Which means our representatives do not have power
and those who have the power of the european institution
are not elected
and this is planned in part I.
It seems to me that this, deserved a debate.
The fact that there wasn’t led me to think
that the European institutions are illegitimate.
So, in the points I want to talk to you about,
because I know you will not hear about this otherwise
if I don’t talk about it,
there is what I call : « laws without parliament ».
It the point E in the middle of the page
« the ministers and presidents accumulate
executive and legislative powers
which means they are legislators
-the ministers – are at the same time legislators and executives.
On a serie of areas hidden from people,
and I can prove that it is hidden from people.
I mean, the articles I will show you,
you will see how it is hard to realise
that these are topics on which
the European MPS – people you elected-
are left out in purpose.
Not clearly left out,
they are left out in purpose
and I would like to get your attention on this.
So I read this with you
in order to make sure I don’t forget a thing.
So « the ministers and presidents
accumulate powers on a serie of areas hidden from people
under the abusive name of – take note of the name –
“specific legislative procedure”
and it is the article 289 of TFUE.
It is in the middle of page 4.
You see, there is the article 289
and, I have highlighted here, I have underlined the definition.
The 1/ It’s the ordinary legislative procedure
which consists in the adoption of a rule, a directive, a decision
by the European parliament together with the council.
This is the ordinary procedure.
It is not the parliament which makes the laws,
it is not the people you vote for which make the laws.
It is : the people you vote for
with the council of the ministers, as co-legislators,
which means the ministers who decided to be co-legislators.
They decided to be co-legislators beside your MPs.
And NEVER, really NEVER,
Iin not one rule,
at least I didn’t find any,
in no rule, in no area
the parliament can’t write the laws alone,
without having a sort of « tutor » behind him
which is the council of the ministers.
First thing… but it’s not all of it!
So, the parliament, you know that already-
We talked a lot about it in 2005,
the European parliament does not have the initiative of laws.
Which means it is not it which decides.
It cannot decide on topics
on which it wants to legislate.
Which means it can only vote
for topics which are presented to it.
This is VERY important, absolutely IMPORTANT!
The one who has the initiative, has a big part of the power.
The one who doesn't want a law
and who has the power of initiative, will not suggest this
and this law he doesn’t want,
he will get rid of it that way.
It is very important, the initiative!
For a sovreign parliament,
for a parliament worthy of the name,
it is very important – it would be very important -
to have the initiative of laws.
You know that, in France, the initiative is shared.
Most of the laws in France, come from the Government
It is called the “projects of law”
whether, when it comes from an MP,
it is called a « proposition of law ».
But at least, the MPs have a little initiative.
In the european institutions, they don’t have it AT ALL.
So, it is in the article 2 that we find
the beginning to understand what is this thing.
« In the specific cases, foreseen by the treaties
The adoption of a rule, a directive, or a decision
So it is the three possible levels
of the law in Europe
by the european parliament
with the participation of the council,
by it, with the participation of the parliament
which means that one of the two.
You understand they are 2 co-legislators
and the specific legislative procedures
say : following these articles
sometimes it will be the one and not the other
and sometimes it will be the other and not the one.
So sometimes, it will be the council of the ministers which decides
only with the opinion of the Parliament
and sometimes it will be the parliament
with only the opinion of the council of the ministers.
Here is what we’re told!
and it will be called : « the specific legislative procedures ».
Although, there is no, there is no list
of the topics on which it is to the council to decide
with only the parliament’s advise
the advise… and even if he disagrees
it can be done without him
because it is only an advise
and then, the list of topics on which
the parliament can decide
and only with the council of minister’s advise.
There is no list!
I wonder :
« Why is there no list ? »
because, we have to go and look for it..
So I, I did this job,
ae did this job, we searched
a list of … well, you have to look into hundreds of articles
sometimes you find an article and you think
"Here, I found a specific legislative procedure"
and a specific legislative procedure
all the one I could find, they are ALL...
It is areas on which
the ministers council can decide
with the opinion of the Parliament
and I found no specific legislative procedure
where the parliament decides with the council’s advise
and, I will give you an example,
in order for you to understand how this system works,
which are the topics, a kind of topic on which
we have a specific legislative procedure.
So, I gave you several.
You can see one just below:
the article 153 – here is an example –
yes, I put it between brackets, in the middle of the page
just beneath what I read to you
inside the brackets : it’s me who talks
as an exemple of non legislative act,
see the security policy
in the box on the side,
for the foreign affairs, it’s incredible.
Everything is happening without the Parliament,
the Parliament can’t say a thing.
