 So, good afternoon everyone. Eamon Rhyn is my name. There's a takeover of the Green Party here today of the Institute of International and European Affairs. I'm glad to be joined by my colleague, the head of the Green Party in Northern Ireland, Claire Bailey MLA. I'm my colleague, Councillor Karen Cough, who will be running for us in the European elections. And more than anything else, to my right by the co-chair of the European Green Group in the European Parliament, Philippe Lambert. I've known Philippe for over 15-20 years now. You know, I work together on a whole variety of different issues. And he's someone I trust, which is an important thing in politics. And I'm very glad that he's here today. We're part of a series of engagements, not surprisingly connected to the whole Brexit process. It's central stage at the moment. Philippe is on the special subcommittee in the European Parliament. Brexit Steering Group. Steering Group, which is assessing the whole Brexit negotiations from that place. He's very influential voice. So we're looking forward to meeting the T-shirt later on today and having a series of engagements with the political system here. But I think it's really appropriate he's here in the Institute. We can bring up Brexit, but for a slightly wider conversation. And as part of the work that the Institute does here in looking at the future of Europe as part of that wider dialogue that's taking place, needs to take place right across the Union. I think it was a really good opportunity to get him in his address to us to set out some of his personal vision, set context for the future, a green vision maybe if I call it for the future of Europe, where we are today and what might come next. Brexit will obviously come into it. We'll have his speech, but then broaden it out in a question and answer. All of which will be videoed, so it'll be slightly different to usual. If you're asking a question, it'll be there forever in zeros and ones on the internet. But I think it's a very timely event. I very much appreciate the opportunity to hear Philippe here and for the conversation that will follow. Philippe, you're very welcome. Do you want to stand or do you prefer to sit? I think I'll speak from here. If that is okay with you, you don't see me. Well, thanks a lot. I'm really happy to be again in Dublin. It's been a long time since our last game here. It was for a Council of the European Green Party. I'm not even sure I was already an MEP. That would make it more than 10 years. Anyway, future of Europe. Flashback 24 months, 36 months. We have the Brexit referendum. We have Trump elected in the US. We see national populist parties on the rise all over Europe. Even in staunchly pro-European countries, such as mine or yours, we see an anti-Europe sentiment rising or at least a receding enthusiasm. So the blind faith in ever closer union seems to be receding. And even six months ago, it was basically a given that the next European elections would produce massive gains for the national populists and would basically put the future of the European Union in question. And actually, I have many reasons to hope. Not because we have the future of Europe debates in the European Parliament and we hear many good words, but because it seems that the worst is never certain. Look at the last few elections we've had in 2018. National populists were said to make huge gains. Be number one in Sweden. They ended up number three. Wilders was going to win the Dutch election. It didn't. Yes, they did win in Italy, obviously. They did win to a large extent in Austria. But they are not basically winning the public opinion battle. So it seems that indeed the worst is not really certain. And what really gives me courage is what happened in October, of course. On the same day, on a Sunday, the 14th, you have elections in Bavaria, in Luxembourg and in Belgium. So regional, national, municipal in Belgium. And you see that apparently, if you're not happy with mainstream policies for which the US becomes an emblem, well, then maybe there's another alternative than national populism. And I'd like to dwell a bit on that because my reading of the rising disenchantment about the European Union has little to do with nationalism. Of course, we do have nationalism in Europe, quite obviously. I mean, we see that in large countries that once were global superpowers and of course English nationalism is one of the drivers of Brexit. We have French nationalism. France also was once a global superpower. Ireland never was. Belgium never was. But then you have other forms of nationalism. We have Flemish nationalism in Belgium because a culture has been repressed for a long time and the scars of this repression are still there, at least in the public memory. But nationalism cannot be the explanation. There's something else that makes these parties grow and grow, they reach the 20s, the 30s, sometimes the 40s in the electorate. And my reading of that is that well, when you have people who feel that they are being left behind and it can be left behind economically, it can be left behind culturally, or when they are not left behind but they feel they might be the next ones being left behind and that they feel left behind not because of climate change but because of political decisions, political choices. And the European Union is being often portrayed as the place where these political choices are made or the alibi why these political decisions are made, well then you turn against the European Union. Neoliberal globalization is basically done at the behest of the European Union, well then let's turn against the European Union. It's not that we are nationalists and you will hear many people who are totally disenchanted by the EU. Well, positively saying we are not nationalists but the European Union is a neoliberal construction. You hear Jeremy Corbyn saying that and he is not alone saying that on the left side of the aisle. Well then, maybe there is some reason there and I mentioned over lunch, look at the Belgian Prime Minister who promised in the electoral campaign he would never ever postpone the legal retirement age and that's one of the first things he did, once in power. Why? Because the European Union is asking us, who is the European Union? Well, there is one body that proposes legislations and that's the commission, who are the commissioners? Unelected bureaucrats, absolutely not. They are politicians designated by the 27 national governments who are in turn accountable to their parliament and there to their voters. It's the council and