Speeches

Mr President, crises are manifold, combine and become a permanent reality, which makes it particularly difficult to draw up the budget: geopolitical crisis, climate crisis (with the multiplication of natural disasters), energy crisis, inflation, explosion of poverty. We have to respond to all these crises, even though our budget is not sufficiently endowed to deal with them. Commissioner Hahn, there is an urgent need to revise the MFF in line with these challenges, and we ask you to hear from the European Parliament. I also want to say that in these tragic moments – especially in Gaza – we have a duty: a duty to provide humanitarian aid. The European Parliament has always lived up to this duty and I hope that we will continue to do so.

Madam President, Commissioner, as Chair of the REGI Committee, I cannot leave your attack in good standing on our committee's position on the closure of programming unanswered. First of all, I want to tell you that the committee has used a budgetary cavalier, by inserting into a regulation with a different objective a provision that concerns precisely technical provisions concerning cohesion – these are very bad methods. But, on the substance, I want to tell you that when we propose an additional year and 100% co-financing, we are responding to the request of more than 13 Member States and we are responding to the request of a very large majority of regions – all the German Länder, and also the French regions. And what is the objective? The objective is the best absorption and avoiding the maximum automatic decommitment. You cannot ignore, Commissioner, that cohesion policy has been heavily involved in this programming. We have responded to all crises, we have been present in all crises (during the COVID-19 pandemic – through the CRII, CRII+, REACT—EU regulations –, when taking care of Ukrainian refugees – through the CARE regulations), and, inevitably, this has created a number of difficulties. So the goal is to do everything possible to make the programming successful.

Madam President, for the revision of this MFF, I am one of those who called for an increase in the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, because poverty is exploding. But did you listen to Commissioner Schmit last night in this gallery? He said: the available money must be spent immediately. There are billions that can be used to reduce precariousness. And Commissioner Schmit urged Member States to consume the available FEAD money. I ask the question: How much is left exactly? So are there millions sleeping in the coffers today, especially for France because they are not spent by the State and have not been given to the food banks, which, as you all know, are now squandered and threatened in their very existence? And if that is the case, it would be a real scandal because the programmes, normally, have to be closed by 31 December 2020. So when we ask for increases, very well, but we still have to spend the funds first and absorb them well.

Madam President, Commissioner, if the world is an island, the world is also a world of islands. From the great Australia to the smallest atolls, there are 300 000 islands and each of them is a world of possibilities still too ignored in the light of the challenges of this century. In terms of climate, biodiversity, control of shipping and trade routes, energy and also the promises of the great ocean depths, each island carries with it a strength and promises that make it new places of grabbing and new points of tension in the geopolitics of the moment. Europe, with thousands of islands, remains an archipelago that ignores itself and remains in an overly miserable vision of insularity. That is why it is time for the European Union to finally adopt a real strategy and island ambitions, and to finally understand that the time for islands has already come.

Mr President, in this civilised world, one in ten earthlings suffer from chronic hunger. In our rich Europe, 90 million people are at risk of poverty. Today, with inflation, food banks, as in France, are out of breath and one in three French people no longer eat enough. Call it what you want: I say that these are crimes, crimes that we are accommodating ourselves to. And let’s be honest, the daily tranquility of our minds presupposes that we chase this unbearable reality out of our consciousness, when that is what we should constantly think about so that all our strength, all our intelligence, all our means are turned towards this war that must be waged to eradicate hunger and poverty.

