Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the opportunity we have to call once again for the taxation of super-profits. Nevertheless, the situation is far from satisfactory. On the one hand, millions of citizens are facing extreme price increases in vital sectors such as energy and food; on the other hand, the insolent health of the major leading groups in the sector, which are outrageously enriching themselves, like their shareholders, in the same food and energy sectors. 50% is the increase in Total’s turnover in 2022. 50% is the salary increase of Total CEO Patrick Pouyanné in 2022. But zero is the amount paid by Total for corporation tax in France since 2020. Look in conscience, you who have been elected by the Europeans, and ask yourself if we can allow such an injustice to continue. It is urgent that this money that sleeps in the pockets of shareholders be made available to the most fragile who are struggling to cope with this price shock that will last between five and ten years. It is a social issue, a choice of society. We need to limit systems of concentration of wealth and thus impoverishment of the greatest number.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tens of millions of people in Europe are seeing their salaries stagnate and the price of their groceries skyrocket, without being able to act. At the same time, there are companies like Cargill, this multinational wheat company, which has been thriving since the beginning of the crisis: almost 5 billion profits since last year, solely due to their economic opportunism. I'm not talking about Total. Of the Cargills, of the Totals, there are dozens. It's time to make these crisis profiteers pay. A Union that claims to put citizens at the heart of policies can only tolerate a few taking 99.9% off the backs of others. Tax justice for social justice and the power to live for all. Commissioner, do not leave the states alone and divided. The European Union is the right level for this framing.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the war in Ukraine started 130 days ago, and since then we have bought Mr Putin almost EUR 17 billion in gas and oil. We are in the midst of a climate emergency, facing an unprecedented energy crisis, but also an explosion in the cost of living. And some in this Chamber would like to see gas and nuclear, with its waste, repainted green for more than 200 000 years. In the short term, doing this means funding Putin and thus prolonging this unfair war. It is about financing chaos. This is squandering billions of euros on energy from the past when there is an urgent need to invest massively in renewable energy. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Guterres, has described as moral and economic folly investments in the production of new fossil fuels and in nuclear power plants. Such investments would soon be stranded assets and a scourge for investment portfolios, he added. We have a chance to stop this madness, it is now: Let us reject this delegated act.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, what a wonderful story this European taxation is! One day, Poland opposes to negotiate its recovery plan; the next day, Hungary – and it is not clear why. In the meantime, hundreds of multinationals are escaping taxation, in defiance of Europeans and in defiance of an agreement validated by 136 states within the framework of the OECD. Mr Macron told us in January that this issue was his priority. Last Friday, miracle: After three failures, Bruno Le Maire finally approved our request for a qualified majority. So, since it takes time, there are no other solutions to avoid throwing this tax revolution in the trash. There are seven days left for the French presidency of the Council, Mr Macron, to propose enhanced cooperation between states wishing to lead the battle for tax justice. If Poland and Hungary do not want to be, let them not be, but let them not rob us of the tax and social justice that we have been waiting for so long.

Commissioner, I would like to take up my second question: Why is the Commission not considering the presence of pesticide residues in food products on food labelling? I am talking about the legal residues allowed; I am not talking about exceeding standards. I'm talking about all the residues: When there are residues, why do they not appear on food labelling?

Madam President, Commissioner, the Commission plans to reduce the use of pesticides, including the most hazardous ones, by 50% by 2030, and I welcome that. But it is also responsible for ensuring the correct application of Regulation 1107 of 2009 on the placing of pesticides on the market and, above all, of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union of October 2019 which requires that an assessment on the long-term toxicity of pesticides be carried out in their full commercial formulation. Full commercial wording... This is not the case today. What does the Commission intend to do then? Second point, finally: Why does the Commission not envisage the presence of pesticide residues in food products, in particular through food labelling? I will have no further questions.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is a great day for European taxation, because we, the representatives of European citizens, are sealing the first step towards the gradual loss of interest in tax havens. So, of course, I will not hide it from you, I would have liked a slightly higher rate that would have allowed for a greater reallocation of resources. I would also have liked the end of the exemptions and I would have liked to have reached more multinationals so that no one would cheat on these rules and justice would finally be done for those who triage and participate in the common effort. But, as our rapporteur said earlier, we preferred to find an agreement and move forward – at least secure this first step for this European event. But, unfortunately, the Parliament’s position that we are discussing today is only consultative. I would have liked to turn to the Presidency, but it is not there, so I turn to you, Commissioner: If there is no agreement on the 24th, what will you do? If there is no agreement on 17 June, what will you do and how will we move forward? The Treaties give you the means to settle this unjust dogma of unanimity. Concessions made to reach an agreement jeopardise the implementation of the Global Agreement. Why keep playing with fire? Why continue to risk on the altar of nationalism any progress and any change on issues as fundamental as tax justice and, therefore, social justice? Member States are now putting their interests ahead of the common good, at least some Member States. The will of European citizens is to put an end to unanimity on taxation. So if you could hear us, thank you.

