Speeches

Mr President, the Commission has put the issue of the European asylum and migration strategy on its agenda in February. In the EU, the vast majority of return decisions are not enforced: only one in five, according to the Commission itself, and much less in France. The results? Impunity of the sectors, pressure on our public services, insecurity. Why are we here? Because, on this topic as on others, the Commission has never been the solution: She's the problem. For years, it had piled up texts and restricted the powers of States. At the National Rally, we say one thing: Immigration control is the fundamental challenge for our current and future generations. No improvement of purchasing power without border control, no fight against terrorism without border control, no fight against Islamism without border control, no fight against drug trafficking without border control. Our line: process asylum applications outside Europe, put an end to all mechanisms that maintain the "call for air", systematically expel illegal immigrants and delinquent aliens. Finally, we must make visas, agreements and funding with third countries conditional: cooperate on readmission. More than ever, states must regain control of their borders.

Madam President, today, our dependence on China is no longer a technical issue, it is a matter of economic survival. Without rare earths, no electric cars, no chips, no modern defense. However, Beijing controls almost the entire value chain and has just shown that it can turn off the tap whenever it wants. Already in 2008, Brussels recognized its dependence on these critical materials, but the incantations on open trade were preferred. Faced with a real power strategy, the anti-coercion instrument, our famous atomic weapon, sleeps in a drawer while China tests our red lines. Mme von der Leyen talks about economic security, but remains tetanized when it comes to retaliating. Mr Vice-President, we must move from pious vows and gestures to deeds. It is necessary to put strict conditions on Chinese investments, build strategic stocks and of course develop in Europe the extraction of rare earths, as there are many projects in France in this sense that the National Rally defends. Either we act firmly, or Europe will remain China's toy through systemic dependence.

Mr President, Commissioner, since the speech byme von der Leyen of 18 July 2024, wanting to make Europol an operational service, we are clearly moving towards a federal police force. However, internal security is primarily the responsibility of our national security forces. Of course, we are in favour of inter-State cooperation. It is necessary through Europol or globally with Interpol. Necessary for the exchange of information and joint training, this cooperation must remain interstate, based on the will of States and not on bureaucratic injunctions. What we refuse is the temptation of a centralised Europe of police, where the Commission pretends to dictate to our security forces how to act. Once again, you are only thinking of limiting the action of States. When it comes to security, the European Union must let states act, because only they are legitimate to protect their citizens.

Mr President, Commissioner, the agreement signed by Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump is a market of dupes. Europe has given it all: elimination of duties on American industrial products, opening up our European market to American agricultural products packed with products banned in Europe. Commissioner, you are talking about stability. But then how can we explain that Europe agrees to give up €3.6 billion in revenue? What does France gain in this agreement? Nothing. Neither the wine nor the spirits obtained the slightest opening. Our winegrowers are the great sacrifices, while, it must be acknowledged, the German automotive industry is the great beneficiary. As Mr Warborn has pointed out, as President Lange has also pointed out, this agreement violates WTO rules. It is the symbol of a Europe that yields under pressure instead of defending its interests. We need balanced trade agreements that respect our sectors, not capitulation to German dictates. This agreement is winning for the United States, losing for Europe and humiliating for France. Know that the National Rally will strongly oppose this agreement.

Madam President, for years, the Rassemblement National, faithful to France's position, has been committed to defending the two-state solution, a principle rooted in our international commitments. But it must be acknowledged that this objective runs up against a cruel reality: Gaza is now under the yoke of Hamas, a terrorist organization that has not held any elections since 2006. The State of Israel evolves every day in an extremely hostile environment and struggles for its security. Under these conditions, talking about a peaceful Palestinian state is delusional. Recognising a Palestinian state at present would give legitimacy to Hamas, which has multiplied violent attacks against Israel, and, of course, the horrific carnage of October 7. The flotilla to Gaza, orchestrated by Islamo-Leftists, was nothing more than a grotesque staging, guided by ideology and not by a real concern for justice or peace. Far from alleviating tensions, this provocation only served to mask the real perpetrators of the tragedy: Hamas, which suffocates any prospect of lasting peace. Emmanuel Macron, who was quick to be moved by the fate of these sad characters, remains silent in the face of the dramatic situation experienced by Boualem Sansal. This indifference reveals a contempt and betrayal of France's values. Emmanuel Macron bows to this extreme left by an ideological comfort and also, it must be recognized, for fear of the street. Boualem Sansal disturbs, because his speech clashes with the good-thinkers. It is time for France to demand his release.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is once again presenting itself as the bulwark against crises. The EU strategy aims to improve preparedness, strengthen anticipation and improve the resilience of our services. If I may, Commissioner, it is not with somewhat ridiculous videos that we will effectively protect the peoples of Europe. The strategy provides for the establishment of an early warning and response system. So much the better. But, once again, let us note that this strategy aims to alienate the sovereignty of States. It is imperative that any preparatory action – and I would like to give you some advice – takes into account our diversity. Each country must remain in control of its security and crisis management priorities. Many of us in this Chamber have dealt with crises in our professional lives. I can assure you, on the one hand, that State-to-State cooperation works very well, and, on the other hand, contrary to what the previous speaker just said, that we have, in France, a model of civil security to preserve, in particular our public services and our voluntary firefighters.