Mr President, it is always a pain to point your own country at our European Parliament. But duty obliges me to tell you about the authoritarian drift of power in France, the weakening of the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. And this afternoon, very seriously, in the French National Assembly, the questioning of the constitutional rights of the parliamentary opposition, including the first right of amendment. Today, in France, there is a new danger for democracy. From drift to drift, from abuse of power to abuse of power, an entire illiberal system is being set up in France. We are MEPs and this must worry us because when the rule of law recedes in France, it is the whole of Europe, it is the European model, which is under attack.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, last month the European Commission amended the General Block Exemption Regulation to facilitate support for the green, digital and industrial transitions. The Commission also carried out a consultation for the revision of the Regulation. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, in the face of the consequences of the war in Ukraine and the US Inflation Reduction Act, this revision of the rules, Commissioner, is welcome. But it must also be geared towards just reindustrialisation objectives. In other words: the State aid regime must effectively contribute to the convergence of economies and must not exacerbate distortions. State rules must not be based solely on the principles of free and undistorted competition, but must also cover other requirements. In REGI, we reminded Commissioner Vestager how careful we are to ensure that the cross-cutting objective of cohesion is fully reflected in the rules. We reminded him that the reindustrialisation of Europe, a green reindustrialisation, must take place concretely in all European territories, not with uniform rules, but taking into account the very wide variety of situations experienced by the regions of Europe and the persistent territorial inequalities, in full respect of Article 174 of the Treaty. We were opposed to the fact that Article 174 of the Treaty did not have a sufficiently precise content for DG COMP, and that we were asking, I quote Commissioner Vestager, for ‘particular account to be taken of the whole of the European Union, except for Champs-Élysées’ - said the Vice-President. This vision worries us. We are concerned because Article 174 of the Treaty defines targeted areas, which meet specific, defined and limited criteria. We are concerned that all EU policies, including competition policy, including state aid and rules, must comply with the cross-cutting principles of cohesion. de minimis. We are concerned because State aid is a tool to boost regional and local economic fabrics, and it is therefore essential that the various guidelines and sectoral or horizontal frameworks provide for higher aid intensities and maximum amounts and wider eligible costs, depending on the level of development of the territories and geographical specificities. In short: bonuses in all State aid rules for less developed or isolated areas, such as outermost regions or islands. Commissioner Schmit, the Treaties oblige the European Commission, and ‘United in diversity’ does not mean ‘united in uniformity’. Nor should European policies weaken already disadvantaged regions and deepen territorial divides. Special measures – in fact tailor-made measures – must be taken for certain regions and sectors, such as the social economy or the solidarity economy. With regard to State aid and the block exemption scheme, what about the demands of Europe's regions? And how does the Commission intend to ensure that the principles of cohesion, enshrined in Articles 174 and 175 of the Treaty, are better taken into account in future revisions of State aid rules? Concerning the so-called rules de minimis, the proposed increase of the threshold to EUR 275 000 is not sufficient. We expect that regions with structural disadvantages will benefit from differentiated rules and that the additional costs associated with these disadvantages will be taken into account. Differentiated ceilings will correct distortions of competition caused by the additional structural costs faced by the economies of certain regions, including islands. Other question: Will the Commission include in future rules de minimis specific provisions and differentiated ceilings for outermost regions, island regions, mountainous areas, less populated regions and regions in development traps – as requested by the European Parliament and voted in plenary right here? In conclusion, I would say that the ‘do no harm to cohesion’ principle laid down by the European Commission must now be fully applied in the State aid system. We are waiting for answers to all these questions.

Mr President, if there is any intellectual terror today, it is the terror that is beating down on the possibility of defending the Palestinian people. Where are the big voices? But it is true that there are no longer large voices to denounce the violence committed by the Israeli army in the middle of Ramadan in the compound of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Where are the great and beautiful European consciences to condemn the far-right government of Israel, which is fuelling hatred towards the Christians of Jerusalem, who have been victims in recent days, as you know, of unnamed violence during Easter by fanatical settlers? To continue in this way, nothing will remain of the status of Jerusalem. The pasionarias of democracy and freedom are silent. Their silence speaks of their imposture. And I will conclude by saying that the savagery of minds in Europe accompanies indifference to the savagery of the world.

Mr President, there are national issues which are European issues and which we need to talk about here. Our duty today is to talk about the brutal repression, like nowhere else in Europe, that is currently taking place in France. As I speak to you, Commissioner, a protester remains between life and death. Ladies and gentlemen, France, a country that was a beacon for freedoms in the world, is now taking the dangerous slope of an increasingly violent and authoritarian method of government that undermines the guarantee of individual rights, violates fundamental rights and, ultimately, weakens democracy and the European model. Montesquieu said that in order not to abuse power, power must stop power. This is what we expect from Europe and our European Parliament.

