Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner Thierry Breton, ladies and gentlemen, ‘zero pesticide residues’, ‘carbon neutral’ and ‘environmental protection’ are green claims that 61% of consumers in the European Union have difficulty deciphering. And for good reason: in the majority of cases, it is greenwashing. The Greens/EFA Group therefore welcomed a year ago the Commission's proposal to regulate these allegations. As rapporteur for this dossier for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I must say that we have great concerns about the PEF method in the context of agricultural products. This method does not take into account positive externalities or negative externalities of the production of a product of the same category. In short, it does not distinguish between different production models. Following tough negotiations, the current proposal allows for the possibility of alternative methods, and we will ensure that this is taken into account in the upcoming negotiations. Finally, we had another concern about this issue concerning original organic productions that go beyond the European organic regulation. These products make ecosystem services immeasurable, and we would like the Commission to recognise this. A first step has been taken with Article 10. To simplify the checks, it seems to me that these pioneers in agriculture may be the first to be concerned by this article. Here again, we are closely following the subject.

Mr President, hello Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday 900 tractors and as many farmers demonstrated in the European neighbourhoods of Brussels. As you know, the denunciation of the neoliberal policies imposed by the World Trade Organization on farmers is at the heart of this event. This ultraliberalism condemns our agriculture, our territories, our terroirs and is contrary to the necessary food sovereignty. Faced with this exacerbated competition that our farmers face, the GI system is a bulwark to fight counterfeit products that threaten the reputation of products from local and regional territories, as well as the livelihoods of their producers. There are 3500 GI-protected products in the European Union and we can be proud of this because they promote the shorter, high-value food supply chain. These are the ambitions that the Group of the Greens defends, which we have tried to pursue on this issue. This file had three important lines, three major lines for us. The first concerned the framework granted to wine. Following the trialogue, the provisions on the control and labelling of wines were maintained in the CMO and we were generally satisfied with them. The second concern was the role given to EIPO and we argued throughout the negotiations that the most sensitive tasks involving the review, approval and opposition of GI applications should remain in the hands of the Commission. And again, we were generally satisfied. Unfortunately, our last red line concerned the sustainability practices that the Commission wanted to introduce in the GI specifications. These practices have been the currency of exchange for negotiation on other points in the file, nothing ambitious and no system of implementation control has emerged from the negotiations. These practices of sustainability have been reduced to the skin of grief and are now only effects of announcement, or even of greenwashing. Too bad this text does not benefit from this innovation at this stage. Since this point was a novelty on the file and was central to us Greens, we will abstain on the final vote. I would like to thank Paolo Di Castro, the rapporteur and all the other shadow rapporteurs for the good work throughout the negotiations.

Madam President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, the text we are about to adopt will bring clear benefits for consumers in the European Union. Instant credit transfers mean more ease, assurance, security and convenience for everyone as an individual, but also as a small or medium-sized enterprise. In a few months, thanks to the work and struggles we have carried out under this regulation, it will be possible to send or receive transfers very simply in the euro area in a matter of seconds and free of charge. Banks will no longer be able to overcharge these instant transfers. Beyond the practical aspect, security will also be present since the verification of the IBAN will have to be carried out by the service provider, at no additional cost. We have also ensured a level playing field with electronic operators, who will have to offer the services on the same terms. It is regrettable that this deadline is longer for non-euro area countries, but these instant transfers will soon be a reality for the entire European Union, and that is how it is.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, behind these names and acronyms of MiFIR and MiFID lie very real and major issues for the lives of people across Europe. As my colleague Karima, the shadow rapporteur on this delicate issue, has said, the texts that have come out of it will indeed have a very concrete impact on the wallets of our fellow citizens, and we can congratulate ourselves on the victories achieved by the family of environmentalists here. In my work in our institution's ECON committee for several months, I have read and heard from experts pointing to the role of unlimited speculation and market manipulation in extreme price increases that we have experienced since 24 February 2022 and the outbreak of this war by Putin in Ukraine. How many millions of the most vulnerable people have been forced to ask for a staggered bill and have been forced not to heat themselves or to make cuts in their daily budget, to be able to pay their bills for heating, electricity like last winter and the current winter. According to Oxfam's annual report on inequality just released today, 99% of Europe's population has become poorer in the last three years. Yes, 99% of the European population has become poorer in the last three years. No, financial speculation is not the only cause of