We are pleased, here with ATTAC,
to welcome Etienne Chouard
for a conference with an utopian title:
European Union, if we had to do it again?
Etienne Chouard is a teacher
of Law and Economics in Marseille.
He is also an independent researcher,
and he feed his thoughts with debates
which took place in 2005
during the European Constitutional Treaty.
The possibility to say "no" to that treaty, to this constitution
made him study it thouroughly,
and then reveal all the wrongdoings of this constitution,
which, he says, was done
not for the people,
but for those who wrote it,
and who governs us.
Tonight, he will present
his vision of the European Union,
Of democracy and what it means.
We will also discuss
the theme of money creation
Question the need for a constitutional treaty.
And evoke
a new and original process:
that is selected by lot
in order to elect our representatives.
Before giving the mic to Etienne,
I want to thank the City Hall
for giving us this conference room.
And thanks to Etienne
who is not paid to be here.
This conference will last
until around 10 PM.
So, we will have a first part,
until 7.30PM,
To talk about different points.
Then we will make a short break.
It's possible to get food nearby.
And we'll come back
at 8 to continue the debate.
Now, Etienne will take the stage.
Can you hear me?
I should lean closer to this thing...
Can you hear me?
Good evening, everyone.
I have a strong idea to get us out of this mess.
I'm here to talk about it.
I woke up 6 years ago
during the debate for the
European anticonstitutional treaty
which was suggested in 2005.
I say anticonstituational
because it serves, once well studied,
it serves to destroy our national constitutions.
And, it works well.
It's a system that works.
And, since then,
since I woke up
I remained awake,
and I'm thinking about what might
protect human beings
against abuses of power.
So I read a lot.
The more I read, the more I want to read.
It's becoming a reading frenzy.
And at the same time, I am discovering.
something useful. I'm finding,
in the history of men,
in the history of human thinking,
I find that men
have had problems with powers for a long time.
I find that men
need (ruling) powers
when we live in a society.
We need to delegate some powers.
And the men to whom we give the power to,
have always been changing.
They transform in a bad way.
So I find by reading,
that since Aristotle and the Athenian era,
- I'll talk a lot about Athens tonight
especially in the second part -
I find that...
men have developed means
to protect themselves from power abuses.
Very clever means.
Often thwarted by those
I call "power thiefs".
But...
It's not set in stone.
Today,
we are governed by people
abusing of their (ruling) powers.
I think the current situation
really allows for....
It is a caricature today.
Those who don't see
that those in power abuse
are completely blind.
But I think everyone sees that.
Room question : Who are you talking about?
The people who are in power.
Members of the Parliament,
Ministers, they all make decisions.
Without any means for,
the people's discontent to materialize.
I think it's clear enough.
The main tool that humans created
that has been used since Athens,
is called the Constitution.
It's the rule of law.
The law allowed for
societies to be pacified.
Our representatives, to whom we give the right
to write the law,
to whom we give the power to write the law,
are, by definition, because they can write the rules,
they are dangerous.
And the constitution is used to...
to limit their power.
To weaken their power.
A constitution is used to protect
those who consent to obey the laws.
It is used to protect them from the abuses of those
who have the right to write the rules and the law.
And so, this is an important and clever text.
In fact, when we talk about the constitution,
we talk about the law of the law.
It is a law which is above
those who make the law.
It's a superior law.
It's more than a law.
It's more than politics, it's philosophical politics.
And it concerns us all directly. All of us.
It concerns us very directly.
We should learn what a constitution is,
from a very early age.
We should know our constitution
by heart.
And we should protect our constitution.
As if it were the best protection
against all sorts of dominations
which might attack us.
Oddly enough though,
people don't care about the constitution at all.
They ignore it.
They've heard the word,
but they don't know what it means,
what it's for,
how it works.
They don't know what's in it.
And I think that it is...
I'll get back to that,
but I think it's the cause of causes.
