Hollande forced into U-turn after France's "Pigeons" swoop on tax plan

Atlas shrugs in France, and wins.

François Hollande was pressured into reneging on a highly unpopular tax bill on Thursday after fiscal changes outlined in the 2013 budget provoked uproar amongst France’s entrepreneurial sector.

The climb-down came after a viral barrage launched by a group of web entrepreneurs calling themselves ‘Les Pigeons’ (French slang for ‘chumps’). The movement has garnered a significant wave of support, with almost 63,000 members on Facebook alone and the hashtag #geonpi trending worldwide on Twitter.

At present, French entrepreneurs pay 19 per cent capital gains tax (plus 15.5 per cent in social security contributions). New measures announced in the September 28th budget pledged to bring capital tax in line with income tax, meaning that start-ups that take in over €150,000 annually (most of them) would be forced to pay a whopping 45 per cent in capital gains tax, practically double the current amount. When added to the mandatory 15.5 per cent in social contributions, the total tax rate clocks in at a staggering 60 per cent.

To put that into perspective, the average European capital gains tax lies somewhere between 18 and 25 per cent, with maximum rates set in the UK (28 per cent) and Germany (26.4 per cent).

"Les Pigeons" protest that such shifts in the country’s fiscal policy are unfairly skewed against the startup community. Commentators warn that such tax increases could decapitate France’s entrepreneurial base, choking innovation and rendering small businesses creation almost entirely untenable.

Crucially, Hollande’s decision to introduce such exorbitant tax hikes represents a fundamental backtrack on earlier campaign pledges to re-balance taxes in favour of startups, leaving many entrepreneurs asking themselves if they still have a future in France.

“The government thinks France’s entrepreneurs are pigeons”, the movement’s Facebook page declares. “Anti-economic policies are crushing the entrepreneurial spirit and exposing France to a big risk”.

The formidable lobbying force of the ‘Pigeons’ movement led to finance minister, Pierre Moscovici, setting up emergency talks with entrepreneurs last Thursday to negotiate changes to the tax bill.

“We don’t want to give the impression that we want to punish the Pigeons”, a Hollande representative told Reuters. “We’ll find a solution … the Pigeons should return to their nest”.

However, despite the climb-down, Hollande has set a dangerous precedent. By alienating France’s thriving entrepreneurial community, he runs the risk of squandering the sector’s promising economic potential. A study of 108 French SMEs revealed a drastic 33 per cent growth in revenue from €753m in 2010 to €1bn in 2011. These impressive growth rates ran parallel to a 24 per cent increase in employment figures, with most workers employed under a CDI contract - the strongest of its type in France.

The decision to saddle such a burgeoning sector with a salvo of taxes seems confusing at a time when many of country’s larger corporations find themselves struggling to remain competitive. Peugeot and Bouygues have already laid off thousands this summer and the mood in the French business community is souring. Hollande is alienating small business precisely when he needs them to drive growth.

Such economic oversight comes at a bad time for Hollande. With unemployment at a 13-year high and 2013 growth forecasted at shocking -0.2 per cent, Hollande’s perceived pursuit of an anti-capitalist, anti-economic agenda won’t do him any favours - especially if he is to fulfill his election promise to hoist the French economy back on its feet.

Concerns are rising in France that the government’s strident model of budgetary rigour is simply incompatible with nurturing a flourishing entrepreneurial sector.

For François, the Honeymoon has ended abruptly. And with his approval rating plummeting from 56 to 41 per cent since his inauguration, he needs all the friends he can get.

François Hollande. Photo: Parti Socialiste

Alex Ward is a London-based freelance journalist who has previously worked for the Times & the Press Association. Twitter: @alexward3000

Show Hide image

What it’s like to fall victim to the Mail Online’s aggregation machine

I recently travelled to Iraq at my own expense to write a piece about war graves. Within five hours of the story's publication by the Times, huge chunks of it appeared on Mail Online – under someone else's byline.

I recently returned from a trip to Iraq, and wrote an article for the Times on the desecration of Commonwealth war cemeteries in the southern cities of Amara and Basra. It appeared in Monday’s paper, and began:

“‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the engraving reads, but the words ring hollow. The stone on which they appear lies shattered in a foreign field that should forever be England, but patently is anything but.”

