Duplomb Law: "I am obviously in favor of a debate and we must recognize the success of this petition," declares Karl Olive, MP for Ensemble pour la République.

This text is a portion of the transcript of the report above. Click on the video to watch it in full.

Karl Olive, a member of parliament for the Ensemble pour la République (EPR) party in Yvelines, is a guest on Brigitte Boucher's program "La politique s'éclaire." The interview focuses on the petition against the Duplomb law, which authorizes the use of a pesticide in France.

Franceinfo: The Duplomb law, which is the subject of a petition, has collected more than 770,000 signatures in just a few days. The Conference of Presidents will meet in the fall, Karl Olive, to determine whether this should lead to a debate in the National Assembly chamber. Given that there was a motion of rejection and no real debate on this law, are you in favor of a debate?

Karl Olive: Yes, I'm obviously in favor of a debate, and we must recognize the success of this petition. Afterward, I think we need to, and you said this in the preamble, recontextualize: why wasn't there a debate? Because there was a huge parliamentary obstruction, particularly from the left. However, I voted for this law and I voted for this law because I do a lot of fieldwork and I met with some 47 agricultural producers in my constituency in Yvelines. I truly believe we must be discerning. But if we had to meet in the Assembly not to reexamine, but to have a debate, and then the President of the Republic, or not, promulgates this law, then I have no difficulty with that. You see, yesterday, I was having dinner with one of my friends, and we were discussing this Duplomb law. By the way, I note that Mr. Duplomb expressed himself perfectly on your channel. I said to him: "The strawberries you're having for dessert, we called the chef, he told us they came from Spain." Well, typically, these strawberries that come from Spain are actually made with a certain number of elements that are prohibited in France. This is where I think it seems necessary to correct something, because on the one hand, we talk about agricultural sovereignty, but we authorize certain European countries to do what we are prohibited from doing. I'll take an example from another area. You know, microchip collars, the microchip collars we sometimes put on our dogs, are actually made with products that are prohibited. Anti-lice shampoos are the same thing, etc. But if we had to meet on the benches of the Assembly to debate this law, obviously I would be the first to sign to move in that direction.

Franceinfo: Indeed, farmers say there is unfair competition with other European countries because there is no harmonization, particularly regarding this bee-killing insecticide that is in the Duplomb law and which is precisely the subject of debate. You said that this debate must take place in the National Assembly. This means that the president must wait before promulgating the law. We know that Génération écologique asked him not to do so.

Karl Olive: In fact, we have a constitution, which is the constitution. Unless I'm mistaken, and you mentioned this at the beginning of your magazine, this law was passed constitutionally, and today, thanks to this petition, there is a possibility of being able to debate in the Assembly. So that's the first step. The second step is to include it on the agenda of what we call the Conference of Presidents; a decision will be made next fall. My gut tells me that we must absolutely not prohibit the ability to meet in the Assembly, and then, after that, everyone will take their responsibilities. But let's remember that this law was also proposed beforehand because the use of the product banned today is strictly regulated and exempt. So just because they are authorized doesn't mean they are necessarily used. It's exempt and, once again, regulated. On the other hand, this law allows for better protection of farmers and ensures that there is no injustice or social unfairness compared to other European producers.

Franceinfo: We're going to talk about the budget with you, Karl Olive. The Prime Minister presented his budget plan this week. It's been criticized by the opposition, it's criticized by the unions, by public opinion, and by the opposition, which is already brandishing its vote of no confidence. Do you really believe there's a loophole to get this budget through?

Brigitte Boucher, let's face it, it's criticized by everyone. There are 68 million French people, that's 68 million selectors who can rightly criticize this budget. Personally, for example, I'm against the creation of any new tax. I think we absolutely must first clean up our own act and restructure public finances. But as a number of your colleagues have said, since we're asking MPs and senators to agree on the finance bill she's passing at the end of the year, I'm of the opinion that we can also recover, I would say, the contributions of French women and men, who are the first to be affected. I call on all the residents of the 12th constituency of Yvelines, with 120,000 inhabitants, I call on all the deputies to do the same so that we can also, I would say, take on board the ideas of the French people to restructure public finances. We are all concerned by this. But it seems to me that even before creating an additional tax, we must reduce the state's standard of living. And we are all concerned. It will be a collective awakening, or it will not happen.

Franceinfo: When you say you're against new taxes, does that mean you're against, for example, the tax-free year? Are you against the contribution for the wealthiest?

Karl Olive: So, the freeze or the blank year isn't the creation of an additional tax. Then again, I think it's often said that anything excessive is insignificant. Yes, it seems to me that ultra-capitalists can make an effort. I, for example, am against taxation of any kind, for example, on retirees. Why? A certain number of retirees, throughout their lives, have worked and sometimes worked more to earn more, and a little more for their future retirement. I'm against taxing retirees, for example. But I'm also in favor of truly dissecting state agencies that are autonomous and have no hierarchical link to anyone, so that some can be eliminated and others can be, I would say, adjusted. And then, in the same way, we must also work on improving working conditions in the civil service, which will, in fact, lead to a reduction in absenteeism. That's what I did, I'm not making this up, that's what I did in Poissy when I was mayor. We improved working conditions by reducing absenteeism simply by offering two hours of sport to employees during working hours. That's a million euros generated economically over the past ten years. You know, all these little stones, at some point, will create a beautiful edifice that will allow the State to live, if not better, to live, I would say, more rationally, which is not necessarily the case today.

Franceinfo: Bruno Retailleau says there are gaps in this budget, that it needs to be improved. He cites immigration and AME, among other things, as missing. Do you also see this as a gap?

Karl Olive: I believe first of all that we must remember that what Mr. Bayrou, the Prime Minister, did was to his credit: he swept all the dust that had been under the carpet for forty years. So that must be applauded. This is what I call the realm of possibilities. Today, all political parties, all members of parliament, as well as senators, have the opportunity, and once again, we cannot do better, to improve this proposed budget. Everyone will contribute to finding the lowest common denominator. Mr. Retailleau, he is right, we must free ourselves from nothing. Moreover, I hear on the ground that two names are being mentioned, Mr. Retailleau and Gérald Darmanin, each in their own field with regard to the French people. But I think we must free ourselves from nothing. I am in favor of immigration controlled by work, without any stigma. On the other hand, I am absolutely not in favor of closing the borders without any framework, etc. I am also in favor, indeed, of perhaps revamping the AME (Medicare for Social Welfare). I am also in favor of the fight against social fraud and tax fraud. I believe that we must free ourselves from nothing and we must put everything on the table because if we don't do it, then as usual, we will hold our noses, we will look the other way and we will end up with future generations inheriting what we are experiencing today. That is to say, we are inheriting 3,400 billion in debt, and this debt does not just date back a few years, it goes back several decades if we tell ourselves things correctly.