Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the decision taken by the United States is obviously a wake-up call, but it must not make us forget three things that seem essential. The first concerns the persons who are implicated in this decision: there are already judicial procedures, and I think it is essential to reiterate that the necessary means of combating corruption is justice, and that nothing can replace the procedural work of a court which, by the means of information available to it, will be able to take the necessary decisions. The second point to be made is precisely this: The EU needs to strengthen its fight against corruption. This is a certainty. It cannot do so outside these procedural constructs. And of course, we welcome the reinforcements that the European Union has decided on in this area through the European Public Prosecutor’s Office or the strengthening of Europol. But it is fundamental, and this will be my last point, to recall that never can the necessary fight against corruption, the indispensable fight for the rule of law, become the instrument of a purely political trial. It is clear to us how instrumental these issues can be today, how exploitable they can be. And here I am talking about the European Union as a whole. There is no substitute for this fundamental conquest, which has been for the history of democracy the construction of procedures which lead to results after a fair debate, at the end of a full investigation, with the means of effective information. And it seems to me that today, the danger before us is to see this necessary requirement of transparency instrumentalised to serve political biases that are necessarily capable of casting suspicion, not only on those directly concerned, but also, and most importantly, on democratic procedures themselves. We have a major responsibility here and the European Union, on this fundamental debate on the rule of law, must be at the forefront of reason and responsibility.

Mr President, Madam President, you have drawn up a lucid diagnosis and an ambitious roadmap, but one that will require urgent breaks. You mentioned the dependence of our countries on Asia, highlighted by the health crisis, and you want to ensure better health protection. But the danger would be to prepare for the past crisis. Tomorrow's will come where we don't expect it. As you describe this vulnerability, the proliferation of European climate standards will increase our imports from China; taxonomy could make us permanently dependent on Russian and American gas; and a Commission study reveals that its own agricultural strategy will lead to a massive decline in food production. Sadness for European agriculture, which, I still regret today, will not have had a word, increased food insecurity for our countries and new dependencies. It is through the coherence of actions that public speech takes on its meaning. You want to prevent any product of forced labour from being marketed in Europe. But why then sign at the same time an economic agreement with China, which has still not ratified its ban? You refuse helplessness in the face of uncontrolled migratory flows and so do we. People who do not have the right to stay in Europe should be sent back, you say. But then, why is Commissioner Johansson indicting Frontex because it is carrying out this mission? You assure countries subject to migration blackmail of your support. But Mr Erdoğan, who keeps playing with it, receives billions of euros. And when Lithuania asked for help in the face of a near-invasion, Ms Johansson replied that the Commission was not funding walls or barriers. You say, and so do we, that European countries must commit to their security, and we look forward to your proposal to exempt the defence industry from VAT. But at the same time, European financial regulations are creating severe difficulties for the financing of this crucial sector. And the European Working Time Directive creates major legal uncertainty for the operations of all European armed forces. Finally, a final word for the young people who have been so tried, as you have said, in recent months. It is a bit sad to dedicate 2022 as the year of youth, after leaving EUR 750 billion of unfunded debt in 2021. Rather than the artifices of communication, let us offer the coming generation a Europe finally awakened that can guarantee our countries the means to control their destiny.

Mr President, we have achieved this. Negotiation has been difficult, but I believe that we have been able to significantly improve the European Commission's initial proposal, in particular by improving the distribution of funds between our Member States, but also and above all, I believe this is the most important, to ensure that the sectors most affected – and I am thinking in particular of fishermen – will be offered the support they need to be able to retrain. We are giving the fishing industry the legibility and visibility it needed. We guarantee the simplicity of administrative procedures. We are ensuring that the fishermen who will be affected, even in Jersey, Guernsey and the Falklands, will be taken into account in the distribution of funds. This is fundamental because, let us remember, they are now losing 25% of the fishing capacity in value that they could operate in UK waters. And I believe that we must remember that it is also a key to the strategic autonomy of our countries: Today, we import half of the fishery products we consume in Europe. If we want to guarantee our food sovereignty, our countries do not have the right to abandon those who fish and that is, I believe, the message we are sending through this improvement of the Brexit Adjustment Reserve.

Madam President, in Hong Kong, the free press is now being treated as a threat to national security. But accusations of terrorism do not deceive anyone. Press freedom is only a threat to the Chinese Communist Party, which has undertaken to methodically destroy any democratic resistance to its totalitarian project. A few days ago, the last independent daily published its latest edition. After two police raids, the arrest of its founder, Jimmy Lai, chained in front of the cameras, the imprisonment of his main executives, the freezing of his bank accounts, the newspaper was forced to cease publication. This is obviously a message. From now on, all free speech is threatened in Hong Kong. From this Parliament, we must express our immense admiration for the courage of those who pay the price for this commitment, which they have never given up in favour of democracy: journalists fromApple Daily, but also Joshua Wong, Ted Hui, Claudia Mo and so many others. We stand by them because 10 000 kilometres away, Europe is directly concerned. And this is not, contrary to what the Chinese regime claims, an internal China matter. Firstly, because it is a unilateral breach of an agreement it signed with a European country only 35 years ago. It is therefore not only Hong Kong’s freedom that China is attacking, but also the entire Western world. It de facto weakens the whole climate of the relations that we can build with it, including on the commercial level. What will happen to the investments that we claim to secure with China, if this platform that Hong Kong has always represented for trade relations were to disappear permanently, in its freedom, for the benefit of the Chinese Communist Party? Europe must promote the principles of the rule of law that it is honoured to uphold in its trade and political negotiations. Here it must prove its consistency. We are expected because, in fact, the future of freedom is at stake. If we do not react, we will let China impose its model, which is actually a global counter-model.

Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, double standards, the latest Council conclusions are once again indicative of European biases in international matters. France and Germany offered to reopen a dialogue with Russia. The US President himself has taken an important initiative for this, but the European Council has blocked this proposal, I quote, because of ‘malicious, illegal and destabilising’ actions. However, the tone is very different when it comes to Turkey. The Erdoğan regime is continuing its migration blackmail, violating the territorial integrity of several European countries, mobilising terrorist organisations, staging its means of political pressure in our countries and even going so far as to prosecute its opponents at home, most recently. Do we need more malicious, illegal and destabilising actions? We could go on with the list for a long time. In response to all this, the latter Council, I quote, recalls that it wants to ‘develop a mutually beneficial cooperative relationship with Turkey’ and welcomes a more serene context. To continue the dialogue, he decided to grant Mr Erdoğan an additional EUR 3 billion. How can we take such an incoherent Europe seriously? A weak Europe, to the point that it finances Erdoğan in the hope that he will solve for us the migration problem for which he is in fact one of the main culprits. A Europe whose constantly claimed commitment to the rule of law is so variable in geometry. And then – because we have to talk freely, ladies and gentlemen – a disunited Europe, to the point where Germany sells Turkey the submarines with which it will threaten Greece, Cyprus and perhaps the French navy again in the Mediterranean Sea tomorrow. Colleagues, Mr President, I have the despairing feeling that these Councils follow one another and are alike. But what else can we do than say it again? It is time to open our eyes before history suddenly takes us out of the denial of reality.