Speeches

If I believe the tone of your question, I think my opinion is the same as yours, i.e. it is absolutely outrageous. That is why I do not want to target a particular institution: I think that we need to get out of the "between ourselves", and we need to stop making sure that, in a kind of jar with friends, ultimately, we judge the importance of conflicts of interest or not. There must now be independent authorities, we must trust justice, and this justice and these authorities must cover all the institutions, as well as the Commission, of course, but at home too, we must be swept away, and the Council must also be swept away. This is vital for democracy. I think we share exactly the same analysis.

Madam President, Commissioner, if I may, I would like to start by quoting a thinker, now a century old, who has seen a lot happen in a century. This is Edgar Morin. And this one said, I want to read it so as not to be mistaken: “By sacrificing the essential for the urgency, we ended up forgetting the urgency of the essential”. And the most important thing, Commissioner, as you said, is the trust that citizens have in their institutions and in their representatives. And it is this, this essential, that we must preserve through the fight against corruption. So yes, we have had emergencies, of course, but we must now ensure that this trust in the states, in the institutions, in the representatives, is reborn. And for that, we must act. So you said so, and I would just like to stress one point: we must have independent authorities, checks and balances, justice and administrative authorities for all the European institutions, in order to rebuild this essential democratic foundation. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Mr President, you said earlier – and I thank you very much for that – that the principle of the veto is contrary to democratic principles. You were right to point that out, because the principle of the veto comes from a long way in our history. It was often in the hands of monarchs, who tried to oppose the power of parliaments and the expression of the general will. I would simply like to turn to the Council. I am not asking you to agree with me, Mr Bek, because you are forbidden to do so by your office, but simply to reflect on what we have learned about the separation of powers. We have all learned that the legislative and the executive cannot be confused in the same hands. The problem we have in this emerging European democracy is that the Council acts both as a co-legislator, i.e. it allows itself to vote on laws by a majority, and at the same time, as a member of the executive who has the ability to block votes in the general expression of the European Parliament. This is not possible. No democracy in the world can operate with veto power in the hands of a state, while the majority of states want to intervene as co-legislators, such as Parliament. Either you are a legislator or you are an executive. If you are the representative of Parliament’s executive, then you must respect Parliament’s votes. What I am asking, and this is really the conclusion, is that the Council acts as a real legislator and votes by majority when it disagrees, like all legislators in all parliaments around the world.

Madam President, I was rethinking when I listened to the fact that it was not necessary to declare too much, etc. I was thinking of a phrase from the Nobel Prize for Literature, Albert Camus, which said that ‘misnaming an object is adding to the misfortune of this world’. I believe that the text that you have proposed to us, the text that we are voting on today, the text that the Council has approved, is precisely not a cardinal error. It is an attempt to alleviate, on the one hand, the misfortune of the world. An attempt to know things, to say them and to do it intelligently – obviously, the company that has no connection with countries of the South, we considered it from the outset, we posed from the outset the fact that EFRAG had to make standards that were specific to certain sectors themselves specific. Leave business alone for the rest! SMEs are not in sight, but businesses are left alone! So that they only provide the information that is necessary. Yes, the world is changing, yes, the economy has changed, yes, the consumer report, the youth report, now, in business schools, law schools or elsewhere, this world has changed. We need to make sure that the legislation evolves accordingly. You have to do it smart. This must be done in accordance with our values and principles. That is what we have tried to do. I heard earlier that this may not be enough, that it may be a start, but I think that a start is already much better than nothing, and I think that Europe is showing the world that we can actually make sure that finance, in the narrow sense of the word, does not govern the whole world economy.

