What David spoke about.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, livestock farming is in crisis and this report misses the root causes of this crisis. By putting on untruths and looking for scapegoats, he spares the real sponsors of this crisis. When Lactalis abandons hundreds of breeders to concentrate its collections in the most profitable areas, it is industrial logics that kill breeders; This report refuses to talk about it. When some processors impose their prices, when large retailers explode their margins, it is farmers who work more to earn less; This report does not mention it. The sponsors of agricultural domination must be named; this report refuses to do so. Worse, he maintains the idea that all models are equal. But that's not true: a model that keeps breeders alive; Another kills them. The extensive model linked to grass and polyculture, anchored on the soils, generating jobs and income, has nothing to do with the dominant model, intensive and industrial, of large multinational firms. By refusing to choose, this text is hypocritical and is complicit in the livestock crisis and the suffering of farmers; Because to defend breeding is not to cover those who speculate and exploit the work of breeders. We, environmentalists, defend another alliance, that of farmers, citizens and the environment, in the service of a fair income for the agricultural world.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this week, therefore, Parliament is voting on the budgetary discharges of the European institutions. In other words, what does that mean? That means that we are keeping the accounts of the European Union. On the far right of this Chamber, the European Union, they are mainly pocketing it: between EUR 3 and 5 million in the case of parliamentary assistants and EUR 4.3 million with the suspicious expenditure of the former group of the National Assembly in the European Parliament. The amounts change, but the logic remains the same. We disgust the Union, we withdraw its flag in French municipalities, such as Carcassonne or Cagnes-sur-Mer, we cry out for unnecessary expenses, but, by dint of denouncing Brussels, some end up above all knowing its coffers very well. When the far right arrives in town, all it wants is euros. They say they fight Brussels, but when money arrives, it often ends up with friends and naughty people. 4.3 million euros are dubious contracts, biased calls for tenders, inflated bills for the relatives of the Rassemblement national and its old networks. Is an investigation underway? All right, but that's not enough. The European Parliament cannot wait. To keep the accounts of the European Union is to be responsible for the money of its taxpayers; It is to punish those who make their pockets.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today Parliament is speaking on the European budget for the next seven years and Parliament is sending a very clear message to the Commission: This is an end of inadmissibility in relation to the architecture that the Commission is trying to impose on our institutions. Parliament is firstly judging the Commission on the volumes of the proposed budget, since we estimate it at 1.27% of gross national income, excluding NextGenerationEU reimbursement, and it seems to us to be a minimum to carry out all the policies that we think are necessary at the moment we are going through. But, above all, Parliament is judging the Commission on this mind-blowing architectural project of technocratically recentralising the management of our budget and, at the same time, emptying the control capacity of our parliamentary institution. And so this is no wayIt's a stop. The Commission needs to hear this. Now we are going to enter into discussions with the Council, and I am hopeful that we will be able to preserve essential policies on the CAP, cohesion, social policy, fisheries, the environment... We say that flexibility must not mean opacity and that Parliament will not give up its ability to control the budget.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the issue of consumer law is a matter of sovereignty and security for the European Union. Millions of unsafe and non-compliant products flood Europe via online platforms. Behind the broken prices hides a brutal reality: buying fast, throwing away more, producing far away, always exploiting. These prices are lying! They say nothing about the real cost paid by our societies, by consumers exposed to risks, by exploited workers, by a sacrificed environment. They say nothing about our abandoned sovereignty. We have let some of these firms, and the economic powers behind them, impose their rules, circumvent our standards, evade controls and capture profit at the expense of the public interest. The European Union must impose a model based on security, sustainability and social justice. The Digital Fairness Act must be an electroshock: it must put an end to deceptive practices, digital manipulation and platform impunity. Without a circular economy, there will never be justice for consumers. Circular economy legislation must break with the all-disposable, ban organised obsolescence and make sustainability a right. Protecting consumers is not protecting the market: It is about protecting citizens and our economic and geopolitical sovereignty.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the attention economy has decided to make our children prey and they are using platforms and algorithms to chase our children, but also each and every one of us, to penetrate our brains and know our emotions and sensitivities. In reality, they trade in our intimacy. And my belief is that burdening families and parents with monitoring these toxic algorithms is not a sufficient solution. On the contrary, it risks disempowering the real culprits of this situation, which are the firms and the algorithms. We here in the European Union, if we really want to protect our children, we have to take control, take back control over these algorithms. And so, Madam President, beyond the text that we are going to vote on, I think, tomorrow, we must put an end to the temptations of deregulation - with the digital omnibus for example - which are aimed at alleviating the burden on these firms. We must assume our role of protecting and monitoring international firms.

