Speeches

Madam President, on Sunday, Qatar kicked off the World Cup. But for once, without even knowing the odds, I can already give you the winner: It was shame that prevailed. The shame for France, Nicolas Sarkozy and Michel Platini, of having awarded this World Cup against the sale of fighter jets and juicy contracts, thus demonstrating how political the sport was, does not displease Emmanuel Macron. The shame of playing football on the corpses of more than 6,500 exploited workers to the death and abandoning their families without compensation while FIFA pockets $6.4 billion. The shame of burying the climate the day after COP27 in a country that is not world football champion but CO2 emissions, with its air-conditioned stadiums in the middle of the desert. The shame of our leaders endorsing an authoritarian regime that pays spectators to hide the sordid reality of its power and the arbitrary arrests of dissidents. The shame of banning the wearing of a simple ‘one love’ armband in support of oppressed homosexuals and LGBTQI in this stadium – and which I am proud to wear here in this Chamber. Shame on all of us who love football and see this popular sport created by the poor and stolen by the rich. Shame, shame! But I hear the cynics say it is too late. That is not true. We must set up a compensation fund for the victims and assume a diplomatic boycott. Above all, we can decide that this will no longer happen with an ambitious Due Diligence Directive. All complicit companies - FIFA, Vinci, Bouygues, Deutsche Bank - would be held accountable. It is up to us to review the rules of the game so that in the future, shame never again wins the World Cup.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of our Left Group, I am indeed calling for the adoption of a resolution on human rights violations related to the World Cup in Qatar. This World Cup, as you know, is played on the body and corpse of 6,500 workers exploited on Qatari construction sites, whose families were abandoned without compensation. Thousands of human rights violations have been documented, from quasi-slavery to arbitrary arrests. I welcome the fact that several groups in this Parliament accept the debate, but still reject a resolution. So, ladies and gentlemen, in the face of this massacre, we cannot just talk. Our role is to take a position on the creation of a compensation fund to do justice to bereaved families, failing to give them back the lives of their loved ones; on the liability of European complicit companies; on the diplomatic endorsement given by our leaders to this giant publicity for an authoritarian regime; on the conditions for the award of sporting events; on banning FIFA, Mr Manders, from wearing the armband in favour of LGBT people... While the citizens and football fans, of whom I think there are quite a few here, have only the dilemma of boycotting or not, we have the means to act to bring the Cup back to its senses. So let us vote on this resolution.

Madam President, 1.6 billion tonnes of CO2: This is Total’s total greenhouse gas emissions in one year. But, publicly, Total only declared a quarter. Oil companies lie about global warming as cigarette sellers lied yesterday about our health and as textile brands lie about forced labor. These lies have gone on for too long. So, of course, I welcome the improvement of the directive on corporate social and environmental reporting, but we demand more than just words: We demand action. This is the whole purpose of the Due Diligence Directive, and the Commission proposal, from this point of view, is far from being taken into account. As such, we will have to continue the work we have already started, as it concerns only a handful of companies, replaces the fight against human rights violations with a contractual pass and does not guarantee victims real access to justice. The Commissioner, Thierry Breton, apparently acted as an effective relay for the lobbies. It is therefore our responsibility – as we have done with this text – to listen to citizens, workers and environmental defenders, so that the impunity of multinationals can finally end. This was only the first step. The second one has to come.

Mr President, once is not customary, allow me to celebrate a victory in this Chamber. Our two years of fighting, sometimes alone alongside NGOs, are paying off the Energy Charter Treaty. The European states – France, the Netherlands, Spain, and others – announce their exit one after the other, as this treaty is an anti-ecological heresy that protects the interests of polluting multinationals and prevents states from acting for the climate. We have just experienced the hottest month of October in human history, but you can see that 53 states still have their fists and feet tied to this real life insurance for fossil fuels. How is it still possible that in 2022 gas and coal multinationals can obtain billions of euros in compensation, when states put in place green policies? While this treaty takes water from all sides, only your The Commission, Mr Dombrovskis, is still defending it by carrying out a so-called reform which will not change the problem. The end of this treaty must come, and it is up to the Commission and the Member States to definitively precipitate its fall by finally agreeing to a collective withdrawal.

