Speeches

Mr President, Seán Binder, Sarah Mardini, Cédric Herrou, Walid C, Anouk Van Gestel, Miriam Berg and so many others have been the subject of life-changing trials. Let us pay tribute to them today, because no, it is not normal to be prosecuted for showing solidarity and humanity. No, it is not normal to be prosecuted for having hosted or rescued migrants from a certain drowning, in the Mediterranean in particular, for having carried out tasks that our governments themselves should take care of and which would not be necessary with a safe, legal, humane migration policy. Acts of solidarity are criminalised across the EU against international law and the values enshrined in our Treaties. Saving lives is an issue of civilization. These heroes and heroines are the pride of our continent. My questions are simple: When will our governments and the European Commission ensure the protection of those who uphold our values and human rights? When will the Commission, as guarantor of the Treaties, finally launch infringement procedures against Member States that abuse criminal law provisions to criminalise humanitarian workers and engaged citizens?

Madam President, the far right is still striking. An attempted coup in Germany; in France, a racist attack against representatives of the Kurdish community and racist violence against football fans; a soldier robbing an arms depot and training the police in a manhunt for several weeks in Belgium; attacks on migrants across Europe. All these manifestations of far-right terrorism are multiplying in Europe and are undermining our values, our democracies, the lives and security of our fellow citizens. However, warnings about these threats have been increasing for several years, but priority and attention have long been elsewhere, allowing the deployment of violent right-wing networks, with the complicity of part of the political world. The one who represents this extremist ideology here, on the bench of our assemblies, but also the one who collaborates with the far right in government alliances. This is the case for Sweden, which currently holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. This is also the case for more than 100 Members of this House who supported the far-right candidate for Vice-President of this Parliament. It is here and now that the fight against the far right begins.

Mr President, Reporters Without Borders denounces the grim daily life of many journalists in Europe: physical attacks, liberticidal laws, SLAPPs, intimidation, censorship, lack of pluralism and independence, media concentration and surveillance. Press freedom is at risk in 22 out of 27 Member States, according to the European Commission. These threats to press freedom and its work lead to unsustainable forms of self-censorship, while journalists often denounce corruption, violations of the rule of law and injustices committed by the powerful and European leaders. Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta, Ján Kuciak in Slovakia, Giórgos Karaïváz in Greece, Peter de Vries in the Netherlands: these investigative reporters died for their work, murdered on European territory. Others, at the origin of the revelations about the illegal use by our governments and by our secret services of spyware such as Pegasus, often against themselves, are now being prosecuted and intimidated in our states. Julian Assange, who was among the finalists for the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize, is currently facing 175 years in prison in the United States for his work as a whistleblower. Where has the sacrosanct freedom of the press gone? The media, along with justice, are indispensable counter-powers to our democracies and our rule of law. The Qatargate scandal, which is shaking our institution, reminds us that some are being corrupted at the expense of democracy and that foreign interference in European affairs is also aimed at undermining our democracies. This scandal was revealed thanks to the existence of checks and balances. Faced with an increasingly muzzled press, we will not be silent, and we recall Montesquieu’s teaching: ‘For power not to be abused, it is necessary that, by the disposition of things, power stops power.’ Let’s protect journalists, protect what is most dear to our democracies, and punish those who allow themselves to spy on these checks and balances, those who prevent a free and independent press from functioning!

Mr President, Commissioner, today, it is once again the work of NGOs, but also of investigative journalists, that we must welcome. While their activities are increasingly criminalised, without them, the OLAF report, which describes Frontex’s actions, would never have come into existence. And without them and the press, today’s debate would never have been possible or public. Frontex and its former management have enjoyed complacency and laissez-faire from the Member States, too happy to see the borders of Fortress Europe rise, borders that are increasingly deadly. It is also too happy not to have to show solidarity and humanity in welcoming exiles. The OLAF report is overwhelming. In addition to its many internal dysfunctions, Frontex knowingly – knowingly – ignored violations of fundamental rights. Frontex knowingly allowed national authorities to actively commit illegal pushbacks, in total contradiction with international and European law. The most funded agency in the European Union has lied to this Parliament and is increasingly openly despising European values. We do not want European taxpayers' money to be used to finance this. That is why tomorrow Parliament, this Parliament, must refuse budgetary discharge to Frontex.

