Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to vote on the Schengen Borders Code. The subject is both a bearer of the identity of the Union and, at the same time, a subject of controversy. Today's vote is no exception, especially not in the run-up to the elections. Ladies and gentlemen, is the text 100% satisfactory to us? No, of course. How else would it be? This is often what we face, after months and months of discussions between us parliamentarians, but even more so with the representatives of the Member States. However, we have achieved a balance here on the harmonisation of border controls, their duration and the criteria they will have to meet, so that free movement is no longer the victim of a patchwork of different responses across the EU, especially in the event of a large-scale public health emergency. With this agreement, we are protecting the free movement of people, while addressing the challenges that the Schengen area has faced over the past decade. Our Parliament must take responsibility for the concerns of European citizens. For me, too, this is the last speech of the three mandates I have held in the European Parliament. Indeed, I have decided not to represent myself next June, allowing new generations of elected officials to come and sit in our chamber. These fifteen years went by very quickly. They have been filled, at times, with disappointments, joys and political struggles. Above all, they were a time when convictions were confronted, most of the time with respect, in a great cultural diversity and political practices. They have been a huge personal challenge and I would like to express my gratitude to this institution. My thanks also go to my teams of assistants, the best in the world and without whom I would not have been able to carry out my mandates. Thank you to the staff of my group, for their support and professionalism. Thank you also to the staff of the Parliament, with whom I worked as Vice-President. Thank you to my colleagues in Parliament and, of course, especially to my group, for their support and confidence. Thanks also to the drivers, ushers, interpreters, translators and technical and audiovisual agents, who accompany us in the shadows with caution. Finally, we are told that the post-9 June Parliament should take a more brown tone. The worst is never certain and I hope that the European Democrats will be able to continue the magnificent adventure of European integration, with the sole aim of meeting the expectations of our fellow citizens.

Madam President, we are at the end of a long debate on the Asylum and Migration Pact that culminates on the eve of the European elections, which necessarily brings a very important political dimension to the vote that awaits us. To determine our vote, let us ask ourselves three questions. Does the Pact address indignity in the treatment of migrants? Does it respond to the disorder of borders? Does it lead Member States to show collective responsibility and solidarity? In all three cases, the answer is no. And I would add: Alas! It is clear that if we do not know what the Pact will actually allow, we know that it will not solve the problems that the Member States denounce. Worse, it marks unprecedented setbacks for fundamental rights while generalising derogation procedures. There is the impression that something is being done, but there is no solution for countries of first entry, for example, and there is no binding principle of solidarity. Let everyone be aware, moreover, that the Pact does not address major issues. He is silent on relations with source countries of migration and asylum. It will not affect the movement of people. There is no question of huge resources to deploy in relation to the Pact. He did not say a word about the deadly business of smugglers, nor about the need for European action on search and rescue, nor about legal avenues. It talks even less about integration and avoids reflection on immigration and climate asylum. It is impossible to support him.

Mr President, this is the European Commission's fourth report on the rule of law in the European Union and it has become a virtuous habit. The European Parliament's initial commitment to this issue will be remembered on this occasion. There are many lessons to be learned in the report. Not everyone has heard it here, but I can attest to that. I'm just pointing out a few things. On the positive side, it should be noted that 65% of the 2022 recommendations were taken into account and that is, I believe, a real usefulness of the report. Conversely, where the problems remain, they are worsening and there is a significant increase in situations of concern in the Member States, not the least. To address these situations, establishing a direct link between respect for the rule of law and access to EU funding was a step. But I think we need to move towards something quite simple, even if it is complicated to put in place, i.e. binding recommendations. Similarly, a broader frame of reference, covering all forms of discrimination, but also hate speech, should be one of the avenues to be explored by the next Parliament and the next Commission.

Madam President, what is the purpose of a report on fundamental rights? The question is legitimate. We would never have thought that the Charter of Fundamental Rights, one of the foundations of the European Union, would be threatened. And yet, more and more, it is being called into question and fundamental rights, especially those of the most vulnerable, are being violated. And this even in Member States that pride themselves on having the title of world champion, almost, of human rights. At the end of this mandate, this panoramic view of the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union is useful, not only for informing European citizens, but also for pointing out the functioning and drifts in some Member States. This must give us a clear vision of respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, not just to record what is not working, to alert us to what is worrying us, but also to propose, and I stress this fundamental step, recommendations for a fairer Union, respectful of everyone's rights. At the dawn of the election campaign for the 2024 elections, this reminder is not frankly luxury.

