ELECTRONIC VIVANT- EUROPE N° 140 March 2017)

Home , Universal basic income

Rue de l’Escaille, 14 7070 Mignault (Belgium) EUROPE FR. Brasseur Jean-Paul 32 (0) 499 35 85 72 DE, FR, EN Meyer Joseph 32(0) 080-227689 [email protected] http://www.vivant-europe.eu Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/pages/Vivant- Europe/802200473187251

“Liberate work by removing its tax burden and finance social security by taxing the consumption of goods, which most often are produced by machine.” (+ unconditional Basic Income for all ) ELECTRONIC VIVANT- EUROPE N° 140 March 2017)

Summary 0. Preliminary remark 1. The treaties of Rome are 60 years old Roger Van Campenhout 2. BenoÎt Hamon’s Presidential programme (France) A. Benoît Hamon’s rally in Paris January 2017 (extracts) B. Benoît Hamon’s rally in Lille on 27 January 2017 (extracts) C. Benoît Hamon’s speech at ‘La Mutualité’ (Paris) 3. Emmanuel macron*and the universal basic income

0. PRELIMINARY REMARK TO THIS ELECTRONIC LIVING-EUROPE NUMBER

In their programme, Mr. François Fillon, Mr. Jean-Luc Mélanchon and Mr. Emmanuel Macron aim at restoring full employment. It is not the case for Mr. Benoît Hamon who justifies the need for a universal basic income by the fact that many jobs will disappear because of digitalisation. In fact, restoring full employment or not in France is still a problem for the future. Given this uncertainty Vivant-Europe believes that the universal basic income considered by Emmanuel Macron as an interesting idea is a prudential financial measure because it allows to avoid pauperisation of society, guarantees minimum purchasing power and does not condemn The unemployed to wait for the possible return of full employment.

Moreover, the universal basic income allows the reduction of working time and therefore its sharing.

1. THE TREATIES OF ROME ARE 60 YEARS OLD

INTRODUCTION

The two Treaties of Rome (1957)

On 25 March 1957, Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxemburg and the Netherlands signed two treaties in Rome: the first one led to the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC); the second one led to the creation of the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom). These two treaties came into force on 14 January 1958. The new Communities appeared then as a factor of economic reinforcement for the Member States. 6-02-2017

Roger Van Campenhout

Master of German philology (German, Dutch, English) (ULB) Bachelor in journalism (ULB) Teacher of German languages European Commission retired civil servant

2017: an anniversary which is not at the party . . .

The treaties of Rome are 60 years old. Let us not deny ourselves the pleasure of the anniversary . . . despite ambient euro-scepticism, euro-pessimism, or even euro-phobia. The Community of the Inner Six, enlarged to a Union of 28 Member States, has achieved results that would be suicidal to call into question.

It has included, among others, countries which liberated themselves from the dictatorship and from the yoke of the Soviet communism, leading to the creation of a vast group ruled by law. Within its borders, it has ensured peace and has enhanced the global rise in the standard of living, despite the persisting, and, if we are not careful, increasing inequalities. It has implemented the customs, the single market, the economic and monetary union, the euro, a single currency shared by 19 members.

Years after years it has been trying to implement a banking union, to harmonize taxes, not to mention its efforts- undoubtedly late- aiming at promoting « Social Europe »: reducing “social dumping” and “social tourism” between the Member States.

It has set up an area without frontiers- the Schengen area - between 22 Member States and associated states.

Besides, it has launched, developed or coordinated a series of policies: regional development, competition, environment, research, education (Erasmus), digitalization, industry (Airbus), energy, transports, agriculture, fisheries, …: so many challenges that isolated countries cannot meet. It has sketched and deepened a coordinated policy on justice and home affairs.

At the international level, it has promoted a common trade policy, the development aid and foreign relations. It has worked - with noticeable difficulties - for a common foreign and security policy, and even a common defense policy.

The Union also takes part in large projects on nuclear research (ITER Project), space (the Ariane Rocket, the Rosetta space probe, Galileo.

