Yanis Varoufakis's Blog, page 110

Why a second Brexit referendum makes no sense

 

Besides the gross disrespect to those who voted in favour of Brexit (instructing them to go back to the polling stations to deliver what we think is the ‘right’ verdict), the call for a second referendum is fraught with logical incoherence.

Any referendum, courtesy of being a binary Yes or No choice, must be clear on what the default is (which will obtain or hold in case the people vote No). Suppose now that, just before March 2019, the government comes back from Brussels with a draft Deal and puts it to a referendum. If voters vote Yes, end of story. But what if they vote No? What happens then? What is the default? One possibility is that a No vote translates into the UK government rescinding the Article 50 process in order to stay in the EU. A violently different possibility is that Britain exits the EU with no deal. Which of the two defaults obtains? By the logic of those supporting a second referendum, another referendum should precede the second referendum, in which voters are asked to choose between the two defaults – thus turning the second referendum into the… third referendum. One only needs to state this to realise the absurdity of the second referendum proposal.

But, let’s take this a little further: Suppose that, somehow, it is decided that a hard Brexit is the default of any second referendum. In that case, it is clear that most Remainers would vote Yes to the Brexit Deal brought back from Brussels by the government for the simple reason that it could not be as bad as the hardest of Brexits. Now, if the default of a second referendum was to Remain, then Brussels would suddenly have a powerful incentive to offer London a ludicrously bad Deal – safe in the knowledge that the British voters would reject it at the second referendum. In short, whichever the default, a second referendum to annul – or to confirm – Brexit is pointless.

This is one of four short articles extracted from the debate that followed this meeting at the House of Commons, in which I presented the left-wing case for a Norway Plus Brexit agreement. To read/listen to that presentation, click here.

To defend the NHS we need a Norway Plus Brexit deal for the UK

The main argument against my Norway Plus proposal is that such an agreement would jeopardise the capacity of the UK government to strike out into the world to bring home a variety of tailor-made trade deals with the US, China etc. At the same time, hard Brexiteers continue with their disingenuous promises of daily millions that will flow to the NHS, money saved from the UK’s contribution to the EU budget. Now, here are two excellent reasons to back Norway Plus! Let’s look at them briefly:

Any trade deal with the United States with include stringent clauses which force the UK government to ‘open up’ the NHS to the predatory behaviour of Big Pharma and give them the right to sue the London government in tribunals controlled by private law firms in the employ of Big Pharma. This is no criticism of the Trump administration per se. Looking at the manner in which the Obama administration negotiated both TTP and TTIP, it is obvious that any UK-US trade deal will be detrimental to the NHS’s autonomy from the predatory medical-industrial complex.

As for the Brexit dividend for the NHS, it is a figment of Boris Johnson’s imagination: Setting aside the tax decline due to slower growth in the long term (following any Brexit that take Britain out of the single market), the sheer administrative post-Brexit costs will overwhelm any net gains from not contributing to the EU budget.

In short, Norway Plus offers the NHS a shield from the lurking predatory medical-industrial complex and minimises the pressures for further cuts on the NHS due to Britain’s stressed fiscal position.

This is one of four short articles extracted from the debate that followed this meeting at the House of Commons, in which I presented the left-wing case for a Norway Plus Brexit agreement. To read/listen to that presentation, click here.

A pan-European living wage as a condition for authentic Freedom of Movement

 

Britain used to have wage councils that set the minimum wage per sector. Mrs Thatcher saw to it that they were abolished, together (effectively) with trades unions and council houses – thus yielding the present Precariat-Proletariat whose palpable anger and frustration is evident across the land. There is no doubt that we need to bring back a modernised for of wage councils. Not just in the UK but across Europe! It is the only way we can safeguard genuine freedom of movement. Here is why:

The oligarchs in Eastern Europe, and elsewhere, want the freedom of moving their money around and the freedom to export surplus labour from their country – people who would rather stay at home if a living wage were available locally. These oligarchs must be told in no uncertain terms: Your freedom of movement (and that of your money) is conditional on legislating a living wage in your own country for your citizens. This is a condition for being part of a European free movement area. And this condition must be imposed by the EU! Why does Brussels think it has a right to come to, say, Greece, to impose cuts to the lowest of the low pensions? How about imposing, instead, across Europe a minimum living wage and pension which terminates instantly involuntary migration, and thus safeguards genuine freedom of movement?

This is one of four short articles extracted from the debate that followed this meeting at the House of Commons, in which I presented the left-wing case for a Norway Plus Brexit agreement. To read/listen to that presentation, click here.

The Magnificent Oomph: Aiming for Norway Plus to secure a progressive Brexit – transcript of speech

Courtesy of opendemocracy.net, here is the transcript of my speech of 29th January at the House of Commons. The theme? How should Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party secure a progressive Brexit consistent with a socialist agenda for the UK but also with DiEM25’s campaign to democratise Europe.