parliament. Parliament, well, 751 people directly elected by citizens. We are not unelected bureaucrats, we are politicians. And the council, 27 heads of state and government accountable to their parliament, again. So, it's not unelected bureaucrats, it's politicians making political choices. But oftentimes, hiding behind the complexity of Brussels or the country specific recommendations of Brussels not to have to pay the political price of reforms that they are making. It can be labour market reforms, it can be prolonging glyphosate, it can be permitting cars to emit much more than legally allowed. It can be many things. But they can say, well, it was Brussels, it was not us because they don't want to pay the political price. And that actually is good news. That is good news because if the policies that are carried out by the European Union are, well, at the level of the European Union are basically, consist basically of adapting the countries of this continent to the neoliberal version of globalization because there's not one single version of globalization. Well, the current version we have is a political choice. Well, it's because the political majorities want this. I mean, two-thirds of the European parliament ratified CETA, the Free Trade Agreement with Canada. Which is basically a free trade agreement that mostly benefits capital owners. That's fact. So it's one of those many factors that increase the rent extraction capability of the capital owners. If you want to call them the rich, fine. But let's use a technical term. Well, there was a majority. There could have been another majority saying, well, no, we don't want this. And that means that, well, even at the European level, different majorities can do different things. And that's basically what makes me hopeful because indeed, it would have seemed that Emmanuel Macron was pushing in that direction and still does, actually. That the choice was between either you're European, you're pro-Europe or you are a national populist. So either you're progressive pro-European for an open society or you're anti-Europe. Which basically is a way to confirm that there is only one version of the European Union, of the European project. And that's a neoliberal one. I remember pretty well when my predecessor, Danny Convend, came to the Green Group in the European parliament pushing us to join Macron. We said exactly no way. We said we do not want to confirm this idea that the national populists are pending as well, that there's one version of Europe. And that is a neoliberal version. And Corbyn is saying that basically. And so if you want other policies, there's no other way than quit. Whereas we say no. If you want other policies, elect different majorities. And so it's not like it's a two-way competition. It's a three-way competition that we are looking at. It's a competition between who will present the most desirable and credible alternative to the neoliberal version of the European integration that is currently mainstream. And indeed, one alternative is the national populist one. And the other one is the one that we Greens are bearing. We do not have exclusive rights on that version. But we are, I think, drivers of that positive pro-EU alternative. And I'd like to structure this three-way debate this way. If you look at the neoliberal ideology that is grounded in neoclassical economics, at the root of society, actually there's no such thing as society, as Margaret Thatcher once said, but at the root of human groups, there's the Homo economicus, which is driven by the maximization of its utility function. And in the utility function, you have only one thing. Well, you have several things, but only things that have a price enter into that utility function, something that has no price, has no value. We are just driven by things that can be monetized, that can be priced. And the free and unfettered competition of everyone with everyone produces the optimum for society, right? This is, of course, bullshit science. Bullshit science. I mean, if you look at the evidence, and there may be trained economists here, but the neoclassical economists have been proven wrong by real life, and the usual reaction of neoclassical economics is if reality doesn't fit the model, then reality is wrong, which is the definition of religion. I want to make society a better place, follow neoclassical economic textbooks. That's a new religion, but it has nothing to do with describing societies and human beings as they are. But this is predicated on a vision of me, myself, the individual, first person or the singular. And in a way, if you listen to the national populists, they bring back the we at the center. It's us. It's not me. It's us. But the way they define the first person of the plural is us against them. Them can be, well, these Arabs who want to invade us, and that's a fairly often used version. It can be the cosmopolitan capitalism, but it's us against them, basically. And we agree that we have to bring back the first person of the plural in the center, but all version of we is an inclusive one, one that basically says, look at the challenges that we have to face. Look at climate change. Look, indeed, at asylum and migration. Look at the power of multinationals. Look at rising inequality. These are all challenges that are beyond the capabilities of any individual. But together we may find the solution. We're not certain. We are not making you the promise that all societies have what it takes to answer that. But we do believe that there's a chance. That there's a chance if we are able to, I wouldn't say to unite because it gives the impression that, well, all societies are just uniform. They are not. They are plural. But that if we work together, the we can find answers to the challenges of this century. And again, what I saw in October, what I saw ever since, shows that this version of the we extraction. And I take courage from two phenomena that we have seen blooming in my part of Europe. So Belgium, France, say the old member states. It's this dual movement of climate marches. And frankly speaking, you know, the annual climate march before the COP, the annual COP in Belgium used to gather 5 to 10,000 people this year, 75,000. And you know what? There was a repeat one in January against 75,000 people. And in between, you have 30,000 young people demonstrating every Thursday, so I'm not there today, industries to demand action from the government. And of course, that movement is not at strong in all parts of Europe, but it came to the surface. And a bit before