Despite this overview, it is admitted that the European integration has not been largely achieved. The Union is regularly criticized for its shortcomings or even for its successes. « Stones are thrown at the tree bearing fruit », says An African proverb: if some criticisms towards the Union can be justified, other ones are the result of the ignorance of reality, even of a will of disinformation. Europe is criticized by Euro-sceptics, « sovereignists » and nostalgic nationalists, Europe is the ideal scapegoat– surely not always innocent- for the challenges of globalization.

Somehow situated between a federal organization exercising supranational competencies and a confederal organization of nation states, (1) the European Union is stigmatized, sometimes rightly, for its ‘democratic deficit » or for the fact that « Brussels deals with too many things », that it would be both great for little things and small for great ones …: from one hand, Europe of “the excess of rules and standards”, and on the other hand, its geopolitical weakness.

(1) See the concept of « Fédération d'États-nations » proposed by Jacques Delors

Nobody will then be astonished that in this year 2017, the European Union is not at the party . . . At the interior level, it will have to manage the consequences of the UK decision to leave the Union: the « Brexit » will be synonymous with a long and complex negotiation. The Union will face the elections and populist influences, even racist pressures in several Member

States: the Netherlands, France, Germany, not to mention the risks of unrest in Italy, Greece and elsewhere.

The euro zone is far from being saved from this austerity policy, sluggish employment, unemployment of the young and the risk of persisting growth differences between northern and southern countries about the divergences about the policies to lead. In addition, the Union would doubtlessly do without violations of the rule of law in countries such as Hungary or Poland.

It will moreover remain threatened by Islamist and jihadist terrorism, it will face refugee influx and asylum seekers escaping chaos in the Near and Middle East, not to mention Libya and the Sahel.

It is still powerless in front of the convulsions of the Syrian conflict following the US and UK withdrawal, despite France’s availability o go further in this conflict and to leave the theatre of operation to Russia, even Turkey, countries that have totalitarian tendencies and that are qualified as « democratorship », as well as to Iran.

The « ring of friends » that , at the turn of the millennium the European Union wanted to set up by Euro-Mediterranean and eastern partnerships has given way to a « ring of fire » : from one side, the « Arab springs » degenerated into bloody confrontations in several neighbouring countries and, on the other side, Russia, willing to restore its role of a geopolitical superpower has shown more aggressiveness on eastern borders of the Union: Baltic countries, Georgia, Ukraine. . .

New forms of destabilization, such as cyberattacks, have emerged in several theatres of operation.

In this context, incantations around the « Europe of defense » will rapidly give way to concrete initiatives. The European Union will then have to fulfil its role in the fight against global warming and increasing threats to biodiversity.

The icing on the birthday cake: Donald Trump’s election as the president of the United States. Barely installed in the Oval Office, the unpredictable president is already multiplying messages of provocations on his Twitter account, aiming at keeping and implementing his electoral promises: the dismantlement of social (Obamacare), societal (abortion, immigration) environmental and other gains; the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with the risks of a trade war and a rise of protectionism and interventionism; the threat to go back to the fight against climate change … Let us add the threats to a US shift towards NATO and the turning point of the US foreign policy in some parts of the world, specially Asia. Moreover, Donald’s Trump’s attacks towards the EU do not bode on well for the future. . .

Internal challenges, external threats: so many imperative reasons for the European Union to rely more on its own forces and to tighten its ranks. At the beginning of his term President Juncker had spoken of "Europe’s last chance". May the European leaders seize it in 2017! The anniversary of the Treaties of Rome provided them with an opportunity they cannot miss.

2. BENOÎT HAMON’S PRESIDENTIAL GRAMME (FRANCE)

Preamble Why are we presenting here the extracts of three rallies of Benoit Hamon, candidate for the French presidency? Because his programme has several similar points as Vivant-Europe, that is to say: 1. Universal monthly payment (basic income) 2. Reduction on labour taxation (« Stop imposing a tax on work ») 3. Taxation on capital gains (“To levy taxes on wealth, on added value”) It somehow differs from the tax on consumption advocated by Vivant-Europe 4. The implementation of a participatory democracy (the right of initiative) 5. A new more coherent organization of the European Union on the economic, fiscal and social points of view.