Madam President, Mr Michel, the University of Strasbourg will close two more weeks this winter. A college in Avignon puts the key squarely under the door and will not reopen. Primary schools may no longer be able to accommodate children in Slovakia. How did we get there? Because of energy costs and energy bills, our kids are deprived of education. At the very heart of the European Union, in the world’s leading economic power, our children are deprived of education because our public authorities can no longer pay energy bills. And instead of taking the problem to the root, the Commission and the Council prefer to turn the ball around – and we still had a good exercise today. The same circus has been around for more than a year. The Commission asks the Council for its opinion. Mr Michel, still today, asks Ms von der Leyen to act, and summits are organised, roadmaps are adopted, and, finally, while all this little world clears its responsibilities and wastes time, the bills continue to rise. You said, Mrs von der Leyen, and you are right, that we must learn from the past and accelerate the development of renewables. But is this compatible with the taxonomy vote, which aims to support gas and nuclear energy as green energies, as part of a rather baroque alliance between France and the countries of Eastern Europe? In short, the battle is already lost for this year, and today we find ourselves crossing our fingers to prevent the catastrophe from repeating itself next year. For a year now, however, the price of gas and electricity should have been decoupled, public control of the sector should have been regained, the common strength of the European market should have been used against speculators, renewable energy should have been massively developed and all crisis profiteers should have been taxed. But no, you prefer to discuss it for another five years to avoid making it clear that the ‘all market’ is not working and that it needs to be regulated. Moreover, you are doing the same on the European austerity rules, which should be supposedly abandoned, but which will actually be maintained despite your promises. In this regard, the Commission, in its reform proposal presented today, signs the great return of sanctions, which will even be reinforced for all states that dare to disobey your absurd straitjacket on deficit and debt. Cosmetic flexibilities will not change this: This is season two of austerity in Europe, and it comes at the worst time. Mrs von der Leyen, I also note that you like sanctions when it comes to austerity, but not when it comes to renewable energy. And to conclude, Madam President, in the face of the failure of this economic model, which creates disorder and misfortune, I am thinking today of all those who look at us and to whom you spoke about a Europe that protects. Where is she today?

Madam President, in recent weeks, four European countries – France, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands – have announced their intention to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty, the real life insurance for fossil fuels. Germany, Belgium and Slovenia are considering doing the same. Italy had already taken the plunge in 2016. Thanks to the initial action of a few scouts, a consensus is therefore emerging in Europe against this treaty, which threatens climate action by protecting investments in fossil fuels. The modernisation proposal supported by the Commission, on which the Council must take a position within a few days, is therefore increasingly in the minority. In this context, and in the midst of COP27 – which once again reminds us of the urgency of moving out of fossil fuels – it is crucial that the EU has a coordinated position and that Parliament takes up this crucial issue. That is why, on behalf of our left-wing group in the European Parliament, I call for this debate on the proposal to modernise the Treaty to take place as early as this week, before the Council takes a position, and for a resolution to be voted on at the second plenary session in November.

Mr President, what sense does it make to vote on this text on so-called sustainable maritime fuels without asking more broadly the question of the 10 billion tonnes of goods that cross the world every year on ultra-polluting container ships? An iPhone, for example, travels around the Earth 20 times before it reaches our hands. A shrimp caught in the North Sea travels 6 700 kilometres to reach our plate, passing through Morocco, the Netherlands and Germany. This is the direct result of the all-free trade promoted by the European Union, which brings in meat from Brazil, cereals from Canada and milk from New Zealand. In the same way, what is the point of debating the colour of the fuel used in large boats without questioning the impact, in particular, of the gigantic cruise ships that ravage the oceans and pollute Venice, Barcelona and Marseille in turn? So rather than trying to green a mode of transport that will always remain ultra-polluting, let's put an end to the great move of the world and organize the relocation of our food and our industry, and even, I would say, our leisure activities.

