalising the offending State. Next, the argument alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since no one knows in advance what exactly the concept of ‘rule of law’ covers. That complaint is correct, since the European Parliament has just included in it the principle of the primacy of EU law, which was not included until now. However, the Court rejects this argument cavalierly, referring the ignorant to the study of its own case-law on the question. The European Union has therefore reached a new stage in its transformation into an authoritarian and arrogant entity. The urgency of replacing it with a Europe of nations has never been greater, because we do not want a new empire in which a misguided liberal ideology would play the role formerly held by Marxism.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Lagodinsky report seeks to give non-governmental non-profit organisations a European legal status. To this end, it proposes, on the one hand, to grant them European association status by means of a regulation, and, on the other hand, to lay down common minimum standards for them by means of a directive. This solicitude is guided by an optimism that confines itself to naivety. The report makes NGOs the paragons of all virtues and even states that they are a school of democracy. This ignores the real role of some of the most influential NGOs, including George Soros, who seeks to destabilise our old nations in Europe by opening the door to migratory flooding. It is, on the other hand, to turn a blind eye to the damning findings of the European Court of Auditors’ report No 35/2018, which denounces the opacity of NGOs’ use of EU grants. This denunciation is all the more worrying because we are not talking about small sums, but about EUR 11.3 billion, which have been generously given to them in four years by the European Union. While the Lagodinsky report seeks to establish an embryonic control over their accounts, it is far too light a control to restore trust. For these reasons, I oppose this report.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, China is violating Hong Kong's Basic Law. However, in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, it committed itself to the principle of ‘one country, two systems’, which is at the heart of this fundamental law. Now, what do we see? Hong Kong’s autonomy is being flouted. A 2020 law on national security organizes repression. Freedom of expression is suspended, dozens of opponents and journalists are incarcerated and the elections to the Legislative Council on 19 December 2021 were a travesty of democracy. China is therefore not meeting its commitments. Nor does it respect the Member States of the European Union, since it treats Lithuania unworthily, and refuses to allow its products to enter the Chinese market in defiance of international trade rules. She accuses him of having opened a Taiwanese diplomatic representation in Vilnius. This offensive is not by chance. It is intended to test the strength of our democratic model. China believes that its revamped communist dictatorship is a superior system to our old democracies and challenges us to resist it. If the European Parliament is to be worthy of the values it claims to embody, it must lift the glove and retaliate. Hong Kong and Lithuania deserve our solidarity in other ways than words. Take your courage with both hands, ladies and gentlemen, and vote on the resolution that demands to freeze the ratification of the Global Investment Agreement signed by the EU with China until China comes to its senses.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Dalli does not even dare to appear before us to explain herself, but no explanation can justify the seriousness of her attack on European values. In her guide on inclusive communication, she dared to recommend refraining from referring to Christmas. She also asked to stop quoting names that are too reminiscent of the Christian religion, such as Mary or John. Ms Dalli thus gave in to the philosophy of inclusion, according to which it was up to Europeans to adapt to the culture of migrants. I do not think we have to deny our beliefs and traditions. On the contrary, we must defend them with pride. Migrants do not have to dictate our conduct. It is up to them to make the necessary efforts to assimilate, if we agree to welcome them. The philosophy of inclusion is a culture of submission that I totally reject: submission to migratory submergence, submission to foreign morals, submission to political Islam. Ms Dalli has also claimed her closeness to Femyso, which France officially considers to be the false nose of Islamism. Mrs. Dalli, you must draw the consequences of your betrayal and walk away. You are unworthy of representing Europeans.