What is treated in Benoit Hamon’s three rallies?

1. The automatic payment of the RSA (Active solidarity income) to people who are entitled to receive it. 2. The payment of a subsistence income for the 18- 25 years old The target is €750 € a month 3. The funding of a subsistence income 4. The creation of a popular conference about the study of the generalization of the subsistence income and its funding 5. The creation of the 49.3; an assembly that introduces a power of initiative for the citizen 6. For Europe: four pillars (axes) for its future 7. The crisis: « The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born » Antonio Gramsci

Note: These extracts have been slightly changed to be turned from oral into written style.

A. BENOÎT HAMMON’S RALLY IN PARIS JANUARY 2017 (Extracts)

The choice I am offering is the choice of the universal basic income. It allows each citizen working or not to receive an income that enables him/her to be independent from work. So, the citizen will be given the capacity to negotiate with his/her employer, for in particular a little job or an unskilled one and to be liberated from a sometimes painful and difficult job. It is the core of the basic income philosophy I am defending. It will specially be a more secure means to eradicate poverty as the basic income will be automatically given to the poorest. As we know today, the minimum social benefits like the RSA (Active solidarity income) (Revenu de solidarité active) intend to be a minimum income given to the poorest and to those who ask for it. However, 1/3 of people are not entitled to receive it because they did not ask for it. 5

The principle of the basic income, because it is automatic, is that it allows to fight more efficiently against extreme poverty and to eradicate it.

That is why the first step of this programme would be the automatization of the RSA, which will from now on be called the Universal Basic Income, will be valued and raised up to €600. So, the third of the poor who do not receive the minimal social benefit today will receive an allowance they are entitled to and they have not received so far.

The second part of this first step consists in distributing from 2018 a universal basic income to the 18-25 years. Why these young people? Because I consider that the new generations’ life is different from the previous ones. Indeed, they alternate between short work, paid job, period of training, inactive time, creation of activities. In short, they have far less linear careers than the previous generations used to have?

They need to be equipped and are entitled to receive a social protection that has nothing to do with what we have experienced. We cannot think of the future of social protection in terms of the integration of work we have on the market. We cannot think the future in terms of the world as it was, but we must think it in terms of the world as it is.

The fact that the 18-25 years old are the first recipients of the basic income will allow to see the impact of the basic income on inflation, on the salaries of some sectors (…) to decide afterwards in the frame of a popular conference, the conditions of generalization of the universal basic income and the rhythms of this generalisation (…). I maintain that the target must be €750 a month and I wish, since I am showing the way, that it is not only to give the fiscal keys, how to finance, the budgetary keys, but also democratic keys because a transformation of this nature supposes that the people approve it. This citizens' conference will discuss and decide on the question of the amount. I propose a target of 750 € per month.

This conference will discuss about the minimal benefits and allowances that the basic income will include: what is kept, what is put aside... In short, choices that are highly political… on this new pillar of social protection. It will also decide on the conditions under which we will finance the universal basic income from the income tax, the proposal put forward by some economists, a new wealth tax or other proposals put onto the table by some economists for other types of taxation. We will discuss that. In any case, one thing is certain, today is that the debate is no longer: Will there be or not a universal basic income? But what universal basic income shall we implement?