Mr President, Mrs Vestager, ladies and gentlemen, year after year this report on competition hollows out the Union's renunciations on vital issues. What is absent is almost more important than what is found there. In this report, we look in vain for some essential points, when some European states allow billions of state aid paid to multinationals in the context of the COVID crisis to flow to tax havens. Is this not a betrayal of the competition rules in the face of taxed SMEs, they, without end? And despite the warnings of environmentalists, when these same billions of state aids are used to keep an energy model at arm's length unable to do without the goodwill of Mr Putin, is this not contrary to the spirit of the European treaties and the construction of the sovereignty of the Union? This week it is 50 degrees in India and Pakistan. We know that, tomorrow, it is the European territory that will suffer a climate catastrophe. In fact, it has even begun. Let us remember the floods last summer in Germany or Belgium. So, to accept that a single cent of state aid is still used to invest in a system based on fossil fuels, is this not an act in total opposition to the very reason for the existence of the Union? Is it by reducing the competitiveness of renewable solutions that the EU will protect us and our children tomorrow? One could thus continue to list the renunciations of the map of European states complicit in climate catastrophe, pollution and tax predation. So, I solemnly ask you, make competition policy a real lever for the transition. And for that, I give you an appointment next year with a hope of further optimism.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our current farming model is a triple disaster: for peasant employment, biodiversity and public health. The new CAP is an accelerator of this ongoing tragedy. The war in Ukraine, on the other hand, reminds us of the absolute urgency of leaving an agricultural model under infusion of hydrocarbons for its fertilisers and pesticides. This week's vote on the organic action plan is therefore a great opportunity to raise the bar. Unlike industrialists and financiers, I think, like Commissioner Timmermans, that there is an urgent need to produce better, and certainly not more, to ensure food sovereignty for both Europe and the world. That is why I have tabled several amendments to ensure that the final text remains true to the objectives of the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy. Among these, the target of 25% organic agricultural land in the European Union by 2030 and, as you pointed out earlier, Commissioner, the creation of tools to make local authorities actors in the agricultural and food transition through the public procurement tool, for example for canteens. The agricultural disaster is not inevitable: send a strong signal for the sovereignty of farmers, the environment and our health.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today, when it comes to taxation, we live in a Union and above all in a world where multinationals have more rights than individuals and citizens. It's time to get back to that. Taxes paid by our citizens finance public goods and services. Multinationals use them and, in return, wipe their feet on the principle of tax consent. Let's end it and restore tax justice. There is an urgent need to conclude this draft minimum tax rate for multinationals, which is threatened by nationalism. Admittedly, this text has been criticised: rates too low, exemptions too high – moreover, I share these criticisms. Europeans must finally be heard on tax issues. This text, which concerns our daily lives, is now in the hands of finance ministers. I therefore call for a positive signal to be sent tomorrow to taxpayers and citizens: make multinationals pay their fair share of taxes.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you to those who are still here at 11 p.m. We keep repeating that the European budget is already too low, so there is no question of leaving it at the mercy of predators. As in Russia, Europe has its oligarchs, and as in Russia, they thrive in the flaws of the system. They threaten our democracy by grabbing a share of our common resources. Protecting our financial interests from predators is essential to restore trust and respect for public money. To combat the opacity that encourages diversion, we need European, let alone global, registers of beneficiaries of assets. Today, no European country requires the registration of beneficial owners of assets such as real estate, yachts, private jets and works of art. This means that countries are blind because they lack the means to know who owns the billions of assets held in the territories. Let us open the eyes of tax administrations and set up such registers for a more transparent Europe with the means to defend itself against predators.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me today to speak on this report in general and on the Commission's plan for fair and simplified taxation. Fair is a strong and important word. But fair taxation for whom? For the weakest? For SMEs? For social justice? Who are we defending in this chamber? What model should we build for a resilient Europe, better protected from crises? I am thinking of our SMEs in particular. Structures that are dear to my heart and so abused in recent years. These SMEs account for 99% of businesses in the European Union and are responsible for two out of three jobs in the private sector. They are rooted in our territories, whose economic and social fabric they support. They're human-sized. They are our future and we must protect them against geopolitical hazards, but also and above all against the model that crushes them economically. While stock market profits are exploding, it is still they who bear the burden of the cost of the crisis on their shoulders, despite warnings and successive studies to denounce this scandal. How will they survive, caught between the hammer of multinationals that escape taxation and the anvil of uberisation that levels down the European social model? Without radical changes, their margins and jobs will not survive this current sequence. The report recalls that €190 billion is missing from the coffers of European states due to holes in the racket. These sums do not come from SMEs, but from our tax-optimising system. So let’s tackle this unfair taxation that undermines democracy and promotes transfers of dirty money. Solutions exist.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the internal market is an instrument that must enable us to achieve our public policy objectives. Achieving the objectives of the European Green Deal or the digital transition requires a single market that works with rules that serve those objectives. If non-tariff barriers are an important topic, beware: economic freedoms shall in no way prevail over fundamental, social and labour rights. The establishment of common rules must therefore not be at the expense of protecting consumers and workers, or of providing quality goods and services for our citizens. Similarly, these rules must be consistent with our other objectives, which are the fight against climate change and the preservation of our resources. In this regard, I hear the remarks related to gold-plating. I do not believe that responsibility can be shifted to the Member States for all adoptions of national technical regulations, which, let us recall, are subject to a regulated procedure at European level, and, at the same time, ask for deregulation to avoid additional burdens on businesses. You have to be consistent. A single market based on harmonisation from above is good, but framed in a fair, responsible and green way.