Madam President, first of all, I would like to start – because we often keep it for the end, and then forget, we are taken by the time – by thanking all those who have worked on this file, with a specific word for the assistants who have worked in absolutely incredible emergency conditions, and also by thanking all the shadow rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs whom I see present tonight in the room and who have helped me, who have helped us to ensure that this text can be presented in time and that it can take up most of the elements that were dear to us. We have done this with a genuinely constructive will, so much so that this text was voted – as you know, Commissioner – unanimously in the JURI Committee, which is rare. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank, in addition to your text, the Commission services, which helped us find the answers and build this consensus with the Council, since the Council also unanimously adopted this proposal for a directive. So I'm not going to be too long: everyone knows this text in detail; I would just like to stress two points. This text is an absolutely major evolution in our vision of companies and the role of companies in society. We are sure that the world we are currently working in is a world that is changing and moving, and Europe has wanted – it is an extremely important sovereignty issue – on these extra-financial, environmental, social or human rights issues, to be a law-maker, that is to say, to be at the origin of the rules and texts, not to isolate oneself, but to be able to discuss them as equals and to no longer simply be the debtor of texts imposed on us from the outside. You have raised this key issue, Commissioner. Parliament has given you its full support in this endeavour, to ensure that Europe, which has developed its Green Deal, its green taxonomy and its own vision for the implementation of the Paris Agreement, carries it, including in the economic world. As you know – I repeat it every time, but it must never be forgotten – the European Union is certainly the place on this planet where we have the strongest balance between the three pillars of sustainable development – environmental, social and economic issues. We try to ensure that these three pillars are never separated from each other and that we move forward together. Your directive, Mrs McGuinness, has perfectly integrated this constraint. It has also fully integrated the fact that the short-term, often cynical, vision of a society in which people first and foremost want to produce at a lower cost, relocate, exploit people, nature and the environment, is now outdated. This vision of the world is no longer desired by investors, who now want to ensure that the company’s reputation is no longer damaged and that the risks and effects it may have are taken into account, nor is it borne by society, by consumers, who want to know the conditions under which products are made. This is what this directive responds to: moving away from arbitrariness of reporting towards standards that are shared, standardised and controlled. It is the strength of our Union, it is the strength of the rule of law. You have implemented it, we have also followed it. Now all we have to do is wait for the Member States to take their responsibilities on this issue and ensure that we have effective control over these statements.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, thank you for your words. My dear Guy, you said earlier that Europe is not ready to face the world of tomorrow. I am sorry, but I think it can be said that she is already not ready to face the world of today. I imagine – and we should all imagine – what would be the situation within Europe itself and in Ukraine if Donald Trump had been re-elected in the US. If, indeed, the United States had decided not to help Ukraine, not to help Europe in the face of Mr Putin’s invasion. So we have to ask ourselves the question in conscience: what capacity does Europe have to defend its own values, interests and territory? I have heard a lot of things and I will be very, very quick on that. I have heard colleagues talk about a more socialist Europe, a Europe that is too neoliberal, a Europe that is too much, too much... but that is not the question. The question that arises today is: Do we want a strong Europe, a Europe capable of defending its values, a Europe capable of influencing the world around it? Do we want a more democratic Europe? Well, if that is what we want, then, ladies and gentlemen, let us not ask ourselves the question: Let us vote for the opening of this convention. See you tomorrow!

– Mr President, thank you for your reminder on the Conference on the Future of Europe. First of all, I am very happy to speak after my friend Paulo Rangel, because it is always very clear and we have principles that we are reminded of. I am then happy to speak before you, Commissioner. You know how much we share a number of values: I know that the terms democracy and transparency are two words that are dear to you and that are also dear to us. So let's try to make sure that these words have new content. Parliamentary work is changing, European democracy is changing and we must try to enter a more modern world. We saw it with the citizens and that was what the JURI Committee was asking for. This was indeed recalled by the Conference on the Future of Europe, it is proposal 38, but we also called in the JURI Committee for a legislative follow-up to the European Citizens' Initiatives. This is also a very important and new form of democracy. So we all need this right of initiative. Not everything can rest on the shoulders of the Commission. The Council already has a de facto right of initiative on certain subjects, such as security or justice. But it also has the opportunity to work with the Commission upstream. We do not have it. So let us give ourselves the opportunity to move forward, let us ensure that this right of initiative is recognised in Parliament and, as Paulo Rangel said very well, it does not take away from others, it adds. This is the message we want to convey to you today, also on behalf of the JURI Committee. As a member of AFCO, I obviously support what Paulo Rangel said.

Madam President, we have the right from time to time to be happy, we have the right in this Chamber to rejoice at some of the opportunities available to us. A year ago, when we opened the conference, we didn't really know what was going to happen. Let's be honest. It was something new, it was a new democratic process. The Commission said it would try to be a facilitator. The Council was already on the brakes. And then Parliament said, 'Let's go!' Some of us were a little afraid of opposing representative democracy to participatory democracy. And what do we see a year later? We see that not only has the terrible health crisis been overcome in dialogue, debate and construction, but that since then there has been another crisis, that the war is within Europe itself and that, for all that, citizens have commissioned, commented on and asked for more Europe, more integration and more work. So, indeed, this has been said, and I do not need to develop it any longer, and in addition you said it in the context of the exchanges we had: We must continue. We must transform this conference of the future into a conference of the present with the convention, with our ability to change the texts. That is what we need to do now. Citizens are waiting for it. Parliament is ready, the Commission agrees. So let's go, let's move on, let's all work together.

So, if I understand correctly, the question is: Why is there no European citizenship in addition to national situations? That is to say, why would we not have a European passport in addition to identity cards? Why should we not have Texan and Californian citizens who are at the same time US citizens? Well, I share your proposal 100%. And yes, I defend the fact that we have a European passport and I defend the fact that we keep national identity cards.