Mr President, an algorithm – yes, an algorithm! – decided that social assistance for disadvantaged children should be withdrawn from precarious households and then reimbursed. This decision affects racialised people suspected of fraud on the basis of their skin colour – not white. This is not the Chinese social score system, it is the work of the Dutch government, which has been trying to stifle the case for months. How often will it be necessary to repeat that algorithms and automated decisions pose risks to fundamental rights, especially for racialized and precarious people? My colleagues have talked about these risks and institutional racism, but we must also talk about the control and regulation of national and European public authorities, which deliberately violate data protection in a form of general apathy. Withdrawn aid to people of colour in the Netherlands, data on the sexual orientation or religion of people who come to our borders collected by Frontex, massive and indiscriminate collection of police data by Europol: but where will this end? Public authorities have an exemplary role to play, and the Commission must react when fundamental rights and European law are violated. Colleagues, the ongoing negotiations on artificial intelligence give us the opportunity to put the necessary red lines in place now.

Mr President, Commissioner, the revision of the sustainable development chapters in the trade treaties represents a considerable step, it must be acknowledged, towards more sustainable international trade, which involves civil society and Parliament more, and refers to implementation and monitoring mechanisms and sanctions for non-compliance with the provisions set out therein. But there are still "buts". With all due respect, Commissioner, I hope this Parliament does not have to doubt the seriousness with which the Commission and DG TRADE are considering this issue. Indeed, I expected an exchange with the Commissioner for Trade because, while the 15-point action plan is, I repeat, a step forward, there are still problems, and your answers to the questions addressed by our President, Mr Lange, are in my view far from satisfactory, particularly in the context of the application of the implementation roadmaps – implementation roadmaps. I would like to understand how the Commission intends to go to the end of the logic if, for example, a trading partner fails to honour its commitments. What sanctions will be implemented? What mechanism will be applied? Will we go through a dispute settlement mechanism? Another dimension that was highlighted during the various exchanges was the issue of human rights, which is not part of the sustainable development chapters. In our view, this is a fundamental shortcoming, since we know that, in the context of trade, many human rights violations unfortunately still take place. The Ombudsperson has recently raised this issue, and she proposes to set up a fully-fledged and parallel mechanism, which would also be open to stakeholders from our trading partners. Again, I have a very concrete request to the Commission: How does the Commission intend to follow up on the Ombudsman's proposal? I believe that this would be a real and substantial complement to this revision of the sustainable development chapters in our trade agreements.

Mr President, investigative journalists, opposition leaders, opposition members, our colleague MEP Nikos Androulakis... The list of people tapped by the conservative Greek government of Mr Mitsotakis using the Predator spyware is only getting longer. In the face of accusations of illegal wiretapping and conflicts of interest, the Greek government’s reactions – sorry – are a bad farce: there would be no scandal, but a web of lies invented by the press. And yet, public threats are made to public officials and the parliamentary committee of inquiry is hampered in its work. As a guarantee of European values, the European Commission is also deafeningly silent. Yet history shows us that, without a firm and immediate response from the European institutions, breaches of the rule of law are worsening in Greece, as in other countries before it. And no European alliance can protect these excesses. We must collectively defend fundamental rights and democratic values. Our committee of inquiry must shed light on the actions of Member States that have deliberately and unlawfully listened to their citizens. In the cradle of democracy, the rule of law is failing. It is therefore for us to act.

