Speeches

Madam President, Mr High Representative, this will undoubtedly be my last speech and I could not have avoided talking about the situation in Gaza today – with great sadness, and I know that you share this sadness. We are now witnessing genocide. It is not us who say it: this genocide has been qualified by the International Court of Justice and by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. For calling this action genocide, it was threatened today for telling the truth about what is happening in Gaza today. So being a witness is one thing; Being an accomplice is another. Today, unfortunately, the European Union is complicit in this genocide, because it does not act against it. It is imperative that we take action. I know you are working hard, but the Council must be able to put an end to this association agreement. We must stop delivering weapons to Israel. There is a need to continue to conduct international investigations into the crimes that are being committed in Gaza today. To do so, there will have to be prosecutions against all those who have not used all the means in their power to fight this genocide that is coming to Gaza.

Madam President, I will not vote for this Pact for Asylum and Migration. Simply because there are certain risks of erosion of the fundamental rights of asylum seekers, but also because it will not respond to the challenges and pressures faced by countries of entry, because there is no real organised European solidarity. This pact will provide less access to protection for asylum seekers. There will be more violence at the borders, more violations of fundamental rights in the protection of asylum seekers. There will be an externalisation of European migration policy and therefore, for all these reasons, I think we have missed our opportunity to have a pact that is effective and respects European values.

Madam President, like my colleague, I am frankly disappointed that I do not see Mr Várhelyi – not that I do not want to see Ms Johansson with us, but I am particularly disappointed that I do not have the Commissioner responsible for the matter, in relation to the neighbourhood policy in particular. I am also disappointed, somewhere, to have made this negotiation of the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, where we had indeed given the Commission the opportunity to move towards urgent procedures, because it had told us that flexibility was needed in this area. So, to see how flexibility is used today by the Commission, well, sincerely, as a parliamentarian who negotiated the NDICI-Global Europe, I really regret giving this capacity to the Commission. I ask, like all my colleagues, to explain how this decision could be taken in view of the totally disastrous political, economic and democratic situation in Tunisia, without conditionality – or perhaps with conditionality: the one related to the detention of migrants in Tunisia. Perhaps this is what motivated Mr Várhelyi. But when we see, again, the conditions in which migrants are detained in Tunisia, some of them being returned to the desert on the Libyan border and thousands of unaccompanied minors being at the mercy of all trafficking, well I do not think it is a respectable conditionality.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, the duty of care is simply to apply the values of human rights and environmental rights to our businesses, not only when they are in Europe, but also when they are outside the EU. Indeed, it undermines competitiveness. Maybe, but what competitiveness are we talking about? Do we want to introduce a virtuous circle in relation to our companies that defend these values today in Europe, or do we want to organise unfair competition against them? The law that had been agreed with the Council, the Parliament and the Commission was the compromise that made it possible to move forward. Unfortunately, some Member States are undermining this compromise. I believe that what is at risk is not only the law, but also the values we stand for and our ability to establish international standards that respect human rights, which are now being jeopardised by these Member States.

Mr President, may this EU-Chile trade agreement be better than the previous one, no doubt. That this agreement is progressive, I have doubts, as it was negotiated and signed with the ultra-liberal government of Piñera. That this agreement responds to a new agricultural model, there too I have no doubt, it is not at all the case, it is a productivist model agreement. That this agreement guarantees the protection of workers and the environment, there too I have no doubt, this is not the case, because there is no mechanism of sanctions in case of non-compliance. Colleagues, I ask you a question: If you were offered an agreement without investment protection, would you be ready to vote for it, to sign it? I am sure that no one in this chamber would be willing to sign an investment agreement without investment protection. So why should we vote for an agreement that does not provide for the protection of workers and the protection of the environment? I ask you the question and leave you to your good conscience.

I am particularly shocked by your words, when you say that it was the diasporas who built Chile. In Chile, there were indigenous populations, there were local populations. And to say that everything was built by the diasporas who colonised Chile, I find it particularly shocking today in our assembly, for the respect of the Chilean populations, which are the indigenous populations.