then, that was November, the Yellow Vests. And you might say, you agree? Are you, well, see hope in the Yellow Vests? Absolutely. Of course, there's everything in the Yellow Vests. But if you listen to the people who demonstrate, they demonstrate against injustice, social injustice. So they are not demonstrating because, well, you know, that these demonstrations started because of a hike in fuel prices. And so, yeah, because of green taxes. Not exactly actually, because of international markets. But of course, they were compounded by green taxes. But when you listen to those people, they do not demonstrate against the transition. They want the transition to be just, to be fair, to make sure that those who have the broadest shoulders carry the largest share of the effort, which is a human expectation, right? And at the same time, they demonstrate for a real democracy. And in a way, it's perfectly logical. If the inequality is rising, and especially if taxes are unjust, it's because parliaments are adopting those taxes. And that must be wrong if parliaments who are supposed to defend the general interests vote taxes that favor the happy few. So something must be rotten in all democracies if we have to judge by the result. And so the two demands that they pose, so more just taxes, more inclusive democracy are actually intermingled. They are linked with one another. An oligarchic system will produce oligarchic laws. A democratic system will produce democratic laws. That's a basic thing. So actually, I see those two movements, the green vest and the yellow vest, as actually being, well, they come from two different angles. I would say they embody the two time bombs our societies are sitting on, rising inequality and rising ecological footprint. But solving these goes hand in hand. There will be no ecological transition if it's not just, and then all societies will collapse. So if you want ecological transition to happen, it has to be just. It has to be democratic. Because, well, sometimes, and that's just an aside, and that comes more often these days, I hear people asking me seriously, when we see the global ecological urgency, is democracy the right way to tackle it? In other terms, don't we need an enlightened despot to lead us into the hard reforms that need to be made? My usual answer is to say, no, unless I can be the despot. But then again, I think twice, because, well, being a despot is a full-time job and I like to have my free time and my family time, if I can be a half-time despot it's fine. No, seriously, actually, those who would think along these lines, forget one thing, is that we do not have, and the neoliberals remind us that daily, we do not have the map, the plan of the ideal society, of the just sustainable democratic society. We have to invent it. We do not have the GPS that leads us from where we are to where we need to be. We have to be reinvented. And no one, even Emmanuel Macron, no one is bright enough to understand this world. So only collective intelligence can help us here. And there you need a reinvented democracy, because if you look at democracy as we practice it, it's basically a competition between competing elites who claim to know what is good for society. And so, well, believe more in me than them, we don't understand this world, we understand it better, and so vote for us. But actually, that is democracy, maybe not 101, but it's the previous version of democracy. Can we reinvent our democracy so that they become instruments to leverage collective intelligence? Because you might say that this model was fine when the education level in society was quite low. I mean, many people were so linked to their daily lives that they could not possibly fathom the depth of the issues that we needed to tackle, but no longer. I mean, people are educated, they're not stupid. And can we reinvent our democracy so that they become more inclusive? Random selections of representatives? Well, more participative democracy as we see in Switzerland or in California? Well, these are avenues that should be explored. But again, what I'm saying, back to the yellow and green vest, what I see is that it's a repoliticization of society, quite obviously, not in a party-politician sense of the word, but really, well, people want to think by themselves about how their societies are working. And they see that the social and the environmental dimension are linked. Now, interestingly, the yellow vests and the green vests are not the same people. If you go and meet with people from the climate marches, you will see people who are usually well-off, typically green voters. If you go meet with yellow vests, these will be people with whom at least we, greens, have not engaged quite a lot the last few years. But there's opening, there's opening to do so, but you can see that these people come from very different cultural backgrounds. And that is, to me, a source of comfort to see, well, neither the yellow vests, and of course some do, but most, the bulk of the yellow vests are not just embracing national populism. They are not. They are not talking with them. They are not. And of course, the green vest aren't either. So that means that there is real space for, say, a positive we alternative to the dictatorship of my short-term profit at the expense of everything else, the planet or my fellow human beings. There's space for that positive answer. And this is where I do take courage. So I do not believe that Europe is doomed. I do not believe that you can keep the European project just by scaring people and saying, look at Brexit. Do you really want that to happen to you? No, so please stay in line. That is not enough. You need a positive project. But actually, Europe can be that positive project. And I'll finish there. I mean, some on my left will say, well, Europe is neoliberal, so you have to get out of it, or you have to change the treaties. But as you know, to change the treaties, you need that something called unanimity. And I keep saying, well, you know, to change the common agricultural policy, you need another majority. To make the fight against climate change the ecological and just transition, the core project of the European Union, you don't need unanimity. You need a majority. To stop passing the kind of free trade deals that we are passing currently, you don't need unanimity. You just need a different majority. To change the country's specific recommendations. And to, for instance, put at their heart, reduction of inequalities, reduction of ecological footprint, you don't need to treaty change. You