Speeches

Mr President, at a time when the European Union is becoming increasingly overwhelmed by migration, at a time when more than a dozen Member States of the European Union are calling for funding to protect their territories and peoples against what should be called an organised invasion, this Parliament is preparing to do the opposite by making it almost impossible to control the internal borders of the Member States of the Schengen area. Following the same procedure and the same will as those used for the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which will increase the arrival of millions of migrants, our Parliament is therefore preparing to negotiate the reform of the Schengen Code as quickly and discreetly as possible. As soon as possible, to be adopted before the 2024 European elections and the likely arrival of a new majority that will block this text. As discreetly as possible, i.e. without a vote and without an immediate public debate in the Chamber, in order to prevent our fellow citizens from discovering the almost total disappearance of national borders that is being prepared here, even in the absence of solid European external borders, which have been promised since the creation of the Schengen area. Because the European Commission still refuses to finance physical barriers at its borders, thereby rejecting calls for help from a dozen EU states. However, the Commission is much quicker to establish a distribution of illegal immigrants in our States, with heavy penalties in the event of refusal. However, the external borders are the most beautiful demonstration of solidarity with countries such as Italy or Greece, on the front line, and are the first condition for the existence of the Schengen area. The policy you want to implement, our peoples, for the most part, do not want it. You want to impose once again a policy against the people. This is the very negation of democracy and the beginning of authoritarianism. You cannot refuse a debate and a vote on a subject that engages the future of Europe, our peoples and our civilisation. I therefore urge you to support my objection on behalf of the ID and ECR Groups and therefore to vote against the entry into trilogue.

I have said and I say again that there is no problem with any kind of discrimination. So, I repeat, it is the law, and there is nothing to add to that. I have dealt mainly with my subject of surrogacy and surrogacy is quite different from what you say, sir. So gestation for others, there is no question of it, one way or another. That's the answer.

Mr President, the title of this debate is so cartoonish that it is stupid. The answer for us in France is simple. We are totally opposed to any discrimination and our legislation provides for penalties for those who contravene it. The debate is therefore closed. The rest is the ideological fantasy of macronist MPs who put their personal choices before the defence of the general interest. But this debate nevertheless has the merit of making it possible to deal with close subjects such as that to which I think, that of surrogacy, this commodification of the human body demanded by certain lobbies. It is very regrettable that Parliament has embarked on this path in defiance of the many laws of the Member States which prohibit it. The practice of using surrogate mothers to then buy their babies from them is despicable. It is also contrary to all our most elementary principles, such as that in French law of the unavailability of the human body. This form of modern slavery knows here two expressions that I have already denounced. The first is the creation by the Directorate-General for Personnel of a special leave to accommodate a newborn in the household, including those born from surrogacy. The second is a proposal for legislation entitled "European Certificate of Parenthood". This certificate is in fact intended to legalise surrogacy within the European Union in a devious way. President Macron says he is against the GPA, but MEPs on his side support these certificates, thus wielding the permanent double discourse. As for us, we will not weaken the defense of the integrity of the human body and the rights of children and we will not give in to any lobby. The general interest first. (The speaker agreed to answer a "blue card" question)

Madam President, this point of order is based on Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that Members shall preserve the dignity of Parliament and shall not damage its reputation. Last Thursday, two MEPs from the same far-left political group as Mr Mélenchon in France, and Mrs Aubry here, organised a conference in the European Parliament entitled "Fermer Guantanamo", one of whose speakers appears, according to the media, as a former Al-Qaeda recruiter and founder of an association considered Islamist by a service dependent on the French government. Also present was another former Guantanamo, questioned on his return in 2016 to Belgium for the help he would have provided to finance a jihadist sector. All these speakers demanded the release of all Guantánamo detainees and their distribution in our Member States of the Union. Madam President, it is unacceptable for Members of this House to organise such an event to the glory of individuals who advocate jihad, enslavement of women and disbelievers, as they call them. It is unacceptable for these individuals to speak here in the European Parliament, which nevertheless prides itself on being the temple of democracy. These Members have, to say the least, seriously damaged the dignity and reputation of the European Parliament. My group would like you to take up this crucial issue.