Madam President, Commissioner, the relationship between the European Union and Africa must become a genuine partnership between equals. We in the European Parliament are ready, given the report that is on our table and that needs to be voted on. But are we ready, across Europe, for such a partnership? At the WTO, the EU continued to oppose the lifting of intellectual property rights on all pandemic measures, including vaccines, but also tests and medicines, a measure requested by developing countries, while the vaccination rate is still only 18% in Africa. The current Russian anti-Western propaganda is causing trouble between us by making us believe that European sanctions threaten the food security of the African continent and the lives of millions of people. Togo and Gabon, as two French-speaking countries, have recently applied to join the Commonwealth and no longer seem to expect much from Europe. These relationships must fundamentally change and start on a new footing. A real partnership, on an equal footing, calls for listening to the concerns of our partners, for generalising and amplifying the decolonial process as initiated in Belgium, and also for putting an end to the colonial practices of European companies that continue to exploit the resources of these countries and make local populations suffer. Finally, trade and economic partnership agreements must take into account the evolution of the local economy, regional integration, economic diversification and, above all, the Sustainable Development Goals.

Mr President, 25 million: this is the estimate of the number of people forced into forced labour worldwide, including in Brazil or Indonesia, where the European Union wants to conclude free trade agreements, or in China, with which the European Union wanted to conclude an investment agreement. Six to ten million are children: figures that are only increasing as a result of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, which are further driving families into precariousness. The products of this modern slavery land on the European market. Fifty billion euros of goods arriving in Europe are tinged with child labour. The United States or Canada have acted to ensure that their citizens are not complicit in these human rights violations. So what is the EU waiting for to do the same? For this Parliament, prohibiting forced labour products from entering its market is the best way to do so and the best way to tell states that, as long as they do so, there will be no more trade or investment with them.

Mr President, I wonder whether we should not start our debates again, given that the Council is now honouring us with its presence and that we would have liked it to participate in all our debates, since many questions are addressed to it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the revelations of spying on human rights defenders, journalists, political opponents and lawyers by the governments of Member States and third countries prompted this Parliament to open a committee of inquiry to shed light on the Pegasus case and other equivalent software. On the eve of the start of the work of our committee of inquiry, we learned that our institution, through the surveillance of MEPs, had been spied on. Before them, there was the European Commission and at least one of its Commissioners, and this week it was the turn of the Spanish Prime Minister and his Defence Minister. The silence in the ranks is deafening. Listening to our Catalan colleagues puts all our communications and parliamentary work at risk. The worm is in the fruit. No, this is not a purely national question: European law has been violated. Citizens across Europe have been spied on illegally, sometimes by their government, sometimes by the government of another state. The integrity and security of the European Union, its institutions and representatives are at stake. The Commission and the Council, which I regret not to see with us at the moment, at the time of this debate, have already been more quick to take swift action on security issues. I want to hear your strong condemnation of these espionage acts. I want to hear you say that investigations are being opened and that the violation of parliamentary immunity is a red line. No, listening to parliamentarians, political opponents, journalists, lawyers or human rights defenders is not a matter of national security alone, in a Europe driven by democratic values, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights. On International Press Freedom Day yesterday, journalists denounced a new normality that they must take into account: new normal, where this type of espionage in the exercise of their profession is legion. Well no, this kind of espionage cannot be a new reality that we will have to deal with. We need to legislate. In the face of what poses a threat to our security, the response must be strong: trade sanctions, revision of judicial and police cooperation agreements, strict application of the Regulation ePrivacy and the Dual-Use Regulation, Directive Due diligence for European businesses, and so on. The tools are within our reach, but they are nothing without a very strong political will. I expect all political groups to lift the taboos. Our committee of inquiry will have to provide the answers you do not give. It will have to establish responsibilities, provide remedies and reparations to victims, ensure that sanctions are taken against offenders and lead to prohibitions of these tools. The debate today is important. We expect Parliament, through our President, to stand firm in protecting its own Members, recall the principle of parliamentary immunity and condemn spying on its Members. And the message must be unambiguous: this type of interference is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Our house must ensure the protection of all its members and also of its staff. Recall that assistants were also targeted by these eavesdroppings. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. That this Parliament, in addition to the establishment of our Committee of Inquiry, take a strong step by calling on the European Commission and the Council to clearly denounce the illegal use of this type of spyware, to open investigations and ensure transparency, but also to work best with our Committee of Inquiry. This is because, I repeat, it is not just about parliamentarians, but also about all citizens and the European institutions.

