Speeches

Mr President, yesterday, between meetings, I went to the Castorama store in Lampertheim, ten kilometres from here. It was not to rebuild the partition of my office, but it was to support Xavier, who is employed in the paint department and is on hunger strike in his car, in front of the shop. Xavier earns EUR 1 400 a month while he is 13 years old. With prices skyrocketing, he and his colleagues are no longer able to make ends meet. Some even sleep in their cars all year round. Meanwhile, Castorama binges: almost €3 billion in turnover in 2022; for shareholders, more than €540 million distributed. Profits have never been higher. And the prosperity you talk about, employees never see the colour of it. After the health crisis, after the war, after inflation, we must stop repeating the same dogmas again and again – the single market as a magic solution, sacrosanct competition, restrictions on state aid ... One element must now be at the heart of our European economic strategy: share. Sharing the wealth produced with those who create it, this wealth: workers.

Mr President, in France, there is a minimum income called the active solidarity income, the RSA. But when you are under 25, you are not entitled to it. France is one of the only countries in the European Union to place an age requirement on access to minimum income. Thousands of young French people find themselves condemned to start their lives in poverty because they are discriminated against in accessing the RSA. A directive can remedy that. Not just a recommendation to the Member States, a directive. A binding directive, with a non-discrimination clause, would oblige France to open access to the RSA to those under 25. Commissioner, make a directive. Show young French people that they can count on you, that they can count on the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, how many ticket cases will you need, how many suitcases, before you finally decide to publish a legislative proposal? Four years ago, Ursula von der Leyen announced the creation of a body to monitor conflicts of interest and corruption. A year and a half ago, a report from Parliament asked you to set up this ethics body, and you did nothing. Two months ago, the "Qatargate" scandal shamed us all! The biggest corruption scandal in the history of the European Union: suitcases of banknotes found under Members’ beds. We thought it only happened in movies. We can imagine the reaction of citizens when they received the notification on their phones, the same citizens who are so hard-pressed to be interested in Europe. As a result of such an electroshock, it was said: Here, the European Commission will wake up. Two months later, still nothing. If Parliament had the right of legislative initiative, this ethics body would already be in place. Earlier, we are meeting with the representatives of the different political groups to agree on a joint emergency resolution. And we will insist, once again, and we can tell you in all languages – given that we have the chance here in the European Parliament to have interpreters in 24 languages: please activate! Submit your proposal for an independent ethics body! On Valentine’s Day, I remind you that there is no love without proof of love, and there will be no ethics without an ethics body.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 12 million Europeans live in an EU country that is not their own. These Europeans have the right to work, live and study in another Member State and they know that. These mobile citizens also have the right to vote in the European elections in their host country, but often they do not know this. And so, in practice, they don't vote at all: neither in their home country, because they do not live there, nor in their host country, because they do not know that they have the right to do so. This report aims to make this right effective, first and foremost by promoting access to information, which will be given to mobile citizens as soon as they register in their new country of residence. Thus, they will be able to make an informed choice as soon as they arrive to vote in their Member State of origin or from their Member State of residence. In a context where abstention is massive in every European election – I am not saying that the revision of this directive is a magic solution – we cannot balk at more citizens being able to go to the polls in the European elections and this report contributes to that.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, rapporteur, a Frenchman named Jean Jaurès said about democracy: The Great Revolution made the French kings in the city and left them servile in the business. Unfortunately, Dennis Radtke’s report does not propose to make a revolution in the company. However, it is very important because it proposes to infuse democracy into business by strengthening the power of European Works Councils. Political democracy is obvious to all of us. Social democracy in the workplace must become a reality. There is no reason why, when we arrive at work in the morning, our citizenship should be taken to the back of our pockets. There are therefore works councils, European works councils, which are essential for consulting employees when important decisions are taken within the company. You don't have to be fooled, though. At work, workers are subordinated and will never have full power. Democracy will never be perfect in business. And let us be aware that European Works Councils and in general social democracy bodies in the company are often used as a democratic veneer on decisions taken unilaterally by management. Let us also not forget that the ultimate objective of an undertaking is not to enable the sovereignty of employees to be achieved, but to make a profit. Those profits, who creates them? Who creates wealth? Without workers, the company is nothing, creates nothing. So why would investors be consulted at general meetings to validate companies’ strategic policy decisions and why would employees not be consulted, who create wealth? Companies – and I think this is the main interest of works councils – are now organising themselves at European level, to go where the legislation suits them the most. And European Works Councils are essential in the sense that they are counter-powers. Because very often, the credo of companies, and I am thinking in particular of Amazon, is to divide in order to rule better, to play on the atomisation of employees, their dispersion, their partitioning. Everywhere, wherever the workers of multinationals have set up spaces for discussion and exchange, they have succeeded in reversing the balance of power. In my view, this is the main interest of European Works Councils as a tool for transnational action to mobilise workers.