Mr President, I have a question for the Commission. Will it, as announced, oppose sustainable fishing and the maintenance of the great marine ecological balances in the Indian Ocean, oppose the artisanal fishermen of Reunion Island, veto the courageous and responsible decision of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission to ban floating FADs 72 days a year? Will the Commission thereby confirm its submission, in reality, to the lobbies of the Spanish and French industrial fleets which, every day, you know, for decades, without any faith or law other than profit, plunder the Indian Ocean with the worst methods? I address the Commission and ask it not to use its veto and I ask the Council not to authorise the Commission to do so, because this veto would dishonour the European Commission and confirm and incite colonial plunder in our waters.

Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to thank the Chair of the Committee, Mr Lins, for this very important debate, which talks about the difficulties faced by farmers across Europe since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine and the explosion in fertiliser prices. Commissioner, on the island of Réunion, since the beginning of the war, the price of fertilisers has doubled from EUR 700 to EUR 1 500 per tonne. And in this year of terrible drought, which reduces the incomes of planters and especially those of sugar cane growers, this increase takes them all by the throat. To date, I believe that no specific compensation measures taking into account the insularity and great remoteness of the outermost regions from the European continent have been proposed by the European Commission – and, Commissioner, I can tell you that small farmers in the outermost regions feel forgotten. That is why we are now waiting for you to take measures, based on Article 349 of the Treaty, in order to be able to help growers in the outermost regions and in particular sugar cane growers.

Madam President, Commissioner, to those who accompany their condemnation of Russia with nuances, in the face of what is the most serious act of decivilisation in Europe since the Second World War, I say: “Aren’t you afraid, in times of war, to strengthen the enemy? Have you not perceived that Vladimir Putin has been leading an authoritarian, nationalist, identity-based, religious and reactionary far-right international for years, which has become a threat to the whole of Europe? Have you not understood that all our democracies are under attack across Ukraine?” Our solidarity for the Ukrainian people in resistance against the invader is total. In this winter when Ukrainians lack everything – food, water, clothing and electricity, to heat themselves, and even to warm a dish – our help must be concrete, urgent and reinforced. It must be for the 18 million Ukrainians who, according to the UN, need emergency humanitarian aid and the 10 million who need food aid. I reiterate my call on Europe's cities and regions to join the initiative launched by President Metsola, Generators of Hope, to make up for power cuts. In these times of war, when Ukrainians are at the front to repel the Russian invader, our only line of action is humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian people and support to Ukraine to defeat the enemy. This is the prerequisite for the future peace we all want.

Madam President, Commissioner, I come from a people, the people of Reunion, who suffered a lot, who were born of a crime against humanity, slavery, and who experienced colonisation, repression and denial of their language and identity. We have, through our struggles, survived this, but through our experience, we know what it means not to be able to speak one's language, not to be able to practice one's religion, and to be summoned to choose between assimilation or submission. That is why, as a Reunionese, I know what minorities in Europe are experiencing today, which, in this time of reaction and exaltation of assumed or disguised identity nationalisms, are paying a heavy price. In this context, the protection of minorities is a fundamental duty for Europe. I think it is a duty of survival for a civilised Europe. For the world, safeguarding cultural and linguistic diversity today – undermined, as always, by processes of domination – is an issue of civilisation.

Madam President, two years ago, when the Member States agreed on the budget, it was before the war in Ukraine. This was before the ensuing humanitarian, social, economic, migration and energy crises. That was before the terrible inflation. Today, the crises are here. They combine and are sustainable. They are a real challenge to give themselves the fiscal capacity to better cope with the accidents of history, while keeping pace with the strategic ambitions of cohesion, reindustrialisation, energy transition and the fight against poverty. The solution, in reality, we know it: it is a large European budget, with large own tax resources and more autonomy vis-à-vis the Member States. The financial transaction tax alone represents an additional €50 billion. We need to put it in place now, without delay.

Madam President, Commissioner, this is not the time to compromise on principles, nor to give in to the heinous blackmail of Mr Orbán, who is using the war in Ukraine to bend us. Let us remember, in Hungary, the seers are always red, because for years, all principles have been one by one trampled underfoot: freedom of the press, independence of the judiciary, undermining the principle of fair elections, continuous violation of the rights of LGBT people, establishment of a clientelist system allowing those close to power to pocket public procurement and European funds, from the CAP to the ERDF. The measures recently proposed by the Hungarian government must of course be evaluated, but we are not fooled. These measures are insufficient. They are completely insufficient and that is why the funds must now be frozen. They must be done not to punish Hungarians, but to advance Hungary on the path of respect for the rule of law and sharing the core values that underpin membership of the European Union. To give up defending this at all costs today is to allow the poison distilled by illiberal governments to spread and, ultimately, to put the whole Union at serious risk for the future.