The main reason I am here, I believe – I’m going to add back into Chuka’s account a few wrinkles that he omitted out of kindness I suspect – is because I was prepared to advocate a Marxist case for the Norway agreement.

As a declared Corbynista and someone who could never be considered a lapdog for the EU but who dedicated every sinew I possess at the time to campaigning against Brexit – nevertheless I am here to present to you the case for what I call ‘Norway plus’ from a leftwing perspective, portrayed as an opportunity to do that which we progressives have been failing to do in the last year and a half, which is the following.

Let’s face it – here in this room we are reeling from a massive defeat in June 2016. We are deflated. A lot of what I have heard is correct but nevertheless defensive. It is as if I am hearing again the arguments which should have been heard loudly before the referendum! Let’s not keep fighting yesterday’s war.Let’s not keep fighting yesterday’s war.

I am in favour of a second referendum, but not one that annuls the first one. As a democrat I cannot stand up in front of an audience in Leeds or Doncaster or Clacton-on-Sea, look in the eye people who voted for Brexit and say to them what was said to Irish voters in 2004 – “You voted the wrong way. Go back and deliver the right verdict this time.” But at the same time I believe we have an internationalist duty, a progressive duty to save that which must be salvaged from the Brexit wreckage.

The possibility under this government or any Tory government of a decent, mutually advantageous agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union is vanishingly small if not absolutely zero.

So what we must save is firstly freedom of movement. Speaking from my perspective, I do not believe that you can be a Marxist, an internationalist, and believe that the solution to the problems of the working class is electrified fences and new borders coming up between European countries.

To those who say to me that this is hypocritical Eurocentrism, because you are still not allowing people from Pakistan and South Africa to come in, my argument is, ”Well, where borders have come down, even if they have come down for neoliberal reasons, for reasons that fit the agenda of big business, we should maintain the absence of those borders. We do not put them up. And we try to extend freedom of movement beyond the European Union to Pakistan, to South Africa. Ideally we want a world in which there are no borders, and one in which our identity, our culture, our democracy and our sovereignty is not defined through the capacity to exclude people from our territory.

Of course, the second thing we need to preserve is our supply chains. These are the economic arguments and I am an economist. I can wax lyrical about the disaster that will befall both sides of the English Channel if we move into a Canada- or South Korea-like agreement.

But I have to add that tactically, ideologically, it is a gross error to hammer on about the costs of leaving the single market. It works exactly like those anti-drugs posters in the early 80’s depicting drug addicts in the gutter, which drug addicts were quite happy to put up on the wall, identifying with that image. What are those who are fanatical Brexiteers thinking? Convince them that the cost of Brexit is huge, and this is going to make them even more passionately in favour. It’s a bit like the Blitz: the higher the cost, the greater the sense of solidarity that the British people will feel, against Brussels.

If you are going to lead with the Norway plus argument that I am arguing, it has to be an inspirational, aspirational message.  The greatest supporter of Brexit before the referendum was in fact the Treasury, the Bank of England, Wolfgang Schauble and Christine Lagarde who were sending messages to this country saying, “ If you dare vote for Brexit, Armageddon will descend on you, you will all be jobless and end up in the gutter.” Nothing helped Brexit more than those ludicrous estimates of the effect of Brexit on GDP. And as an economist I can tell you all these micro-economic predictions are a bit like sausages, ‘If you know how they are made you don’t want to touch them with a bargepole.’That there is going to be a significant, substantial diminution of the living standards of the working class and Britain in general there is no doubt.

That there is going to be a significant, substantial diminution of the living standards of the working class and Britain in general there is no doubt. But put no numbers to that process, because those numbers of statistical or econometric prediction are absolutely scientifically irrelevant without a large sample. If you have a small sample, you can’t make any predictions worth their salt, and here we have a zero sample. Previously, there has never been a case of a country coming out of the single market, out of the European Union. Logic may indicate that there is likely to be a substantial cost. But let us not attempt to turn around the debate in Britain on the basis of scare-mongering and estimates of costs that are not worth the paper they are written on.

What we should talk about is ‘getting our country back’. Take the Brexiteer argument and just stand it on its head. The only way of getting our country back, whether this is Britain or Greece or Portugal, is by dealing directly with the four crises that are destroying our communities and making people feel that they are not in control of their lives or of their countries.What we should talk about is ‘getting our country back’.

What are those crises? In this country, it begins with private debt. It is the elephant in the room, rising inexorably and spearheading the next wave that will push the majority of households into depression – the fact that you have so many British families today needing to use credit cards in order to put food on the table.

Secondly, public debt, which is being used as an excuse for ‘austerity’.

Thirdly, the worst spate of under-investment in the history of postwar Europe, whether it is in Britain, Greece or indeed Germany. Did you know that Germany has the lowest level of investment since 1951 while at the same time having its highest level of savings?

And fourthly of course the increase in poverty which is the natural corollary of the other three already mentioned.

