Debate contributions by Julie RECHAGNEUX

Madam President, yes, the reality is cruel. World trade is not a neutral terrain, it is a continuous balance of power. While here we recite the myth of perfect free trade, China protects its industry, massively subsidizes, advances its pawns and surpasses us. In its naivety, Europe even goes so far as to impose all-electricity by 2035, while China has invested 230 billion in this area in recent years. This is absurd and irresponsible. If China gets ahead, it's no mystery. It has been following a strategy of power for years, without hesitation and naivety. So yes, we must protect our market and relocate our productions, as we have defended at the Rassemblement National for years. It must be done to stop being dependent on Beijing. This is the price of our sovereignty. If Europe wants to remain a power, it is time for it to act as such.

Madam President, at the age of eight, a little girl should be able to play and laugh, not howl under a blade. Yet in Europe, more than 600,000 women have undergone female circumcision and 180,000 girls face the same fate every year; A crime imported in the name of cultural relativism and tolerated by ideological cowardice. At 12, she should be dreaming of the future. Not end up like Lola, victim of a monster that France has not been able to expel, symbol of a country disarmed by migratory angelism. At 18, she should be able to believe in justice. Not to discover that, in this Europe, we excuse everything, we understand everything, except the victims. At 30, she should be able to return home alone without fear of aggression, in a Europe where insecurity settles with the import of foreign mores that the left refuses to name. And at 50, she should be able to tell her daughters: Here you are protected because we defended our civilization. To protect women is to refuse silence, relativism and submission. It is about defending our borders, our culture and our dignity.

Mr President, I come from a country, France, where, in 2024, more than 2,000 of my compatriots of Jewish faith made their alya to Israel. I come from a country where, in 2024, more than 1,500 anti-Semitic acts were recorded. These people sometimes say they are safer in a country at war than on the streets of their own country. The cause of this fear is clear: There was indeed a "October 7 effect". Hamas's atrocities against Israeli civilians have disinhibited unhealthy anti-Semitic passions. Hamas has succeeded in uniting the struggles of the far left and Islamism in the same Islamo-Palestinianism, the new face of anti-Semitism. In Bordeaux, where I live, the extreme left has pushed the environmental majority to suspend the twinning of our city with the port of Ashdod in Israel. This is where contemporary anti-Semitism is. We must have the courage to fight it on this ground as a priority.

Mr President, today global academic competition is intensifying and Europe is trying to hold on to it, but it is shrinking. China dominates in terms of number of patents and our venture capital remains far behind that of the United States. Today's vision is nothing new: broadening alliances, multiplying joint degrees, standardising procedures, moving towards common governance. We have been following these same recommendations for more than 30 years now. The ECTS already ensure the recognition of the routes. Erasmus+ is well endowed and that's all the better. But doing more of the same will not change the game. What is needed is a change of strategy. It is necessary to set some essential priorities instead of multiplying ideological criteria. Universities must be opened up to private investment to accelerate the transition from the lab to the market. We must better protect and value our patents rather than idealize an open science that drains our scientific and human capital. Above all, let us do what the Union has never done before: Finally, dare autonomy where it is only a supporting competence. Let's let states and universities experiment. Good practices will be spread by example, not by an additional layer of Brussels centralisation.

Mr President, once again, the European Commission is stirring up the mirage of clean technologies as if it were a solution to all evils. It promises billions, plans, platforms, but the reality is that it is a failure. Heat pumps? They are more than 70% imported and they are unsuitable for 60% of the old building stock. Solar panels? They are 90% made in China, while European factories close one after the other. European batteries? They are three times more expensive than Chinese batteries and have a global market share of less than 5%. These clean industries are too often false green solutions. They only hold up thanks to massive subsidies. Rather than admit failure, Brussels pushes the nail: it refuses to fully support nuclear power, which is nevertheless the only low-carbon energy that is manageable, competitive and truly sovereign. Then we say stop! We say stop this leak forward that is ruining our competitiveness, destroying our historical industrial base and discarding the real solutions: sovereign, local and efficient.

