Speeches

Madam President, when I speak to you today, I have a rather unpleasant impression of déjà vu. Indeed, the so-called Article 7 procedures concerning the non-respect of the rule of law by Poland and Hungary were triggered in 2017 and 2018 respectively. However, since then, little has changed, apart from a deteriorating situation in the two countries – two countries that had voluntarily committed to respecting the values of the EU by integrating it. Numerous hearings were held, including by the French Presidency of the EU, which was content with them, even though the rule of law had been presented to us as a priority. During these procrastinations, civil societies, judges, opponents, human rights activists, LGBTIQ people in these countries despair of a strong gesture on our part. Let's also be clear on another angle: the war in Ukraine should not be used as an excuse for the European Commission, in particular to put an end to the pressure on these countries. I welcome the launch of the conditionality mechanism for Hungary. But what about Poland? Of course, I welcome the effort made by Poland to take care of refugees, even though many testimonies report that volunteers and local populations provide most of the aid and feel abandoned by the national authorities. Therefore, the reception of Ukrainian refugees by Poland and Hungary cannot serve as a bargaining chip against the lack of respect for the rule of law and the consequences of its non-compliance.

Mr President, the report by my colleague Domènec Ruiz Devesa, whom I warmly congratulate, lists a series of events and social changes that have taken place in recent years, such as Brexit, the attacks, the misdeeds of disinformation and interference, and the rise of Euroscepticism, all of which prove an urgent need for education about EU citizenship and values. Numerous statements have been made to that effect. However, the report makes the regrettable observation that, to date, too little has been achieved to achieve this objective. Since the adoption of this report in committee, war has broken out on Europe’s doorstep, and while it has unified the EU in the face of urgency, it only makes the need for long-term education in EU citizenship and values, which are the only antidotes to illiberal propaganda and nationalism, all the more necessary. Let's remember: Today’s young people in the EU, as I hope in Ukraine and Russia, are the drivers of tomorrow’s change and peace. That is why I support the objective of this report and I support the implementation of the recommendations made, first and foremost the maximisation of the potential of the European programmes devoted to it, such as the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme, but also actions for a renewed European civic education.

Mr President, the horror of the situation in Ukraine strikes us all. Most of us thought we would never see such scenes of war on European territory again. Reality makes us wrong. The responsiveness of the countries bordering Ukraine in welcoming refugees is remarkable and their solidarity to be welcomed and supported. In the same vein, the Council has finally decided to implement the Temporary Protection Directive. It was time. I cannot help but think of the Syrians who could have benefited from it a few years ago, rather than being caught up in European chaos. I note, however, that a very large margin of manoeuvre has been left to the Member States. How can we avoid applying the strict minimum of protection to certain non-Ukrainian nationals? How can we avoid further fragmentation in terms of guarantees and status? These topics will need to be monitored so as not to create a precedent. Finally, this exceptional situation and the mobilisation of Europeans must not make everyone forget their obligations on other aspects, in particular the reception of refugees from other parts of the world and respect for the rule of law.