That is what I propose and, sorry to disappoint you, yes, I assume that even though I sometimes have personal answers to questions on the implementation of the universal basic income, it seems to me today that this the matter is too important, that it will so deeply change our relationship to work, that this presupposes that there are democratic moments which allow us to evaluate the impact of this first step of the rocket that is the universal

basic income for young people, and to see the conditions under which this allowance will be generalized to the rest of the population. It is the proposal I am putting on the table and that I propose to finance for the first step by a figure, I must admit, an enormous figure of 45 billion euros, the same amount as the premiums of the CICE (Competitiveness and Employment Tax Credit) It is true, it is enormous. It is so enormous that the CICE has created no job, and that is… public money, after all. Yes, it has not created as many jobs as we could imagine, but it has allowed to raise the salaries, wrote the ECHOS last week. Moreover, the CICE has not allowed to raise salaries. On the other hand, the restoration of margins of the companies allowed by the CICE has made the dividends explode.

This makes me sad, but it is reality. We have to deal with it. … Yes, 45 billion euros, it is much, but it is hardly more than has been done on the pact of responsibility (the CICE), and I think that yes, engaging French society towards a model of social protection more solidary with a new relationship to work that gives the employee in particular who carries out the more arduous job, negotiating tools to work less, without being paid less, yes, I think, is a game that is worth the effort. So, here is for the universal basic income.

I also mention another proposal that has aroused comments when I said: I personally think that when a robot replaces a man in a company, why not levy a tax on the robot, since previously man, company pays social contributions for retirement. If Man is replaced by a robot, the robot still creates as much wealth, but nobody makes contributions for it At this moment, I thought that some people were going to strangle saying « Why not tax the dividends while we are at it? »

Taxation on robots.

Today work is getting rare. Yet, our social security is financed by work. How shall we finance social protection and pay retirements for those who leave and live longer and longer?

We have to change the basis for the contributions that weigh on the companies today, to stop levying taxes on work and to levy taxes on wealth. This is what taxation on robots means. It is to have employer social contributions that are based not on the number of employees of a company but on wealth it creates so that tomorrow, in a company of the supermarket, when instead of placing people at the cash register, you have more electronic gantries that replace them, the company or the institution continues to get rich because there are reasons for the economic reasons to save a salary that finances social protection, OK. But, as President of the Republic, I will propose that the employer's social security contributions are now based on added value. It is a way of taxing robots and machines. In any case, all the wealth produced by a company whether by artificial intelligence or by a man, any wealth will be taxed to finance social protection. Once again, it is only fair.

The third proposal I have been debating and which has again caused gnashing of teeth and even severe attacks this week.

It is the 49.3 citizens ... "Why not give the right to vote to foreigners in communal elections in addition ..." commented some …

The 49.3. What is this idea? Do we think that in the 5th republic there is too much or too little democracy? I think we do not have enough.

How can citizens be allowed to re-enter democratic processes? In our Republic, the President of the Republic has considerable powers and sometimes he sometimes makes use of this power not entirely in accordance with the commitments he had made at the time of his election campaign.

So, I have suggested that we could have a procedure like the one in California, Italy and Switzerland that would allow 1% of those on the voters list to get what?

To get a power of initiative, that is to say, that a subject put on the table of parliament can be examined or that a text voted at the National Assembly and the Senate from 2017, I do not speak of the texts before, can be confirmed by a referendum.

And there have been two types of remarks about this. Those who said to me: "But you will block the functioning of democracy." I listen and hear the remarks when they are inspired by a desire to serve the general interest and I say the following thing:

If tomorrow it is necessary, and I also think it is, that there are additional criteria such as saying that 450,000 citizens from at least half of the departments, this gives a stronger representativeness to the approach. Moreover, it is necessary to decide on a floor of participation in the referendum so that it is valid so that only 4 or 5% of participation alone could call into question the principle of a law,

We will give the legitimacy and the strength necessary for this procedure to be indisputable. But, beyond these criticisms, what is nevertheless striking on the part of the Left is when we hear today political leaders tell you: "With a procedure like this, no progress would have been possible in the past "What does it mean?

That there are still political leaders who share a conception of democracy and people so condescending that they think they are always ahead of the people.

