Speeches

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.

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.