Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must say that I had a false hope. When the Commission announced the introduction of anti-corruption rules, I said to myself: “finally”. Finally rules against those who monetize their vote against suitcases of tickets. Finally, a profound reform of the European institutions, after Qatargate, after the hidden texts between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer, after the revolving door of Commissioner Neelie Kroes at Uber, and so many other scandals. Finally, action against conflicts of interest and for transparency. But in fact, this is not the case. Let us not touch a hair of the opacity of the European institutions. Let us focus only on state corruption. The EU is teaching the lesson, but it is procrastinating on its own promises. Farewell to the big statements, get your hands on the heart, here in this Chamber a few months ago, and hello to the reforms scattered and discussed behind closed doors so that the liberals, the right and the far right who are still giving us lessons, but in reality behind closed doors, can quietly maintain the status quo. So, Commissioner, you talked about the independent ethical authority. We have been waiting for him for four years and I would like to say that, given what is to come, an independent ethical authority, with no real independence and no real power to investigate and punish, that is to say, it will be a stroke of the sword in the water. And at the same time, we learn that seven European Commissioners accept that foreign governments offer them luxury hotel nights. So, ladies and gentlemen, the fight against corruption is essential. The Commission's proposal to strengthen Member States' safeguards is welcome, but the EU institutions must first sweep their doors if they want to speak out against corruption with a credible voice.

Mr President, Commissioner, your record has been scratched. In the name of debt and deficit, how many civil servants do you want to lay off? Up to what age will it be necessary to work? How many hospital beds do you still want to close? In truth, no sacrifice will ever be enough to satisfy your debt obsession. Your disc is scratched. You yourself acknowledged this by suspending your fiscal rules and proposing their revision. But I can imagine you saying: Eureka! What if we were to propose about the same rules that pushed us right into the wall?" Chase austerity, it's back on track. Your disc is scratched. We are talking about public services and people's dignity. You are responding to budget cuts and structural reforms. Behind the numbers, your austere divisions and subtractions, there are only abstractions, but a painful reality for millions of people who will suffer a drop in their unemployment benefit, wait longer in line for emergencies already overwhelmed, see their school or maternity close. All without any democratic debate about who should pay. Because, strangely, you never ask states to raise taxes on billionaires or large multinationals to reduce debt. No, no. It is always up to the poor to pay the bill. Commissioner, your record is scratched and it reminds us far too much of the Titanic orchestra that continues to play while the boat is sinking.

Madam President, Mr Bettel, I have a riddle for you. What do Tiger Woods, Brad Pitt, the Hermes family, Shakira, the Prince of Saudi Arabia, Bernard Arnault, the Italian Mafia and the Russian underworld have in common? They all have an amazing passion for your country, Luxembourg. We meet beautiful people in your house, you tell me. Finally, the reality is that they are not really there. Because the reality, too, is that we only see their shell companies, which are domiciled, for example, at 6 rue Eugène Ruppert. It is an ordinary building, Mr Bettel. And in this building, there are no less than 1,810 companies, who magically manage to share these premises. Mr Prime Minister, you may be able to explain to us by what miracle Luxembourg thus escapes the laws of physics. The answer, in reality, you know it. Scandal after scandal, we find these companies, which are in fact only mailboxes whose only role is to allow large-scale tax evasion. The reality, Mr Bettel, is that you are at the head of a tax haven. A tax haven that organises a real organised gang flight in the heart of Europe, and that still today no one can or wants to channel you. Mr Bettel, you have talked a lot about opening borders. I share it, for the time being. But strangely, when it comes to money from the rich or multinationals, it is a one-way opening. He enters Luxembourg, but never leaves. The consequence of this century breakage is the social breakage, the breakage of our public services, the breakage of our pensions. For, oddly enough, those who are so quick to save on everything are also those who never seek to recover the stolen billions of tax evaders. So let me conclude, Mr Bettel, by saying that your strong plea for a Europe of cooperation and solidarity could move us, I must admit, if it were not often, in fact, a shell as empty as the fictitious companies at 6 rue Eugène Ruppert.