this inflation, but yes, it has played a role that no one can seriously deny. And yet, this factor has been completely neglected by the European Commission and has simply been ignored by the right-wing groups in this Chamber, who are too busy defending the interests of big business. The provision that my group made in the circuit breaker, this ability given to market authorities to suspend operations on given products in the event of significant volatility, makes it possible to mitigate, if not completely annihilate, this problem significantly. However, the subject is far from being closed and much remains to be done. In our next term, we will be there to ensure that large non-financial companies that act as unscrupulous speculators are indeed subject to the same rules as traders. As early as 2025, we will fight to build real barriers against commodity speculation. Like my colleague Karima, I therefore call on you to support this text.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are those in the European Parliament who, alongside us, call for taxing those who are least subject to tax – the ultra-rich, their wealth, their elitist and polluting modes of transport, the multinationals and their superprofits, and also the carboniest, most polluting companies – and then there is the right, the EPP and its allies, who defend the ultra-rich and the multinationals by putting forward their arguments for economic growth and competitiveness. But we are not fooled. Our citizens do not want this world of the right, which defends the fact that a nurse has a higher tax rate than a shareholder, the same world where SMEs pay far more taxes than multinationals, with their superprofits – a concept that would not exist without the intervention of the left. It is time for this world to change in favor of the living standards of the most precarious and middle classes, but also to finance the essential energy and ecological transitions. How can we expect EU citizens to agree to make efforts when the richest contribute the least to taxes and their private jets are not taxed even though they pollute the most? Together with the Group of the Greens, we have shown that a progressive and measured tax on the net wealth of the richest 0.5% of citizens in the European Union would bring us EUR 213 billion. This is an invaluable and completely untapped financial windfall, as it would restore citizens’ trust in the tax system and allow us to invest massively in the green and social transition. So what are we waiting for? Let's tax the most polluting multinationals, tax private jets, tax the rich and the ultra-rich!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow, when you vote on the very ill-named report on the sustainable use of pesticides, I invite you to vote in conscience. Think of the 1.1 million of our citizens who have mobilised with the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Save Bees and Farmers’ and are urging us to get out of pesticides. If this warning is not enough for you, think quickly about the environmental costs of pesticides, and they are the primary cause of the decline in our biodiversity, the primary cause of water pollution and the primary cause of the decline in the fertility of our soils. If this inventory does not convince you, I invite you to think about our farmers who are the first victims of these chemicals, against whom no personal protective equipment protects them: Parkinson's disease, prostate cancer, lymphatic cancer, leukemia. This is a real public health problem on which we have the means to act. No, the profit of chemistry cannot take lives and destroy families with impunity. Tomorrow, this impunity can stop. Victims, carers, the sick, the whole European Union is watching you. This report, led by my colleague Sarah Wiener, whom I thank for her work, paves the way.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, imagine your favourite 'streamer' advertising questionable financial products or services to you. Imagine your favorite pop singer pushing you to buy the all-new NFT while promising you that it will make you a lot of money in a very short time. This has happened many times in France and Europe, to the detriment of consumers who have lost thousands of euros. At European level, that is tens of millions of euros. So today we are going to vote on a text that is supposed to protect consumers in the European Union. I did say ‘cited’ because, despite a number of very positive provisions, online advertising by influencers remains poorly regulated. Positive points include the fact that any consumer will now be able to withdraw from any financial contract concluded remotely with a single click. This is a big step forward. We must welcome this, especially since we have obtained this provision, which applies to all contracts concluded at a distance, not just financial services. This report is therefore a serious step in the direction of consumer protection. But where the disappointment is real is that this text, which was also an opportunity to frame the promotion of financial products by influencers, does not quite do so. There are so many scandals and scams in which some of them seek to sell financial products to their audience without having any expertise in this area. I repeat here, influencers should not be able to advertise financial products or crypto-assets online unless a competent authority can grant them authorisation. Instead, we will simply impose a wording that indicates that this or that influencer does not have the knowledge required to be able to promote financial products. In other words, we do not really protect consumers, especially when we know how strong the influence can be on social networks. Among the mostly honest content creators, we will therefore continue to see rapacious, money-hungry influencers manipulating their audience with false promises in order to sell dubious financial products, without even knowing it, for most of them who engage in such practices. The promotion of financial products requires skills and needs to be better regulated.

