Debate contributions by Marion MARÉCHAL

Madam President, today there is only the nostalgic extreme left of Bolivarian socialism to regret the Maduro regime. Throwing nearly 75% of its population below the poverty line, in one of the countries with the largest oil reserves in the world, is a feat that only Marxist governments have the secret of. But let us leave here abstract discourses on international law and hasty moral condemnations. What matters now are the realities that apply to us. For too long, we have had no strategic commitment in this region where France has an important territory, French Guiana. So let's be pragmatic and ask ourselves this simple question: How can we most effectively defend our interests in this region? By promoting Chinese influence or trying to deal with the United States and ensure that this American influence is also French and therefore European? Because that is what is at stake, and not just the drug trade, for us in South America, where there is one of the largest European space bases on French soil and important mineral and hydrocarbon resources that we so badly need.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, rearmament of our nations is no longer a choice, it is a necessity. Our continent is not destined to live under the protection of foreign powers. But Europe's power will remain a slogan as long as we do not have an autonomous defence industry, as long as we accept dependencies that make us vulnerable and as long as our defence budgets are not up to the challenge. EDIP marks, let's face it, a first step in the right direction. It reflects an emerging desire for strategic autonomy and affirms the principle of a European priority. But this text is not ambitious enough. How can we be fully satisfied when the European preference is capped at 65%? When the definitions of European components and calculation methods remain unclear? When too many exemptions still allow the purchase of South Korean or US-licensed ammunition and missiles with European taxpayers' money? We would have expected this text to set a course, for example by setting targets for industrial autonomy in the short, medium and long term. After all, this method has been adopted by this majority in terms of energy transition, so why not in terms of strategic autonomy?

Mr President, imagine that it took the scandal of the sale of dolls for paedophiles, marketed on the Shein platform, for the French authorities finally to decide to look into the activity of this Chinese e-commerce giant – a giant that floods our markets with low-end products, often illegal, and whose model favours ephemeral fashion, a veritable ecological aberration. But the sale of these sex dolls is just one drop of water among the 4.6 billion Chinese parcels that pour into European soil every year. This debate – which I have called for with our group, ECR – we wanted it to become a European issue and for the Commission to finally act to protect our businesses from unfair competition and consumers of dangerous or toxic products. Be aware that a survey conducted by a consumer association found that 60% of the products analysed did not comply with our European standards! What is the point, then, of passing laws if our economic competitors do not respect them? Why investigate if dissuasive sanctions do not follow? What is the point of the Commission's formal notices if they are not followed by any sanctions? I say it clearly today: Shein must be banned from entering the European common market.

