Debate contributions by Pierre PIMPIE

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is the EIB which would lend funds for large investment projects, but it is the EU which would assume the risks of up to EUR 29 billion. I say that it is up to the funders, whether the EIB or private investors, to gauge the risks and take responsibility. We do not have our hands on funded projects, on specifications, on lobbies that target unprofitable green or social investments, but we should pay the bill for the mistakes made and your ideological whims? To say that the EU would guarantee is to concede that it is actually the French taxpayer who would pay. I say stop! France is ruined. ‘Read my lips, no more taxes.’

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tax fragmentation certainly weighs on competitiveness, which requires reducing compliance costs and clarifying the rules. But the correct answer is not forced uniformity or the boundless extension of the Union's fiscal powers. Taxation remains a prerogative of States. We support flexible coordination based on respect for the diversity of regimes. Simplification and digitalisation must remain proportionate and sustainable. If optimization abuses are to be combated, we must give States sufficient latitude to adjust rates and bases according to their own realities. I would point out that my colleague's report takes into account our red lines on the risks associated with the 28th regime. We remain vigilant.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we will vote against this report because it pushes towards the Savings and Investment Union, which would deprive us of all share of financial and fiscal sovereignty. He advocates massive investments without us having a hand in targeting projects and tax incentives. He pleads in favour of European borrowing, so that we would bear the risks of others. It calls for new own resources and therefore for new taxes. It's a federalist project. To restore investment and confidence, I urge you to lower the tax burden and focus on efficient energy such as nuclear power.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, trade between the United States and the European Union is essential, but it must work on the basis of reciprocity. The United States defends its market and its companies. At home, social, fiscal and environmental constraints are low and energy costs are more advantageous. At home, the opposite is true: The highest standards and most harmful costs apply to our businesses alone. We fall under the burden of our own rules. The United States is not responsible for our ills. We are the ones who cherish the whim of the Green Deal. We prefer fiscal insanity. With nuclear power, we would be kings, but with wind power, which is unprofitable, we are brewing wind. It is not the United States that will defend our industries and sovereignty: it is up to us alone. We have to fight!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the EIB is one of the few EU institutions that remains untouched by the Commission’s ideology. The defence, AI and nuclear sectors require massive investments. The EIB must not miss its target. What do unprofitable housing and intermittent energy do in EIB projects? It does not have to go outside the EU’s remit and must focus on competitive energies. I want the investment criterion to make profitability prevail over ideology. The priority must be the financing of our energy infrastructure and industries. The EIB must serve sovereignty objectives. I do not want it to be the vehicle for the Union of debts.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Recovery and Resilience Facility is worth several hundred billion euros. I would remind you that it was a question of overcoming the health crisis. This facility, which is supposed to remain temporary, has been criticised for its effectiveness, transparency and control. The Court of Auditors and OLAF found shortcomings. I note, however, that some would like to maintain this facility without the slightest democratic return on the debt incurred or on the actual balance sheet of the projects financed. The maneuver is always the same: take advantage of crises to transfer competences to the European Union and then make these transfers irreversible. Who will take over the Union's debt? Are they failed states like France? Cynicism consists in making states weak and dependent, unable to control their debt, so that they can no longer leave the orbit of the Union. The peoples that the Union blinds...

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I see that, on competition, you are ignoring the essentials. The basis for competitiveness is simple and predictable rules and standards. These are wise and reasonable taxes. It is an energy that costs little and is constant. It is the defense of our strategic sectors, such as nuclear and defense. However, you are doing the opposite with the Green Deal, which targets unprofitable wind and solar. You refuse to set up European flagships and you accept competition from external actors who are not subject to the same social, fiscal and environmental standards that you impose on our companies. To cite just this example, you are slaughtering the automotive industry with your electric whim. We have to race with our hands tied behind our backs. It's like you're inflecting our sprinters to wear lead hooves. The European Union is killing Europe.