Madam President, first of all, I would like to greet Julian Assange’s father, who is with us today, John Shipton. Thank you for being with us. If the United States succeeds and obtains Mr Assange’s extradition, the courts will effectively rule in favour of the White House being able to arrest all journalists, not just Julian Assange, and whistleblowers who would reveal the crimes of the US state and make them disappear into their prison system. The reclassification of investigative journalism as espionage is a way to further stifle critical journalism and freedom of expression. The consequences of this potential extradition decision are dangerous not only for Julian Assange, but also for our most fundamental freedoms globally. It is therefore useful to use all our diplomatic power today towards the United States and the British so that this decision does not take place, so that there is no extradition and so that Mr Assange and all whistleblowers are free.

Madam President, to explain the crisis that unfortunately persists in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and particularly in the east, we have to talk about two important elements. The first, as has been said, is the fact that this region is full of so-called ‘strategic’ metals, which are necessary for the manufacture of all our connected devices. A second element that has not been much mentioned is the governance deficit of the Democratic Republic of Congo. This deficit also largely explains Rwanda’s support for the M23, which sees the possibility of occupying the ground in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this context, the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Union and Rwanda is very problematic. To call on Rwanda to ensure the sustainable supply of resources while it itself organises looting in the DRC by supporting a group that is responsible for the biggest human rights violations in the region is totally unacceptable. So what do we have to do? First, I think it is important to mobilise urgent humanitarian aid for the people who are suffering today. But it is also important to build a partnership with Rwanda and the DRC based on the stability and development of the region. Finally, the agreements we make with these countries must put human rights at the heart of our agreements and commitments.

Mr President, Commissioner, as the International Court of Justice decides on interim measures imposed on Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza, Israel does not care. Israel continues. He continued indiscriminate military operations. It continues to prevent the arrival of humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza. Israel is in breach of international rules in the eyes of all, even when it comes to the risk of genocide. And the European Union is watching. Worse, some Member States and members of this Assembly are ready to suspend funding for the only organisation able to prevent this genocide through hunger, UNRWA. Have we really lost the minimum of empathy and humanity in this Europe? I wonder. There is no ideological debate here. There are thousands of people, women and children in front of us who are dying of hunger and cold, who are being operated on without anaesthesia. Are we devoid of humanity? I'm asking you the question. It is time to act, in the Commission, it is time to act to finance UNRWA, I would even say to strengthen UNRWA, to empower it. It is time to act for this ceasefire to happen. It is time to act to send a message to Israel about the Association Agreement and to say no, we are not ready to accept everything. It is time to act before it is too late.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission proposal on the revision of the detergents regulation has unfortunately proved to be a missed opportunity in the context of the Green Deal, limited to a simple adaptation of market development, with little ambition in terms of sustainability, the circular economy or better protection of the health of citizens and the environment. We have therefore, in the Committee on the Environment, and you have said so, tried to correct these shortcomings – and I would like to pay particular tribute to the work of Mrs Ripa, who has indeed led to constructive negotiations in the ENVI Committee. More specifically in this report, we propose three important points. First, to reduce phosphate-related pollution, which has a devastating impact on the environment; secondly, to move in the medium term towards largely biodegradable detergent products, so as to reduce not only the pressure on the environment, but also on our wastewater reprocessing systems, and thirdly, to limit animal testing. Unfortunately, it was not possible to convince the EPP, ECR and ID to ban the presence of the most dangerous substances in detergents, despite the fact that these products, as has been said, are part of our daily lives and that thousands of workers use them every day. In that context, it would have been legitimate to refer the matter to that revision in order to prohibit those dangerous substances. Nevertheless, I believe that the work that has been done in Parliament is a step forward, and I will therefore support this report.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the tragic situation that has been unfolding before our eyes today in Gaza for more than 100 days is a situation that can be described at best as collective punishment of the population, at worst as a risk of genocide. As I said, of course, we must condemn Hamas for the acts it committed on 7 October, and we did so in this Parliament. But Israel's disproportionate military response to the people of Gaza is unacceptable and in total violation of international law. And therefore, we must support the International Court of Justice so that all these crimes, all of them, cannot go unpunished. We must call for a permanent ceasefire so that the hostages can be released, so that humanitarian aid can arrive and so that the escalation stops. And finally, we must use our instruments, which are the Association Agreements. We have an association agreement which is based on Article 2 with Israel and which says that Israel must respect human rights. Today, we are far from it and we have the possibility of activating Article 2 to end this association agreement.

