Speeches

Mr President, Mrs Kallas, Mr Costa, Mrs Kallas, I have a very specific question for you. I must confess my concern when I hear President Ursula von der Leyen's speech, since there is not a word about European weapons. There is not a word about digital. There is not a word about payment systems. But our fragility today is there. All, almost all of our payment systems, today, are American. Donald Trump can cut them overnight. He's already done it. He has already done so at the International Criminal Court to put pressure on our judges and on our rule of law. The European Commission, for a year, has not stopped making emergency procedures for us, has not stopped, I'm sorry to say so, to ponder with the stablecoins. So I have a very specific request to the European Commission. I urge you to organize a meeting in the coming weeks, next week, to create an Airbus of payment systems. It's not expensive, we're talking about ten million euros, but the rest, sorry, today is poetry. We can't say we haven't been warned. Distributors are worried, traders are worried, judges are worried and everyone is worried. I'm just asking you, and Mr. Costa, for that matter, so we can move forward. It doesn't cost anything, it saves our economy, it saves our democracy. Do I have your yes, Mrs Kallas? That's a real question. Do I have your yes? That's a real question. Do I have your yes? Well, look, your...

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, the single market must be finalised, because its standards are our best lever for establishing a balance of power, particularly vis-à-vis the United States. So yes, absolutely. But sorry, we are not even able to complete the banking union or the capital markets union. And this is not the fault of the bureaucracy, the European Parliament or the European Commission; It is the fault of the Council, the fault of the Member States. This is because we are constantly trying to tinker with arrangements because, on the Council's side, it does not work. In the end, we end up with species of legislative monsters, legislative "Frankenstein". The Council is moved and, all of a sudden, tells us that everything must be done away with. Obviously everything must be deleted, because the result is inconsistent. Whose fault is it? I therefore deplore the fact that bureaucracy is being used to excuse the Council and the Member States. If we want simplification and a genuine single market, we will need one thing: Federalism. I would remind you that the banking union alone would save us EUR 40 billion each year. I would therefore like to twist my neck to two preconceived ideas. Firstly, if things are slow, it is not the fault of Parliament or the Commission, but the fault of the Member States. Secondly, legislating through regulations rather than directives, as advocated in the Draghi report, would allow us to move much faster and finally complete the single market.