Mr President, a year ago, young Mahsa Amini died in detention after being arrested by the Iranian morality police for not wearing the veil properly. The young woman's brutal death sparked global outrage and provoked months of protests in Iran against the ruling Islamist regime. Repressed in violence and blood, this just revolt allowed Iranian women to alert the world to their situation. A year later, nothing really changed. Arrests, mock trials, abusive detentions, disappearances and executions are on the rise. And while in Iran, Muslim women are paying with their lives for their refusal to wear the veil, at the same time, in France, Islamists are conducting an offensive with the abaya, an outfit symbolising the enslavement of women. While the Minister of National Education banned it from school, irresponsible politicians from the Greens and unsubmissive France accused the Minister of introducing a clothing police. What an intolerable insult to the thousands of young women persecuted in Muslim countries by real morality police, and therefore clothing. As for the European Commission, it once again illustrates one of its communication campaigns with a veiled girl. The European Union must understand that by promoting the veil, it promotes Islamist entrism and worsens the situation of all those Muslim women who are fighting for their freedom. Our delegation is proud to have organised from the outset a number of official demonstrations to support and even rescue this Iranian people oppressed by obscurantism and Islamist totalitarianism. May his courage inspire the European authorities.

Mr President, by refusing the forced distribution of migrants and the financial sanctions imposed by the European Commission on recalcitrant countries, Poland and Hungary have shown the way, that of resistance. An absolute nightmare for Brussels technocrats who dream of a democracy without a people, Poland even dares to organise a referendum on the subject of migration policy, as we would also like to do in France with Marine Le Pen. The refusal of Poland and Hungary is not only the rebellion of two great proud countries. It is through them the echo of a powerful refusal, that of the European peoples who do not want your migratory submergence and who no longer support the small comminatory tone of the European Commission. People everywhere in Europe no longer want to be silenced and reduced to the rank of extras of a European project that takes place without them and even against them. They no longer want to be forced to welcome people who do not share our customs, values or culture. They want to regain their democratic rights, first and foremost the right to speak, the right to borders, the right to identity. In France, the explosion of violence we have experienced is symbolic of the failure of all this limitless migration policy. This is the failure of an impossible cohabitation between several peoples in the same territory. It was the failure of an above-ground project that transformed united European nations into a fragmented society, undermined by mistrust. Societies where, according to the prophecy of a former Minister of the Interior, we no longer live side by side, but face to face. After a process of disassimilation, entire populations have come to turn their backs on the nation, to spit in the face of the Republic. These riots must sound like an alert for France as well as for the European continent. It is time to finally open our eyes, decide on a moratorium on immigration and avoid the foreseeable misfortunes that your policy will inevitably inflict. There's still time.