Mr President, imagine for a moment that every European receives a check for EUR 300 to deal with the price explosion and get their heads out of the water. 300 euros per person, that seems too good to be true and yet there is money, just go and get it. EUR 300 per European, that is the sum we could have given by using only those who are getting richer. But this money, the Renaissance Group, the right and the far right, together decided to leave it in the hands of the ultra-rich by refusing to vote on my amendments to the 2022 budget on the taxation of the most speculative financial transactions and on a taxation of the super-profits of large companies in all sectors, which would have brought in EUR 130 billion per year. By rejecting our proposals en bloc, the right and the extreme right have therefore, in reality, stolen EUR 300 from every European citizen. So to the privileged who sit on a heap of gold as well as to the elected accomplices who protect them, I want to say one thing: return the money.

Mr President, I was quite interested in your speech because – finally, I want to say – you use the words ‘super-profit tax’, ‘contribution’. You said taxation of super-profits, I heard it, and I welcome the fact that the Republic in motion and Renew finally accept that there are super-profits made by large companies and that they must be taxed. So I ask a question: since it is not only the energy sector that makes super-profits, are you in favour of taxing the super-profits of all multinationals? I am thinking in particular of companies like LVMH or large banks that have also made super-profits on the crisis.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you may have noticed today that France is on strike. A growing social movement, as popular anger rises all over Europe. Because when the price of pasta rises by 40%, oil by 127%, butter by 32% and wages do not follow, it is meals that jump, hobbies that go to the trap and families forced to choose between refueling and heating. So, as since I was a little girl, I know that I will hear on TV editorials on the responsibilities of the trade unions and reports on the hostage-taking of the French. Of course, it is a struggle not to be able to take the train, to no longer have petrol for the car, that the children do not have school. But who is responsible for this blocking situation? Employees defending their rights? Or the handful of ultra-rich people who grab everything and cling to their privileges? If you notice this strike, it is because they are essential occupations that stop working. Now imagine for a moment what would happen if the shareholders went on strike. Nothing, absolutely nothing. And yet, while the useful suffer the full blown inflation, the useless multiply their profits, their dividends: plus 52% for the CEO of Total who already earns 312 times the SMIC, plus 28% for shareholders of European companies. So here I ask a simple question: What if they were the ones being requisitioned rather than the employees? You have finally, and I welcome it, started talking to the European Commission about super-profits and it is a victory for us who have been fighting on this issue for months. But as long as the taxation you propose is limited to the energy sector and postponed until next year, the step forward will actually be a tiny toe. I'm telling you, we'll have to go further. The peoples of Europe expect an immediate price freeze on all basic necessities. As the 140 000 protesters against expensive living in Paris claimed on Sunday, the urgency is clear, what must finally increase is the salaries rather than the dividends of the shareholders.

Madam President, one thing that can be recognised on the far right is that it does not lack nerve and hypocrisy. The ID group suddenly disguises itself as a white knight who will come to defend women's rights and the fight against violence against women. It would be almost moving if you were not systematically opposed to women’s rights. Where were you, colleagues, when it came to voting for mandatory training of MEPs against sexual harassment? Where were you, colleagues, when it came to voting for universal access to the right to abortion? Where were you, colleagues, when it came to supporting the Istanbul Convention on combating violence against women? Yes, you were very busy, very busy systematically tackling women’s rights, very busy supporting your colleagues who question the right to abortion in Hungary and Poland. You were very busy, like your former colleague Gilbert Collard, making disgusting remarks about a woman in the National Assembly. So yes, colleagues, we do not play political games with women's lives. No one is fooled. You will not be the defender of women's rights, you are the gravedigger. That is why we are making this alternative proposal, which clearly does not suit you: Five years after #MeToo, harassment and sexual violence in the European institutions.