Mr President, Commissioner, SMEs represent 99% of European businesses. We must help them, protect them, facilitate their development and diversify their financing. But beware, the protection of SMEs must be accompanied by greater firmness towards multinationals, as allowing multinationals to escape taxation directly harms the competitiveness of SMEs that the Commission claims to favour. The package we are discussing today is quite satisfactory. But how can we explain that, on the same day, the Commission renounces its ambitions with regard to multinationals? With BEFIT, you have struck a chord on the fair distribution of profits of multinationals in the European Union, to the benefit of a few European tax havens. So we always come back to the same point. As long as there is a veto on taxation, it is the voracious interests of big business and complacency towards European tax havens that will dictate our tax policies. In the face of growing inequalities and the financial means required for the just transition, we do not have the luxury of waiting and sitting on the tax justice that Europeans have been demanding for so long.

Mr President, Commissioner, shell companies are the main instrument of tax avoidance used by multinationals and the very rich to evade taxes. Every new scandal regularly reminds us of this bitter taste, that of subtraction from an elementary duty: contribute equitably to civil society. This is at a time when every citizen is paying their fair share, even in difficult economic times, even in times of crisis, even in times of inflation. Wealthy individuals and large companies continue to use shell companies to evade their duties. The Screen Entities Directive was proposed in December 2021. It is now two and a half years later and no agreement has yet been reached in the Council. Even a very watered-down version of the text fails to achieve unanimity. And we in Parliament adopted the directive by a majority of 99.7%, which is unprecedented in the often controversial area of tax legislation. The lack of regulation of FVCs costs European taxpayers €60 billion a year. We call on the Spanish Presidency of the Council to make the directive against shell entities a priority and to put it on the agenda of the next meetings of finance ministers. It is time for a public political exchange of views and countries opposing it must be unmasked and of course be held accountable. European citizens have the right to hear explanations from their governments one by one about why they are blocking this directive and refusing this fight against tax evasion. Too much is too much. Tax avoidance has persisted for far too long. The European Parliament wants to put an end to this. Citizens want to put an end to it. You're the only one left to do it.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Navarro Ríos, ladies and gentlemen, I do not know you, but I feel like I am repeating myself. We have had this debate thousands of times and every time we call for taxing the rich and these calls remain unanswered. The 75 richest households pay less tax than the rest of society. A month ago, French researchers showed that the tax rate was regressive within the very closed club of big fortunes. This rate rises from 46% for the richest 0.1% to 26% for the richest 75 households. The rich don't pay their fair share. Why? Because their wealth is dividends, it is wealth, it is capital that is very little or not taxed. Yet it does not seem that nurses, cashiers, workers bring less to society than the ultra-rich. Do you hear the grumbling demand for justice? You cannot be moved by the feeling of injustice that emanates from the suburbs while protecting ultra-richness. In the face of the violence of the executive’s silence, how can we be heard? We are told of runoff, of a reduction in taxes for large companies, for the former. But let's be serious. The only solution is a real taxation of wealth. It is a matter of social justice and you cannot say that you did not know.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Pandora Papers have confirmed once again - once again - that the richest 1% of people consider themselves above the rules and that their greed comes before the lives of the remaining 99%. This report that we are going to vote on paves the way for a fairer society that respects citizens. Once again, we ask the Commission and the Member States – they are not even here tonight! – measure the wealth created by surplus value and tax it. We are in the midst of an economic crisis, and we seem to have learned nothing from the mistakes of the past, as we did in 2008. Faced with bank failures, volatile financial markets, inflation and rising multinational margins, families are struggling to make ends meet. Yet some continue to benefit from a system that benefits them and in which they can enrich themselves at low cost, in defiance of a fairer and more equitable society. Today, I urge you to take stock of the crisis we are going through. Take the measure of the will for justice that our citizens claim and that of the wind of anger that will return to us in the face if we are not able to impose on the 1% what the 99% are already doing.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report on food security and the long-term resilience of EU agriculture, which is an important report, is once again an attack in good standing on the European Green Deal and a copy-paste of the ideas conveyed by COPA-Cogeca – not a big surprise, coming from the EPP. In this report, you ignore the sirens of scientists, you brush aside the main threats to our food security, namely the loss of biodiversity. In this way, 75% of our planet's food crops depend on pollinators, and at the same time, we are facing the sixth mass extinction, but no dissonance, according to you. There is also the abysmal weakness in your report on commodity speculation, another central threat to our food security. Today, Foodwatch and CCFD-Terre solidaire have released a study which highlights that 70% of purchases made on the wheat market are made by financial actors and that 80% are purely speculative purchases. Only by regulating the market, removing pesticides and fundamentally overhauling our agriculture in line with the principles of agroecology will we be able to guarantee our food security. This will not surprise you: our group will not vote for this report.

Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in this period of crisis and inflation that we are going through, we are once again asking that companies that engage in tax evasion by turning to tax havens in third countries be excluded from public procurement procedures and no longer be able to benefit from State aid. The crates are empty. We cannot allow some companies to rely on redistribution, which is necessary for the proper functioning of our society. We already had this discussion during the pandemic, when State aid was raining down. We have it now again, when we need redistribution more than ever to deal with rising prices, when the question is who will pay the inflation bill: the state with cheques, companies with fairer participation in our society or consumers? History has shown us that consumers have often paid the price for the behaviour of financial actors, as during the subprime crisis. The social consequences persist over the long term and we can no longer afford such tragedies.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too will begin by thanking the rapporteur, Paolo. What a success tonight! And if all the rapporteurs had such success in their files for all the work done and all the collaboration with the shadow rapporteurs around the file, it was really a pleasure to work on this file. Geographical indications are part of our common European heritage and this report aims to protect it as much as possible. Several points that I will mention here go in this direction. First, the Commission’s DG AGRI preserves its role in approving or opposing the granting of a GI. We have indeed, and en bloc, refused that the EUIPO obtains this prerogative. It was important for Europe to remain in control of the management of such a valuable asset as GIs. We have allowed recognised producer groups to have decision-making power in their product specifications. And it also seemed to us to be something important for wine. For the sake of consistency, the GIs for wine will remain in the CMO, and there was enough agreement on this. And finally, the last point that was particularly close to my heart, on which we unfortunately did not go far enough: sustainability commitments are made on a voluntary basis. This is not a bad thing, but we have not gone far enough on the topics that can be the subject of this sustainability, climate, biodiversity, etc. But I trust quality actors to bring these concerns quickly into their concerns. And I also invite you to vote on this text.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, for the seventh time in less than a year, the ECB is raising its reference interest rate. I feel like I am repeating myself, but the current inflationary surge is the result of rising energy prices and the price of food commodities. And raising the price of money will not reduce those prices, nor will it influence speculation. The ECB's dressings do not solve anything. Prices remain high, further reducing the purchasing power of Europeans. Food prices increased by 15% compared to 2022, and alone account for almost half of inflation, penalising the smallest households, who spend a larger share of their budget on food. Rising interest rates do not solve this problem, on the contrary, they deprive the most modest of access to credit. Yet there are solutions: a tax on superprofits, an end to food speculation, as my group advocates and calls for. As you have understood, the problem goes beyond the ECB. There is a need for cooperation between states to combat speculation, and for a fair distribution of the wealth produced by taxation. This is where the strength of our union comes through.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are facing the sixth mass extinction. But obviously my EPP colleagues, who have asked for this debate, have decided to deny the scientific findings on this subject. The decline of pollinators, sterilization of soils, loss of biodiversity are the major threats. And even the Commission says so in its working document of last January. Wanting to reject the Nature Restoration Act and the Regulation on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides push farmers, not to the edge of the precipice, but into the precipice. These two laws lay the foundations for a new agricultural model that would finally lead to more resilient agriculture, providing jobs and added value. To be the champions of the status quo, the apostles of agro-industry and free trade, and the advocate of a CAP that allocates 80% of the funds to 20% of the largest farms is irresponsible, especially when we know that agricultural losses linked to climate change have already tripled in recent years in Europe. The longer we wait to act, the greater the costs to society. The scientific facts are there. Stop ignoring them, stop snobbing them, and act.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let us dwell on the following paradox. On the one hand, real estate is booming in big cities, stocks are climbing, dividends are raining down and in front of it, there is real life, the housing crisis, the food crisis, the ecological crisis. For every €100 created in the European economy, 44 went to the richest 1%, compared with 9.6 to the poorest 90%. This monumental gap is not due to the salaries of the wealthiest, but to their investments and the capital gains made on these investments. However, these capital gains are not taxed. Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czechia are tax havens for capital gains, and at the same time tax on workers’ wages can go up to 50% in some countries. The EU can no longer continue to tax labour above capital gains. That is why, together with my Green colleagues, we are calling for the introduction of a European tax on these capital gains. We often talk about the weaknesses of the European budget, here there is something to make it independent of national selfishness and to add to it for the social green investments needed for the green transition.