Mr President, Commissioner, today's debate is not so much about taxation as about our courage, our sovereignty and our ability to accept reality. What is it today? We have accepted that Trump withdraws from the agreement on global taxation, on multinationals, thus thinking to calm him down to get a good deal with the United States. Is our trade deal good? Did he calm down? The answer is no. But we sold it thinking that it brought certainty, a stable horizon, to companies. Is their horizon stable? The answer is no, since the very next day he attacked Ørsted, then Novo Nordisk, then he challenged us to dare to implement a digital taxation. What did we do then? Still nothing, thinking there too to calm him down. And now it is his very support for the OECD that he is questioning. When are we going to understand? When will we understand that Donald Trump will never stop and that, yes, obviously, we must put in place a taxation on digital since the GAFAM, the big American technology companies, do not live on the European market? But we have to go even further. We must defend our companies by defending our regulations, by implementing a policy of digital sovereignty, a real one. Not just words, as Ursula von der Leyen said today, because what she said was words so far. We must give priority, through purchases, to our European digital players. And it starts today. So love is good, proofs of love are better. We will now ask the European Commission for proofs of love, especially for digital players who feel today, at European level, totally neglected. And a tip to Mme Ursula von der Leyen: Read the Draghi report again, because she betrayed it today, and more than once.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank you, particularly the pro-European groups, for the quality of the debates and for their constructive nature. I believe that if we have differences, perhaps in the details, we all want to send a very clear message to the Council. The European Commission has given its roadmap. I hope that the European Parliament will adopt its own in a few days' time. But, indeed, as some of my colleagues have noted with a little bit of bitterness and disappointment, the ones who are missing today are the Council and the Member States. However, they were the ones who told us at the last Eurogroup: "speed, speed, speed", when it came to implementing reforms. The Commission has returned its copy. Parliament is about to do so. This 'speed, speed, speed' will therefore now be addressed to the Council, because we have been waiting ten years for the Capital Markets Union, and we are here for a moment that must absolutely be seized. I will use the words, I think, of Gilles Boyer: "In the area of the Capital Markets Union, there are many believers, very few practitioners." I believe that the Commission has proven that it is a practitioner. I hope and am sure that Parliament will prove in the coming days that it is practising. What about the Council today? Is he practising or is he only made of beautiful words and beliefs? Thank you to all of you, in any case, for these meetings, these discussions, and for this report, which is a collective work and which I hope will be adopted.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a year ago the Draghi report was published. It alerted us to the collapse of the European economy, to the very survival of the Union as an economic power. The causes? Too little overall demand, a lack of investment, too many barriers in the single market, a guilty preference for directives rather than regulations, too complex legislation, a lack of a capital markets union or a lack of a digital industrial policy. Two figures then emerged in the context of these debates: 600 billion and 300 billion. 600 billion is what we need to invest to avoid this stall. 300 billion is the savings of Europeans that go every year to finance foreign economies, starting with the United States. I will come back to these two figures later. Many of us immediately understood that, in the more than 400 pages of the Draghi report, only two paragraphs, a few of them, were going to be retained: those on simplification and those on securitisation. We knew that the issue of public and private investment was not going to be simple to defend, but we were ready to fight. In the meantime, the Commission – and thanks to it – has put the Capital Markets Union on the agenda, which then became the Savings and Investments Union. This is very good news for some of us, because very few of us have heard of the Capital Markets Union in the last term. We had forgotten this subject, despite the pugnacity and work of some Members, and I would like to commend the work of Isabel Benjumea, who stood firm on the Capital Markets Union (CMU). The European Parliament therefore immediately took up the work on the CMU and immediately began to work on the details, because it is well known that there is a political will to make the Capital Markets Union. But when we go on the steps, there, the points become extremely blocking. I believe that we agree with the European Commission - excuse my English friend - that today there is a "window of opportunity", but that this window of opportunity can quickly close. That is why we wanted to go fast, fast, fast - as the Council had requested, but what it is often unable to do - to discuss the single supervision, which is a real debate, the harmonisation of the law, which is also an essential step, but also the issue of clearing houses, etc. There, we could see that, finally, what we suspected, the differences between political groups exist, but that there are also legitimate differences, moreover, between delegations, between nationalities. Despite this, we have managed to return our copy and I hope that we will be able to vote on this copy in the near future in order to be ahead of the Council and to be able to print our line. I would like to thank the rapporteurs, who have done an absolutely incredible job. I would like to thank Isabel Benjumea in particular, again, because, as a former rapporteur on the Capital Markets Union, she has been very helpful. So, despite intense debates, despite disagreements, we still arrived at a common copy that talks about the need for reinforced supervision at European level. We talked about the need for public investment, private investment. We talked about simplification, while at the same time making sure that it is not deregulation. We also talked about the European savings account or the idea of a label, a safe asset, the European Investment Bank. I believe that everything is there and that we do not have to blush from this copy, and I hope that it will be adopted. Now we're going to get to a more political point. I just have one question. And this question is not addressed to Commissioner Albuquerque, because I know her commitment on this point. It is addressed to the entire College of the European Commission. I will finish on this important point: 600 billion, 300 billion. We were told that it was essential, 600 billion investments at European level. We were told that it was essential to bring the 300 billion Europeans' savings back to European soil. And, in this context, I do not understand the agreement with the United States, that is to say how we can, on the one hand, make us work morning, noon and evening to find compromises to make the capital markets union, to say that we must apply the Draghi report and, on the other hand, make this agreement, in which - I do not know by what miracle, moreover - the European Union says that it will finance and therefore make the success of American policy. So I finish on these two issues – and I will slow down on my conclusion if you will, Madam President –: What has the Commission done with the Draghi report and what is the coherence of our policy today? These are not provocative questions, it is that, sincerely, I ask myself the question.