need another majority. And I could go on and on and on and on. So please, don't break the instrument that Europe is. Because it's a very powerful one, and I would say it's the most powerful one we have. Because if we want to face climate change, if we want to face the migration challenge, if we want to tame the multinationals, it won't be Ireland, it won't be Belgium, but it won't be Germany. Well, we need leverage. And there, the single market gives us the leverage that we want. Because I know no multinational who would just, well, forget about the single market as a key market to serve. We can dictate our conditions. Market access is the leverage. If you destroy the European Union, we will be played by multinationals. And by Putin. And by Xi Jinping. And by Erdogan. And by Daesh. If we want to be players and to be played, it's together. You know, the motto of Belgium is l'Union fait la force, or Union makes you strong. And the motto of the European Union is unity and diversity. And I believe that actually the two go together. Unity and diversity makes us strong to face the challenges of these times. And you know what? When I speak that language to citizens, it does resonate. So we'll see in a few months' time whether, well, we see that in the numbers, but I'm reasonably confident. Thank you. I'm just slightly nervous because I looked out in our audience here today, in our room. There are some classical economists. Well, maybe they're not. Maybe I'm... But... That's a very... Thank you very much for that very broad outline of your vision. A green vision for the future of Europe. I'll cap it to throw it out to anyone who might want to pick up one of the threads and run with it soon. If you introduce yourself. My name is previously with the Economic and Social Research Institute. I've never known what sort of economist to call myself. But I just think that you can't really say that about neoclassical economists because Pigu was a hundred years ago and he changed economics really. And so since then we've had this huge understanding that there's far more to it than just the simple human optimization. There is a whole raft of externalities over there which isn't even priced and we have to put them into the equation. If we don't put them in the equation humanity is lost. So I don't know what sort of economist I am. Perhaps I'm not a neoclassical economist but I've always thought I was. But I just have a question and that is really to do with the press and free speech, press, control of the press press barons, being tax evaders we've seen that on the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail who had a motive for distorting the truth. I think that's part of the narrative. What do you think? Well, first on we have to internalize the externalities yes to some extent but again what do we say to describe something that has immense value to us it is priceless. Some stuff cannot be priced. And that is what I keep saying I'm an engineer I'm minor in economy but I'm an engineer I know thermodynamics there's limits to what you can do in reality. So, well, I'm okay if you can put an infinite price but then what's the point? What's the point because it destroys your equation? No. The key thing is that again to neoclassical economists the economic theory encompasses everything whereas in my view the economy is the subset a subset of human life. There's loads of things in my life that are not economic that will never be captured by economic theory and that's a very good thing the problem is that policy today is driven by one thing economists. I know it's a bit more complex but the thing is that basically the driver if this is profitable we should do it. What are the impact studies of the European Commission? It's about profit. If it's profitable it needs to be done when the car industry is saying no ambitious CO2 targets because this will destroy jobs what they want to say it will destroy profits it's okay to poison it's okay to kill as long as it's profitable and I refuse this logic that what basically profit is the driver that's basically a worldview that I don't share that actually I fight against so I want to be very clear about that so yes these zealots because they are all these tally bats I mean when I read some people around Jean Tirol the former Nobel Prize in Economics who were claiming and who are claiming that economics as a science has gotten to the point where it can describe my reality as well as the laws of gravity can describe gravitation we are an exact science dare them that's a manifest written in France you might say okay the French economics are a special species they wrote it, they claim this I mean these are tally bats they are religious zealots now back to your question about the press on the one hand what you described about the Daily Mail and the telegraph and the not so free press in Poland and Hungary is all true and on the other hand I see that someone like a boss of Le Monde can create media parties in France with little money and create a medium that is profitable that has 200 and some journalists doing investigative work and asking 90 euros a year as a subscription fee so there is a room for free and independent press same thing of course you might say well Facebook is biased and all the rest of it I can use these tools to convey views that are unorthodox so I mean it's not as if people cannot choose they can so I'm not sure that I would well how should I say you may of course choose as a policy to say ok I will subsidize some media to ensure diversity what I may do is try to make sure that the big ones do not have monopoly power and there we can do some stuff one of these ideas that I harbor why don't we give every citizen from age I don't know what an information budget that he or she can spend on any medium so we are not subsidizing media directly we are subsidizing people but we are giving them an information budget and they spend it wherever they like as long as it's a medium and there you have to have rules I don't know I really don't have the answer I would say that by and large in Europe at the moment not in every country but we still have well I would say for citizens who want to have independent information they can get access to it we are not in China and I'm glad we are not and on the other hand if you want to start a medium an independent medium in most European member states some it's really hard but so yes it is a key issue but not one that keeps me awake at night I may be mistaken I don't know but at the moment I do not see that we are in a in a well and