You'll see that I'm looking for,
in my various subjects,
which I think about
while I'm on this kind of quest,
the quest to resist against abuse of power.
The main method which ...
which I am following is...
I'm looking for the cause of causes,
as Herodotus suggested.
I'm looking for the cause of causes,
and it's true that it works well.
When you want to solve a problem,
try to find (a solution) through...
Everything is multifactorial.
Every phenomena has several causes, but,
if you manage to find the determining causes,
by this I mean the causes
that lead to other causes
The primordial causes,
and even better, if you find
one cause particularly important,
by thinking about this one cause,
you solve many problems at once.
It's more intelligent
than treating the consequences.
But from what I see,
the people who came before my wake up call,
while I was still a passive citizen,
all the old resistants,
those who spent most of their lives resisting
very often, they resisted
focusing on the consequences.
Some resists
against ecological disasters.
Others against the lack of democracy at work.
Others against the corruption of the government.
There are associations, movements...
Some are against nuclear plants, for example.
Etc...
And, I think,
- I'm like everyone else, I have my own pet subject -
but I think that,
all those social injustices,
have one common cause,
which is the abuse of power.
I mean the possibility
for those who have the power, to abuse of it.
It seems to me that this is the common cause
So, I try to understand.
What allows people who have power
to abuse in this fashion
wihtout us being able to react?
Today, the states create for the banks
hundreds, thousands of billions
so that banks can themselves
lend it to us with interests.
And instead of lending to small companies,
or to citizen in needs,
this money goes in the pockets
of people super rich
who already have too much money.
And we can't do a thing to resist!
What can we do to resist?
I am not exaggerating.
Concretely, what can we do to resist?
Someone in the room : 'It's essential to sustain the banks...
so that they can allow for investments."
I do not agree.
In fact, when we will talk about money...
Your objections are absolutely precious to me.
I mean, I need objections to improve myself.
And objections, controversies I'm experiencing since six years
make me progress very fast.
So I will definitely not remove any of your objections
with the back of my hand
wihtout making the effort to prove
carefully and rationally
the points I defend in opposition to you.
When you say:
"We absolutely need to save the banks, to support the banks"
Yes, but not unrequited.
Yes, but not without obligations.
Yes because if we give up on the banks,
the system falls and us with it.
Yes so in fact,
as Frederic Lordon, a friend, says
in fact, we need to support the banks.
Support our financial system.
But nothing, nothing obliges us
or obliges those who govern us
to do it unrequitedly. Nothing at all.
These people are in fraudulent bankruptcy.
The banks today are in fraudulent bankruptcy.
Which means they should be in jail.
And instead we save them without any compensations?
I find it more than questionable.
But we will come back to it if you want
when it will be the time to talk about money.
Because I have many topics.
And I can talk about money now but
it seems to me that there is a logical order.
I think we can start by observing
the way European Union works
and its malfunctions
as it is the topic of the evening.
What do we do with this European Union?
If we had to do it again, would we?
And, as we will study the European Union,
we will talk about money.
We will deepen the topic of money.
And I will tell you about
the mecanisms of monetary creation.
The way today
we create money
is... crazy!
Really not reasonable.
And it's not the only way to do it.
There are alternatives.
We could create the money in a different way.
With risks that we need to understand
and which we will talk about.
But risks which should not lead us
to give up reclaiming
the process of monetary creation.
But I suggest that we will talk about it a little bit later.
To avoid talking about everything at the same time.
But, everytime, which would be good
is that I could tell you
where I am with my analysis. The work I am doing.
And then I stop.
Even if I haven't said everything.
Because if I say everything I have to say,
I could talk about it days on end without stopping
So, I won't to tell you everything.
That I stop and let you talk.
And a good part
of what I have to tell you,
I express it in reaction to your objections,
your fears, your suggestions.
And also because, for me, it is precious.
I come looking for this as well.
Which means you will
most certainly bring me
a lot of things
through new objections, a new idea.