Mr President, electricity networks are the backbone of the European energy system, but this backbone is now weakened. 40% of distribution networks in Europe are over 40 years old and 60% will have to be renovated or replaced within 10 years. The Commission itself acknowledges this in its own Action Plan of November 2023: €584 billion of investment will be needed by 2030, including more than €400 billion for distribution alone. And yet, instead of mobilizing states and their industrial capacity, you persist in imposing above-ground planning, conceived in Brussels, dictated by lobbyists and unable to respond to the realities on the ground. Meanwhile, connection times are increasing throughout Europe, up to ten years for some agricultural or industrial projects. All because you wanted to build a single electricity market without guaranteeing its stability, sovereignty or security. And while you talk about interconnection, Europe loses up to 10% of its electricity every year in the grids, the equivalent of France's consumption. We have another vision: a controllable sovereign network, based on nuclear power, stability and public control. Yes to European investments, but at the service of nations, not at the service of technocratic dogma. Electricity is not a commodity, it is a vital good, a lever of power, a matter of sovereignty. Our position is clear and consistent. France does not have to be dictated its energy choices by the European Commission.

Mr President, this debate on gas storage raises a key question: Who decides? Since 2017, the European Union has been building a centralised energy policy piece by piece, as if Member States were unable to ensure their energy security on their own. What was voluntary coordination becomes guardianship. Since 2022, mandatory filling thresholds have been imposed, with controls, timetables and sanctions. Today, the Commission is proposing to extend these measures until 2027, and tomorrow it will be endless. We said it as early as 2022: Energy is a strategic skill. It must remain national, because each country has its resources, its mix, its needs and its vulnerabilities. To believe that a single threshold and uniform planning will protect Europe is to ignore reality. We reject this logic of rampant centralization. Storage is a tool: It must serve the nations, not lock them in a single reading grid dictated from Brussels.

Mr President, the European Union claims to want to win the global technological race, but the reality is quite different. In 2024, venture capital investments for technology-expanding companies reached $30 billion in the European Union, compared to $110 billion in the United States, a gap of 82%. In semiconductors, only 4.5 billion have been contributed by the European Union, and again, it is the Member States that have proved to be the most effective in this area. For artificial intelligence, Brussels announces 200 billion euros of investment, where the United States aligns 500 billion euros for a technological ecosystem that is much more mature than ours. European start-ups wait an average of eight months to obtain an authorisation, compared to three in the United States. Europe is not in the race, it is lost in the labyrinth it has created itself. Rather than multiplying the envelopes, we must free up private investment, facilitate the installation of the latest generation of digital infrastructure and strengthen the links between research and industry. Innovation must be a lever of sovereignty and freedom, not a pretext for yet another bureaucratic inflation.

Mr President, a hundred and ten years ago, an immense tragedy took place, one of the darkest in the 20th century. Today, this event resonates in European memory as a warning. It all started with the arrest of civil and religious figures, before more than a million men, women and children were driven from their homes and sent on the roads. Through the arid and hostile expanses of Anatolian interior, they walked endlessly, without water, without roof, without return. To commemorate the Armenian Genocide today is to acknowledge the harm done to a people whose history is intimately linked to ours. It is a reminder that Armenia, on the border of Europe and the Caucasus, shares with us a millennial culture and a vibrant diaspora, deeply rooted in our societies. In honouring this memory, we reaffirm our strong bond with this sister nation. It is by looking straight at this past that Europe can build a sincere relationship with its close environment, populated by nations with which it sometimes forgets that it shares so much.

Madam President, the European steel industry is going through a major crisis. In France, there are only five blast furnaces left. In Dunkirk, 1,500 jobs are at stake and €1.8 billion in decarbonised investments have been suspended. In Germany, ThyssenKrupp announces 11,000 job cuts and in turn freezes decarbonisation projects. Since 2017, steel production in Europe has fallen from 160 million tonnes to 126 million tonnes. Our share of the global market has fallen below 8%, while China's share is above 50%. Global overcapacity is 600 million tonnes, and since March 12, the United States has imposed 25% tariffs on our exports. Faced with this dramatic situation, the Commission extended the safeguard measures: import quotas on 26 product categories, with an additional duty of 25% once the volumes are exceeded. This safety net is necessary, but it is not a long-term strategy. The Steel and Metals Action Plan identifies the right loopholes – energy, dumping, frozen investments – but it remains silent on three key points: how to produce green steel when the cost of carbon is already 10% of the selling price? How can we take advantage of global overcapacity to strengthen our stocks and secure our supplies? Last but not least, how can we reindustrialise if we do not finance the initial investment and modernisation of our sites?