Mr President, Commission, ladies and gentlemen, who can want to deprive Europeans of a free digital payment method? Because I remind you that your credit cards are not free. Who would rather have our data stored in the US – because that is the reality – than in Europe? Who can refuse that we are independent of American means of payment? Because I remind you that almost all of our payment methods are American. Who can want to give up our monetary sovereignty? Who can refuse to defend the euro, our currency now competing with American stablecoins on our own soil? Who can prefer American actors close to an administration to which the European Union poses a problem, as it has made clear, which seeks to destabilize our farmers, our industry, our winegrowers? Who? Who, in other words, can deny us this freedom to create the digital euro, our means of payment, independent of the Americans in particular, who? I will tell you, they are not people who defend the interests of Europeans, they are not people who defend the interests of the middle classes, they are not people who defend our sovereignty, they are not people who defend our democracy, and history will name them. In a period of populism, you're going to hear a lot of false things about the digital euro, that the ECB wants to take power over everyone, that we're going to do crazy things with your data. It'll be wrong. It is an eminently political, eminently civilizational struggle that is being played out here. We'll have to hold on. It will also be necessary to go fast, because today, the euro has a major role to play, that of competing with the dollar, that of being the currency of one of the strongest economies in the world. Everyone will have to be on the right side of history and, again, history will judge them.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our savings are now financing the United States. €300 billion per year: this is our participation in financing the economy of a government that is unfortunately no longer our ally, which seeks to stifle our agriculture, our viticulture or our industry through tariffs that are as arbitrary as they are unfair. How long are we going to be stupid enough to finance the Trump administration's economy? Repatriating our savings is obviously an economic issue – you said it perfectly, Commissioner – because it could help us invest in industry, rearmament or the ecological transition, at a time when Europe is living below its means. Above all, it is now a political issue. We therefore fully support the European Commission’s proposal, perhaps with some nuances – for my part, I consider the issue of securitisation to be out of the question. Perhaps we can go further by asking asset managers to invest a minimum in the European Union. I agree with Mr Ferber's conclusion: it is time for Member States to stop blocking this project, and their absence today is quite significant.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, where the Draghi and Letta reports speak of investment, innovation and reindustrialisation, through this compass you are responding far too much by simplification, deregulation and even securitisation. But on the ground, companies don't tell us that. They tell us, firstly, about the price of energy, secondly, about unfair competition, particularly from China, and, thirdly, about industrial policy. And that's where you're expected, especially through the Clean Industry Pact. We can certainly make simplification, but killing the CSRD and CS3D will not change anything if the Chinese market decides to flood our European market with Chinese cars, quite simply. If we want to simplify, we can stop with directives and go through regulations. If we want industry, we prefer industrial policy over competition policy, because it is no coincidence that we do not have a big tech European. It is simply because we have remained in a logic of defense of the consumer, rather than in a logic of defense of workers and industry. I think we're going to have to move a little bit more to industrial capitalism and get out of financial capitalism. We're counting on you.

Mr President, Madam President, Commissioner, moments of crisis are telling: revealing the quality of people, their courage, their integrity, their reliability or not, revealing the political lines and deep values that animate us, moments when masks fall. And we're in exactly one of those moments. If Democrats criticize, sometimes debate, struggle, populists always attack. They attack both democracy, institutions and ultimately sovereignty. Our currency, our central bank, will not escape it. It is the European Central Bank that we have been able to count on in every crisis. It is the European Central Bank that anticipates crises. And we, will we anticipate them one day? We must defend the European Central Bank and our currency, our institutional pillars of sovereignty by giving them two tools. The first tool is the digital euro – I do not understand what we expect, ladies and gentlemen – the second, the budget to take over from monetary policy. I expect us to be responsible, not populist. Let us pay close attention to what we are saying about the European Central Bank and the euro at the moment.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, because without regulation, the market for crypto-assets is not a currency, it is not a technology, it is a financial asset. It would be made of scams, financing, illicit practices of all kinds, including the financing of terrorist groups such as Daesh. We chose to regulate them in a hostile, violent, toxic climate, made of threats and cyber-harassment. So it's funny to see today that the very people who were harassing us at the time and yelling that they were going to go to the United States because of us, are complaining about the current practices of the Donald Trump administration, which destabilized the market with the launch of its "corner". They are experiencing what the law of the strongest is when it is not favorable to them. So yes, obviously, as we have always said, we need regulations at the international level. We must also protect ours, strengthen ourselves on the issue of financial stability, but above all, for pity's sake, let's not waste too much time with this debate. We know what to do in the field of cryptos. On the other hand, we must make progress on the digital euro and the creation of our own "big tech".

