Yanis Varoufakis's Blog, page 126

Only Theresa May can end this inhumane tug of war over EU citizens – THE HOUSE Magazine op-ed

The HOUSE Magazine is the inhouse publication of the UK’s Houses of Parliament. This piece was commissioned to discuss what the British government should do in relation to EU residents post-Brexit.

For the sake of Britain’s economy, and soul, Theresa May must immediately and unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens currently residing in the UK, says Yanis Varoufakis

Campaigners calling for EU citizens’ rights to be guaranteed immediately
Credit:

PA Images

In a country divided on whether and how Brexit should proceed, one major issue can be resolved immediately and bring a much-needed sense of unity across the country – the future status of EU citizens currently residing in the UK.

The answer is simple and should be supported both by Leavers and Remainers. Grant them British citizenship unilaterally and immediately!

Concerns over this issue fall under two headings: substantive concerns, on whether it is right to grant citizenship to millions of EU citizens at once; and strategic concerns, over whether it is prudent to make such a move unilaterally.

On the substantive question, telling those whom Britain allowed to arrive on its shores to set up a new life without an expiry date that they are welcome to become citizens of this land is entirely consistent with the British penchant for gradualism, customary law-making, and openness to a variety of Europeans that have enriched this country over the centuries.

Indeed, any other arrangement would require the setting up of a new bureaucracy within the immigration department whose employees are given the soul-destroying role of having to weed out, and deport, people who until recently had a legal right to live out their days in Britain. The effect on the state’s functionaries, on the EU residents who will live in fear and uncertainty for years to come, but, also, on the broader community will be toxic.

On the question of strategy, there is an argument that one should never concede something important without an equivalent concession from the ‘other’ side. However, it is a weak argument. First, the EU negotiators, led by Michel Barnier, do not have a mandate to negotiate the granting of British citizenship to EU citizens resident in the UK. They are demanding, instead, that EU citizens maintain their rights as if the UK remained in the EU, with the full authority of the European courts extended forever.

This is something that Mrs May will reject from the outset, thus setting the scene for an interminable tussle. Unlike other issues (such as Britain’s contribution to Brussels coffers), the ‘rope’ in this tug-of-war is made of actual flesh-and-blood people: EU citizens living in Britain and Britons living in the rest of the EU.

When one adds to this horrific picture the thought that Mr Barnier has demanded that, to achieve any progress on anything, London must concede on everything, this inhumane tug-of-war will most likely continue for a long time with little prospect of a friendly settlement.

In stand-offs like the one developing, unfortunately, between the British government and the EU today the outcome depends largely on public opinion. Already, Brussels has utilised its superior connections with the international press to sully the image of Mrs May, using the tried and tested method of leaks combined with insinuations that anyone challenging the EU position is either naive or incompetent (or both). Compare and contrast two situations in this regrettable context:

Mrs May uses EU citizens as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from Mr Barnier.
Mrs May convenes a press conference tomorrow morning to announce that EU citizens residing in the UK will be granted British citizenship forthwith, and independently of the negotiations with Mr Barnier.

In the first case, the British prime minister will be portrayed as a haggling little Englander struggling to cut a deal. In the second case, she will demolish Mr Barnier’s demands that Europe’s courts oversee the rights of EU citizens in the UK (as they will now be British citizens) and occupy the high moral ground, especially if she finishes her press conference with something like: “Britain acted honorably toward Europeans living in our country. I expect that other European governments will do likewise.”

Lastly, using people instrumentally (in the pursuit of other goals) is inconsistent with civilised society. One way or another, Britain’s society, economy and soul will be served well by refusing to do so.

Yanis Varoufakis is the co-founder of the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 and the former Greek finance minister

FOR A PDF CLICK: HOUSE 21 April 2017 whole issue

The day DiEM25 came to Athens – 19th May 2017

On 19th May 2017 , DiEM25 held its first-ever event in Athens, ground-zero of the Euro Crisis and of course our co-founder Yanis Varoufakis’ home turf. Here’s a timeline of the event:



The week started off with a bang: Greece’s opposition party shamelessly attacked us, so we responded in kind.
The DiEM25 Greece team put out a series of short videos explaining why a new path for Greece is needed. Like this one (with English subtitles).

