 Okay, Ivana, go ahead and make a quick explanation about why we're recording. Hi, hello, this is a CC meeting. We are supposed to be live streaming, but there is an issue on YouTube. So therefore, we are recording this meeting, which will be posted right after. So apologies, but it's not up to us, but the YouTube is not collaborating today. The first topic of our agenda is the New Usual, and it's the overall big picture about Europe and post-COVID life and what's DM's role in it. Does anybody want to give an overview of the last week, perhaps, Yanis? I'll have a go, if I may, because, well, good evening everyone, comrades, audience. Yesterday we had a very big announcement in Brussels. Are you all feeling the excitement? The European press, and beyond, is replete with reports of a major breakthrough. And when I read these reports, I never cease to be amazed by the capacity of journalists consistently and periodically to be all triumphant. And then two days later, after they study the actual numbers to feel deflated and say, ah, it was a dud. And then the next time there is an EU announcement, they're going to feel the same degree of triumph. So look, let's go straight to the meaning of it all. This is the first time that there was an attempt to create a package that was fiscally significant, that it made a macroeconomic difference. That is a package that had not loans, but transfers, and transfers between states so that some kind of rebalancing of the eurozone economy would take place, or the European Union economy would take place. The gist of it is that what the President of the European Commission yesterday announced, even though it sounded like a big number, 750 billion, compared to what Merkel and Macron had proposed, it's worse than what Macron and Merkel proposed. When I look at the numbers, because I studied them very carefully, what I see is 310 billion in grants, which sounds reasonably okay, not 500, which is what Merkel and Macron wanted, 310 billion in grants, and 250 billion in loans. Now, loans are irrelevant. The last thing Italy needs, Spain needs, Greece needs is more loans. We can get loans anyway. We live in deflationary times, interstates are very low, even for quasi bankrupt states and companies. So what matters is the grants. If you look at those grants, we're talking about a period of three years, 2021 to 2024. And if you look at the distribution of those across the years and compare it to European Union's overall income, we're talking about a 0.6, 0.56 to be precise, 0.56% of GDP for three or four years, every year. That's not zero, but it's nothing to celebrate. It's not something to write home about, especially if you take into consideration the fact that this is not an agreement, this is a proposal. We already see that there are going to be demands from Holland, from Denmark, from Austria, from Sweden, maybe from other countries for rebates. Every rebate that goes back to the government of the state means that the rebalancing between countries, the mutualization if you want, dies. So if everybody effectively takes back from the commission what it gives to the commission, then there are no transfers within the European Union. So we don't know to what extent there will be rebates. We know that they will be asked for. The more rebates you hear being approved in the end, the smaller the redistribution within the European Union. But even if there are no rebates, we're talking about tiny redistributions, very small redistributions. We're talking about, for instance, you know, in the case of Italy, which needs and is getting a large chunk of that money if you look at it, you know, it's been announced that Italy will get something like 8182 billion over two years, over four years. But if you take into consideration the amount of money that Italy will have to pay to the commission to support the commission's borrowing, if you take into consideration the rebates, if you take into consideration the fact that a lot of that money is going to be tied up with austerity, because they made that announcement very clearly yesterday that the whole process is going to be tied up to the European semester. For those who are not familiar with the term, that means that it goes hand in hand with fiscal consolidation that is consistent with the fiscal compact, which means that they will give Italy some like 1% of GDP, but at the same time they will take back from the Italian budget, and they will demand austerity from the Italian budget. So allow me to just finish off by saying that if you take both into consideration the money is that will be transferred to the states and the austerity that will be demanded from those states. Take Italy. Italy, in my estimation, is going to have a budget deficit of about 1011% next year. If they demand 5% austerity and they give Italy 1% from this package, the overall effect is 4% of GDP in austerity for Italy. So what happens is that the press celebrates the positive things, right, but it forgets to tell you the austerity costs that it will be imposing in order to grant those positive things. So in a sense from a DM perspective, and this is how I end, same old, nothing has changed. Since 2010, what does Europe do? It announces big sums of money, remember in 2010 the Greek bailout, 110 billion, the Irish bailout, the Portuguese bailout, the bailout for the Spanish banks, the money that was then afforded to Italian banks, big numbers, but all that goes hand in hand with much bigger numbers in terms of austerity programs. That's why I'm saying that the same category error that was committed in 2010 is being perpetrated. In one final comment, because