Mr President, Europe is winning. Mario Draghi recalled: We are losing the battle of talent. Every year, 20% of European researchers go abroad, while the US attracts more talent than it loses. Let us take the Toulouse School of Economics, which – ironically – hosted a Nobel Prize which itself had a career in the United States. When she was last recruited, she offered six positions to brilliant researchers. For what result? Six refusals. Two researchers joined the private sector in the United States; others from foreign universities. US institutions offer up to $300,000 per year. Here, even by doubling wages, we remain far behind. Why? Because our companies do not have sufficient incentives to invest in innovation. However, it is not just a matter of money. Precarity, blocked careers, stifling bureaucracy... Research, which should be a space of freedom, is saturated with constraints. Meanwhile, China and the United States roll out the red carpet. Europe has been a scientific bastion, at the forefront of technological progress and rationality. Today, we devalue our researchers and let our talents go. If we do not react, our discoveries, our patents and our competitiveness of tomorrow will be built elsewhere.

Mr President, the Commission is trying to exercise humility and decides to go back on some of its rules. She rediscovers a principle of wisdom: Little things the legislator does not care. The reduction of reporting obligations is good, but is it enough? Certainly not, as these adjustments do not put an end to the administered economy it has created. As a reminder, the CSRD Directive involves 50 000 companies, up to 600 ESG indicators to be provided and a cost of more than EUR 100 000 per year for certain companies. The Commission claims to simplify, but it only temporarily exempts certain companies from excessive regulation, without calling into question the bureaucratic logic behind them. Who can believe that European industry will be saved with forms? The "omnibus" does not change the substance of the problem. This problem is structural overregulation, which is suffocating our economy. Today, compliance costs 3 to 4% of GDP, and a European company spends 2.5 times more on formalities than a US company. The elephant in the room is this block of green regulations, which deprives us of growth. As long as we do not overhaul this bureaucratic machine, these adjustments will remain anecdotal.

But you're not ashamed? Aren't you ashamed? Because in reality the policy pursued by the European Commission in recent years is the policy of degrowth. If it has carried out this policy, it is in particular because the extreme left and the Greens, the ones you represent today, have infused this ideology into all public policies and especially into the politics of the company. Today, it is a total failure – fortunately – and it is time to get out of it.

Mr President, Mr Séjourné, the Commission loves the great ten-year macroeconomic programmes which return with the same regularity as the Soviet plans of another time. In the 2000s, the Lisbon Strategy promised us the knowledge society and the whole tertiary sector. Today, his latest plan, the compass for competitiveness, claims to show us the way forward. But who can still believe that the Commission knows where it is going? For 20 years, she has been systematically wrong. She did not see that we were not entering a post-industrial society, but a hyper-industrial world. It did not understand that globalization did not undermine relations between States, but paved the way for economic and trade wars. She did not anticipate that exposure to global competition would not make us more competitive, but more vulnerable. The language of sovereignty, protection and power, we have never ceased to hold, conscious of the world we were entering. But the Commission has never paid attention to our warnings. Now, instead of assuming its mistakes, the Commission blames the Member States for misapplying its recommendations. It is finally high time to really change course.

Edmundo González was declared the winner by many independent observers and by the opposition’s own polls. The evidence, voting records and testimonies of Venezuelans clearly show that he won the election with considerable margin. The repression that followed the announcement of the fraudulent results was violent and merciless. Thousands of arrests, lives lost and heightened censorship of media and social media have been the weapons of a regime that is afraid and knows that its power is being usurped. We must strongly support the legitimacy of Edmundo González’s victory. The time has come for Venezuela to free itself from the chains of oppression. The time has come to see truth triumph, freedom prevail over tyranny and the Venezuelan people take back their destiny – finally!

Mr President, for too long the Venezuelan people have been suffering under the yoke of a regime that has turned oppression and political violence into a system of governance. Nicolás Maduro clings desperately to power, not with the legitimacy of popular consent, but with the weapon of lies, coercion and fear. Venezuela has immense potential, yet it is in crisis. And it is not an ordinary crisis, but a crisis caused by the corruption of a regime that is willing to sacrifice the future of a nation to preserve its grip on power. Last July’s presidential election was marked by blatant irregularities and massive electoral fraud. The results announced by the National Electoral Council were contested not only by the opposition, but also by a large part of the international community. We must be clear: There has been an obvious manipulation of the electoral process. Edmundo González is a man who served his country with dignity as a diplomat and agreed to wear the opposition standard in the face of the ineligibility imposed on Maria...