Mr President, Mr Secretary of State, young Europeans have been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic – many of us have said this – and by the measures put in place to deal with it. This has affected their education, their employment prospects and their future. The European Year of Youth is therefore welcome to focus on them and to multiply the proposals to address the challenges they face. Among these proposals, I want to mention in particular school mentoring, because this can, in my opinion, represent a powerful tool to avoid dropping out and dropping out of school. Mentoring creates intergenerational connection and meaning, while restoring momentum and hope for young people who have felt forgotten in a key period of their personal construction. Beyond that, mentoring helps to redress social inequalities. In France, mentoring is a success and is gaining momentum, especially with the "1 young, 1 mentor" scheme. This policy must, in my view, be an opportunity from which all young Europeans can benefit. It is therefore necessary to support the European mentoring network and to support the funding of the associations that organise it.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking Christel Schaldemose, my colleague from the Group and rapporteur, for her work on a dossier that is both so voluminous and so important for regulating and securing the digital space for users now and hopefully for years to come. In the absence of time, I will focus on only one aspect of the issue, with the proposal of several amendments to introduce a possible exemption for the media. Of course, like many here – everyone, I think – I totally disagree with the arbitrary removal of journalistic content online and the image of a newspaper in a newsstand from which pieces or articles have been cut is quite telling in this regard. Nevertheless, an exemption for the media is, in my view, far too great a risk in the wider context of disinformation. Indeed, it would prevent the fact checkers – fact-checkers who do meticulous work to track down and update disinformation – to carry out their mission, which would be harmful, I think, to our democracies. In addition, the DSA now contains necessary and useful tools for the media to challenge, if necessary, these removals of content. I would therefore like to thank my colleagues in advance for their attention and vigilance on this point.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Republic, there is no ambiguity, we are in your political opposition at the national level, but you are here as President of the Council of the Union, not as a future candidate in the presidential election. And because we are Euro-demanding, we want our country to contribute positively to the European project. Thinking of Italy dear to David Sassoli and reading your European programme, I want to say that, in the subjects of the French presidency of the Union, there is at the same time the good, the brute and the hoodlum. The good thing is when there is useful progress that will serve Europeans. Minimum wage, carbon border adjustment, digital regulation. As social democrats, we demand an important part of it and we will therefore be vigilant that the results are not sold on the altar of political agreements quickly made, badly done. Because your semester is actually only a quarter of real action. But the priorities of the French presidency of the Union are also a tougher, more brutal face. Nothing about inequality, poverty or homelessness. Nothing about tax evasion or tax evasion. An instrumentalisation of the migration and Schengen issue that augurs for a result that will be neither humane nor effective. And finally, there is a series of subjects on which the French presidency of the Union wants to escape the patrol in the manner of the hoodlum of Sergio Leone. On climate issues, where the initial ambition is unraveled, whether it is the taxonomy or the burial of the principle of energy efficiency first. On economic governance and fiscal rules, where the ambitions of a major reform are revised downwards, if not disappeared. On the rule of law, where it is well understood that you will not go so far as to get angry with your colleagues in the Council. Or on the Conference on the Future of Europe, an initiative that risks going into a quarrel, much like other consultations that you have had the responsibility for. Mr President of the Republic, in films as well as in our institution, it is rarely good to want to play all the roles at once, to seek to be the sole master on board to impose a vision where the European Union would be a kind of bigger France. The feeling of belonging to the European Union is not decreed, it is built, and it will be built with respect for our Assembly.

Mr President, opening up controlled and secure legal channels is one of the conditions for implementing a mature migration policy worthy of our Union. This is a signal that I want to send to all apprentice sorcerers who, in several Member States, including my own, are embarking on the inventory of the most stupid and inflammatory idea and overbidding. On several occasions, notably with my report on migration and work voted in May, with the adoption of the Blue Card, and now with this report, we have shown that talking about migration must not be synonymous with chaos, despair or instrumentalisation. A migration policy establishing legal and secure pathways to the EU is possible to fill the labour shortage in key sectors and to provide safe pathways for those wishing to reach our continent. I also welcome the interest shown in this report in the conditions of low- and medium-skilled workers, who are often forgotten by legislation and the victims most vulnerable to smugglers’ networks. However, the sectoral approach to labour migration is not a panacea. We need to look further and work towards a single migration code setting out general rules for entry and residence in our Member States. This could be a great step forward and a great ambition for the future.

Madam President, the debate we have today brings together a number of issues which, if not taken on resolutely by a majority, will jeopardise the values of the European Union. First, there is the need to help those trapped in a humanitarian crisis at the EU’s borders. The first European funds were disbursed to help those present, but agencies and NGOs must be able to act immediately in the no-go zone. The first flights organised by Minsk date from late summer. Almost three months of human distress camouflaged as "hybrid warfare." This is unacceptable. I also believe that we should help to bring the Belarusian authorities before an international court for trafficking in human beings. And that is my second point. Let us not lower our guard in front of them by considering that the level of threat has decreased. The sanctions regime must be maintained and strengthened so that Lukashenko does not imagine an extra minute being sufficiently protected by his Russian sponsor. Finally, let us not be lax vis-à-vis the Polish authorities, who are probably counting on this crisis to throw a fog on the issue of the rule of law and take advantage of it to disengage even more from collective solidarity. They favoured the construction of a wall. We say that it is first necessary to allow people to receive help and have the possibility to apply for asylum. Let’s be clear, the situation is unresolved, let’s not evade the resurgence of COVID-19 in Europe.