Madam President, I am speaking here on behalf of a bruised country, a martyred country. Since 2012, more than 300 French people have been victims of Islamist hatred. On 13 November 2015 alone, 130 Frenchmen were killed and 413 wounded. So, on this sad anniversary, I ask a question: Can we look the families of the victims in the eye and tell them that everything has been done so that this attack can no longer take place? Can we tell them that Islamism today is weaker than it was yesterday? The answer is unfortunately "no". Indeed, terrorists could still cross six or seven borders to come and strike our capitals, and yes, Islamist ideology continues to advance in the soil of extra-European immigration and communitarianism. How many deaths will it take to finally regain control of immigration and our borders, to finally ban the Muslim Brotherhood – as many Muslim countries have done, as the United States is planning to do, as Austria has had the courage to do – to finally assert that we are a Christian civilisation and that we are proud of it? Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, minutes of silence are no longer enough. I call on you, on behalf of all these victims, to finally support this triple response: migration, security and civilization.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, even today too many figures reveal our weakness: 70% of artificial intelligence models are developed in the United States, 80% of digital products and services used in Europe are produced abroad. Brain drain is accelerating and only three of the top 50 research institutes are European. So we expect much more than a new omnibus that will marginally correct the mistakes of the past, especially those of the Green Deal. We want a break, a software change on three major points: a European production strategy, not just decarbonised, to achieve sovereignty and maintain jobs; a European nuclear energy plan and a comprehensive energy strategy that finally lift us out of the costly utopia of renewables; the European priority at the heart of our decisions in the customs balance of power, in access to public procurement and in defence. All too often we have a Diagnostic and Communication Committee. Europeans are still waiting for this Union to take the action that we have been promised.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Brunner, as Commissioner responsible for migration issues, it is up to you to put an end to the logic that has hitherto prevailed in Europe's relationship with the African continent. The Commission's main strategy has been to encourage immigration and get lost in costly sprinkling, while seeking to impose on Africans the green ideologies and "woke" values promoted by Brussels. This strategy is a race to the abyss. As we massively import African youth, we leave the continent to our trading rivals. Africans and Europeans, however, have a mutual interest in drying up sources of immigration. African host and transit countries face the same problems as many European host countries: crime, prostitution, drugs, violence, unemployment, Islamist terrorism, human trafficking. And like us, the countries of departure see their upper classes go into exile. Commissioner, it is time to act pragmatically and break with the sterile diplomacy of almsgiving and human rights. Mme Meloni understood this with her Mattei plan, which clearly links economic cooperation and the fight against immigration. It seems to me that this is a model that must be followed. Brussels must be inspired by this win-win logic.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on the basis of Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure. Yesterday, on his social networks, Rima Hassan was jubilant at the images of the summary executions of civilians committed in Gaza by Hamas terrorists. His contented and chilling comment "One by one" resonates like a real incitement to murder. This left reveals its true face, that of supporting a bloodthirsty Islamism that is draped in the clothes of justice. Make no mistake, in the spirit of Rima Hassan and his friends of the Muslim Brotherhood, this "One by One" is addressed not only to the supposed traitors of Gaza, but to all those who stand up to the jihadist project of this organization. It designates all those whom the Islamists want to fight: Jews, Christians, assimilated immigrants and European civilization, "One by one". Mrs. Hassan, we have generously welcomed your family as refugees. You betray our generosity every day by sowing hatred and discord. I have only one thing to say to you: Get out of here. Go and go back to where you consider yourself at home. So join this Hamas you love so much and taste, as a woman with the bitter delights of being a woman among Islamists and failing that at least...

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in putting this debate on the agenda, my ECR Group wanted to reiterate the urgency of lifting the ban on new combustion engines from 2035 onwards. The fruit of green dogmatism, this insane ban has put the European car industry in agony and has obviously worked in favour of Chinese manufacturers. Hundreds of thousands of European jobs have been lost as a result of climate tartufs. In France, in just five years, 40,000 jobs have been lost. This is more than 10% of the workforce. Whole parts of our economy, from heavy industry to OEMs, are now at risk. I see some of those who claim to be at the bedside of European manufacturers actually being responsible for putting the European car industry on the brink of bankruptcy. It was the von der Leyen Commission that initiated the ban on combustion engines with the adoption of the Green Deal. It was Commissioner Séjourné, then President of the Renew Group, who, on 14 February 2023, overturned this Parliament’s vote in favour of banning new combustion-engined vehicles. In France, an expression says: “It is a great wrong to be right too soon.” We know this, together with the ECR Group, which has been warning since day one about the risk of this ban. But another expression says that only idiots do not change their minds. It is therefore not too late to open your eyes and repair the mistakes of the past.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in a world that increasingly pits China against the United States, it is in the interest of the European countries to establish deep cooperation with India, an emerging and dynamic power. This cooperation must first be done on the security front. India, like us, faces an intense Islamist threat. In this struggle, we should be more inspired by Narendra Modi, who does not have Western modesty. It must then be done in terms of defence. As a nuclear weapon, India is providing colossal means to guarantee its strategic independence. This search for autonomy has materialized in the recent purchase of Rafale aircraft and Scorpene-class submarines, an approach that we must continue to support. Cooperation must also be energetic. As an emerging industrial power, India invests heavily in the development of decarbonized energy sectors, but its nuclear sector is still in its infancy. Establishing privileged partnerships with New Delhi to pilot the creation of nuclear power plants must therefore be a priority. Finally, cooperation must be commercial. While India, under the impetus of a patriotic government, protects its market, Europe has instead opened its own without serious compensation. To close our trade deficit, we must therefore break with this naive approach, which has been the hallmark of the European Commission for too long.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not teach anyone here that agriculture has been the great forgotten, and even the great sacrifice, of the Commission's policy of recent years. It was therefore high time to finally support our farmers in the face of the administrative hell in which they are now locked; our farmers spend more time filling out forms than planting seeds. I therefore congratulate Céline Imart on her report, because we will always be on the side of those who want to simplify the lives of workers, those who want to tell the truth about the origin of the products we consume and those who want to protect agricultural pay and merit. Nevertheless, I invite you to listen and hear the anger that is still raging today in our campaigns. Simplifying is not enough, we must also protect. However, the Commission does not protect when it plans to reduce the CAP budget. It does not protect when it wants to impose the forceful passage of the free trade treaty and, with it, the unfair competition that accompanies it. It is not acceptable to let our farms shave, to tear up our vines, to decimate our herds to sell a few more German cars on the edge of the world. I'll say it again here: There will be no European power without French growth, and there will be no French growth without the rescue of our agriculture.