Madam President, the Eurobarometer shows us that European citizens are ready and asking for a more sustainable and pesticide-free food system. But beyond these cold statistics, I could also tell you about the devastating impact of pesticides on biodiversity, on soil, on bees. But I will rather tell you about those citizens whom all of you here in this Chamber represent and who will quickly hold you to account. I would like to tell you about this farmer who, throughout his career, has used pesticides on his fruit tree farm and who, just a few days before his retirement, was diagnosed with prostate cancer, with which he will now have to fight for the rest of his life. It describes the physical shock, the emotional shock of this diagnosis. But even more, it marks the lack of information from pesticide manufacturers and the lie of protective equipment that ultimately turned out to be more harmful to his health. I would also like to tell you about this manager of an equestrian centre who used herbicides in her activities and whose son, this time, exposed even before her birth, during pregnancy, is now suffering the consequences of this exposure and who, at the age of sixteen, with multiple deformities, has already undergone 54 operations. These examples of lives shattered by pesticides, to which, of course, ecological disasters are added, are indeed things for which we absolutely must act. Of course, I also hear the demands of farmers who, for the vast majority of them, want to produce better without being prisoners of agrochemistry. So the text that was brought forward by Sarah Wiener, and I thank her, is exactly the balance that we need to bring here within this Parliament. It first responds to the urgency by proposing a binding and ambitious reduction in the use of these pesticides. I ask to reject the amendments that have been proposed by AGRI and others in the AGRI Committee, because these amendments will not meet the objectives pursued. So, ladies and gentlemen, I hear that many of you are under pressure from your agricultural federations, but be careful: in a few months there will be elections and it is not the agricultural federations that are voting, it is the citizens who are asking you to be accountable to them.

Mr President, the Green Deal is undoubtedly the positive signal that the Commission has become aware of the scale of the challenge posed by the climate crisis, but also by the biodiversity and multiple pollution crisis. It was crucial to show citizens that Europe is able to protect them and ensure a sustainable future for them. And I welcome today's vote on the Nature Restoration Act. We have made great progress on the climate package and I thank you for that, Mr Timmermans. But most of the other goals and strategies are behind schedule or do not yet appear in any binding text. However, some claim to want to take a regulatory break. Thus, we are almost a year behind in the revision of the REACH Regulation that was announced in 2019. And yet, studies tell us that the savings that could be made on health care would be ten times greater than the cost that would be charged to industries. We would therefore be a winner if we carried out this review. Ditto on the issue of pesticides. We have committed to a 50% reduction in pesticides by 2030. We must indeed take these measures. It is our responsibility if we want European citizens to trust us.

Madam President, it is difficult to talk about the EU’s relationship with the Palestinian Authority, let alone Israel. This is impossible. The two-state solution that talks about the Israeli state and the Palestinian state seems to be moving further and further away. Probably because we have a weak state on the Palestinian side. But why this weak state? Because there is a deprivation of the Palestinian Authority today, of the exercise of its vital competences for the sovereignty of its country. Because the illegal construction of settlements and the demolition of Palestinian infrastructure by Israelis make life in Palestine difficult today. Because the various checkpoints that are now in the Palestinian state are causing permanent humiliation towards young Palestinians. Do you honestly think that, in this context, it is easy to build a Palestinian state? It is not. Of course, it is up to us to be an actor, to demand a number of things, to demand an end to the occupation, to demand the dismantling of settlements, to put an end to the apartheid regime, but also to demand that the Palestinian Authority strengthen itself, to demand elections, but these elections also depend on the Authority. And all this, Europe must be able to demand it and must be able to have a strategy that allows it to go in this direction.

Mr President, let us return to the question of the Sahel. The situation in Burkina Faso today is complicated by the fact that it does not have a lot of budget revenue and depends for more than 20% on external aid. And so the situation as we know it today, if - and as you said - we do not intervene, is likely to get even worse. So what can be done to both promote the democratic process and support, for example, the two million displaced people, knowing that the government has lost control of 40% of its territory? So there is probably something to adjust here.