Madam President, while the European Commission uses the concept of the rule of law to criticise countries that reject its immigrationist and Wokist policy, it completely spares the French government. Yet, as a rule of law issue, there would be a lot to say about macroist power. Thus, in the case which set France ablaze, the President of the Republic flouted the presumption of innocence of the police officer in question and thereby infringed the principle of the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. We can also mention the President’s desire to censor social networks, the criticisms of his education and culture ministers towards media that do not suit them, but also the retention of the Minister of Justice, who was doubly indicted and sent back with charges in support to the Court of Justice of the Republic. As for the Minister of the Interior, blind to the profile of the rioters and denying the obvious link between mass immigration and insecurity, he must understand that the Mateo and Kevin are very minority among these scumbags. As for the Commission, it allows itself to make assessments of the conduct of French police officers, which has nothing to do with its powers. The rule of law is not variable geometry, so start by applying it to yourself.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you therefore regard Poland as a threat to the rule of law. But what right can you claim that? The European Union is neither a state nor, a fortiori, a supra-state capable of sending dictates to subordinate states. The sovereignty of states is not discussed. The rule of law cannot be used as a pretext for settling political accounts. You fear that the power in place in Poland will come out even stronger in the upcoming elections. It scares you to the point of doing anything. You want an election observation mission to Poland to report on alleged breaches of the rule of law. But what is it? It is a simple law on the organisation of polling stations, intended to facilitate access to its offices, including free transport for the elderly and the disabled on election day. The aim is to facilitate the exercise of democracy. No one can oppose it. This is not a breach of the rule of law, but rather to facilitate one of the fundamental rights: the right to vote. It is the European Commission, made up of appointees, that allows itself to infringe this fundamental right. This is the upside-down world. The rule of law is not your right, it is the right of the people, and you must respect them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the European concert I hear here, my voice will be totally dissonant. The agreement reached by the Council of the European Union is far from unanimous, with two countries resisting the immigrationist ideology of Brussels and four others abstaining. One had to be courageous to oppose this ideology, as sanctions can have far-reaching consequences, especially at the financial level. More needed to be done to propose an opposition coalition against this pact. We strongly welcome and support this Polish initiative. Meanwhile, France approved the deal with both hands on the very day of the terrible Annecy attack, when a Syrian who had nothing to do in France stabbed several very young children. The absolute horror. French Minister Darmanin, who is in charge of protecting the French, is pushing for the distribution of migrants throughout French territory. In this regard, the European Union and Mr Macron and his government want to impose a migration policy that our peoples do not want and they want to do so before the 2024 elections. We will do everything to oppose this disastrous project and, as soon as we are in power, we will trigger a referendum on immigration. First and foremost, the word to the people.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission therefore wishes to create a new body setting ethical standards for all the European institutions. This is a good objective, and scandals affecting the European Union could justify this measure. We all agree to ban corruption, influence and pressure, except that the titles and responsibilities of some do not produce the desired effects. Far from me the idea of ad hominem attacks, but the example must come from above. It would therefore be essential for the President of the Commission to communicate with the CEO of Pfizer. We are talking here about considerable contracts. Commissioner, you said that the text messages of the President of the Commission had inadvertently disappeared; today you would be in charge of this ethics committee: this is ironic. It is somewhat the same as Mr Glucksmann, chairman of the committee responsible for detecting interference, who saw nothing coming from his socialist friends in the ‘Qatargate’ case. Precisely, it is the same people who are pushing this draft ethics committee today who strongly opposed our request to form an immediate committee of inquiry into this ‘Qatargate’ case. This draft ethics committee is therefore an outright diversionary operation. The basic problem is structural: This is a whole system to change. Lobbies, NGOs, consultancy firms and countries outside the EU should no longer be able to exert any influence. Georges Bernanos said that there is no worse disorder at the moment than the hypocrisy of the powerful; Here we are! So, let those who are now at the controls start by doing their own examination of conscience before giving lessons in morality and good conduct! Well-ordered charity begins with oneself.

Mr President, in the face of Hungary’s resistance to preserve its sovereignty and in the face of all your attempts to force it to abandon it, this resolution in fact requires Hungary not to hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in July 2024, as provided for in the Treaties. That is the real purpose of this resolution. We were used to Brussels’ financial blackmail of states rejecting its immigrationist, societal and warlike policies, but this new initiative is literally flouting the spirit of the treaties and humiliating Hungary and its people. I note in passing that by supporting the tabling of this text, the MEPs of the French ‘Les Républicains’ party demonstrate that they are everything but Gaullists. Ultimately, the EU, as a self-proclaimed defender of the Treaties, prepares not to respect them when the political orientation of the country in question does not suit it. This totalitarian behaviour is no longer bearable, and the Europeans made this clear again last Sunday in Spain. Brussels should do its own self-examination, we will help it in 2024 with the upcoming European elections.