Mr President, is Europol on its way to becoming the European NSA: illegal analysis of personal data, development of facial recognition, exclusion of the European data protector, mass surveillance, registration of political activists, cooperation with third countries spying on us? Having come to legalise illegal practices, the reform of the European Police Cooperation Agency, presented as a technical one, was proposed without evaluation or impact assessment, while considerably extending the powers of the agency. However, the impact of Europol’s tasks on fundamental rights is very real and, as legislators, it is up to us to protect them effectively. It is true that we have secured the establishment of a fundamental rights officer and a consultative forum. These are positive developments, but largely insufficient to ensure respect for the fundamental rights of citizens in Europe and elsewhere. In a democracy, democratic scrutiny of the activities of an agency in charge of police cooperation is indispensable. On this International Press Freedom Day, seeing my own country, Belgium, drop by 12 places in the Reporters Without Borders ranking because journalists are victims of violence there, including by the police, confirms to me that we are not apprehending security issues at the right end. Colleagues, I am deeply convinced that this reform is not the right one and that we certainly cannot risk Europol falling into the same trap as the NSA.

Madam President, Commissioner, ‘in wars, children may not be targeted, but they are killed’. These are the chilling words of French resistanceist André Frossard recalling the cruelty of war, its violence, death and exile. For the youngest, more than a life in suspense, it is a stolen innocence, a life under construction that breaks and clashes violently with fear and the unknown – something no child should ever know. Children are therefore the first victims of the atrocities committed by adults, and at least 158 children have already paid with their lives for these atrocities. It has to stop. Nearly 2 million children have already fled the war, 60% of Ukrainian children are internally displaced and millions of children are still living there in the daily anguish of the conflict. The European Union is taking responsibility. It acted swiftly with the implementation of the Temporary Protection Directive. It must ensure swift protection and access to rights for all children and young people fleeing Ukraine, without distinction. The most vulnerable must be protected, so that the horror of war is not compounded by discrimination and risks to their dignity. The EU must also provide direct means to ensure the safe passage of official transport across borders to states, avoid trafficking in human beings and exploitation of children, facilitate the continuity of care they need, offer increased protection to unaccompanied minors with the immediate appointment of a guardian, and also facilitate family reunification. Enabling these children and teens to look to the future, ensure a dignified life for them and enable them to integrate means giving them access to the Child Guarantee and European funds. This means guaranteeing them automatic access to education, culture, health, psychological assistance, housing and sexual and reproductive rights. Today's reception by citizens, associations, civil society and local authorities is exemplary. You are the face of a welcoming Europe and once again take pride in this Europe of solidarity that your actions and your voices have been calling for for so many years. It is now up to the Member States and the European Union to make the human and financial resources directly available to associations, municipalities and solidarity-based citizens, on which not all solidarity efforts can be based. Yes, what is happening today in the European Union for people fleeing the war in Ukraine proves how European solidarity works. What is being put in place today must constitute the common foundation on which the European asylum and migration policy must be built, a policy based on reception and solidarity and marked by humanity. This call is now being made by a vast majority of this Parliament, following work in cooperation with all political groups. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the Ukrainian youth and for the European youth.

