Debate contributions by Gilles PENNELLE

Yes, of course, I agree with you. And that's why I say stop these free trade treaties. I say stop this madness that makes us open all our borders to countries that do not have the same social and environmental rules as our companies. So yes, you are right, I think it would make our deficit worse. This does not prevent European states from cooperating bilaterally with this major country, which is very important in Asia, particularly in order to compete in part with the Chinese economy.

Mr President, this ‘2030 Agenda’, supposedly intended to strengthen consumer protection, is in reality only a new technocratic construction of the European Commission – as it has the secret – and an additional attack on the sovereignty of nations. Your ambition – I quote – is to ‘complete the single market’, that is to say, to launch a new offensive against national borders, which will only aggravate unfair competition between Member States and increase competition between workers, between French and Polish workers. You also state that you want to combat dangerous or non-compliant products from third countries. However, it is because of your policies, which have been followed for many years, that European consumers are now flooded with Chinese and other products that are dangerous for their health and safety. These massive imports, harmful to consumers, you are still preparing to amplify them with the impending vote, in the Council, of the disastrous treaty with Mercosur, which will increase imports of hormone-treated meat and GMO sugar. Moreover, today, with the Association Agreement with Ukraine, we are importing very poor quality agricultural products – I am thinking in particular of poultry. The problems you claim to solve today are precisely the ones you yourself have created.

I have the impression, dear colleague, that you are an ambassador of the Chinese economy. That's not my case. Let me remind you that China emits 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, the European Union 7%. And you continue, with your policy, the one you support, to penalize our companies that suffer unfair competition. So, yes, you defended China, I defend the European Union and France.

Madam President, until some time ago, the supporters of happy globalisation, the supporters of ultra-liberal globalisation who sit on the European Union's bodies, told us that we had to open our borders with China. They would sell us t-shirts, bad toys, but we would keep high technology, planes, cars. Where are we today? It is the bankruptcy of the software of the European Union. The European Union's annual deficit with China is 300 billion. Today, in addition, China protects its market, puts taxes on our exports. We, at the head of the European Union, have given up being a great power. China opens coal-fired power plants every month and we impose the Green Deal on our producers. What are we doing, for example, to defend our exporters of pork and pigs – I am thinking of my Brittany – in China, which are going to be taxed now? In reality, you refused to defend our producers. You are incapable of defending our interests.

Madam President, Europe has been the cradle of democracy. From Archimedes to Einstein, she invented the great scientific discoveries. From Aristotle to Voltaire, she irrigated the world of her philosophy. It was the cradle of the Industrial Revolution. It has always been at the forefront of the pioneering spirit. Today, Mrs von der Leyen's Europe is nothing more than a technocratic machine that produces climate norms, punitive norms. That is the only thing that this Europe, this European Union, is producing today. This European Union is subject to the dictates of climate conferences, which function as a moral scene where the most virtuous countries, i.e. the European countries, are required to do more and more. You've given up power. You bring out, to give you a good conscience, the Europe of history. You make the instruments of our erasure every day. It's time to turn your page.

Madam President, immigration will once again be on the agenda of the European Council. But do its leaders listen to the peoples of Europe? They say it everywhere. The peoples of Europe no longer want mass immigration, they can no longer do so. This massive immigration threatens their freedom, their identity, their portfolio of course, and especially their security. Because this is the trial in France today, I would like to mention the ordeal of the 12-year-old girl, Lola, who was tortured to death by an Algerian immigrant whom the French government was unable to expel. And I, when I think of Lola, think to myself that in the end, the real criminals are the immigrationists, those who organize this immigration. We must put an end to the asylum and immigration pact, which wants to impose even more immigration on us. This immigration asylum pact demonstrates one very clear thing: for the European Union and its leaders, immigration is not a problem but a project.

