Debate contributions by Jean-Paul GARRAUD

Mr President, in Iran, a courageous people stands up against a dictatorship of relentless violence. Women and men face death for an elementary requirement, freedom. Faced with this demand, the mullahs' regime opposes only one response, terror, and thousands of unarmed Iranians are massacred. Meanwhile, Europe is not reacting. This diplomacy of complacency has failed. It only consolidates a regime that spreads and finances Islamism even in our own territory. It is imperative that the international community provide real and unwavering support for this resistance. And there are ways to do that. Pressure must be exerted to restore access to the internet, to break the silence and allow the world to see the truth of the people's struggle. Supporting a democratic transition in Iran is a moral obligation and a strategic imperative for our collective security. Our Patriots group has stood resolutely and always alongside the great Iranian people. Let us reject the complicity of silence and act clearly for the camp of freedom.

Madam President, Mrs von der Leyen has just signed with a smile the death penalty for our agriculture. It signed the agreement after more than 25 years of negotiations, a sign of widespread resistance to the treaty. Why? Because there are still people who want to preserve their agricultural world, the world that has shaped our nations over the centuries. For Ms von der Leyen, Mercosur is one of the outcomes of Maastricht: This centralizing, globalist Europe, which wants to rule everything, to the detriment of our nations. But finally, ladies and gentlemen, react! Will you continue to be dispossessed of your prerogatives without saying anything? Worse still: by knowingly participating in it? Because there are those who are for Mercosur, for this unbridled globalism – it is their choice – and then there are those who are for it but who make it seem that they are against it. I want to denounce here this hypocrisy, this duplicity. President Macron did nothing against Mercosur during his eight-year term in office. It did nothing to constitute a blocking minority. He opposes it today knowing that it is no longer useful. He is doing so only to try to calm the huge wave of protests and criticism that threatens to win him and his government. As for Mrs von der Leyen, she has bypassed our Parliament. Never seen before! It split the agreement in two so that the trade component could not be blocked by a Member State’s veto. It then ensured that the Treaty would only be subject to ratification by this Parliament after its application. But what a scandal! Again, are you going to endorse such a blatantly undemocratic practice? Remember that you represent 450 million citizens. On Thursday, during the nominative vote, we will know who condemns our agricultural model and who wants to save it. I urge you to overcome partisan divisions, liberate your consciences and respond to our peoples. On Thursday, by voting for the motion of censure, you will show courage and support to our farmers, and you will give back to this Parliament its role! If, on the contrary, you press the red button, you will make the opposite choice and answer for it in front of the story.

Madam President, for years, the European Commission has been attacking countries like Hungary on the basis of an alleged failure to respect the rule of law. However, there is no clear legal definition of this concept at EU level. I have never received a satisfactory answer to my questions to the Commission regarding this definition. This mechanism, invented and implemented by the Commission, is nothing more or less than an operation of pressure and blackmail against the nations that still claim their sovereignty over Brussels. But it does not matter for the Commission, which, despite everything, suspends European funds and penalises those who are not in the Europeanist and ultra-federalist line it has set, even if it means depriving Hungarian students of the Erasmus+ programme, which is truly outrageous. The appearance of the term ‘rule of law’ actually allows for an arbitrary and unfair mechanism to be put in place. When the same people establish, implement and control binding arrangements without the consent of the people, it is no longer democracy, it is a new form of dictatorship.