Almost at every conference
I come out with a good, a really good idea.
Which will help me. Which I cultivate. Which I work on.
Someone in the room : "Dialogue is essential...."
Absolutely! Dialogue is absolutely essential.
There is a sentence
which I discovered last week
which says it differently.
Which says "I need my enemies".
It's really well said, I believe.
It's true that I need my opponents.
I need my opponents to move forward.
And I also need my friends.
Who disagree with me on certain topics.
And who contradict me on those.
I love controversy.
here, I think I never progress as much
as during a contradictory debate
where we do not agree.
And sometimes I realize that I was wrong.
That I had a wrong angle, and I correct it.
Sometimes I manage to show
that it's my opponent that had a wrong angle.
And here we discuss.
My goal is not be right.
I am looking for... the greater good.
And most of the resistants too.
We all have our method, our tools.
I think that people who are looking for social justice,
out of good faith, should be able to get along.
If they disagree on
the means to reach
social justice,
I think they should be capable
to discuss it respectfully.
By trying to take the best
of the other's thinking process.
We just need to give ourselves time.
And actually it is good
that we have time tonight.
Because these are real rich and dense topics.
On which we have much to say.
It's good to have time
to develop them
I handed out
a first double-sided document .
A simple sheet on which...
You will see I have brought
a lot of documents.
Because I am a teacher.
And so, I am used to...
Not saying everything.
And at the same time to see that people who listen to me
are not always so focused.
And I am the same, we are all like this.
And can miss an important moment
which we lack, later, from the whole reasoning.
The good way to overcome these difficulties
to communicate orally
is to have a written support, which sets [the topics] well.
[A document] prepared in advance
and on which we are sure we haven't forgotten anything.
I am not going to read this document
but I invite you to read it calmly
at your leisure, later.
They will surely be some things
which I would have forgotten to tell you tonight.
But it's not important.
You'll find it in the document.
And then, there are things I'll have said
that I won't have pronounced well
or on which I won't have insisted on enough
which you might not have understood...
And which you will understand maybe better by reading.
This first page
It is a sort of summary
of what leads me to think about this topic.
About the solution
the institutional solution that I plan or see
In this first page, there is this introduction
which I made earlier
and which explains men have always needed power.
Have always confronted power abuses.
Invented in order to resist the idea of constitution.
That a constitution is not used to organise powers,
it is used to weaken them.
It is used to weaken them.
And so, in a constitution,
if we seek to weaken the power,
if we don't seek to destroy it,
we need the power...
But we seek to weaken it
so that they don't abuse of it.
So that our servants don't become our masters.
So that we don't become the prey of tyrants.
And so that the constitution does its' job
of power weakening
while still having itself enough power to work,
there is a whole serie of measurements,
rules, articles in the constitutions,
of principles which we would like to see applied
which I have detailed at the back of this document.
At the back of this document, I have made a list.
We will not have the time to work on it this evening
Maybe later
we will work on two, three, four points.
Maybe points on which
you would like... maybe during the break,
you could have a look at it.
If there are points on which you would like to address,
we could deepen them.
"But why is he talking about this?"
or "Hey, he forgot to talk about that..."
All of this, in my thinking process, is not closed at all.
I am still thinking about it.
I find ideas every day.
I am totally open to criticism,
to evolution, to new ideas.
I am not at all
describing a turn-key solution,
a sort of new dogma or religion.
Not at all.
Simply, I beleive
that I'm educating myself to
"What is a constitution?"
How come we are not taking care of it?
Why is it that we have not seized it, everyone of us,
we who consent to obey to power,
why have we not seized this tool?
And what should we know in this tool
instead of neglecting it ?
And while I am making it mine,
as I am a teacher, I like to explain,
well, I make the most of it !
Moreover, I had the chance in 2005
to have this kind of unbelievable fame
which came from Internet
and of the game of the medias.
Well, I make the most of it.