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Trump system is much more 'extortionist' than transactional. Basically, it is: You will do what I want, when I want; You will even pay for it, and all this without any guarantee for your security or defense." We, in the face of this, in Europe, cannot be the system of contempt or scorn. That would be a double mistake. We will have to do two things that the European Union does not like to do: strategy and balance of power. The strategy, first of all: We need to create our industrial independence, stop doing poetry and think that cutting red tape will be enough. We need a European industrial policy with precise objectives, a precise timetable, precise timetables. It is an obligation of result that we must have in the fields of large technology companies, clean technologies, energy, but also chemistry. Then we have to be in a balance of power. I tell you clearly: the slow reaction of the European Commission towards Elon Musk is unacceptable; It can't happen again. This administration will go fast, very fast, it will hit hard, it will have no limits. We are still talking about a so-called ‘liberal’ government that risks expropriating 50% of TikTok, and we are investigating this. Investigations are very good, but they have to be concluded, concluded quickly and ended with actions, and sometimes even sanctions. We will have to stop being afraid and use our single market also as a weapon that allows us to be in a balance of power. I know it's unpleasant to be in a balance of power, I know it's scary, but when you don't want to do it, you just don't want to do politics. The world has changed. Action is needed to protect Europeans instead of protecting the image of a world that unfortunately no longer exists.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have actually prepared a speech, but I am going to change it, because I am listening to you and I am quite surprised. Who would have thought, a few months or a few years ago, that there could have been even a debate on the taxation of the super-rich in this Chamber? No one, I think. Hearing each other come to a consensus on supporting the G20 position and Gabriel Zucman – because I feel that is what emerges – I think we have made an absolutely incredible step forward. Good, because we get to something reasonable and it is absolutely the sense of history to return to a fair taxation. We only ask for fair taxation, so that everyone pays their taxes correctly. Now, I don't think we should get trapped either. That is to say, we support this whole G20 process, very well, let us make ourselves heard firmly on this subject, but we must also do it immediately in Europe. We have to do it right now in Europe, but why? Because we need money and we know very well that this money will not only come from private finance and that we must mobilize, as the Draghi report says, a massive amount of money. For the general interest, let us bury our deleterious ideology and privilege the general interest, taxing the super-rich and capital.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Draghi report is very clear: EUR 800 billion of investment per year is the amount needed to ensure that the European Union does not lag behind economically and politically. The question now is how we're going to fund this. And there, there is a kind of primary reflex that falls on us and tells us: we will not talk about public money, it is taboo, on the other hand, we will say that we will be able to finance everything by private finance. And back on the table is the Capital Markets Union. I do not have a problem with the Capital Markets Union, but first, it is extremely difficult to do – I remind you: we need harmonisation, a single supervisor, etc. Secondly, if we manage to achieve this, it is, by the way, a third of the funding we need. Thirdly, I would also remind you that in the United States, where there are extremely large and very deep financial markets, when you doInflation Reduction ActThis is not done with private money, but with public money. So the question is whether the European Commission will be wise and follow the G20 when it says, I quote, that it will 'seek to cooperate to ensure that wealthy individuals are really taxed', or whether we will, again, be ideological and, in the end, lag behind economically and politically?

Madam President, I quite agree. I think that Commissioner Schmidt would make an excellent President of the European Commission. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the primary mission of the ESG criteria is to provide investors with information on a company’s non-financial ecological, social and governance performance, with the aim of promoting sustainable and responsible investment. To do this, you need infallible tools and you need to build trust. However, as every time practice develops before legislation, we find a little of everything: perfect valuations and other misleading ones. We remember, for example, the scandal of ORPEA, a very well-rated retirement home, but whose press had revealed the mistreatment of its residents. It was therefore necessary to legislate quickly, at the request of the sector, NGOs and supervisors. I am therefore very proud that the European Parliament is about to adopt today the first legislation in this field, an ambitious text that defends the European agencies and leaves aside the approach. best in class. We have been able to legislate so quickly thanks to all the teams in the European Parliament, thanks to the Belgian presidency, thanks to the negotiators who have been absolutely constructive and formidable, thanks to the teams in the ECON committee – not thanks to a country that has behaved in an absolutely unacceptable way – but also thanks to two people in particular who have paved the way for us: on sustainable finance, Mr Paul Tang, and on the extra-financial aspect, Mr Pascal Durand. I would like to thank them very much, because they have been two incredible MEPs in the service of Europeans and I hope that everyone will live up to them one day. Thanks to both of you.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, here is BEFIT, the latest piece of legislation, perhaps, on tax matters by the European Commission, and it cannot be said that Europe has been idle in recent years in order to be able to deliver more tax justice for Europeans. The taxation of super-profits: Europe; minimum taxation of multinationals: Europe; the fight against tax havens: Europe; the fight against shell companies: Europe; taxation of the most powerful – where some Member States are rather cowardly vis-à-vis them – Europe still. Nevertheless, despite unanimity, we have always managed to fight and move forward. And I stress this last point, because it was a promise, a commitment from the President of the European Commission, Mrs von der Leyen, who promised us the end of unanimity. And that was absent today from his speech. She has thus renounced her commitments, she has escaped her responsibilities. The European Commission, and in particular Paolo Gentiloni, who has shown courage in recent years, is asked not to shirk his responsibilities and to make one last act of bravery. Europeans and Europe deserve it.