On May 17, we gave our answer to the oft-asked question of whether we’ll compete in forthcoming Greek elections. (English subtitles via Youtube)

On May 18, molotovs and teargas filled Athens’ Syntagma square, as the Syriza-led government voted in yet another round of austerity:

On the morning of May 19, we held a press conference where Yanis commented on the vote, calling it ‘yet another debasement of democratic politics’.

That evening, our event kicked off! At the historic Sporting basketball arena in Athens, Jonas Staal’s brilliant set – based on the broken stars of the EU – dominated the court.

First up was a politically-charged play by acclaimed writer George Maniotis.

Then Yanis took the stage and for the next ninety minutes, introduced our speakers. Each person had around two minutes to speak, with a mix of live and video speeches.

Speakers included local grassroots DiEM25 organisers like Apostolos Gogakos, Chrissa Ariadne Kousela and Fotini Riga, alongside progressive leaders like Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky, world-renowned artists like Ken Loach and Jean-Michel Jarre, and politicians like Clive Lewis MP and Nessa Childers MEP.





Yanis then gave a speech, in which he outlined our New Deal for Greece: six practical steps to help get Greece out of crisis:

He finished on the following note: if our members vote for it, DiEM25 will compete in the next Greek elections. The crowd erupted into applause.

“Αρνούμαστε να σκεφτόμαστε ως ηττημένοι!” Αυτή την Παρασκευή 7.30μμ στο Σπόρτιγκ

Περισσότερα εδώ.

Δεν χρειάζεται να επιχειρηματολογούμε όταν τα λένε οι ίδιοι! Την Παρασκευή το βράδυ θα μιλήσουμε με δικούς όρους. Στο Σπόρτιγκ

Το DiEM25 στο Σπόρτιγκ το βράδυ της Παρασκευής. Γιατί να έρθεις;

John Kampfner’s review of Adults in the Room – The Observer

Maybe Barack Obama isn’t such a saint after all. Before welcoming Greece’s embattled finance minister to the Oval Office, the then president told his Greek-American audience: “I might as well walk up to him and ask to borrow some money.” The presidential joke fell flat. Greece had become the object of mirth and bullying by the major powers. Yanis Varoufakis’s six-month tenure was a story of almost daily confrontations with the IMF, the European institutions and, most of all, with a German government that seemingly held him in contempt.

Varoufakis has had his revenge, or perhaps catharsis, by writing a riveting hiss and tell. Adults in the Room, borrowing a term used pejoratively by Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, provides an extraordinary account of low cunning at the heart of Greece’s 2015 financial bailout. The more defiant the leftwing Syriza government became, the more it was met with intimidation from some or duplicitous reassurance from others. The most venal of the first category was Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s hard-as-nails finance minister. He was joined by various EU bureaucrats who will soon be negotiating against Theresa May’s Brexit crew. One of the most intriguing members of the “trust me, we’d really like to help you, but when push comes to shove, we won’t” camp was Emmanuel Macron, France’s new president. Macron promised to help and he did try, but he came up against the stumbling block of President François Hollande. His embarrassed boss intimated that he had been put in his place by Angela Merkel.

This necessarily is a partial interpretation of history – the version of one man, a motorcycling, leather jacketed former academic and self-styled rebel who took pleasure in winding up the besuited political class. Varoufakis’s choice of friends is bizarre, but in keeping with our febrile times. He cites with unabashed pleasure the support he regularly received from Lord Lamont, the ex-chancellor said by his wife to have been in the bath when the UK hurtled out of the ERM, and Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of Russia’s disastrous crash privatisation programme of the early 1990s.

Just as the Brexiters and the British right choose their enemy’s enemy as their friend, so it should come as no surprise that the Greek left might do the same. Nor should it seem incongruous that the Telegraph bought the serialisation rights to this book, lavishing it with praise. It should be noted that the paper was not a fan when Varoufakis was in situ, inveighing at the “elite” two years ago. Political allegiances have since become endlessly flexible.

One can retain an open mind about his version while still admiring the tenacity of the protagonist. He says that he recorded many of his conversations: if so, political history by smartphone would be a new variant of the more traditional diary entry at the end of the working day. No conversation is really private, nor when it comes to political skulduggery should it be.

Thus Varoufakis claims that both Lagarde and Schäuble admitted to him that the medicine couldn’t work, but they had to administer it anyway. “As a patriot, no. It’s bad for your people,” he claims the German said to him. Their many conversations are the most riveting. At one point, Varoufakis tells Schäuble: “During the Black Death of the 14th century, I reminded him, most Europeans believed the plague was caused by sinful living and could be exorcised by bloodletting and self-flagellation.” Oh to have been a fly on the wall.

