Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, lack of mutual commitment to compliance with the Paris Agreement, exponential increase in agricultural quotas, lists of protected geographical indications patched up, lack of assurance of a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials, this is what critics of the modernisation of the agreement with Chile defend, stuck in binary dogmas, trapped by an outdated vision of geopolitics and unable to say with political honesty that it is a modernisation of an old trade relationship between Chile and the European Union. Because the initial agreement reached in 2002 is no longer suited to our common objectives and this vote will now make it possible to make progress, progress towards more reciprocity, more coherence and more protection. Colleagues, my fight to move from free to fair trade, I will never give up. So yes, I will vote for this modernization. And conversely, I will put all my energy into opposing outdated agreements, such as the one with Mercosur, as they stand. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Mr President, as shocks follow one another (financial crisis, Brexit, etc.), as climatic hazards and bad weather have become the norm, while our farmers are victims of Putin and his attempts to destabilise European agriculture, committed women and men are perpetuating our traditions and producing quality food. This know-how, such as county, cider and Roscoff onion, is protected by the designation of geographical indications. These products are an opportunity for European agriculture that we stand for. These products are an immense force for the European Union, which pioneered this system of protection that we export. These products are an advantage for our international reach. The European Union is increasingly building reciprocity by ensuring that our geographical indications are also preserved in other countries. Geographical indications embody the very essence of the terroir, the cultural identity and the economic identity of the communities that produce it. We must continue to preserve this heritage and seal of authenticity with strength and vigour.

Mr President, in the face of military escalation on our continent and the growing atrocity of the Russian aggressor, inaction is not an option. In the face of rivals who are abandoning international cooperation, we must take the lead in a world shaken by crises. Faced with allies injecting capital into green industries and education, we Europeans cannot be in half measure. Commissioner, your omissions concerning a substantial sovereignty fund prevent us from entering a new era for Europe, which is a necessity and much needed. While we will support the STEP agreement, it does not reflect our aspirations due to the lack of sufficient financial mechanisms. Foundations are being laid, but it is time to face reality. Without quality training, our European industries have no future. Without strategic investments, no European competitiveness. Without a constant push for innovation, European sovereignty will remain a distant dream. So just one course: Let us reconnect with audacity, with ambition, and this in Europeans!

Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President, 1 February 2024 is a double victory. A victory for Ukraine, first of all: our €50 billion aid is another strong signal. We have been, we are and we will always be at the rendezvous of history. Our duty? To stand by the Ukrainians, who defend their freedom and sovereignty, who set the standard for our European values. A victory for the European Union, then: Viktor Orbán is now completely isolated. His blackmail did not work. More united than ever, we have not given in and we will not give in to the sirens of fear and the tocsin of terror. These victories must not remain in vain. We need lasting solutions, solutions to stop being vetoed or cowardly by a few, solutions to maintain and strengthen our European unity, solutions to ensure that our common destiny is truly that of peace, freedom and sovereignty.

Madam President, Commissioner, yesterday we Europeans were the pioneers of the solar industry, conquerors and leaders of a future market. Today, they, the Chinese, dominate the solar panel sector with massive subsidies and predatory behaviour. Tomorrow, they, Americans, will rightly invest in the technologies of the future. In this disconcerting reality, our industries are flickering, our SMEs are cashing in, our workers are suffering. Our internal market cannot and should not be flooded with ultra-subsidised solar panels. Some say that some of our European ports hold the equivalent of two years of our Chinese subsidised solar panel needs. This is unacceptable. Commissioner, we must act, act more quickly, act even more strongly. Let's become demanding producers again, let's remain intractable competitors, let's remain innovators and creators, let's give ourselves all the means of our ambitions. We are currently negotiating the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) and our Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA). Let's not be shy, let's not be lukewarm. Stop the half-measure! We need clear financial support and investment commitments.

Madam President, Commissioner, we are still talking here about competitiveness, sovereignty and I am the first. But none of this will happen without Europeans, women, men, their talents. This will not happen without the certainty that Europeans have sufficient skills to respond to the changes and challenges of our time. We are at a critical juncture. Environmental challenges and ensuring our independence are issues we must face. To answer them, only one solution: investing in skills, investing in youth, supporting our workers in the new labour market, creating European training in key sectors. This is what we have achieved in the Net Zero Industries Act, which we all voted here last November. Almost all of them: Some MEPs voted against it, including French MEPs from my country, on the benches of the far left. They cradle illusions because let's all be sure of one thing: Without this, there will be no European competitiveness. Without this, there will be no European sovereignty. Without this, there will be no answers for quality jobs for all Europeans.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, as the competition that stimulates becomes the confrontation that divides, as the global race for clean technologies accelerates, we must build a united, sovereign, competitive Europe, always at the service of Europeans. For this, it is essential and imperative to invest in people, in talents, those who participate in our economy. Fair wages and safe working conditions are non-negotiable requirements and principles. So how? By investing in education and skills development, leaving no one behind, in our battle against climate change and in the face of digital transformations. By pushing strict criteria in the award of public contracts so that social criteria are finally taken into account. By putting an end to unfair competition, also with the fight against unfair foreign subsidies. And we also need to ensure reciprocity.