Mr President, in July, when the Uber Files were published, the immediate reaction of Uber’s spokesmen was to say: “Circulate, there is nothing to do. All this is ancient history.” Yet these revelations confirm what we have seen for three years now in this European Parliament, namely how Uber and platforms are working hard to influence legislators’ decisions in order to write the law themselves. So yes, I say so, because yes, as I have seen, lobbying by Uber and the platforms is still ongoing. And why is it still relevant? Because it has to be said, it benefits from the complicity of MEPs, MEPs who are strangely absent today in this debate and who spend their time repeating like parrots the arguments of the platforms, which put pressure on the negotiating teams of the Platform Workers’ Rights Directive. Members who are willing to lock themselves in rooms in this European Parliament to get their heads stuffed by platforms by refusing the presence of workers, or even insulting them when they have the audacity to invite themselves. Ladies and gentlemen, Parliament must validate its position on this directive. This vote will bring down the masks and answer an important question: Who are we driving for? Who is this Parliament for? For platforms or for workers? Colleagues, I am counting on you. I'm counting on us. Let us show that this European Parliament works for citizens and workers and that no, we will not give in to lobbying by Uber and the platforms.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, everywhere the fascist international is gaining ground. The latest example is the failed coup attempt in Brazil, where thousands of far-right putschists invaded the Brazilian presidential palace because they refused the outcome of the ballot box. Closer to home in Germany, it is the seditious far right that is trying to storm the Bundestag. In France, far-right terrorists are killing Kurds in the heart of Paris. The resemblances are troubling with the Europe of the interwar period. Everywhere, the extreme right expresses the same detestation of democracy, the same detestation of the constitutional order, the same xenophobic violence. And I am very, very worried when I see the shift from the classic right, the Republican right to the extreme right, whether in Sweden, Italy, France, with Eric Ciotti winning the Republicans. To defeat the far right, declarations of intent are no longer enough, moralising postures are no longer enough. What is needed is to build an alternative political project through action, break resignation and change everyday life.

Mr President, more than one and a half million euros in cash is 94 years at the SMIC. In other words, a couple who work their entire lives will not make as much money as Qatar has spent on corrupting European politicians. And again, we are only at the beginning of the investigation. Most of us have not been offered ticket cases. On the other hand, most of us have experienced phishing. It’s the name given to a technique that feels like we’re fish that we love with bait. We all got those baits. Just last week, I received an invitation to go to one of the most luxurious hotels in Brussels, sent by the Qatari Embassy to my EP email address. Two weeks earlier, it was an invitation to go to Qatar, visit stadiums, meet with trade unions and observe how Qatar had put in place a package of measures to strengthen social protection and working conditions. Colleagues, we need to tackle the roots of this scandal and legislate so that unbridled lobbying and corruption are no longer like a fish in the water in the European Parliament.