So these are the enemies that we must target. But like climate change, Britain cannot tackle these on its own, France cannot tackle these on its own, Greece cannot tackle these on its own. So that is why, exactly like climate change, we need local action, regional and national action, but we also need pan-European action and I won’t go on now to talk about the global action that we also need. At least we have a European Union and some useful institutions. Let us rethink the manner in which we are tackling the crises that make people feel that they are not in control of their country and wanting to retreat.

Let’s invest in the argument in the slogan, ‘Taking back control’, but let us talk about what it actually means for us to get our country back, and indeed who the ‘we’ is in this context, in this country.But let us talk about what it actually means for us to get our country back, and indeed who the ‘we’ is in this context, in this country.

This last point is a reference to what I shall be saying about the need to look at Brexit as a great opportunity to rethink the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. The devolution that Tony Blair commenced was half-hearted: it did not go far enough. England is feeling disenfranchised. Brexit is an English toxic phenomenon. It has to do with a discarded working class and petit bourgeoisie in England, who unlike the Scots feel that they don’t have representation, that Thatcherism has more or less completed their deindustrialisation and that there is no one speaking for them even here in this House.

So – why Norway and Norway plus? Well, we need to respect the Brexit outcome. Norway does, because Britain steps out of the European Union. The referendum chose Brexit, but it is a binary process which does not specify what kind of Brexit. Had the vast majority of voters not wanted freedom of movement, all that was required was that 1.8% would either be indifferent about freedom of movement or in favour of freedom of movement, and there is no mandate for freedom of movement.

So respect Brexit while preserving freedom of movement; small ‘c’ conservatism – it is preposterous isn’t it that the Conservative Party which has built up its whole value-system on the basis of gradualism, now wants to blow everything up in one fell swoop!? – and thirdly – allow me now to speak as a Marxist.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx says, “ The communists are being blamed or accused of wanting to take nationality, ethnicity, national pride away from the majority”. And he says, “Well, workers have no country. You cannot take away from them that which they do not have.” There is a very good leftwing Marxist argument in favour of the transnationality that the single market and indeed the European Union is putting forward. Remember that Marx was in favour of Zollverein – the German customs union of 1834. Why? Because he said he thought that it would speed up the capitalist process, and that without this development, you would not have the technologies essential for socialism.

I will speak no more about Marx. But you asked me to, so I did!

And finally, what, philosophically-speaking, is the most powerful argument for Brexit ? It is a rhetorical question, so I will answer it! “Sovereignty – returning parliamentary sovereignty to this great House.” What???! They butchered parliamentary sovereignty. The Brexiteers are in the process of brutally murdering the sovereignty of this House of Commons. There has been no discussion in the House of what kind of Brexit the country wants. Even the way that European legislation is transcribed into British law has been taken away from this House, and moved to a Tory Cabinet increasingly reminiscent of the Ministry of Funny Walks.The Brexiteers are in the process of brutally murdering the sovereignty of this House of Commons.

But suppose that we finally succeed in having a five-year, renewable Norway-style agreement after March 2019. This affords the House of Commons the opportunity to have the debate in peace and quiet and without a ticking clock and a gun pointing at their heads, of what they want in the longer term.

One of the great errors of both Remainers and Leavers in this country has been to imagine that the European Union is a bit like a gentlemen’s club here in London, the question being,” Do we want to belong to this? Is the fee justified by the services rendered?” This is a rubbish metaphor. The European Union is in a state of flux. It is a work in progress that in my view, is fragmenting due to the authoritarian incompetence of its establishment. It cannot continue the way it is. Maybe it will collapse. Maybe it will become democratised and turn from an austerity union to a union of shared prosperity.

This is what we are working for as DiEM25. But it is not a given. It is a gross error to believe that what Britain does is independent of developments within the European Union. So what we must also preserve is Britain’s presence in European politics, in the progressive movements in Europe that are necessary in order to make the European Union sustainable, democratic and a realm of shared prosperity.

And vice versa, we Europeans, whether you like it or not, have to be here, and to be part of the process of turning Britain into a progressive country, of reconfiguring its constitution and ending the Thatcherite traditions that have led as Marx again said, “the second time around” to “a farce” – Osborne, Cameron, Clegg – the awful period since 2010 which depleted so much social capital and created the circumstances for Nigel Farage’s fantastic success in the June 2016 referendum.

When I say Norway + – what is the plus? Well, people including some of my comrades in this country and in this party, say to me that the problem with the Norway solution and the difficulty the Labour Party has in supporting it, is because it turns Britain into an EU rules-taker.

This of course is correct  – this is the price you have to pay for being inside a transnational market. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Britain does not have to be an EU rule-taker if it strikes a Norway-style agreement.Britain does not have to be an EU rule-taker if it strikes a Norway-style agreement.

Allow me to be very specific in three areas here. One is labour market standards and protections for wage labour. Secondly, environmental standards and the protection of the environment. Thirdly, financial regulation. Nothing stops Britain in a Norway-style agreement from setting for itself and for any company working within the United Kingdom, higher regulatory standards for the City of London, higher environmental standards, higher minimum wages and higher standards for defending wage labour.