Madam President, our continent has been facing massive immigration for years and this Parliament wants to make it worse with the Pact on Asylum and Migration. 966 000 asylum applications were registered in 2022 in EU and affiliated countries, a record since 2016. The figures for the first months of 2023 are a continuation of this trend and give rise to fears of the worst. So what do you want? What do we want? This is the debate that we have managed to impose on this Parliament. You want population immigration under the pretext of demographics, we want to give priority to our nationals. You throw miserable people into the hands of smugglers, we want to remove aspiring push-ups from immigration. You want to welcome all the misery of the world, even if it means destroying our societies, we want to preserve and protect our peoples, our identity, our civilization. Subsidising mass immigration is not inevitable. Solutions exist that you don't want to see. We have been proposing them for years, and some are being implemented in EU Member States such as Denmark, a social democratic country. Why then would the socialists here not do what the socialists there do? Denmark has an exemplary immigration policy which is a consensus among the Danes. This policy protects the population and shows great humanity. Denmark ‘stops’ settlement immigration and accepts foreign nationals only exceptionally, always subject to conditions, thus making the right to asylum its original meaning. Access to Danish nationality is very strict. This social democratic policy demonstrates that opposition to mass immigration affects everyone and transcends political divides in the best interests of the nation and peoples. In recent months, Rwanda has been planning to relocate reception centres for asylum seekers outside the European Union, in this case to Rwanda. An agreement has been reached between the two countries. It is now a question of organising the transfer. Brussels must support this initiative and facilitate its implementation. A majority of the peoples of Europe certainly agree with such a policy. However, the European Union is preparing to adopt, before the 2024 elections, the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which will allow the arrival of 60 to 70 million migrants in Europe. These will be distributed in the Member States by a coordinator chosen by the Commission and without any democratic legitimacy, in violation of the sovereignty of nations. I would like to remind the French Minister of the Interior, Mr Darmanin, who is always ready to give lessons to others as he has just done with Italy, that macronist MEPs have supported and voted for this pact, and are therefore in favour of the resulting migratory tsunami. It is therefore particularly scandalous for this minister to condemn Italy’s migration policy and thus create a major diplomatic incident between France and Italy, at a time when cooperation between these two states is paramount. The dual language of the French minister and the French government is obvious: Do what I say, but not what I do. The example of Mayotte, a French department, is also very significant in terms of the disaster of this migration policy. Faced with a migratory invasion from the Comoros, which refuses to take back its nationals, France continues to grant aid to that State and therefore encourages the aggravation of that invasion. Another double language of France: firmness in speech, laxity in deeds. The European Union must stop granting financial aid to States that refuse to recover their nationals. This is a principle that needs to be endorsed. The financing of third countries must be conditional on the implementation of return agreements. Such deterrent measures would be very effective and protect both European peoples and candidates for immigration who would no longer risk their lives in the Mediterranean. Otherwise, the unfortunate example of Mayotte will tomorrow be the future of France and the future of Europe. The ills that affect our country are not the result of chance, but the result of political choices and decisions that have been made, and to which we must return. The great Athenian strategist Thucydides said that the thickness of the rampart counts less than the will to take it. In this case, Europe has neither a bulwark nor the will to defend its peoples, a first in history. Europe, as it is, is encouraging its own migratory submergence. Concrete solutions exist, which combine firmness and humanism, as we are debating. Let's apply them.

