A new generation has taken the leadership within the eco-friendly family. The academic Fabrice Decoupigny is the elected representative within the institutions.
Geographer, he is a municipal and metropolitan councilor. His political group has two candidates Corinne Lallo (no.3) and Nadège Bonfils (no.9).
But Fabrice Decoupigny has many ideas on this subject… and he expresses them willingly!
Nice Premium: Should there be more Europe with common structures and a shift towards a federalist system? Or conversely, less Europe, a return to national sovereignty and commercial exchange zones?
Fabrice Decoupigny: Let’s set the record straight, federalism is not the dissolution of peoples; it is even the best way to address regional tensions that may exist in Europe. It ensures recognition for all minorities within nation-states. Today, the risk of war no longer exists between our European states, yet regional claims appear here and there that can be sources of tension for various reasons (historical, ethnic, religious, economic…) and thus having a federating and protective federal state is the best way to prevent these tensions.
This requires the establishment of federal regal institutions (police, army, justice) but also social and societal ones with real and powerful European public services (education, environment, energy, health, research, transport…). Our project is to build a European identity around a project that unites citizens and does not divide them by deregulating and creating social dumping. We will not build a viable Europe by pitting workers against each other.
Let’s ask ourselves the real questions: What Europe do we want? Federation or confederation? Parliamentary or presidential regime…
NP: What does Europe risk today? Can the financialization of the economy return to political, therefore democratic control?
FD: We need to stop saying there is no political control. If there is financialization of the economy, it’s simply because politicians have decided to let it happen. Silence implies consent… Why do states no longer have the right to invest in major industrial projects like in the 60s and 70s…? Why was it possible under De Gaulle and impossible under Hollande? Why a pact of responsibility, research tax credits, without quid pro quo?
The problem with the economy is that experts try to present economics as an exact mathematical science with complex equations whereas it is a discipline of human and social science. With their calculation methods, they always prove that deregulation is needed, to lower contributions and taxes for the wealthiest.
The technostructure of the commission has taken on too much importance and power. The European citizen must reclaim the European project if they do not want to see democracy fade over the years.
NP: Is the Euro a protective “ecu” or an intellectual ambition? What kind of common budgetary policy? What kind of fiscal harmonization to avoid bidding between “competing” countries?
FD: If we’re talking about a European budget, we’re talking about budgetary orientations, therefore political choices, it’s the essence of executive power. Consequently, who decides and how? I do not believe we can continue to build Europe without going through a real constitutional debate. Social and fiscal harmonization can only happen if we provide ourselves with the appropriate political tools to impose it on everyone. One of the causes of the sense of injustice is inequality in taxation. Is it normal for a multinational to pay less tax on profits than a SME? We need a European minimum wage and to level employee rights upward. It is not normal for countries investing in a social system to be disadvantaged compared to others. There’s no problem with a Polish plumber coming to work in France, but he does so with a French employment contract.
We believe we must establish regulations that apply everywhere, uniformly, by applying social and fiscal harmonization criteria. This requires a big effort for some. It will then be necessary to negotiate multi-annual catch-up plans.
NP: Should there be structural reforms to liberalize the labor market and reduce its cost, or instead sustainably reduce public spending and restrict the scope of the welfare state?
FD: Currently, structural reforms are only designed to give more flexibility to capital and finance as nothing should hinder free competition. It still feels like Europe is managed on the backs of employees, it’s a strong unpleasant feeling.
The only structural reform that matters is the one that should make Europe a political entity and not a club of states agreeing on austerity and reduced public spending.
Again, this relates to the political construction of a federal Europe. It means putting on the table questions of social and fiscal harmonization, public services, solidarity policies. It simply means putting the European project at the heart of politics and the lives of Europeans. Stop with commissioners who think only of deregulating and deconstructing the social-economic diversity of our states as is currently the case with the transatlantic trade treaty project TAFTA.
NP: Is it worrying that France is deindustrializing? Is the innovation economy an answer? What policy to support?
FD: What industry are we talking about? The deindustrialization of traditional industrial activities is proof that our economy is in transition. It results from an economic process of productivity gain. We relocate low value-added industrial activities to be able to allocate investments to high value-added productions (communication, knowledge, digital, research, energies, services…). It is the same process that saw England relocate its wool production to its colonies in the 18th century and bring it back to be woven in its factories: this was later called the industrial revolution.
The question is not whether to keep these industries, but to adapt our economy by investing in new more sustainable production modes to create more wealth. Thus, we can sustain and perpetuate our social system.
It must be noted that there are incredible wealth deposits, for example: energy transition, the digital economy, transportation modes, biotechnologies, the carbon industry, recycling…. But these investments conflict with investments from multinationals that do not want to see their dominant (or even monopolistic) positions challenged. Take the case of fossil energies with the issue of shale gas. We continue to head towards a wall, and we think that by honking it will move.
What is certain is that the later we adopt the energy transition, the more the conversion will cost us. By refusing to invest today, we will become dependent on patents filed by others whereas we have the means and the competence to be leaders in this sector, what a waste…
NP: Is the conception of the ethnic nation still the answer to globalization? France invented the civic nation, based on values, regardless of origin: is fraternity still relevant?
FD: An ethnic nation? We know what that leads to, recent history of the 20th century has shown us where that leads: to disaster.
If the nation is the construction of an identity that allows the individual to emancipate, choose their life, live free and equal to others in all fraternity, then yes, Europe must be a Nation.
Condorcet said that “an identity is an equality that is always true regardless of the values it composes.” This means that an identity is not used to exclude but to integrate all men in their diversity.
Oh yes, fraternity is still relevant and more so today than ever. It’s precisely because we have forgotten it, or rather that they attempt to make us forget it, that we find ourselves discussing its legitimacy. It is a concept that goes against deregulation, so fashionable in the gilded salons of our rulers, because fraternity opposes the individualistic model of society that liberal economic gurus try to impose on us.
Ultimately, Europe will only regain momentum if the citizen imposes a great debate on the construction of a political Europe. That’s the whole challenge of these elections…