Madam President, Commissioner, Council representative, ladies and gentlemen, 17,000 will be the figure of the day. Seventeen thousand sites across Europe are contaminated by eternal pollutants, those pollutants from chemicals used in industry, agriculture, and found everywhere in our daily lives. These pollutants contribute to the obesity pandemic, the significant increase in environmental cancers and the fertility challenges we face across Europe. And what do the public authorities do? Nothing significant. It was learned last Friday, after six months of carefully orchestrated cover-up by the French government, that a disastrous report on eternal pollutants concluded that these substances were very poorly monitored and completely unable to be disposed of during treatment to make water safe to drink. This French observation is valid for the entire European Union. When will we stop playing with the health of our fellow citizens to allow a few to get rich? Today, European regulation is flawed and its application flawed. The European Commission must not give in to pressure from industry lobbyists, for which Commissioner Thierry Breton has spoken. The Commission must propose its revision of the rules before June. Protecting the health of European women and men obliges you and all of us. (Applause)

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 1.2 million citizens across Europe are crying out for dismay at our deadly farming model. No, the forward flight won't solve anything. Let's finally face the problem. Without farmers, there will be no agriculture. But no pollinators either. However, flying insect biomass has decreased by an average of 76% in recent years across the EU, from 82% last summer. Robots replacing bees, is this the future you want for our children? It is up to the Commission to listen to these growing sirens and take responsibility, starting with a strict enforcement of the Court’s ruling on the EU-wide ban on neonicotinoids. Yes, doing otherwise is possible. The IPM Works network was here in Parliament last month. It shows us that another model of agriculture, which reduces pesticides by 50%, is possible. Integrated management is possible. Action is within our reach, it is our political will in the Commission and in Parliament. So stop serving the interests of industry and listen to the people of Europe.

Madam President, the failure of Silicon Valley Bank reminds us of the Great Depression, a good old banking panic as at the beginning of the 20th century. Who could have foreseen it? Well, simply supervisors, if the Trump administration had not taken the path of financial deregulation by easing regulatory requirements for medium-sized banks. Without this relaxation, I will take the example of Silicon Valley Bank, which could have conducted stress tests that would have revealed its vulnerability to rising interest rates. This would have allowed the bank and supervisors to react on time. Since these reforms, the small Silicon Valley Bank has grown significantly and doubled its balance sheet to over 210 billion assets while continuing to benefit from these reliefs. Colleagues, we are currently discussing the review of banking regulation. Most Member States, including France, and the majority of groups agree to deviate from international standards and alleviate requirements for European banks. The bankruptcy of SV Bank and others warns us: Let us not repeat our mistakes of the 2008 crisis and, of course, get out of the path of deregulation.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the war in Ukraine has been indicative of the dependence of our agricultural model on imports of Russian synthetic fertilisers. In the EU, synthetic nitrogen consumption pollutes more than commercial aviation. The fertiliser industry accumulates bad points as climaticide, contaminating air, water and soil. It also violates human rights by poisoning people in extractive areas, in particular phosphates. It is opportunistic, due to the war, with windfall profits recorded in 2022. Comme si cela ne suffisait pas, la société dans son ensemble paie le prix de notre dépendance aux engrais azotés de synthèse, qui représentent en moyenne un surcoût de 37 milliards pour la population européenne. How can we still support such an industry with taxpayers’ money? These small nitrate balls are climate, economic and health bombs. Reducing our dependency is not enough: There is a need to change the agricultural model in depth. It is not enough to brandish goals; this should be done, and human and economic resources should be put in place to support our farmers in this transition, reviewing our national strategic plans and relocating our means of production. The availability of fertilisers for the European Union will find its future in agronomic systems and certainly not in industrial chemistry, climaticide.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Lagarde, for many European citizens, the ECB is independent, it is in Frankfurt and we are talking about key interest rates. But since Putin's war in Ukraine, his role has become much more concrete, especially on his choice to raise these famous rates. Monetary policy can do nothing against rising energy or wheat prices. So what's the point of giving it a restrictive ride? It would be a good choice if the price increase was due to an increase in demand. But this is not the case in the euro area, where we are suffering from scarcity inflation and paying for our dependence on fossil fuels. Higher interest rates will therefore not counter rising prices and, above all, are likely to be extremely costly for our economies. I therefore have two questions: If fighting inflation means first investing heavily in stressed sectors, reducing our dependencies and transforming the structure of supply and demand by implementing tools to adapt our needs, what action does the ECB intend to take in this direction for the coming year? And my second question: Given – and I conclude – that it will be difficult to reduce inflation to 2%, unless it causes a sharp recession and higher unemployment, does the ECB intend to take action to combat this?