Madam President, our Parliament is preparing to negotiate its Pact on Migration and Asylum as quickly and discreetly as possible. As soon as possible, so that it is adopted before the 2024 European elections and the likely arrival of a new majority, which will block this set of texts. As discreetly as possible, i.e. without immediate public debate, to prevent our fellow citizens from discovering the migration catastrophe that is brewing here. Far from reducing mass immigration to our continent, this pact on migration and asylum will, on the contrary, make it worse. We demand an immediate public debate on these texts – we must not believe that we are against the debate. We want it now, because we know that you will do everything to ensure that this pact applies before 2024. We also want a vote in our assembly on these texts, according to which Member States will have to commit to welcoming asylum seekers arriving in Europe on behalf of a solidarity mechanism. The proper implementation of this mechanism will be monitored by a "European Coordinator for Relocation", a person without any democratic legitimacy. Worse: In the event of a crisis, the Commission will distribute migrants in our respective countries on a mandatory basis. As if that were not enough, migrants’ asylum applications will be facilitated and family reunification greatly expanded and encouraged. As for the initial measures proposed to protect the external borders, they will be kept to a minimum, when they will not simply be abolished. However, real external borders are the best demonstration of solidarity with countries such as Italy or Greece, on the front line in the face of mass immigration. The ideology of the European Parliament was no longer to be demonstrated, but here, in this case, we are burning the steps! As if the rise in power in all our states of an electorate that refuses this policy was feared by Brussels. Because, it must be said, the policy that you want to implement, our peoples, for the most part, do not want it. You want to impose a policy against the people! This is the very negation of democracy and the beginning of authoritarianism!

Mr President, in order to combat global warming, the European Union once again wishes to take binding measures for our people. At the ball of the hypocrites, the Europe of Brussels is queen. It prohibits the sale of cars with combustion engines to promote electric vehicles whose polluting batteries are imported from the other side of the world. It imposes the energy renovation of buildings in Europe, but at the same time it adopts a free trade agreement with New Zealand and pushes the one with the Mercosur area – two ecological aberrations. It sacrifices nuclear energy, energy yet decarbonized and cheap, which assured France an energy independence totally abandoned under the Hollande and Macron presidencies, for the misfortune of our fellow citizens. As my macronist colleague Canfin does not mind, there is no question for us of advocating more renewables on motorways, in the fields and at sea – as he wishes. This is eco-bobo delirium. Wanting to make people happy in spite of themselves is deeply undemocratic. For Brussels, it does not matter whether even more coercive, financially unsustainable measures are imposed on European citizens. In the end, it's always the same ones that toast: the middle and working classes, who are the victims of environmental dogmas. Yet Europe is making considerable efforts in the field of ecology, while China, India and the United States are the world’s leading polluters. Why do Europeans have to pay for the whole world when they are the best students in the class? Their efforts will have no influence on the climate crisis until other powers and so-called emerging countries do the same. If ideology could disconnect from ecology, if constraints targeted the biggest polluters, our old Earth would be infinitely better off.

Madam President, just 20 years ago, the United States decided to invade Iraq. This dramatic decision would produce a chain reaction that the Middle East is still struggling to heal. France honored itself by defying the Atlanticist consensus and proved that European states could have influence in the world if they acted independently. Since the US invasion of 2003, Iraq has returned to chaos that had not spared it in the 20th century. While the Western coalition had promised to install democracy in Baghdad, chaos still reigns in the country. Today, Iraq is disfigured by the consequences of the Islamic State war. Many Iraqis fear that tomorrow a new war will again destroy their daily lives. I am thinking of Christians in the East, especially those in Iraq, who are still living in fear of another eruption of violence. Stuck between community militias and Islamic State sleeper cells, many make the choice to flee the country. Iraq has still not recovered from the US invasion – a lesson we must learn from all the bellicose rhetoric that pushes us to war.

Mr President, in recent months human tragedies in the Mediterranean have multiplied. 441 migrants have died trying to reach European shores since the beginning of the year. A few days ago, the Italian coastguard had to rescue 600 migrants in a ship threatened with shipwreck. The European Union’s migration laxity has not escaped the smugglers, who encourage migrants to take all risks, as they know that they will be rescued and brought to European soil by coastguards or NGOs. The right to asylum has been misused to create a genuine immigration channel without us being able to expel those who have been rejected. Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, is facing European justice for simply trying to carry out its mission by preventing illegal migrants from stepping foot on our continent. Unable to protect Europeans from migratory flooding, the European Union is equally powerless in the face of the tragedies in the Mediterranean. However, the Australian example should inspire us. The country has taken firm measures over the past decade to deter migrants from reaching it. Smugglers have given up crossings and Australia has had no deaths at sea at the height of the 2017 migration crisis. We need to help countries at the external borders of the Schengen area, which face migrant arrivals alone. The only truly humane policy is that of firmness. The message to both migrants and smugglers must be clear: Don't take foolish risks. You will not set foot in Europe.