Mr President, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen of the Council, the controversy following the visit of Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen to China raises a fundamental question here in our Chamber: What place for Europe in the global geopolitical balance? To begin with, let me tell you that the President of the French Republic has committed two mistakes. The first: appear to be turning back the US and China at a time when Taiwan was facing yet another episode of military intimidation. The second: not to raise the issue of the Uyghurs, even though our European Parliament has warned of a serious risk of genocide. His speech, on the other hand, raised a salutary debate on a concept that we have been defending here for a long time: non-alignment. So I want to be clear, because often it raises a volley of green wood: Non-alignment has nothing to do with neutrality. Europe must stand by the aggressors, and this is illustrated by our necessary support for the Ukrainian people. Being non-aligned also means supporting all those who suffer and are oppressed around the world. Europe must also defend the current precarious status quo in Taiwan, which is the only way to avoid escalation. But in order to have a strong voice, it is necessary to refuse confrontations between empires and to position oneself on a case-by-case basis with the defence of international law as the only compass. And we are still a long way from that. Emmanuel Macron’s great speeches, as soon as they were said, as soon as they were forgotten, were never translated into reality. So, since you are talking about an independent Europe, an independent Europe will not exist if all its foreign policy and defence remain under NATO’s control. Independent Europe will not exist if we disappear behind the United States instead of being the privileged interlocutor of the countries of the South. Independent Europe will not exist if human rights outrages fade behind the profits of our multinationals. Independent Europe will not exist if we continue to sign free trade agreements that further accentuate our dependencies. I agree on one point with one of my previous colleagues. Yes, Mr Weber, it is you who have systematically organised our dependence at international level and, Mr Séjourné, your plea for strategic autonomy would be almost touching and convincing if your group had not systematically supported free trade agreements that weaken us industrially, which make us unable today even to produce the medicines we need on European soil, starting with paracetamol. In short, as you have understood, what the episode of last week reveals is that the ‘at the same time’, in this area, has only one effect: sustainably discredit us on the international stage. So, if Europe is to finally weigh in, it must be truly non-aligned.

Madam President, this is a reminder to the Rules of Procedure on the basis of Rule 10 on the conduct of our debates: yesterday Mr Verhofstadt specifically questioned me. Apart from the fact that he has... (Chahut in the Chamber) Colleagues! Colleagues! Can I speak in this Chamber? This is your vision of democracy: We cannot speak in this Chamber! (The President calls for calm in the Chamber) Thank you, Madam President. Mr Verhofstadt therefore questioned me by name. Apart from the fact that he obviously has a lot of time to spend on my Twitter account – and I thank him in passing for his publicity – these slanderous accusations are unbearable, Madam President. Mr Verhofstadt, you have the right to support a policing strategy in France and to find it normal for demonstrators to be mutilated, blinded or put in a coma. But we have the right here in the European Parliament, in this Chamber, to warn about these abuses, as the Council of Europe or the UN Special Rapporteur have done before us... You know, my political family has never defended violence, so I remind Mr Verhofstadt that by insulting me, he is insulting our European Parliament... (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker)

Madam President, a protester with her thumb ripped off by an LBD shot. A railroader blinded by a grenade of desencirclement. A protester who was raped during a police search. Two environmental activists in a coma, between life and death. Hundreds of arbitrary arrests of young people. A student victim of racist insults to whom a police officer says: “You, I would have pissed your legs.” A protester who is deliberately rolled over by a policeman. Austrian school leavers randomly placed in police custody. Elected representatives in scarves, including several of us here, gassed. Journalists prevented from doing their jobs. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the reality of police violence against the social movement in France. So, after the warnings of the Council of Europe, the UN, Amnesty, the international press, we cannot watch this terrible spectacle without doing anything. This doctrine of policing, these practices are unacceptable in the European Union and this is why our Parliament must express its strongest condemnation. Madam President, if I may, this request is joint with the Socialist Group, the Green Group and the Left Group, with a debate tomorrow morning and a vote in April, with this exact title: the fundamental right to demonstrate and the proportionate use of force by the police, and obviously with a resolution.