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Tokyo summit on nutrition, which took place at the beginning of December, makes an alarming observation of malnutrition in the world: 800 million people are hungry, more than 140 million children are stunted, 20 million babies are underweight at birth and malnutrition is the underlying cause of almost half of child deaths worldwide. These figures are all the more alarming as the COVID-19 pandemic will worsen them. The European Union must therefore step up its assistance to countries in difficulty in order to overcome famine. It must do so for two reasons. The first is obviously a humanitarian reason. We cannot remain indifferent to these human tragedies, but our intervention must be planned to be effective. Emergency aid is indispensable, but it is not enough. Above all, it is also necessary to help those States to ensure their food security in the medium and long term. A joint FAO-UNICEF-WHO paper on the state of food security in the world has just proposed six solutions that deserve consideration. The second reason for intervening is the defence of European interests. Migration is a worrying phenomenon. Africa will increase its population fourfold by the end of the century. If we do not ensure food security for the poorest states, hunger will push hundreds of millions of men and women to come to Europe. We must therefore intervene, because I am convinced that two processes are necessary to protect us from excessive immigration. The first is to protect our external borders, if necessary by walls. The second is to show solidarity with people who are suffering from hunger, in order to allow them to live at home in dignified conditions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, SLAPPs are unfortunately a reality in some Member States of the European Union. They are used by large companies or associations or by public authorities to intimidate and silence journalists, academics or whistleblowers. I believe that this instrumentalisation of justice must be combated. That is why I welcomed the idea of the European Parliament voting on a report to denounce it. Unfortunately, the Wölken/Metsola report before us misses the opportunity to gather the consensus of all the political groups in Parliament. In insisting on the need to include in school curricula the education of children in critical thinking, he refers to so-called EU values that encompass all fads, including woke thinking, and undermines the freedoms of opinion and expression he was supposed to defend. And by castigating hate speech and not specifying what it means, it paves the way for a new form of political discrimination against nationalist movements. That is why I am opposed to this report. I will always be on the side of civil liberties against attempts to condone official propaganda and censorship.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the migration crisis on the Polish border is terrible, but we must face it with clarity. Like Turkey, Belarus is waging a hybrid war against the European Union by voluntarily launching thousands of migrants towards our borders. If we give in, we will tell people all over the world that they can enter our homes and we will be overwhelmed. We must therefore take our responsibilities and support Poland in its efforts to protect its border, which is also the EU’s external border. But we must go even further: I call on the EU to finance the construction of fences at its external borders. Protecting the peoples of Europe from migratory flooding is the first of our duties.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Tunisian people decided in 2011, through a revolution that the whole world admired, to establish a democratic regime. The European Union supported him in this choice. Ten years later, the promises of the revolution have unfortunately not been fulfilled. Tunisia’s economic and social situation has deteriorated sharply and huge protests have denounced endemic corruption. I understand that, in the face of this chaos, President Saïed has decided to react. Elected with more than 72% of the vote, he has the democratic legitimacy to do so. Seen from Europe, the means he has employed are certainly surprising: taking full powers on 25 July, suspension of the Constitution on 22 September. But I want to believe that President Saïed’s goal is, as he says, to establish a corruption-free democracy as soon as possible. And I have no doubt that a truly democratic political agenda will soon be unveiled with the announcement of the drafting of a new Constitution and then the organisation of elections. Confident in the ability of the Tunisian people to take control of their destiny and respectful of their sovereignty, I wish them good luck and assure them of my friendship and support.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, should the law be reformed to make digital platforms such as Facebook and Twitter responsible for the content they broadcast? Yes, but only if you're reasonable. Yes, digital platforms must be made liable where the content they disseminate constitutes precise and clearly defined infringements. This is the case with incitement to terrorism. The regulation we adopted on 28 April last rightly obliges them to withdraw incitement to terrorism within one hour of receiving a withdrawal order from the competent national authority. A common-sense precaution is thus taken to avoid carrying out attacks of the kind that claimed Samuel Paty’s life. Another specific crime to be tackled is online harassment, which is all the more dangerous as it often involves minors. This should be addressed by the Digital Services Act, on which the Committee on Legal Affairs voted an opinion on 30 September. On the other hand, I am much more cautious when I hear that we want to censor platforms under the pretext of fighting disinformation. I think