But well, I’ll take another topic which is more social
which concerns us as employee
in order to understand the specific legislative procedures
which we should call instead, laws without parliament.
It is the name I give those
because it is clearer,
it would be clearer
as “laws without Parliament”.
We have to read one by one,
hundreds of the treaty’s articles.
The fact of refusing to present a list
of these laws without Parliament is
in itself, suspect, why hide this reserved areas?
So here is an example of an ordinary legislative procedure
and of a specific legislative procedure
regarding social politic.
The areas of codecisions between parliament and ministers
are underligned in grey
and the areas where the executive legislate alone
are underlined in black.
So, you see the article 153 TFUE
which means you have already read 152 articles.
You are looking for
the specific legislative procedures
and you arrive to the article 153
where you find : “in order to realise the objectives
indicated on article 151.
The union supports and completes blabla
in the following areas
and there, for now, we don’t see,
we don’t see yet why it is a law without parliament.
You will see that in this other article,
which you will realise
and you will see the serie of areas,
so, you have:
a/ the improvement to the individuals
b/ the work conditions
so all the laws on social security
the social protection of the workers
all the laws on the protection of worker
in case of resignation
all the laws on…
and you have a list like this
Well, you see that the union supports
and completes the States actions
but here you can’t see yet that it was – we can’t see that–
this is a specific legislative procedure.
So, wait, at what moment can we see it…
So I keep going
for this purpose, the Parliament
I am at the end of this page 4
2/ For this purpose, the parliament and the council
can adopt measures which aim to encourage (a/)
b/ can stop in the areas
indicated in paragraph 1. a/ to i/
by directive ways, minimal prescriptions
applicable progressively
taking in consideration the conditions of the technical rules
priorily existing
these directives avoid the obligation of administrative restrictions
and you see that in the areas
-third paragraph of page 5-
In the areas aimed at by paragraph
.c, d, f and g of the present article
The council can decide in accordance with
a specific legislative procedure,
unanimously after consulting the European Parliament,
the said committees...
Wait! I don’t know if you see the clutter,
in which we have to – and the constant concentration it needs-
to see that : “hey!”
- and here I have underligned in black –
There are the areas indicated
in the paragraph blablabla
so we need to go backward and find it highlighted in black,
the areas we are talking about,
these areas there,
the council decides… And this means without the Parliament
and here you have a legislative procedure
where the council decides on a simple advise of the Parliament.
Here, we have on points c/ d/ f/ and g/,
we have laws without Parliament.
So, what are these point there?
Maybe it’s unimportant points…
Maybe it’s points where it is not really important
that our representatives discuss them
and are able to – publically – debate
of the discussions of the European union on the topic.
Are they topic that do not count ?
The social security, the social protection of the workers,
the protection of the workers
in case of termination of the work contract.
Why MPs have no decision power on this?
Why ministers have to decide about that?
Maybe I am wrong…
I repeat, I am very « open » on this,
I just say we didn’t get a debate on this topic.
We don’t manage to get a debate on this
and what I read, I find…
I don’t like it.
I don’t understand at all.
I try to put myself in their shoes,
I don’t understand why.
Why have we put in place specific legislative procedures
where the ministres,
it’s the MINISTERS who decide
and not my parliament.
Participant : Wait… Where do these ministers come from ?
They are not elected, how did they become ministers
who took the decision to put them as ministers?
Etienne : This depends on the governments.
It depends on the countries.
In some countries they are taken,
in England, they are chosen amongst the MPs
but in France maybe…
How is he called the one who is candidate?
It can be people who have never been elected.
It depends, it depends on the countries,
it depends on the circumstances
but it is not always elected people
and it is not people who are accountable in front of a parliament.
Participant : In the specific topic of social security
It will be minister of every country?
Etienne : Yes
Participant: one for each country ?
The decision will be taken unanimously?
Etienne: Yes
Yes it says unanimously here.
At the minister's unanimity.
Of every country ?
Yes, that’s it, without Parliament !
Well, with the advise of the parliaments.
… "After consulting"...
Participant : In France, the ministers are not elected.
Etienne : Yes but wait, in France,
the laws are voted by the Parliament
but you are right to highlight
that the worm was already in the fruit.
We already have laws without Parliament in France.
Yes all the regulatory power:
decrees, orders, …
There is already a lot of rules in the constitution
of the 5th Republic.
That would make Montesquieu
spin in his grave !
Which are the most total confusion of powers
and in fact all the regressions
of the last 20 years of labour law,
they happen very much by the regulatory power,
which means without the parliament.
It is the regulatory power
which is for me, an aberration. The regulatory power...