I will tell you one thing: I think for example, that on the right to die in dignity, the end of life, the people is ahead of the elite ... well ahead. I think that if this measure of the 49.3 citizen had existed, we would have had marriage for all earlier ... that we would not have had the labour law and that we would have had the right to die with dignity. This is what I believe and I find that there is something particularly disrespectful to the people that to consider that the elites are always ahead.

B. BENOÎT HAMON’S RALLY IN LILLE on 27 JANUARY 2017 (‘Extracts’)

What have been the reasons that motivated me to get involved in this presidential battle? I started from a situation that like many of you, I have had the feeling to live since I was born: the crisis.

But I was born at the end of the glorious 30 and was already beginning this long period which has led us until now in a crisis from which we have never escaped. And this crisis, it finally accompanies all the elections and in all the elections, we find ourselves in the situation where on the right, left, and extreme left, everyone finds their solution to get out of the crisis. This crisis has even found how to feed on new realities.

There is the ecological crisis in addition to the economic and social crisis, the labour crisis linked to the digital revolution, the democratic crisis because our institutions of the 5th republic no longer enable democracy to function.

But I would like to come back to the crisis. There is, and I always think of it, a very fine definition, and I think it is the finest definition and the most accurate definition of the crisis that was given to us at the end of the 20s by a great Italian intellectual called Antonio Gramsci who said "The crisis is when the old man is dead and the new cannot be born".

A world is disappearing, but we do not know exactly what will happen. And he added about this moment a crisis is: « in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

What was he thinking of?

He was thinking of fascism that had already begun to appear in Italy which foresaw what was going to be the upheaval of nationalities, and Nazism throughout Europe. In a period of crisis that followed the great crisis of 29, a morbid symptom appeared.

And we are in this period and we know that in a crisis there is always what one might call a double polarization.

a. The temptation of the worst "it was better before" and "let us look back on ourselves" on our nation, on our community b. The temptation or the desire or the will to project in a future that is desirable, fraternal, solidary. We are at the time of choice.

When the old man is dead and the new one is not born yet, it is up to us to say what this new one can be.

And I turn to you because I, in this rally as in most of the rallies I have done, I can say thank you because it is for me an incredible emotion to see you so numerous. I want to say to the new generations who are here, that is to say to young people, whether young or not, that there is a very pretty phrase by Tocqueville, I believe, that says "Each new generation is a new people ".

I think it is up to you to tell during this election what people you want to be, what people you, the new generation, you want to be.

What decision do you take in this crisis for the world you want to see? Will it perpetuate the old order? Will we continue as before or do we decide whether or not to take an option that is a radically different option? Then, when I say "radically," it is not to break everything and imagine that paradise will appear behind.

How can we control the transitions that are taking place and what do I think about when I qualify this crisis?

What we know is changing, what is it? It is work and in this region (Lille), we have been able to measure the impact of deindustrialization and to see that in this crisis, what could be called the labour problem, given the growing number of unemployed, a type of morbid symptom is ppearing ... The same morbid symptom as in the 30's in Italy namely:

The one that flourishes justly on the anxiety of the next day, the one that thrives on the fear of the other, the one that thrives on the anxieties we have and that cannot be despised ...

When men and women in this region express this anxiety and fear, nothing would be worse than to despise them. Even when they feel the wrong anger, when they turn their anger towards foreigners, against Muslims, against immigrants in general and against all others and those do not feel that they can be scapegoats, eventually useful or practical to cope. Their anger is the wrong one but we must not despise their anxiety.

Facing this anxiety, what is our responsibility? It is to say what is happening, to start from reality, to try to propose a solution that projects a living political imagination.

Then, what is going on? What is the problem about work you started living years ago before other regions in France? There is a phenomenon (...) that even I say to those who oppose their faith that for them there is no upheaval of work... "Benoit Hamon is wrong, he is wrong on these things. After all, he thinks about post- employment society ... they say ...