Mr President, it has been five months since our recommendations to combat the misuse of spyware in Europe were presented and adopted. But despite the scale of the phenomenon and the devastating consequences for European citizens and the rule of law, the European Commission has still not taken action. This inaction can no longer last. You are announcing an initiative and it will be welcome, as we wonder what is the point of giving free rein to a kind of jungle in Europe where digital weapons of different natures are unfolding and multiplying without hindrance. Abuses are accumulating in many related areas, too. Let's look at France, for example, where media investigations reveal that the national police have been illegally using Israeli facial recognition software since 2015, which is banned in France. The Ministry of the Interior is not aware of the use of that tool, which makes it possible, inter alia, to analyse the faces filmed in the street and of which no one has bothered to keep the CNIL informed. So the question is simple: how many spyware scandals, like the ones I have just described, do we still have to wait in Europe for the Commission to react?

Madam President, the instrumentalisation of migrants exists, it is undeniable, and I condemn it. It is the work of unscrupulous political leaders, here from Russia, and is organised in such a way as to destabilise the European Union through the geographical position of some of its Member States. But the proposed response in the form of a regulation is not appropriate, because it targets victims of instrumentalisation, in particular third-country nationals, and that is not the core of the problem. Reducing the number of registration points, removing personal interviews, setting degraded and wholesale reception conditions, allowing derogations to make access to the asylum procedure more complicated, is not the solution. The authors must first and foremost be targeted and those responsible for instrumentalisation must also be addressed: Heads of State of certain third countries. The diplomatic channel has shown us that it is not only fair, but that it has already proved its worth in the past through sanctions. The adoption of a European regulation as it stands, with questionable criteria, does not correspond to the situation.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what Mr Garraud is presenting here is a rewrite of the text, an alternative reality. These are conjectures, extrapolations, I was going to say a political instrumentalisation in relation to the actual content of the report. The far right has therefore decided to question the broad agreement reached in the LIBE Committee on the reform of the Schengen Borders Code, made possible by the commitment and political understanding of a majority of shadow rapporteurs, whom I would like to thank for their collaboration. To vote against this mandate is in fact to accept inconsistent or erratic decisions to close internal borders. What we want through this report is to protect the area of free movement and also to enable coordinated and thoughtful decision-making on the reintroduction of internal border controls. To support this mandate is to defend one of the most beautiful achievements of the EU, which exists nowhere else: the free movement of more than 400 million people enshrined in the Treaties. It is valuable in itself, but it is also valuable for European citizens. I am sure that many people today are well-reasoned supporters of a renewed Schengen area. I would therefore be grateful if you could support and vote in favour of this mandate.

Madam President, in two days, the Armenians in Artsakh experienced a tragic rebound in the conflict between them and Azerbaijan. In the indifference of the Russian soldiers who were supposed to ensure peace there, they had to flee their land, their house, all their lives. More than 100,000 of them have left everything behind. We've dislodged a people from their history. The EU has been powerless to prevent ethnic cleansing. He's in the works. There are many other things that outrage me in this story. How, for example, can the European Commission promote and assume an energy partnership with a government whose abuses are repeated? €15.6 billion was distributed to Baku last year, just for its gas. So let's be clear: the gas market must be closed and economic sanctions imposed on the Aliyev regime. I will support this resolution and I also call for increased humanitarian assistance to the refugees from Artsakh. The EU must react before it is too late and Armenia itself bears the brunt of political cynicism.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, we started examining this regulation a long time ago. It will determine how we will promote press freedom and media pluralism in Europe. A few years ago, when we were thinking about the threats and dangers to be countered, a few examples of countries came naturally to mind, because the situation of the media had particularly alerted us to them. Since then, bad examples have shown us that press freedom is likely to be threatened all over Europe, all over our Member States. Freedom of the press is fragile. This regulation is far from being a luxury. It will allow us to examine very concrete and sometimes delicate, sometimes worrying situations. Issues of media concentration, issues of editorial independence, as well as issues of source protection, which are issues on which we must not compromise. The measures contained in this ambitious position of Parliament will be safeguards to protect press freedom, journalists and media pluralism, on which our democracies depend.

Mr President, from my previous mandates as a local representative in France, responsible for health and social affairs, I remember numerous exchanges with prostitutes and their close associations, which attest to the fact that prostitution is excessively rarely a choice and a freedom. And it is ultimately the heart of the issues addressed in my colleague Maria Noichl's report, which I congratulate. Prostitution is also a phenomenon that affects society as a whole, including by affecting gender equality and the outlook on women. The demand it generates feeds human trafficking networks and physical and psychological violence. For all these reasons, and those detailed in the report, I agree with the option of abolition and add a recommendation: If this own-initiative report finds substance in legislation – which I hope – it will have to insist that the support and implementation of social exit programmes from prostitution be the subject of significant design and funding efforts to reach out to all victims.