Mr President, the Brussels crusade to impose its own conception of the rule of law on the whole of the European Union continues to grow in intensity. While there is no legal basis and no truly legal definition, this concept is used by the Commission and Parliament to criticise countries that reject the ‘immigrationist’, ‘wokist’ and falsely progressive ideology. It also serves to impose not federalism but the imperialism of a supra-European Union. This is not new. What is true, however, is that the European Commission, in its third annual rule of law report, makes what it calls ‘recommendations to Member States’, but which are in fact genuine obligations. France, for its part, is largely spared by the Commission, despite its serious breaches of the rule of law. Brussels is clearly not aware that its Minister of Justice is being indicted and referred, with supporting charges, to the Court of Justice of the Republic for trial. Brussels also says nothing when this same minister outrages the national representation by making several arms of honor to deputies in the middle of the session of the French Parliament. Still silence when the President of the Republic unacceptably bypasses Parliament during the pension reform and health crisis, causing chaos in France. As for the European Commission, has it not given itself powers, in defiance of the European Treaties, in the wake of the health crisis and recent international crises? Is it not she who, while asking for transparency from the states, at the same time refuses to communicate the exchanges of her own president with the CEO of Pfizer? The rule of law is therefore very variable in geometry depending on the political ties with the countries concerned, and we do not want that.

Madam President, the Special European Council on Migration has embarked on the path of protecting our populations by demanding a strengthening of the EU’s external borders. The Commission expresses its readiness to finance infrastructure for this purpose; we take note of this and will ensure that these announcements are effective. It is certainly wrong to be right too soon, but it is quite extraordinary to see today the beginning of the implementation of what we have been asking for for years. Nevertheless, much remains to be done: Why does the Commission always refuse requests from several Member States to participate in the financing of walls and fences? There are already thousands of kilometres of them in several states at the borders of the European Union, some of which are governed by socialists. So why are the socialists here refusing what the socialists there are asking for? It is high time that you get rid of your ideological blinders and respond to the legitimate aspirations for the protection of peoples. Of course, it is regrettable to build walls in a Europe that wanted to be generous and open to the world, but all this is the result of your policy. Moreover, if certain protective measures are announced, you are also rushing to negotiate the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, which promotes mass immigration, not to mention Chancellor Scholz’s future law. So much remains to be done if the European Union is to focus on Europeans. This will continue to be our priority.

Mr President, the European Parliament, entangled in the so-called ‘Qatargate’ scandal – revealed through an investigation into criminal association, corruption and money laundering targeting former or current members of the European Parliament, mainly socialists – is now trying to divert attention. It calls for the creation of an independent ethics body that would deal with all EU institutions, agencies and bodies, with investigative or advisory powers. Contrary to what is stated, its implementation is, first of all, complex. Indeed, how could the European Union create a structure independent of itself? It is also a denial of already existing structures within, inter alia, the Commission and the Parliament. For example, in addition to its Code of Conduct on Financial Interests and Conflicts of Interest, it has set up a Committee on External Interference. Ironically, the chairman of this committee, a French socialist, spent his time accusing the Rassemblement National of all evils, while his own socialist friends took part in the biggest scandal the European Parliament has ever known. All these structures did not see or want to see ‘Qatargate’ and the other suspicions it raises. There is no need for any more generalist structure, which would certainly lead to the same lack of result. This request for a new ethics body is above all a pretext for opposing the creation of an immediate parliamentary committee of inquiry, which I have been insistently calling for since the beginning of this case. By wanting to drown the fish and make it appear that the "Qatargate" concerns only a few corrupt people, the European Parliament wants to avoid questioning itself. The major problem, however, is structural. It is the system set up by the Europeanists that is at stake, and this is the one that needs to be transformed. But a majority of MEPs will do everything to avoid this much-needed change, which is why they voted against our request for a committee of inquiry and tried to ignite counter-fires. This ethics body is the latest. We denounce this new scheme and resolutely oppose its creation.