Madam President, I welcome the fact that the European Parliament is able to look into the situation of human rights and democracy every year. However, I must say that this report is incomplete. Do you know of a country where dual jurisdiction, the fundamental principle of the rights of the defence, has been abolished? Do you know of a country where a judge allows himself/herself to write in a judgment that his/her objective is to prevent a candidate from running in the presidential election? Do you know of a country where the principle of proportionality, i.e. the relationship between the level of sanction and the alleged misconduct, is not applied? Well, this country, I am sad to say, this is my country, this is France. Indeed, what happened yesterday is extremely serious, and since the judgment against Marine Le Pen and other elected officials, France unfortunately has its place in this report dedicated to human rights violations around the world.

Madam President, Commissioner, today we are at a turning point for Europe's trade future. The European Union, faithful to its dogmas, continues to advocate blind multilateralism that weakens us day by day. Let us take the example of free trade through Mercosur. For France, it is an announced catastrophe. Our farmers, already strangled by increasingly absurd standards, will have to face unfair competition from Brazilian or Argentinian products grown without the same health or environmental requirements. At the same time, what are the great powers doing? Donald Trump understood that. Tariffs are a lever of power. He did not hesitate to impose taxes on steel and aluminum against Canada, Mexico and unfortunately even Europe, proving that America defends its interests above all else. And we, Europe, faithful to its role as a model pupil with good feelings, continue to open its doors hoping for reciprocity that will never happen. Trump poses a challenge to the European Union. I'm not sure, at the moment, that we're intellectually able to pick it up. Let's face reality. At a time when tariffs are once again becoming an instrument of economic protection, we must stop believing in the myth of happy free trade. We have different business models, specific industries and needs that require flexibility. Let us reject this submission to destructive multilateralism. Let us first demand a real European preference for our companies, our farmers and our workers.

Madam President, the idea of uniting Europe against actors that the European Union considers hostile could, in theory, be attractive. In practice, it is unfortunately part of a logic that fuels the bureaucratic and interventionist excesses that this institution already suffers from. Instead of respecting national sovereignty and sticking to its original role, the European Union, once again, seems to want to encroach on prerogatives that are not its own. The perfect example is the creation of a Defence Committee. Moreover, what do you mean by ‘hostile actors’? This definition, vague and deliberately imprecise, seems tailor-made to justify all the excesses. Is it Russia? Is it China, Trump's America, international drug traffickers or Islamist terrorist organisations? Or is it a backdoor way to impose a Brussels programme that pushes for more interference in national affairs? At the National Gathering, we have another vision. Defence is an issue at the heart of a nation’s sovereignty. It is imperative that each Member State retains control over its armed forces, strategic alliances and budgetary choices. If we have to cooperate in Europe, it is through state-to-state agreements.

Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union likes to drape itself in a position of giving lessons, posing as a guarantor of transparency and the fight against corruption. This objective in itself is, of course, quite noble, and no one would dare criticise it. However, when you scratch a little this varnish, what do you see? Institutions deeply plagued by corruption cases. Some examples: An investigation by the consortium of investigative journalists ‘Follow the Money’, dated January 2024, identified 45 corruption cases affecting the EU institutions since 2019. Among them – this has already been mentioned, but I will return to it – is the case, of course, of this Director-General for Transport, who would have delivered confidential information, oh surprise, to which country? In Qatar! We all have in mind the exploits of former Socialist MEP Maria Arena, involved in the case called, oh surprise, ‘Qatargate’! You dare to talk about transparency, but in these circumstances, how can we explain the rejection of the request for the creation of a committee of inquiry proposed by our then political group, Identity and Democracy? So we are in the land of tartuffs. Finally, the more recent case of former Commissioner Didier Reynders has already been mentioned, and I will not return to it. The EU now dares to talk to us about transparency and swift action against corruption. Of which act. But then, to use a very French expression, before giving lessons, it is necessary to sweep in front of his door. The European institutions must first clean up before pretending to give lessons of transparency and probity to the whole Earth, and in particular to the States.

Mr President, by imprisoning Boualem Sansal, the great free-spirited Francophile writer, at the age of 75, the Algerian Government confirms its desire to further deteriorate its relations with France. This gesture confirms, alas, the totalitarian character of the regime that has been raging in Algiers since 1962. This arrest was Algeria’s response to France’s recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara. These are cowardly and outrageous reprisals on the part of the Algerian State. ‘Naming an object is adding to the misfortune of this world’, said Albert Camus of Algiers, an author whom Boualem Sansal, his neighbour in the Belcourt district, says he adores. The Assembly should therefore condemn this deed in the strongest terms and demand the immediate release of Boualem Sansal. I also call on the Commission and the Council to take the necessary measures vis-à-vis Algeria. Algeria needs us more than we need it.