Mr President, with this resolution a new word has entered the European dictionary: superprofit. I want to say: Finally! Finally, because we have ministers, like Bruno Le Maire, who still refuse to admit that multinationals are benefiting from the crisis. Finally, a major cultural victory, when our group was the only one fighting to put them to work. But, I tell you, we are not fooled. There is no point in repeating our words if you empty them of their content. No, it is not a superprofit tax if it does not cover all profiteers, such as LVMH, BNP or CMA CGM. And no, it is also not a superprofit tax if it does not apply as early as 2022, the year when profits break all records. So how can we accept, for example, that Total escapes this, when the group has made the highest profit in its history and has already paid more than EUR 2.6 billion in dividends? Proof of this is that, if we do not act, superprofits will end up in the pockets of shareholders – who are already full – rather than being redistributed to those who really need them.

Mr President, shame, shame on those who murdered Mahsa Amini and so many other women because a strand of hair went beyond their veil. Shame on the militias of the Iranian Islamist dictatorship who snatch from women the free disposition of their bodies. Shame on this obscurantist patriarchal regime that gags, crushes and imprisons women and all those who mobilize alongside them. Shame on the theocracy of the mullahs whose oppression of women and the obligation of the veil are the keystone. Shame on Emmanuel Macron who was shaking hands with President Raisi when the police fired on the crowd under his command. Shame on heads of state watching their pomps when mobilizing Iranians need support and their sanctions executioners. "Woman, life, freedom", with these simple words the Iranian women lead under the bullets the battle of all women and lead in their wake a whole people gathered against corruption, dictatorship and injustice. Their courage forces us. Our solidarity must never falter. We must fight everywhere and all the time against the oppression of women, for the conquest of their freedom in Iran, as well as for the defense of the fundamental right to dispose of their bodies in the United States, Hungary or Poland. And I mean here, what hypocrisy on the part of the far right to come here and give lessons when you are the first to oppress women's right to have their own bodies in the European Union! So, in tribute to the fight of Iranian women, I end with the verses of poet Mona Borzouei, arrested for these words: His hair, the flag that night has defiled, we will take it back in the shadow of your claws. Oh magma of lies! Oh, you scared him! We will take this country from your clutches.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, finally. Finally, our Parliament decides to adopt a resolution against the massive violations of Total's human rights. It is the same company that makes our pockets at the pump, destroying an entire region on the other side of the world. Total is on track to commit one of the biggest human and ecological crimes in our history with its plan to drill 400 oil wells in Ugandan natural parks and build a 50-degree heated oil pipeline. Tens of thousands of people have already been thrown on the roads so that Total can lay this new climate bomb to satisfy the thirst of a few shareholders. So it is up to us today to take responsibility, to demand both an end to this EACOP madness and an end to impunity for multinationals. This is up to us, as Emmanuel Macron himself personally supports Total with the Ugandan President. It is up to us, since the French State does not seem to want to comply with the law on due diligence and stop Total’s project. It is finally up to us, as we have the historic opportunity to do better with the European Due Diligence Directive. This is why it will take much more ambition to finally end with the impunity of multinationals.

Madam President, Mrs von der Leyen, the only answer you have given me is therefore to ask European citizens to send their invoices to Vladimir Putin. I’m sorry, but that’s all you have to say to the millions of people who can’t finish their month-ends? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you can boo me. But I am proud to come here to bring the word of the people who struggle rather than that of the shareholders! So that is what you are going to say to the people, to the people who are struggling? Send your bills to Putin! Of course Vladimir Putin is solely responsible for the terrible war in Ukraine. But you are responsible to the citizens of Europe and you cannot just hide behind it. And your role is to provide concrete answers. Moreover, as you yourself have acknowledged, the energy market is not working. Yes, there are overprofits that have been made by companies on people's backs. Then, without the absurd European rules, electricity would not have increased as much as gas and the energy crisis could have been cushioned by price suppression by states. You know this very well, Mrs von der Leyen. So stop hiding behind others, draw all the conclusions from the analysis of your failures by taking energy out of the market, blocking prices and taxing superprofits. And believe me, I believe that these proposals will be much more effective than sending these invoices to Vladimir Putin.