Of course, there will obviously be work, but we have to face reality. This work may be rarer tomorrow, and even if it is not uncommon, it will be transformed tomorrow because of the digital revolution that is taking place. So, who spoke of it in his last speech, when passing the keys to an absolutely sordid character who is precisely a negative response to the crisis, it was Barack Obama when he gave the keys to Donald Trump. In his last speech at the White House, the former spoke about the transformation of work in connection with the digital revolution. That the trades will change because they will be automated, that they will have to train differently and with new skills.

Yesterday, artificial intelligence, algorithms and robots were not there. Today, technological progress will replace men.

Is this bad news? No! Let’s celebrate. This means that through technological innovation and human genius, all that humanity needs to live will be produced with less human labour. The question being raised is how do we manage this transition and how do we ensure that this technological progress and its meaning will be good or not to humanity.

It will be good, if tomorrow, we agree to divide work, which, because of the digital revolution leads us to accept a world in which there will be more and more unemployed people who have no work and a group of working people that we could split in two: those who are happy with their job because they have a good well-paid job which is a source of fulfilment, (…) and those who are happy to have a job because work is wages but do not thrive in their work, here comes suffering at work. What suffering are we talking about? , Today, when you are a nurse, a caregiver, when you are in a big administration and when we feel a loss of meaning, when you are in a small SME, when we are colonised by work. What suffering is it talking about? Of all these psychic pathologies. It is burnout, these depressions that make this job colonise you, you are so bad that you are mutilated, crushed and sometimes you fall. It is the wild reality of work, unemployment for some, work for others and in the middle, people who are unhappy at work when others, happy to go working make labour laws for everybody!

C. BENOÎT HAMON’S SPEECH AT ‘LA MUTUALITÉ’

We are living today a dangerous moment. Because of Donald Trump’s hostility towards Europe which echoes that of Vladimir Putin in the east. The fragility of the European project that no longer has a truly mobilising agenda that allows further integration. This puts us in a situation that is completely new. It seems to me that the "lesser America" that is emerging today confirms the direction of Barack Obama's administration on defences. Indeed, the latter had made the choice of a strategic priority towards Asia and to the detriment of Europe.

This situation is now reinforced by the statements of Donald Trump. When he welcomes the Brexit or when he denounces Germany in the heart of Europe, it leads us to tighten the ranks.

I propose four axes, four pillars.

The first pillar (axis) is the European defence. Today, France is the only country in the European Union to have a complete defensive tool. It has dissuasive land, air and navy forces. This defensive tool gives it a responsibility to turn to its partners and to propose them that on the industrial and military ground, we have tomorrow means to cooperate to enable us to face what will be the withdrawal of the USA from the protection of the European continent.

This is my first commitment.

For me, it is essential to have a stronger European strategy as for these questions of border and continent securities, of capacity to project our forces, because this time, it is dictated by the urgency of a new instability caused by Donald Trump and strengthened by Vladimir Putin.

And I therefore repeat that I don’t take for granted the violation of international legality in Crimea, nor do I take for granted the deliberate organisation of the destabilisation of a country, Ukraine, because we do not agree with the political majority.

Whatever one may think of it, and I say to all those who are fascinated by Putin on the left and right, fascinated by Putin by too much testosterone or virility that serves as a role model for putative providential men, this is not my model.

My model, it is to remember that France has an independent foreign policy. Even if the United States is a privileged ally, a French policy independent from Russia is necessary and that is why I am coming to the 2nd pillar (axis) on the energy issue.

It seems to me that we must go back to Jacques Delors’ very beautiful idea of a treaty on energy. In the wake of what had been the treaty of the European Coal and Steel Community: use energy as a means to look forward.

Jacques Delors proposed. What did he say? He said that today in some countries we need to secure supplies, to cooperate among states to ensure the energy sovereignty of the European continent, to rely on the extraordinary capacities of our companies in the energy field.

It should be noted that 40% of the patents registered in the energy field, are by French companies. By stimulating this market, we can acquire a privileged place in the world. Security of supplies, cooperation between states, dynamism of our companies, all this can build the foundation of an energy treaty around which the 3rd pillar (axis) is engaged: the ecological transition of our European economy.