Mr President, two years ago, in this Chamber, a majority of Members voted to end thermal cars in 2035. In an outpouring of collective blindness inspired by the Khmer Greens, Europe was actually sealing the fate of its industry and denying one of the most vivid expressions of its genius: the automobile. Two years will have been enough to measure the extent of this suicidal choice. The visible and often irreversible consequences are undermining our economies, foremost among which is France, where serious studies predict the disappearance of more than 100,000 industrial jobs in the decade. It is actually a real social, economic and therefore political disaster. The camp of the nationals, to which the Patriotes pour l'Europe group belongs, has constantly warned of the ravages of this decaying policy. Today, it is clear that the German Chancellor himself is calling for the ban of 2035 to be lifted. Proof that, as always in politics, realism ends up triumphing over chimeras. It is now more than urgent to lift this ban and give our manufacturers the freedom to produce. It is a question of sovereignty and, dare we say the word, survival.

Mr President, we must defend the farmer's place in the supply chain; On this point, of course, we fully agree. But it is a tree that hides the forest, a very hostile forest for our farmers. They ask us and they ask you, Commissioner: Why are you abandoning them? Why are you weakening the future CAP budget and future direct aids? Why do you continue to impose on them the disastrous Green Deal, unique in the world? Why are you multiplying free trade treaties, with Ukraine today and Mercosur tomorrow? Why do you do it? To finance a war the Europeans don't want? To fund even more immigration that Europeans don't want? Commissioner, do not abandon our farmers. They do the most beautiful job in the world: They feed us, they maintain our landscapes. Do not abandon them, Commissioner, because Europe cannot live without them.

Mr President, the collapse of the CAP budget, the disastrous Mercosur Treaty, the capitulation to US wine and spirits taxes, the inflation of standards and constraints on our farmers and now, as we have just seen, a soft reaction to Chinese taxes on our pork exports. I am originally from Brittany, where I live, the main French pig farming region, and our breeders are excessively worried. They are worried because the Chinese market is indispensable for them. So what is the Commission doing? Nothing. It is once again abandoning our farmers and ranchers. Why is she abandoning them? Because agriculture has become an adjustment variable on other issues. We prefer to defend German interests. We prefer to defend German industrial and automotive interests, including with China, than to defend our agriculture. Our breeders and farmers understood that the European Commission was abandoning them. We do, too.

Madam President, the agricultural crisis is deep, and it is getting worse. The current CAP, which broke with the spirit of 1962, is the main cause. We must therefore turn our backs on our choices, which are often guided by ideology. Farmers will never live off their jobs as long as you organise unfair competition, as illustrated by the disastrous deal with Mercosur. They will never live off their trade as long as you stifle them with the diminishing rules of the Green Deal. Commissioner, our farmers are asking you for an increased budget, an inflation-adjusted budget and a sanctified budget for the future CAP. Not only does this not seem to be on the agenda of your future choices, but your willingness to bring Ukraine back to the European Union also promises a collapse of aid for our farmers. Europe needs a powerful agriculture, capable of ensuring its food sovereignty with quality products. Our farmers ask us: you ask – to protect them and make sure that they can produce – everything that you do not seem to want to assure them.

Mr President, the European Commission's software is has been, cheesy, overwhelmed. Clinging to the dogma of free trade and open borders, the European Union does not see that the world has changed. Great powers, such as China and the United States, have ended liberal globalization and are protecting their economies. Meanwhile, the Commission is negotiating free trade treaties with Ukraine and Mercosur, which will kill our agriculture. All this is of course in addition to the free trade agreements with Morocco, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. Selling German cars seems to be the only objective of the European Union, which has sacrificed French wines and spirits. Ms. von der Leyen is disqualified to lead the fight with the United States and protect our economy. We must write a new page in European history, without Ms von der Leyen.

Madam President, the offshore wind farm of Saint Brieuc, in Brittany, France, has been entrusted to the multinational Iberdrola, which charges EDF the megawatt hour at €155 while production by a French nuclear power plant is €65 per megawatt hour. To this must be added the connection, the network, which costs a fortune: 20 € per megawatt hour. France also announced a $37 billion multi-year plan to connect offshore platforms at sea. These offshore platforms disfigure our landscapes and are a real challenge for our fishermen. So we are indeed paying dearly for the dogmatism and destructive green ideology of the European Union. Because we lose our food sovereignty, we put users at risk. As we saw earlier, we are making big profits for multinationals and exorbitant costs for the citizens of the European Union. We are fighting this policy. She's a crazy politician.