Mr President, Commissioner, as you know and bear, we have a great tradition of partnership at European Union level between the European Union and African countries, and I would even say the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific under the Lomé and Cotonou agreements – and I hope post-Cotonou as soon as possible, because the Council is whining at us about this issue. But I would have several questions. The first concerns the strategy, and there are a few priorities in this area, including peace and security. Let me take an example: in the Sahel today, there are two different situations between Chad and Burkina Faso. For Burkina Faso, budget support is no longer possible. Is it possible to return to coherence and therefore to budget support in Burkina Faso in order to effectively support the democratic transition? The second issue concerns migration, which is another priority. The discussions on the GSP have shown that the Council and the Commission systematically present a condition for migration. Do you, the Commissioner for Partnership, think that this conditionality on readmission is a good thing? A final question concerns sustainable development. We will work on critical raw materials. In this regard, is it your intention to make access to these materials conditional on the consent of the population?

Madam President, this report aims to establish our position here in the European Parliament on food security and the long-term, I mean long-term, resilience of European agriculture. All right, but this report worries me in a number of ways, and I will only talk about pesticides. It is suggested that the use of pesticides would be the solution and not the problem. This is wrong and everyone knows it, hundreds of scientists have demonstrated it: it is the use of pesticides and its impacts on biodiversity and the environment that put our food security and our farmers at risk. Failing to make progress on the law on the reduction of uses prevents farmers from being accompanied. This is not about defending farmers, consumers, the environment or biodiversity. What you are doing is defending the chemical industry, which is blaming consumers and farmers.

Mr President, as has been said, the endemic corruption in Lebanon only aggravates a chaotic situation that the Lebanese have been experiencing for years. Today, 80% of Lebanese live below the poverty line. There is also a completely bought justice in Lebanon, which dismisses honest judges in favour of corrupt judges, a justice that covers the President of the Lebanese Central Bank, Mr Riad Salamé, suspected by Eurojust of massive embezzlement of Lebanese public funds, a justice unable to investigate the responsibilities linked to the explosion of the port of Beirut. So yes, Commissioner, humanitarian aid is essential. We must help the Lebanese. We must not help the corrupt people of Lebanon. The corrupt people of Lebanon must be punished. Mr Riad Salamé must be sanctioned, as all judges who are now blocking the situation and investigations against corruption in Lebanon must be sanctioned by the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, so far we know that the business community has opposed any law imposing due diligence. Today is a big step forward if we actually vote for this law, because what are we talking about? We talk about TotalEnergies with the EACOP project which is a climaticidal project. We are talking about TÜV SÜD, which did not properly guarantee the dams in Brazil. We are talking about Nike making money on forced labour. We are talking about Syngenta, which exports highly toxic chemicals to Peru. We are talking about Seat, which is the creator of deforestation in Southeast Asia. And so, ladies and gentlemen, voluntary approaches do not work and they lead to what we are experiencing today, namely environmental disasters and human disasters. So this law must allow us to prevent, minimise, but also repair through access to justice, i.e. create a virtuous circle in relation to our businesses. So we need to make sure that our companies are actors of positive change and no longer complicit in all these human and environmental rights violations.

Mr President, some Members of this House seem to question the commitments that this Parliament has made in the Green Deal and would like to reject texts that are essential to the implementation of this strategy, such as the restoration of nature and the reduction of the use of pesticides. Yet, as you know, there will be no agriculture, no pollination, no income for our farmers without healthy soils, no fight against species extinction, no rational management of water resources. It is not an ideological position of the right or the left, it is simply what scientists tell us. But you conservatives have decided to turn your back on science and use populist arguments to scare people, leaving the spectre of a famine in Europe due to this strategy. And that is a mistake. In a Europe with more than 40 degrees in Spain in April, where water restrictions are applied even during the winter months in some Member States, there is an urgent need to change our agricultural model. It is essential to put in place now planned adaptation methods for our agriculture, which must be designed in the long term to combat the effects of climate change in a sustainable way. So, ladies and gentlemen, let us not ostrich and put ourselves around the table to discuss these essential texts that have been proposed to us by the Commission.