Madam President, Commissioner, Madam President of the Commission – she has left, and it must be believed that two hours to discuss with Parliament the future budget was still too much – we have a problem. We have a problem because the proposed architecture is a direct aggression and the worst setback we have seen in a long time compared to European federalism. Cutting the budget into 27 national packages not only strips Parliament of its power, but also takes a step back from what we want to do on federalism. Another scandal: the financial conditionality which the Commission will unilaterally decide in relation to the budget it will or will not give to the countries. This is the great return of the Troika. Perhaps you had nostalgia for that time? Not me. Not us! Last point: this giant partnership plan, this kind of Frankenstein plan that mixes all the lines, it is the end of transparency, it is the end of budgetary control; In short, it is opacity and technocracy on all floors. There's still time to get back together. The Commission must accept Parliament's role as co-legislator. We need a federal leap rather than a step backwards.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, thank you for this debate. I wanted to send a special signal to all the shadow rapporteurs, but to those who have been most in touch. There is my colleague Gozi in front of me, Mr Agius and Mrs Grossmann, and really it has been a pleasure to find consensus or dynamic compromises. And I would draw your attention, Mr Vice-President, to the fact that, when we vote on this report, there will be no amendments. This is not so common on an own-initiative report. This is to tell you the power of the message addressed to you by this institution, the European Parliament. You have chosen a number of formulas. I've picked up two. The one that has come back several times is that we are asking to put an end to unfair competition. We have to stop with this. And so there is a form of intelligent protectionism that we want to protect our territory and our economy. And then the question of the moment of action. Yes, it is time to act because each company that closes, each sector that is damaged by this unfair competition of which I spoke, well these are sectors that we will have the greatest difficulty to reactivate. So, it's time for action. I have heard of fears sometimes, even if they have not been expressed when we have worked together – but we have the right to wake up whenever we want – on the fear of new obligations. We are not talking here about new obligations. We are talking about the implementation of obligations that already exist. Including a form of simplification. I do not really like this term, but here it is used wisely with the digital passport, which is a way to gather in a single document all that, until now, was scattered. So, in conclusion, I want to say that protecting our market is protecting our businesses. To protect our market is to protect our jobs, to protect our market is to protect our competitiveness. So now, Mr. Vice President, it's up to you. And we look forward to your proposal. But know that here, we are very united for a proposal that will be voluntarist and powerful.