there have been some interesting statements by smart people to say that, yeah, okay, you're right, this is, you know, not worth celebrating, but an important principle has been introduced. The important principle is that we are now for the first time borrowing jointly and mutualizing a little bit of debt. So isn't this a breakthrough, at least at the ideological, no, have we not broken the mold, which says no mutualization of debt. Look, I can see the point, but I don't buy it. And the reason why I don't buy it is very simple. There is about a Euro bond, genuinely mutual debt, the Hamiltonian moment, according to the Americans, when the states, the colonies of the United States, effectively became a federation when they had a common US Treasury Bill, a common bond. These are common debts, common bonds that are there in order to finance the joint projects. Here, if you read the text, it's very clear this is a one-off thing. It happens once. It lasts three years, then it dies. And what happens after 2024 is there a payment, which is joint collective. But once these bonds expire, they are never to be renewed. It's written in the rules. Now, a bond which comes together along with a deadline and a particular policy on how to repay it is not mutualized debt. The United States issued a debt. The idea is you issued a bond and then you issued another one to roll it over and then another one and then another one, an infinitum. And you'd never say how you're going to finance it. You do not commit to particular taxes that will go here and there and everywhere. So they are trying to, yes, there is an element of debt mutualization, but there is no use of this as a mechanism for recycling debts and deficits in any sustainable way. So, in other words, it's a fantastic waste of a good crisis. Thank you. Thank you, Yanis. Yeah, me only speaking if there is no woman before me. So I'll give my place if there is someone who is a woman and wants to speak. Come on. No. Okay. I just wanted to add, I mean, I will not give the macroeconomic perspective if I'm not capable of doing it. And we have Yanis for it. I just want to give my personal assessment of the situation and also to start talking about BM's role in this kind of situation. So I agree with Yanis. I mean, the situation is not Greece 2010 and what happened afterwards. Now you have Spain, Italy, many other countries of the so-called periphery. And what I can see here is that maybe it's important to address it, the so-called post COVID situation, which is of course post COVID only for the privileged West, because you can see that the epicenter is now in Guatemala, Latin America, and it's getting very bad. But here, at least in these countries of Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and so on, you can see normalization, which is being manifested by daily politics, which is going back to all the worst things. So for instance, in Croatia, as soon as they start to talk about the Ustasha and the partisans about the Second World War and not mentioning Corona anymore, you know that the situation normalized. In our context, Ivan knows as well, we have elections coming, national elections, both in Croatia and Serbia, which is very interesting because you know also this plan, what Yanis just mentioned here in Croatia is also being presented as a big celebration and so on. But my big fear, and here I come to maybe Advocato's Diaboli and to a question for the CC, is about DM's role in this situation, because as far as I can see on the streets, so-called common people, however we call it and so on, they don't really care about Euro bonds, they don't understand it. For them this is like nuclear physics and so on. So our question is what to do with it. I have some concrete proposals. I think one goes back to what I mentioned already at one Zoom before, which is that we really as DM25 need to start focusing on tourism, because for instance in Croatia more than 25% of the population is working in the tourist sector, and this is just the formal sector. I'm not mentioning the informal sector, which is probably as much as that. And that's an issue I think DM has to start tackling. Another one, and I finish soon because I think we have it in the agenda, is the question of refugees. It's getting really bad here. I guess comrades from Greece can tell us even worse things, but in Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia and so on, the situation is, COVID situation was really used to militarize, to put it like that, the refugee question even more. So I think what we have to do besides campaigning and we can start talking it is the progressive agenda. We have to return to it, we have to see how to include tourism, what to do with the migration pillar. And more generally last point, I think since June is coming and obviously August, part of July, some of us will hopefully, hopefully all of us will have some sort of rest. I think we need to start maybe not at this zoom, maybe for the next zoom, start discussing the plan for June, until the summer break and after it. Because I think everything what Yanis mentioned, this will come back as a boomerang, not immediately, but in autumn. I can see here in Croatia where I'm back, there is still a sort of denial. You know the sun is back, summer is coming, people still hope tourism will be saved, but it won't be saved. So I think that depression and anxiety and uncertainty which will lead to more fascism and radicalization of society will hit back in autumn, September or so. So I would love us to prepare for it in any way possible. I finish here, I don't want to talk too much and I can see Jordy, but. Thank