Mr President, Commissioner, when we talk about ELTIFs, we are talking about European long-term investment funds. And it is fun because, since the pandemic and since the Green Deal, we have been talking about investments needed for the transition, the famous green and social investments. What is even more striking is that in the long run, for this kind of investment, it is important. So we could have thought that the revision of this regulation was a great opportunity for these funds to contribute to a better future, by investing primarily in renewable energy, the circular economy, hospitals, services, etc. Because without the mobilisation of this private capital, the green transition will not take place. But the Commission has achieved the double feat of not including – what is necessary for a provision – sustainability in the proposals and of obstructing all the proposals that were nevertheless common sense: publication of the share of assets in our taxonomy-compliant activities, creation of green funds, prohibition of these funds from investing in activities that undermine one of the environmental objectives set by the European Union. Basically, we're deregulating. And the more we deregulate, the less we supervise, and the less we understand what goes on in parallel banks. The less we supervise shadow banks, the more risky investments become. In the end, it is the financial crisis that hangs over us. And the ecological transition remains inoperative. Too bad we missed an opportunity.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a company is a company with offices, computers, employees, a strategy and people talking to each other. A shell company is a small mailbox used to conceal the identity of its holder. Since 2020, two-thirds of the wealth produced has been captured by 1% of the richest. FVCs play a central role in making them even richer, less responsible and less visible. So, I am glad that, mirroring the inequalities with the rich becoming ultra-rich, we can agree on the end of this system. Before I say victory, I would like to recall that these texts are voted unanimously by the Member States, some of which have made this kind of society their livelihood. As if by chance, Luxembourg is well off: despite its 55 000 shell companies, which are controlled by 90% of foreign owners, it will be able to continue penalising the whole of Europe through its unfair behaviour. Paying taxes is not an option, it is a pillar in our societies. Without a significant reduction in inequality, we cannot hope to eradicate extreme poverty. So let us hope for a decent standard of living and refuse to allow the wealth of a handful to rise again.

Madam President, Mr Gentiloni, ladies and gentlemen, 30%. In one year, food prices increased by 30%. It is no longer inflation, it is hyperinflation. But this 30% is not just the result of the war in Ukraine and Putin's maneuvers; they are also the work of war profiteers and speculators who make money on vital products. This is the result of the hyper-financialised world that liberal policies are striving to build: Products as vital as bread or cereals are fixed by traders behind their computers. When these traders decide to raise prices to pay their profits, it is our fellow citizens who are obliged to finance them, without having been consulted, of course. We always come back to the same thing: the enrichment of a few on the back and the sweat of as many people as possible. What is this world? Is that really the meaning of our mandate here? Is that really why voters trusted us? That is why I have come to denounce him before you today. That is why I want to call you to action. Prices cannot be played at traders' roulette. The food crisis already existed before the war in Ukraine. The cereals market is 90% dominated by four major companies, which recorded profits of 10.3 billion in 2021. This war has highlighted the very great limits of this ultra-globalized market held by financial juggernauts. This must stop. Many of our fellow Europeans were already struggling to make ends meet, and now they are simply struggling to feed themselves. So, in the face of this situation, it is very simple, there is only one solution: Speculation must be framed. It is our peasants who must feed us, not agribusiness. A framework that must be decided by us now.