It gives me the standing.
So I make the most of it.
I am discovering something.
It seems that I am finding an idea,
a series of ideas, which are at the same time original
and very old, because they date of 2500 years,
but completely buried, forgotten and brilliant.
Really, athenians had found
something marvellous
to protect themselves from power thieves.
I turning around this idea.
Testing it with fire.
To the fire of your critics and objections.
To check if it holds [true].
That it still makes sense.
It's not a dogma at all.
It's an idea which is...
Which is becoming stronger.
You will see that the idea of real democracy
possible and protected, by selection through lots.
You will see that it is seducing.
It is very promising.
Sortition, I saw it coming.
I will speak about it a little now,
and a lot more at the end of the evening,
when we will see democracy.
How it works.
How it worked in Athens.
And what should we reuse?
What can we reuse?
We will see this more in details.
But very quickly in fact, in 2005
while studying the European institutions,
I wondered
"But how could we write
such bad institutions,
so unprotective for citizens?"
Because, it will be the first part of the evening.
We will work or I suggest we work
on the main grievances that I find.
It is a first stone in the debate.
I don't mean to summarize it all.
But what I consider like the most important
to hold against the European institutions.
We'll see this in not too long.
But already, before looking at the detail,
if you have participated to the 2005 debate,
you will remember that there was
a lot to say about this constitution.
And as I was thinking,
I was wondering... still the same
I was looking for "the cause of causes".
But what led us to
texts so unprotective of men?
So pretentious?
Texts which pretend to protect us
pretend to establish...
what did they say?...
"The highest standards of democracy" they said.
And in the same time organised,
in the most minor detail,
the perfect politic powerlessness
of every citizen
who couldn't change a thing anymore.
I thought : "How did we come to this?"
In fact, by answering this question
I answered to all the questions of the same nature
which I could encounter at a national level as well.
Because what we encounter at the European level,
this political powerlessness
which is organised in the European institutions.
We already encounter it at a national level.
And we encounter it...
in almost every country of the world.
So, is it a fatality?
Or is there a common cause?
Which leads us to understand why
it always happen like this
and which would lead us to understand
what should we change for
it not to always happen like this.
And I think I found it.
The European institutions have been written
by ministers... and presidents.
And we see this everywhere in the European institutions
that it is ministers who wrote the institutions.
In the European institutions
legislative power is vested in
the ministers, mainly.
Our ministers at national level
who take off their minister costumes
when they leave France
to go to the European parliament
to go in the European institutions
And there they put on their parliamentary costumes
but they are ministers!
They put their parliamentary costumes to write laws.
The European laws.
Which are transposed in the French law, or in national law.
It is the same in all the countries.
Almost mechanically, automatically.
And then they go back in their countries,
and they put back their ministers costumes.
And we can see that they wrote the rules.
We will come back on the detail
of all the great risks in the European institutions.
But we can see
that it is European ministers
who wrote the European institutions.
In the same way that the French institutions,
the constitution of 1958, we can see
that it is De Gaulles [1st president of the 5th Republic] who wrote it.
I am told: "it's Debré."
Yes it is Debré, but Debré, he wrote it for De Gaulle.
Lawyers, the great lawyers,
the great teachers of public law
who wrote apparently the institutions of the fifth republic... [wrote it for De Gaule]
But we can see everywhere
that the institutions of the fifth are not made
like those of the fourth or of the third [republic].
They were made for the president
who built them for himself.
It's like this almost everywhere in the world.
And that's why in fact...
Men who hold power should not
write the rules that control power.
That's how I summarise it.
It is with these words
that I summarise the "heart of the heart"
The most important thing I have to tell you.
It seems to me that this is the cause of causes
of our political powerlessness.
It is that we have no constitution.
The declaration of human rights
which our revolutionary forefathers [wrote].
We need to read the constitutional debates.
The debates that had those people
in the moment where they freed themselves
from the former tyranny
and where they made a tool
to protect themselves against tyranny.