Madam President, last week the European Council was held, where many Member States called for Brussels to finance the construction of walls at the external borders in order to protect their territory from mass immigration, which was refused by the President of the Commission. At the same time, German Socialist Chancellor Scholz is preparing to pass a so-called "liberal" law to facilitate the arrival of 400,000 immigrants a year to address, according to him, Germany's demographic problems. More than 5 million people are expected to come by 2035. Once they arrive across the Rhine, these immigrants will be free to move around Europe. This choice that Germany wants to make concerns us all and will have an impact on all the policies of our territories. It is therefore essential that we discuss it, hence our request to add it to the agenda. It is inconceivable that at a time when there is an urgent need to strengthen our external borders, an EU Member State unilaterally decides to open the immigration floodgates wide. A debate is needed here. I therefore urge you to vote in favour of our request.

Mr President, the years are passing, and migratory pressure continues to suffocate Europe. In 2022, Frontex counted 330,000 irregular crossings of the EU’s external borders. These alarming figures should wake up the European Union and make it aware of the seriousness of the current situation. While we are experiencing a real migratory flood, which would require strong measures, Commissioner Johansson still refuses to finance walls and barriers at Europe's borders, on the pretext that the European Union would not have funds to spend on this. However, the Commission is much less concerned about the financial means when it comes to subsidising certain associations and promotional campaigns on the future of Europe with the Islamic veil. What credibility should be given to the measures announced by Ms von der Leyen to address the migration crisis, while at the same time maintaining a pro-immigration stance? By wanting to step up the so-called ‘humanitarian’ corridors to encourage mass immigration and by wanting to attract more allegedly skilled workers, Brussels continues to create air calls, aspiring pumps, which many migration candidates will follow. However, the European Union must control its borders, stop funding NGOs for migrant water taxis, stop legalising illegal immigration, send back to their countries of origin all those who must leave and no longer give a euro to states that do not take back their nationals. This is a vital issue for the future of Europe. It is high time to show common sense and firmness because, if Europe cannot be inward-looking, it must protect its nationals, its businesses, its identity. Europe will only be strong if its Member States are strong. The exact opposite is happening. We resolutely oppose it.

Madam President, Commissioner, last Wednesday, a Libyan illegally present on French soil was committing extremely violent knife attacks at Gare du Nord, injuring several people. During this attack, the assailant shouted ‘Allah Akbar’, giving his infamous gesture an Islamist connotation. For years, this terrorism has proliferated in Europe, often financed directly or indirectly by foreign states linked to Islamism. By ideological blindness, some MEPs, and generally the European Union, are obsessed with far-right terrorism, which is in fact a minority compared to far-left and Islamist terrorism. The reality of the situation is that there is an undeniable link between Islamist terrorism and the mass immigration that we are experiencing. It is this terrorist scourge that has shaken European democracies, as recalled in July 2022 by Europol’s report on the situation and trends in terrorism. Who in this Chamber can seriously suggest that the democratic constitutional order in Europe would be endangered by the far right? It is also a vague term, encompassing everything and anything. Perhaps our Parliament was wrong in the title of this debate: He wanted to point out the threats posed by Islamism and the far left in Europe. The latter, the extreme left, regularly commits violence in demonstrations, particularly in France. Anti-fa activists and black blocs are wreaking havoc there with impunity, attacking the security forces abandoned by their minister. This is the reality that is denied here. Democracy falters in our countries because its representatives are disconnected from citizens’ expectations. And indeed, the reality experienced by Europeans differs from the priorities you have set for yourself. While Islamist terrorism is hitting our continent, we are discussing a threat that exists mostly in your imagination. Colleagues, it is time to remove your blinders and open up to the world. The safety of our compatriots depends on it.