again barring examples such as Hungary or Poland or maybe a few others but I would say that by and large in Europe you still can get access to free unbiased information another question could you introduce yourself thanks Eimann Eugene Downs member of the institute Philippe can I ask you what are the green proposals for further EU political integration if any in the next 5 to 10 years aha are you talking policy or institutions institutions structures I'll shock you because we do not believe that the institutional debate is a key one I have countless ideas and we have countless ideas as to how to change stuff there's tiny things that you can do that can have some resonance but I'm not happy with a system where people from the executive branch become legislators I hate it I mean the council should not exist you should have a chamber of the states well a senate basically a european senate and a european lower chamber I would be much more comfortable with that but are we going to get that anytime soon no and I don't want to waste any political capital on that why is that again and I try to explain that of course I would change many things in the treaty I would simplify the treaties I think actually that there's a lot of policy stuff in treaties that doesn't belong there a treaty basically is a constitution constitution is about basic values and basic institutions and we should limit it to that and all the rest should be left to policy makers to decide do we want do we want to be able to perform canadian policy economic policy yes why not but then again that's a political choice but we are not going to reform the treaties anytime soon is it fair to write in a treaty a neoliberal provision such as it is prohibited for the central bank to buy public debt this has nothing to do with how should I say a constraint of nature same thing with the 3% the deficit rule 3% of GDP max the debt rule 60% of GDP max no scientific basis doesn't belong there that's again ideology you don't want to put too much ideology into treaties but again I don't want to waste energy on that why because again social emergency environmental emergency many things can be done without treaty change the more political capital you spent on institution reform the less you have to spend on policy changes and you know what all people demand policy changes they care about the way the institutions work with one another that's for us to decide what they want is output legitimacy first and foremost the gilet jaune and the green vest they want different policies and this is where we want to spend political capital so if you look within our program you will find some stuff on reforming the eurozone and all the rest of it but again institution reform is not the key thing and there's some institution reforms that I may end up being negotiating for months from now that have no place in treaties it's like well impact assessment what if we decide that impact assessment is first about impact on social inequality and on ecological footprint and oh by the way we can look at the economic winners and losers of any reform we take to judge any reform any law that we want to pass in Europe first on their impact on social justice and on ecological footprint that would be a revolution that is just an internal rule of the commission political choice this is much more important and you might say yeah but you will bump into the limits of the treaties yes of course it's prohibited for the central bank to buy public debt how come the European central bank ends up owning 25% of public debt at the moment ah well the Germans are right we circumvented the treaty and that's a good thing you might say yeah political expediency again I'm not a lawyer I'm an engineer I want to make it work and if we have to cut some corners sometimes well we have we have to especially if treaties are harboring misguided ideology so but I won't spend a lot on institutional reforms we have no time for that maybe someday we will dig deeper into that again but not now and that is a big difference with the far left competitors that we have who demand a treaty change otherwise they will ah advocate exit of France or Austria or I don't know what no no no that is not our way thank you very much for the exposition of your green position and thank you indeed for the greens work in the European Parliament we've had a number of other visitors from your party here with impressive achievements I am however just to come back to the trade issue I'm a child of 1950s Ireland I think your message is probably quite a hard one to sell in this country we're a hugely trade dependent nation and the changes in this country from the 70s onwards have owed they've owed a lot to different aspects of the European Union but two of them in particular the creation of the internal market the trade between us the removal of barriers and all the movements that go with it but secondly the liberalization of trade between the European Union and third countries has been enormously beneficial to this country so my question is I believe you mentioned your support for the internal market but you also instanced your opposition if I understood rightly to the Canada Free Trade Agreement what would be your model for the European Union's future relationships in trade third countries whether they are Canada, Japan or indeed India thank you for asking the question because it's really a crucial one at your right to point that the single market is the most accomplished free trade deal ever but there's a big difference between CETA and the single market you do have a single market that is ruled by democratic institutions at the same level as the single market that is the European Parliament and the European Council driven by the European Commission you do not have a new Canada Parliament you do not have a new Canada Council you do not have a new Canada Commission and when you say that you have free trade absolutely free trade between jurisdictions how should I say let me put it this way when the market is bigger than the democratic jurisdictions the ultimate holder of sovereignty are the market players and this is not democracy does that mean that we can have no free trade absolutely not absolutely not but ultimately the jurisdiction must stay with democratically elected bodies why did we oppose CETA well let me first take the democratic aspect and I'll come to the ecological aspect the democratic aspect is quite obvious when you strive for regulatory convergence and doing so you want to curb the autonomy of legislators both in Canada and