Commissioner, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the ECB’s monetary policy has enabled the Member States to increase their budgetary capacity tenfold, which, moreover, is not a bad thing. But, unfortunately, this has been little used in investments, yet so necessary for our future. Today, I am thinking in particular of the increase in energy prices, which undoubtedly leads to an increase in consumer prices. Some states have chosen temporary solutions, which allow people to get their heads out of the water, but then what? The ‘whatever it costs’ allowed Total or LVMH to generate record profits in 2021. The same goes for Société Générale or BNP, which, in addition, continue to support brown investments, as a report confirmed this morning. The CAC 40 is in great shape, and in the meantime, what happens to the employees, the real people, those who matter at the end of the month? So I wonder, Ms Lagarde, not about the expenditure made by the ECB, but about the quality of that expenditure. The best way to fight inflation is to fight rising energy prices, because the real risk is to delay the energy transition. A real signal of courage needed to lower inflation is to invest in renewables, so that our economy moves away from gross energy sources, whose prices are already rising, as quickly as possible. So, two questions. The first: how does the ECB intend to contribute to this objective, as it already directly affects price stability? I'll stop there.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 800 million people in the world are not hungry and two billion are malnourished. The world’s agriculture is 30 billion peasants with tractors and chemicals, 300 billion peasants with horses and manure and 1.2 billion with hoes. There are 1.4 billion hectares of cultivable land on the planet, of which 12% are in the European Union. Who can believe, under the pretext of mechanization and chemistry, that only these 12% can meet the world's food needs? Let's look at it differently: with a little knowledge about organic matter management, the 1.2 billion small producers could double their yield from 3 to 6 quintals per hectare with just a little knowledge about organic matter management. Numerous experiences have shown this from all over the world. An additional 3 billion quintals is more than the needs of hunger in the world. People’s food sovereignty is not solved by productivism and domination by the West, but by this increase in yields, in the other 88% of the planet’s surface. This is the path I propose to address the food sovereignty of the peoples.