Madam President, Commissioner, as you said, the social and environmental impacts of the textile sector are no longer to be demonstrated. I would add to the long list that you have already drawn up that workers are 60% at risk in this sector, in addition to being victims of forced labour, that women, the majority of the workforce in this sector, work under poor conditions for indecent pay – not to mention child labour – and that they handle dangerous chemicals, sometimes banned, without protection. And as consumers, we often do not know that when we wear these clothes, we too experience the effects of endocrine disruptors and other substances that are harmful to health and the environment. Regulating the textile sector is therefore one of the keys to achieving the European Green Deal and the Sustainable Development Goals. The European strategy for sustainable textiles must drastically reduce the environmental and social footprint of the sector and, above all, apply to all businesses – all of them, including SMEs, which make up the majority of the sector. Unfortunately, the Corporate Due Diligence Directive does not do so, as it is limited to the largest multinationals. Moreover, in order to have a real impact, the strategy must be complemented by tools that must be adopted for the textile sector, such as a ban on the import of products made with forced labour, but also a ban on harmful chemicals. Citizen demand is high. It is high time to respond.

Mr President, almost two weeks since the Russian invasion of Ukraine and already two million people on the roads of exile fleeing an attack that is every day more deadly and unfair. Two million, and more to come. So many broken lives and childhoods, separations due to war, unwavering resistance. In the face of this tragedy, Europe is activating the temporary protection of Ukrainian refugees. All in all, it is a normal and welcome decision after so many years of solidarity with the exiles resting solely on the shoulders of solidarity citizens and associations, without any real support from the public authorities. This protection must now apply to anyone fleeing Ukraine. It must also be accompanied by human and financial resources to ensure a dignified reception and protection of such persons in the Member States. The awakening of consciousness touches the heart of our humanity. The momentum of solidarity and generosity that invades us must make us aware that anyone fleeing their country must find refuge in Europe, at all times, without distinction or discrimination. Fortress Europe must fall. Long live a welcoming Europe!

Mr President, European passports and visas for sale... For a majority of exiles, the dream of joining the European Union ends at our borders. For a minority of the ultra-rich, on the other hand, a slap of the finger, accompanied by a nice sum of money, is enough to obtain the European grail. A promise to invest in exchange for a golden passport that allows you to travel freely, open a bank account, vote, do business, even launder your money and exercise your influence. Rights granted with impunity to Russian oligarchs, faithful servants and purveyors of funds of the Putin regime. Their European passport or visa must be withdrawn immediately. But the golden passport and visa system itself carries inherent risks of tax evasion, corruption, money laundering, dirty money invested in European economies. Already eight years ago, this Parliament demanded a ban on golden passports, which would have closed a door to Russian interference. Today, the reality of war is catching up with us, pointing to the urgency of what the European Commission and the Member States have so far missed: a real political will to, among other things, abolish the golden passport system within three years, regulate golden visas to make them unattractive, strictly regulate the commercial intermediaries who benefit from this system. The time when the European Union served oligarchs and other undesirable corrupts is over. Get around! European citizenship is not for sale.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, just a few weeks before the end of the Slovenian Presidency, we are learning, not without some relief, of the appointment for five years of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is thus becoming fully operational, and I welcome that. Finally, Slovenia joins the fight against fraud and corruption linked to the European budget. But why does Prime Minister Janez Janša, who delayed and then blocked the appointment of delegated prosecutors, call these appointments temporary? I would like to understand and, above all, to remove any doubt as to whether there is any intention to reform the procedures for appointing prosecutors and to bring the country's independent judiciary to a standstill, which would be yet another breach of the rule of law. Today we want a firm and unambiguous commitment from Slovenia so that we can once and for all close our exchanges on these nominations and to mark Slovenia’s return on the train of democracy, judicial independence, respect for the rule of law, freedom of the press, opposition and civil society. Universal values that we want to continue to share with the Slovenian people.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the majority of our trade flows today prevent the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. In particular, international trade is responsible for 30% of our CO2 emissions, 30% of greenhouse gases and the loss of biodiversity worldwide. I often hear that trade should not serve other agendas, but neither should it serve them. Trade must serve the agenda of a fair globalisation that respects the Sustainable Development Goals, which are unanimously recognised as capable of ensuring a better and more sustainable future for all. Two important summits have just taken place, the Biodiversity Summit and the Climate Summit. G7 trade ministers have made these issues a priority in the WTO. The World Economic Forum identifies these issues as major risks. It is not an eco-friendly fad to demand that the EU puts the Green Deal on the agenda of international trade rules. The European Union, in turn, must rise to the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Frontex is the most funded European agency – from EUR 6 million in 2005, its budget increased to EUR 543 million in 2021, i.e. ninety times more resources. And Frontex's budget has inflated along with criticism of it. These criticisms have turned into an investigation by the European Parliament, a report by the Court of Auditors, reports that no longer even include civil society organisations, all of which report internal dysfunctions, manifest shortcomings in the Agency’s tasks, but also duplicity on the part of management in serious violations of fundamental rights at the European borders. An investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office is still open. Our role is to ensure budgetary control and, obviously, the management of Frontex does not take care of it, since our recommendations have been dead letter for years. Despite this situation, which can at least be described as bad governance, the proposal, particularly that of the right, is to vote for the budgetary discharge of the Frontex Agency and thus send it the message that it can continue with impunity. In January 2022, we will resume our work on the 2020 discharge. And what will we do then? We will address the same recommendations, possibly amended from OLAF’s. But what a joke for any observer and what a profound disrespect for our own institution and our role in budgetary control! What disrespect also for European citizens who have the right to transparency and what disrespect for migrants whose fundamental rights are systematically violated at our borders. Today we have to vote against the budgetary discharge at Frontex and we will see in three months’ time, when we resume our work, whether Frontex still considers our recommendations as optional.