Mr President, Commissioner Séjourné, ladies and gentlemen, this Parliament is sending a historic signal today: The era of disposable at all must come to an end. The report we are voting on is not yet another text on consumption. It is a clear political mandate, addressed to the European Commission. I started with the subjects that were not central to this report, but together with our fellow rapporteurs we wanted to draw your attention, Commissioner, to these points. First, to regulate or even prohibit "fast fashion"; these clothes produced on the other side of the world, worn three times and then thrown away, suffocate our local sectors. It is an absurd, socially unjust and ecologically suicidal model. Then, correct the fiscal injustice that penalizes sustainability. Again, this is not a matter of direct concern to the IMCO Committee, but one to which we wished to draw the Commission's attention. Today, repairing often costs more than buying new. A shoemaker pays more VAT than a "fast fashion" site. We are therefore asking for a reduced, harmonised VAT on repairs and on the second hand. It also recognizes the strategic value of the re-use economy. In Lyon, Marie extends the life of phones. In Hamburg, Lucas refurbished computers for schools. In Naples, solidarity workshops bring clothes back to life. These actors are not on the margins. They are actors of a local economy and not delocalizable. Let us now come to the heart of this report, on which I think you will have a special look and on which we will call you, Commissioner, to propose legislation: This is the issue of the digital product passport. This digital passport is the flagship of our strategy to protect our market, protect consumers and promote repair. This produced passport will allow each citizen to know the environmental quality of what he or she buys. It will better protect our borders against poor quality products, which do not respect our law, since it will facilitate the work of customs. It is also a product passport that will give specific information to repairers to better be able to repair objects. This report also imposes a clear responsibility on companies. Any non-European company that sells in Europe will have to appoint a legal representative in the EU. Access to the single market can no longer rhyme with impunity. You sell here, you answer here. Finally, in a market that is beginning to be increasingly dominated by algorithms, this text reaffirms an essential democratic principle: The consumer must always have the last word, never an artificial intelligence in his place. Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, what we are doing today is charting a clear political course. A Europe where repair is better than throwing away, where sustainability becomes the norm, where the low price no longer justifies the destruction of life. This report is the first step towards the end of fast fashion and the recognition of re-use as a pillar of our circular economy. This is a clear mandate to the Commission: choose quality over quantity, durability against short-termism. Commissioner, Europeans, repairers and craftsmen are watching us. We count on you to translate this ambition into action.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, today you are, in a way, the European Union’s Minister of Defence, because the file you have in hand is our fundamental line of defence in the face of the attacks we are suffering against our economic interests, but also against our democracies. I invite you to listen to this part of the Chamber, because in the other part there is a fifth column: that of Donald Trump's parrots and foreign interests. Do not give in to these pressures. They will tell you again that we are the enemies of freedom. But for them, freedom is the right to make Nazi salutes. Not at home, not in Europe, because we have a relationship with history and geography that makes us here in this House to defend these values. Do not give in; do not make digital regulation an adjustment variable in other areas. Regulating is the condition for our competitiveness and the condition for the survival of our democracies.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, public procurement represents EUR 2 trillion per year in the European Union. This is ten times the amount of the EU budget. These public contracts are public money, the money of the European people. We are therefore proposing a "Buy European Act". We need green protectionism to protect the planet, our jobs, our social conquests and our sovereignty. Faced with US, Chinese and Russian imperialist threats, the ideology of liberal and free-trade globalization is a dead end that favours the exploitation of the global South and the deindustrialization of the European Union. The European market must be put at the service of our sovereignty, our economy and our values. To the Commission, I say: a strong Europe does not suffer, it supports its industry and assumes European preference.

Madam President, European farmers are dying, our farms are disappearing, peasants are falling under the burden of debt, and agri-food, agro-chemical and large-scale distribution companies are exploiting their work. Meanwhile, the European Commission is preparing to complete them. Ursula von der Leyen not only wants to merge the two pillars of the CAP, but she also wants to dilute it into a budget that will kill the specificity of the EU agriculture budget. Yet this is not enough: with the EPP, she intrigues to forcefully pass the free trade treaty with Mercosur. On behalf of the Greens, I say: That's enough! Finally, there is a need for a CAP that ensures better-distributed aid, pays for services rendered to nature and encourages virtuous practices. It is necessary to break the monopolies of the industrial behemoths of the agri-food industry, which strangle farmers by imposing prices that deprive them of their work. Finally, we need a Europe that guarantees farmers one simple thing: Their work has to pay.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, threats to press freedom are mounting. This is why we have put in place this European Media Freedom Regulation. The independence of the press is questioned, admittedly, by illiberal regimes that muzzle it within the European Union itself. It is endangered by oligarchs from outside the European Union, who are trying to take control of European media. It is also threatened by far-right billionaires in Europe – as in my country, France, with the Bolloré Group. This is why, moreover, public media services are an absolute weapon to combat this danger. In France, again, alas, we have a Minister of Culture who now wants to create a large holding of public media to be able to better control them. I call for Article 5, which provides for the independence of public media, to be effectively implemented so that this threat stops spreading in our countries and we can count on quality public media that inform our citizens.