Madam President,me Is von der Leyen obsessed with Hungary? Brussels' political relentlessness against Budapest is no longer a drift, it is an assumed strategy. Viktor Orbán leads a legitimately elected government. It is the Hungarian people who have decided, whether you like it or not, and this people is proud of its history, its identity, its traditions, its sovereignty, in short, everything that Brussels fights. Yesterday, Hungary was accused of flouting your smoky conception of the rule of law. Today, we're talking about espionage. And tomorrow, how far will this delirium of stigma go? While Hungarian students are unfairly deprived of the Erasmus programme, the European Commission now wants to include countries in the Middle East and North Africa, such as Algeria, where the human rights situation is far from exemplary. The European Union punishes a Member State, but rewards foreign authoritarian regimes. What scandal and hypocrisy! In October 2025, Hungary still faces a mind-boggling penalty of 1 million euros per day, imposed by the Court of Justice of the European Union for refusing the mandatory reception of migrants. All this in addition to an additional fine of 200 million euros. That is the price of sovereignty. And that's not all. On behalf of the conditionality mechanism, the Commission is withholding almost €19 billion of EU funds, yet owed to Hungary, deliberately depriving a Member State and its people of their rights. A real blackmail! A political scandal! Hungary, which is resisting, is the Commission's scapegoat. Hungary will not bend. Not all European Patriots either.

Mr President, by banning the sale of thermal vehicles from 2035, the European Union has signed one of its most absurd and suicidal laws. Under the guise of a dogmatic ecological transition, Brussels offers on a plateau the European automotive market to Chinese and American manufacturers. While they jealously protect their industry, we sacrifice ours. Asian giants produce low-cost electric cars, often subsidized by states with little regard for real ecology and labor law. Result: European companies cannot keep up, their factories close, their workers are fired, their patents are leaking. In this area, as in so many others, the European dream becomes an industrial nightmare. The Association of European Automobile Manufacturers, which represents fourteen automotive companies in the European Union, including the French flagship Renault, continues to sound the alarm. The German chancellor said on Monday he was in favour of a revision of the ban, fully understanding the major challenges facing the automotive industry. What about motorists, especially those who live in our countryside or in the suburbs? Not everyone can afford an electric vehicle. The combustion engine car remains their only viable option financially and technologically. Tomorrow, these motorists will be banished from society, impoverished and deprived of an essential freedom: that of circulating. This policy of the European Union, decided by technocrats above ground, is brutal, unfair and despises social realities. The National Rally strongly opposes this. We demand the maintenance of the freedom of technological choices and the protection of our industry. Dogmatic ecology must not be a pretext for the deconstruction of our economy.

Madam President, Liana. Lisa. Two first names. Two broken destinies. Two young European girls, one Ukrainian, refugee in Germany, the other Dutch. Both victims of a barbarism that our societies should never have allowed to settle. Two names we must refuse to forget. Liana was 16 years old. She had fled the war. She was looking for peace. What she found was death. Last summer, an Iraqi migrant, under a never-executed deportation order, pushed him under a train. Moments earlier, she called her grandfather, frightened. The last sound he heard was his granddaughter's heartbreaking screams. Lisa was 17 years old. A few days ago, she was returning from an evening in Amsterdam. Worried about being followed, she alerted the police. The police, who arrived at the scene, discovered the girl's lifeless body, lying in a ditch with her throat cut. The alleged murderer? A resident of a refugee center nearby, already suspected of rape a few days before. Unfortunately, these atrocious facts are not isolated. They are not miscellaneous facts, as some claim. This violence against women, which has become the daily life of our daughters, mothers and wives, is the direct result of an irresponsible migration policy imposed by the European Union and certain Member States for decades, and accepted by a disconnected caste that sacrifices our children on the altar of ideology. In 2019, in Île-de-France, 63% of sexual assaults in transport were committed by foreigners. These figures do not even include those who have acquired French nationality. In Paris, in 2023, of all the rapes committed in the street, clarified or known, 77% of those arrested are foreigners. In Germany, rapes in Cologne in 2016 were mostly perpetrated by North African migrants. In the UK, more than 4,000 children have been abused by Indo-Pakistani gangs for more than 30 years, with the complicity of media and political silence. A real scandal that we prefer to ignore. The situation in our prisons in France confirms this disaster. In March 2025, the current Minister of the Interior indicated that more than 19,000 foreign prisoners were incarcerated in France, which represents 24.5% of the total prison population, a representation three times greater than their demographic weight. I have just quoted only facts, quantified, sourced, verifiable. Denial in the face of this reality is now intellectual dishonesty. Focusing in this debate on the migration issue does not mean that we deny domestic and conjugal violence, which is a real scourge and a tear for many families. But focusing solely on ignoring violence in the public sphere is equally irresponsible. The situation on public transport, on the streets, in entire neighborhoods on our continent, is no longer tenable. Meanwhile, what is the European Union doing? It funds NGOs that help more and more migrants to reach Europe, even those linked to Islamist networks. It implements the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which aims to distribute these migrants on European soil. It subsidizes ideological projects, such as that of a European Koran worth 10 million euros, probably forgetting the degrading place that Islamists offer to women. The European Commission is going so far as to fund communication campaigns in which veiled girls appear, while the Iranian regime of the mullahs puts to death young girls because they withdraw their hijab. Time is running out. If we don't change course, our societies will change. It is not a matter of statistics, but a vital emergency for our civilization, our countries, our peoples, our daughters. Which Europe do we want to leave them? A Europe that is protective, secure, free, or a Europe that is subject to chaos and sharia? Mass immigration, both legal and illegal, from Muslim countries poses a death threat to our freedoms and, in the first place, to that of women. On the side of the Patriots, the choice is made. We will continue to act as necessary to put an end to this migratory anarchy, to Islamist entrism within our institutions and our societies. We want to guarantee a future imbued with freedom and security for our fellow citizens, and in particular for women in Europe.