Madam President, be careful, ladies and gentlemen, drum roll: the European Year of Youth is coming to an end. The European Year of Youth. I took the test last night, went to Strasbourg and asked all the young people I met if they had heard about the European Year of Youth. Well, don’t you see that not one of them answered yes to me. Not one. Still, it could have been an event. It had every reason to be the European Year of Youth. With the explosion in the number of young people forced to start their working lives by lining up at the Restos du cœur. One in five people lining up for food aid is between 15 and 25 years old – between 15 and 25 years old! It made sense, this European Year of Youth, given the number of students who navigate between scholarships and odd jobs and who are forced to settle for one meal a day because they cannot pay their bills. Yet we can say that today the European Year of Youth was a missed opportunity. The Youth Guarantee. The Youth Guarantee could have provided young people with access to genuine, stable and quality employment. But no, in the end, she puts them in precariousness. On the minimum income, we expected a real binding directive from the European Commission, a directive that gives everyone access to the minimum income, regardless of their age. That directive would have forced France to put an end to the discrimination of young people under the age of 25 in access to the RSA. But no, we had a recommendation. Even the trainees. The trainees were forced last week to come before the European Parliament and ask us to ban the modern slavery of unpaid traineeships. So, it is true, I admit, I had a taste for large-format posters with smiling young people saying ‘European Year of Youth’ in the morning when you arrive at the European Parliament. It is true that I will miss this. But admit, admit, we could have done so much better.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is the difference between these two packages of pasta? None, you might say. Well, the difference is their price: 21% difference between these two packets of pasta; 21% increase in one year for pasta prices. Food prices have skyrocketed. Eating noodles is becoming a luxury. But I could also have come here with frozen meat, the price of which has increased by almost 30% in one year. Or with a watermelon: Watermelons have increased by 40% in one year. Or with cookies: Some biscuits have increased by 50%. Between food prices and soaring energy prices, more and more households need to tighten their belts. The situation has become untenable. Meanwhile, the profits of some multinationals explode, their shareholders binge. Here in France, an example is very telling: Total’s CEO grew by 52% in 2021, while Total paid out $2.6 billion in windfall dividends last week. All this while people struggle to fill their fridges and heat themselves, and they have to choose between putting gas in their cars or paying the electricity bill. Meanwhile, what is the European Union doing? The European Union palabre. She has been telling us for months that she will act. And for months, we've been waiting, we've been waiting. Here in the European Parliament, we are currently waiting for the proposal to be made by the European Commission to respond to the increase in energy prices. We wait, we wait. The European Commission has always been very good at setting ceilings – capping debt, capping state aid, capping the public deficit. But when it comes to capping energy prices and basic necessities, capping the profits of multinationals, there is no one left. But now is the time. Now is the time to cap. Capping energy prices will have a real impact on people’s lives. Commissioner von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, 400 million Europeans are watching. It's up to you to get your hands on the dough.

– Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I imagine that you are also regularly questioned by citizens, by associations that tell you: "There is a super important problem in Europe, the European Union should legislate. And since you are a Member of the European Parliament, well go ahead!" And I imagine that at that point, like me, you feel a little embarrassed to have to explain that it is not as simple, and, above all, that you do not have the power to write laws. The European Parliament is the only one in the world that does not have the right of legislative initiative, i.e. it does not have the right to propose laws and must wait for the European Commission to propose and draft them. A European Commission made up of officials and Commissioners, who do not have the democratic legitimacy of universal suffrage that we here in the European Parliament, the only European institution elected by direct universal suffrage, the only democratically legitimate one, do not have the power to propose laws. We are parliamentarians and we are obliged to play lobbyists with the European Commission to push it to propose the laws that the citizens who elected us wish to see adopted, hoping that Her Majesty the European Commission will be kind enough to agree to propose a draft directive on the issues expected and requested by our voters. You know, two years ago, I decided to take it, this right of initiative, and to draft a proposal for a directive, because I was tired of waiting for a proposal from the European Commission that was announced and was slow to arrive. This was on the issue of digital platform workers. I knew it had no legislative value, but it was sort of my way of lobbying. You can't imagine the reactions: It was original, unexpected, disruptive... That MEPs propose laws should no longer be original or disruptive. On the contrary. That is why the European Parliament must be given a genuine right of general initiative.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, do not exceed EUR 2 per litre of petrol and 2 °C of warming: These should be our two main priorities. However, most of the right-wing amendments and the many, not always very subtle, recommendations of the lobbies speak only of emission allowances, these polluting rights distributed free of charge to the sectors most harmful to the climate, such as aviation or the steel industry. Listening to lobbies, we should continue to water the carbon market with these rights to be polluted in order not to harm the competitiveness of companies, and all this at the expense of the climate. But, despite pressure from lobbies, we have stood firm here in Parliament with a first victory and a compromise that proposes to postpone the carbon market for fuel and heating for households to at least 2029. The inclusion of transport and buildings in the carbon market would have only increased the already far too high bills for petrol and heating. We affirm that: the carbon market is not the solution. Entrusting the keys to our climate policy to market fluctuations is going straight into the wall. On the contrary, what we need is planning, both to achieve our climate goals, but also to make the transition as just as possible. It is precisely in this spirit that I was in charge of the negotiations for my group on the Social Climate Fund, a tool that can be improved, but which allows the issue of transition costs to be finally put on the agenda. For the most modest, it is necessary to hold both ends: do not increase the price of petrol or the temperature.

Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate my colleague Domènec Ruiz Devesa on this excellent report. I am not going to come back to one of the major issues that is being debated, which is transnational lists, but I would like to come back to another point. You will find that in this report reference is made to the possibility of having alternating lists of women, men, women, men, women, men. Then the French who listen to me will say: "Yes, so what?". And before working on this report, I would have been the first to say: ‘Yes, so what?’ Because in France, alternating lists are the norm, they are the law. All our elections are held by alternating lists and no one from all sides of the political spectrum questions this because it ensures roughly equal representation of both genders in elected office. And frankly, I never thought that claiming alternating lists would make me a Simone de Beauvoir. Well, on the contrary. When the subject began to be raised in the negotiations, some shouted scandal. So, in the end, alternating lists are mentioned in this report, but only as a guideline, as a possibility. And it is a pity that this is not mandatory, as it would have rebalanced the proportion of MEPs compared to the proportion of MEPs. And this knowing that 21 countries out of 27 send more MEPs than MEPs here in this Chamber, and that some countries have no women elected to the European Parliament. So I confess to you that I ask myself a question: the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in which we negotiated this report is the least equal in the European Parliament. Do I have the twisted mind to think that there is a connection with the fact that alternating lists have been the subject of so much controversy? I am tempted to believe that, had this House been parity, the alternating lists would have been self-evident.

Mr President, yesterday in Brittany, a 43-year-old farm worker was hit by a machine used to sow grass. He's dead. The day before yesterday in the Yonne, in a company that manufactures sofas and armchairs, a 50-year-old worker who took up his post at 5 a.m. was crushed by a machine. In France, more than 800 people die every year at work. This is the highest figure in the European Union. Emmanuel Macron, who is, as you know, the man who chairs the Council of the European Union at the moment, once said: "The life of an entrepreneur is often harder than that of an employee. He must never be forgotten because he, the entrepreneur, can lose everything.” How can he dare? It is the workers who risk their lives every day at work. Two-thirds of deaths at work are workers and the problem will not be solved by putting an accident counter at the entrance to factories, much like in the Simpsons generic or at the entrance to Amazon warehouses. As if accidents at work were only a matter of motivation, the fault of the workers. It is not because workers are stunned, it is not because they are clumsy that there are accidents and deaths at work – should it be repeated? Nor is it inevitable. All this is the result of political choices that encourage a race for profits where human capital is seen as a cost, as a burden. Productivity first, and for safety, we'll see later. The answer is political. We must stop this race for profits, improve working conditions. There is a very concrete need to empower labour inspectorates by doubling the number of inspectors who ensure that law and safety are respected. And we must not only re-establish the Committees on Health, Safety and Working Conditions, or CHSCT, which Macron, with his cap as President of the French Republic, had barely elected, but also increase their resources. Working kills, and that is unacceptable.