you, stretch good point, Jordy. Thank you. I agree with both of you, absolutely. I'm going to add that this is not just a country problem. It's not Spain against Germany we said it many times, but it's also a problem between big and small. We had an interesting event this evening in Barcelona through video conference with Yanis. It was very educational and it was amazing to see all the social agents in Barcelona agreeing with such a common sense. So maybe in the past, some of these issues were considered radical or extremely different. Nowadays, most of society agrees with what we are saying. They were very worried about the lack of reaction from the European Union. And on the other side, they have a real big problem of disappearance, small and medium-sized businesses, self-employed. The main problem that we have now in Europe, I think, and if this policies goes on is what is going to happen, is that we're going to, the small and the self-employed are going to disappear. They are not getting any help from anybody. And the only solution sometimes they give is more loans. Well, it's not a question of loans, especially big loans, because it's funny that loans, it's obvious that they are thought for big companies. Because the minimum amount of this kind of loans, of public loans in Spain, for example, it's 80,000 euros. Most of the self-employed don't do anything with that. And they cannot have such a loan because they would stand up anymore. So what I thought is amazing is Gianni saying all those things and all of them saying, yes, yes, yes, we have such a problem. So what we have to do from the end, I think we have to have an educational role. We have to make people realize that there's another Europe is possible and it just depends on us. And it's not, we don't have to have a burn churches or we don't have to be big revolutionary like 1800, but just common sense. Just common sense. And it's possible. And it's not difficult. So I think we have to have more of these events, especially in the south, I think it's going to be a big impact to realize how easy it is to change things and how, and sometimes Gianni said it, some of the things that we are saying that we should do other countries, even the United States or the United Kingdom are doing some of those things. So it's not such a radical thing. It's just common sense. And I think at this moment the European Union has even lost the common sense. Yes, Eric and Giannis. Thank you, Ivana. I totally agree with Jordi and this point about common sense is incredibly important because the M25, since its inception, was a radical movement of common sense since the beginning. And there is nothing like a crisis to reveal the common sense and radical ideas, right? So it is an incredible window of opportunity for us to present, once again, relaunch, if you like, our ideas in the current context. Not so much be tied down by our history, by the 2015 crisis, the renegotiation of the Greek debt, everything that happened since then, but to really squarely shape our narrative around what is happening now and what is going to happen. It is very important that we adapt to this historical moment. And not only that, because the M25 is not a household name, I think it's very important that we also prioritize what it is that we attach our name to in terms of what we fight for. In order to become known, let me put it differently, it's very difficult to become known if our message is we have a solution for Europe, right? Which is the European New Deal or the Green New Deal for Europe. It's very difficult to become the movement for saving Europe. It's a big thing. But if we're trying to establish ourselves and to become known, I think it's very important for us to prioritize two, three struggles and become the European household name for those struggles. When people think of the universal basic dividend, that is the M25 thing, nobody else. The Green New Deal, very difficult to do that. But there are other struggles that don't have champions. And I think it's very important for us to identify those struggles and become their champions for Europe, especially in this moment. Thank you, Eric. Couldn't agree more. We have Sisi, Simona and Yanis and maybe we should go towards our position in Italy. Okay, I mean, I listened very, very carefully to what Yanis was saying and the other comrades, of course. I'm slightly as skeptical about this new event and I'm referring to the EU. It's not a decision. It's a proposal. I think, to be honest, that the European Union, at first sight, at least, in terms of the public eyes has more or less managed or is trying to blast it over the cracks that has been shown in the past few years, especially with regard to the epidemic crisis when the cracks of the building were visible to the average European citizen. So with this gesture, with this move, the scenario of a crisis that would be structural on the basis of the EU would become a bit more difficult to prove. Because, I mean, not all people are economists. The vast majority do not understand this kind of obsessions which are very well founded by our comrades and Yanis. The vast majority of the people will think that the EU, besides its inhuman austerity policies, somehow raises stuff to the level of a carer for the average EU citizen, whereas we know this is not the case. In other words, the only way to stick on to our sort of alternative agenda is to push the post-capitalism program a bit more. Otherwise, we are caught in this. Given the situation that we haven't got the media with us, the vast majority of the EU people and the Europeans somehow are leaning towards the conservative political powers and representations. Therefore, what we should do in my opinion is to make a version of necessity, as they say, that this be the only ones who could first prove that this is not a long-term solution. I mean, von Leiden's proposal. There are holes in it. It's a short-term solution. And the only solution is a different kind of Europe, not the EU Europe, I'm repeating again. That will be based on the very basic ideas that seem to become common ground for the majority of the people because of the epidemic. That is free and public goods. And the abolition of flexible labor relationships and minority. In my opinion, this is a program in which we must accept. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Simona and Giannis. I totally agree with everything that has been said. I think that definitely we should attach our name to ideas and symbols. These ideas should be concrete proposals. You know, concrete proposal is a mantra for our board, but we should convey the meaning of our program to simple concrete proposals that are possible. And mobilize members about it. Make a call to action for our members on some symbolic campaigns. I push for European universal dividend as a campaign that we should start. Just call to action to promote concrete proposals from us. We have them, and it's much better than asking Giannis to make the AMPENF conference. Because we need to be a movement and not just ask Giannis what he thinks. Yes, of course. We have, I think, enough policies to campaign for another five years if nothing else would happen. But I don't, I think it's the other way around. We should find the burning issue and campaign around it rather than find the policy and combine around it. Giannis. In an attempt to bridge this discussion, the next discussion, I want to mention the questionnaire for DM Italia that I put together. Because that's the whole point. Italy is ground zero of this particular phase of the crisis. The debates in Italy are particularly lowbrow. I was interviewed, an interview of mine was published in La Stampa yesterday. I don't know if you saw it. And actually, you know, I received today some like 300 emails from Italy saying, oh my God, you know, we never thought of that. All I said was quite commonplace things. So the point I'm making is this, and this is the bridge between this topic and the next topic. We'll be discussing now with our Italian comrades the way to organize the National Collective, the role of the electoral wing. What are electoral strategy, if any, should be in Italy. What it is that we should be saying and not saying in Italy or about Italy in Europe, outside of Europe. That discussion when it's done in the abstract is not helpful. You keep rotating around your axis and you end up nowhere. So I try to put together a questionnaire that I want to hear the answers to. Usually the people say that you never ask questions and as you know what the answer is, this is not the case in this case on this occasion. I want to see how are the Italian comrades and also non-Italians in Germany, in Portugal, in Spain answer those questions about what they should be doing vis-à-vis Italy. I'm not going to recite them. You've seen them there in your inbox. They've been there for a few days. But I think that, you know, having a common narrative in Germany, in Greece, in Italy, in Belgium about what happened yesterday in Brussels and the poverty of the European Union's response to the crisis, having this common approach and at the same time saying, OK, what does this mean about Italy? What should we demand of the Italian government? Or what should we say that if we were in the Italian government, what would we be doing regarding A, B, C, D, E? That is the way to combine the analysis with a movement-building process in a country like Italy, in a country like France, in every country. So that's point number one and point number two. I keep saying this, but I'm not working towards it because I'm doing a million other things. But I think collectively you should resolve to work for it towards it, to identify campaigns in Italy that we can all work around across Europe to promote those particular local campaigns in Italy in a manner which is consistent with the process of answering those questions about Italy. Yes, thank you, Anis. Who would like to go next? Maybe Simona, you could give us an overview or Srećko? Yeah, just quickly. I would love to say if we are now moving to the next part of the agenda that it would be important to send a similar questionary to everyone, not just to the Italians, so that we don't turn the Italians into bad apples, but that we actually get the response from everyone, which would be useful just this point. Very quickly, Srećko, look, firstly, there are no bad apples in D or Europe, but Italy is ground zero. Like Greece was ground zero in 2015, Italy is ground zero today, so it makes perfect sense to begin with Italy and not to begin with Ireland. Yeah, that's point number one and point number two. We will do it, but I started with these questions Taylor made for Italy to see if this is a model that we like. And then remember, every country is different, even though you remember the opening lines of Anna Karenina, every happy family is the same. All unhappy families are different or are happy in their own way, so we are unhappy families across Europe, but we are unhappy in different ways. So the questionnaire in each country must be Taylor made. You can't just replicate it and change where it says Italy, you put Spain. Okay, fine. Okay, I think that we have all agreed on that, that the questionnaire should be something for each country. And then we can move to our last agenda topic and that is something Johannes suggested. It's different or Johannes, you can just present the last one. I think we have more than just this one. Yes, but the last one that we will record. Okay, sorry. Yes. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Good. Yeah, it's more of a technical issue, so I apologize to the YouTube audience. But as we are the coordinating collective for the whole movement, we are getting a lot of requests from different members from different countries each day. And sometimes it's hard to cope with it and we have been sometimes failing to answer some, some got lost. So I wanted to propose since we recently discussed the amendments for the, the amendments for the amendments for the organizing principles. And our discussion was very well prepared by units in the restricted forum space of the coordinating collective with summarizing the different amendments for the different sections of the organizing principles. I would like or propose us to work more with this space of the forum to have each proposal or message coming in, not each message, but each, each thing we have to act on to in best case be listed there have a clear name and the deadline if there's a deadline, have a summary with links to the, to the broader comments, or the message of that has been written to us. And as Simone I mentioned before already have a proposal. So something that we should do regarding this message or this proposal for signing a petition or something like that. And yeah, then we could have a better overview and could have a better way of working towards answering actually all the messages that we get. And something additionally very, very shortly, I would propose that we have a standard reply for messages that we get that we kind of don't have to act on but we still acknowledge that has been sent to us. Thanks. Thank you, that sounds good. You did. I think that this could work for the big issues where we need input for from five CC members or similar. And I see a problem more on the smaller side, where we get a message where actually just one CC member has to send a reply, or even an acknowledgement like you said, and we haven't been very good at answering those because we just usually wind up on the CC agenda and they get resolved somehow, but the smaller messages where we really could make a difference. I just don't get the reply. So, I would, I have an idea for that, but maybe I should suggest it by email because I'm not 100% certain yet, but I have some ideas. Yeah, certainly we can exchange some ideas via email before making a final decision Eric. As always looking forward to you this ideas. A quick point on this because we have a call the other day some of us discussing the standardization of certain processes in general, right so also when the CC makes decisions that are national collectors and electoral wings receive information about those decisions mean for them what they need to do as a result of those decisions before they read it on a newspaper on our website right to improve this internal communication. We also said that we need a form that MCs and EWs need to fill out if they have an official request from the CC so that all the information we get looks the same and it's not chaotic and it's not just emails and whatever. And that also ties in with one of the amendments we passed for one of the old member votes from. Anyway, the point here being that processes are good and we are very good at creating them. The whole thing falls apart when manpower comes into it or woman power or person power in any case. The fact that we need people to do these processes, you know, so we can have all of these things but unless we attach a name to the process, it won't get done. And there's very few of us who are doing 500 million things at the same time. So it's good and let's have the emails from you did and let's discuss this further. But please comrades, let's keep in mind that we also need to assign these tasks to people. Otherwise they will not get done as good as the process might be. Just that for myself. Yes, thank you Eric. There is no process that will do the job on its own. We need always to have in mind who is going to do that. I see Simona and then we can wrap up this item and have another one, which is a proposal from the French and see about the old member vote. Simona. When Rosanna came in the CC, I thought of preparing an overview of the works in progress for her and I understood how many tasks we are ongoing and how it's difficult. We often forget something because there are too many and often we have no clear idea of who is doing work. So I thought we should just have a list of them and attach one point person that is not necessarily the only one who works on it to each task and have a constant overview of what's going on clearly. Of course the process needs people, but the process is coordinated and well engineered. The process is exactly what we need to share the load of the work and to have the process go on. So I suggest to have an overview, prepare an overview of tasks at hand and of what we are doing and attach one person to each task. And whenever we came to a decision in a meeting, we established rules taking care of it and we mark it in minutes and in an overview of tasks. Yes, and that's something that we were doing when an ad hoc task would come up at the CC meeting. There would be always to do in the minutes and who was tasked for it. The accountability and the actual delivery of the task also counts. But this info should not be just for the office and we need a list of it. I