There shouldn’t even be a regulatory power.
We need to find something which allows to decide
in all details, the application of laws.
I understand this, I understand the purpose
I understand the aim, the justification.
You see, in France, in law,
you have the law which indicates the general rules
and then the argument, is that we cannot ask
to the parliament, which is an assembly which discuss,
we cannot ask them to foresee to all the little details,
the application of laws.
It is the official explanation
but it is a lie…
Because it is all more serious
what we do with the rules.
This is the official explanation of regulatory power,
of the power that we give – which should be only the executive –
and which makes it the government.
We give him a power
of production of mandatory standards,
with no limitation of time and so serious and dangerous,
as dangerous as laws.
We give to the government a power so powerful
that the Parliament, with much less guarantees
that the public discussion there is in the Parliament
with the possibility to put up, to discuss
with the assembly
a complete public debate.
When it is the government which decides
throught the regulatory power,
it is a lot more obscure.
There is a lot less counter powers,
a lot less possible resistance.
It is fertile ground
to infinite power abuse
with the regulatory power
but I am not saying
that we are going from the paradise of French institutions
to the hell of European institutions.
I know that there is already,
that the situation is already very serious,
in the 5th republic institutions
very unknown, unknown.
I studied a lot of constitutional law
and when I read manuals of constitutional law,
I don’t see this revolt
against regulatory power for example.
The regulatory power in the consitutional law
is presented like : « Well, that’s how it is…,
That’s how it is, and it is how it is since a while,
since 1958, and we get used to it…
And then, there were reasons,
here is what was invoked,
and then we switch to another topic
because a constitutional law’s manual
is very thick, there are a lot of things to read.
I think it is against the common good
to give to the government
a regulatory power so powerful.
I remind you that in the institutions of 58,
it’s incredible! The power of the law,
the areas of the laws are listed,
there is a list of what the law can do.
So if it is listed, it is limited
and the regulatory power, it is all the rest.
One can clearly see
that it is De Gaulle who wrote the rules.
Participant : Excuse me, I would like to ask a question,
perhaps more subversive.
If you have a car breakdown,
you don’t start voting
to decide what to do.
You know an expert, a garage
who fixes your car.
I have the feeling that we await from a constitution of laws
to solve problems,
to avoid people acting wrong,
as 2000 years ago or more,
we believed in spirits or religion.
In the end, you don’t believe that
it is the human behaviour the issue?
Do we need laws
to solve humans problems?
That’s what I am asking…
Do we really need representatives?
Etienne : Ah, it is not the same!
Participant : I talk about laws, representatives, all that.
It is an absolute mess which hides completely
our incompetence to manage problems.
Etienne : So I point out – I did not bring that book-
but I recommend it very warmly,
maybe I should think of taking it with me all the time.
There is, on the competency of people
on the competency of humans
and the alleged, perhaps real
incompetency of the people
to decide about its own business.
There was a very interesting controversy
in the middle of the twentieth century, between a guy
who was called Lippman, who was a journalist
at the international level, a big name
a brilliant brain which discussed
with all the greats of this world
who was a hardened liberal
who had a book called
“The phantom public”,
which has been recently republished, which is a wonder.
Very smart, quite depressing,
which pretends we are not able,
that no one is able
to have an informed opinion on matters,
given the complexity of human problems.
So it is important what he says
and he shows it
and it’s true that it is very well argued
and we feel, we feel that he is entirely right,
but what said Lippman,
he didn’t only say that people are unable,
he said that the governers TOO are unable.
That no one, on his opinion is able to have…
To pretend taking the good decision
and the interpreters, the people who followed Lippman,
they forgot that Lippman had said
that not only the people was unable
but also the princes and governers.
Machiavel said that, Machiavel said also
that the people was as virtuous as the princes,
that the princes were not more virtuous than the people,
that the princes were not at all
more able to take decisions
than the people.
We find, in Machiavel,
much more than his caricature.
I recommend really to read Machiavel.
It’s a lot more interesting
than the caricature we make of him usually.
He was also looking for the common good, it is very surprising.
So of course, there are features specific to the time
which seem very brutal
but it’s much more nuanced
than the caricature often made.
But, to come back to what you were saying,
so Lippmann has written this book
“the phantom public”
defending the idea that we are not able,
and it’s totally linked to my topic,
I open the bracket because it is completely linked to this thinking on
if we organize a democracy,
are we able to take decisions by ourselves?
On our problems, on what concerns us.
So Lippmann pretended that no
and he pretended that our representatives couldn’t neither.