Europe to make decisions because these would create non-tariff barriers to trade because that's the way they used to call environmental, social, provisions then I'm saying no it cannot be when you are giving a certain type of player called the investor inappropriately so don't forget that most people who call themselves investors are rent seekers because the investor is someone who takes a risk right so I'm betting money and resources right now hoping for future profit an investor is by definition someone who takes risk when you look at today's investors they want risk to be born by society and profits to be carried by them hence ISDS no, you're an investor you believe that the legal regime in Canada not to be safe enough for you don't invest there you believe it's too risky to go to China don't do it but why should citizens carry the risk you're an investor earn your name so no special treatment for investors there's no reason to do that that is ideological and it's not by chance that Amcham Europe business Europe and all the rest were clinging to ISDS like this was a life and death issue we can't accept this we can't accept this public services why is it so that everything can be privatized except a tiny list of this, this and this why is it that the rule is market and the exception is collective management of commons no, there's no reason this is purely ideological no place in such treaties now let me come to the ecological part and that's the engineer speaking one more ton over one more kilometer that's more ecological footprint why is it so that one of the key wins of Canada in the free trade deal has a number attached to it 120,000 tons per year of what meat you might think it's meat because what the FT Rex is there and we don't in Europe or kangaroo, no that's Australia no beef and pork as if we can't breed these beasts in Europe yeah but they do it differently there different taste give me a break industrial farming gives a different result over there than here no, all markets are already curated with meat and we say let another 120,000 tons come every year to Europe what's the point what's the point so if trade deals are about increasing volumes they are running counter the objective of reducing our ecological footprint and Britain may discover that soon that actually distance counts dreaming to replace the single market with China, with India with Australia or whatever I mean they are not placed exactly where Europe is placed and especially with rising climate change we will fill the pinch therefore trade deals cannot be about volume they must be about something else and this is why we are not saying no trade deals we are saying different trade deals and those trade deals must leverage market access and by doing that what you do is potentially exporting your norms and that becomes interesting because when you have like-minded countries and I hope that we can find allies and in that sense you might think well Canada was a good example but Canada if you look at the country on ecological terms wanted to export tar sands I mean come on Justin Trudeau was presented as the new kid on the block the greenest prime minister of Canada give me a break again look at the substance what is it that we want to do business with with Canada and if we can find indeed like-minded countries we can really indeed on common norms that was the whole idea behind TTIP but again this was a system where norms would have been driven by downwards competition this is not what we want you might have I'm just dreaming you might have free trade deals that basically say this on every topic that is within scope we decide that the most ambitious norm trumps the other and then you start an upwards competition between legislatures because if we have such a provision between Canada and EU well maybe the Canada parliament will be more stringent on car emissions aha and then their norms would be applicable to Europe and likewise we might be stricter on I don't know under crime disruptors and we might drive their legislation upwards that would be a game changer do we want to go there do we want to go in a place where we say we recognize that in some cases you need supranational jurisdictions to to decide over disputes linked to trade I'm not saying no to that but I'm saying fine investors are just one type of stakeholders consumers NGOs governments are all likely to want to go to such international jurisdictions at some point in time so no special treatment everyone is welcome it's a court that is accessible to any stakeholder fine by me fine by me let's do it because you know we are multilateralists I prefer the WTO to bilateral deals but can we make the WTO work for the people and not for multinationals a bit dichotomic I hope so but again it takes political majorities at the moment the multilateral order doesn't look good and this is why we are not saying protectionism we are saying let's do the right thing we will need to relocalize the economy to some extent and don't forget David Ricardo the his theory of comparative advantages is only valid and there's a footnote there if there's no freedom of circulation of that thing called capital in that case indeed every country can benefit of specialization but when you have free circulation of capital which is the regime we are in then indeed you have winners and losers and then losers revolt you want to continue that? we don't so yes we need to change course on trade now will we find people who will want to deal with us on that basis I don't know I don't know but let's start with Europe and yes we are interdependent so not everything we consume here will be produced in Europe but yes we need to a degree of relocalization also in terms of resilience because again if you make your economy totally dependent and Germany is learning this the hard way the coming months if you bet your entire economy on global trade when your customers turn sour on you you're in a bad place and Germany will soon rediscover that the single market is it's high math that's where they belong thank you thank you very much for your address my name is Adi Naudakati I'm involved in various environmental grassroots groups and I wanted to ask you about what you were saying about the increased strikes increased mobilization of people we're seeing out on the streets about climate change I think in activist groups we tend to focus a lot of our efforts on trying to influence national policy so what do you think we can do particularly with the European elections coming up to make our voices heard at the European level