When will you stop considering us women as the adjustment variables of your policies? Women work in underpaid and under-regarded occupations – housekeepers, carers, cashiers, home helpers, childminders, secretaries. Women are already suffering from part-time work and chopped careers. But more and more effort is needed from them. The debate on pension reform in France shows how we are just adjustment variables. On the one hand, we have Emmanuel Macron who wants to make 60% of the savings on the backs of women, despite already 40% lower pension levels. On the other hand, we have the far right that sees us women as machines for making children. So I tell you, the far right, leave our wombs alone! Would we have become so much adjustment variables that our fundamental rights no longer matter? I am part of this generation that believed abortion was a given. But Simone de Beauvoir was right to warn us. A crisis would be enough for women’s rights to be called into question, she said. I now know that abortion must be vigorously defended and protected everywhere in our constitutions. Yesterday, a Polish activist was sentenced to eight months of community service for helping a woman have an abortion in Europe in 2023. In this country, but also in Hungary, Malta and soon in Italy, the right to abortion is severely hampered or even abolished. Meanwhile, every nine minutes, a woman dies as a result of an illegal abortion around the world. So I would like to ask the members of the extreme right in this Chamber who are constantly fighting abortion: How many more women will you let die using this: a hanger? Hear it once and for all: we are not adjustment variables. Our bodies are not yours. They belong to us. We are not afraid of you and we will fight tirelessly for our rights to equality.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, since December almost no week has passed without a new case of corruption within the European institutions. This time, we learn that the Commission's Director-General for Transport has accepted no less than nine business class trips offered by Qatar Airways. A generous gift, while Mr Hololei was negotiating the free air trade agreement between the European Union and Qatar. The conflict of interest is obvious, but for the Commission everything is in order. Yes, because Mr Hololei received authorisation from the Director of DG MOVE, i.e. himself. At this point, we may wonder whether, at the next stage, Monsanto is going to authorise GMOs on the European market... In the area of ethics review, the European Union has been walking on its head for the past few months. Under our pressure, the European Parliament has started a process of reform – we are here to watch over the grain. Now it is the European Commission's turn to be accountable. And that is why, on behalf of our Left Group in the European Parliament, we are calling for this debate so that the European Commission starts by washing at its door.

Mr President, it took the worst scandal in the history of corruption in the European Parliament for this Chamber to remember the urgent need to create an independent ethical authority. However, we raised the alarm at the beginning of this mandate three years ago, by denouncing the multiple conflicts of interest of several candidate European Commissioners and by getting several of them removed. So, admittedly, the President of the European Commission had put it on her work plan, but since then, pouf, disappeared, to oblivion. So we wait again, again and again. In France, the fraud case of the budget minister Cahuzac had made it possible to unblock things with the creation of the High Authority for the Transparency of Public Life. The devastating symbol of ‘Qatargate’ and its disastrous images of suitcases of banknotes appearing to come out of a gangster movie must lead to the same political response. If we do not do it now, ladies and gentlemen, then when are we going to do it? The current ethical rules are insufficient, as we know. It is almost a joke between us, even, but the framework for their implementation is even more absurd. How can we hope to put an end to MEPs’ conflicts of interest if MEPs themselves are supposed to regulate themselves? At this point, we might as well ask Monsanto to regulate and put an end to GMOs. Result: the cases are buried, and, as we can see, our only objective here must therefore be to set up this independent body. Everyone knows this and no one dares to challenge it in public. But the Commission has been taking us by boat for the past four years by rejecting ad vitam aeternam the establishment of ethical authority. And you know what? I am not surprised. Former EU Commissioner Avramópoulos received €60,000 from the fake NGO Fight Impunity, in the heart of Qatargate, but Commission President von der Leyen finds nothing wrong with it. Commissioner Schinas has made no less than 3 trips, 26 tweets, 9 interviews, 3 complacent speeches to the Qatari authorities, but von der Leyen finds nothing wrong with them. The moment we are living in is a disgrace, it reaches the very credibility of the institutions. The minimum we owe to the citizens who elected us... (The President withdrew the floor to the speaker)

Madam President, corrupt people are like vampires: They hate the light. So what I propose to you, ladies and gentlemen, is to shine a spotlight on the widespread culture of opacity that is doing so much harm to the European Parliament and has led to this corruption scandal that we all know. If only for the last two months, since the scandal broke, it is clear how some political groups are quietly trying to hide the dust under the carpet and continue their efforts. business as usual. It is convenient, you will tell me, opacity: It makes it possible not to be accountable to anyone, especially not to the voters who elected us, but much more to private lobby groups or third states. So let me tell you a few selected excerpts from the Conference of Presidents, which is taking place behind closed doors and which buried precisely the reforms that our Parliament voted on last December. You have the EPP - absent, here, now - which burys the regulation of lobbyists but launches a witch hunt against NGOs. You have Renew, who talks a lot about reforms publicly, but takes advantage of the secrecy of the Conference of Presidents to slow down any development. And then the far right, faithful to itself – which is still absent this evening – which literally clashes with ethical issues. Result: Eleven of the fifteen proposals that our Parliament voted on were buried. Last December, all together, here, we were saying hand on heart: Our democracy is in danger. And the first thing our Parliament does is to literally sit on a democratic vote. So, I tell you, ladies and gentlemen – and I am sorry for this slap in the face – how many more times are we going to debate, scandal after scandal, pretending to be moved, while these practices continue? We have a December resolution and it must be implemented. Otherwise, it should come as no surprise that voters tell us that we are all a good bunch of corrupt people, if we are not able to act after the biggest corruption scandal in Parliament’s history.