Mr President, Commissioner, Secretary of State, last January Parliament adopted, by an overwhelming majority of more than 99%, the Unshell Directive to combat shell companies. It was recalled that this was a major step forward against tax evasion, as these structures make it possible to conceal financial transactions for the purposes of fraud and money laundering. It should be recalled that, in addition to the EUR 60 billion they cost taxpayers annually, these shell companies are one of the main mechanisms of illegal practices, such as trafficking in human beings, arms or drugs. It is therefore quite damaging that this major directive has been blocked outright by the Council, to the point that it is no longer even on the negotiating agenda. I turn to you, Secretary of State. We need the Council to release this directive. We count on your commitment and trust you perfectly. And I also turn to Commissioner Gentiloni. This situation also points to the problem of unanimity for this kind of directive. We are also expecting massive action from the European Commission.

Madam President, Commissioner, Secretary of State, ladies and gentlemen, 67% of Europeans believe that wealth should be taxed. Like this leftist, obviously, of Philip Lane, governor of the European Central Bank, but also the economists Joseph Stiglitz, Gabriel Zucman, Esther Duflo, Kate Barker, a former member of the Bank of England, who recently appeared in a leftist leaflet called the Financial Times. I could continue the list indefinitely. They are right, because the tax rate of the richest is now lower than that of the middle class, which poses social, economic, but also democratic problems. And that’s why we launched a European Citizens’ Initiative for the taxation of large fortunes, to finance the green transition. How does it work? We are making a proposal to the European Commission. The European Commission tells us whether it is legally admissible, we collect one million signatures. And if these signatures are collected, then we must have a response from the European Commission. And it is with honour and emotion that I can announce today that yesterday the European Commission gave its legal agreement to collect this million signatures. So, just as we have created at European level the minimum taxation on multinationals, the taxation on superprofits, let us create taxation on large fortunes, dear Europeans. Europe is at your service and at the service of tax justice.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today everything is as if there were two tax systems, and therefore two parallel democratic systems. On the one hand, the average citizen, the local SME, who pay their taxes where they live and where they work, and, on the other hand, some ultra-rich personalities who, let’s be clear, through their behaviour, refuse consent to tax and secede. By using offshore companies and tax havens, they prefer to put their money next to serious crime, the mafia and traffickers, rather than next to ordinary citizens, however imperfect they may be. Yet these people have enough to pay ten times, a hundred times their taxes. However, those persons would not have to pay much, moreover, if they had stayed and declared their money on their territory. Indeed, the ultra-rich pay almost nothing today. Why? Because income and capital are no longer taxed enough, so much so that today it is better to inherit than to work. We therefore support this report, the taxation of capital and a tax on large wealth at European level.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, sometimes you cannot fight inflation with an interest rate, and you have to accept it. The rise in the interest rate today must be questioned for at least three reasons. First, because we do not fight with an interest rate against imported inflation and energy inflation. Second, because today inflation is driven by superprofits, greed, greed: it is the inflation of sellers, the ‘cupideflation’ described perfectly by Isabella Weber, and moreover the European Central Bank agrees with this observation, so it would have to be consistent. Finally, because this increase has implications for banking and financial stability. While it is obvious that the collapsed banks had internal management problems – this is not going to be denied – it is also obvious that from the moment you raise interest rates, mechanically, you degrade bank balance sheets because you have unrealised bond losses. The last thing we need is a banking and financial crisis. So stop on interest rates. And sometimes, in order to have price stability, you have to go through something called price control.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, Minister, I believe that we are all welcoming the easing of fiscal rules. This is indeed welcome. This is a first step in the right direction. Now it is up to us to improve it. The blind spot of this reform, and indeed of the debate we are having today, is the issue of revenue. Finally, we are still talking about the question of expenditure, the question of rules. If we take the issue of public finances seriously, we also look at revenue, especially if we need public investment, which will be the case. Two proposals. A proposal of course, which we talked about yesterday, which is to have a fiscal capacity at European level, but also to have, why not, a fiscal rule, that is to say to the countries: "You have the opportunity to spend more, but in this case, finance." And finance, what does it go through, when you are a state? Simply put, it comes down to taxation. This would also allow us to restore some order to the tax system that has been destroyed by 40 years of globalisation. And then another point: Avoiding spending also means not saving banks and therefore regulating banks well.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wondered what yet another rational argument I could use to justify the need for a budget at European level. Would I quote again from the Financial Times, the IMF, or say that we should help the European Central Bank? And in this week so special for Europe, I confess that I thought of my resistant, communist, pro-European grandfather who, if he were still of this world, would tell me: So where are you, my dear, with the construction of Europe? That's it, do you have money to be able to make Europe? And I would say: You know, Papy, it's complicated. And he'd retort to me from smack to smack: You know what was complicated, sweetheart? It was about fighting Nazism. And he would have been perfectly right. The budget is an eminently political issue. It is a matter of political will. And even if I welcome the progress made in this report, I am still disappointed because it is not with a tax on cryptos, a tax on plastics or an FTT blocked in the Council that we are going to finance European defence, the green transition, the industry that we desperately need today. We need a sustainable plan, we need concrete answers from the European Commission on this point. We need tax justice, capital taxation and a levy for the single market, because if we love Europe, we finance it.