The thoughts, the discussions they had.
The thoughts they had
to protect durably
against power abuse.
That was the french revolution!
There are absolutely fascinating discussions.
And they knew very well
that we had to weaken power.
Montesquieu thought about it before
and revolutionnary knew of course Montesquieu, Rousseau...
They knew they had to divide powers
for the power not to abuse of power.
Montesquieu said : "We need
power to stop power."
Which means that we needed ...
and Montesquieu imagined only three powers.
He had seen:
- those who made the laws: the parliament
- those who execute the laws: the executives
- and those who settle conflicts
those who apply the rules: the judges.
And he said, we need that those who write the laws
the parliamentarians, do not put them in force.
That those who put laws in application, the executives
You shouldn't say government [in this case]
Because if you say government, you get scammed.
Otherwise it will do everything, it is going to write the laws.
If [the executives] are called government, then the government holds in itself,
the word holds in itself, the confusion of the powers.
We shouldn't call them government.
We shouldn't accept "one" government.
Call it the executive.
And you will see that the word leads you
to be more rigorous with
the essential principle of powers division.
An essential principle for us to protect us from power abuse.
So what Montesquieu said is that
the executive executes without having the right to writing [laws].
Without writing...
Because 1) if the one who writes the laws
cannot execute them,
2) if the one that executes the laws
cannot write them,
do you understand the idea?
It is a clever idea
to divide powers.
Very clever!
It allows, for a constitutional structure,
in the superior law structure,
of the right of law,
above those who will make the law,
it allows for our protection.
Because nobody has all the powers for himself.
And then Montesquieu continued
saying that judges must be independant
from the two other powers
to be able to apply the laws.
Therefore, for the law to be applied
It had to be that the one who writes the laws
agrees with the one who executes the laws
and agrees with the one who applies them: the judge.
We would be well sheltered
against power abuse if we do that.
What the revolutionnaries said
in the declaration of human rights
is that: "A nation which does not divide powers
doesn't have a constitution."
It is the article 16.
A nation which doesn't divide powers
does not have a constitution.
We cannot be clearer!
It means that if we pretend to having one, it's false.
And it's true... I believe it is true!
I will even say better for today.
In the twenty first century we can push a little further,
we can think further,
and say : "A constitution which does not protect us well
- either because of the undivided powers
or because of something else -
a constitution which does not protect us well
against power abuses
is not a constitution!
Because its job, its reason of existance
Because a constitution is used only for that!
To protect us all,
the rich, the poor, the young, the old, everyone
to protect us against power abuse.
As the definition itself
the essence of a constitution
is to protect us from power abuse.
If it doesn't do its job
it is not a constitution!
Or it's a bad constitution
From this point of view, the fifth [republic] is really bad.
It is a bad constitution
and the European constitution is bad too!
We can talk about it in details.
I am starting from the end
by telling you the conclusion.
It's not well but we can have a look...
Article by article, almost.
So it is in fact the meaning of the document
the back of the first document that I am talking about,
consists in saying : "let's see where we stand...
what do we expect from a constitution?"
By which mechanical ways,
which legal ways,
A constitution protects me?
"Protects me", I am not talking about me obviously
I talk in a general way, as "me citizen"
By which means a constitution protects me?
The parliament ... "Is above others"
"The voting system secures a majority"
"The voting system gives a place to the minority"
"Some seats are reserved...."
So you will see, in there, that
some things are a little unorthodox
because, when I say "Some seats
of every organs are reserved
to sorted citizens,"
Every single line could deserve to be studied.
If I start digging into this,
it is going to be too long and it mustn't be.
But what I wanted, I did a table there
with, to the right, some boxes to tick
and when I examinate my constitution : I tick
Do I have it? Or not?
And then I tick yes/no, yes/no, yes/no
And for the fifth, I have very few "yes"
very very few, there is almost only "no"
and for European institutions, I only have "no"
virtually only "no"....