Madam President, high food prices are not inevitable. They are the result of an unfair agri-food system, in which consumers pay three times: a first time at the cash register, a second time via their taxes for agricultural aid and subsidies, and a third time by paying the cost of repairing the environmental and health damage caused by industrial agriculture, so-called hidden costs – pollution, loss of biodiversity, food-related diseases; this amounts to up to EUR 2 trillion per year in the European Union. Farmers, on the other hand, are still not paid at the level of their work. For a fair price for consumers, and a fair remuneration for farmers, an agricultural model is needed. This means changing the current balance of power that benefits agrochemical giants and agribusiness and retail giants, and putting consumers and farmers at the heart of our model. It will be good for the planet, for our economy and for our rural territories.

Mr President, the European Union is powerful, but it is threatened by predators. We have no reason to consent to participate in a technological race whose rules these predators want to impose. To accept the standards of the Chinese or American tech oligarchs and their imperialist temptation is not what we must do. European innovation is the ability to prescribe our own rules of the game, which are based on our values. We have powerful weapons for this: e.g. the Digital Services Act (DSA), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the Artificial Intelligence Act and the Data Act. Regulation is the condition for our competitiveness. It is to the sanctuarization of our infrastructures and these standards that we must devote our investment capacities. Let's create an ecosystem where excellence rhymes with resilience, where progress serves our needs and fundamental principles. The only race we have to run is the one that ensures our European digital and democratic sovereignty.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is bound together: 92% of our data is stored abroad, our infrastructure delivered to GAFAM and Chinese suppliers. And what does Europe do? It speaks of sovereignty, but in reality it submits. The far right claims to be patriotic, but lets Europe become a vassalized territory, unable to protect its citizens and businesses from US extraterritorial laws and dependence on Chinese suppliers. Meanwhile, digital is swallowing 10% of the world's electricity and the trend is exploding. And what are we doing? GAFAMs are allowed to dictate their rules while Brussels deregulates, withdraws laws and bends to lobbyists. By dint of retreating, she abandons the battle without even having fought it. It's time to say stop! Europe must invest in its own networks, develop a sovereign cloud, secure its infrastructure and impose strict rules, in line with our democratic values. Because a Europe that depends is a Europe that suffers, and a Europe that suffers is a Europe that fades away. We need to regain control. Not tomorrow, not later, not now.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning's debate is enlightening. Contrary to what we were led to believe, the subject was not censorship or lack of censorship, freedom of speech or lack of freedom of speech. This morning's debate can be summed up in one word: sovereignty. European sovereignty, i.e. the sovereignty of the European Union, presupposes the sovereignty of European nations. That sovereignty is now under attack. It is under attack by Silicon Valley billionaires, who want to enslave European peoples. What is most surprising is that the first lobbyists in this attack, right here in Europe, are members of the extreme right, who claim to defend our sovereignty. The truth today is that those who want to deliver our workers, our businesses and our economy to the oligarchs of Silicon Valley are the European far right. So, Commissioner, we invite you to fight, to fight alongside us to defend the sovereignty of European citizens against those who want to take it down.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 'work, take pains, ... dig, dig, dig; Leave no place where the hand does not pass and passes again. In The Labourer and His ChildrenA dying father exhorts his sons to seek a treasure hidden under their land. They return to the ground with ardour and discover that the real treasure is their work and the fruits of the earth that flow from it. Our farmers are the heirs of this farmer. But where does their treasure go? Today, as in the days of Jean de La Fontaine, it is captured and stolen by others. The iron triangle of agrochemical multinationals, agro-industry intermediaries and supermarket giants are the feudal lords of modern times. We must stop shedding crocodile tears on the economic, mental and physical health of farmers while serving the interests of those who oppress and exploit them. It is time to redistribute the cards so that European farmers can reap the benefits of their efforts. It is a question of justice, dignity and the future for European agriculture.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, TikTok is definitely not a dance app. Behind its harmless airs of entertainment, TikTok, like other social networks, is a Trojan horse against our democracies. TikTok is not a vector of freedom, but of submission. Its weapons are based on the manipulation and mass surveillance of citizens. The recent revelations about TikTok’s interference in the elections in Romania are a wake-up call. And this is not an isolated case! For reasons of national security, the US legislated to force its Chinese state-controlled parent company to divest TikTok. We are in a decisive moment, when our democracies must learn to defend themselves against those who want to corrupt it, and bring them down. The Digital Services Act gives us the means to regulate these platforms, but a law without concrete implementation is just a knife without a blade. Europe must stand up, united and determined, to stand up fiercely for what we hold dear: our sovereignty, our democracies, our freedoms and our right to privacy.