A great thinker who was called Dewey (John)
who was a mathematician, a logician
and who was a survey theorist
who has worked a lot on the improvement of people competence
from the survey method,
a little like Socrates led us to
progress by the thinking about ourselves,
Dewey was confident in the survey virtues
in a working method, he was a mathematician, a logician,
to improve our competency
and I think…
So the controversy between Lippman and Dewey is brilliant,
absolutely exciting for us to understand,
furthermore in a very comprensible language,
it is not complicated words,
these people there discuss about the greater good in concrete terms.
Lippmann says : “ Humans are not able to take decisions”.
So he tends ultimately
to justify a tyranny,
an enlighted despot who will be better
and then Dewey says : “Not at all, if one has the means
to institutionalize the conditions of a real survey,
honest and complete,
we will raise the level of people
which will allow for them to take
not so bad decisions.
In addition to this controversy,
with both these points of view,
I would like to highlight that
in drawn assemblies
and we have hundreds of examples of drawn assemblies,
in the history of men,
the draw is not at all a newness,
we test the draw since a while,
I will talk about the Athenian time later on
but today in the modern time,
there is a lot of assemblies, citizen juries,
deliverative polls,..
Any kind of assemblies
composed of ordinary people
to judge of technical topics
existed, and are an observation field.
An observatory which allows for knowing
and so there is a book which makes the summary,
a modern anthology called
« The power to the people »
from Yves Sintomer.
This book here I recommend it to you.
It is a book which concerns the citizen
because it is the history…
First, there is a good part
of how the Athenians were drawn in Athenes,
so the procedure they were using.
Because every morning they drew
and so he explains how it worked.
The draw every morning
is very interesting!
The athenian example, you will see
I am enthusiastic about this.
So Sintomer explains in a part of his book,
a little quarter, he explains very well the procedure.
But he also explains the experiences
of citizen juries, of deliberative polls,
in which we study the competency of people,
we study the decisions they take
and in the end we realise
that far from being the incompetents we were promised,
far from being the drunken moron who understand nothing about nothing,
who take care only of their personal interest,
instead of taking care… and who are unable to take care of the general interest.
It is not AT ALL what we see,
what we see when we put people together,
to take care of, to talk about the greater good,
people CHANGE
when we give them … Care here…
When we give them the power
of CHANGING things.
If you take the piss …
If you laugh at them…
–no bad words-
If you laugh at them
and that you give them only an advisory power
which means you let them work
and then it’s other people who will decide,
for sure you will not get the effort.
You can't catch flies with vinegar.
You will not get from them the investment,
the efforts, the personal implication
which will change them
because you didn’t trust them.
I am a teacher.
I often talk about it in my conferences
because this is really what makes me believe.
I know because I experience it.
That when I trust someone,
he changes! In a good way
and in the opposite, when I don’t,
if I don't, he changes, in a bad way!
And people are not black or white,
they are not always the same,
it depends on the circumstances.
There are institutions which push people in the good way
and institutions which push people in the wrong way.
What I pretend is that
our institutions are closed
and they deter us from doing politics.
They deter us from making efforts for the greater good
and that is why we look like passive citizen
who don’t care about anything; who are individualists
It’s multifactorial, that’s not the whole of it.
But I think the role of closed institutions
is important
in this situation of passive citizen.
I know it is not a panacea what I'm talking about
but I think more open institutions would
let people discuss on sorted assembly
or partially drawn if that scares you.
We'll talk about it in a minute.
Institutions which would allow people
to discuss and DECIDE.
Really decide
and therefore take the risk of being wrong
with the possibility
when we realized they made a mistake
of changing decision to modify.
So, it's Institutional Assessment -
which allows for decisions assessment
and change.
These institutions there if they were open ,
they'd transform us, I claim it.
Voilà, I ...
and the institutions,… the experiments of draw
that I observe in Sintomer's book
I found them exciting
because they point in the same direction,
they show that, when a meeting of Malians ,
so in Mali get together to ...
they are drawn to talk about … anyone ,
There is a little of everything in there,
there is a lot of farmers because they have a lot of farmers
but there is not only farmers
there is people of all socio-professional categories.
and when these people get together to talk about GMOs ,
they know nothing about GMOs
and they are given credits
and for months they work on the topic
they bring in experts from all around the world
They have credits for that
They listen to the experts
then they bring in experts with opposite opinions
in order to hear ...
to hear all sides of the story.
They hear them publicly,
all of it is broadcasted on the radio, on TV, on the internet.