Madam President, Denmark now holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. If your government remains marked, Prime Minister, by left-wing policies, it must be acknowledged that in the area of migration you have changed your position in the right direction. But let us do justice to those who have prepared this evolution. It was our allies in the Danish People’s Party who first denounced the devastating effects of mass immigration. Their fight moved the lines. You have now recognized what people have been saying for years: without immigration control, there is no security, cohesion or social justice, and the costs of mass immigration are considerable for the community. Now that you are President of the Council, it is up to you to push for this same firmness at European level, because people expect action: reduction of flows, tightening of the right to asylum, end of abuses and return to sovereignty. Our countries must retain control over their future and destiny: This starts with migration policy. You do it in Denmark. This must now also be done for the European Union.

Madam President, the NATO summit to be held this June should allow us to recall a few key points. I will focus on one of them, concerning Ukraine. In a context of protracted war between Russia and Ukraine, there are still voices calling for Russia to join the alliance. As I say clearly, Ukraine must not become a member of NATO. It is not that the brave and bruised Ukrainian people do not deserve our support, on the contrary, but that support, whether diplomatic, logistical or humanitarian, in no way requires formal membership of NATO, because it would mechanically open the door to a direct confrontation with Russia, engaging, under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, all the members of the alliance in a generalized conflict. Are we really ready for this? Are we fully aware of the dramatic consequences that such a gear would have on our peoples? We need to maintain a red line. NATO cannot become an instrument of extension to Russia's borders. Let us not fall into permanent provocation, the consequences of which could be terrifying. "I am more afraid of our own mistakes than of the plans of our enemies," Pericles warned. Neither today nor tomorrow can and should Ukraine join the alliance. Escalation is not a strategy, it is a fatal chain for our peoples. At the same time, it is high time for Europe to redefine its place in NATO. For too long, we have been the proxies of American power. However, the interests of the United States do not always coincide with those of European nations and the return of Donald Trump demonstrates this week after week. We must demand more strategic autonomy, more balance in contributions, more respect for the security interests of each European nation. France, with its nuclear deterrence, defence industry and diplomatic heritage, must lead the way. It is not in blind submission to the United States that we will prepare peace, but in a powerful, sovereign, rooted Europe of nations. Lucidity must take precedence over ideology. The interests of peoples require composure, firmness and responsibility.