Mr President, Commissioner, tell me, Commissioner, where exactly is the fight against money laundering in the European Union? Because, believe me, from this desk, she seems completely at a standstill. Scandals follow one another. The outraged interpellations resonate in this Chamber like an endless echo and, above all, without any concrete result. Worse, new steps in inaction are being taken. Malta, a European state, is on the grey list of the FATF, the international anti-money laundering body, and no reaction from your services. We are also learning that France and others are pushing to weaken Europe’s already blank anti-money laundering lists of EU states. What game do states play? What game does the Commission play? Tax avoidance and money laundering are fuelling the current crisis with the complicity of some EU countries. So, Commissioner, take action! European citizens are waiting for you, because soon it will be too late to stop the serious social crises that will inevitably arise in the European Union.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how can we put our public policies at the service of the ecological transition and the social emergency at the same time? Beyond our energy model, the current spike in gas and energy prices also threatens the viability of our businesses and the most precarious living conditions. Everyone here, I imagine, is calling for the clean energy transition to be accelerated. It is about our ability to absorb future shocks, while creating the conditions for shared prosperity. With this in mind, I call for a reform of the State Aid Guidelines. For an ecological and social future, competition policy must be aligned with the objectives of the Green Deal – as you said earlier, Commissioner. This is not the case when your project allows for extended support for gas and potentially nuclear, while there are much more sustainable alternatives. So far, European competition policy has focused closely on distortions in the internal market. It is high time to impose environmental and social requirements on State aid. It is at this price that our competition policy will serve truly sustainable development. More than a penny of public money must not subsidise fossil fuels that put our future at risk. I am at your disposal to make rapid progress on subjects essential to the daily lives of our fellow citizens.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, why are chemical and agricultural technology vendors standing up against the European Farm to Fork Strategy? Because they feel that the wind is turning and they are afraid. A new paradigm, responding to citizens’ expectations, is emerging. They are therefore afraid of being dispossessed of a milk cow called the CAP. Fear of losing a significant part of the €55 billion annual CAP budget that enriches them while impoverishing farmers and the environment. So I applaud this text, even if imperfect, and call for its wide adoption for healthy food, for biodiversity and climate and for farmers’ incomes, but also to show our citizens that Europe can be in their interest by responding to their demands, with more transparency and for more responsibility from food actors. I am therefore looking forward to seeing this text implemented in European policies and in particular that of the future CAP.

Madam President, Commissioner, Council representative, ladies and gentlemen, tax evasion threatens the foundations of our democracies and the Pandora Papers will leave lasting traces in the European Parliament. I note the absence of comments on this case from certain political groups, from the extreme right to the liberals, united as never before to avoid offending the rich caught in the act of cheating on taxes. This admission of complicity is even shared by some large states. In France, for example, for months, the government has been pocketing the poor and fragile, but there are just a few sanctions against unmasked cheaters. A nice bonus for the smart ones who have not yet been caught, but still nothing to eradicate the problem at the root. So, Commissioner, representative of the Council, the European Union must be absolutely exemplary on this subject. We expect strong, fast and globally transposable actions via the OECD. In two years in this Parliament, this is the fifth time I have spoken in this House in every scandal. It is time to put an end to this masquerade that has been going on for so long.

Mr President, Commissioner, Madam, thank you for your report. Colleagues, whenever we are faced with a crisis, we are also reminded of this uncomfortable truth: the impact of the crisis is extremely uneven. This is also the case with this pandemic we are going through, where lockdown measures have led to economic recession, mass unemployment, deteriorating working conditions, rising inequalities and social exclusion. The statistics are depressing: According to the International Labour Organisation, in the fourth quarter of 2020, the number of working hours worldwide decreased by 4.6%. This represents 130 million full-time jobs and these losses were almost four times greater than during the 2008 financial crisis. To make matters worse, health and public services in many Member States are still affected by austerity measures. These Member States are therefore not in a position to provide adequate health services to the population or to protect workers in the health and care sectors. We should not be concerned only with profits, stability and growth. It is clear that the EU will only be able to overcome the crisis and prepare for future crises if we build more socially, economically and environmentally resilient economies. Just take a look in the streets. There are still at least 700 000 people in the EU sleeping on the streets or in shelters for the homeless. Together with the Green Group, we call on the Commission to take evidence-based action by developing indicators on homelessness and a framework for monitoring progress and reporting back to Parliament. We need to do more and we need to do it now.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen: "Sovereignty in our country, charity in the south". This is, in short, the European strategy on the subject of food. Sovereignty is the basis for a resilient society. Food autonomy is the minimum requirement to which all countries around the world should be entitled. Similarly, eradicating hunger in the world by 2030, as the UN does, is not an option, but an obligation. But these objectives will remain unattainable as long as the European Union continues to undo with one hand what it claims to build with the other. Officially, the EU works for the good of humanity, but concretely, it encourages its farmers to export en masse, with subsidies, especially to the south. A strategy that helps eradicate the local nurturing agricultural fabric and organizes dependence on our well-staged charity. I would like to know, Commissioner, how the Commission intends to reorient its trade policy to support the global transition to sustainable agri-food systems, in line with the Farm to Fork Strategy.