Madam President, when the wise man shows the moon, the idiot looks at his finger. In the aftermath of the worst corruption scandal in the history of the European Parliament, I must say that the right is honouring the saying by accusing NGOs of all evils. Police seize suitcases of banknotes from MPs? It is the NGOs' fault! Morocco and Qatar send their ambassadors to corrupt our institutions? It is, of course, the NGOs' fault! Parliament's transparency rules are not respected and sanctions are non-existent? It is always the NGOs' fault! But rest assured, ladies and gentlemen of the EPP - you are not very numerous tonight - I know you are not stupid. You are well aware that Amnesty International, the Red Cross and Greenpeace have nothing to do with this. But naming them scapegoats allows you to hit two birds with one stone. First of all, take revenge on these associations that defend the environment and human rights rather than the profits of the big bosses. Second, better divert attention from your opposition to any ethical reform project and from your own scheming. But the truth is, in reality, it is a great boon to ignore, in particular, the salary of EUR 20 000 offered by the president of your group, in addition to his salary as a Member. Unless, here too, it is the fault of the NGOs?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, two months ago the worst corruption scandal in the history of the European Parliament broke out, with four Members and former Members being prosecuted for corruption by Morocco and Qatar. It has been two months since European citizens discovered the culture of opacity and impunity that prevails in our institutions, the hundreds of undeclared gifts, all-expense travel paid by lobbyists, the negotiations behind closed doors... It has been two months since almost all Members of the European Parliament promised here, in this Chamber, to restore the integrity of Parliament by voting on a resolution with fifteen proposals for reform. But two months later, this roadmap was buried and, with it, eleven of these proposals: the transparency register requirement, the mandatory asset declaration or the publication of the origin of the amendments. That is why we are asking for this debate and resolution today to follow up on the commitments. Because, let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, it is time for public accountability. Not in Morocco, not in Qatar, but to the European citizens to whom you have promised so many reforms.

Madam President, prices are skyrocketing, wages are stagnating, life is getting harder and harder, Europe is facing an unprecedented social crisis, and austerity is returning at the worst moment, with brutal attacks on our social protection system, as in my country, France, where nearly three million citizens demonstrated yesterday against the pension cuts. But we will not talk about all this today, because when everything goes wrong, the scapegoat is always the same: abroad. The far right is once again imposing its xenophobic agenda on us, in the face of a migratory invasion that does not exist. Just see the delighted mine of Marco Zanni, who comes here, with the red carpet unrolled, saying: ‘Chouette, a new debate on immigration!’, at a time when we are experiencing the most serious inflation crisis in our history, and people are struggling to finish their month-ends. I am not surprised by the horrors that the extreme right is proposing – this is not new – but I am worried that they will now be taken up by the right, by you, Mr Weber, but also by more and more liberals. I remember that a few years ago we all denounced Mr Trump’s dangerous delusions here. But a majority of this Chamber is now directly following in her footsteps, up to Ms von der Leyen, who no longer excludes supporting these walls of shame in Europe. So no, I'm sorry: not the walls, but everything that will be around – slight shade, you will have understood it. The fortress, however, already exists: 1,000 kilometres of walls currently, and thousands more planned, migrant cages in Bulgaria, NGOs that are criminalised, Frontex that violates human rights and those of exiles on a daily basis. This is the reality that the European Commission, like part of this Chamber here, wants to hide, these human lives that Mrs von der Leyen has not said a single word about. So here I would like to read testimonies of abused exiles from this “Black Book”, collected in the “Black Book of Refoulements”, which our group has published, in conjunction with NGOs. I read: After beating us violently for thirty minutes with a metal baton, they took a break to smoke. An officer crushed his cigarette on my friend's head. He took off my scarf, hit me and yelled at me, tore my dress and continued to search me, touching my body in front of my child.” What more do you want? Real-life shots at those trying to cross? Shipwrecked people who are allowed to drown? Refugees fleeing the war who are denied asylum? All this has already been done, and you want to generalize it. So, to conclude, Europe can still get back on its feet, respect its so-called values. But here we will keep saying: Finally, let us organise the dignified reception of exiles as it should and as it is possible to do.