Madam President, my colleague Nacho Sánchez Amor's report on EU-Turkey relations raises serious human rights concerns. That is why I would like to take this opportunity to refer to the Turkish authorities’ judicial harassment of certain defenders of minority rights, such as Pinar Selek, a sociologist and feminist of Turkish origin who has been a refugee in France since 2011, and who has been subjected to such harassment for 25 years. Despite having been acquitted by the Istanbul Criminal Court four times between 2006 and 2014, the Supreme Court of Turkey issued a new order in June 2022 annulling the 2014 acquittal and demanding that Pinar Selek be sentenced to life imprisonment with immediate imprisonment. I therefore call on the Commission to do its utmost to ensure that the Turkish authorities fully implement the right to a fair trial, stop their abusive prosecution of Pinar Selek and lift the international arrest warrant that hinders his freedom of movement and research.

Madam President, the joint resolution tabled by five political groups today for this debate is very comprehensive. It is, I hope, a real awareness of the risks to cross the Mediterranean and the urgency to act on deadly migration routes. I also hope that this is not just a tactic within certain groups to finally defeat, as in 2019 with only three votes, this text which calls for the implementation of a European rescue action. We have been calling for this mission for years and the European Parliament has taken a position on many occasions in a reasoned, coherent and consistent manner. I therefore call on the Commission to shoulder its responsibilities in this regard. Because sweeping away any European operation on the grounds that only coordination of national competences is possible will not solve the problem. This coordination is of course necessary, but we must go further, because more than 27,000 people have drowned on this migratory route since 2014. We can't wait any longer.

Mr President, a few months ago, as Parliament began examining the proposal for a directive, I welcomed the progress made. Finally, the European Commission proposed an ambitious text, with EU-wide measures and minimum standards to protect victims of these abusive proceedings, the SLAPPs that aim to keep cases that deserve to be brought to light in the public debate silent. These attacks on fundamental freedoms, but also on the rule of law, hamper judicial systems and have dramatic consequences for victims caught up in the turmoil. They pose a deaf and ever-increasing threat to journalists, the media and NGOs, to name but a few main targets. Unfortunately, in the meantime, the Council has adopted its position, which undermines these promising efforts. I therefore call on all my fellow Members to adopt Parliament’s constructive and ambitious position on a massive scale, so that we can play our full part in the trilogue discussions. It is only this balance of power that will protect victims from attempts at harmful intimidation.

Mr President, tomorrow we will vote on the recommendation of the PEGA Committee, whose work will enable us to combat the misuse of spyware in Europe. I would like to thank Sophia and Hannes in particular for the work they have done over the past few months, since these 14 months of investigation are missions and hearings that are sometimes extremely technical and often so uplifting, and that finally comes to fruition. This makes the absence of the words "immediate moratorium" all the more regrettable, although this text is a crucial basis for protecting the rights of European citizens. The many recommendations made will have to be followed by effects and legislative proposals, because, on a daily basis, new revelations of abuse appear when, at the same time, these technologies are deployed at a vertiginous speed. The Commission, but especially the Member States, should therefore not take these recommendations lightly. Concrete measures are needed to protect the rule of law and democracy in Europe. Thanks in particular to the S&D group, the text calls for a clear definition of ‘national security’, a very useful term to justify the use of spyware, even when used for non-legitimate purposes against human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and political opponents. I would like to stress this point: such tools should not be used, or as a last resort, with very strict safeguards.

Madam President, just a word to confirm, Mr Borrell, that you will probably have, with the assembly here and the people who are going to ask the questions, quite similar questions on this subject. We happen to want to draw attention to this situation, and that is why we wanted this particular moment. I understand that the mission is not a peace mission, and my question was also about the humanitarian and health conditions on the ground. We are told that the Red Cross no longer has access to this corridor: This means that 120,000 people, including 30,000 children, are at risk of death. It is also to know whether you have any information to give us, reassuring or not, that we ask these types of questions, on diplomatic aspects, but also on very concrete and humanitarian aspects.