So instead of thinking of the EU single market rules as the ceilings: think of them as the floors! And think of Labour as the party that will campaign out there for improving the environmental standards, labour standards and financial regulation standards of Brussels and Frankfurt.

This gives the narrative of Norway plus a magnificent oomph. It allows us all, we progressives, to move in this country from a defensive stance to an inspirational one. Norway plus as a way of getting our country back, as a way of making Labour the hegemonic power in the United Kingdom, as a way of defending our environmental and labour standards, putting the financial genie back into the bottle where it belongs.

Allow me to conclude by going back to the point about the constitutional process. There is no doubt that the European Union needs a constitutional assembly process. Anyone who has read, or even held, a copy of the Lisbon Treaty knows that you cannot read it. It was written by bureaucrats ‘for cretins’, an abomination. It is like reading a Microsoft manual.

What is it that unites Americans? When the American constitution was first on offer, 60% of Americans didn’t speak English. But what united them is a text that is only 16, 17 pages long which begins with “We the people”. The act of writing it is what brought them together. We need that in Europe. This is what DiEM25 is striving for in Europe.  To have a text, of no more than 20 pages, that redefines European democracy on the level of the European Union, which begins “We the peoples”.

Now, we would love you to be a part of it. That is why I want a second referendum that enables you to come back into this kind of Europe by the end of the five year period of Norway plus.

But Norway plus must include, at least from the perspective of Labour, using this period to do two things: firstly, democratising the United Kingdom – democratising its institutions to turn it into a genuine federation; either that, or Scotland will leave.  Secondly, work with us across the English channel, along the lines of what we in DiEM25 are proposing as a European New Deal.

You don’t need to be in the European Union formally to do this. One last example and I will conclude. To its credit in the last election, Labour went to the voters with a proposal for a Public Investment Bank (PIB). You desperately need this in this country. Imagine you create it.

In Europe we have the European Investment Bank (EIB) of which you may no longer be a member, or maybe you will still be one. But it really doesn’t matter either way. What can stop us, on both sides of the English Channel, from coordinating the issuance of bonds from your new, Labour-instigated, Public Investment Bank with the activities of the EIB, soaking up the excess liquidity in the financial sectors of continental Europe and the City of London; and having the Bank of England in synchronicity with the European Central Bank cooperating to purchase those bonds of your PIB and our EIB in order to fund something like 5% of GDP every year invested in good quality jobs along the lines of a green energy union and green transition? Nothing.

We can simulate that. We can simulate that situation as if Britain had never left the EU, and actually produce a situation in which Britain is far more integrated in the EU than it was under Thatcher with the opt-out – where I would sit next to George Osborne in ECOFIN and he would never open his mouth unless there was an issue that affected the City of London. That was not Britain in the EU…

So, let us stay together, and let us work towards a Norway plus progressive Brexit that changes Britain, changes the EU, and allows us to imagine the second referendum that will bring us all back together.

For the openDemocracy site, where the text of my speech was first published, click here.   And here for the original audio of the speech (from which the text was transcribed – by Rosemary Bechler; Thanks Rosemary!).

Arguing for a Norway Plus Brexit from the perspective of a committed Corbyn supporter – Audio of address at the House of Commons, 29 JAN 2018

 

Delivered in front of an audience of Labour MP and staffers, at the kind invitation of Chuka Ummuna MP.

Το πρώτο πανευρωπαϊκό προοδευτικό κόμμα γεννιέται! – ΕφΣυν 27 Ιανουρίου 2018

Δύο δυνάμεις δυναμιτίζουν τις κοινωνίες μας –από την Κρήτη στο Δουβλίνο, από τη Λισαβόνα στη Λετονία, στο Παρίσι, στο Βερολίνο, παντού– εκτρέφοντας πολιτικά τέρατα με τον θυμό και την απογοήτευση που παράγουν: Το Κατεστημένο της Ρευστοποίησης, το οποίο επενδύει στην κρίση της οικονομίας και της δημοκρατίας για να «ρευστοποιήσει» τη μισθωτή εργασία και τους εν γένει αδύναμους πολίτες και επιχειρηματίες όπου και όσο μπορεί (μετατρέποντας τους μισθωτούς, και τους τέως μικρομεσαίους, σε ανασφαλείς παροχείς πάμφθηνων υπηρεσιών σε μεγάλα ολιγοπώλια). Και οι Αποδομητές, οι οποίοι υπόσχονται να υποστηρίξουν τη μισθωτή εργασία μέσω της αποδόμησης της Ε.Ε. και την επιστροφή στο κράτος-έθνος, το οποίο βέβαια μόνο τις ντόπιες ολιγαρχίες θα ωφελούσε (αντί για τη χειμαζόμενη μισθωτή εργασία).