–. Mr President, Commissioner, there is no better place than a petrol station to understand the increase in the price of petrol. That is why I went to the Champigny-sur-Marne station in the Paris region. Why this station, you will tell me? Because it was the cheapest morning in the whole of eastern Paris. Some of the motorists I met drove 20 km to save between €3 and €5 on their diesel fuel. They told me about their difficulty in refuelling and the lack of public transport in the suburbs. They also told me that they were cutting back on other expenses to keep using the car. Commissioner, people are suffering from rising fuel, gas and electricity prices, especially when wages are not rising. To address this situation, Europe will set up an instrument, the Social Climate Fund. A fund that will only be useful if it allows the people of the Champigny station to move around without bleeding their wallets.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to democracy at work, democracy at work at Amazon is like Santa Claus, it does not exist! In Poland, Magda, who is a member of the Health and Safety at Work Committee, was not allowed to join the Accident at Work Investigation Committee even though one of her colleagues had just died at work. Worse still, she was fired for spurious reasons, presumably after denouncing the poor working conditions in a warehouse that led to her death. In the United States, as we have just learned, six workers died in the collapse of their warehouse because Amazon refused to suspend operations, despite tornado alerts. Warehouse workers are prohibited from accessing their mobile phones during their working hours, so they could not receive the alerts. Jeff Bezos tramples on the law in the face of helpless workers by preventing them from organising because Amazon always puts profit first. So, ladies and gentlemen, even if it is Christmas soon, we must not give Amazon gifts. On the contrary, to use the slogan of a global campaign, ‘Let’s pay Amazon’, ‘Make Amazon pay’.

Mr President, ‘the child weighs 485 grams, so far because of the abortion law, I have to lie down. They will wait for him to die and otherwise I can – great – expect sepsis. That is the horror. My life is in danger and I have to wait. This is the message that Isabella, 30, a young Pole, sent to her mother. Isabella had to wait and she died. She died because doctors refused to give her an abortion even though they knew that the fetus she was carrying was ill-formed. Isabella died because of a new inhumane law that de facto prohibits abortion. And because of this law, tens of thousands of Poles resort to clandestine abortions, get abortion pills alone or have to go abroad, putting their lives and health at risk. This is where the far-right policies that inspire so many reactionaries and that inspire some presidential candidates in our country lead. This fight is vital. To condone this situation is to render non-assistance to anyone in danger. Colleagues, we must react! And as the Poles say: Not one more! Ani jednej więcej.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Paul Dupeyroux died a year after doctors diagnosed him with asbestos cancer, mesothelioma. Paul grew up in Aulnay-sous-Bois, near Paris. Near his home there was a factory that crushed asbestos. A high chimney let out white dust, white dust that workers and residents have been breathing in for decades. For 19 years, Paul breathed in asbestos dust without knowing that he was poisoning himself. Asbestos-related diseases are insidious. They take years to develop after inhaling asbestos particles. Every year, more than 90 000 people die from asbestos in the European Union. Too often, victims are left alone and do not know that asbestos is at the root of their harm. To that end, I invite you to support the report carried by my colleague Nikolaj Villumsen and the colleagues from my delegation from unsubmissive France. Because, as this report states, it is necessary to facilitate the recognition and compensation of asbestos victims. Above all, asbestos must be completely removed from all existing buildings so that no Paul can die for breathing.