Mr President, we can no longer sit idly by in the face of the circumvention of sanctions against Russia and the repeated violations of human rights in Xinjiang. We can no longer accept unfair competition from a Chinese market closed to European companies. We can no longer let this systemic rival control our strategic infrastructure. As you said, Mr High Representative, the summit between China and the European Union could have been a framework for constructive discussions, with concrete actions. Instead, its failure underscores the urgent need to rethink our openness. The ongoing investigation into electric cars is a good thing, but it should not be the last one. Despite the fact that neither the summits nor the dialogues work, the European Union must continue to provide itself with the means, in particular through an effective and ambitious economic security strategy. Only in united Europeans will we achieve our goals. Only as united Europeans will we protect our industries and ensure a fair trade game with transparent and respected rules.

Mr President: takeover of our companies, forced technology transfers, attempts to intimidate, effective control of our imports and exports... Faced with all these attacks and blackmails, Europe must have a strong, coordinated and clear strategy. This has guided our work since the beginning of our mandate. Let’s continue our work with an ambitious and effective economic security strategy, which protects our companies from foreign predatory investors, protects European investments outside our market, ensures that our exports will not be used against us. Let us show that Europe is, yes, indeed credible to protect its interests. Let’s show that Europe, yes, is shaping fair international rules. Let us really show that Europe remains an actor of tomorrow, not just of yesterday.

Yes, I'm French. At least I can recognise your courage, compared to your other colleague, to accept this ‘blue card’ question – first. (Inaudible words in the Chamber from France Jamet) Ah, okay, you are expected elsewhere... You are always expected, to tell the truth! You refer to the fact that the European Union is not up to the task. But what have you been doing since the beginning of the mandate to reform the content of trade agreements? What are you doing in concrete terms to have a real strategy on economic security that meets our objectives of protection and sovereignty? Nothing. As usual. You are here to exploit fears, fears, but you do not provide any solution. Words, words, always words, with you, but never actions to change things. This is unacceptable and it is always unacceptable!

Mr President, let us take a good look at Taiwan: a democratic state, respecting the rule of law, committed to a rules-based international order, aiming for a green, sustainable and fair transition for all. Let us take a good look at Taiwan, a key state in a key region, a state that sees almost half of world trade pass through, a state that faces our systemic rivals, a state that is directly threatened and intimidated precisely because it shares our values. Let us take a good look at Taiwan, a state that supplies a large majority of the electronic components needed for our twin green and digital transitions, a state that seeks to expand its investments abroad, and particularly in Europe. Everything therefore seems to be conducive to strengthening our trade and investment relations, and this European Parliament has already called for this. However, things are stalling, when usually the European Commission is so quick and so inclined to want to multiply trade agreements. Commissioner Dombrovskis, you have just mentioned compliance with European standards and I welcome that. So why, in the end, such oppositions? We are being told about sectoral progress. But when? How? Why do we allow other states to benefit from these future investments? Commissioner, tomorrow's relations are being built today. So yes, let’s take a good look at Taiwan and don’t turn our backs on this state, which is just asking to work with us.

Mr President, Commissioner, threat to our gallium imports, threat to our germanium imports, threat to our graphite imports, threat to our rare earth oxide imports: these are examples of our European vulnerabilities, and it is time to put an end to this situation of dependency with the adoption of this text on critical raw materials, in order to diversify cooperation and support our partners in achieving the objective of carbon neutrality. Here is the European particularity: Acting together to address global challenges. In order to get third countries and European citizens to join, we must explain, convince and be transparent. That is why we need to discuss the implementation of all these partnerships now. Europe needs to get out of its dependencies, but it needs to do so in a way that benefits everyone and is transparent. This is the European particularity, this is what we have defended, this is what must become a reality.