By 6am, less than five hours after the Times put it online, a remarkably similar story had appeared on Mail Online, the world’s biggest and most successful English-language website with 200 million unique visitors a month.

It began: “Despite being etched with the immortal line: ‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the truth could not be further from the sentiment for the memorials in the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Amara.”

The article ran under the byline of someone called Euan McLelland, who describes himself on his personal website as a “driven, proactive and reliable multi-media reporter”. Alas, he was not driven or proactive enough to visit Iraq himself. His story was lifted straight from mine – every fact, every quote, every observation, the only significant difference being the introduction of a few errors and some lyrical flights of fancy. McLelland’s journalistic research extended to discovering the name of a Victoria Cross winner buried in one of the cemeteries – then getting it wrong.

Within the trade, lifting quotes and other material without proper acknowledgement is called plagiarism. In the wider world it is called theft. As a freelance, I had financed my trip to Iraq (though I should eventually recoup my expenses of nearly £1,000). I had arranged a guide and transport. I had expended considerable time and energy on the travel and research, and had taken the risk of visiting a notoriously unstable country. Yet McLelland had seen fit not only to filch my work but put his name on it. In doing so, he also precluded the possibility of me selling the story to any other publication.

I’m being unfair, of course. McLelland is merely a lackey. His job is to repackage and regurgitate. He has no time to do what proper journalists do – investigate, find things out, speak to real people, check facts. As the astute media blog SubScribe pointed out, on the same day that he “exposed” the state of Iraq’s cemeteries McLelland also wrote stories about the junior doctors’ strike, British special forces fighting Isis in Iraq, a policeman’s killer enjoying supervised outings from prison, methods of teaching children to read, the development of odourless garlic, a book by Lee Rigby’s mother serialised in the rival Mirror, and Michael Gove’s warning of an immigration free-for-all if Britain brexits. That’s some workload.

Last year James King published a damning insider’s account of working at Mail Online for the website Gawker. “I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications’ work lifted wholesale. I watched editors...publish information they knew to be inaccurate,” he wrote. “The Mail’s editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication.”

Mail Online strenuously denied the charges, but there is plenty of evidence to support them. In 2014, for example, it was famously forced to apologise to George Clooney for publishing what the actor described as a bogus, baseless and “premeditated lie” about his future mother-in-law opposing his marriage to Amal Alamuddin.

That same year it had to pay a “sizeable amount” to a freelance journalist named Jonathan Krohn for stealing his exclusive account in the Sunday Telegraph of being besieged with the Yazidis on northern Iraq’s Mount Sinjar by Islamic State fighters. It had to compensate another freelance, Ali Kefford, for ripping off her exclusive interview for the Mirror with Sarah West, the first female commander of a Navy warship.

Incensed by the theft of my own story, I emailed Martin Clarke, publisher of Mail Online, attaching an invoice for several hundred pounds. I heard nothing, so emailed McLelland to ask if he intended to pay me for using my work. Again I heard nothing, so I posted both emails on Facebook and Twitter.

I was astonished by the support I received, especially from my fellow journalists, some of them household names, including several victims of Mail Online themselves. They clearly loathed the website and the way it tarnishes and debases their profession. “Keep pestering and shaming them till you get a response,” one urged me. Take legal action, others exhorted me. “Could a groundswell from working journalists develop into a concerted effort to stop the theft?” SubScribe asked hopefully.

Then, as pressure from social media grew, Mail Online capitulated. Scott Langham, its deputy managing editor, emailed to say it would pay my invoice – but “with no admission of liability”. He even asked if it could keep the offending article up online, only with my byline instead of McLelland’s. I declined that generous offer and demanded its removal.

When I announced my little victory on Facebook some journalistic colleagues expressed disappointment, not satisfaction. They had hoped this would be a test case, they said. They wanted Mail Online’s brand of “journalism” exposed for what it is. “I was spoiling for a long war of attrition,” one well-known television correspondent lamented. Instead, they complained, a website widely seen as the model for future online journalism had simply bought off yet another of its victims.