Madam President, seriously, ladies and gentlemen, is this still the case? We are still debating whether or not women have the right to dispose of their bodies? Are we still hearing MEPs – particularly on this side of the Chamber – opposing the right to abortion? Seriously? It is your friends in Texas who have tried to ban women from having an abortion after six weeks, even though they are not yet aware of their pregnancy. In Poland, your friends ban abortion even if the fetus is poorly formed and therefore force women to be living coffins. Are we still here? Don’t want an abortion? Well, don’t abort, but let women choose and decide. Everywhere, women oppose you with their voices: Chile, Mexico, San Marino. This morning, good news came to us from Texas, informing us that the anti-abortion law was suspended. Abortion is a fundamental right. Let women use it whenever they want, wherever they want, however they want. Our bodies, our choices, our rights.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, this morning, the President of the European Commission announced that 2022 will be the year of youth and, in this new school year, returning students will be delighted to learn about it, who are suffering from the social consequences of COVID-19, with huge rates of unemployment and poverty. While in France, President Macron felt it was time to cut housing subsidies for students and cut meals to 1 euro in universities, and while the cost of student living is skyrocketing, what young people need is not a whirlwind with beautiful posters with young people all over Europe, and then with the pretty logo of the European Union next door. No, what they need are concrete measures and there were none. Zero, walou, nothing, nada in Ursula von der Leyen’s speech this morning, nor were there any social measures, for that matter. There's an emergency. The solutions are at your fingertips: a minimum income for all from the age of 18, the construction of student housing, quality jobs. Let us declare social emergency at all levels. And I am counting on you, Commissioner Schmit, to get the message across to the European Commission.

Madam President, Commissioner, we must put an end to a fraudulent situation where platforms present themselves as mere intermediaries between a self-employed worker and a customer, when in reality they decide on tariffs, they decide on sanctions and they decide on working methods, all without fulfilling their obligations as employers. To remedy this, Parliament makes a proposal in this report. There needs to be a presumption of wage-earning for digital platform workers. A presumption of salaried employment linked to a reversal of the burden of proof. And the definition of the word presumption is unambiguous. From Latin praesumereIn advance, the presumption of wage-earning means that workers are considered employees of digital platforms from the first day of the employment relationship, without the need to go to court to assert their rights. This does not mean, of course, that all platform workers must be employees. There are cases where platforms are actually intermediaries, I am thinking for example of the Doctolib platform. In this case, it is up to the platform to prove that it has no subordinate relationship with the workers and they retain their status as self-employed. If we ask you to act, Commissioner, it is not to force self-employed workers to pay. If we urge you, it is first of all to remedy the extreme precariousness of VTC drivers and two-wheeled meal delivery workers. But it is also, and above all, for the whole world of work: If today we allow Uber to have workers under its command without assuming its responsibility as an employer, tomorrow it is all employees whose status will be threatened with replacement by a bogus self-employed person.

Mr President, while some have their heads in the moon, others have their hands in the sludge. Dear colleagues, Jeff Bezos is leaving his position as CEO of Amazon to focus on his passion: space tourism. So when he puts his clothes in his suitcase, I hope he will have a thought for the workers of his subcontractors in Bangladesh who make clothes for Amazon. These workers who were on strike on May 26; who were sent home without a cent during the lockdowns; who, in order to keep their job, are obliged to accept pay of less than EUR 80 per month for 12 hours a day, six days a week, in deplorable conditions. And all this while Bezos, sitting on a small cloud, makes billions to pay for his rocket. Colleagues, let’s force Amazon and all multinationals to come back to earth, to pay their workers a salary that allows them to live in dignity and for which they do not risk their lives. You will agree that this is not asking to land the moon.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, just a week ago, the thermometer in the village of Lytton, Canada, stood at 49.5°C. Not in the Sahara nor in the Middle East. No, no, 49.5°C in Canada! The cause of this extreme heat in a country also in the north is known to be climate change. Scientists have warned: what happened in Canada could very well happen again in Europe in the near future. With such a wake-up call, one would think that Europe would do its utmost to curb the runaway climate. And yet, with the Connecting Europe Facility, the European Union is preparing to finance gas projects in turn. Fossil gas can be just as dangerous to the climate as coal or oil. Rather than subsidising gas pipelines, Europe should fund wind turbines and solar panels, for the success of the green fork, for our future and to be able to enjoy the summer without burning.