Madam President, Madam President von der Leyen, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Olena Zelenska, what is the point of a general policy speech, if not to address the daily concerns of European citizens? So, to remind you, Mrs von der Leyen, I came here with the bills that citizens asked me to show you. This one, that of Gilles, who saw the price of his electricity increase by 113 euros per month and who accompanies his message by: I'm not sure I'm getting warm this winter. Grégoire's, 2,300 euros of gas bills in just six months. And then I could mention many others, Brigitte here, who wonders if she will have to stop eating or lighting up this winter. And I will tell you, these people, they are millions in their case, millions who can no longer cope with the staggering increase in prices, which is not limited to the energy sector alone. Millions to bear only while their wages are stagnant are growing at half the rate of inflation, rising prices and shareholder dividends have exploded by 29%. So, I concede to you, this is not the crisis for everyone and some are indeed swimming in abundance, as a certain Emmanuel Macron would say. While 99% of citizens speak the language, a handful of billionaires travel back and forth between Paris and Ibiza. A handful of them also feed golf courses that are heavily watered, all in the midst of drought and heatwaves. This is the state of your European Union, Mrs von der Leyen. And I regret that you did not talk about these people and that you did not talk much about social issues in your speech. And this crisis is not just the result of the terrible war in Ukraine and the heinous blackmail of Vladimir Putin. It is also the product of an economic system whose flaws you are now obliged to recognise. So let's start with the taxation of superprofits. First of all, do you recognise that there are super-profits of large multinational companies? Do not hesitate to talk to the Minister of Economy and Finance, Bruno Lemaire, who clearly did not understand this. While in this Parliament we were alone in calling for the taxation of superprofits, I see that the debate is progressing and that we are on the verge of winning a cultural battle. I do not know if it is the fear of finding us right, Mrs von der Leyen, but I must also welcome your lexical creativity. I imagined you with a little dictionary of synonyms, looking for how to avoid using the terms, bypassing superprofits, inventing the notion of contribution of exceptional profits. But I'll tell you, we don't care about the battle of words. What matters is that to give it its full meaning, this taxation must not be limited to fossil fuels: it must cover all companies that have benefited from the crisis. Those of luxury like LVMH, maritime freight like CMA-CGM, banking like BNP. And there are many multinationals that have made superprofits, not just in the energy sector, it has to be said here. In the energy market, it is the same. I see you again, celebrating at the beginning of your mandate the virtues of the market. We are now seeing the result, with a debacle that alone illustrates the crisis of your system of thought. Realise that the world’s leading economic power, the European Union, is reduced to crossing its fingers so that there are not too many blackouts this winter and people can still have the means to simply light up or heat up. So here too, faced with the failure of this model, you are opening the door to a – temporary of course – blockage of energy companies’ incomes, while still leaving huge margins to these companies, once they have not made enough use of them. Rustines won't be enough. We need to block prices at the pre-crisis level and take energy out of the market, because it is a common good like water, health, nature and everything we need to live. Late and partial lucidity is not enough, Mrs von der Leyen, but coherence is still needed. And on climate, about which you have spoken so little today, it cannot be said that this is what is stifling you. As Europe has just experienced the hottest summer in its history, you are now back to signing free trade agreements. Our planet is burning, citizens are told to turn off Wi-Fi, but you still ask us to empty the sea with a spoon if at the same time you insist on importing milk and meat from New Zealand, literally 19,000 kilometres away, we do not go any further. In fact, this is the heart of the problem, Mrs von der Leyen: the crisis forces you to change your foot temporarily, but the natural quickly returns to galloping. It is also the same story with the pandemic. You told us: ‘I understood the lesson’, but then you immediately returned to business as usual. In conclusion, Mrs von der Leyen, you are talking about the rejection of the budget straitjacket. But how do you believe when it is in exchange for more control of the Member States? You talk about a convention, about treaty reform, but how do you believe when you ignored the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe? We no longer have time to wait and postpone everything until tomorrow. In reality, you are a prisoner of broken software and an end-of-life model, that model of a collapsing liberal policy, incapable of solving the crises that your policies have created. Faced with this, two alternatives: hate, and I regret, as do my colleagues in this respect, that the right has chosen to ally itself with the far right, sometimes here and too often in a number of Member States. The right has chosen its side, ours, it is clear, it is that of solidarity. So I ask you, Mrs von der Leyen, how many more crises will it take for you to finally draw the true consequences of these failures?

