Speeches

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.

Madam President, clearly, I believe that we are witnessing the most complete exercise of hypocrisy on the part of the right. Who, who, gentlemen of the EPP, voted with the far right? Who voted with the far right to empower lobbies and push back the end of free quotas? Who today is responsible for climate denial? It's you, it's you. So yes, we have chosen to work together, to work together with the Greens, to work together with the Socialists and above all to work together with civil society to have a high level of ambition at the climate level. You will bear the shame of this time in the coming years. Yes, we will work, because, remember the friends, remember, colleagues, that the ENVI vote brought the end of free quotas to 2030. So let's work with the ENVI committee to return to this level of ambition, because clearly we can't wait another 30 years.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I brought you this article from the Mediapart newspaper, which documents how Total’s behind-the-scenes lobbying in the 1990s caused us to lose 30 years of climate action. Thirty years behind due to the culpable weakness of the European policies of the time, which gave up a real tax on fossil fuels. Thirty years wasted, which now puts the knife under our throats, when we only have three years left to act, according to the IPCC. It is in this context that we must understand what is at stake in the vote on the European climate package tomorrow. Because, concretely, thirty years later, when I read this article, I thought to myself that the same guilty error might well be repeating itself. You know that: we in the Left Group in the European Parliament already regret the weakness of this climate package, whose objective and means are not even aligned with the Paris Agreements, and which continues to rely on market mechanisms. But these small steps are obviously still too much for some, and they are threatened, as they were 30 years ago, by the action of lobbies. Moreover, I am quite surprised: None of us here have talked about it - it's kind of the elephant in the room - but, as MEPs, we are all beset by more alarmist and false messages that more or less herald the end of the world and a rain of locusts if the climate package goes as it is. I have brought you some examples of the emails we receive: Here is an email from EasyJet and Ryanair, who want us to believe that penalising aviation carbon emissions risks increasing them. the President of FNSEA denies the climate cost of chemical fertilisers; Metal lobbies want to sanctify their right to pollute free of charge. Come on, for the form, I'll give you one last one: for car manufacturers, it would be more or less the apocalypse with the end of thermal engines ... In short, you have understood: All polluters are out to continue rotting the planet, to cherish their shareholders. And the right and the far right, again this morning, were religiously reiterating their arguments and their amendments. I will therefore ask you a fairly simple question, ladies and gentlemen: Are you going to do the same as those who, in the 1990s, gave in to pressure from lobbies to save fossils and wasted 30 years on climate action? Our choice, in the Group of the Left in the European Parliament, is clear: we want to believe in our future rather than the lies of the lobbies, because this time we cannot really, but really cannot afford to wait another 30 years.

Mr President, when our bills explode, there is one thing to do, it is simple, it is basic, and above all it can relieve millions of people in trouble: blocking prices so that lighting, heating or moving is not a luxury. But, as simple as it may seem, it took you almost a year, Commissioner, to start timidly considering in your REPowerEU plan a blockage of gas prices, or even resolve to talk about the taxation of companies that took the opportunity to binge on it. I could believe in a feat, but I know that the Commission has agreed to derogate from this sacrosanct energy market, not least because Spain and Portugal had already led the way without waiting for the green light from the European Union. Disobedience can finally bring the European Commission back to its senses. But I suggest you don't stop on such a good path. The war in Ukraine is not only exploding energy prices. It is also gasoline, wheat and many basic food products that are growing every day. So now that the European Commission has discovered the usefulness of price regulation, I propose one thing: it is time to do the same for all basic necessities.