Colleagues, the Savings and Investment Union is supposed to make it easier for businesses to finance. I would remind you that the promise was the same for the euro. We have transferred a lot of sovereignty, but it is chaos and decay that we have in return. The EU misses everything: This is how it is recognised. The Eurozone is the region with the lowest growth in the world. The European Union can only make false promises, aiming at one goal: destroy the millennia-old nations. If you want investment to resume, stop playing on fears, with your wars and pandemics. Manage public finances wisely and reasonably. Do not fail any more on our shores all the misery of the world. Give up your Green Deal, which is a nightmare. Run factories with nuclear power, more profitable than any other source. Your dogmas are killing us. It is not this Union that will bring back investors, but freedom.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, simplification, competitiveness, defence, immigration: I see many incantatory objectives that the Commission is brandishing, with no other course than the planned obsolescence of Europe. Who will pay the 800 billion euros in defence, of which we do not have the first cent, to overreact to a war whose outcome is, alas, already known to us? How do you intend to simplify the normative system, the complexity of which lies in the very genes of this European Union that you wanted to cut from its roots as well as from its soul? How do you think you can restore Europe's competitiveness after putting the burden of the Green Deal on it? I dare not speak about your migratory madness and its consequences on our identity and our security. I call on the Commission to be more humble in the face of the chaos for which it bears responsibility, such as a pyromaniac firefighter.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I say to you that the damage is done. The ECB has poured trillions of euros into the markets. This was the famous quantitative easing. Like a dealer, she has for years given the taste of free money, ease, lack of effort, to better iron her customers. Countries like France have become drugged, unable to do without debt rollover. They renounced their financial sovereignty in return for increasingly lethal doses of money. Now the ECB stops buying sovereign debt on the secondary market. Withdrawal may be critical. The trap is closing. States have become dependent on the ECB. Free money has become very expensive and the financial crisis looks plausible, if not likely, in the coming months. I augur that the drug addict will beg his dealer to provide him with a redoubled injection. What cynicism on the part of the Europe of Frankfurt, which calls for budgetary rigour after having advocated the recovery to all berzingue! Like any dealer responsible for the addiction of its customers, the ECB will be held accountable.

Madam President, private cryptocurrencies are not linked to states and are developing outside any democratic framework. They are not real currencies, since very large price variations deprive them of any reserve value. They have only the value that pure speculation will bestow on them. These are phantom assets that do not reflect the strength of an economy. It is a pure fantasy that serves for opaque dealings and occult exchanges. It is a brilliant technological toy, of course, but it is also a serious symptom, that of mistrust of states, central banks and traditional currencies. The largest countries in the world are highly indebted. The tax burden in France has reached frightening levels and the health crisis has shown that democratic regimes themselves can be liberticide. Thus, investors can also look at cryptocurrencies as a safe haven out of reach of failed states. Our responsibility is therefore certainly to regulate these cryptocurrencies and to respect them, but it is above all to guarantee our real currencies by managing our public finances in such a way as not to scare away capital.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the G20's proposal to make greater use of wealth is a step in the right direction. It is still necessary to specify this measure. The project provides for a levy of 2% on the 3,000 largest fortunes in the world and would bring in about 250 billion euros per year. We need to be clear: we agree to tax these large fortunes more substantially, but it is crucial that each state retains control over the tax revenues it receives. This should not become a pretext for interfering in the competences of the Member States. Fiscal sovereignty must prevail. It remains to be seen how these funds will be used by each of the States that have recovered them. We will be very vigilant on this point.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the case of Apple highlights the abuses linked to the tax planning of large companies. However, it is less the Irish tax system that raises questions than the decorrelation between the place where profits are actually made and the place where they are taxed. States must remain sovereign in tax matters, but it is unacceptable that the profits made by Apple in Europe are mainly taxed in Ireland without the reality of the activity being there. So when will we finally put in place a common and restrictive transfer pricing doctrine that has allowed these abuses?