Mr President, I find myself forced to go back to the stages of this dossier because it is so little debated, whereas it contains a concentration of the debates that drive us in this House: artificial intelligence, mass surveillance, indiscriminate collection of data, including non-suspects, exchanges of such data with third countries and private companies. The starting point of the reform is the discovery by the European Data Protection Board of the Agency’s massive analysis of personal data outside any legal framework. The Commission then presents us with a reform that legalises illegal practices and significantly strengthens the Agency’s competences at its request. All this without evaluation or impact assessment. Colleagues, this is far from a technical dossier. The exchange of data with private parties and third States has consequences in terms of fundamental rights and data protection. The financing of Europol projects by third countries may have consequences in terms of foreign interference. Empowering the Agency to directly insert security alerts into the Schengen Information System is a highly political issue. Allowing it to develop research and innovation projects, artificial intelligence for experimental and police purposes, and to promote facial recognition technologies, which our Parliament opposed two weeks ago, are highly political issues. Ensuring the protection of fundamental rights is an eminently political issue. However, in view of the broadening of the tasks and powers entrusted to the Agency, the necessary safeguards and independent mechanisms of democratic control cannot be found. Ladies and gentlemen, Europol must ensure the security of all citizens without weakening their fundamental rights. I therefore urge you to oppose this text, these developments that do not make Europe a safer continent for all.