Madam President, Macron and the French Presidency had told us that the promised tax evasion is over. Their absence from the debate today is certainly a symbol of their desertion from the fight against tax evasion. Because they told us that multinationals would finally pay their taxes thanks to this famous minimum rate of 15%. Except that this rate is barely higher than that of the tax haven that is Ireland, it is three times lower than that of France in the 1980s and far from the 25% that we propose with NGOs. Except that a lot of companies are excluded from the scope. Except that some activities and some countries will not be affected. In short, it's a lot of "except". And for McKinseys and other tax looters, we went from open bar to happy hour. Certainly, the size of champagne glasses has decreased a little, but there is still a long way to go. Of course, we win a cultural battle; I remember a few years ago when I was working at Oxfam, where we were still a long way off. But, I say, ladies and gentlemen, let us move up a gear and impose a genuine universal corporate tax so that there are no more ‘excepts’ and that all companies finally pay their fair share of taxes.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are all appalled by the images of mass killings of civilians in Bucha. And first I wanted to have an emotional thought for their families and loved ones, even if, of course, no word can erase their pain. Our Parliament must take the oath here: We will not forget the hundreds of corpses that piled up in the streets of Bucha. I am also thinking today of the entire Ukrainian people who are suffering unspeakable atrocities but continue to heroically resist the Russian aggressor. I say it here with seriousness: this situation has a perpetrator, Vladimir Putin, who will have to pay for all these war crimes, for the rapes used as a weapon of war, for the carnage of Irpine, for the destruction of Mariupol, for the mass graves in Bucha. In the face of barbarism, it is always our duty to oppose the law. The competent international courts must be seized to investigate and try these acts of pure inhumanity, which cannot go unpunished. The European Union must react in the strongest possible terms to Putin’s abuses. Additional sanctions must be taken to force him to put an end to his crazy war adventure. We've been saying this for a month, we need to type these oligarchs into the wallet even more. Only then can we weaken it sufficiently to force it to negotiate. And for this, it is not necessary to take a yacht, but all yachts. It is not necessary to take a villa, but all the villas. You don't have to take a few million, you have to take every billion. So, Mrs von der Leyen, I repeat our request: Why do you not require European tax havens to list all Russian oligarchs who hold assets, on pain of massive sanctions? At a time when Ukraine is at risk of bankruptcy, the European Union must also do everything in its power to ease Ukraine’s economic burden. The Ukrainian people cannot be condemned to the suffering of austerity and structural adjustments, which are in addition to those of the war. There must also be a clear, unconditional commitment to: Let's cancel the Ukrainian debt! It also took a war as serious as this to see how dependent we are on fossil fuels. And rather than replacing one polluting energy with another, let us finally accelerate the development of renewable energies, the only guarantee of our energy independence. Our continent is going through dark times today. Let us live up to the moment, according to the one and only compass that must guide our mandate: humanism, peace and the protection of peoples.

Madam President, do you know how much McKinsey, which carries out highly paid advisory missions to the French State, has paid taxes in France in ten years? The answer is as simple as it is shocking: zero. Not a penny. This state scandal once again illustrates the tax avoidance practices of lawless multinationals. Faced with this organised robbery, the French Presidency of the European Union dares to tell us that the problem will be solved with the international minimum rate of 15%. So, either our economy minister is a liar, or he has not understood anything about international taxation, because as it stands, the agreement, which is also very insufficient, will only make McKinsey pay a few tax crumbs, all in the United States. So yes, there is an urgent need to act against tax evasion, but the worst thing would be to give the illusion of having solved the problem while the McKinsey and Co. continue to plunder us. Beyond this agreement at a discount, I want to say to tax evaders: we'll get your money back, and we'll chase you to hell if we have to.

Madam President, spring has arrived, the trees are in bloom, and mercury is finally reaching 20 degrees in some places. This is the moment the European Commission has chosen to wake up to rising gas and electricity prices. Now I have to say that you surprised me: I quote the invitation from the Member States to 'regulate prices' and even to 'tax energy companies which have made exceptional profits'. A little ahead of time, I would almost believe in an April fish. Finally, would the European Commission have realised the absurdity of its energy market, which leads to only one thing: the explosion of prices for people and profits for multinationals? So why wait until the end of winter for these recommendations, given that prices had started to soar long before the start of the war in Ukraine? Well, as I read everything, I think I found the answer. In the annexes, you make it clear, Commissioner, that the competitiveness of the markets must not be called into question and, I quote you, the ‘general objectives of the European Union’s energy policy’. In short, it does not affect free and undistorted competition – prices may well continue to soar in the future. It was too good to be true. Moreover, only Italy has so far introduced a 10% tax on large energy boxes that have increased their profits. Still, there would be something to do. In Europe, the Commission is talking about 200 billion overprofits for energy companies. In France alone, Mr Beaune, Total made a record profit of EUR 16 billion, while people pay more than EUR 2 for their litre of petrol. So, don't go around the pot anymore: charge Total and block the prices of petrol, gas, electricity, but also all basic necessities.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to tell you about concrete realities, the litre of petrol which is increasing to more than EUR 2 without the State intervening, the overall energy bill which could increase by EUR 400 this year, hospital beds which have closed in the midst of the COVID crisis, unemployment benefits and pensions which are being reduced. A harsh reality for the peoples of Europe, a reality far from our Chamber and its sometimes lunar debates. All because states must follow the European Commission's austerity criteria and cut spending, rules so absurd that the Commission itself ended up suspending them to avoid chaos in the midst of a health crisis. The only thing that needs to concern us today, ladies and gentlemen, is how to get out of it definitively rather than organising their return by 2023. In the face of ecological and social emergencies, deficit and debt can no longer be the alpha and omega of European economic policies. And if you want economic convergence, I would have a few ideas: the well-being of people, the reduction of inequalities, the protection of the environment... Get out of your bubble, colleagues, and look at this reality to finally answer it.