Αυτές οι δύο δυνάμεις παρουσιάζονται ως εχθρικές όταν στην πραγματικότητα είναι συνένοχοι: Το Κατεστημένο της Ρευστοποίησης χρειάζεται την απειλή που αντιπροσωπεύουν οι λαϊκιστές Αποδομητές για να παραμένει στην εξουσία. Και οι Αποδομητές έχουν ανάγκη το Κατεστημένο της Ρευστοποίησης του οποίου οι ανάλγητες, αποτυχημένες πολιτικές γεννούν τον θυμό και την απογοήτευση που τους τρέφουν.

Στον ευρωπαϊκό πολιτικό στίβο οι πολιτικές παρατάξεις που ανταγωνίζονται μεταξύ τους, πάνω στο σκηνικό που στήνουν οι δύο φυγόκεντρες αυτές δυνάμεις, συνοψίζονται σε τρεις κατηγορίες ως προς την πρότασή τους για το τι πρέπει να κάνουμε με την Ε.Ε.:

(Α) Δυνάμεις που ελκύονται όπως τα μυγάκια στη φλόγα από τον άξονα Μακρόν-Μέρκελ-Σουλτς και προτείνουν (ως αντάλλαγμα της ρευστοποίησης μισθωτών και αδύναμων) βαθμιαίες, απελπιστικά αργές, κινήσεις προς την ομοσπονδοποίηση – κινήσεις που θα καταρρεύσουν με μαθηματική ακρίβεια (κάτω από το βάρος της οικονομικής και πολιτικής κρίσης) πολύ πολύ πριν χτιστεί η ομοσπονδία που έχει ανάγκη η Ευρώπη για να επιβιώσει ως οικονομική, πολιτική και κοινωνική οντότητα.

(Β) Δυνάμεις της Δεξιάς ή της Αριστεράς που εργάζονται για την αποδόμηση της Ε.Ε. είτε άμεσα είτε έμμεσα (μέσω της άρνησης έστω και των ελάχιστων που απαιτούνται για να αποφευχθεί η κατάρρευσή της) – π.χ. το Κόμμα των Ελεύθερων Δημοκρατών (FDP) και μερίδα της Die Linke στη Γερμανία, ο Ζακ-Λικ Μελανσόν στη Γαλλία, οι Φλαμανδοί Σοσιαλδημοκράτες στο Βέλγιο κ.ο.κ.

(Γ) Κόμματα που επιλέγουν να μην παίρνουν ουσιαστική θέση για την Ευρώπη (πέραν κοινοτοπιών), επικεντρωνόμενα στην εγχώρια πολιτική σκηνή – π.χ. οι Podemos.

Αυτές είναι οι πολιτικές δυνάμεις μεταξύ των οποίων έχουν, σήμερα, να επιλέξουν οι Ευρωπαίοι. Μέσα σε αυτό το πλαίσιο, το αποτέλεσμα είναι προδιαγεγραμμένο: πύρρειος θρίαμβος του άξονα Μακρόν-Μέρκελ-Σουλτς, με «αξιωματική αντιπολίτευση» πανευρωπαϊκά τους Αποδομητές και τεράστιους ηττημένους τους Πράσινους και το Ευρωπαϊκό Κόμμα της Αριστεράς (το οποίο διασπάται μεταξύ των κατηγοριών Β και Γ πιο πάνω, με τον ΣΥΡΙΖΑ μάλιστα να τείνει στην Α).

Τι θα σημάνει ένα τέτοιο αποτέλεσμα στις ευρωεκλογές του Μαΐου του 2019; Ενα πράγμα: βάθεμα της κρίσης αξιών και κοινωνιών σε ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη, θεαματική ενίσχυση των Αποδομητών και, πριν από το 2025, απώλεια της ουσιαστικής παρέμβασης για προοδευτικές παρεμβάσεις που ωφελούν την πλειονότητα των πολιτών στην πλειονότητα των ευρωπαϊκών κρατών.

Υπάρχει εναλλακτική; Ευτυχώς, ναι! Η αισιόδοξη πλευρά κάθε βαθύτατης κρίσης, όπως πρώτος δίδαξε ο Μαρξ, είναι ότι εκεί που πέφτουμε στην απελπισία που φέρνει η πεποίθηση ότι δεν υπάρχει εναλλακτική, εκεί ακριβώς γεννιέται η πραγματική, ρεαλιστική εναλλακτική. Ετσι και σήμερα: Η εναλλακτική έχει ήδη γεννηθεί, πανευρωπαϊκά, και λίγο λίγο κάνει την εμφάνισή της υπό τη μορφή του πρώτου, διεθνικού, πανευρωπαϊκού κόμματος το οποίο θα ζητήσει την ψήφο των Ευρωπαίων σε πολλές χώρες ταυτόχρονα.

Τόσο το Κατεστημένο της Ρευστοποίησης όσο και οι Αποδομητές παρουσιάζουν μια παραπλανητική μεν, συνεκτική δε πρόταση για την Ευρώπη και τις χώρες μας. Το μόνο αντίδοτο στη συνέργειά τους (στη μεταξύ τους ανάδραση που συντηρεί την κρίση) είναι μια τρίτη συνεκτική πρόταση για την Ευρώπη και τις χώρες μας που να παρουσιαστεί ταυτόχρονα σε όλες τις χώρες της Ε.Ε. και η οποία να χαρακτηρίζεται από ρεαλισμό και γενναιότητα.

