Speeches

Madam, I myself was coordinator on behalf of the ID Group for the Conference on the Future of Europe, and the only thing I noticed was that, no, it was not representative. There were very few citizens who registered on the online platform. We had several meetings, including a plenary, which were cancelled due to a lack of an agenda. No, the representativeness was not really there, ma'am.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Conference on the Future of Europe has been transformed into a genuine communication operation, thus erasing the many manoeuvres and failures. There was very little follow-up to this conference. In fact, as an open, transparent and deliberative exercise, it was really only a question for Parliament of organising a democracy that had been badly undermined, and whose citizen participation gave European leaders carte blanche to push the fires of integration. Unsurprisingly, the EU executive has announced its readiness to reform the EU to, among other things, abandon unanimity voting in the Council in all areas, including taxation and foreign policy, with the exception of the accession of new states or unspecified cases affecting the fundamental values of the Union. This flagship proposal of this conference requires a revision of the Treaties. However, many Member States oppose the launch of such a procedure. They are no less than thirteen. In the event of validation, this reform would bring about the end of the veto right, whereas in international organizations, in application of the concept of absolute sovereignty of States, the veto is a common practice. Emmanuel Macron calls for this issue to be dealt with at the summit scheduled for 23 and 24 June. He therefore wanted to take advantage of all the political levers to forcefully endorse a reform with disastrous consequences, particularly for the foreign policy of the Member States. If this reform were to succeed, history will forget that it took root in a conference that was supposed to involve citizens in a broad reflection to reform Europe, but which remained largely under the radar of Europeans, reducing this consultation to an artificial device that would have triggered the end of the unanimity rule. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue card intervention)

Madam President, Commissioner, on 27 April the European Commission officially launched an administrative procedure against Hungary, which is another step in a sanctions regime unprecedented in the history of the European Union. This situation should lead us to reflect on why so-called "treaties bis" are being written, with the approval of the CJEU. The procedure, which could last between five and nine months, will include two rounds of consultation, with a process described as collaborative by European officials – but let me doubt that, as the conclusions are known in advance. On the temporal scope of the sanctions, there are unfortunate contradictions between the Council and the Commission, with the former stating that no measures should affect payments from the previous MFF and the latter stating that the mechanism that entered into force since 1 January 2021 can affect all payments made since then, including payments from the previous budget that will continue to be made until 2023. These procrastinations are indicative of certain legal uncertainties related to these new sanctions. Commission officials are concerned about the continued failure to implement the recommendations and requests addressed to the Polish and Hungarian authorities for several years. But does this concern only these two countries? I don't think so. For example, freedom of the press does not seem to me to be applied uniformly within the European Union. Finally, I note with amazement that, on 3 May, the French delegation chairing the Council of the EU was absent from the debates on the proceedings against Hungary and Poland. This is a telling historical fact of the French presidency’s double speech, which shows before the Council its wish to protect the rule of law and the European Union, but which, alas, has deserted the debates when discussing them.

Madam President, President Verhofstadt, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I note that the final proposals adopted by the Executive Board eliminated more than two-thirds of the proposals put forward by the citizens’ panels, risking increasing citizens’ mistrust and distance from the European Union, after all the promises made. Emmanuel Macron had made this conference a priority for the EU presidency, but the failure is evident on several levels. The organisation, in everyone’s view, was somewhat chaotic, there was a lack of participatory dynamics – it should be recalled that there were less than 53 000 European citizens registered on the digital platform – many citizens from the panels were disappointed by the format in the absence of direct dialogue with Members, and Members themselves were dissatisfied due to very low speaking time. First of all, I am naturally in favour of participatory democracy in terms of giving citizens a greater role, but not in this context. The Identity and Democracy Group had conditioned its support for CoFE on respect for the following ideas: that all political forces are represented, that the conclusions are not written in advance and that, if there is a change of treaty, it is submitted to a referendum. It must be stated that the contract was not fulfilled. We cannot accept the existence of multiple conflicts of interest between citizens drawn by lot or recommendations that actually come from certain political groups or NGOs. There is also the cost of this great European Mass, which is estimated at over €200 million. We are in the midst of a purchasing power crisis, as we must recall. The timing was not right - in the midst of the pandemic - and most importantly, to be implemented, several recommendations will require Treaty changes, which would lead to conflicts with the European Commission, which has stated that it is not willing to take such measures. This is why many of the recommendations have been eliminated. On the other hand, we can agree with certain proposals, such as a more protective data processing policy or digital sovereignty. On the other hand, other proposals are dangerous, such as the creation of a common army, even for self-defence purposes. Defence must remain a national prerogative. Moreover, the Citizens’ Panel itself had difficulty justifying the duplication with NATO. I warned at the launch of this event that results were known in advance, i.e. more federalism, more European integration and the end of the unanimity rule in the Council. Unfortunately, this conference ends with a failure, and I can only regret this for our fellow Europeans, who will be the first to be disappointed.