Mr President, the European Union is much more than just an economic unit. It is a political project based on respect for the rule of law. And for years, the citizens of Hong Kong have shown us that this ideal counts. Yes, an independent judiciary is worth fighting for. Today, they pay the price. Repressions, disappearances, imprisonments, arbitrary trials. It is there, the response of the Chinese government. And let us not be mistaken, this answer is also intended for us and we must be very firm. But to be heard, the European Union must be united. As Europeans, we must end our dependence on China, work towards our strategic autonomy, accelerate our risk reduction, not allow any attacks on the rule of law to pass, and support the people of Hong Kong. Yes, Commissioner, only with a strong Europe can we help the people of Hong Kong. So let's stop procrastinating and move on.

So I will try to couple the two elements and I will bounce back on Mr. Caspary's remarks to also provide an answer to Mrs. Aubry. Because indeed, Mr Caspary, you are right to point out that the French make the climate argument for imports, but never for exports. I acknowledge, however, that this is not the case for Manon Aubry. Others yes, but not her. So I would like to thank you for this question, which highlights the inconsistency of some French parliamentarians from different political backgrounds, specifically from the far right. To answer more specifically on the question of reciprocity, we will continue to fight, as we do every day on the questions of mirror measurements. But I will not let you say that products entering the European market do not comply with European standards. There are issues of unfair competition indeed, but there is real respect on the issue of public health.

As I was actually saying, I was eagerly awaiting this blue card to have a real substantive debate and a real ambitious debate on these topics. Yes, you are right, Emmanuel Macron said so. And what is our action here in the European Parliament? Not be in the dogmas, but really act to shape trade agreements. Because you tell us that you don’t want trade agreements, all right, but you don’t want trade agreements, which rules does that mean? While we have fought here sometimes against our political group to precisely shape these new rules. Quite honestly, I have not waited today and every day I am on the ground with farmers, with Breton farmers in particular, to shape the rules. So we will continue to fight, and I also look to the Commissioner, the challenge will be implementation, and he knows that here too I will be extremely demanding.

Madam President, Commissioner, yes, I will vote in favour of the agreement between the European Union and New Zealand. Yes, I support the progress achieved with a reliable and ambitious partner, with a parliamentary democracy that resembles us. Yes, I support the environmental safeguards contained in the agreement, with the mention of the Paris Agreement and finally with a system of sanctions. Yes, I support the concrete economic gains for European and French companies as well as the recognition of geographical indications. Then we will be the only French political force capable of assuming such a vision. Other delegations often go against their European group remaining in an outdated ideological straitjacket, while this agreement must become a minimum standard, a standard for all ongoing and future negotiations. It is only with the reciprocity of environmental and agricultural standards that we will advance, and this agreement shapes them. Only in this way, with this agreement, will we shape regulated, sustainable and fair trade. So let’s move forward with this agreement. Let’s not be populists like the far right can be, as they did earlier. And truly let us move forward to shape world trade and not remain in the dogmas of the past. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Madam President, Commissioner, we must do everything we can to achieve our climate goals. We must do everything we can to relocate our industries. We must do everything we can to end our addictions. We need to do everything we can to meet the labour needs of our companies and train our workers. The answer is European: it is the Zero Industry Act’. In particular, we are laying the foundations for a legislative act promoting the purchase of European products (Buy European Act). This will require stricter criteria in the award of public contracts (whether social or environmental) so that our European companies are no longer disadvantaged. This will involve targeted training to ensure that European workers have the necessary skills. This will require a simpler permit system for cleantech plants. Only in this way, committed as Europeans, will we be able to stay the course set since the beginning of the mandate "climate, competitiveness, sovereignty" and all at the same time.

Mr High Representative, you seem ready to become a geopolitical Europe and to act as such. We are ready for it and we have a duty to do so for Europeans and for all those who rely on us. Mr High Representative, let us be proud to tell the world who we are: Democrats and Europeans. Mr High Representative, let us stand firm in the face of all warlike and obscurantist offensives. Declaring itself geopolitical is not enough to be so. To be so, one must become sovereign and powerful. To be so, we must remain courageous and credible. To do so, we must act consistently, act to defend democratic, humanist and universalist values, act to defend respect for the international order based on the rule of law, act to defend its principles and interests when they are threatened and attacked. In terms of trade, we are charting the course of this geopolitical Europe, gradually shaping a regulated, fair and sustainable globalisation. Through our initiatives, we have strengthened our legal arsenal, to become a more reliable and bold Europe. With two new initiatives, we must consolidate these achievements, for and with an economic security strategy, and with a legislative initiative, we will strengthen European unity when we emerge from unanimity. Mr High Representative, let's move on!