Mr President, the United States has been imposing a 25% surcharge on imports of European cars for a month. This is a real blow for our automotive industry, already exposed to severe Asian competition. This is neither an accident nor a surprise, Donald Trump had clearly announced his intentions; But above all, it is the direct consequence of decades of lack of European protectionism and the opening up of our markets to the whole world. Under the guise of ecological transition, the European Commission has destroyed most of our industrial sectors, sacrificed our thermal powertrains, imposed many destructive standards and delivered our automotive future to China on the altar of globalism and all-electric. While the United States and Beijing protect their industries, Brussels subsidizes billions of militant NGOs responsible for anti-car propaganda. Worse still, the Commission has just proposed the introduction of a mandatory annual roadworthiness test for vehicles older than 10 years and for all European motorists. This is a punitive, unjust and technically unjustified measure, which only aims to make our citizens feel guilty, taxed and dissuaded from using their vehicles. This harassment is unbearable for millions of families who depend on their cars in their daily lives. The results are as follows: a strangled industry, overwhelmed citizens and a Europe above ground, unable to defend its interests. It is time to suspend the Green Deal, restore European preference and national sovereignty, demand reciprocity and relocate our strategic productions. It is high time to get out of globalism, to restore the nation states within a European Union of co-operations. This is the only future solution for Europe.

Donald Trump has just announced a 25% increase in tariffs on European cars. A brutal decision, but, alas, not surprisingly. Why? Because the United States knows that the European Union is still giving in. Far from defending the interests of its members, Europe has locked itself in a technocratic obsession, cut off from industrial realities, unable to protect its factories, its industries and its employees. A power of facade, which prefers posture to action, as if submission had become a course of action. This coup by Washington is only the latest in a long series. The consequences are clear: it is our manufacturers, our equipment manufacturers, our subcontractors and our motorists who will pay the price. In the short term, through cost increases, in the medium term, through plant closures, and in the long term, through an irreversible loss of industrial sovereignty. But make no mistake, this economic attack does not fall from the sky. It is also the result of our own renunciations, a strategic blindness that has lasted for years. For too long, the European Union has imposed above-ground industrial policies, disconnected from the realities on the ground, in the name of an ecological transition that has become dogmatic. Under the guise of the Green Deal, it erases our know-how, sacrifices our thermal engines, imposes untenable standards and delivers us feet and fists related to a technology dominated for twenty years by China. A China that protects, finances, massively accompanies its industry, as the United States also does. Meanwhile, Brussels is failing to build a true European battery industry. Projects collapse one after the other due to lack of coordination, lack of will, lack of vision. Worse, the Commission continues to fund militant NGOs, often radical, that lead an anti-car crusade, undermine our industry, stigmatize our lifestyles and impose their ideology through reports and car smear campaigns. This guilt machine has replaced strategy. Today, the European project leads to a continent without factories, without energy, without jobs, to a Europe that advances without a compass, guided by unrealistic standards, contradictory injunctions and bureaucratic illusions, to a Europe that, by despising reality, ends up sabotaging what remains of its industry. It is time to say stop, to defend our industrial independence, to protect our jobs, our know-how, our competitiveness and to get our feet back on the ground. Because if Europe continues this economic suicide, tomorrow it will be too late, and we will only have our silence to mourn what we have allowed to disappear without fighting.

Mr President, a hundred days have passed since the new European Commission was set up, and a sad observation must be made: continuity with the former Commission, which was largely disavowed by Europeans in the last elections. Far from hearing the message of the ballot boxes, the Commission persists in a policy that seeks to impose itself in the face of the will of the people. For example, in the area of migration, with the New Pact on Migration and Asylum; on the environment, with the Green Deal; on agriculture, with Mercosur and the prospect of new free trade agreements, which sacrifice our farmers on the altar of globalism. The Commission persists and signs in its centralizing and interventionist will, in areas beyond its competence, such as defence. The Commission is always taking advantage of international crises to advance in its grip, to the detriment of the sovereignty of our nations, even if it means interfering in the democratic process of certain Member States. Meanwhile, nothing to protect our external borders; nothing against the threat of Islamist terrorism, even though recently France, Austria and Germany have been hit hard; nothing to save our industries and stem the growing poverty across Europe. However, the findings are clear: The Draghi report, commissioned by the Commission itself, paints a damning picture of Europe’s economic and technological stall. Yet, instead of responding, the Commission is stepping up its failed policies. At a time when it is threatened by a Europe of nations, which we want, the European Union is stepping up the pace to become the anti-democratic supra-state it so desires. Europeans can no longer do so. The time for sovereignty and a Europe of nations is approaching, in the sole interest of our peoples.