Madam President, Mrs von der Leyen, today the European Union is facing an existential challenge. The great civilizations are necessary, while you cling to your old software, as with the Green Deal, and accompany our exit from history. You are preparing the signing of Mercosur by wanting once again to bypass the vote of the States. You have just accepted an unfair treaty with the United States, when this was an opportunity to live up to the historic turning point. Yet the data of the new world are clear: We have entered the era of political caesarism and no longer of techno-bureaucracy. Free trade globalization is behind us. We can no longer rely on outside powers like Washington to ensure our security. The United Nations and major international organizations are powerless in the face of ongoing conflicts. Everywhere, the balance of power has replaced international law, and we are just at the beginning of the migration crisis. Nigeria has twice as many births each year as all of our 27 countries combined. And yet, in your speech, you devote only one minute to the question of immigration. This speech is a demonstration that you have not become fully aware of this data. Then we call on you once again to make acts of rupture, because regrets do not make a policy.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the 1990s, European countries abandoned the extraction and refining of critical metals. Thirty years later, in the absence of a strategic vision, Europeans find themselves in a delicate situation of dependence on China, which accounts for 60% of the world’s rare earths mining and 92% of their refined production. As such, Beijing covers more than 90% of our needs. Any export restrictions in this area pose significant risks to our industries and defence. So, faced with the challenges posed to us by China, five priority axes must guide our policy: 1) reducing the use of rare earths if reliable alternatives exist; 2) diversification of partnerships as European agriculture is not a bargaining chip – which would be totally unacceptable; 3) research and exploitation of new European deposits; 4) development of recycling pathways; 5) Relocation of refining capacity. Finally, Brussels seems to have decided to follow this path. It is a reason for satisfaction, which must help to break the ideological shackles that declining environmentalists have imposed on us so far.

Madam President, Boualem Sansal, Christophe Gleizes: These two names have become the symbol of our abdication. It was not enough for France to apologize for building roads, schools and hospitals in Algeria. It was also necessary to lower one’s head in the face of the contempt of an authoritarian regime that had failed to do anything about its independence. For weeks, Paris took refuge in denial. Waiting for the end of the trial, waiting for the end of Ramadan, waiting for the appeal, then a hypothetical presidential pardon... This kneeling diplomacy has failed miserably and shames us. There are not only two prisoners in this case: there are four of them, because France and the Commission are also mentally captive to Algeria, willing victims of its memorial annuity, stunned by its immigration blackmail. So what is all his agitation worth before Trump, Iran, Putin, if the Commission is not even able to suspend the EU-Algeria agreement to protect two nationals? It's time for France to stop suffering! Let’s denounce the 1968 migration agreement, close consulates, block financial transfers to Algeria, suspend the 250,000 visas generously distributed every year! It is never too late to raise your head.

Colleagues, last April's Spanish blackout was not the result of a mismatch of circumstances, contrary to what the Spanish government is trying to make believe. It is the result of an unbalanced energy mix dominated by solar and wind energy. This is an alert that should convince this Parliament to give up pushing countries to commit to a very high percentage of intermittent renewable energy. All this with an inadequate grid, whose cost of adaptation would be such that it would explode the price of electricity for consumers. Behind the green promises, there is another hidden reality. The massive presence of intermittent renewable energy forces nuclear power to modulate its production, resulting in premature equipment wear, higher operating costs and loss of profitability. This blackout is a wake-up call. If we continue with the objectives of the Green Deal, we run the risk of increasing power outages in Europe. It is not too late to make the right choices, by further promoting nuclear and non-intermittent renewable energies such as hydropower, geothermal or biomass.