Madam President, Pandora's Box was opened in 2013. Since then, ten more scandals have been uncovered thanks to the same consortium of journalists, revealing a system of systemic fraud by offshore companies, the complicity of many governments and the continued inability to monitor and ensure transparency. These revelations have led to a strengthening of anti-money laundering legislation and tax transparency in Europe. Ten years later, however, there is little or no enforcement of this legislation in our Member States and the European Commission is not opening any infringement proceedings. We demand that it be justified. We can have the highest standards, if they are not applied, what's the point? Pandora Above all, it reveals that those who make the laws are also those who profit from these immoral financial arrangements. Full of cynicism: The Dutch Minister of Finance, Wopke Hoekstra, himself responsible for drawing up lists of tax havens, a major scammer of public spending and promoter of budgetary austerity, is one of the political figures highlighted by the Pandora Papers for an investment in the British Virgin Islands, which are not on the list. We are starting negotiations on the revision of anti-money laundering policy in Europe. We therefore need a political consensus to strengthen the list of tax havens and non-cooperative countries – contrary to what the ministers of our governments have just decided – and to strengthen the European and global rules on tax transparency and the fight against money laundering, to put an end, once and for all, to the offshore industry. Our responses must be commensurate with the scandal; our credibility depends on it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in order to restore trust and make sense of globalisation, transatlantic collaboration must also take place on the human rights front. This is what the Picula report proposes through the development of a common toolbox. In this context, there is an urgent need to tackle the eradication of child labour. For the first time in 20 years, child labour has increased worldwide. 160 million children were working in 2020, one in ten. An additional 8 million children could work by the end of next year due to the pandemic. The United States has a long-standing arsenal of measures to punish companies that employ children. The European Union, which imports €50 billion worth of products from child labour, will adopt legislation next year on corporate social responsibility. While together they account for 30% of global imports, trade sanctions and aid to countries where endemic poverty is the cause of child labour are urgently needed. The Commission must use all the levers at its disposal, including the upcoming Trade and Technology Council, to give substance to the zero tolerance announced more than two years ago by President von der Leyen.

Mr President, the excellent report by my colleague Michèle Rivasi points to the inconsistencies in our European policies and their decisive impact on our southern partners. Our development policies, climate, agricultural but also trade, must aim at one and the same goal: the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, the European Commission does not sufficiently integrate the impact of trade agreements on biodiversity when negotiating with countries such as Indonesia, Brazil or others. Is it necessary to recall that the Amazon is home to exceptional fauna and flora, that it now emits more CO2 than it stores, and that it is home to indigenous peoples at risk of extinction? The consequences of EU trade policy – CO2 emissions, increased agro-industrial practices, deforestation, land grabbing and pesticide use – are devastating for biodiversity and local communities. Europe must therefore put its trade at the service of sustainable development and people's well-being, not the other way around.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, with the Pegasus scandal, spyware revealed once again by journalists and NGOs, we are entering a new era of surveillance. A surveillance that escapes the public authorities and becomes the fact of private companies whose search for profit makes them accomplices of governments, unscrupulous regimes. Journalists, political opponents, human rights defenders, lawyers, politicians, including a former MEP, have been targeted for espionage and repression. Each of us could have been on that list. The Israeli company that markets the software presents it as a decisive tool, exclusively for the fight against terrorism and organized crime. It was presumably misused for purposes other than its original objectives for surveillance, in violation of fundamental rights, but also outside any legal framework. This Parliament is currently working on a regulatory framework for technologies to combat crime. Here is a frightening example of the risks inherent in these instruments. In addition, the European Union is working with the States involved in this scandal through police and judicial cooperation. Are we really ready to enter into cooperation agreements with states that spy on us? We demand a moratorium on the export, sale, transfer and use of these monitoring technologies. We demand protection and reparation for the victims. Responsibilities must be established and the European response must be commensurate with the seriousness of the facts.

Mr President, floods and fires have claimed many lives this summer, causing tens of thousands of euros in damage and leaving indelible traces. While the climate crisis has been widening the north-south divide for years, it now also marks the social divide within our countries. In Pepinster, the floods hit the poorest families first. The social impact of the climate crisis is frontal. Victims, the thousands of volunteers still at work, two months later, European citizens for whom the climate and the environment are among the primary concerns, but also the latest report by IPCC scientists, call for urgent responses. Humanity is in red code. Emergency assistance and the Solidarity Funds as well as the availability of funds are essential to address situations of this magnitude. But structural measures are also needed. Investing in public services, civil protection, firefighters, emergency and health services, adapting policies and adopting climate change mitigation and adaptation policies that strengthen social cohesion: This is the real emergency.