Mr President, I wanted to show you this: it is just a small ticket for a tank of petrol worth more than EUR 100. This is the case in France, but it is also the case in many countries. I don't know if we realize: 100 euros is just to be able to get around, to be able to go to work and sometimes it only lasts a week. It’s all sacrifices in the budget of millions of people to eat, to the children’s recreation centre this summer, to pay rent, to heat up. In short, the price of petrol – as we all felt – rose by 44% in one year. At the same time, Total's profits increased by 42%. I don’t know about you, but the problem seems pretty obvious. In the first half of the year alone, Total made €5 billion in profits in France. If we divide this amount by the number of people who take their car to go to work, it's 100 euros per month. So don't tell us that taxing the profits of these crisis profiteers and blocking prices is impossible. Boris Johnson’s UK did so. I do not think he can be said to be a Bolshevik. Commissioner, in order to impose restrictions on citizens, you know how to do that. So, for once, show that you can show the same firmness to crisis profiting companies and tax them.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, denouncing Putin’s interference is a necessary fight, which deserves to be fought with as much rigour as firmness, especially in the context of the war in Ukraine. For the past month, the liberals and the right – as Mrs Loiseau has just done, who has obviously left the Chamber – have been turning back the left and the far right by exploiting this subject, the left and the far right, which, however, everything opposes; because it is the fascistics of the Austrian FPÖ and the Northern League who sign agreements with Putin's party. It is the German AfD, Fidesz d’Orbán, the French National Rally that share its nationalist, racist and reactionary ideology. It was Le Pen who financed himself with Russian banks and printed leaflets showing him arm-on-arm, arm-on-arm with Vladimir Putin. So how dare you associate our leftist group, a historical bulwark against fascism, with these nauseating ideas? This little game is extremely dangerous, as the far right threatens our democracies across Europe. The example of France is striking in this respect. By playing this game and designating the left as the number one public enemy, it allowed the election of 89 far-right MPs. Since then, all barriers have fallen with his government reaching out to the National Rally. We would never have imagined supporting far-right Vice-Presidents here in the European Parliament. However, this is what Emmanuel Macron’s camp did in France. That is why this debate must not be confused, because that is what the far right feeds on. And don’t forget this lesson from history: when the far right takes power, it only very rarely returns it. To the best of your ears, hi.

Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am going to be cash. I would like to tell you today about an elephant in the room that everyone wants to forget: the change of the European Treaties. So yes, it was on the agenda of the last Council, I looked carefully. But pouf! In the discussions, little magic trick, the subject seemed to have disappeared. However, our Parliament had been very clear about its expectations on the subject. The citizens consulted in the context of the Conference on the Future of Europe were equally consulted: they expect a radical change in the very foundations of the European Union. What can we say about Emmanuel Macron, who was paraded to tell anyone who wanted to hear him that a change to the treaties is needed, which he has buried since – certainly since the elections were held in France? The European Heads of State tell us – and I quote the Council conclusions – that they ‘take note of citizens’ demands’. It’s nice, but since you refuse to discuss the change of the Treaties at the same time, I feel that you mostly think of citizens as fools. And if I sum up, we congratulate the citizens who want to change the European Union from cellar to attic; But on the other hand, you have to be serious: Everyone has to go home, the party is over, we will not touch a comma of the European treaties. We have been warning since the beginning of the Conference on the Future of Europe that yet another parody of democracy would be very badly experienced by citizens, who are fed up with being despised. And yet that is exactly what is happening. Not only is the reform of the Treaties handed over to the Greek calends, but the EU is more stubborn than ever in its business. as usual neoliberal. Let me take an example: Last week, bingo! Another free trade agreement, this time with New Zealand. Great idea, actually: ecological dumping, imports from the other side of the world, our farmers at risk. Congratulations, keep it up! And then why stop in such a good way? What if we were to speed up the return of austerity and the famous 3% rule in the middle of the crisis? What if we insisted even more on competition rules to privatise our trains and public services? What if we let an independent central bank without any democratic control hold in its hands the fate of 450 million citizens, who will pay directly for the consequences of its decisions? I say it again here forcefully: The crises we are going through confirm more than ever the need to fundamentally change the current European rules. Our Parliament must take up the issue, hold it to account, put the matter on the table. Here in the European Parliament, we are the only ones elected to the European institutions. So let the Council be warned: we will not stop demanding that citizens' voices be respected.

Mr President, Commissioner, you spoke of a moment of truth. And the truth is that the planet is burning. The truth is that in this context, you are carrying out a shameful greenwashing operation by classifying nuclear and gas, which is still the main source of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, as green energy. The truth is that even the experts in your Commission have advised against including gas and nuclear in the taxonomy. The truth is that Emmanuel Macron is manoeuvring by allying himself with Orbán’s far right to destroy the planet. The truth is that taxonomy is also a gift for Putin, who will continue to make a gold mine by selling his gas to finance his war. The truth is that the lobbies were not mistaken and you gave in to these energy companies by meeting them no less than eight times. In short, the truth, Commissioner, is that you have made the choice to destroy our future. But the truth is that you have groups in this Chamber who are determined not to let themselves be fooled and who are determined to block the way to this danger to the planet and to our future.

Mr President, tax evasion by multinationals costs us tens of billions of euros every year and the far right is its faithful accomplice. She just demonstrated it just now. Because yes, the states that are blocking the introduction of a minimum corporate tax rate in Europe today are the reactionary and authoritarian governments of Hungary and Poland. The extreme right, which claims to embody the people, is once again showing its true face: that of a faithful servant of the powerful and billionaires. Orbán's cynical veto is also the same that can allow European tax havens to block any tax justice measure in Europe. This veto is the lock that systematically prevents us from moving forward, and it is now absolutely necessary to bring it down. This is why we urgently need to repeal the unanimity rule in tax matters, which condemns us to let tax evaders rob us with impunity. Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot wait forever for this rule to change either. What prevents us from moving forward now in enhanced cooperation with all those who want to and from building coalitions to start immediately with those who want to move forward? Moreover, I say it, Emmanuel Macron’s France has agreed to lower the level of ambition of this text and has failed, in reality, to find an agreement at European level. So, if you want to be credible, go all the way, engage in enhanced cooperation, or even say that you are ready to move forward on your own and put in place a universal tax. Too many states are very happy with the current status quo to do nothing, including France. But the situation is no longer sustainable. Let's get our hands back and refuse to let tax evaders impose their law on the people.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the war in Ukraine has now been going on for more than four months. Four months that Vladimir Putin commits the irreparable daily by invading a sovereign state, in defiance of international law, by setting fire and blood to a neighboring country, by committing abject war crimes against civilian populations, by endangering the security of our entire continent. I have already said this many times and this is not the first time we have debated it, but I wanted to say it again in the strongest possible terms on behalf of our Left Group here in the European Parliament: Europe must give a strong voice to continue to denounce this unacceptable aggression and to give unwavering support to the Ukrainian people, whose heroic resistance forces our deepest respect. The return of the war to our gates and the tragedy suffered by Ukrainians have brought into our debates, and this is legitimate, the question of their adherence to European integration. The call by President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to do so must and should be heard. And the prospect of rapprochement between Ukraine and the European Union is a strong political symbol in this context, which is so special. We should and must continue to demonstrate our solidarity with Ukrainians through concrete actions. But let us be sincere, we also owe them transparency, respect and honesty. Ukraine is now a country at war. Its institutions are still fragile, its standard of living is still far from the standards of the rest of the European Union. So, as we have always said, enlargement can make sense for Ukraine, as it does for other countries on our European continent. But it must always be done with the aim of harmonisation from above, so that all European peoples benefit from both social and democratic progress. We all know it here: Even if peace returns in the coming months – which we all hope to see collectively – there is still a long way to go towards accession. I say it again here to the Ukrainians: The European Union is by your side. Our destinies are common. Membership is a path that needs to be explored seriously, without false promises. It is this message of fraternity and hope, but also of truth, that can be given.