Mr President, Rule 10 of our Rules of Procedure requires Members to preserve the dignity of Parliament, and Rule 17 states that Members are responsible for the acts of their assistants. Those rules were trampled on last night. Under the direction and in the presence of Mme Manon Aubry, group president, a crowd of French MEPs and far-left assistants tried to prevent a conference from being held here in the European Parliament by shouting insults and defamatory slogans at the entrance to the conference room. We call for sanctions. These are unacceptable violations of our rules of procedure. We will not be intimidated by Islamic-leftist and anti-Semitic revolutionary apprentices. These acts are serious. You must, Mr President, Madam President Metsola, take sanctions and thus avoid the next actions that these people are preparing. It is your responsibility, Madam President of the European Parliament. We look forward to the steps you will take to preserve the exercise of democracy.

Madam President, there is still time to defuse the agricultural bomb. There is still time for the Commission to abandon the free trade agreement between the Mercosur countries and the European Union, against which our farmers have been protesting for months. But you do not want to give up, Commissioner, I have just heard you. This agreement is, however, a misunderstanding, an archaism and a fault. A misunderstanding, since it calls into question our food autonomy at a time when all other powers seek to guarantee it in the face of the disorders of the world. An archaism, because it contravenes ecological reason and multiplies exchanges with products from the other side of the world, products that, moreover, do not even respect the environmental standards that are ours. Finally, this agreement is a mistake: through an obscure dispute settlement mechanism, you offer third countries, competitors, the possibility of calling into question the decisions of the Member States, thus their sovereignty and the free choices of the peoples. By promising farmers a compensation fund, you implicitly acknowledge that this agreement will cause havoc within our agricultural sectors. However, our farmers do not want us to subsidize their decline or, worse, their disappearance. They want to be protected and promoted. They want to live with dignity and freedom from their work, from this noble mission: Feeding Europe.

Mr President, once again we are witnessing a complete reversal of reality in this Parliament. We are told that collaboration between conservatives and the far right would threaten the competitiveness of the European Union. But who are we laughing at? In his report, Mario Draghi himself, who is not far-right, I believe, sounded the alarm: the competitiveness of the European Union is in free fall. Yet who has governed the European Union for decades? It is not the patriotic parties, it is the left-wing parties, the social democrats, the centrists, the ecologists, who have carried out deleterious policies with their regulatory dogmatism, their fiscal bludgeoning and their Brussels ideology that have stifled our industry and our innovation. Now these same officials are blaming those who are not yet in power. This is a monumental hypocrisy. If Europe is losing momentum to the United States and China, it is not because of a conservative turn wanted by our peoples, it is because of the disastrous choices made by the Eurocrats and their allies. A glaring example of this ideological blindness: nuclear power. Even the word nuclear was forbidden here. The Draghi report made this clear: Without affordable and sovereign energy, it is impossible to remain competitive. Who is relentlessly attacking nuclear power, which is essential to our energy independence and the reindustrialisation of Europe? The left and the environmentalists, who prefer to hand us over to American gas imports, Chinese solar panels or German coal. This energy sabotage costs Europeans dearly and accelerates our economic decline. This debate is a crude attempt at diversion, but our peoples are not fooled. What they want is a policy that finally defends their interests, their economy and their sovereignty, a policy that protects them, especially from mass immigration, a policy rid of any ideology, pragmatic, realistic and effective, a policy that finally stops...