Στον καιρό του κυνισμού, ο μόνος τρόπος για να πειστούν οι πολιτικοποιημένοι Ευρωπαίοι που έπαψαν να πιστεύουν στην πολιτική είναι να βρεθούν μπροστά σε μια πολιτική πρόταση που να την προωθούν ταυτόχρονα υποψήφιοι που ανήκουν στον ίδιο πανευρωπαϊκό πολιτικό σχηματισμό. Ας μη γελιόμαστε: Οι τραπεζίτες, οι εργολάβοι και οι επιχειρηματίες των μίντια «κατεβαίνουν» ενωμένοι – και, μέσω των πολιτικών τους αντιπροσώπων (Μέρκελ-Μακρόν-Σουλτς και σία) λένε τα ίδια πράγματα παντού. Το ίδιο και οι Αποδομητές, ανεξάρτητα από εθνικότητα και ιδεολογικό πρόταγμα. Αντίθετα, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κόμμα της Αριστεράς, οι λογιών λογιών Φιλελεύθεροι και οι Πράσινοι λένε διαφορετικά πράγματα σε διαφορετικές χώρες. Είναι τυχαίο ότι οι τελευταίοι εξαφανίζονται παντού;

Με σκοπό την ανατροπή αυτής της μόνιμης ήττας των προοδευτικών και τη δημιουργία μιας συνεκτικής προοδευτικής πανευρωπαϊκής εναλλακτικής, το DiEM25 κάλεσε πρόσφατα όποιον ενδιαφέρεται να συμμετάσχει στην:

1 Ιδρυση του πρώτου πανευρωπαϊκού, διεθνικού κόμματος που θα κατέβει στις ευρωεκλογές του Μαΐου του 2019 ως μία δύναμη, ως ένας κατάλογος υποψηφίων, σε πολλές (αν όχι όλες τις) χώρες της Ε.Ε.

2 Εκπόνηση κοινού μανιφέστου αποτελούμενου από τρία μέρη: (α) Κοινό ιδεολογικό κάλεσμα Ευρωπαίων προοδευτικών, (β) Κοινό οικονομικό, κοινωνικό και πολιτικό πρόγραμμα δράσης σε επίπεδο θεσμών της Ε.Ε. και (γ) Κοινό πρόγραμμα με τις προτάσεις μας για κάθε μία από τις χώρες στις οποίες κατεβαίνουμε.

Οσον αφορά το κοινό οικονομικό, κοινωνικό και πολιτικό πρόγραμμα δράσης σε επίπεδο θεσμών της Ε.Ε. [το 2(β) πιο πάνω] το DiEM25 σκιαγραφεί τους δύο βασικούς πυλώνες:

(i) Για μια τετραετία καμία αλλαγή στις Συνθήκες και απόρριψη των διακοσμητικών δήθεν δημοκρατικών «μεταρρυθμίσεων» εξορθολογισμού της ευρωζώνης που προτείνει ο άξονας Μακρόν-Μέρκελ-Σουλτς (π.χ. μικρό –και, συνεπώς, άνευ σημασίας– κοινό προϋπολογισμό για την ευρωζώνη, Ευρωπαϊκό Νομισματικό Ταμείο, κοινό υπουργό Οικονομικών της ευρωζώνης κ.λπ.). Αντ’ αυτών, προτείνουμε τον επαναπροσδιορισμό των λειτουργιών της ΕΚΤ, της Ευρωπαϊκής Τράπεζας Επενδύσεων και του Ευρωπαϊκού Μηχανισμού Σταθερότητας –εντός του «γράμματος» των ισχυόντων κανόνων– με τρόπο που να επιτυγχάνεται η άμεση, ουσιαστική καταπολέμηση των τεσσάρων κρίσεων που ταλανίζουν τις χώρες μας: (α) δημόσιο χρέος,

β) «κόκκινα» δάνεια,

(γ) χαμηλότατες επενδύσεις (ιδίως σε πράσινη ενέργεια/μεταφορές/μετάβαση) και

(δ) φτώχεια.

(ii) Αμεση εκκίνηση διαδικασίας συνταγματικών συνελεύσεων, αρχής γενομένης από τις πόλεις και τις περιφέρειες της Ευρώπης, που σταδιακά θα συγκλίνουν σε εθνικό και πανευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο με στόχο τη σύγκληση πανευρωπαϊκής συνταγματικής συνέλευσης το 2025 που θα συντάξει το Ευρωπαϊκό Δημοκρατικό Σύνταγμα (με το οποίο θα αντικατασταθούν όλες οι Συνθήκες).