Dear colleague, I hear your comment, but we are here in the European Parliament and we are used to embracing the general European interest. And when it comes to challenging Member States’ attitudes and positions in the European Council, we do and there is nothing to be moved about. I want to tell you that you claim to defend fishermen, but if we continue at the current rate of predation, there will no longer be, and the UN says so, a single fish, shellfish or crustaceans available for commercial fishing by 2050, that is to say tomorrow. There is therefore an urgent need to act and there is an urgent need to protect the ecosystems in the deep seabed, which are in great danger.

Madam President, we are not fooled by the game of France, which, behind the scenes, continues to act as the best arm of the industrial fishing lobbies to prevent the closure, from 400 metres deep, of all ecosystems vulnerable to all fishing methods affecting the seabed, which has become absolutely necessary. Nor are we fooled by Spain, which intends to take the Commission to the Court of Justice to obstruct this regulation. All this says a lot. Ms Dalli, I remember, in another legislature, Commissioner Damanaki who had already dealt with the harmful action of France and Spain to obstruct the regulation on deep-sea fishing. And fortunately there was the European Parliament, fortunately there was Commissioner Damanaki and the Commission. Stand up to threats, stand up to lobbies, because the oceans and marine ecosystems are in great danger today. (The speaker agreed to respond to a "blue card" intervention)

Madam President, my dear colleague, thank you for your speech. In this debate, as Karima Delli pointed out, only two men spoke on the podium and we are only two or three men here. The question I am asking you is this: Does that worry you? What lessons do you learn for our Assembly? Clearly, this extremely important debate on the Istanbul Convention against Sexual Violence against Women is a fight that must first and foremost concern men.

Mr President, this summer the monsoon season has turned into an absolute disaster in Pakistan. Pakistan, it has been said, emits only 0.3% of greenhouse gases. And yet, today it is paying a heavy price for climate change which, combined with the unequal order of the world, is a real double penalty for poor countries and will be even more destabilizing on a global scale tomorrow. Here and there, I therefore call on the European Union to honour its commitments to developing countries and to step up its efforts to make adaptation to global warming a global priority, particularly at the next COP in Egypt.

– Mr Rzońca, I thought I had to answer a serious question, but I believe that you are forcing me to lower myself to a level to which I do not wish to lower myself. And I also want to tell you that we are Members of the European Parliament here, that we are trying to embrace the general European interest, and that in my words I did not attack anyone. I have made general remarks on the rule of law mechanism and on the sanctions that I believe should now be imposed on Hungary.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, I remember a time not so far away when, in the Council, there was no opposition when it came to deploying the troika to force Greece, Portugal and Spain to clean up their national budgets and subject them to the authoritarian doxa of the ‘austerity’ policies of the European Semester. But when it comes to corruption, the independence of the judiciary, our values, the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – the rule of law, in fact – then we squirm, and the march is very tedious. What we are asking today from the Commission and the Council is the full application of the rule of law mechanism – not a rebate – against Hungary. And we also call for guarantees for the budgetary independence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Madam President, EUR 100 000 for an obscene rhino hunt, EUR 15 000 for a buffalo head, a few thousand euros for an elephant horn, a few euros for a rosewood board, and how much for the alleged aphrodisiac virtues of pangolin scales? It is at this price – EUR 195 billion a year, almost the equivalent of drug trafficking – that the brutal exploitation of nature by man and, let us say, the crimes of humanity against the living world are organised. That is why it is time today, I believe, to penalise buyers and holders of the objects of this traffic, because it is demand that creates supply, and the market is in Europe. I also think that this is a question of civilisation, which affects our conception of ourselves. Trade in so-called wildlife is a barbaric and wild trade by nature, and I believe that barbarism is not regulated: We fight her and we penalize her.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, in the heart of the European Union are Roma ghettos made up of slums on mountains of waste, with no access to drinking water, no roads, no equitable access to healthcare, education, the labour market and social assistance. It is this medieval reality that we were confronted with during our REGI mission to eastern Slovakia, and this reality is the same across Europe. That is why I ask the question: How is this possible, with the 370 billion of cohesion? This reality, Commissioner, speaks of institutional racism, and there is complicity on all floors so that nothing changes. I say this to you as Chair of the REGI Committee: The 2021-2027 programming will need to see a real impact on marginalised communities. It is the duty and obligation of the European Commission to ensure this and to take all measures in case of non-compliance. Madam President, in conclusion I would like to say that we do not accept in Europe a caste of untouchables in our Union.