Madam President, Prime Minister, at the beginning of this year, marked by international crises and crucial challenges, the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union is of great importance. Prime Minister, you say that you will commit to act for the security and stability of our continent. We can only encourage you to do so, with one priority objective: the fight against mass immigration, which would otherwise overwhelm Europe. For years, we have been under intolerable migratory pressure, amplified by economic crises, conflicts and the porosity of certain external borders, amplified also – and above all – by a voluntarily immigrationist policy of the European Union, illustrated in particular by the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. Prime Minister, you say you want to commit to building an Eastern Shield to protect your 800 kilometres of border with Russia and Belarus. This is an example of what should be a new era for European politics. The European Union must protect its external borders and support all states that do so. We must reject the mechanisms imposed, such as the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, which aims to relocate migrants to our countryside without consulting the people concerned. These policies are contrary to national interests and the will of the peoples – our peoples do not want them, they should be listened to. However, it is essential to put nations back at the heart of decisions to build a Europe that respects identities and our sovereignty. Our European citizens expect clear actions: Stop uncontrolled immigration, strengthen controls and completely rethink the right to asylum. On the issue of defence, Poland is leading by example in strategic investments, with more than 4% of its gross domestic product devoted to it. However, all this needs to be accompanied by increased vigilance. Cooperation between European nations must not dilute our national sovereignty. That is why we cannot speak of ‘European sovereignty’ or ‘European defence’. The protection of our continent requires a Europe of nations, which defend their sovereignty, their identity, and cooperate with each other, respecting the will of the peoples who compose them. This is what we do.

Madam President, we have recently learned that Mr Thierry Breton, former Commissioner for the Internal Market, is going to join Bank of America. He who for years claimed to defend European sovereignty and production, proudly announcing the end of the naivety of the European Union, joins the symbol of American finance five months after his departure from the Commission. The self-proclaimed champion of independence therefore finds himself working for a very large bank, whose interests are the opposite of ours. Elon Musk’s defendant will now be the employee of the establishment that lent the most to the entrepreneur for the takeover of Twitter in 2022. It would seem that Thierry Breton’s main principles follow the same path as the action of Atos, which he managed for ten years: a slow descent to the number zero. This could be laughed at if it were not for a violation of all ethics and a betrayal of the most elementary morality. That is why I am calling for a debate on the integrity of the European Commission, conflicts of interest, and in particular the case of former Commissioner Thierry Breton, to be added to the agenda.

Mr President, High Representative, the fall of the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad could have been a great hope for the Syrian people, but it risks dragging them into even deeper chaos. The end of the brutal regime that has oppressed Syrians for years has given way to jihadist militias, synonymous with terror and obscurantism. How can we not be horrified at such a situation? These men, these women, these children, these religious minorities – especially Christian minorities – are seeing their future terribly darkened. Syria, a land of cultural and historical riches, is becoming a field of ruins, where instability and disorder reign. But it must be seen with what lightness, with what blindness some Western chancelleries – including the Quai d’Orsay in France – hastened to salute the victory of the rebels – so called – when they are Islamists, and moderate Islamism does not exist. The past examples of Iran, Iraq and Libya should have called for more restraint and less naivety. Beware, moreover, of the consequences for Europe! Such upheavals are causing mass migration flows. Violence and chaos must not be imported onto our soil. The European Union must react with clear-sightedness and firmness, firstly by protecting our external borders, and secondly by returning to the European migration pact, which wants to force the automatic distribution of mass immigration. It is a duty to our peoples, a guarantee of security in the face of threats, but it is also a call to act, to support forces fighting Islamism and to protect persecuted communities. Finally, all asylum applications must be processed outside the European Union. This is a minimum security requirement in the international context of great instability that the world is experiencing.

Madam President, a radical change of policy is essential in the area of migration. The European Commission and several states such as France want a rapid implementation of the migration pact, making believe that this would protect our countries. This is completely untrue. The migration pact will only accelerate mass immigration. With regard to return to the countries of origin, if Mme von der Leyen is now in favour of a firmer policy and is doing everything possible to encourage entry. Before talking about returns, the first priority is to block entries, but the Commission does not want to. Our policy must involve rigorous management of our external borders and controls at our internal borders, as Germany has just decided. Our policy must be similar to that of Italy and Denmark to outsource asylum applications. The financing of third countries should be conditional on the implementation of return agreements. Europe must guarantee the security of its citizens and the sovereignty of its nations. It is a question of justice, security and respect for the will of the people.