There is no respect for blank vote...
There is no referendum of popular initiative
There is no power division
There is no... etc, etc...
Judges are not independant.
Every single one of these points...
If you want, when we talk about democracy
When we talk about democracy...
When we talk about constitution...
I do not just say words.
It's not enough to say:
" European institutions are the highest standard of democracy".
I go check inside the European institutions
to see tangibly
what is the apparatus
which allows to say "it is a democracy".
However, for me, democracy, I don't know for you...
It's a debate but for me it is "demos kratos."
The power of the people.
So, the people should have the power.
People should exercise the power.
Democracy : people exercise power.
And at least, there is none
on earth, there is none
very few, maybe... Switzerland
And still, not even, in Switzerland there are parlementaries
So there is no country in the world for now
where the people writes himself directly his laws.
In most of [political] regimes,
and we will see it later,
most regimes
are not democracies.
They are representative governments
And you will see, as we talk about it,
I will explain the history
and this is very important
to understand the regimes we have.
The story of our regimes.
What did the people who instituted our regimes want?
They didn't want to make a democracy, not at all.
They knew very well what was a democracy.
They didn't want it at all.
So it is normal that we are not in democracy.
It was not wished for at all from the beginning.
Sieyès, a great thinker of french revolution
wrote one day: " What is the third estate?"
One of the notables who followed all the french revolution
until Thermidor...
He was someone who didn't want.... it is written black on white!
"There is no way that..."
In one of the documents that I'll hand out
there is the full quote
"There is no way that France shall become a democracy"
It is not going to be it, we are not making a democracy
People is not able to write himself the laws
People will designate his representatives
who will write the laws in its stead and that's all!
Well, this is not a democracy.
It is something else, it's an artistocracy
it's the government by the best.
If we manage to put the best of the best in power
it's an aristocracy.
But, if they are not the best of the best, it is going to be an oligarchy.
But in any way, it is not a democracy!
And this is really our topic of later on.
So I close this parenthesis
to stay in the scheme of the first part of european union
So, to finish this introduction
the reflexion on the european institutions in 2005
led me immediately
to [write] the first document.
The one that toured France and also a little around the world.
I wrote my conclusion:
"If such bad institutions have been written,
it is because those who wrote them
shouldn't have done so.
It should not have been them writing the constitutions.
It should not have been them writing the institutions.
They were judges and jury.
They were in a situation of conflict of interests.
They were writing the rules for themselves.
And there, I am on the "cause of causes".
I am on the first cause of causes.
If you let, if we let, the constitutions be written
by exactly those who should fear them;
If we let the constitution be written
by those who should fear constitution;
It is easy to understand
these people will not, write rules which will hinder them
burden them, keep them under control, threaten them
put them at risk
make them "accountable for"
make them responsible of their acts.
These people... But I am not angry at them
I don't say they are horrible people.
This is something important.
Under the law, a judge has to give justice.
But, when in a court case,
he is from the same family of the victim
or of the detained or the accused,
he is recused / disqualified.
And this isn't an issue.
That's how it is
in all the countries of the world obviously.
And everyone understands
that we are not saying this judge is dishonest.
Not at all! When we disqualify a judge
because he is from the same family
of the victim or the accused,
it is not because he is dishonest.
It is because, he cannot, in this very situation,
he cannot be honest.
But we don't say this guy there is dishonest, not at all!
In fact, the judge is disqualified
and he is not upset about it.
There is no issue.
He is in a situation of conflict of interests
so he cannot judge!
Well, parliamentaries, ministers, judges,
all the ones who have a power;
instituted, established in the institutions
and even those who haven't got it yet
this power, but want this power;
all those who are in political parties;
who are candidates to this power;
so they look ahead
they know they will, one day, be in power
Those people are in a situation...
I'm absolutly not saying that they are dishonest
please listen carefully so that there is no misunderstanding.