and also how do you think we can leverage this increased mobilization increased engagement to make actual policy changes well first I do not understand what is happening I'm serious I did not predict and probably could not predict that suddenly there was a government crisis in December on migration on migration and now climate change and it goes beyond climate change because listen to the demonstrators it's about biodiversity it's about resource exhaustion the entire spectrum is really number one I don't know how it came to be I do not know why it crystallized now so you have to ask the people who organize the climate marches in Belgium I don't know I think they have been surprised as well that it catches now I don't know how now second thing the European level is absolutely crucial because you said it in Ireland and Belgium is also one of those food draggers we have to recognize that the impetus has been given more by the European level than the national level so I do deplore that Europe is no longer the global champion it used to be but still the European level is more ambitious than the national is obviously and that's a good thing now what I do believe is that indeed the climate marches the demonstrations that we are seeing will increase the political pressure it's really incredible that Barre the Flemish nationalist in Belgium everyone now says we have to step up the ambition Belgium is a food dragging country really food dragging maybe not as bad as yours but frankly 13% reduction in CO2 that is way too much we won't be able to do it so now well they feel forced and again that's democracy public opinion counts because people feel losing their seats and that's a good thing so yes it will maybe have the next Belgian government being a driving force at the European level but actually don't forget that the commission also to some extent responds to the political climate so if they feel that climate is going up the next European commission might be more ambitious again but if they feel that in most member states actually there's resistance they will say well we are not going to waste political capital and to the hell with climate but I have no advice to give you because I don't know how it happened I'm just saying that well now obviously when I organize citizens meetings the number one preoccupation is climate way before migration and interestingly if you look at the tour barometer it is also true because migration has seldom been on the number one position so this is the result of political instrumentalization I mean well a number of political leaders or followers actually think that it is expedient to use that topic to their advantage but I'm not sure that this will work in the next European election but then again Belgium is not the entire European Union we don't have climate marches in Poland we had some marches on the Biario-Wiesza forest in Poland but not so much on the climate issue so well the more MEPs who are motivated for a paradigm shift in the European Parliament in direction the more chances we have to enact systemic change because what we need is systemic change and that's one thing that I also want to stress you cannot have and I think I already hinted at that you cannot have neoliberal globalization and the ecological and just transition it's either or and yes it's scary because well we know what the system looks like and we don't know what it should look like but again we have to invent it and we know that continuing on the neoliberal globalization will basically drive humanity into the war and a very thick one and don't forget and that's personal experience that some think that actually we can solve the climate issue by drastically reducing the size of humanity just imagine that there's only 100 million people on this planet that makes the ecological equation much easier to solve and if we don't need all these zillions people building the things that we the rich need why should we keep them no no I've heard that kind of cynical language so that's what we are up against we leave it in that cheery thought no no no we won't that won't be my last word no it won't last question and then we'll actually two questions one is you said but quite rightly that the Greens have done very well in some elections in Bavaria and in Belgium and not extremely well how do you see them the Green family expanding its scope to central Eastern Europe where it's very weak and in certain other areas and in particular the question of the lead candidates where you have lead candidates will they will they manage to go around Europe because last time the perception was very little followed here in Ireland the perception was that it was all in the centre of Europe the debates were in Brussels Germany and they didn't come out for example there were no debates and none of the lead candidates came to Ireland at all one did Martin Schultz and the other party so I just wonder how you do that and my second question no one has raised it almost feels like pulling the discussion down after what you've been saying on the big themes and that is Brexit I heard you on the radio this morning saying that the backstop should be defended firstly for the peace process and secondly for to defend the single market but where in this moment of impasse where do you see it going well let me start with this one I'll end on a more positive note I'm not optimistic because I look at the British political class and I will not generalize but at least I see to I don't know whether I have to call them leaders but Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn who are obsessed by the by power basically so in order to get well to keep Downing Street or to win it I need to keep a semblance of unity in my ranks and I will not do anything that divides my party to the point of break up so if that has to cost the country fine and that leads us to no deal Brexit that's a reality and this country is the one that will suffer most from it but at the moment I do not see people prepared to give up on short term party political interests so as to reach a sensible deal in Westminster because at the point in time you need the British democracy whatever it's shortcomings and they are big to come to a conclusion so the only things that I am seeing in Westminster is majorities against something I didn't see a positive majority yet so I sense there is but materializing it would break both the Tory and the Labour parties and to some extent Brexit is the result of the first passable system really because this system forces bipolarization between two big