Speeches

Mr President, the intention to legislate to protect the independence of journalists when they are threatened is a good initiative, and I support the principle. But Europe’s problem is that it often does too much. A media is not a good like any other, and its regulation cannot be carried out solely on the basis of the internal market, as if it were a good that could circulate uniformly. The media landscape of each country is the result of entrenched national cultures, with their histories and traditions. I am very committed to freedom of opinion: that of the written press, which must be limited only by the effect of the law, but also that of the audiovisual media, which must be able to retain their editorial freedom. No administrative authority should be able to muzzle the opinion press. No state authority should impose, as is the case in France vis-à-vis CNews, to silence opinions. Neither Brussels nor Paris must be able to threaten freedom of expression. Yes, protecting the fundamental values of the European Union, of course, but choosing which opinions are acceptable and which are not, surely not.

Madam President, in 2024, more than 4 billion human beings around the world are called to the polls to decide the fate of their nation. While the results of some elections are already known in advance, as in Russia, fortunately other countries are freer from their fate. In June this year, 400 million Europeans, 45 million of whom are French, will vote in the European elections. We know this: the freedom of citizens to decide for themselves is now put to the test. It is being tested by foreign powers who want to decide for us, by unscrupulous private institutions and by extremists who are fighting the very principle of democracy. They all use the same weapons – social media – as destructive weapons. Thanks to the Digital Services Act, the world's first regulation of social networks, thanks to the new Artificial Intelligence Act, we are starting to arm ourselves against the grossest disinformation, the one that, through fake videos, fake images, diverts, deceives, scams people's minds. These actions are not influence, no. They are not freedom either. Quite the contrary. They are an insult to who we are: men and women who want to keep control of our destiny. Albert Camus wrote: “Living as a free man means refusing to exercise and to suffer terror.” Here it is, the challenge we will have to face, certainly in the coming months, but also well beyond.

Mr President, Commissioner, the tragic events in Israel on 7 October are yet another illustration of the crucial nature of the Digital Services Act, the world’s first regulation of social networks and all digital platforms. Hamas and its accomplices are trying to manipulate public opinion by spreading images – true for some, but false for others – advocating terrorism on social media. For a few days now, on the internet, it has been almost a war, with every click and every scroll. The few social networks that pretend not to know that they have become vehicles of hatred will soon be at their own expense. So that it stops, only one solution: the swift implementation of the financial sanctions provided for in the DSA, i.e. a fine of up to 6% of global turnover, until the network is suspended from the European market. In just a few months, this will be legally possible. In just a few months, Europe will finally be able to put an end to those hate multipliers who, through ideology or out of pure mercantile interest, knowingly propagate the unspeakable.

Mr President, the news is chasing news, and every new tragic event in the world, such as the one affecting Israel since 7 October, is another opportunity for Vladimir Putin to advance his pawns. By cynically supporting Hamas, the Russian President is trying to escalate the situation in the Middle East to better distract us from Ukraine. At best reckless or at worst complicit, some European leaders – notably Hungarian and Slovak – become the sad relays of Russian propaganda: ‘More than one weapon for Ukraine’, to hear them. What madness! I say it here, solemnly, in the European Parliament: Let’s not forget Ukraine. If we start to procrastinate, back down or divide on our resolute support, be it political, logistical or military, tomorrow the whole of Europe will regret it. What is now being played out at the Eastern borders of Europe goes beyond the very survival of Ukraine and its people: it is not only our values, it is also the security of our entire continent. History has often shown this: When the eyes turn away, the monsters are unleashed. Let’s not forget Ukraine. Let’s not forget Ukraine!

Madam President, freedom of expression is far too fragile to ignore its principles. Thanks to the fact that I was one of the rapporteurs of the European Parliament and which has been in force since 25 August, social networks and internet search engines have a legal obligation to remove all manifestly illegal content, such as death threats or cyberbullying. No one should have the right to silence anyone by threatening or harassing them. From now on, thanks to Media Freedom Act, of which I also have the honour of being one of the rapporteurs, we are consolidating this freedom of expression, this time by prohibiting social networks themselves from arbitrarily removing information content on the sole ground that they derogate from the general conditions of use or the ideology of the owner of the social network. In a way, Twitter will no longer be able, for example, to delete the accounts of some journalists. Hatred is illegal. But so is censorship. We are neither the American model that lets everything be said and done, nor the Chinese system that lets nothing be said. Here it is, our European cultural model.