you will find it difficult to limit yourself to fighting large-scale cyberattacks. Insensibly, you will slip into intolerance, hindering the debate of ideas in the name of an official truth, even though the European Court of Human Rights stresses that freedom of expression also applies, and perhaps most importantly, to ideas that clash, shock or worry. I therefore hope that the European Parliament will be able to keep the sense of the measure. Nothing would be more distressing than to see him suffer the fate of the French Parliament, whose Avia law on so-called hate speech has been censored by the Constitutional Council for violating freedom of expression. Rather than wanting to remove disinformation, I suggest that states develop education and critical thinking of their citizens, so that they can sort information themselves.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fight against hunger in the world is one of the main tasks of the United Nations. It is also an objective that must unite us all beyond our political opinions. Unfortunately, the available figures tell us that we are not on the right track to eradicate hunger in the world. In 2020, 800 million people suffered from hunger, about 100 million more than in 2019. There are many reasons for this failure: corruption and incompetence of the leaders of certain countries. Climate change or the COVID-19 pandemic. But the European Union also has its share of responsibility, which I want to denounce today. By giving in to ultra-liberalism in its trade treaties, it has diverted some countries from the sustainable agricultural practices from which they derive their livelihoods: Our powdered milk has ruined dairy farms in Senegal, our frozen chickens have destroyed chicken farms in Ghana... We must replace this free trade that leads to the least economic and social by the development of diversified food systems, based on respect for local agriculture. Unfortunately, I doubt that the European Union will be able to hear this message.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Israel’s Pegasus phone spying software was meant to be used to fight crime, but states have used it to spy on journalists, business leaders and even more than 600 politicians, including perhaps French President Emmanuel Macron. In the face of this scandal, several national courts have decided to open judicial investigations. I hope, without excessive optimism, that they can identify and punish the culprits. The right to privacy, freedom of the press and respect for the sovereignty of certain States, such as France, are essential principles that have been seriously violated. Beyond these investigations, however, measures must be taken to restrict the sale of this type of spyware and to strengthen our cybersecurity in order to try to prevent such a scandal from happening again. Pending this international regulation, I suggest that the European Union strengthen its Regulation of 5 May 2009 on the control of exports of civilian and military dual-use items and recommend that the States concerned accede to the 1996 Wassenaar Arrangement on the same subject matter. The EU has already announced a new cybersecurity strategy. I will judge her by her results and not by her intentions: Too often, the EU has sinned so far out of naivety.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, according to official projections, the working population of the European Union is expected to lose 40 million workers by 2070. To solve this demographic crisis, the EU is making the mistake of wanting to resort to emigration, whereas encouraging natalist policies would be much better. The EU Blue Card is the spearhead of this labour immigration. Created in 2009, it officially consists of bringing to Europe the skilled workers we lack. Fortunately, European states have been reluctant to use it so far. Rather than acknowledging its failure, the current draft revision is trying to give it a new lease of life by lowering the qualification conditions for obtaining it and facilitating the family reunification of the workers concerned. The Commission recognises that the aim of this project, I quote, is to standardise migration policy within the framework of the New European Migration Pact. That is why I strongly oppose it.

Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, Slovenia has just taken over the six-month presidency of the Council of the European Union. In my view, the fact that it is a small country is not a problem, because every state must be respected. I particularly welcome his courageous stance against the European policy of relocation of migrants. I agree with its first priority, which is to make Europe more resilient to crises, including health crises. We need to relocate the production of the most essential vaccines and medicines in Europe to never again relive the dependency on China that we suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. I take note of his second priority, which is to complete the work of the Conference on the Future of Europe. Alas, I have no illusions about their outcome. We will be entitled to a new federalist offensive that President Macron will be happy to celebrate in spring 2022, unless Marine Le Pen wins the French presidential election and sounds the awakening of nations, which I deeply hope.