Madam President, today we are looking at the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility. This financial instrument, worth almost €675 billion, is a centrepiece of the European recovery plan adopted in 2020. Who will repay the €42 billion in interest, two to three times more than initially planned, as the European Court of Auditors notes? Future generations, of course. A pinnacle for a plan called NextGenerationEU. By introducing a common European debt, Brussels paved the way for the creation of new own resources and new European taxes. Beyond the question of reimbursement, this plan is above all a further step towards a centralized Europe and a supranational Europe that the peoples do not want. We must absolutely reject this permanent tendency to take advantage of crises to transfer powers to the European Union behind the backs of the people, especially when we are aware of the complexity of the Brussels bureaucracy which makes access to these borrowed budgets particularly complex for our companies, especially when we are aware of the way in which the Commission uses the disbursement of these funds as a lever of blackmail towards nations recalcitrant to its policy. We expect from Europe not additional debt, but vision and protection.

Madam President, under Rule 180 of the Rules of Procedure, I am asking for a statement on a personal matter. Mme Benedetta Scuderi personally questioned me yesterday and insulted me for denouncing the presence of the Femyso association at the EYE event. I totally assume that I have opposed the presence in the European Parliament of this organisation linked to the Islamists of the Brotherhood of the Muslim Brotherhood. Femyso is a structure created with the support of the Union of Islamic Organizations in Europe, the historical arm of the Muslim Brotherhood on the continent. Many specialized researchers, as well as the recent report of the French Ministry of the Interior published in May 2025, confirm this: Femyso is a central player in the Brotherhood galaxy that mentors, trains and endoctrines young Muslims in Europe. The Femyso organized events with Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the brotherhood, partnerships with the Islamist movement Milli Görüs or with the association of young Muslims of France, another structure of the Muslim Brotherhood. He also gave his public support to the Collective against Islamophobia in France, banned in France, then refugee in Brussels. It was again Femyso that initiated a pro-Hijab communication campaign funded by the European Union. Then why Mme Is Scuderi attacking me? Because she's an ally of Femyso. On September 30, she participated in one of their events. Mme Scuderi does not defend the values of this Parliament, it defends its own compromises. She accuses me of endangering people, but the only danger for our young people is that of Islamism that subjugates women, puts our democratic laws under pressure, pushes us to kill innocent people through jihad. The real threat is not words, it's not reports or banners. The real threat is silence in the face of Islamism.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen gave themselves up at the Sorbonne to a strange number: So they are ardent advocates of free and independent academic research against the obscurantism of the Trump administration. For the occasion, the French president was not ashamed to propose 100 million euros to attract American researchers, while at the same time, the French budget devoted to higher education and research was withdrawn 1 billion euros in 2025. While the US spends more than 3.5% of its GDP on research and development, the EU struggles to exceed 2.2%. Europe, in fact, is struggling to keep its researchers, since, since 2010, the rate of departure of European doctors to the United States is about 20%. So, before we want to bring American anti-Trump researchers to Europe, let's start by understanding and making sure that we keep our own researchers in Europe through proper remuneration and credits. Let us also take this opportunity to ask ourselves about the budgetary orientations of public research in our countries which, in France for example, with the CNRS, has become a soft science paradise for woke activists at the expense of scientific research which, in turn, creates wealth and employment.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, EUR 2.5 million from Horizon Europe to, I quote, 'decolonise Sharia law'. Nearly 300,000 euros for the Homo Classicisms project that studies the role of classical antiquity in LGBTQ historiographies. Nearly 3 million euros for the You-Dare project which, I quote, "restores the truth about gender arguments in far-right movements". EUR 2.6 million for the Genesis project, which, I quote, 'explores gender and social inequalities in energy transition policies'. Nearly 200,000 euros to study the hymns of Atharva-Veda, ritual prayer formulas of the Hindu religion, or 1.4 million euros for the WOWMA project which studies the role of the white oligarchy in the construction of tropical tax havens. Finally, 200,000 euros for the Motoboom project, which studies the material colonization represented by the diffusion of motorcycles among indigenous peoples. I could give you dozens and dozens of other absolutely delusional examples of money now wasted by the European Commission on a few ideological whims and a few militant groups, very far, of course, from European interests. That is why we will vote against budgetary discharge in the Commission.