Madam President, today’s civil war between the two armed camps, that of leader al-Burhane of the Sudanese armed forces, and that of Dagolo, leader of the RSF, former friends, is causing a terrible humanitarian crisis – more than 500 dead, 4 600 injured, internally and externally displaced people, an economy that is completely stalled, a shortage of food and drinking water, most of the hospital infrastructure destroyed. All this in a context where 65% of the population lives in extreme poverty. Not to mention, it has been said, the risk of instability that this crisis creates in the region. So we must urge all parties to respect international humanitarian law; ensure that, at its next special session on Sudan, the UN Human Rights Council establishes a robust mechanism to investigate crimes committed by all parties; impose targeted sanctions on all those responsible for serious abuses against civilians; increase support for the humanitarian response to the crisis, especially in the most difficult parts of the country such as Darfur. But we also need to immediately end the return of Sudanese asylum seekers to Sudan or transit countries. And finally, we must support inclusive mediation initiatives on sustainable peace and the rapid transition to democracy.

Madam President, it has been said that scientific studies on the effects of PFAS on our health and the environment are accumulating, and all are more worrying than the others. I will mention a few of them: a recent study links PFAS exposure to fertility problems in women, another shows that PFAS in our food containers actually migrates into our food, and many more surveys show that most European citizens are now contaminated with PFAS at alarming concentrations. So, of course, I welcome the restriction proposal made by some Member States, but there is an urgent need for action. However, these proposed restrictions would only enter into force from 2026 or even 2027, with derogations of up to a further 12 years. So it will be too late. We know that today 75,000 tonnes of PFAS are emitted into our environment every year. We therefore consider, in the light of the data from science, that it is absolutely necessary and very quickly to limit and prohibit the issuance of these PFAS. Prohibiting uses is one thing; the depollution and liability of these polluters must also be taken into account. Commissioner, you have said a lot about the revision of the REACH legislation, but if it comes after the summer, it will be too late.

Madam President, the link between the destruction of pollinators and the use of synthetic pesticides is clear and thousands of scientists say so. There is a consensus today among scientists, who have been alerting us for decades to the dangers, the dangers to our ecosystem, the dangers to agriculture, the dangers to food security. So, those who say that not using pesticides would lead us to a food crisis, well, I urge you to go read the reports of scientists who say quite the opposite. This initiative echoes what these scientists have been saying for years. So it is, of course, welcome here in Parliament. As has been said, alternative methods do exist. And there are also studies that show that when these alternative methods are used, they manage to reduce pesticide use by 80%. And so let's help farmers use these alternatives. But we need an ambitious text on this reduction in usage. We need the text now, before it is too late.

Mr President, Mr High Representative, you asked whether it was interference on the part of Parliament to talk about the situation in Israel. We are not talking here about the situation in Israel. We are talking about a partnership agreement between the European Union and Israel and it is our duty as a Parliament to know what is in this partnership agreement and how this partnership agreement is being respected. This partnership agreement is based on the peace process, the maintenance of democracy and common values. We see today that the will of this right-wing and far-right Israeli government is completely at odds with what is in this partnership agreement. And so it is up to us as the European Parliament to give guidance on what to do. As we know, the reform of the judiciary is an attack on democracy and a laissez-passer for annexation. This is not what is in our partnership agreement with Israel. How are we going to answer that? Several things. The first, you said, through diplomacy, dialogue and I think we need to continue. But there is also the freezing of the Association Council, the sanctions we can use against these settlers who have done this punitive mission... (The President withdrew the floor to the speaker)

Mr President, Commissioner, in October, the M23, supported by Rwanda, launched an offensive against the regular army of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is plunging the country back into extreme violence. This violence and instability in the region, as you know, is not from today and its source is mainly the question of the subsoil resources of this region, resources that are plundered by neighbours for the benefit of international companies and groups that fuel corruption, that finance armed groups to ensure access at the lowest cost. It is imperative that we advocate for a regional solution in the short and medium term. Of course, in the short term, the humanitarian issue must be taken into account for displaced persons. But if we are only short-term, we will always be in the same cycle of violence again. Therefore, a regional resolution of the conflict is important. We must fight corruption and impose sanctions on people and companies, such as Mr Dan Gertler, who is an excessively powerful operator in the DRC today, sanctioned by the Americans and yet finds refuge in Europe to hide his money. We need to assess the conflict minerals law, which is currently not applicable in the territory, and we need to set up mixed courts that are courts fighting impunity in the Democratic Republic of Congo.