Madam President, ‘Never forget that a political, economic or religious crisis will be enough for women’s rights to be called into question. These rights are never acquired. You will have to be vigilant during your life. With these words, Simone de Beauvoir was already alerting us. The march towards gender equality is constantly hampered and women’s rights are a constant struggle. This is particularly the case in times of war and in Ukraine, of course. First of all, I wanted to salute the courage of all those who engage in resistance, patrol at night, find themselves giving birth in the metro, their only makeshift shelter. Of all those, too, that keep society at the back. Not to mention women victims of unspeakable violence and the use of rape as a weapon of war. Ms Zaboujko, know that all women in the European Union stand by your side and are ready to lead the battle. The battle for peace, the battle also for the right to dispose of our body, quite simply. This war waged by a man, Vladimir Putin, symbolizes a power that imposes itself through fear and brutality. Women’s rights are always challenged in times of crisis and have been under constant strain in our countries in recent years. At the height of the pandemic, it was women – nurses, carers, cashiers, cleaners – who were mobilised as chore leaders, despite their low salaries. It was women, stranded at home during the lockdowns, who were the victims of an explosion of domestic violence. It is women who have seen their right to abortion sacrificed, with a terrible increase in care difficulties, when this right is not simply made illegal in some European countries. Simone de Beauvoir was right. These rights are never acquired and all the pretexts are good to put women's rights on the back burner or even to make them back. As fascism rises from the ashes, women's hate speech is back in Hungary, Poland and even in my country, France. The far right has not changed and will always make the trashing of women’s rights one of its priorities once it comes to power. But across Europe, more and more women and men are rising up to demand that women be able to live in peace and that their dignity be respected. In peace in their country, in peace at home, in peace at work, in peace on the street. I wanted to finish with these words from the women’s anthem: The time of anger, women, our time has arrived. Let's know our strength, women, let's discover thousands!" And I would even add, millions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, protecting civil society also means protecting democracy itself, guaranteeing the possibility for the people to organise themselves into associations, trade unions and to demonstrate in order to exercise their share of power. We urgently need it as authoritarian temptation sets in – in Poland and Hungary, of course, where the ruling far right methodically crushes defenders of women’s, migrants’ and LGBTI rights, but also in my country, the country of human rights, where the repression of yellow vests has resulted in thousands of abusive police custodys and dozens of mutilated bodies. Climate, pensions, women's rights: All the demonstrators are already facing the same fate. "Freedom, equality, fraternity" have given way to "LBD, nasses and GAV". As rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs, I am pleased to find many of my proposals in this text, to guarantee the funding of civil society organisations and protect them from attacks by governments and third parties. Democracy is a fragile good. Let's defend those who keep it going.