Madam President, on behalf of our group on the left, I would like to support the request made by my colleague Philippe Lamberts. Today, as we know, we are going to look at a package of major proposals to combat climate change. Our planet is literally burning before our eyes and we are going to vote to act, because we know we don’t have time anymore. And, by the way, I feel I am witnessing some sort of trifling in the organisation of votes because, as has been recalled, there is a fairly simple principle that governs the organisation of our work and discussions, which is to always consider the most ambitious amendment. And whether or not you agree with the proposal, it is more ambitious to end the free polluting rights of large companies in 2030, rather than in 2032, it is obvious, everyone has understood. So, Madam President, if some here in this Chamber are climate gravediggers, that is one thing, but I say it, at least take your votes and let us at least take a position on the possibility of raising the level of ambition of this climate package. It is a climate issue, but it is also, I think, a democratic one.

Mr President, 25 million people are forced to work worldwide, including 4 million children. They produce our clothes, our food, our mobile phones, and most of the time without even knowing it. Many companies such as Nestlé, Zara or Huawei are enriching themselves on this modern slavery to feed their thirst for profit. A year ago, the President of the European Commission announced with great fanfare the ban on the import of products made with forced labour into the European market. Yet the Trade Commissioner has been dragging his feet ever since. We are told that this measure would have too negative an impact on European trade, and that it might need to be made more flexible... So who's to believe? Who can believe in the Commission? The Commission of Great Speeches or the Commission of Great Renunciations? The Commission that denounces the forced labour of the Uyghurs in China or the one that concludes a trade agreement with that country? The one that promised an ambitious law on the duty of vigilance or the one that proposes a directive at a discount? Unlike you, our position is invariable: We will always defend human rights before corporate profits. So don’t wait any longer: We want to dress, feed or phone without being complicit in forced labour.

Mr President, in January 2015, Commission President Juncker dared to say: ‘There can be no democratic choice against the European Treaties’, which were imposed by force, denying the French ‘no’ vote in the 2005 referendum, and which need to be reviewed more than ever, from the cellar to the attic. And our group has been the only one in recent years to call for a revision convention. But let's be clear: this cannot just be the joint exercise of the French Presidency with the Conference on the Future of Europe. And I would have liked to have directly called on the minister, who must surely be very busy, Mr Beaune, to campaign in France to denigrate the European terrain, I would have liked to have asked him to take the test around him, to get out of the European bubble, and to ask who has heard of this conference. In reality, not many people, and it is a pity, because the few contributions of citizens are enlightening. And I have a scoop for you: they are not asking for more competition, free trade or austerity, but more democracy, climate action, public services, social rights. So, a convention to revise the European treaties: yes, a thousand times yes, but to get rid of the 3% deficit rule, stop free trade at all costs, take the commons and public services out of the market, put an end to the unanimity that protects tax havens and give Parliament the right of initiative – proposals that we put forward in this document. But all this requires a clear break with the current neoliberal logic of Europe. Failing that, accept that there are democratic choices against the European treaties and that states act as scouts at national level to get out of these dogmas, including by occasionally disobeying to move the lines. What is at stake is our very capacity to respond to ecological and social emergencies, in the face of which we are paralyzed by the current European treaties.