Madam President, Prime Minister, for years you have been defending the fundamental values of sovereignty in a Europe that you, like us, wish to be the Europe of nations and cooperation. In the face of constant adversity, you represent those who refuse to see their country dispossessed of its powers by an ever more centralizing European Union. The electoral thrust of the sovereigntist forces, Mr Weber does not mind, and our many joint initiatives have enabled us to form the Patriots for Europe group, the third force in this Parliament and representing 13 nations. Despite all the attempts of Brussels and the anti-democratic cordon established against us, the Maastrichtian model that wanted to impose itself is collapsing. Many nations, for example, want to regain control of their migration policy and re-establish controls at the Union's internal borders, even in Germany, Mrs von der Leyen. The sacrosanct principle of freedom of movement open to the whole earth will soon yield. After having so often supported Hungary during the previous mandate against the interference of the European Union in the internal policy of your nation, I would like to welcome the priority that you, Prime Minister, give to a cause that should bring us all together here: peace. How many times have I heard in this House the warlike speeches of the representatives of the European Union who want to allow the bombing of Russian soil by long-range missiles? This would be the surest way to lead us to an all-out war. In this context, you preside over the destinies of the Council of the European Union. This is a great opportunity for Europe, for all of us. Faced with aggressiveness and serious and untruthful accusations, in particular of Mme Hayer here, you can count on all our support to achieve the very essence of the political fight: democracy and peace.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to make a point of order on the basis of Rule 10(1) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure. On Monday 30 September, one of our colleagues on the far left of this Chamber was co-organising a conference day with the Femyso association in Parliament in Brussels. This is not the first time that this organization close to the Muslim Brotherhood has engaged in a real exercise of proselytism on Parliament's premises. Despite our many warnings and the letter I sent to you, Madam President, on 24 September this year, Parliament continues to accept the holding of these events, which seriously undermine the reputation of our institution, at a time when many countries in the world, but also in Europe, are facing Islamism. As we commemorate today the appalling terrorist attack carried out by Hamas against Israel, it is high time that our Parliament ceased to serve as a forum for all organizations closely or indirectly linked to Islamism. No naivety or complacency can be accepted towards these activists. I would ask you, Madam President, to prohibit in the future the entry of any organisation directly or indirectly linked to Islamism into our institution.

Madam President, although asked to do so by the European Commission, Mr Draghi makes an overwhelming observation about the state of competitiveness in Europe: electricity prices are exploding, the energy transition, in its current state, is a failure, technological innovation is stagnating. But what use has been made of the billions invested by the European Union in terms of competitiveness so far? The Draghi report also confirms what the Rassemblement national has been proposing in France for years. Yet we have been so criticized and discredited! Mr Draghi, like us, defends nuclear energy as a key element in ensuring the energy transition. Like us, he denounces the incalculable number of European standards that burden the Member States and suffocate our businesses. It deals, as we do, with the need to decouple electricity prices from gas prices, and so on. The problem, however, with this report is that, while it is possible to share certain findings, the solutions presented are absolutely not the right ones. European competitiveness policy is bad. Yet, for Mr Draghi, we need even more Europe. It is therefore a new leak forward that is proposed: more and more indebtedness, with plans financed by billions that we do not have and that will be the responsibility of future generations, and ever less sovereignty for the Member States, with, for example, the end of the right of veto for our nations. And what can be said about the insistence of this report on the need for a Europe of defence which will sacrifice our national sovereignty for the benefit of a European army which will respond only to supranational interests, sometimes incompatible with the interests and protection of our peoples? European Europe cannot continue to drag us into this maastrichian cycle where, although it has demonstrated all its shortcomings and failures, it proposes to go even further. The only solution is to change the system, thanks to a Europe of nations, free and sovereign, able to unite and cooperate in projects of general interest. It is this conclusion that Mr. Draghi should have reached after his findings.