Madam President, Madam President of the European Commission, war is returning to Europe. I am part of this generation born after the Cold War, which has not experienced the war shock of the great powers and to which it has been repeated since childhood that Europe is peace. Now, the ghosts of the past are resurfacing and the war is back. I want to make it very clear here: Vladimir Putin bears full responsibility for this and now he has blood on his hands. Our group condemns in the strongest terms the intolerable military aggression against Ukraine and welcomes the heroic resistance of Ukrainians and their President Zelenskyy to the invasion. Tanks scold, bullets rain and civilians try to find shelter, fear in their stomachs, sometimes in the subway, sometimes on the roads of exile. I want to think about them first. Today, Ukrainians need to know that we will not abandon them. I want to say to President Zelenskyy, whom I thank for taking the time today to address our Parliament, that democracy and freedom, for which his people are fighting, are our values and precisely the haunting of Vladimir Putin. We must send emergency humanitarian aid unconditionally and welcome refugees, regardless of skin colour, without ‘but’, without ergoting. The crisis is humanitarian, but it is also, of course, more geopolitical than ever. Putin wants us to enter a world of chaos and brutality, where the rule of the strongest dominates. I say it here with solemnity: Ladies and gentlemen, dear President von der Leyen, dear President of the Council, we cannot accept to enter into a terrible game and to acknowledge that Europe is becoming a battlefield in the long term. I warn you, colleagues, against the military overbidding and arms race that would set our continent on fire and bloodshed. As Jean Jaurès rightly said, "one does not make war to get rid of war." On the contrary, the European Union must defend, whatever the cost, the only valid objective: peace and de-escalation. Strong and targeted sanctions are taken, but how do you really want to apply some of them, when ensuring the impunity of tax havens that hide the assets of Russian oligarchs? As such, fighting tax evasion also means fighting crime at international level. Let’s be clear, economic sanctions will only have time, because the people will suffer the consequences, in particular through price increases that must be compensated. As we all know, the only sustainable option is diplomatic and all our efforts must be directed towards a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops. The path of peace is certainly laborious, but it is the only reasonable one at this hour. NATO, a military alliance inherited from the Cold War, is not the solution. The international justice of the peace is not NATO; it is the UN. The space for discussing the continent’s security conditions is not NATO; it is the OSCE. The Ukrainian President outlined ways out from above, for example a UN-protected neutrality status; Let us accompany this possibility. I do not want to lie to citizens, there is no silver bullet. However, I have a deep conviction: the real firmness in the face of Putin is not to lock oneself into the vicious circle of ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’; On the contrary, hope comes from mobilising people for peace all the way to Russia. In Rostov-on-Don, just off the Ukrainian border in Russia, a young woman was sentenced to eight days in prison for standing alone on the street with a white sign, a symbol of a mobilisation that Putin wants to make invisible. It also symbolizes the courage of those thousands of Russians defying Putin’s fierce repression, echoing the hundreds of thousands of Europeans who adorn themselves with the Ukrainian flag with a message: peace at all costs. I will conclude with the words of Albert Camus, on 8 August 1945, just after the bombing of Hiroshima: "Given the terrifying prospects for humanity, we see even better that peace is the only fight worth fighting. It is no longer a prayer, but an order that must ascend from peoples to governments, the order to choose definitively between hell and reason.”

Madam President, Madam President, Commissioner, petrol, electricity, pasta, rice: Everything costs more. Across Europe, people are caught in the throat and some are taking the opportunity to already call on the European Central Bank to tighten the monetary screw, as if policy rates were still the determinant of inflation today. Before the pandemic, the ECB had already injected €4 trillion, with no inflation at all, as the financial bubble took almost everything, leaving only crumbs to the real economy. The current purchasing power crisis has nothing to do with money. It is due, on the one hand, to the voraciousness of energy companies, such as Total, which are accumulating historical profits by turning consumers into milk cows, and, on the other hand, to the chaos in globalised supply chains, which the pandemic has totally destabilised. You acknowledge this, moreover, Ms Lagarde: A rate hike, I quote, "would not solve any of the current problems." For once, I have to say that I agree with you. Turning off the tap, as after the 2008 crisis, would be a disaster. But in this context, I have a question for you: So what is the ECB’s main objective of price stability, which you defend so much, still today? As my colleague Papadimoulis' report points out, the ECB's role in dealing with the social and ecological emergency must be questioned. Mrs Lagarde, take this break and recast the ECB's mandate. Money is not a technical tool, it is a political lever. Europe can no longer be the only place where monetary policy is not democratically debated, so that it ultimately serves the real economic needs, not those of speculators of all kinds.