Madam President, the left has always liked to be deluded. By shouting that it would be enough to tax the rich over and over again, she bought herself for many years at a low price a nice moral conscience, never hesitating in the process to give in to intellectual laziness. For if impoverishing the rich had enriched the poor, it would be known. But this is not the worst. The worst is that the left, now captured by the far left, like that of Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France, no longer pretends to be naive. She decided to fall into the worst of cynicisms. Cynic, when she tries to instrumentalise the most modest by wanting them to believe that it would be enough to suppress wealth to appease their social torments. Cynic, when it goes so far as to theorise its outright abandonment of the working classes in order to concentrate the worst of intentions on small communal electoral constituencies that go so far as to denigrate the most elementary values of the Republic. Cynic, finally and again, when she no longer hesitates to display herself as she did a few days ago, a tricolor scarf on her shoulder, that is to say, allegedly on behalf of the people, in demonstrations that are prohibited by law and where it is chanted ‘Everyone hates the police’. We knew that the left had abandoned the people. We now know that she is instrumentalising him, turning her back on him and finally insulting him. It is this left that we, citizens and Republicans, will have to fight in the coming years. This extremist, selfish, screaming and anti-social left.

Madam President, the encouragement, but also the regulation of artificial intelligence, requires choices. There is one that is not entirely trivial: the one concerning biometric identification, i.e. specifically facial recognition. The right asks that this technology can be used in certain specific and well-defined cases: to find missing children, to prevent terrorist acts and to arrest perpetrators of offences punishable by at least three years in prison. Several left-wing political groups refuse to use artificial intelligence when it comes to protecting children, arresting criminals and keeping us safe from terrorism. When ideology passes over security, when principled postures pass over emergency situations, it says a lot about the inconsistency of certain political groups in this Chamber, here in the European Parliament. They will have to explain themselves to the citizens, because in the face of the absolute need to protect the citizens of Europe, everyone must take responsibility.

Mr President, the European Union, and France in particular, welcomed Ukrainian citizens who wanted to leave their country to escape the war. Thanks to the temporary protection status, all women, children and the elderly who wanted to leave Ukraine were able to do so and received a dignified reception in the different territories of Europe. They are now close to 4 million. However, such reception is only possible if our countries do not keep illegal immigrants on their territory, who have nothing to do with it. Of the ten illegal immigrants who have been denied asylum, nine, or 90% of them, remain in France in violation of our laws. Only one solution to put an end to this weakness of our rulers: oblige asylum seekers to make their applications abroad and prohibit any case study by anyone who has not complied with this rule. Those who divert the right to asylum from its purpose do more than insult the tradition of welcoming refugees that is the honour of France and Europe. They also insult people like the one in Ukraine who deserve a dignified and humanist welcome from us.

Mr President, Vladimir Putin's government has no value and no limits, its weapons are illegitimate of all kinds. Faced with the silence of a Europe long asleep, prostrate and messy, Vladimir Putin has methodically advanced his pawns for several years. According to many sources, $300 million has allowed Russia to finance foreign European political parties for nearly a decade. There is of course the far right, but we already knew that and we had nothing to hope for from them. But the most uplifting, and I should say the most disgusting, is that European NGOs which claim to be carriers of salutary fights such as ecology and which have even supplied certain ministers to countries in Europe, would also have been financed by Russian interests and companies such as Gazprom. So-called environmentalists, literally bought to defend the exit from nuclear power and thus maintain European dependence on Russian gas. Who among them were Vladimir Putin's accomplices? This question deserves to be asked in this House, in this Chamber. This question deserves to be asked by the peoples of Europe, who have the right to know the truth. Because, my friends, we now know, behind the screen of political ecology there are sometimes dark interests and sometimes even the worst.

Madam President, to the intolerable violation of the borders of a sovereign country, the government of Vladimir Putin has added another disgrace in recent years: chronic disinformation, which aims to destabilise Western democracies. This disinformation is skilfully relayed by far-right European political parties. False rumors and deep fake have, of course, always more audience than objective accuracy and analysis. Fortunately, the European Union has reacted and tried to put an end to this Wild West on the internet thanks to the Digital Services Act. Present in Ukraine in recent days, I have seen how deadly Vladimir Putin’s policy has become. But beyond the dead and beyond empty words to pay tribute to them, it is all our values that are broken. There is an urgent need for the European Union to take up digital weapons to defend the most fundamental values in the media and on social networks.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague Axel Voss has seen it right: Artificial intelligence is an opportunity to be seized. The benefits of this technology are numerous. They can be applied, for example, to medicine and help save many lives. The machine, however, only makes sense if man retains absolute control over it. Reflexes, which the most advanced technologies allow to be programmed, will always be worth less than the inherent human discernment, free will and sensitivity. It is all a matter of usage. Example of a good use of artificial intelligence: the regulation of the Internet using algorithms to put an end to the anarchy that prevails there. We have just reached a historic political agreement in Europe: the DSA (Digital Services Act, Digital Services Act) will make it possible to combat the most unacceptable abuses of social networks. The principle? It is simple: Anything that is illegal offline must become illegal online. No more, no less. No, messages of hatred and harassment do not constitute opinions that would form part of freedom of expression. They are even the opposite, because they impose silence on all those who fear that they will become the victims. Were those who harassed and called for the murder of Samuel Paty on the Internet vectors of freedom of expression? Asking the question is already an answer. As planned, this new regulation will have to apply to search engines and all major social networks. And as great and innovative as it is, Elon Musk will have to submit Twitter to it like any other digital giant. Protecting citizens from online hate, here is a beautiful use of the most advanced technologies. And here is also a very appropriate use of the European Union.

