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;

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.