have no list of it. Yes, sure. Of course we need everything that can improve the communication. I'm just saying that some things were done before. I see Johannes and then maybe we can move on to the last agenda topic for the recording. Yes, very quickly just looking forward to hear what you did has in mind regarding the smaller issues, what the internal firm space would provide would be that list right every issue would have one thread and you would see all the other threads in under one link that you could enter and have this list and that list changing regarding what issues come in and which one we solve and close. But maybe we cannot make a final call on this today and let's move on and discuss via email that you will send. Thank you Johannes and thank you for bringing up this topic. Now we go to Eric and he's going to explain what is this proposal about. Right, so as you know you've received the email and we've discussed it in previous CC calls as well. There is a proposal from the French National Collective for an all member vote regarding the campaign on a rent strike for Europe, a European rent strike. The idea behind the campaign is that we create a document that we sort of circulate. Would you call it collecting signatures? My brain is stuck. A petition, there we go, a petition. So you would create a petition which we circulate for freezing all rent payments when obviously that demand is not met in Europe. We call for a rent strike. Now the argument from the French NC is that on the one hand it would be good if we had an all member vote to agree on having this rent strike because it would increase the sort of exposure it would get to the membership and give it a broader audience. But at the same time it would also give us the sort of the legitimacy if you like to support a campaign which essentially asks people to break the law which is not to pay rent. Those are the two main arguments for having the all member vote from their side. I will not give you my opinion on it yet. That's the introduction and happy to hear your thoughts about how we should proceed with this request. Anyone? Srejko? Well to be completely honest in the last days I didn't really follow it closely. But my concrete proposal would be that instead of an all member vote we actually use the validating council for it. It seems much easier for me. I don't think that we are using the validating council enough. And I don't think that this should go to an all member vote. We could just use the validating council. But that's my proposal. I don't know what others think. I don't see anybody else and I stuck myself. I think that's a good proposal. I don't think that we should use an all member vote mechanism for a campaign which is pretty straightforward. What we could do is move them towards a national campaign and to that way of thinking because this could be very complicated and very ambitious for them to pull off in the first place. And I don't see the reason for all member vote. Simona and yes Simona, I just see. I'm not sure I agree on a rent strike as such but I don't know if this is the subject of the discussion. A rent strike hits the householders and at least in Italy they are often people that have their retirement rent from me. So it's not against big companies. It's against the people that came out a little better than renters. So I don't like it. I think we should ask that everybody has an income to pay his rent, not to stop paying rents. About the all member vote or validating council, I see the point in getting a legitimacy for it from all the membership because we are actually asking them to break the law and it's huge and it requires a consensus from people not just validating council. Apart from that, I'm totally for giving more power and more tasks to the validating council. Okay, thank you Simona. I think Simona has a very good point. It depends on the country on the city on the situation. There are places in Berlin, there are places in London where the, you know, the rents are being collected by large companies, large corporations. But if, you know, you're ending from pensioner who has a tiny little apartment to rent and their food supply depends on the rent, do we really want to support that kind of a rent strike. I think it's, it's a poor policy. I would vote against it in an all member vote. It exposes us to all sorts of criticism. Yeah. And it cannot be pan European, because especially in Greece, most apartments. I mean, I don't know if any apartment belongs to a large corporation that actually rents it out. I think the place we're renting in Athens. I happen to know these people if we stop paying them rent, they're in serious trouble. And do we really want them to come out with a campaign like that. I have much better ideas of strikes payment strikes. I think, for instance, you know, how about identifying an area where the electricity supply is provided by a privatized company. And start a campaign, you know, not to pay the bills for or, you know, something else you can do, which is really not even illegal. You're not inciting people to do something illegal. You ask people to delay paying. So, you know, by two weeks, that's enough to do a lot of damage to that company without you actually being illegal. And maybe we can create also a fund, a solidarity fund where we put some money in there so that the people who get fined, you know, they get the money from from the solidarity fund to repay the fine. But we do damage a lot to that company as part of a campaign to re nationalize water. Now that is a kind of payment strike that I can go I can fall behind. You take some work to identify