Madam President, on 15 December last 436 MEPs voted against our amendment calling for the immediate establishment of a parliamentary committee of inquiry into the Qatar Gate affair that has shaken our Parliament for a few weeks. However, the Committee of Inquiry is the only effective measure to combat the excesses of all these networks of influence that are plentiful in our European bodies. In order to avoid this immediate commission of inquiry, it is objected that this would not be possible until the judicial case is completed. This is not true, as in 2016 our Assembly set up a committee of inquiry into the so-called Panama Papers case, while legal proceedings were ongoing. The same applies to the so-called Pegasus case, where our Assembly set up a committee of inquiry in March 2022, while here too the judicial case was ongoing. My group therefore calls for the immediate establishment of such a parliamentary committee of inquiry into the political responsibilities of the Qatar Gate. It will not interfere in any way in the judicial case that follows its course. By refusing our proposal, you become complicit in a system that ultimately works for you. This is not a question for us. The committee responsible for monitoring external interference, chaired by Mr Glucksmann, saw nothing coming. It is therefore essential to create this commission to remedy the shortcomings of the commission responsible for monitoring external interference, without waiting several years for the end of the judicial file.

Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden is taking over the presidency of the Council of the European Union for six months, at a time when there are many challenges. Firstly, in terms of migration, because our continent has become a kind of giant sieve because of the European Commission’s ideological policy, which favours mass immigration at all levels to the detriment of the nationals of each of our countries. As recently as 13 January, Frontex announced that 300 000 illegal entries into the European Union in 2022 had been recorded, representing an increase of 64% compared to 2021. This is the highest level of arrivals since 2016. We are counting on Sweden, and in particular on the Democratic Party within your majority, to stop this crazy migration policy. It is about preserving our civilization and our national identities. Economically, a smart protectionist policy is an emergency in the face of unfair competition from the United States and its $500 billion mega-plan. The EUR 200 billion German plan to support its economy, adopted without any consultation with the other Member States, must be called into question because it also creates unfair competition. Sweden also has the priority of strengthening the common foreign policy and continuing to build European defence. However, we consider that these areas must remain within the competence of the Member States themselves. This is a question of sovereignty, especially in view of the results of the European Union’s belligerent policy in the conflict in Ukraine. If your presidency, Prime Minister, could bring about the return of diplomacy, it would be a considerable step forward. We can only encourage you to commit yourselves forcefully to this indispensable path to peace in the world. Especially since at the current risk of a war that can spread at any time, the conflict increases a major energy crisis and aggravates inflation that stifles households and businesses. Over the next six months, your country will prolong the European debate on what is called safeguarding the fundamental values of the European Union, especially in Hungary and Poland. We hope that your presidency will not play into the hands of the Commission, which is using these values to punish States that resist its policies. Banning the European Union, punishing and stigmatising these two great democracies that have always fought for freedom is outrageous. We hope that you will bring reason and balance back into this one-sided and very ideological debate.

Madam President, of course we support a general debate on the ‘Qatargate’ case. On the other hand, as far as our proposal is concerned, it is particular and it differs from the others because we are calling for the creation of an immediate special committee of inquiry. Then it is objected that this immediate commission of inquiry is not possible as long as the judicial case is ongoing. I can demonstrate the opposite since this assembly appointed special committees while there were ongoing court cases. For example, in the case of Panama Papers and in the Pegasus case, in 2016 and 2022, there were special commissions set up while the judicial cases were ongoing. We consider that it is absolutely necessary to have an immediate special committee of inquiry, and that not creating one would be totally incomprehensible, while this case is shaking Parliament properly, since it is a major scandal. So we also want this issue of the creation of an immediate committee of inquiry to be included in the debate.