Madam President, thank you. What a sense of democracy, ladies and gentlemen: I did not even speak that you are already booing me! Dear EPP colleagues, I can see the intransigence you have with NGOs – which I share – but I will then invite you to show the same intransigence with regard to corrupt practices in our European Parliament and to ensure that all political lessons are drawn from this ‘Qatargate’. I can see your group’s attempt to bury the December resolution that was voted on, which includes the obligation of the Transparency Register, which includes a committee of inquiry into the ‘Qatargate’, which includes the creation of an independent ethical authority. All these proposals, you continue here to reject them en bloc in the European Parliament. So stop making fun of the world, when you have to point the finger at NGOs, but you do not learn any lessons in political matters to impose the transparency that is necessary.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at our last plenary session, the Qatar Gate was already an unprecedented shockwave, but in reality it was only the tip of the iceberg. We have since learned that the network of corruption used by Qatar is much larger. We discover a sprawling system that would have been set up initially by Morocco. Morocco. I repeat that word because I am surprised that none of the previous speakers, either on the Commission’s side or on the Members’ side, mentioned Morocco, which has therefore put in place this system of corruption since 2019 and perhaps much earlier, and which would have benefited other states as well, such as Saudi Arabia or Mauritania. So yes, of course, we must extend to Morocco the measures decided by our Parliament on Qatar. But the truth is that the omnipotence of state or private lobbies will not end unless the roots of the problem are addressed. The culture of impunity and opacity that leaves the door wide open to all interference. For this, our starting point should be simple: That’s it. This is the text of the resolution that was voted on collectively last December and which set out a very clear roadmap. Implementing it in its entirety with a clear timetable should be our top priority. So why is President Roberta Metsola pulling out of her hat another plan that discards eleven of the fifteen proposals voted on and adopted by this House in this resolution? Why bury the establishment of a special committee to fundamentally reform the European Parliament? The obligation of the Transparency Register, an independent high authority... All this: buried. However, this resolution was approved by 541 votes and two votes against. An unprecedented consensus. So, to save democracy, one must probably start by doing one simple thing: respect it and clean the cellar at the attic in our institutions. And since it is still January, I propose a good resolution for the EU in 2023: ethics finally take precedence over money.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the start of the Swedish presidency illustrates a fundamental political trend that must alert us all. A few weeks ago, it was said, the right and the local Liberals decided to form a government. But this government has the support of the extreme right, an alliance tolerated by the right-wing groups, EPP and Renew, which translates concretely into a total programmatic compromise. Haro on immigrants, made responsible for all evils, anti-Muslim obsession, climate denial. All this was heard just a few minutes ago in the mouth of my far-right colleague. The cordon sanitaire that we still maintain at arm's length in this Chamber is being broken everywhere. The far right is trivialised, normalised, and the neo-Nazi origins of the so-called Swedish Democrats – who, by the way, bear their name very badly – are forgotten. And this cordon sanitaire, here, it is broken in Sweden, but not only. In France too, when Emmanuel Macron had Vice-Presidents of the Rassemblement National elected to the National Assembly. In Italy, when the post-fascist Meloni took over the country thanks to the corrupt right wing of Berlusconi. In Europe, when you, Mr Weber, lay the foundations for a rapprochement between your group and that of the reactionaries. However, Trump’s or Bolsonaro’s attempted coup and Orbán’s authoritarian drift make this clear: We are not playing with the extreme right, because when it takes power, it always refuses to give it back democratically. The alliance of the liberals and the far right, which is becoming the norm everywhere, is still playing the same scenario. On the one hand, the questioning of democracy and fundamental rights, on the other hand, neoliberal policies that undermine the social state. From this point of view, the programme of the Swedish Presidency is not lacking. I looked closely and saw no change in direction, and this at a time when the economic crisis is plunging millions of people into poverty. Only, once again, the purr of the austere doxa. You say in your program, I quote: Congratulations on structural reforms and fiscal consolidation. Understand: ruining our public services more and more. You commit yourself to implementing the rules of budgetary control, those that led the European Commission to ask fifteen states to reform their pension system in one year, or to ask my country, France, eight times, to break its pension system for the sole purpose of saving money. It is written in black and white: the cost of pensions must be limited, even if it means putting people to work until death or illness. I agree with you that this accounting obsession, so zealously applied by some European leaders, has concrete consequences for people’s lives. That is why, in Brussels, in Strasbourg, but also in the street, you will find us on your way. We no longer want this deadly horizon that you draw for all the peoples of Europe. We no longer want this world advocated here in Brussels or Strasbourg where, after work, it will be misery or the cemetery.