Madam President, Commissioner, the energy crisis that all Member States are going through must change the priorities of the 2023 budget, with massive investments enabling us to achieve energy independence. The unprecedented rise in energy prices is impacting all European citizens as well as our businesses, and in particular SMEs. Increased energy autonomy is a major challenge. Moreover, energy-related projects of common interest need to be implemented in the near future, as the crisis seems to be taking place over time. As part of a general reflection, food sovereignty also calls for several avenues for reform, such as the rehabilitation of strategic food stocks or the possibility for Member States to redirect part of the aid per hectare to the agriculture most in need, in view of market prices. Secondly, as the NextGenerationEU borrowing strategy is now an integral part of the MFF, a number of questions need to be asked. Reimbursements should start before the end of the current MFF, but this is an assumption, as the timing of the new own resources is still uncertain. According to the Commission’s estimates, after 2028, the maximum annual repayments will be EUR 18 billion, which means that the new own resources will have to contribute this amount to the budget. In the event of insufficient own resources, a possible contribution from the Member States is not to be excluded in order to cover this liability. Secondly, the enlargement policy with the countries of the Western Balkans does not seem to me to be appropriate. The European Union has expanded too quickly with countries that do not meet European standards, involving budgetary transfers between Member States. The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance also needs to be revised. Finally, the nomenclature of the budgetary structure of the neighbourhood needs to be revised, as it is difficult to understand why it should be reduced to two lines, one for the Southern Neighbourhood and the other for the Eastern Partnership. A country-by-country breakdown, on security and development, seems to me necessary in order to ensure better control of European funds, for investments outside the European Union amounting to around EUR 17 billion per year. A global reflection must therefore be carried out on this heading, because the role of the European Union is first to help its citizens, especially in the event of a crisis, before wishing to spread throughout the world, in particular through the NDICI-Global Europe programme.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioners, even if the macroeconomic stability of the European Union is a guarantee of an overall economic recovery in the area, a debate must begin on the role and efficiency of the European Semester. First of all, as an instrument for the coordination of economic and budgetary policies, I am surprised by the lack of involvement of national parliaments in the decision-making process since the creation of that instrument. On the implementation of the recommendations, a report by the European Court of Auditors concluded that Member States had implemented, in whole or in part, only a quarter of the recommendations made by the Council between 2011 and 2018, while for almost a third of them, progress was limited or even non-existent. The reason is simple: the recommendations are based on a disparate set of arrangements of various origins which have in common no mandatory nominative value, creating neither rights nor obligations, but which must exert a regulatory influence on the behaviour of the Member States. Better transparency in the decision-making process, an association of national parliaments and the Eurogroup, seems to me to be necessary avenues for reform.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the issue is not so much the scope of civil society organisations in the European Union, but their impartiality and added value in the legislative process. The European Union suffers from a multitude of entities aggressively lobbying all of its institutions. For example, for internet users, there were no less than 1 452 lobbyists who have spent EUR 97 million per year since 2019 to defend their interests. In order to clarify the non-conventional policy means affecting European decisions, I call for a reform of the Transparency Register put in place by the Commission in 2011. The defence of the public interest must be the sole compass of the European legislator. With this in mind, I propose three avenues for reform. First of all, the creation of an observatory of NGOs, in order to monitor their activity, which seems to me to correspond to the requirement of transparency. Secondly, in view of the influence of certain NGOs, which are non-elected organisations, an annual activity report carried out by an independent cabinet could be published each year. Finally, it is necessary to map the real networks of NGOs, which can fund other NGOs as well as independent consultants. The analysis of an isolated NGO makes it possible, in certain cases, to identify an ecosystem of entities whose influence is much wider. An overall reflection needs to be carried out on this subject. Indeed, the European Commission has taken a reckless risk by outsourcing its need for expertise to firms working for representatives of economic interests, which has led to an increase in the influence of lobbies in reports where the European executive does not have a point of view nourished by independent expertise. In this regard, I agree with the report’s proposal to set up an independent ethics committee that can provide guidance on this matter and make recommendations on sanctions against unfair practices by lobbies that could jeopardise the independence of the EU institutions.

– Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, France has not made any diplomatic progress following Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Moscow. And for good reason: so far, the potential threat of conflict with Ukraine is mostly a position put forward by the US. Let us not forget that the great boss of the German navy was dismissed because he had dared to put forward a different position – indicating that this threat of war was a nonsense. How can we also understand that the Quai d’Orsay still does not ask our nationals to leave Ukrainian territory? Let's stay factual. Moreover, Russian border manoeuvres are fully declared and, if there were to be an invasion, the surprise effect would have been more appropriate. "I got there to be no degradation and escalation," Macron said forcefully after his interview with the Russian president. But, again, a different position is reported on the part of Russia, with the Kremlin spokesman immediately stating that these remarks were not accurate. Currently, many weapons are sold by the Americans to Ukraine. It is up to France to have a Gaullian policy, which keeps us equidistant between the United States and Russia. Behind this conflict lies an energy issue. On the one hand, we want to close the Nord Stream 2 tap with the largest gas producer at the European borders; On the other hand, we buy gas from Qatar and Algeria, which are not known to be great democracies. Finally, let us recall that Kiev is objectively under infusion of European public money. This raises questions about the influence we want to have in this part of the world. An example is the urgent vote on Monday evening, without debate, for €1.2 billion in macro-financial assistance to Ukraine. But that’s not all: it should also be recalled that €17 billion has already been disbursed through grants and loans, which will never be repaid, even though the Court of Auditors has concluded that the funds have been misused due to corruption. I would like to thank you and conclude by saying that no one wants war at European level.

Madam President, Commissioner Lagarde, ladies and gentlemen, since its introduction, empirical reforms have enabled the euro to go through several major crises with varying degrees of resilience. In general, the current economic environment should lead us to question the relevance of the ECB’s rate choices, but also its ability to find new tools to intervene in the event of new tensions. The institution currently faces two major risks: soaring inflation and the issue of the rate differentials to which euro area Member States borrow. After two decades of price stability, the spectre of high inflation is returning. By your own admission, Ms Lagarde, inflation could well be much higher than expected. The evolution of the components of inflation, including energy prices, will be decisive for the projections. The negative consequences are manifold: reducing growth potential through higher credit rates, lower purchasing power, eroding the value of savings, correcting real estate and financial markets, etc. Feedback would be crucial. The ECB should not repeat the mistakes of an overly abrupt rise in interest rates, such as the one in 2008, which dried up liquidity at a price of $145 per barrel of oil, or the one in 2011, which accelerated the euro area recession at a time when fiscal policies were becoming restrictive. Moreover, the issue of the fragmentation of the euro area arises sharply with the increase in spreads, which is now more than 200 basis points, reflecting the sub-optimality of the area and investors’ highly variable confidence in the various sovereign debts. The wider the gap, the more difficult it becomes for highly indebted countries to finance their debt. In conclusion, the euro area is entering a turbulent zone, and savers and employees should not be sacrificed on the altar of a change in monetary policy. European growth is struggling to catch up with its pre-crisis trajectory and the ECB can no longer take the risk of another lost European decade.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union – we – will not get out of the wrestle with Poland and Hungary, whom the European Union is humiliating by denying them a down payment for their recovery plan. Especially since we have just heard that the Commission wanted to wait until next April's parliamentary elections in Hungary before taking a decision. Brussels is setting up a hard and unacceptable line with these two countries under the pretext of necessary reforms, while the litigation before the Court of Justice of the European Union is still pending. In fact, Poland has opened a gap within the European Union by questioning the supremacy of Community law over national law. In the absence of a European Constitution, which was rejected by referendum in 2005, the primacy of European law remains fragile. By challenging it, Poland is setting a precedent. If these plans had been approved by the Commission, Poland and Hungary would have been entitled respectively to a first payment of 13%, out of the total of €23.9 billion, and €7.2 billion in grants, which these countries are to receive over the next five years. In addition to the fact that the new rule of law mechanism is outside the Treaties, the Regulation requires a sufficiently direct link between the breach of the rule of law and budget implementation, so that it does not apply to all breaches of the rule of law, but only to those directly linked to budget implementation. It is therefore for the European Union to prove that link, the recitals on causation of which will have to be substantiated. But in the meantime, I mostly have one question: When do you think of the Hungarian and Polish citizens waiting for these subsidies?