Madam President, Europe seems to have finally turned the page on its naivety. It understood that ensuring its strategic independence was a necessity in an increasingly unstable world. Today, the European Union, which still imports more than half of its energy, must diversify its sources of supply to guard against critical dependencies. Yet there is still tension between those advocating for an ambitious and powerful Europe and those advocating a degrowth that would ultimately impoverish our economies and generate new dependencies. In this context, nuclear fusion is an essential strategic lever. It offers decarbonized, sovereign, abundant and affordable energy, capable of supporting our advanced industrial model. The future energy needs of artificial intelligence, industrial automation and the digital society will be immense. No intermittent energy source can guarantee a reliable supply at this scale. The ITER project, a symbol of European excellence, illustrates this ambition. Despite technical challenges and delays, it has enabled decisive technological advances, paving the way for fusion control. Learning from successes and failures is now crucial to optimizing future investments. Europe has historically built itself around Euratom, it cannot ignore that fusion is a pillar of its energy sovereignty and strategic power. Otherwise, the industrial history of the 21st century will be written without it.

Mr President, today, the ideal number of children desired by women far exceeds the actual fertility rate in many countries. In France, for example, women want an average of 2.27 children, but the fertility rate is only 1.7. This gap reflects a collective failure to support families in their aspirations. Economic barriers, the cost of living and the lack of adequate infrastructure are holding back these projects. Around 18% of French parents say they have given up on having the number of children they wanted, and 28% cite the financial cost as a reason. Concrete examples show that natalist policies can reverse this trend. This requires ambitious measures, direct financial support, tax exemptions and support for young couples. Europe must be inspired by these models: financial support for families, accessible housing, adapted childcare services and enhancement of parents in our society. Birth rate is not a secondary issue. It is a matter of civilisation, demographic balance and prosperity for our continent. Protecting women’s rights also means empowering them to freely choose to start a family.

Mr President, ‘Thank God, there is smoke leaking from the high chimneys of most factories! For I have not travelled so long without learning, from more than one painful example, that the absence of smoke coming out of its chimneys is a sign of the extinction of more than one family home, and of a lack of bread for more than one honest family," William Cooke Taylor wrote in Notes of a Tour in the Manufacturing Districts of Lancashire. Decreasing ideology has guided the Green Deal, and now its first defenders are waking up and talking about competitiveness. Wanting to decarbonise industry while condemning nuclear power is an unnamed absurdity! Yet this is precisely what this Green Deal calls for. The last-minute, secret change after the hearings of Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen's roadmap to increase the share of renewable energy in the European energy mix once again betrays the real objective of the European Commission. What we are experiencing is a real economic war, and we will not be able to win this war by putting such a ball in our ankle. We were right to denounce from the beginning this disastrous pact, which will kill our agriculture and industry, making Europe a continent dependent on all the other countries in the world.

Madam President, educators who have sex with minors, school failures, runaways, physical assaults between children in care, drugs, the explosion of prostitution: the record of child welfare in France is catastrophic. The well-being and success of children in care should be one of the priorities of the State, but this is not the case. These children are the forgotten ones. However, budgets for child welfare are constantly increasing. One of the reasons: social assistance for children is diverted from its original purpose to take care of the so-called isolated illegal minors who pile up with no future in French cities. Overprotected by international texts and by decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, some lie about their age, others multiply incivilities and acts of delinquency, while weighing on the child welfare budgets of the French departments. To protect our social system, let us finally re-establish controls at our borders.

Madam President, the closure of the last bakery in a village, thousands of families who give up heating because the bill is too heavy, the massive dismissal of 1,200 employees of Michelin factories, a new episode in the industrial bleed that is hitting France. These tragedies, which are the reality of my country in 2024, have a common cause: the rules of the European electricity market. Since 2022, this mechanism has skyrocketed energy prices, with unsustainable increases of more than 50%. By these absurd rules, the European Commission deprives European nations of cheap energy, a fundamental condition for becoming a continent of producers and essential raw material of all the revolutions of the 21st century, whether they are called cryptocurrency mining, quantum computing or artificial intelligence. With these absurd rules, the Commission is causing distress to millions of families and turning Europe into an industrial wasteland. Concretely, it is you who artificially create energy poverty. By these absurd rules, which are akin to institutional theft, the European Commission is confiscating from France its historical advantage of nuclear power, with the passivity or, worse, the complicity of French leaders. While everyone agrees that these rules are unsuitable, including the very Europeanist Mario Draghi, they invariably continue to apply. They continue to strike businesses, to weaken families, to impoverish the continent. The European Commission is unable to reform itself, because it is unable to acknowledge its mistakes, even if it sacrifices the future of the nations of the continent. I am convinced of this: It is the political changes in France that will break the deadlock. Believe me, they will arrive much faster than you think.