it, identify the companies for instance, you know, when you have to struggle in Berlin sometime ago to re nationalize or re municipalize the water. It would be wonderful to have this kind of campaign before it is re municipalized. So this is the kind of thing that I am supporting. Rosanna and Eric. I fully support the proposal of the French and see because I think we need an all member vote on this issue because it's quite urgent that we discuss this topic about rent in a transnational way and not everyone in its own in their own countries, or in their own cities. I mean, and we can like design the all member vote as such that there is the option or that we add that only people who who are renting a flat from a big company. They should be part of this strike, but people who are renting a small flat from an, like private owner. They should not. I mean, it's up to them, but the all member vote I think we should do because it's important to have this debate and the whole membership. Eric. Thanks, Ivana. I think this is exactly the problem. I think Rosanna with her in interjection kind of points to the issue, which is that by making an AMV the initiative to have a discussion with trivialize all member votes we completely take away from the institution of an all member vote if we use them just to have a discussion. There are many, many ways in which we can have a discussion. In the forum we can organize a series of zooms, discussions, assemblies, you name it, but to start using and abusing official decision making structures of the movement just because we want to have a discussion on something I think it's problematic and I think it creates a very, very bad precedent from which we'll end up having all member votes and all sorts of things and we'll have 30 people voting at the end because everybody's sick and tired of another email about another vote. So I think as far as that part of the proposal goes, I don't agree. We shouldn't have an all member vote regardless. Now specifically on the campaign itself, we have tried to really, really incentivize our national collectives to focus on their own countries because that is their mandate, right? If our national collective for the M25 in France doesn't work on France, nobody will. And indeed some campaigns such as the red strike campaign might make perfect sense for the French in the French context, but doesn't necessarily always work across Europe. So I don't think we should condemn the idea. I don't think we should have an all member vote either. I think they should pursue whatever campaign they want to pursue. At the end of the day, we should empower our national collectives to pursue ideas that they have as long as they make sense. We haven't seen the particularities of the policy that they are recommending, so it's also very difficult to condemn it at this stage. Perhaps there are certain clauses that they would include in this idea that would make it acceptable. So I wouldn't condemn it at this stage at all. I would encourage them to consider it further, to develop it further. But I also agree that I don't think it makes sense to have an all member vote. Yeah, I agree. I agree, Eric. I see Yanis and Sisi. Simona, is your hand left over from before or do you want to the floor for this as well? No, I want to add something. Okay, so let's have the round of Yanis, Sisi and Simona and then we can close. Look, I don't want Sisi to stop an all member vote taking place. As long as the all member vote is about having the campaign. Not to have a discussion about the campaign, so I agree entirely with Eric. No all member vote to have a discussion. We can have a discussion, you know, as Eric says, whenever if the French NC wants the OK from members across Europe to have a national rent strike in France, let's do it. Let's do it. Let's say, but not in order to start a discussion for God's sakes, right? So maybe we can have a joint zoom with the NC to explain to us, you know, to have this political discussion so that we formulate exactly what the question is that goes to the AMV. That's my proposal. My proposal is that we have, you know, in the next zoom, we bring in the French NC for 20 minutes, brief them that we want to be convinced that they are prepared to go ahead with their rent strike proposal. Okay, and they want the backing, the transnational banking for that national campaign. And then go, let's go ahead with the AMV. But it must be about action, not discussion. Okay. Hands are raising. So, Sisi, Simona, Mehran and Judith. No, simply that I want to say that I find this very, this proposal very interesting on the part of the French National Committee. Very interesting and very radical. But I agree with Eric and Yanis on the way it has to be done. It's important to promote this idea. Yes, Simona. On the merit of the proposal, I would focus on income rather than on paying rents or food or so on. As for water nationalizer, re-nationalized water, in Italy we had a successful referendum back in 2011, exactly about water as a common good and about re-nationalized water softly. So, this could be a very good campaign to do, not paying for water supply. As for all member votes, yes, I think it's not just about having a discussion, it's about deliberation. And all member votes until now are our only way to have a common deliberation. I agree it's not the right tool, but I think we should have some way to reach a form of common consensus about ideas and proposals. Which doesn't mean we are compelled to do what arises from a discussion, but deliberation is not the same as discussion. Last thing, I personally welcome proposals that came from a national