As it was for the judge,
I don't say these people are dishonest, not at all.
I say these people...
we need them, we need people who will exercise power
But they shouldn't write the constitution!
It is not to them to write the rule they should fear
and which will stop them from abusing of the power
and transform themselves from servants to masters
They cannot write the rule
which will stop them from becoming our absolute tyrannical masters.
It needs to be other people.
Others than people from parties
and who have the power
or who want it...
How will you do to designate them?
We will talk about it later.
But I can give you
a feeling of it
so that you have the idea in mind.
It is important that you see where I am going.
The golden thread.
My train of thoughts.
I try to find an honest constituant process
disinterested, without conflict of interests.
So for now, today
I am thinking about sorting the constituant assembly.
So maybe you'll find
a better idea, I'm all for it!
I am not looking into sortition, just because it is sortition.
I don't care
If I get a better idea, I'll take that one.
I am looking for [the good idea], and it seems to me that we should all be looking for it.
The problem is that
Noone cares for the moment.
That is the folly, the cause of causes
is our carelessness, our ignorance,
it's the fact that we don't care at all about constitution
and constituant process we care even less
In Tunis, in Tunisia today, they are voting
for a constituant assembly
Just to smile, I'll play the devils' advocate.
And if I'm wrong, I'll be the fool.
I can predicte that
the constituant which will be elected today
will not establish a democracy.
For the same reasons which forbid
real democracies to become reality.
Everywhere in the world,
if you let men in power write themselves
the rules of their own power:
they will not write the power to the people.
And I can't be upset at them.
It's normal... They won't commit hara-kiri
They wont... They look ahead
they have a vision of the greater good.
It's very well, they are very virtuous.
But when they are writing the rules:
"Should we tally and put into force blank votes?"
The possibility to kick us out
during an election, for the people to say "no".
I don't want As, Bs nor Cs
I want them all to go home.
"Should we respect the use of the blank vote?"
"Oh well... no it's not worth the trouble, the blank vote..."
will say parliamentaries.
They will say: "No, it's not worth it..."
No, the blank vote... the blank vote, no...
no there surely is something more important to do in the constitution
and they will focus on something else!
Who wrote the rule stating
a blank vote is equal to "not voted"?
It is not simple citizens who wrote that. It's impossible!
It is not simple citizens who said "Blank votes..."
Do you know what is the blank vote?
White vote is a vote of protest.
A vote which says : "Wait a minute, those there....
they are all villains!"
These are all people who are bad.
There are all people I have already seen lying to me.
people who already reneged on their promises.
Or people who, for this or this reason, no matter..
I want noone of them!
I want them all to go away.
I would like to put others instead.
That's the meaning of a blank vote.
The blank vote is a vote of protest.
Blank vote is an affirmative vote.
It is not a vote of carelessness.
Blank vote is not a mistake at all.
Blank vote is not an abstention.
Blank vote is a very engaged vote!
Which says "I am not happy at all with the candidates you are suggesting"
I want others!
Or if you ask me stupid questions
it's a vote which says " Please ask me other questions,
this one is stupid!"
A blank vote is truely very important,
Well, I won't open this parenthesis.
I was going to talk to you about ostracism
which was a way for athenians
to say "I don't want this one!"
A way of saying... It looks a little like the white vote
It was a way, an institution,
which allowed for people to say
not only what I want, but also what I don't want.
I will talk later maybe about it.
Anyway, what does,
what leads a constituant
someone who wrote a constitution
what leads him not to respect a blank vote
and mix it with null votes?
And this, this is just one of the 50 points which build a constitution.
The respect of the blank vote.
A parliamentary, a minister will mix a white vote with the nulls.
He will mix it with the "not voted".
He will do it because it is in his interest.
Because there is a personnal interest
to avoid people from being able to kick him out
when an election comes around.
So, there isn't... I am not even upset at him.
Understand me, he shouldn't be the one writing the constition.