Mr High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, since the resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 19 January on the humanitarian consequences of the blockade in Nagorno-Karabakh, the situation has worsened on the ground, with the installation by the Azerbaijani authorities, at the end of April, of a checkpoint in the Lachin corridor, as my colleague has just pointed out. This installation was in violation of the ceasefire declaration of 9 November 2020. In addition to the atmosphere of psychological pressure and the lack of access to basic necessities, such as food and medicines, the normal functioning of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC, is also hampered. An attempt to mediate towards a comprehensive peace agreement guaranteeing the rights and security of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh has taken place, and an official calendar of meetings is announced. However, Azerbaijan has not taken any action at this stage to lift the blockade. However, there is an urgent need to de-escalate and end the ongoing humanitarian disaster. Also, can you inform us about the concrete attempts to unblock the situation on the ground as soon as possible? Can you also update us on the achievements of the EU civilian mission in Armenia and on the ground?

Mr President, at the outset, I thought that my speech would express once again, I was going to say, a form of dismay that the European Union does not know how to find a solution to the issue of rescues at sea and legal migration routes. I heard that we were talking about people again and not just about quantity, so in the end there might be a little gram of hope in front of us. Indeed, the Temporary Protection Directive has been successfully implemented, against all odds, in a certain way 20 years after its adoption, so it is a form of hope. So would we not also be able to relaunch a truly European rescue mechanism at sea? There would be several advantages to that. First of all, without denigrating, and on the contrary, I insist, the action of NGOs on the ground, this would help to avoid terrible tragedies that take place in the Mediterranean Sea as elsewhere. Then we could supervise the arrivals and welcome the people with dignity. At the same time, we should put in place legal migration pathways that ensure the predictability of arrivals and that allow both European states and migrants to find a common interest in them. And in this way, I believe that Europe would grow out of it.

Madame la Présidente, nous voici donc à un moment crucial dans les discussions et décisions relatives au nouveau pacte sur la migration et l’asile, sous la triple pression des États membres, de la Commission et de la droite de cet hémicycle. In her view, the reform of the Common European Asylum System should be completed as soon as possible, with the justification for the end of the 2019-2024 cycle. Reforming? We agree with this finding: the system is not working and needs to be modified. But to finish this reform, at what cost? Where does the famous balance between solidarity and responsibility want to be established? Can this balance be established mathematically, by marginalising the impact on human lives on the one hand and on the functioning of the asylum system in the main Member States of entry on the other? The debate on the financing of the wall is a diversion, an instrumentalisation – if I may put it this way – because the 21st century should not be the one that echoes the 20th century, which saw the destruction of the walls. Diversion still, because the walls are used to generate other passages and do not have the desired deterrent effect. None of the walls erected will solve the problem of the origin of the malfunctions or provide solutions.

Mr President, for several years we have noticed the trend towards the criminalisation of NGOs in the Member States. But this trend has reached a new level with the adoption of the Italian decree on the subject at the beginning of 2023. This criminalization will further weaken humanitarian actors who, in reality, are already replacing failing public authorities. As we have said many times, letting people die at sea does not act as a deterrent to coming to Europe. The smoky air-call theory is a myth that has been deconstructed 1,000 times by specialists on the subject. On the other hand, this criminalization will make humanitarian actors and migrants take more risks. And it will strengthen the smugglers who will once again be the big winners of these populist policies. The only solution is neither new nor revolutionary, it is to re-establish genuine European search and rescue operations. Then NGOs will no longer need to do the work of states or the EU. International law will be respected, as will European values.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Federation of Journalists reports the deaths of 12 journalists in Europe in 2022, many of them in Ukraine. One hundred and twenty-four journalists are imprisoned. These appalling figures are unfortunately the tree that hides the forest, as attacks on journalists are numerous and manifold (online and offline threats, abusive litigation, judicial harassment of journalists or the use of spyware to identify sources, to name but a few), especially when their work involves abuse of power, corruption, human rights violations or criminal activities. The Commission’s rule of law reports do not sufficiently address the issue to my liking. The general climate of insecurity for journalists is extremely worrying, as these threats contribute to inhibiting freedom of expression. They can lead to self-censorship. They undermine journalism as a pillar of our democracies and the rule of law. Independent, pluralistic and reliable journalism makes it possible to distinguish between facts and ideas, counter disinformation, reveal what should not remain hidden and ensure checks and balances. That is why we need to protect journalists and journalism from the harmful trends we see today. The EU can finally deliver on its media policy ambitions and thoroughly assess the state of media pluralism and transparency of media ownership in Europe.