Mr President, Commissioner, I am still interested in the answer to the question I asked you in the previous debate about Mrs Lagarde and Mr Panetta. On the digital euro, I think the question we need to ask ourselves is: Why do we do it? For what purpose? And I think that’s a little bit of a problem, in fact, because, of course, we’re talking about sovereignty, but I think we wanted to take the digital turn a little bit quickly because it was fashionable and we’re now trying to fill this project a little bit in forceps. If we take it seriously, this project is truly dizzying, because money is trust and violence, to use the title of Michel Aglietta’s book. It is an eminently political subject, and we cannot do anything about it, not least because it can call into question the functioning of our banking system. I’m not saying it’s good, I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m saying it’s thinking, it’s getting ready and you have something very valuable in your hands, which is a political institution called currency. In the current context of political tensions and the rise of populists, I think that we must be very, very careful about how this debate, which is not technical, which is eminently political, is going to take place and that, as a matter of urgency, we must always take our time.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to MiCA and TFR, crypto players will be able to start applying basic rules of traditional finance, crazy tricks such as asking for identities, having insurance, not resorting to market manipulation or insider trading. That’s good. It is better than nothing. Is that enough? No, no. The European Central Bank, through the voices of Christine Lagarde, Fabio Panetta and Elizabeth McCaul, believes that MiCA is not enough to properly regulate cryptocurrencies, and they are right, among other things, on issues of thresholds and deadlines for application. Thus, the largest platform in the world, Binance, which is registered in the French cryptonation, will be able to comply with MiCA in only eighteen months. Eighteen months during which savers will therefore have no protection. When I discussed this topic in ECON, the European Commission replied: “Ah bah that’s how it is!” Sorry, but that’s not an answer. One of two things: either there is no problem, and we do not even legislate, or there is a problem, and in that case we have to act. So, Commissioner, I have questions for you. Do you think Ms. Lagarde, Mr. Panetta and Ms. McCaul are wrong about their judgment on MiCA? If so, why? If not, what do you plan to do? It was you who decided to have a specific approach to cryptocurrencies, whereas it would be better to follow a simple logic, which says: "Same service, same risks, same regulation". Therefore, you are asked to act quickly. I also draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that ESMA has the possibility to ban financial products when they are dangerous. I will end by praising the actions of the Americans, and in particular of a man, Gary Gensler, who chose to protect American savers. I think we should be inspired by what the United States is doing.

Madam President, Commissioner, Madam President Lagarde, dear rapporteur, congratulations on the work you have done! Ms Schnabel of the Executive Board of the ECB said in January 2023: "We need a better understanding of how climate change will affect the financial sector, and vice versa; for this, the development of high-quality data will be key". My question is simple: Really? Do we have time to wait? To begin with, will we be able to have good quality data on events that we are not able to imagine today? And do we have to wait to act? As Keynes said, "In the long run, we will all be dead." Won't we all be dead when we have the right data to act? Why not act immediately, especially on prudential? It is known that some banks are extremely exposed to fossil risk, a fossil risk that can lead to systemic risk, a systemic risk that can be avoided by increasing capital requirements. That is my question, Madam President Lagarde. That said, I believe that we can still be proud in Europe of having a central bank, the fastest-growing central bank in the environmental field. Some countries, notably the United States, do not have this chance.