Madam President, the European Commission gives grades, good grades, bad grades. Its members are judges, jurors and why not executioners? But does the European Union not violate the rule of law when it stifles the scandals of Pfizergate, Qatargate that affect its highest authorities? Does the European Union not violate the rule of law when it intervenes illegally in the electoral processes of Romania and Poland? Doesn't the European Union violate the rule of law when it funds NGOs to corrupt MEPs' votes? Does the European Union not violate the rule of law when it excludes the third group of this House from the positions of responsibility to which they are entitled? The European Union cites Hungary 32 times in its report, but nothing, not once, about the violations of the rule of law of the Spanish socialists of the Socialist Sanchez. So yes, we must respect the rule of law everywhere. But the European Commission should start sweeping in front of its door with a very big broom.

Madam President, it is the fault of others, it is Putin's fault, it is the fault of COVID, it is Trump's fault, it is China's fault if food prices rise. In reality, the European Union refuses to look at its own responsibilities. If many food prices soar, it is also due, for example, to this inefficient and dramatic European energy market, which means that electricity is indexed to gas and that all producers, in the end, are affected and must increase their prices. If the price of bread baguette increases, it is because our bakers, of course, are experiencing an explosion in their electricity bill. We owe this to the European Union and its dramatic energy policy, and then, of course, to the Green Deal, which imposes a punitive ecology that significantly increases production costs and which our producers in industry or agriculture, in all areas, pass on to consumers. We in France propose one thing: lowering VAT, or even abolishing VAT, on basic necessities, because food is an absolute necessity.

Mr President, Algeria is not a democracy. Some seem to be discovering it today. This tyrannical regime has despised and persecuted freedom of expression for 63 years. This regime, which has completely failed, which is a veritable economic and social bankruptcy and which hides behind a memorial rent to the detriment of France, is now in the spotlight because it has locked up in its prisons a great Franco-Algerian writer. So, yes, freedom of expression; But whether Boualem Sansal is 80 or 25 is the same problem: he was locked up because he said things that this government did not like. In the end, there are terrorist organizations that take hostages, as is well known, but there are also states that take hostages. Because Boualem Sansal is not only a prisoner of conscience, he is also a hostage, which allows this government to negotiate I don’t know what additional visa or refusal to accept OQTFs. I too am outraged by the attitude of our left-wing parliamentarians here in these bays, who refused to vote for Boualem Sansal’s release. Why this? Because he denounced Islamism, and today part of the French and European left no longer hides its complicity with Islamism. So, I say it: Yes to the freedom of Boualem Sansal! But France has no lessons for Algeria: it is also persecuting its political opponents, as evidenced by the judicial coup against Marine Le Pen two days ago.

Madam President, people across Europe are rising up to challenge the authoritarian drift of the European Union and the authoritarian drift of Ms von der Leyen. In the face of this, as in all dictatorships, there is a stiffening, a surge of authoritarianism and liberticidal excesses. We saw this at the European Council of 20 March, where some, including in this parliamentary assembly, challenged what is, however, in the Treaties, namely the right of a State to vote, the right of a State to oppose certain decisions. We have seen this, of course, with Romania, where, to the acclaim of the Europeanists, a candidate was banned from running and elections were cancelled. We saw it yesterday in France, where there was a real democratic scandal, a judicial coup d’état aimed at preventing the favourite of the presidential election – albeit very critical of your European Union – from standing at the polls. I should like to say something to you, ladies and gentlemen, which should be outraged by these decisions. Be careful, because history has proven it to us: those who attack democracy will regret it, because there will be serious consequences.