“- Paulo, I repeat, Europe is not a state. Europe is a democratic construction sui generis and we have the need to create a European corpus, a European citizenship, to share. We have values, we have an extremely rich, extremely important European history. She's thousands of years old. We have to create this body and we can do it through elections. And what we do not have and what the United States has are trans-state parties because yes, we vote in Texas, California, but we vote for the representative of the United States state. So this is what we want to do and we will do it together. I am sure we will. (The speaker agreed to reply to a blue card intervention)

Mr President, I thank Mrs Jourová for saying what she said on behalf of the Commission. I want to thank you. Obviously Domènec and all my colleagues know how much I greet them and I salute their work. But I would like to thank the Commission because you said from the outset of the Conference on the Future of Europe that you made respect for what was to be proposed by European citizens the condition for continuing our work. And you have indeed recalled that, in the Conference on the Future of Europe, the issue of transnational lists - but if, my dear Paulo, we will come back to it - the issue of making Europe more democratic was indeed raised and came out of the working group on democracy. So we're going to debate it. And, dear Paulo, do not be afraid, do not be afraid, democracy, the fact that citizens can express themselves, can vote, can consider themselves European! What a horror! What a horror! People consider themselves French, Spanish, Portuguese, but also European and they will have the opportunity to say it democratically in an ballot box. And yes, Europe is not a state, so let's not look for comparisons that are complicated. But I will take a very simple one: who knows – just the name already – the Spitzenkandidat in Portugal? Who voted for Mr Weber in Portugal? Who voted for Mr Timmermans? Nobody, and yet we want to make him President of the Commission! Well, no. Democracy wants us to come out of 27 national elections and to add a European election to democratically choose the future of the European Union. (The speaker agreed to respond to a "blue card" intervention)

Madam President, may I turn to you to say that I am particularly pleased to see you at this seat and to congratulate you on your election and the renewal of your election? I may say it with a little tone, but I think it is necessary to recall it. Today we are at a particular moment in human thought. We are at a new crossroads, perhaps as important as the Enlightenment or the Renaissance. We have a new thought. We must have a new humanist thought towards the living, towards nature. Our relationship with animals has evolved, our relationship with animals must evolve. It must come out of this utilitarian vision that we have had for centuries, that of the undivided domination of human beings over nature and animals. This world is no longer ours. Millions of citizens see it as self-evident that animals are living beings that suffer, and that must be respected as such. So I turn to you, ladies and gentlemen, let us not let this wind of history blow through. It must also blow on our European Parliament. We must change legislation and, I beg you, stop opposing the rights of one to the rights of the other. Let's stop saying that if we improve the suffering, the condition of the animals, we will harm the breeding. No, we can do both. We have to do both. And yes, we must take the time – Mr Buda, you are right – the time of transitions, we must help. But what is currently killing livestock in Europe? It's competition, it's agro-industry, it's the fact that we import meat raised under free trade treaties under conditions that have nothing to do with our own. If we really want to defend the European agricultural model, let us all do it together and do not oppose each other.

– Mr President, Commissioner, what a disappointment to hear again and again from the Commission that there is no problem, that all this is a matter for the decision of the Member States, and that, finally, Europe does not have to worry about the torture that these animals undergo in the transport, in purely commercial and purely recreational conditions, of wild animals in circuses, displaced, trained for the pleasure of a few, and to hear the Commission tell us that all this is a matter for the Member States! 23 Member States legislate; harmonisation is no longer of interest to the Commission; the fact that we have common shared legislation is not of interest to the Commission; the fact that there is cross-border transport is not of interest to the Commission; the fact that Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires the welfare of animals – which are sentient beings – to be taken into account is of no interest to the Commission. So I say to you, Commissioner: One million citizens and a European Parliament are asking you to act on this issue, and to act effectively.

Madam President, Commissioner, in May 2020, we saw the European Commission asking BlackRock to define the criteria for green investments in banking. It had something to surprise and it surprised. It surprised the Ombudsman, at first it surprised this Parliament and it surprised a large part of civil society. So we tried to understand how this type of conflict could be avoided, and when we turned to the Commission, the Commission responded formally: We have followed our rules. Well, when the rules aren't right, there's a simple solution: it is trying to evolve and change them. You said that earlier in your speech. The issue of conflicts of interest has become an absolutely major issue. We must ensure that our Parliament is able to control the conditions under which public contracts are awarded. And the Commission must understand that disassociating a subsidiary from the parent company appears, on subjects like this, totally impossible. We must therefore ensure that the Commission discusses with Parliament upstream, that its vademecum is discussed by the representation that we are, and that the criteria can be found. The first criterion is to ensure that a subsidiary cannot conduct a study where its parent company or other group companies have conflicting interests. For example, BlackRock invests heavily in fossils and coal. Does it have the power to advise on green investments, even through one of its subsidiaries? This should at least be discussed. So, first thing: ensure that the absence of conflict of interest is respected. Second thing: do not focus on price, because prices can be lowered for reasons I will not return to. Third thing: Do not hesitate to implement sanctions when companies fail to comply with their duty of transparency.