Ηδη, το τρένο που θα μας φέρει στις ευρωεκλογές του 2019 έχει φύγει από τον σταθμό, με χαμηλή ταχύτητα και τις πόρτες ορθάνοιχτες, ώστε όποιος θέλει (εντός του πιο πάνω πλαισίου) να ανέβει. Ηδη, στο τρένο έχουν ανέβει μια σειρά πολιτικές δυνάμεις: το πολωνικό Ράζεμ, το δανέζικο κόμμα Αλτέρνατιβ, το νέο κίνημα του Μπενουά Αμόν στη Γαλλία, το ιταλικό κόμμα που θα ιδρύσουμε με τον δήμαρχο της Νάπολης, πράσινα κόμματα από πολλές χώρες και, βέβαια, το ελληνικό κόμμα του DiEM25 στην Ελλάδα – του οποίου η ιδρυτική συνδιάσκεψη θα λάβει χώρα στην Αθήνα την 26η Μαρτίου. Κατόπιν, αρχές Ιουνίου, το πανευρωπαϊκό κόμμα μας θα παρουσιαστεί στους πολίτες παντού.

Δύσκολο εγχείρημα. Ομως, όπως είχε πει η Αναΐς Νιν:

«Και τότε ήρθε η μέρα που ο κίνδυνος του να μείνει το άνθος σφιχτά κλειστό έγινε πιο επώδυνος από τον κίνδυνο του να ανθίσει».

Why is DiEM25 so important for Ireland and Ireland so important for DiEM25: Address in Belfast to DiEM25 members from all over Ireland – 28 JAN 2018

Bloody Sunday, Brexit & The Democratic Process – Audio of speech, Derry, 26th January 2018

In what was a tremendous honour, the Bloody Sunday March organising committee invited me to Derry’s Guildhall to deliver the annual memorial lecture highlighting the legacy of Bloody Sunday and linking it with Brexit and DiEM25’s pan-European campaign for democracy and shared prosperity. An audio of my talk is now available here. Afterwards, I was treated to the even greater honour of a public discussion with the legendary civil rights campaigner Bernadette Devlin – DiEM25’s latest member!

Why ‘Bloody Sunday, Brexit & the democratic process?” – the rationale for this event, as published at the organisers’ website (click here)

 

Much like many other parts of the world at that time, the North of Ireland was undergoing a process of profound political change in the early 1970’s.  By the time January 1972 came around the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) had already been holding peaceful protests and marches for close on 4 years.

From the outset the Northern state had chosen to respond violently to NICRA’s modest demands and this eventually led to the British government introducing armed troops onto the streets in August 1969.  This militarised situation was further heightened with the commencement of the IRA’s bombing offensive in 1970.

Then in August 71 the state introduced internment without trial and on Sunday, January 30th 1972 NICRA responded by holding an anti-interment march in Derry city, which tragically ended with 28 civilian marchers being shot by the British army, 13 of whom died that day.

Today all across the world we see people continuing to express that desire for democratic change, whether that’s through the ‘Arab Spring’ protests, which erupted in many middle eastern countries several years ago or with Scotland’s Independence referendum of 2014 or last year with the UK’s ‘Brexit’ referendum and again more recently with the Catalonian government’s declaration of independence from the Spanish state.

Equally and despite the election last year of a racist, sexist, Islamophobe president the American people, by electing Donald Trump, have clearly demonstrated their desire for real and urgent democratic change.

What then does this all mean for global society and more specifically how might these seismic changes effect Ireland and its relationship with our nearest neighbour.

Britain’s Brexit decision has introduced an air of anxiety and instability into European politics, which in turn has provoked heated debate and soul searching around the question of the border here and for many this instability has brought the imperative of a united Ireland much closer.

However, in response to justified demands for change and accountability, many governments and institutions have chosen different forms of repression or censure, be that with the Spanish government’s recent violent response to democratic Catalonian nationalism, the EU’s punishing fiscal water-boarding of the Greek economy or through EU Troika diktats delivered to the Southern Irish state.

Allied to this we also worryingly see a growing sense of misanthropy from authority across the world, where people fleeing war, poverty and famine are being vilified and portrayed as the problem rather than the political systems or governments they are fleeing from.

It is in this context that the Bloody Sunday March Committee decided to invite acclaimed economist and former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis to address the question of why now are so many people across the world demanding change and democratic accountability and what in his view will these changes mean for the people of these islands.

Furthermore, given the hardening of positions and the general move to the right in European politics we have asked him to also offer his thoughts on what could happen if governments and institutions choose to resist and in some cases violently suppress those same democratic demands.

“Their Epitaph is in the Continuing Struggle for Democracy”

(Inscription on Bloody Sunday Monument, Rossville St. Derry)

 

How failing institutions boost inequality – Audio of presentation at Sciences Po, Paris, 22 JAN 2018

 

Bloody Sunday, Brexit & The Democratic Process: Public lecture, followed by ‘In conversation with Bernadette McAliskey’ – Derry, 26th January 2018, 7.30pm

Why ‘Bloody Sunday, Brexit & The Democratic Process’ ?