Madam President, Commissioner, last May this Parliament voted in favour of the European regulation on freedom of the media, but the work is not finished. Democracies must learn to defend themselves against those who want to bring them down. But there is no democracy without reliable information, and therefore an independent press. After Czech coal mines, Mediterranean ports or African concessions, billionaires set their sights on the media. We must preserve the diversity of the media, preventing the concentration of the sector in the hands of a few. We must guarantee the independence of the editorial boards: journalists must be given the power to act by granting them a right of approval when a new shareholder comes forward. Their physical integrity and the protection of their sources and working tools must be ensured. Finally, while some of our countries are sinking into authoritarian illiberalism or austeritarian neoliberalism, I must recall here the obvious: the fight against disinformation requires sustainable funding for public information services and independent media.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, last April the Commission had Parliament adopt a crude revision of our common agricultural policy against the environment and therefore, ultimately, against the future of women and men farmers. At the same time, the Commission launched this strategic dialogue for the future of agriculture. Let's move on to the contradiction. Dozens of organizations participated in this exchange. Their conclusions are consensual and the message is clear: CAP reform is needed to protect agriculture and farmers. We must protect them against the deadly alliance constituted by a triangle of hell: the giants of the agrochemistry, the giants of the agri-food and the large distribution. To do this, we need to build a new alliance between farmers, consumers and consumers and the environment. We must guarantee fair incomes for farmers with low prices through a European law for the balance of trade relations in the agricultural sector and for healthy and sustainable food. We must guarantee access to quality European food for our citizens, with the creation of a European social security system for food.

Mr President, this is a point of order. Mr Cañas, in his speech, spoke of Khmer Rouge and Khmer Verts. I would like to remind him that the Khmer are the perpetrators of genocide, and that they have massacred a quarter of the population of Cambodia. Using this kind of image in this Chamber is absolutely unworthy and I strongly condemn it.