level, but make sense at a European level. So, to me it's totally okay for national collectives to make these kind of proposals and suggesting them to the CC and to other NCs. I think that we should maybe postpone this discussion again. And the good occasion to talk to French NC would be our regular NCCC coordination call which is on second Tuesday of the month. So it's very near. I propose that we do that. And if that's it, we can close the first, you did, sorry, I forgot about you. Yeah, and I wanted to say, it's a very bad precedent to have an all member vote about a campaign, because campaigns should be things that anyone could do. You know, you don't even have to ask us just, you know, go write a message to the DC coordination group saying who wants to do this campaign with me this week. And you just go out and do it. So, I don't think that we should ever have an all member vote about a campaign because it immediately raises the bar for all other campaigns and decreases the spontaneous nature of these campaigns. So if we have an all member vote, it should be about the ethical question of whether we should be encouraging people to rent. But I am actually with Yanis and that it doesn't make much sense to have this discussion on the European level, given the very great difference between countries. And in Greece, we clearly know, and in France, it will probably be clearly yes, just based on the different situation of renting in these countries. I think what we should do, and we should do this before the call with the French and see is to include this in our next newsletter to encourage people to go to the forum and discuss the issue. And also to learn from the different countries experiences and to have this deliberation which they clearly want to have and to have a broader basis from which to plan their own campaign. Yanis. I'm just listening to all this. An idea came to me that maybe we should send them a message to the French and see to other entities, even to DCs and ask them whether they want to propose any particular payment strike. Water strike, electricity strike, whatever payment strike they have in mind, and ask them, you know, and tell them that this is initiated by the French and see that they're proposing a rent strike. And give them, you know, very short period of time, three days, four days max, whoever wants to speak to this is invited to the next CC meeting to put forward briefly briefly a very concrete proposal that they will have to have sent to us before. About a particular payment strike to see what kind of interest there is across Europe from DCs from NC and so on, for different kinds of payment strikes. If the NC from France are the only ones who want a payment strike and happens to be a rent strike. That's fine. And we can we can we can think about right. But let's see let's let's let's feel and I agree entirely with Judith. Absolutely. You're absolutely right. If it's just a question of a campaign just do it. The difference in Mona with Italy was that in Italy at the referendum. And there we had to take a decision as a transactional movement. Okay, of what would our position be, what would we tell people to vote for in the referendum. That's not the same thing as a campaign. I was saying that this is an issue very important to Italians. But we already had this referendum. I know but there was a referendum. This is not a referendum. This is a campaign. So campaigns, you know, should be either coordinated properly or just go ahead and do it and we will support you just because you're doing it. I was saying it will be successful to campaign on it in Italy because people feel this system. Well, our job is to coordinate the movement. So why don't we coordinate the movement? Why don't we ask different NC's and different CC's a CC's the AC's to tell us what they think, whether they have any payment strike generally in mind and then look at it and not in order to tell the French and see how to do it. But, you know, to inform them that, you know, the Italians think this, the Turks think that, the Greeks think that, why don't we just do something that combines the collective thinking of the movement. That's deliberation. That's serious deliberation. The first step. If I can just add my voice to that deliberation, I mean what disturbs me a little is that any payment strike is a tactic. We're putting the cart before the horse if we're asking people have they got any payment strikes in mind. Surely we should start first with the problems that people are experiencing because maybe a strike is not the best way to deal with that problem. So that that's that's how I would further that discussion at this level. Makes sense. Okay, does anybody have anything to add, or we can wrap it up for this part. I believe that anybody who speaks has to pay the price for it. So I think that mechland should script a short, you know, half page letter to DC's and NC's saying there's been a suggestion very briefly it's been suggested for a strike in France. There are other suggestions, you know, counter suggestions that it wouldn't work in other countries, maybe it won't work throughout France, maybe it will. There are alternative payment strikes that we can have regarding, you know, targeting privatized water utilities or electricity companies. Do you do you think that a payment strike of some sort would further the course of dm25 generally and in your country or neighborhood in particular come to us with proposals. Will you do that my friend. I'll bite I won't formulate it exactly like that but you'll see my proposal I'll bite. Okay, well, we can all look at your proposal and react by email.