Much like many other parts of the world at that time, the North of Ireland was undergoing a process of profound political change in the early 1970’s.  By the time January 1972 came around the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) had already been holding peaceful protests and marches for close on 4 years.

From the outset the Northern state had chosen to respond violently to NICRA’s modest demands and this eventually led to the British government introducing armed troops onto the streets in August 1969.  This militarised situation was further heightened with the commencement of the IRA’s bombing offensive in 1970.

Then in August 71 the state introduced internment without trial and on Sunday, January 30th 1972 NICRA responded by holding an anti-interment march in Derry city, which tragically ended with 28 civilian marchers being shot by the British army, 13 of whom died that day.

Today all across the world we see people continuing to express that desire for democratic change, whether that’s through the ‘Arab Spring’ protests, which erupted in many middle eastern countries several years ago or with Scotland’s Independence referendum of 2014 or last year with the UK’s ‘Brexit’ referendum and again more recently with the Catalonian government’s declaration of independence from the Spanish state.

Equally and despite the election last year of a racist, sexist, Islamophobe president the American people, by electing Donald Trump, have clearly demonstrated their desire for real and urgent democratic change.

What then does this all mean for global society and more specifically how might these seismic changes effect Ireland and its relationship with our nearest neighbour.

Britain’s Brexit decision has introduced an air of anxiety and instability into European politics, which in turn has provoked heated debate and soul searching around the question of the border here and for many this instability has brought the imperative of a united Ireland much closer.

However, in response to justified demands for change and accountability, many governments and institutions have chosen different forms of repression or censure, be that with the Spanish government’s recent violent response to democratic Catalonian nationalism, the EU’s punishing fiscal water-boarding of the Greek economy or through EU Troika diktats delivered to the Southern Irish state.

Allied to this we also worryingly see a growing sense of misanthropy from authority across the world, where people fleeing war, poverty and famine are being vilified and portrayed as the problem rather than the political systems or governments they are fleeing from.

It is in this context that the Bloody Sunday March Committee decided to invite acclaimed economist and former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis to address the question of why now are so many people across the world demanding change and democratic accountability and what in his view will these changes mean for the people of these islands.

Furthermore, given the hardening of positions and the general move to the right in European politics we have asked him to also offer his thoughts on what could happen if governments and institutions choose to resist and in some cases violently supress those same democratic demands.

“Their Epitaph is in the Continuing Struggle for Democracy”

(Inscription on Bloody Sunday Monument, Rossville St. Derry)

Event Details

Date:January 26, 2018 7:30 pm – 9:00 pm
Venue:The Guildhall
Categories:2018 Event, Discussion and Q&A

We are delighted to confirm that acclaimed economist and former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis will deliver this public lecture.  It will be followed by ‘In Conversation’ with Bernadette McAliskey before moving to a Q & A with the assembled audience.

Admission by Donation  Come early not to be disappointed! (Bloody Sunday March Committee is an non-funded organisation and relies on public donations to fund its work)

Context 2018

Bloody Sunday was a local event. All of the 28 dead and wounded came from the general Bogside/Creggan quarter of Derry, population around 35,000. There was no one in the area who didn’t know the family of at least one of the victims. The massacre was experienced as a communal wound, the pain of which still throbs and won’t ease until all of the families can feel that truth has been told and justice done.

It is this which, 46 years later, drives the annual commemoration.

Bloody Sunday differs from the other massacres in the North which stand like grave-stones marking the passing of the years of conflict. The killing took place in bright daylight, watched at close quarters by hundreds of local people who had earlier marched for civil rights, stunned by horror, outrage and grief inflicted by men uniformed to represent the British State.

Bloody Sunday cannot be put down to ancient Irish hatreds. It was rooted in imperial history, in the scorn of Empire for the lives of plain people and the ferocious rage of the ruling class at any uprising of the lower orders. Hence the Tory Government’s sigh of relief in 2010 when the Inquiry under Lord Saville pointed the finger of blame at a bunch of squaddies and one undisciplined officer.

Parties jostling for political advantage and wishing the issue over and done with embraced Saville’s conclusions as full and final. Families of victims of State violence around the world will recognise the pattern.

We want the shooters charged and tried – and the politicians and top brass who gave the go-ahead brought to book.

As always we use the commemoration to give focus to other local, national and international events that resonate with the cause of justice.  

With this year also being the 50th anniversary of the Northern state’s attack on civil rights marchers in Derry’s Duke street we remember those who marched that day and all of those other people around the world who continue to march and protest for democratic change and accountability. 

We stand in solidarity with all who face lies and intimidation from the State and its propagandists as they continue the trek towards truth. Ballymurphy, Kingsmills, Loughinisland. Birmingham. Black Lives Matter, Grenfell Tower. Syria, Yemen, Kenya. And, always, Palestine.

We owe it to all who yearn for justice not to weaken now, and we won’t.

One world, one struggle. We shall Overcome.