Mr President, we have an expression in France that says: One is not always a prophet in one's own country. It happens to everyone. In any case, let me say that after a few speeches I have heard, I am even more proud and happy that you are President of this EIB. And if you were French, I would be particularly happy if a woman who has your background now runs the most powerful public investment bank in the world. It's not nothing and I think your compatriots are very proud of it overall. On the issues that have been raised, I would like to recall what will be put to the vote later. There is no request from Parliament to change the EIB's nuclear policy. It is not in the report that you will have to vote earlier. Why? Firstly, because you are already doing so and if nuclear support means financing the deployment of new plants, it is such long-term investments that the EIB is not a suitable tool for this. This would jeopardise the financial sustainability of the EIB. So that would be a very bad idea, apart from what we can think in substance, on the issue of nuclear technology. But I really don't have enough time to talk about this. Madam President, you raised the issue of the water programme. Just to dispel possible misunderstandings, such a program must help secure the water cycle and not disrupt it, since in a number of our countries there is an important debate about the manufacture and development of so-called megabasins, which not only do not solve the agricultural issue, but further alter the water cycle. A word also about an expression that is often used on the twin transition, that is to say that the green transition and the digital transition go hand in hand. No, no. These are two transitions that are necessary but are not of the same nature. The ecological transition is the transition of our production model that today is based on carbon. The digital transition is about technology. And I insist on this point because there is sometimes confusion to consider that, by nature, digital technology would preserve our resources. That's not the case. It's actually the other way around. In fact, I am referring to critical materials. And then a word to finish, Mr. President, if you will allow it, on Global Gateway, you have said a word about it. I think there is a strategic, major political challenge to make the visibility of investment by public investment banks close to the European Union – there is the EIB, there is another tool, the EBRD – more visible and legible. We are in a critical moment where many areas of the world expect things from us and being more visible about us and more readable about our policies is a major strategic and geopolitical issue. Anyway, thank you. Nice to have the opportunity to work with you. You've just been elected, we have elections to face in a few months, so we'll see what happens. But in any case, good road by our side for the actions you want to take.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, President Calviño, congratulations on your election as President of the EIB. I am delighted to be able to discuss with you the tasks of the Investment Bank that you are now leading. It has been almost five years since I have been responsible for monitoring, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, the activities of the European Investment Bank. I would like to thank my shadow rapporteur colleagues and their teams with whom we have carried out this work in a constructive spirit. One of our objectives at the time was to make the EIB the European Climate Bank. This mutation has been initiated. I would also like to warmly welcome President Werner Hoyer, your predecessor, with whom we have been able to work and exchange views in this direction. The Climate Roadmap endorsed several important commitments, starting with the 50% climate loan target already reached last year. In 2021, the end of fossil fuel financing was confirmed, although it was somewhat tarnished by the hundreds of millions of euros invested in gas projects during the transition period. The Bank has committed not to finance the development of deep water mining. These are positive indicators and standards that must be highlighted, which must be used to build a future improved and even more ambitious climate roadmap, for example to permanently eliminate projects that are harmful not only to the climate, but more generally to the environment, and in particular biodiversity. A bank as important as the EIB must ensure that these developments are consolidated by not yielding to ephemeral impulses and opportunities. It plays its prescriptive role by demonstrating consistency. Madam President, I urge you not to give in to the sirens of past industry advocates or short-term pressures. On nuclear, the EIB has always refused to finance the deployment of a technology that is particularly costly to develop and financially vulnerable. The thurifers of the atom think they have found a new martingale with the small nuclear reactors. As usual, they are mistaken, and the EIB would be wrong to mix its fate with the more than uncertain prospects of this technology. If the EIB has a role in financing research and development, waste treatment or risk management, it should not venture into an area that could undermine the financial soundness of its foundations. On the other hand, in the field of energy, the EIB must continue to finance energy-saving strategies throughout the EU. For example, in Normandy, the EIB contributed to the isolation of public colleges. The EIB must also be a strategic actor in the large-scale deployment of renewable energy production, supporting projects across the EU, involving people and stakeholders in the territories concerned. In the same way, I think it is dangerous to want to change the criteria for financing the defence sector. Of course, the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine is redrafting the cards. The war is back on our continent and Putin is obsessed with weakening Europe. Since the beginning of this attack, we, the European Union, have been united in this fight, and everything must be done to help Ukraine. In this sense, the recently signed €50 billion package is a necessary commitment. The necessary financial and military assistance must continue to be provided. But the role of an investment bank is not to make up for the failure of states, which are much better able to finance the manufacture of weapons and ammunition. How could the EIB be able to ensure the traceability of armaments for which it would be responsible for financing? The situation requires direct responsibility on the part of the institutions able to contribute, under the best possible conditions, to the financing, production and transport of armaments and ammunition. The EIB is not a suitable solution for this task. There is no need to change the criteria for the allocation of loans. The bank already agrees to finance specific projects when the applications have dual use, i.e. civilian and military.