It is the weak, particularly the Greek prime minister and erstwhile friend Alexis Tsipras, who earn the greatest scorn. Varoufakis watches as his cabinet colleagues are picked off, culminating, oddly, in a referendum in which Greece’s voters opt by a comfortable margin to reject Brussels’ austerity terms, only for Tsipras to reject his own victory and cave in to even stronger terms than had originally been envisaged. “He followed his usual practice of agreeing with everything I said but drawing the opposite conclusion.”

I would like to hear the others’ versions. In time, surely, they will come. He dips into the theme of Greece’s endemic corruption, sometimes dismissing its relevance to the crisis, or to claim – with little evidence – that his enemies are complicit. He blames the media for many of his woes, a somewhat tired lament.

Varoufakis paints himself as a flawed hero, but very much the hero. Still, the strengths of this account far outweigh the weaknesses. This is an admirably believable depiction of a Greek and European tragedy. Amid the drama, there is bathos. Varoufakis forgets his coat in Paris and has to borrow one from Greece’s ambassador; on another occasion, he accepts chocolate euro coins as a sardonic gift from Schäuble, only for them to melt in his jacket pocket, smudging the resignation letter he planned to issue on his return home.

Admirably, he eschews denunciations, finding the human in his adversaries, even in his darkest moments. He writes of midnight walks through the rainy streets of Brussels or Riga or wherever the latest fraught meeting had just taken place. “How the human mind forges vistas of pleasure out of pure bleakness is a fascinating mystery.”

The next time I think I have had a bad day in the office, I will remember that someone has had much worse.

[Click here for The Observer site]

DiEM25 – Κάλεσμα Ελπίδας, Λογικής & Αξιοπρέπειας. Παρασκευή 19 Μαΐου, Γήπεδο Σπόρτιγκ, 7.30μμ

 
ΚΑΛΕΣΜΑ ΕΛΠΙΔΑΣ, ΛΟΓΙΚΗΣ & ΑΞΙΟΠΡΕΠΕΙΑΣ – DIEM25
Όσο εκείνοι ψηφίζουν τα μέτρα της “αξιολόγησης”, εξαναγκάζοντας το Κοινοβούλιο σε έναν ακόμη αυτο-εξευτελισμό τύπου ΝΑΙ σε ΟΛΑ, το DiEM25 καλεί όλους όσους, χωρίς θυμό, αλλά αποφασιστικότητα, θέλουν να γυρίσουμε σελίδα στην πρώτη μας συγκέντρωση στην Αθήνα, στο Γήπεδο Σπόρτιγκ, Παρασκευή 19 Μαΐου στις 7.30μμ

Αν πιστεύεις ότι το κλείσιμο της “αξιολόγησης” ήταν κάτι το θετικό, δεν υπάρχει λόγος να έρθεις
Αν πιστεύεις ότι τα χειρότερα πέρασαν, δεν υπάρχει λόγος να έρθεις
Αν πιστεύεις ότι τα υπάρχοντα κόμματα αρκούν για την στροφή που θέλεις, δεν υπάρχει λόγος να έρθεις
Αν πιστεύεις ότι η αναδιάρθρωση του χρέους και η έξοδος από την ύφεση εξασφαλίστηκαν, και πάλι δεν υπάρχει λόγος να έρθεις

Να έρθεις μόνο αν:

Βαρέθηκες την ίδια χιλιοπαιγμένη φάρσα
Αρνείσαι να αφεθείς στην απόγνωση
Πιστεύεις ότι ούτε το κατεστημένο ούτε ο λαϊκισμός έχουν την λύση
Θεωρείς ότι η λύση θα πρέπει να είναι ταυτόχρονα πατριωτική, περιφερειακή, ευρωπαϊκή
Αν σε ενδιαφέρει η πρόταση οικονομικής και κοινωνικής πολιτικής του DiEM25 για μια Ελλάδα που αναπνέει σε μια δημοκρατική Ευρώπη

Η πολιτική πρόταση του DiEM25 για το τι πρέπει να γίνει άμεσα για να σταματήσει η Ελλάδα να ασφυκτιά σε μια Ευρώπη που αποδομείται, περιλαμβάνει 2 βασικούς στόχους:

Αναδιάρθρωση όλων των χρεών, ιδιωτικών και δημόσιων

Δραστική μείωση όλων των φορολογικών συντελεστών και του σταθερού κόστους της οικονομικής δραστηριότητας.