People can attend these deliberations ,
they can intervene and ask questions ,
they can say - you forgot to ask this question
well the question is asked to Monsanto when it comes
to explain why it wants GMOs
then we will listen to the people of the peasant confederation
to know why they don't want GMOs,
then they listen to the peasants of Latin America
Who are using GMOs and tell them
"why did you decide to use GMOs?
Are you happy about it? "
and we hear all this, and after months,
people who knew nothing become competent.
Here. And that's exciting!
that's to say that practical experiments confirm
what I tell you theoretically :
humans are political animals
but not at any price,
If there is no stake, we do nothing
because we have no reason to do so
but if there is a stake and that
if one tries hard, he can change things, then we do it
You have seen in 2005, we were told that we wouldn't discuss the institutions ,
that the constitution was a dusty text, annoying ,
which pisses off everybody, and noone would even care
that it wasn't worth bothering with a referendum taratata...
There was a referendum,
we felt we could say yes, no; there was a stake,
we started talking, we were said we could change
but look how much we talked.
It could have been better, it was not long enough ,
we have not spoken of Part I as we should have, in my opinion.
We should have been 80%, 90% to say no
but because we have not had the needed debate.
I think there are many people, friends ,
with whom I discussed at length,
Who have voted yes because we did not have time to discuss as we should have,
I think it is…
look how it changed us.
So,about competence, I think we need laws
I think when there is no law, it is the law of the strongest that prevails
and it seems to me less fun
The law of the strongest is everywhere .
Our regime ruled by law is, in the nature, quite exceptional ,
it is only human which makes prevail, which imagine and enforce the rule of law.
and I think it's far from perfect
and we'll see why when we'll speak of the representative government
which is not democracy.
But still, it seems to me that we have a tool
Which should help protecting us
Pacify us, give us a less painful life
But do we really need representatives ?
This really deserves a discussion.
Representatives as we have today
these representatives to whom, every 5 years ,
we give all powers without being able to choose them
Because the choice is a false choice,
people I vote for, I have not chosen them at all.
I chose between people I have not chosen
This example, is an academic example of a false choice
The examples presented to us during elections
are not real choices, it's not me who has chosen these candidates
So, you give all the powers,
because that is exactly what is it, I give absolutely all powers
to people I did not choose,
and then without being able, during the mandate
without having the slightest possibility of revoking ,
Or put into question, or even challenge their laws ,
without having any mean of ...
It doesn't seem at all, at all, at all desirable to me.
But this, it is not at all democracy ,
they call it democracy because they know that we want democracy.
and because they have understood, and this is fabulous ,
that's really smart to play with words like that.
By calling a regime that is the absolute antithesis of democracy ,
which is the opposite ... when you choose your masters ,
people who will choose everything for you ,
it means that mechanically, it is not you who decide
so this is not democracy
If it is not you who decide, it means that we are not in a democracy.
The democracy, I'm sorry, it's a matter of definition.
Well, we can discuss this if you want because everything can be discussed
but a democracy worthy of the name is not what the current system is.
The current regime is the opposite: it is a regime ... ,
perhaps defensible but it should not be called democracy
and when it's called democracy, we get intellectually stucked,
consciously or not, I don't care but we find ourselves bogged down
in a situation in which, we call a situation
which is problematic with the name of its solution.
So we don't manage to formulate the solution.
We can not say "I want democracy"
because we're told "but you already have it"
"but gnagnagna you play with words"
We have to stop using the word "democracy"
when talking about the current regime.
The system we live in is not at all
and was never intended as a democracy.
It is allegedly democratic since the early 19th century
but it was not thought of, to start with, as a democracy ,
it was thought as an elective aristocracy where the best ones are designated ,
where people refers to those who will decide in their behalf
and the designers of the current regime,
which is to be called representative government ,
knew it very well ... they did it knowingly ,
it is not by chance, they knew very well they were not instituting a democracy.
They wanted it not to be a democracy ,
They knew democracy, they knew what it is
and they did not want it.
and today we call this regime a democracy.
When we will talk in a minute about what characterizes a democracy
and which allowed for the Athenians to make
a democracy worthy of the name work
during two hundred years
and what it had of extraordinarily attractive for today ,
you will see that the workings of a democracy ,
have absolutely nothing to do with what we are living today.
So I think I answered the bracket for a little too long ... but hey
Presenter: Etienne, I will suggest a short break ,
we said we would make a break at 7:30
we passed the time quite a bit. For those who want ,
there is something to eat, sandwiches ,
beers, juice, water, etc. next door.
and we come back at, let's say, at ten to, a quarter to ten
Etienne: you 're not getting bored yet?
(Laughter) (din)