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the 2022 budget reveals too many contradictions in the European Union. The official speech of the European Union, which hammers out a strengthening of controls at European borders, is at odds with a EUR 65 million decrease in Frontex’s budget compared to the latest proposal. Events in Poland must remind us that Frontex’s budget is our only bulwark against illegal immigration and that further migration crises are to be expected with the new hybrid threats. The safety of all must prevail. Secondly, the €20 million increase in the Asylum and Migration Fund to resettle Afghan refugees on European soil demonstrates Brussels' commitment to sustaining a legal migration route between Afghanistan and the European Union. From a more general point of view, I note with concern that Parliament’s role is increasingly limited to a mere right to be informed because of the use of Article 122 TFEU, thus creating new mechanisms and bodies. Too many instruments have been put in place in the form of external assigned revenue, and therefore outside the budgetary procedure, such as the NextGenerationEU programme, the Facility for Refugees in Turkey or contracts related to the COVID-19 vaccine. Finally, with regard to the two amending budgets voted this week, I would like to put the Commission in front of its responsibilities with regard to monthly cash transfers, which do not allow any traceability of the funds allocated to more than 1.8 million refugees in Turkey, even though the European Court of Auditors has ruled, I quote, that humanitarian aid projects, in particular those relating to cash assistance, could be made more efficient. In addition, I would like to warn about the form of cynicism shown by the Commission in giving doses of AstraZeneca vaccines to non-European populations who are often young, even though the same vaccine is not recommended for young Europeans from a medical point of view.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although there are many uncertainties surrounding this tax revolution, particularly in its implementation, I support the principle of fairer taxation of multinationals and effective minimum taxation on profits. This revision of global corporate taxation is a fundamental part of the change we need to see. Everyone has to pay their fair share. It seems fair to me to re-allocate part of the tax on profits paid by multinationals to so-called ‘market’ countries, that is to say, those in which they operate. The tax will therefore no longer be solely where their head offices are located. Depending on its final design, a global minimum tax could reduce profit shifting in all sectors. It could also offer protection to the many developing countries heavily pushed to grant tax exemptions and incentives to investors, potentially depriving them of additional tax revenues. The principles are laid down, but the details will also be important. Indeed, for this to work, the international community must help developing countries unravel the fiscal incentives that are subject to stabilization in their laws, treaties and contracts. Otherwise, these countries would lose doubly by waiving taxes as a result of the incentive, on the one hand, and by losing taxes to developed countries, on the other. The inclusive framework will therefore have to address this issue as a matter of priority, which shows us the practical difficulties of this reform. Finally, it should be noted that the minimum tax rate of 15% is much lower than that advocated by the OECD Working Group, which is a disappointment. But beyond the rate, and above all, the question of the tax base will also be paramount.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, beyond the question of own resources and repayment of the loan, which is far from being settled, I am very concerned about the allocation of European funds. First of all, I condemn this form of blackmail against the Hungarian and Polish governments. Economic recovery is currently the cardinal priority and funds must be allocated without political considerations. The Commission must not, and cannot, be responsible for additional unemployed, citizens who will have their lives completely disrupted solely on the basis of the values of Article 2 TFEU allowing it to exercise its political control. I urge the European executive to return to a sense of responsibility and work for European citizens. The consequence is that Member States, such as Hungary, will finance themselves on the financial markets. This situation also highlights a power struggle within the European institutions. Parliament now wants to assess the Hungarian and Polish recovery plans, which is unacceptable interference. For several months, Parliament has consistently abused its scrutiny role in the implementation of the recovery plan, putting pressure on the Commission to influence the evaluation process, which is contrary to the regulation of the plan. As regards own resources, the European Commission's about-face on 12 July, when it announced the postponement of its digital tax project, puts at risk the financial architecture of the Next Generation plan. Janet Yellen's visit was enough to bend the Commission, which tells us it wants to wait until the OECD negotiations are over. This argument does not hold, as an EU proposal on this subject put the EU in a strong position. Most worryingly, the Commission disregarded the institutional agreement, which is extremely serious from a legal point of view. The Commission has to make its proposals on two other own resources projects: carbon border adjustment mechanism and carbon emission allowances, which are topics with other issues. If these two projects are also postponed, the question of funding will become a matter of concern and the contribution of the Member States will, alas, become an increasingly probable hypothesis.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that unfair tax regimes practised by certain Member States, such as tax rulings or tax facilities reserved for non-residents, continue to exist despite the establishment of the Code of Conduct Group in 1998, whose role was to identify aggressive tax planning practices. There is now consensus on the reform of this group, but the backlog is regrettable. The informal and nebulous functioning of this group must give way to an elected committee involving the European Parliament and making its deliberations public. For years, this working group has been met with resistance from four Member States, which are focused on the tax reception of multinationals, which we must name, we must not be afraid of: Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland. The consequences of this inaction are numerous: shopping taxation of multinationals in the single market, effective level of taxation of large multinationals much lower than that of our SMEs, considerable tax losses for several Member States, including France, and wild intra-European relocations. However, I warn of a shift of decision-making power to non-state actors undermining fiscal sovereignty, which belongs only to the Member States. To conclude, I agree with several avenues for reform in this report: integrate the income of natural persons into supervision, define a minimum tax rate below which tax practices would be considered harmful or precisely determine a criterion of economic substance. However, the revision of these rules must be accompanied by a reform of the Code of Conduct Group, which must not become a supranational tool, but a courageous panel of experts in establishing guidelines ensuring fair tax incentives.