Mr President, how many times have we been in this Chamber talking about rescues at sea and deploring their tragedies? All too often, for the few tangible changes. In recent weeks, we have seen yet another diplomatic crisis and, in response, the Commission is proposing a new action plan. This is a commendable attempt, but its reading is striking, as it is the stacking of already existing measures to be reactivated. Does this mean that they were no longer implemented and why then? Or if they were still active, how will this plan change the current status quo where Member States argue their political differences to block the Pact on Asylum and Migration? In addition, the plan focuses on the Central Mediterranean, and this is necessary. But with more than 42,000 arrivals in the UK since January, how many people suffered the fate of the shipwrecked and dead in the English Channel in November 2021, to whom French and British relief workers did not provide the necessary assistance? There's an emergency. Yes, it is about re-establishing a genuine European-led, reliable and coordinated search and rescue mechanism in all EU waters.

Mr President, one of the lessons to be learned from the Russian invasion of Ukraine will be that EU countries will be able to welcome many millions of people quickly. This goes against many of the rhetoric heard in recent years and, most importantly, it proves that the Temporary Protection Directive could and should be implemented and that it works. That directive had never been used even though it dates from 2001. However, there has been no shortage of wars and the resulting population movements since then. And it took until the conflict unfolded at the doorstep of Europe, without countries to interface, for Member States and the Commission to act and for communities and NGOs to be massively supported and quickly supported in access to housing, health, work and education. I hope that this will set a precedent for future crises, which will inevitably happen, but also that negotiators will take this into account in the ongoing discussions on the Pact on Immigration and Asylum. This is the famous long-awaited rattling effect. We have here formal proof that welcoming people seeking international protection in a dignified manner is positive.

Mr President, Commissioner, since 2015, several Member States, including France, have reintroduced internal border controls in connection with terrorism and the war in Syria. But these checks, which are supposed to be temporary, have been going on for seven years. This duration is inadequate and the maintenance of controls calls into question the smooth functioning of the Schengen area, which is one of the Union’s main achievements. Moreover, indefinite retention contravenes EU law. This was recalled by the Court of Justice in relation to Austria in its judgment of last April. There is therefore a very clear message to be sent to the national authorities to comply with the law and to stop these checks, the effectiveness of which has never actually been assessed. Next, it is useful to know why the Commission, in seven years, has not taken any infringing measures. As rapporteur on the revision of the Schengen Borders Code, I will try to help strictly regulate the reintroduction of internal border controls in order to return to the original spirit of the Schengen area, namely that of an area of free movement.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am sorry to have to start this speech in this way, but the situation of fundamental rights in the Union remains at risk from year to year and successive reports on the subject show this. Recently, and in addition to the risks that already existed, the COVID-19 pandemic and the relentless fight against migrants across the European Union have increased this concern. This is why the initial report, written by a colleague from the ID Group, in addition to the provocative part it contained, reflected a totally caricatured worldview: against abortion, against migrants, against the media, against NGOs, unequivocally defending the Hungarian and Polish governments on the rule of law. This rosary of outrages was clearly not up to the task. In the light of this false initial report, I would like to warn the elected representatives of the EPP Group in this Chamber: it is this same caricature that will be your image if in Italy or Sweden, or even elsewhere, you agree to seal alliances with the far right; you will be co-responsible for violations of fundamental rights, especially of the most vulnerable. Conversely, I am convinced that we must continue to defend a fair and progressive worldview, representative of the EU with its difficulties and solutions. And that is why I welcome the political groups, including my own, which have managed to work together and have a report on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU adopted in the LIBE Committee, based on facts and not on false information. I hope that we will find the same majority in plenary.

Madam President, the protection of the external borders of the European Union is not at stake in our debate today. But it would still be necessary, on the one hand, to ensure such protection with discernment, respecting human rights, and, on the other hand, respecting the right to seek international protection. The terrible events that took place in Melilla on 24 June require us to ask ourselves how we should combine these two imperatives. Of course, there is no miracle recipe, but it is certain that the use of violence, as was the case at the border in the Melilla enclave, is unacceptable. All this sadly echoes the events that took place at the Belarus-Poland border in 2021. In response, the Commission proposed a regulation on the instrumentalisation of migrants, which could be used in a case such as the Spanish-Moroccan border. First problem: the definition of what constitutes the instrumentalisation of migrants can be found in the revision of the Schengen Borders Code – which has little to do with the subject. But above all, this regulation is the wrong target: instrumentalisation mainly targets the victims of this inhuman blackmail, i.e. the migrants themselves, not the perpetrators of the crime, some political leaders or even unscrupulous smugglers. It is therefore time to seriously review our border policy, to respect our international commitments and to allow an independent investigation in order to clear responsibility for the Melilla tragedy.