parties which almost by construction will harbour people of totally different opinions and don't forget that the referendum was called in order to settle the EU question in the Tory party just imagine that you would have a proportional representation voting system in the UK you would have had a nationalist right-wing party and a nationalist left-wing party and a pro-EU right-wing party and a pro-EU left-wing party you would have a coalition regime and you would never have had a need for a referendum and this is where in the mother of all democracies I am not sure that the UK deserves that name of being the mother of human rights but that democracy is not working as a democracy should I think and that's where we are no, I understand that Scar will be here so Scar Keller one of the two Spitzman candidates of the Greens will be here next week I'm here, it's not because you are or you are not a Spitzman candidate that you are not campaigning for your party outside of your home turf I'm wasting my time here no voter can vote for me next May yet I find it important to be here and I think that people know that Greens are internationalists we are going to support one another all over the place now you're right to point out that the Green family is not equally represented all across Europe, that's fact we are strong say in Central well, Central from Germany to Scandinavia and France etc but Southern Europe we are not performing very well and that's also our fault I mean in Italy we once were in government but we performed so badly that we were wiped out afterwards so that's our fault so we betrayed people's trust Central and Eastern Europe in most states we are going to be well represented it's close to Scandinavia so you might see a reason there but it's true that at the moment we do not have substantial offers in countries like Poland or Romania or even Greece so yes, we know all shortcomings so that's fact and you should know that of course where we are successful the Green parties are more 30-40 years old in many other countries the Green parties are much younger and it takes time to get credibility and one way of gaining it is indeed to import people from the outside from successful Green parties now there's what I would say organic growth and there's can I say that, growth by acquisition it's a bit brutal I would, I sense let me put it this way I sense that on the one hand because climate and environmental matters are becoming hotter on the agenda and also because of our successes I can imagine that other political forces which are not labeled Green in Europe might want to join us five years ago we were a bit seen as losers, you know, or also rents I don't think it's going to be the case this time and you might think two years ago people would flock to Emmanuel Macron so to Alde, to the Liberals but how should I say that well the image of being the new kid on the block and the successful guy is a bit gone so we will see but I do believe that we stand a chance of building a broader alliance because on one thing we are not crazy we know that we will never have 50% plus one vote we Greens and it's good for democracy by the way so we will build alliances and we might see for the first time ever in the European Parliament a real coalition negotiation after the European election up until now you had this thing called the ground coalition between EPP and socialists where basically EPP would set the course and socialists would join in exchange for some positions that's basically how the deal works so there was never real question or negotiation about the course of action but you know that those two groups are very unlikely to have a majority between them after the European election so you will probably need a broader coalition if you want a stable coalition because you might say ok well we'll see and on every file we'll see what kind of majority we have but basically that means handing over the keys to the national populist who will decide wants to vote with the left wants to vote with the right do you really want to do that no I don't think so so if you want a stable majority in the European Parliament there will be maybe for the first time ever in the European Parliament a coalition negotiation we intend to be part of it of the negotiation we'll see whether we can get substantial progress but you know the Spitzenkandidat process was seen as a progress for democracy for European democracy and there's some truth there but it pales in comparison with what might be achieved in June just imagine the commission work program for the next 5 years would be basically written by the Parliament that would be a sea change and that's a real possibility and this is why I'm so excited this is going to be my last European election and my last election but I'm really excited because once as I said green vest, yellow vest I do not accept that the only answer to neoliberalism is national populism good news actually maybe the rise of national populism creates an opportunity to work out of the box and maybe steer the European Union back towards where it belongs that is putting human dignity at the heart of its action and not corporate profits so we'll see but I'm excited that's a very positive note to conclude on Philippe I said at the start I trusted you I'm not the only one, I met Paul Murphy yesterday from the Socialist Party and he was asking if you liked him and I'm sure Brian Hayes on that plane you met today I know Brian also would trust you if you're going to go, he won't be there but that majority, that new majority that negotiation and we need it on the council as well as the Parliament either we should have had all the power in the last while it seems to me too much power and in some ways the Parliament has been the key balancing there's a lot of the areas that I look at the Parliament on climate, the Parliament has led and held the line more than the council on migration as well on digital, it's not a small issue the Parliament has led rather than the council on a cap at the moment it's probably the Parliament rather than the council there are so many examples that go through each area where where do we build the majority as we invent and we have to invent this new economy that builds community and that values other than material or profit measures I think you're going to be a real asset in that next five years, hopefully in some of those negotiations I'd like to thank you for coming here today I think it's been really useful and interesting and we look forward to the rest of the day thank you everyone, thank you