Madam President, there was a fairly simple way, indeed, to agree on a title to be put on the agenda of our plenary session, it was to agree on this point in the Conference of Presidents. I would like to say here, to all the Members present in this Chamber, that last Thursday a Conference of Presidents took place at which our Group on the Left proposed a debate and proposed that we agree on this debate, on the new developments in this corruption scandal, which we have learned since that Qatar was only the tip of the iceberg and that Morocco played a key role in it. Probably this system of corruption was being used for the benefit of other states outside the European Union. I regret that only the Socialist Group and the Green Group supported this request, and in particular the saviour Renew Group did not support this request, which would have made it possible to start this plenary session with a clear debate on the agenda. Because how could we have any credibility with the whole world by starting this plenary session without talking about the main subject and the subject that concerns us, which is this corruption scandal at the heart of the European institutions? This is proof that transparency is the solution, not opacity in discussions, especially in the Conference of Presidents.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure today to introduce, on behalf of our Left Group in the European Parliament, our initiative for a debate on inflation and its impact in Europe on the most precarious. This choice has indeed a political meaning for us. In this Parliament, we talk a lot about things that are quite theoretical, but in the end we talk quite rarely about people’s daily lives, the galleys they encounter and their daily lives. It is precisely this reality that we want to bring to the European Parliament today. I will never be able, personally, to resolve myself to the coldness of the figures and economic aggregates that are read in the newspapers. Moreover, we should not say that inflation averages 10% in the euro area, nor that pasta and oil have increased by 20%. We should not say that real wages fell by 2.4% in the first half of the year in the European Union. We should rather skimp on the long list of children who do not eat to their hunger. We should describe the distress of students or precarious workers who skip meals and struggle to warm up. The number of lives turned upside down, dreams broken, projects not realized: This is the reality that we should be talking about in this Parliament. However, while some struggle, others thrive. We must also put words on the other side of this flawed economic model. For the past two years, the records for profits and dividends paid to shareholders have been falling one after the other: almost 30% increase in one year of dividends for large European companies, and the year to come looks even more successful. The same goes for the salaries of large employers, who constantly push the boundaries of indecency. In short, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and this is the direct consequence of political choices. Indeed, this inflation shock would be far less brutal if wages had been indexed across Europe. You should be aware of this, Mr Gentiloni, but perhaps the European Commissioners and Ministers are far too sheltered, warm with their staggering salaries, to see that people all over the European Union are struggling and failing to finish their months. We are told that rising wages would fuel inflation. However, this is not true. Even the IMF, which our left-wing group is not accustomed to quoting here on this rostrum, demonstrates the opposite. It is speculation and shareholder appetite that artificially inflates prices, not workers’ wages. And what do you do with that? So yes, there is indeed a microtax on superprofits, and promises – never kept – of price suppression. Your choices have consequences: Anything you do not take from the richest or multinationals, you will take from the poorest, who will pay the price, who already pay the price, with VAT increases and the abandonment of public services. As if that were not enough, the European Central Bank is on the loose: At the same time, it raises its policy rates sharply, at the risk of causing a general recession and an explosion in unemployment in Europe. However, there were obvious solutions, which have been systematically swept aside by you, Mr Gentiloni, and by the European Commission as a whole. Targeted price controls will not be mentioned: Let's not touch the liberal taboos! Tax more heavily the wealth of the richest to redistribute? A heresy, what to discuss! All these measures would, however, be far more effective than any increase in policy rates, and far more sustainable than any bonus or energy check. Similarly, removing certain public goods from the market, again: Shut up! Above all, let’s not talk about it. Instead, the Commission and its liberal allies are organising the great return of austerity. Rather than taxing the rich, you prefer to purge public services, methodically dismantle social protection and attack pension systems, like Emmanuel Macron in France. So, to conclude, ladies and gentlemen, in this temple of consensus that is the European Parliament, it is a good tone to drown political differences in the culture of compromise. Nevertheless, I say this to all those who bear responsibility for the ongoing disaster, including some political groups here and to you, Commissioner Gentiloni: Stop hiding behind your stalled liberal pungents to justify your war against the poorest, because behind the numbers lives are at stake. Do not be the accountants of the misfortune of the peoples.