Mr President, everyone in the Chamber is interested in agriculture. We even saw, just now, the president of the Renew Group talking about agriculture, even though she has never set foot, as a full member, in the AGRI Committee. Commissioner, you met a lot of farmers and actors at the Agriculture Show. They all told you the same thing: They told you that they did not want Mercosur, that they did not want Ukraine's accession, which would be a disaster, and that they did not want the Green Deal. Moreover, this name of "green pact" has disappeared from your vocabulary and your roadmap. Yet it is still there, since you show for agriculture climate neutrality in 2050 with its consequences: the fall in yields, the decline, the fall in production, the punitive ecology totally incompatible with the maintenance of farmers' incomes. You are deliberately ambiguous, Commissioner. I tell you very clearly: Farmers across the European Union, almost unanimously, are asking you one thing: Stop this Green Deal to save European agriculture.

Mr President, the European Parenthood Certificate, included in the official programme of the European Commission for 2025, confirms its willingness to impose this regulation, like a dictatorship, despite the opposition expressed by several Member States (Italy, Sweden, Slovakia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania) in the Council in June 2024. Why are the Commission and the European Parliament persevering on this controversial issue, when family law is a national competence? That proposal would require States to recognise parentage from surrogate mothers, whereas their national law prohibits it. Member States would therefore be obliged to indirectly validate practices contrary to their national legislation and their political and ethical choices. This forcing would consist in obtaining de facto recognition of surrogacy and facilitating its practice, which is nevertheless prohibited in several European states, such as France. The legalization of the commodification of the female body is, in the end, the true intention of this outrageous settlement. All those who claim to defend the rights of women and children should mobilize against this.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to talk to you about a Breton chicken farmer named Patrick. He works long hours all day and in the evening he spends many hours on his computer dealing with the tsunami of your standards: the 160 pages of rules that the European Union has imposed on the poultry sector. He saw his production costs rise, his income collapse. He learns one day that Pedro, a Brazilian chicken farmer, will be able to sell his chickens at home, at bargain prices. He learns that Pedro has no standards, does not respect animal welfare, even uses phytosanitary products for his maize, while Patrick can not, and that Pedro uses growth antibiotics. It was not listened to by the Commission. So Patrick asked me to ask you a question, Commissioner: "What interests are you using to impose such injustice on me?" He even added: You will tell the European Commissioner that I no longer believe in his Europe.

Dear colleague, you have presented us with all the good points that the EPP Group sees in this agreement with Mercosur, but I would like to ask you a simple question: How will you, when you go home, explain to our farmers that this agreement with Mercosur is good? How are you going to tell them that they are not competing unfairly? How are you going to explain to them that you're putting them in competition with people who don't follow their rules? How are you gonna talk to them?

Madam President, the European Union faces three challenges: the first, the migratory flood that threatens the identity, freedoms and security, and finances of Europeans. And you are responding to them with this pact on migration and asylum, which, of course, will accelerate this flooding. The second challenge facing Europe is, of course, competitiveness and the lack of competitiveness. You are responding with the Green Deal, punitive ecology and the tsunami of bureaucracy. Even on artificial intelligence, you're talking about frugal artificial intelligence. We think we're dreaming, you're really in the moon! The third challenge facing Europe is, of course, denatality. Again, no answer. You are simply proposing to replace Europeans with immigrants. Your programme, presented quickly just now, with appalling generalities, does not respond at all to these three challenges, nor to the imperative of power that Europeans expect. They are waiting for the great alternation with the Patriots group. We're working on it.

Mr. Speaker, climate change exists, it has always existed. On the other hand, what is unacceptable is this climate catastrophism of the ‘Green Khmers’, because it makes it possible to justify tsunamis of constraints, standards and regulations that penalise the European Union’s economy, the most virtuous in the world. The EU has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 33.9% since 1990. China has increased them by 300% since 1990. In a situation of global competition and with the revival of American power, we keep shooting ourselves in the foot. But I would also like to draw the attention of some, particularly on the left, to the fact that the application of all these standards, constraints and regulations primarily penalises popular groups, who are prevented from heating up, moving and working freely. Ecologism, I call it ‘greening’, is definitely a sport of the rich.