Mr. Speaker, some here seem to discover that the United States is a fierce trading competitor. Yet there is no shortage of precedents, under the Biden and Obama era, for example against BNP Paribas, which received a considerable fine, or the forced takeover of Alstom and the massive espionage revealed by Snowden. Those who once favored our military and economic dependence are now rediscovering the virtues of sovereignty and even protectionism. Ironically, one could thank Donald Trump for that. Faced with this reality, some propose to further worsen our trade deficit with China. This is not a strategy. Faced with the risk of tariff increases, the only sustainable response is a change in the economic model. There is no competitiveness as long as our energy costs 4 to 5 times more than in the United States or China. So, rather than criticizing Donald Trump, the priority of the European agenda should be the reduction of energy costs and therefore the exit from the unrealistic objectives of the Green Deal, the relaunch of nuclear power, the authorization of new drilling and investment in non-intermittent renewable energies such as geothermal energy.

Madam President, woe to the vanquished and the vassals! This is the great lesson instilled in Europeans for several weeks now. If we do not want to risk that one day one of our Heads of State will find himself in the position of Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, then yes, we must increase our stocks, ammunition, operational equipment and the number of our soldiers, not to play the war escalation, but to be feared by opponents convinced of our ability to retaliate. If vis pacem, para bellum. To do this, we must now remove the dangerous illusion of an armed force in the service of a federal Europe. The European Union can and must, of course, facilitate the financing of this rearmament, but it cannot under any circumstances be its chief general; It is up to the national armies to defend our nations. The urgency before us is to establish a European preference for military procurement. If this priority does not become the cornerstone of our continent’s new defence architecture, then any desire for independence will remain illusory. Let's go to the end of the road: military rearmament only makes sense when accompanied by demographic and identity rearmament. It is high time that this institution stopped looking at threats solely in the light of its ideological blinders.

Madam President, Commissioner,me von der Leyen announces an unprecedented simplification effort. But, at the same time, the Commission's 2025 programme foresees the continuation of the study of no less than 119 regulations and directives, 46 new drafts, texts that will be added to the 13,000 texts already adopted between 2019 and 2024. You have decidedly understood nothing about the world that comes, fast, agile and hyper competitive. But above all you continue to miss the essential: There will be no competitiveness with European electricity two to three times more expensive in Europe than in the US and China. This is the central topic. This is the priority issue that should obsess us in the legislative calendar. Do not promise competitiveness to European citizens, while you insist on maintaining the energy orientations of the Green Deal, which is essentially focused on renewables. Do not promise them this, while you are considering the creation of new European taxes, while you are increasingly delivering our companies and farmers to unfair competition with the signing of the Mercosur Treaty. Since it unfortunately took an American election for the Commission to begin to open its eyes, meditate on these words of American General MacArthur: The lost battles can be summed up in two words: too late.’

Madam President, unfortunately, through the vague and vague objectives of this strategy in the Middle East, the EU is once again consolidating its image as a passive entity, merely wishing for peace and harmony, but unable to overhaul its diplomatic software to deal with the major upheavals under way. Why, in its political guidelines, are the real problems hidden? I am thinking, for example, of Turkey's repeated aggressiveness towards its neighbourhood when Ankara instrumentalizes Middle Eastern disorder in its interest. I also think about the very problematic issue of the new Syrian leader, who went through the Islamic State in Iraq and Al Qaeda. Faced with this regime, naivety is forbidden and complacency is odious, especially when it comes from the president of France, a country martyred by Islamism, who says he is ready to receive this jihadist at the presidential palace, at the risk of granting him international respectability. Let us keep in mind, for pity's sake, the Taliban's experience in Afghanistan. And let us not forget what are our interests and duties in this region, which should guide our strategy, namely to protect ourselves from the risk of terrorism, to protect us from uncontrolled migratory flows and to stand alongside, of course, the Christian communities of the East, which are now seriously threatened, especially in Syria.