Mr President, perhaps we should have reversed the order of the speeches in order for Constanze Krehl to have the final say in this debate. And for the third time, I obviously want to pay tribute to the very extraordinary work that has been done by Constanze Krehl in the REGI Committee. And I believe that there are few Members who can say that, by their action, the concrete life of European citizens will have been changed – since, Constanze, you have negotiated on three programmes of European funds. Very quickly, the climate of this debate and the overwhelming support for Constanze Krehl's report and the report on border regions show the great unity within the REGI committee and within the European Parliament, almost all political groups included, in defending cohesion policy and committing it to modernisation. This is the very condition for its future. I want to thank all the speakers who supported my report, and I am not surprised that it is the nationalists and fascists who oppose the report on border regions because, of course, they do not understand anything about it. Commissioner, in conclusion I would like to say that we are going to vote overwhelmingly tomorrow on Constanze Krehl's report. I hope we will vote overwhelmingly on my report. In its report, as in mine, as in all the reports that we have adopted in plenary, the report on the EUSF, the REGI report on islands, the reports that we are going to adopt, we are making very concrete proposals. And I do not want the own-initiative reports from our REGI committee and Parliament to end up in drawers. There is a concrete basis for the Commission to put proposals on the table. With regard to the cross-border mechanism today, there is an urgent need for both the Council and the Commission to respond to the ball launched by Parliament.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, allow me to warmly congratulate Constanze Krehl on his excellent 8th report on cohesion in Europe, which I am sure will be overwhelmingly adopted tomorrow in plenary. With regard to border regions, I am convinced that these regions, which cover 40% of European territory – one in four Europeans, almost 120 million Europeans living on both sides of 40 internal land borders – express in their historical, geographical, economic and cultural reality what the European project really is, that they are called upon to play an increasingly important role and that they must be at the heart of all our concerns in the work we are now undertaking to think about the future of cohesion policy. In the time of the COVID crisis, when we in Europe were used to living in an area of total freedom of movement, we regained awareness of the weight of the barriers that can suddenly be imposed on us again with all the difficulties created, especially for cross-border workers. But we also saw, in the time of the COVID crisis, the strength of solidarity and the strength of cross-border cooperation in the health field, which saved lives. Today, with Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, border awareness is resurfacing. And more than ever, we are aware that what we have managed to build in Europe is absolutely extraordinary. A common space of rights, freedoms and movement for peace. Now, the energy supply crisis, which is binding on all regions and in particular border regions, must call us to reflect on a number of new proposals. And we must consider that cross-border energy projects of European interest are undoubtedly part of the solutions we need to seek for our energy sovereignty. This seems to me to be a suggestion for REpowerEU. The report I am submitting for your approval today therefore recalls the importance of these regions and the economic, social, legal, geographical and territorial challenges that cross-border spaces face. Commissioner, you are aware of our Parliament’s commitment to the European Cross-Border Mechanism, which should make it possible to remove the legal obstacles that cause many difficulties for citizens: insufficient cross-border public transport, problems of access to employment, education, health, cultural services and leisure, to name but a few. This mechanism is now blocked by the Council and, as I said in Prague at the informal summit of cohesion ministers, we need to relaunch the process. I believe that we have been able to reconcile the positions between Parliament and the Council – I welcome the work of Mr Gozi – and we are now asking the Commission to take an initiative. As we expect the Commission to deliver on the parliamentary initiatives of our REGI Committee, in line with the commitments made by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. We adopted own-initiative reports massively in plenary. We now expect the Commission to translate them effectively.