Mr President, I thought I could put the question to Valérie Hayer, who refuses it. So I will ask my question, and it will remain with a question mark; I hope that it will have the capacity to lift that question mark. In addition, I wanted to say that I shared his outrage at this biggest corruption scandal, which is unprecedented, but I had two questions. The first is how to explain that Emmanuel Macron said in this context, just a few weeks ago, that this World Cup showed concrete changes at work, and that Qatar had embarked on this path, had to continue and could count on our support? This was the exact text of one of his tweets. Second question: How, in this context, can we accept that Emmanuel Macron is going to Qatar, not boycotting and supporting in this way a government that is corrupting our institution? I'm sorry I don't have an answer.

Madam President, I am not going to be long, we have had the opportunity to address here the heart of the subject that concerns us. I think it would be strange, in this last plenary session of the year, just after this scandal broke, if we did not have a debate in which each and every one of the parliamentarians here, shocked and certainly angry, could express themselves. The aim is to have the opportunity for a debate between us, perhaps calmed down, but in any case allowing us to draw certain conclusions on the action to be taken for our European institutions, because, indeed, things will no longer be able to continue in the same way. I would point out that we are proposing, on the one hand, a debate and, on the other, a separate vote to have a resolution as well. Colleagues, I believe that we cannot hide behind our little finger and that, collectively, we must draw political conclusions – I was talking about an independent ethical authority, for example, to remind the Commission of its commitment, which it has put under the carpet – and find together the way forward after this scandal so that all lobby groups, external authorities and countries no longer come to the European Parliament to buy our votes, as if it were a supermarket.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it can be said very clearly: Our European Parliament is arguably caught up in the most serious corruption scandal in its history. Qatar has bought votes from this assembly to cover the exploitation to death of migrant workers at World Cup yards. As has been said, the facts are shocking: more than €1 million already seized from suspects’ homes, and the Vice-President of the Parliament under bars. It is obviously the integrity of our institutions that is being undermined, but here, from the European Parliament, I want to send a very clear message to Qatar: Members are not bought in the same way as football clubs. It is shocking, of course, but I must tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that I am not really surprised, as Qatar’s interference was palpable. It must be said: For more than a year, our group has been calling for a debate and resolution on human rights violations at the World Cup in Qatar, but some groups have consistently opposed it. When we finally managed to get it, I was able to see, for having participated in the negotiations on behalf of our group, how certain groups took advantage of the behind-the-scenes negotiations to euphemise criticism of Qatar, to make it a new champion of workers’ rights – let us doubt that – and to defend Qatar’s interests at all costs, to the point of inserting things that had absolutely nothing to do with the resolution in question. Of course, the investigation is currently affecting a political group, the Socialist Group, but money has no smell, and corruption has no party. This is all the more known in France, with former right-wing President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is under investigation for corruption by Qatar. I would also like to refer here to the ostentatious and repeated praise of Commissioner Margaritis Schinas for Qatar, which can be questioned. Each institution must sweep in front of its door. This is the tip of the iceberg. Of course, the Vice-President of the European Parliament has to resign. But in what world do we live, to ask for his resignation? In what world does she live, so as not to resign herself on her own? Second thing: I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that it will very clearly take a committee of inquiry from our Parliament to analyse the permeability of the European institutions to corruption and conflicts of interest. Finally, to prevent this type of issue and problem in the future, clearly, it will be necessary to put back on the table things that have been buried by the European Commission, such as an independent ethical authority, to clean up our European institutions once and for all. Colleagues, in conclusion, our condemnation and reaction must be unanimous. Let us shout it loud and clear here from the European Parliament: our democracy is not for sale.

Madam President, I would just like to remind our dear friends on the far right why this event was organised. It was a peaceful action aimed at recalling only one clear and clear thing: the right to abortion will remain the right that our institution will tirelessly uphold. And that was the meaning of our presence. I would just like to recall the words of Simone Veil, who said: “You will have to remain vigilant throughout your life”, “it will be enough for a political, economic or religious crisis to call into question the right to abortion and women’s rights”. So know, colleagues, that you will always find us on your way when it comes to challenging women’s rights.