Madam President, Commissioner, just a few months before the European elections, the Commissioner is presenting the last work programme of his mandate. Since our election, we have seen the world change, and with it, how we perceive ourselves as Europeans. Take the Green Deal: we accompany our continent towards ecological and environmental neutrality, we invest where necessary, we defend the sectors of tomorrow and we ensure that no one is left behind. We have relaunched our industry to make the Europe of tomorrow a power to which Europeans will be proud to belong. The latter programme must be part of this continuity: a Europe that protects its citizens, a Europe that strengthens its links with other continents – notably Africa – a Europe that strengthens its trade instruments. In four and a half years, we have changed considerably. We must continue and not lose sight of our ambitions, otherwise we will abandon the promise of the Europeans.

Madam President, there is no future for our European industries without quality training. No European competitiveness without skills. No European sovereignty without know-how. The rest of the world knows how important investing in women and men is. We Europeans must not be left behind. STEP, the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform, will include training of young people and reskilling of workers. Commissioner, you have ignored our calls for an ambitious sovereignty fund that sufficiently supports workers in a rapidly changing labour market and fully supports our continent in its climate and digital transition. Today, you need to commit even more and make a legislative proposal that is up to the task and more important. My question to you is simple: Will we invest in the future and in our skills or will we stay behind in an increasingly demanding and competitive world?

Mr Mariani, it is always great to hear you in this Chamber and to see a little bit of all the inconsistencies you have. You tell us that Europe is open to anything and then you refuse sanctions. You tell us that we must not have any trade agreement, but, despite everything, you do not vote for a protective element, which is the carbon mechanism. What is the consistency in your positions? Really, there are none. You also tell us that we need nothing more as an agreement. And here you tell us that some elements may be needed. So where do you really want to bring the French and Europeans?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, remember the adoption of my amendment rejecting the agreement with Mercosur as it stands. This position of the European Parliament reveals the profound need to defend a trade that is regulated, fair and sustainable. New trade agreements may be, but not at any price, not at the price of our coherence, our climate ambitions, our food sovereignty. We must continue to move from free trade to fair trade. The new chapter on trade and sustainable development in the agreement with New Zealand must be a minimum standard. We need to apply this standard to all our trade agreements, those already in place and those to come. And mirror measures, for their part, to guarantee reciprocity in our exchanges, must become a reality. Only in this way will our trade agreements be real geopolitical levers. Only in this way will our trade agreements defend our sovereignty and competitiveness. Only in this way will our trade agreements be acceptable to all. So, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, let us move in this direction.

Madam President, Commissioner, as you said, the European Parliament has been calling for a coordinated exit from the Energy Charter Treaty for a year now. Since then, nothing or so little has changed. We always have the feeling of reliving the same scene in committee, in plenary session. It's the never-ending story. Despite the European Commission's proposal for a coordinated exit, some Member States are procrastinating and the Council is not here today, although the negative consequences are there. Companies that invest in fossil fuels and continue to demand billions from our Member States. The survival clause that is not eliminated, the coherence of our European policies that is not ensured, our objective of carbon neutrality that is threatened. Commissioner, while our two European institutions have come together on the urgency of a coordinated exit, while eleven Member States, including my own, France, have already announced their exit, the Council must join us. The European Union must speak with a united and strong voice. We must free all states from this anachronistic straitjacket. Today, where is the Council? Where is the plan, on their side, for this coordinated exit? What more is needed to move forward?

Mr President, very quickly, I am going back to economic security and the new instruments so that the Executive Vice-President can go into a little more detail. Indeed, it is not just a desire to target China, it is broader, it is for the European Union, it is not against anyone, but it is for us. Again, whether it is really outward investment, how do you plan to move forward and how do you plan to bring unity to the Member States as well?

Mr President, Mr Executive Vice-President, you have come back from China. I will have several questions. First, on critical raw materials. We voted for our ambition here: Get out of addiction. And in China, you announced that you want to continue discussions on a possible transparency mechanism for supply chains between the EU and China. What can you tell us about this future mechanism? Moreover, in a speech in China, you referred to and described our strategy for our economic security as a "country agnostic". What do you mean by that? And how do you "de-risk" our economy without looking at the countries facing us, especially China? I just saw on social media the publication of the list of critical technologies. This includes quantum computing and artificial intelligence, which is a good thing. But here too, how do you intend to move forward with the presentation of the new instruments? And I am thinking in particular of the control of outgoing investments.