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)