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the repeated scandals relating to tax evasion and tax fraud in the European Union call for a better application of the DAC directives and an overall reflection on the subject. Tax evasion has been taking place for several years now in a transnational context, with organised fraud ignoring land borders. The Achilles heel of the scheme stems from unsatisfactory exchanges between Member States and several third countries, including Switzerland, which significantly weakens its effectiveness, as fraudulent organisations are aware of the flaws in the system and house their shell companies in third countries. The second weakness concerns the identification of the beneficial owners of companies, despite the opening of register data introduced in recent years. The example of Luxembourg and the Open Lux scandal showed the limitations of the system by revealing that a significant number of companies did not fulfil their reporting obligations. As a founding member of the Union, Luxembourg should be exemplary in its behaviour in the face of tax avoidance. This country of 600,000 inhabitants has no less than 150,000 companies. It should be recalled that aggressive tax practices, in particular those of multinationals, create an annual loss of EUR 160 to 190 billion for the European Union. We are not far from the range of the total EU budget. In France, two thirds of CAC 40 companies are also present in Luxembourg through at least 166 subsidiaries. Some of them correspond to the actual establishment of activities on Luxembourg soil, but for the vast majority, these subsidiaries are the result of aggressive tax optimisation. The Commission must tackle letterbox companies and introduce unrestricted publicity of the registers on the actual beneficiaries of companies accompanied by a check of the declarations made. On the other hand, at a time when public deficits are growing, protecting our public finances must be a priority. The recovered funds fulfil a dual function: increasing tax revenues, but also asserting the authority of the state in the efficiency of tax collection. Moreover, in the case of exchanges of sensitive data, strict respect for confidentiality must be ensured, as the risks of leakage are not ruled out. Even if the text seems, in this respect, to balance the guarantee of data protection with the search for information necessary to detect fraudulent schemes, the Commission must ensure a maximum level of protection.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am astonished by the failure to take into account the actions brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union by Poland and Hungary on 11 December 2020, which makes the regulation which entered into force on 1 January 2021 de facto suspensive. The Parliament is showing legal misunderstanding by calling for the immediate activation of the new mechanism. The concept of law is a concept of such an uncertain legal nature that the Commission wishes to frame this concept by guidelines, which is a disguise for the Parliament. It should be recalled that for three years, this concept has been instrumentalized by the European institutions wishing to punish Poland and Hungary, which had refused the distribution of migrants after the 2015 crisis. Moreover, that regulation suffers from an insufficient legal basis, since Article 2 TEU does not confer substantive competence on the Union, but merely lists certain values which the Member States must respect. Consequently, a breach of those values, including the rule of law, can only be invoked against a Member State when it acts in an area in which the Union has competence, on the basis of Article 7 TEU. Any new regulation would therefore be contrary to the Treaties. But I have no illusions. This Regulation will apply. It will become a powerful tool of political coercion that leaves a potential threat to all Member States. The Treaty of Rome and its co-signatory countries – we were all blissful with admiration for the European project – seem to us far removed from the current image of a Europe that wants to put several nations at the helm. The health and economic crises we are experiencing actually mark the song of the swan of a dogmatic Europe that, alas, Brussels wishes to maintain at all costs.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although the role of the EIB in mobilising financing for the economy and in particular for SMEs must be supported, the two reports for 2019 and 2020 dodge substantive questions. First of all, funding that will only be granted in the light of decarbonisation seems to me excessive and must not come at the expense of other sectors that are key to economic recovery, such as digitalisation. Secondly, I would like to see demanding and humbling feedback on projects that have been poorly evaluated and most of which concern non-European projects. This noble objective of development aid with third countries suffers from numerous examples of projects with a lack of clear social and environmental counterparts when granting loans. Finally, I regret that loans to Turkey, a country that does not respect fundamental principles of freedom and democracy, reached EUR 385 million in 2018, an overall amount of EUR 28.9 billion since 2000. The European Union, through the EIB, has been weak in failing to act on the contractual clauses authorising the suspension of payments with Turkey. I call on this multilateral institution to refocus its investments within the European Union, as they must benefit the Member States that are its sole shareholders.