Madam President, Mr President, today you present yourself as the champion of Europe who protects, but who do you actually protect? Do you protect social rights when you pocket the unemployed and delay the Uberized Workers Directive? Do you protect sovereignty when you sign free trade agreements in turn? Do you protect women when you support an anti-IVG at the head of the European Parliament? You see, Mr President of the Republic, it is not enough to enshrine the right to abortion in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is still necessary to defend it and accept the extension of its duration when it is discussed in France. Or not to deal with states like Poland that are destroying this fundamental right to dispose of our body. Are you protecting the planet when you went to the extreme right of Orbán to defend gas and nuclear power? You see, here too, it is not enough to include the environment in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, when you are condemned for climate action in France or when you bury the proposals of the Citizens’ Climate Convention. Do you protect tax justice when you serve the Medef soup on tax evasion? Are you finally protecting the rule of law and democracy, which you talked about a lot this morning, when you are dealing with Orbán – Hungary was the place of your first visit as President of the Republic in charge of this presidency of the European Union – and when you mutilate the yellow vests? You see, Mr. President of the Republic, what you are protecting are certainly not people in trouble, but multinationals and billionaires. So you announce with great pomp, as we saw at the time of the presentation of the French presidency, a slogan: "Relaunch, Power, Belonging". But in reality, your European record is only "arrogance, impotence and shenanigans". In substance, you are the champion of compromises and double speeches, but in form, you have always been the president of contempt. Disrespectful of the social protection that costs, in your opinion, a "crazy pognon". Disrespect for the precarious who "are nothing". Disregard for the unemployed who ‘only have to cross the street to find work’. Disregarded of the "fainants", the "illiterate", the "refractory Gauls". And a contempt that is still expressed today towards your European partners, towards us, MEPs, when you choose to keep the French Presidency of the European Union in the middle of the electoral campaign. Yes, Mr President, you are the president of contempt, but at least you assume it. And as you summed it up, the people, you are pissing them off. The press has ripped off their hair to translate you. She did well, because you can address this insult in all languages to the people of Europe. Gender equality: ¡Vete al cuerno! Social justice: Scheiß auf sie! Climate: Facciamolo incazzare! Our fundamental rights: Piss off! But let’s face it, there are people you don’t bother. For example, your friends billionaires whose fortune doubled during your five-year term. This is what sums up the essence of your policy, Mr President: workers, precarious people, activists, insults and beatings; to profiteers and polluters, gifts and sweet words. Colleagues, don't be fooled: You have Dr Emmanuel in front of you, who has made a lot of promises today, I must admit, but you also have a Mr Macron, who is actually the one who is breaking our social rights, cracking down on mobilisations and has nothing to do with the climate emergency. So how can you believe that you will do in Europe the opposite of what you did in France? The French presidency should not be an election march. This is a historic opportunity to reshuffle the cards of the game. By a founding act, first of all: putting health ahead of profits by lifting the patents on COVID vaccines – a waiver that you have consistently opposed, Mr President. So the charity you are still talking about today does not make sense when millions of people around the world do not have access to vaccines because our country, France, but also the European Commission, has not respected the vote of this European Parliament to defend the lifting of vaccine patents! As a priority, then, Mr President: prevent the re-establishment of the shackles of budgetary austerity muted during this crisis. In your distant world, they may be only accounting lines, but in our real world, they are people, social aids for eating, public services for learning or healing. The French already said this in 2005 during the referendum: We don’t want these rules anymore. Because let's be clear-headed, if tomorrow we want to renationalize freight, ban pesticides, develop organic or local canteens, sanction European tax havens, we will have to face up to the European rules that prevent us from doing so, and I conclude on that. France is a founding country, the second largest economy in the European Union. It has the means and the duty to impose the principle of social and ecological non-regression so that a European standard will never again undermine our rights or slow down the fight against climate change. Quoting General de Gaulle is fashionable in these campaign times. So, in his words, it is to have a certain idea of France to dare – or even to have the audacity of which you speak, Mr President of the Republic. Dare to lead the way, dare to embody resistance to austeritarian and authoritarian dogmas. History will judge the missed opportunity of your French Presidency of the European Union, sacrificed on the altar of your personal ambition. But after the presidential election, there will be two months left to live up to the urgency and topple the table. By the popular will, after you in April, we will assume our responsibilities, Mr. President of the Republic.