Mr President, the decision of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal constitutes a further escalation in challenging the fundamental principles of the Union. I have listened carefully to you, Prime Minister, and I can see where you are trying to take this Parliament – which, moreover, you do not hold in very high esteem. Viktor Orbán has already used this tactic here. It consists in comparing the criticisms made against your power with those made against another government, considering that the reaction of the European institutions is different and therefore discriminatory because it is Poland, as it was Hungary before. But your argument is not fair since the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has recognised the primacy of European law. This is still not true for France, since the referral to the Constitutional Council resulted in a revision of the Constitution. So your line of defense is pierced. Look at reality in the face: you are looking for an absolute martingale. Faced with this, it is the EU that loses and the PiS that wins. This is called manipulation of public opinion. Because what you're doing here doesn't fool anyone. You are not debating with us, you are actually talking to Poles and you rely on social networks and the media to get your messages across, even if it means creating confusion. So, let's be clear: No one is prevented from criticising European policies – it is a sport to which we are very accustomed. But it is another thing to shatter the common rules freely agreed upon upon accession to the EU. This is where the Commission must not have a shaking hand and must stop procrastinating. The Polish recovery plan cannot be approved. On the other hand, the Article 7 procedure must be reawakened, the rule of law conditionality must be applied, and an infringement procedure must be considered. That is what a Guardian Commission of the Treaties must do.

Mr President, the European Union will finally have a genuine Asylum Agency. I would like to congratulate my colleague and comrade Elena Yoncheva on the excellent result achieved in an area that is still very delicate in relations with the Member States. At a time when the negotiations of the Pact on Asylum and Migration are taking place with some difficulty, this agreement provides another perspective on the field of migration and asylum, which cannot be limited to the management of external borders and returns. In that regard, the comparison between Frontex, which will recruit 10,000 coast guards, and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), as it used to be called, with its 500 experts, was close to indecency. It was therefore time to create a real agency, with sufficient human and financial resources to support the implementation of asylum policy and reception. However, this is obviously not just a very important issue of budget and human resources. EASO had been working for a long time within the limits of its mandate, despite a growing need for support from Member States. I would like to mention two new tasks needed for the tangible change they will bring on the ground. First, the Agency will be able to deepen and formalise its commitment to the distribution and resettlement of asylum seekers and refugees. This is a very timely step in the context of the recent Afghan situation and the high-level forum on their protection to be held this afternoon. Secondly, it will also have to monitor the implementation of asylum policies in the Member States, which should oblige them to improve reception conditions and respect the fundamental rights of asylum seekers. This is essential to change the situation at our borders and put an end to refoulement. This new agency makes a positive reform of the European asylum system possible, as it demonstrates that we can count on meaningful solidarity and practical support to Member States.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the COVID-19 pandemic has not spared people with disabilities, whose situations have often worsened. I therefore welcome the opportunity to congratulate my colleague Alex Agius Saliba and to discuss this own-initiative report, which has the merit of being based on numerous petitions on the issue of disability that have been addressed in recent years and that require an answer, namely proposals for improving the legislation in force and their better implementation. I distinguish, among all of them, some of the valuable proposals that I consider decisive for better protection of people at European level. First, the mutual recognition of disability status in the Member States, which will finally remove a significant obstacle to the right to free movement and to move to another Member State to work, study or for another reason, with a view to drawing up a European Disability Card by 2023. Secondly, accessibility. While the 2019 Directive was a step forward in harmonising accessibility requirements for certain products and services, we need to go further and remove persistent restrictions on its scope. Finally, some of the measures put forward concern access to the labour market for persons with disabilities. These are crucial avenues to ensure autonomy and dignity for all.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, any initiative that emphasises the positive role of migration seems to me to be encouraging without hesitation. Indeed, this topic is constantly hysterised, while it deserves a peaceful political debate. This is the case with the EU Blue Card, which will facilitate access to work in the EU for highly skilled foreign workers. And if we cannot say that the debate was calmed down, let’s say at least that it was a long one, if I believe the starting date of the discussions and their outcome after five years. But this step is welcome in building a European policy that respects individual rights and is open to the challenges of the present when it comes to labour migration, as you recalled, Commissioner. Because migration, although violently fought, caricatured and manipulated in some political formations, is an indisputable demographic, economic and human reality. We must also bear in mind that having more legal avenues means breaking the law. business plan smugglers. Earlier this year, the European Parliament adopted my report, which recognises that opening legal pathways for migrant workers helps reduce irregular flows and can help our societies address the lack of assets. Colleagues, I call on you to show the same support today for this directive, whose debates were concluded with talent by Javier Moreno Sánchez. It is a matter of common sense and humanity. It is also an economic and social issue to protect all workers, European and non-European, who are less well paid and more exposed to the risks of exploitation.