Mr President, ‘Let him return to Africa’, in the singular as well as in the plural, whether addressed to a Member or to exiles, the problem remains the same. This phrase has been controversial in France, but what is said here more politely in the European Parliament is not better. Who would have dared to tell the Bucha refugees fleeing Putin’s war crimes that they are returning to Ukraine? In this Chamber, however, I have just heard of an invasion to talk about the humanitarian tragedy of the Ocean Viking. Words that fortunately I did not hear at the time of the arrival of millions of Ukrainians that we had to welcome. But what are we really talking about with the Ocean Viking? The reception of 234 human beings trapped for three weeks in catastrophic conditions, 234 shipwrecked people whose lives were at risk and who were presented as a vital threat to our European Union of 450 million inhabitants. So I wanted to read you the testimonies of those whom the far right presents to us as bloodthirsty invaders: Our boat capsized, nine people died in front of us. My daughter wakes up again at night, scared. We are trying to help him forget". Another testimony: We are living beings who want to be free. There are people who are sick, women, children. We are in the water. No more! No more! Please help us, help us. We're dying. We are in the sea. Inside. Inside. It's cold. So, the far right and Mr Bardella, I want to ask you a question: What would you have done? Would you have closed your eyes? Would you let them perish at sea? I also wanted to share with you the chilling stories of the rescuers who rescued them: Shipwrecked people show signs of exhaustion, dehydration and suffer multiple burns due to fuel. Some have clear signs of torture and violence in Libya. The reception of the shipwrecked Ocean Viking could have been our collective pride. Their abandonment for three weeks through sordid diplomatic games will remain our shame, as will our inability to save the 25,000 people missing at sea since 2014. So let’s stop giving in to the intimidation of the far right. Let's make a simple, sustainable, obvious choice: Let's welcome.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, Prime Ministers, today we celebrate the anniversary of the creation of the European Parliament. But its history, as we have seen today, shows how far we still have to go in order to truly bring democracy to the European institutions. I have just listened to my colleague Mr Legutko and obviously there is still a long way to go because I want to invite him to leave this Chamber if he himself does not want to participate in the drafting of European directives. A symptomatic element of this too: you may not be aware of this, ladies and gentlemen, but initially these speeches by the Prime Ministers were planned without any speeches by the group presidents. And it was only at the request of our group that this debate was held, which is admittedly very limited. I think many in this House would have liked a more in-depth exchange. It is therefore an invitation to continue the debate with us. But if we take the history of the European Parliament, already the birth of the Parliament is based on an initial choice that is heavy on meaning: the refusal to elect Members of the European Parliament by universal suffrage. Realise that it took 27 years for the first MEPs to be directly chosen by the citizens. Twenty-seven years to obtain what is, however, the most absolute democratic evidence. So I want to ask today: How many decades will it take before we MEPs finally have the right to initiate bills? How many decades before our Parliament has a decision-making power over all the laws adopted by the Union and can thus perhaps act more against tax evasion and in particular one of these driving countries of tax evasion in Europe, the well-named Luxembourg? How many more decades before European political deals are no longer between closed doors and heads of government assume their political choices? How many decades before citizens’ initiative referendums are binding and the Commission is obliged to act on them? The European Union is the only democracy in the world where too often lobbies make the law more than representatives of the people and citizens themselves. This is no longer possible. So I heard you, the French Prime Minister, Mrs Borne, and you, Mr De Croo and Mr Bettel, explain that European democracy must and will be strengthened. But how dare you, Madame Borne, come to speak of democracy the day after your fifth 49.3? This very strange aberration for our European colleagues, which allows the government to pass in force and to have texts adopted despite the opposition of Parliament. As I say, there will be no 49.3 in the European Parliament. And how dare you present yourself here in Strasbourg as a great democrat when you constantly gag the French Parliament in Paris? The democratic question is, however, at the heart of the expectations of European citizens. The conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe were also very clear on this subject. Citizens do not want a Europe-market that only works on competition, free trade or the interests of the richest. So, rather than commemorating a fantasized past, European leaders should finally tackle this total overhaul of the Treaties that is expected by so many of us here in this Chamber and outside.

Madam President, the adoption of the directive on the representation of women on company boards is good news, but it says a lot about European inaction on gender equality. As we all know in this Chamber, it took ten years to adopt this text, and again, at a discount. Above all, this directive is not about equality between women and men, but about equality between women and men. Listening to Brussels, one would think that patriarchy has fallen. I would like to, but in reality nothing has yet been done for cashiers, housekeepers and carers. Nothing is done for women, who represent 60% of workers paid at the minimum wage. Nothing is done for women whose average income is 36% lower than that of men. We rowed ten years for a little more parity in the CAC 40 lounges. So, at a time when the vast majority of women are underpaid, when one in three women has experienced physical or sexual violence and one in twenty has been raped in Europe, I dare not count the centuries that still separate us from equal pay and the end of gender-based and sexual violence. Long live equality! Yes, but equality for all and at all levels. And on that, there's still work to do.