The effort must be put in terms of investments in favour of the ecological transition and to fight against the inequalities on the European territory between those who go badly and those who go well. These investments must be raised up to 1000 billion euros, according to leverage which cannot continue to be from 1 to 10 as proposed today by the ‘Junker Plan’ because staying with such strong leverage only finances extremely profitable projects. We also need to invest in more patient, more moderate projects where the returns on investment are longer to obtain.

This is where we need a European public power. I also welcome Harlem Désir who is here and who knows these issues and matters better than anyone else.

The 4th pillar (axis) I propose is more difficult, I must admit. It is more complicated. But my hope is to see tomorrow a democratic regulation of the euro area. I want a parliamentary assembly of the euro zone that will allow what? That it allows the political choices that would be made in the euro area, including the targets that can be chosen in terms of the convergence of our economies.

That this be done in a framework that is no longer a governmental internal regulation, but a political and democratic regulation.

I aspire to a new European budgetary treaty which will make it possible to set this objective even if I know today that Mrs Merkel and many German Social Democrats are not necessarily in favour of this, but I still remember this sentence by Sigmar Gabriel * To Mrs Merkel who also indicates that this is moving with our German partners.

* German politician, member of the Social democratic party of Germany of which he is today a federal president.

Germany is not a homogeneous block, a granitic block where everybody, on the left and right, would defend the same positions. It's true about work, it's true about economy but Sigmar Gabriel asked Merkel and reproached her for not having answered the following question:

To want the French to decrease their public deficit by 0,5% is it worth the risk that Marine Le Pen comes to power, he says so, and I retain this question that today, the issues of convergence on deficits are ultimately secondary.

We need a project that will secure our collective preferences, what we want to develop and protect specially when we turn to the USA to consider a free trade treaty. Fortunately, it is set aside but we can do more tomorrow and begin trade negotiations without wanting to clearly protect and without knowing what we want to protect.

Budgetary treaty within the framework of democratic regulation, energy treaty; 1000 billion in investments on ecological transition and Europe of Defence will be the four axes I will propose tomorrow to our European partners. I add that it seems to me that it will be impossible if the gathering we want to build in France, we do not build it within the framework of a policy in Europe.

3. EMMANUEL MACRON*AND THE UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME

Interview of 20th January 2016 on R.M.C. (France)

I think that the basic income is an interesting idea. The debate should not be limited to the question: « Are you for or against it. » I think it is an idea that should be deepened in the next years. Why? Because it gives everyone the possibility to have a starting point in life. That is the idea of the universal basic income. There is also the idea of a capital, a donation for all who have reached a certain age. In fact, it refers to the philosophy we have of our society. For my own part, I believe in liberty. I believe in openness, I believe in the possibility to give everyone to achieve more easily, because it is this that recreates the conditions of real equality, and I think that the role of the state is to recreate these conditions of equality at each important step of life. In early childhood at school, when starting one’s professional life, when obtaining a degree, and then when life accidents occur, through social standards and social benefits, unemployment and education policy for unemployed persons, which is important, and we must not laugh at it nor minimise what the President said about it at the beginning of the week. The training of the unemployed was one of the shames of our country, too many few were being trained (…) But I don’t believe in egalitarianism, rather I believe in equal opportunities; and the idea of basic income or basic capital for all goes in this direction and I’m interested in it.

*Emmanuel Macron is a French politician, former senior civil servant and investment banker, born in Amiens, on 21st December 1977.

Graduated from ENA, Ecole nationale d’Administration, he was an Inspector of Finances, an Investment Banker at Rothschild and Cie Banque, before being appointed Deputy Secretary General from 2012 to 2014 in François Hollande’s staff.

He was appointed Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Data in the second government of Manuel Valls in August 2014. After being a member of the Socialist Party between 2006 and 2009, he founded the movement “En marche!” in April 2016, then resigned from his functions as minister in August the same year. He officially declared his candidacy for the French presidency on 16 November 2016 in Bobigny.