Mr President, large digital platforms are powerful innovation tools that have flooded our daily lives. Economic actors, they have also become public actors. As vectors of freedom of expression, they are nonetheless vehicles of messages of hatred, threats, harassment or illegal trade, the dissemination of which we have an imperative duty to prevent. Faced with the legal vacuum that GAFAMs have taken advantage of so far, it was time for Europe to put an end to the anarchy of the Web. Unfortunately, the text voted in the European Parliament this week is only too timid a step forward, far from the great speeches and good intentions made just a few moments ago by Emmanuel Macron. The fight continues and I will fight to ensure a healthy environment for young people, vulnerable people, consumers and businesses alike on the Internet and on social media. Nothing, I say nothing, justifies us letting our smartphones become our best enemies.

Mr President, those who make people believe that immigration is zero are misleading and lying to the people, because in fact there is no such thing. But those who let in anyone and any way serve the people, because we know that uncontrolled immigration is the best fuel for xenophobia. Here is a solution and a method. The solution is to let each country freely decide how many legal immigrants it brings into its territory. This decision must not go to Europe. It must belong to each sovereign country. One method: the parliament of each country must be able to vote democratically on annual visa ceilings according to factors that it will determine itself. For example, zero visas for source countries that refuse to take back their illegals on their soil. Choosing immigration is the only way for each country and therefore for the whole European Union to act with common sense, firmness and humanity.

Mr President, I hear the cries of horror of those who speak on behalf of Europe, as if it belonged to them, in order to better criticise each other’s behaviour. So let's be clear: yes, all EU Member States, including Poland, must respect the commitments and not deviate from the fundamental principles of the rule of law. When you sign a contract, you respect it. When you are lucky enough to belong to Europe, you have a duty to preserve its values. But I say it with the same force: Being a member of the European Union does not mean giving up your free will. There is a constitutional identity in our countries that allows us legally, but also politically, to act in the interests of our peoples. Especially when it comes, for example, to addressing the shortcomings of the European Union, which is clearly unable to effectively protect our borders. To try to make people believe that defending national interests would be contradictory to the European project, frankly, is to make fun of the world, is to make fun of the people and is to instrumentalise Europe for political purposes. Let’s never forget this truth: sovereignty, before belonging to nations, before perhaps belonging only to Europe for federalists, belongs to the people. Let those who love to teach morals so much never forget it. Otherwise, tomorrow, their awakening, and perhaps even ours, is likely to be brutal.

Madam President, when it comes to migration, Europe’s real problem is clear: Our laws are not respected and our borders are violated on a daily basis. According to the European Commission, in 2019, only one third of illegal immigrants invited to return to their country of origin actually did so. And in France, in my country, only one out of eight illegal immigrants and one out of nine rejected asylum seekers have actually returned to their country of origin this year. This great weakness has two consequences. First, it discourages all law-abiding Europeans from continuing to do so. On the other hand, it serves the cause of legal immigrants, genuine refugees, researchers, doctors or students who deserve to be welcomed with dignity. Zero immigration does not exist and it would mean depriving oneself of the human wealth that, according to history, has forged European identity and civilisation. But to accept uncontrolled immigration is pure madness that breaks the legitimacy of the European project. I therefore call on the European Union not to have a shaking hand and to be respected... (The President withdrew the floor to the speaker)

Mr President, the way in which the French authorities were misled in the submarine contract case speaks volumes about the naivety of France and Europe towards the United States. After giving a lot of lessons to America during Donald Trump’s turbulent presidency, we thought Joe Biden would break with theAmerica First of his predecessor and would again become the policeman of the world and our friend in all circumstances. Yes, the United States is our allies and will remain so. But a U.S. president thinks first and foremost of his people, his soldiers on the front lines, his families who want to see them return home, and his business and financial interests. Who can blame him? I call on the European Union to wake up and give up its wait-and-see attitude and candor. We have no choice but to design and implement genuine strategic independence, whether military, commercial or diplomatic. Europe first, Europe First, this should be obvious, but it has unfortunately become a fight again, in addition to being an emergency.