Οι στόχοι αυτοί περνάνε μέσα από την αδιαπραγμάτευτη υιοθέτηση 6 μεταρρυθμίσεων που παρουσιάστηκαν αναλυτικά και στη Θεσσαλονίκη. Βασικό στοιχείο της πρότασης του DiEM25 όμως είναι και η στρατηγική μέσα από την οποία μπορεί η χώρα να υλοποιήσει τις πολιτικές που θα τη βγάλουν από το τέλμα. Αυτή είναι η στρατηγική της δημιουργικής ανυπακοής:

Σε τι διαφέρει μια εκδήλωση του DiEM25 από τις συνηθισμένες κομματικές εκδηλώσεις;

Πολυφωνία

Ομιλίες μελών από την Αθήνα θα εναλλάσονται με μηνύματα από μέλη του DiEM25 από όλη την Ευρώπη. Ένα παράδειγμα από την εκδήλωση στη Θεσσαλονίκη:

Συμμετοχή – Φωνή DiEM25 (DiEM Voice)

Κατά την διάρκεια της εκδήλωσης το κοινό θα μπορεί να στέλνει μηνύματα, ερωτήσεις, τοποθετήσεις που θα προβάλλονται (σε πραγματικό χρόνο) στον χώρο – και θα τοιχοκολλούνται (σε χαρτιά Α4) στην έξοδο του γηπέδου. Έτσι, όλοι θα έχουν την δυνατότητα να μετατρέψουν την φωνή τους σε παρέμβαση-κείμενο.

Πέραν της δυνατότητας παρέμβασης που παράσχει αυτή η πλατφόρμα του DiEM Voice (που έρχεται στην Αθήνα μετά τη Ρώμη και το Βερολίνο) τα κείμενα-παρεμβάσεις σου θα συλλεχθούν ώστε: (α) Να γίνουν αντικείμενο συζήτησης στις ομάδες του DiEM25 ανά την Ελλάδα. Και (β) θα σταλούν σε σημαντικούς καλλιτέχνες σε όλη την Ευρώπη ώστε κάποιοι από αυτούς να εμπνευστούν έργα σχετικά με τους δικούς σου προβληματισμούς.

Τέχνη-Θέατρο

Η εκδήλωση στην Αθήνα θα ξεκινήσει με το θεατρικό έργο του Γ. Μανιώτη ”Το Δέντρο” σε ερμηνεία Νίκου Μαγδαληνού. Ένα έργο που ουσιαστικά θέτει τους προβληματισμούς και τα ερωτήματα που φιλοδοξεί να απαντήσει πολιτικά το DiEM25 στη συνέχεια της εκδήλωσης.

“Αφού μετέτρεψαν το κοινοβούλιο σε φαρσοκωμωδία, εμείς μετατρέπουμε το θέατρο  σε κοινοβούλιο.”

(Άλλωστε το DiEM25 ξεκίνησε σε ένα θέατρο,το θέατρο Volksbuhne της Γερμανίας.)

Το σκηνικό της εκδήλωσης είναι σχεδιασμένο από τον σημαντικό Ολλανδό εικαστικό, και ενεργό μέλος του DiEM25, Jonas Staal

Η τέχνη, το θέατρο και η μουσική δεν είναι, κατά το DiEM25, πολυτέλεια. Δίνουν απαντήσεις εκεί που η αναλυτική σκέψη έρχεται σε αδιέξοδα, τα οποία αδυνατεί να υπερβεί. Γι’ αυτό το DiEM25, ως κίνημα που ψάχνει απαντήσεις σε μια εποχή γεμάτη αδιέξοδα, επενδύει στην τέχνη, το θέατρο και στην μουσική.

Σε περιμένουμε στο Σπόρτιγκ την Παρασκευή στις 19.30
Δεν κάνουμε την χάρη σε εκείνους που διαλύουν την Ευρώπη και πνίγουν την Ελλάδα να μας βλέπουν ηττημένους και απαθείς.

 

Περί Συνέπειας, Προγράμματος Θεσσαλονίκης και ΝΔ

Μια μέρα μετά την εξαγγελία του προγράμματος του Σύριζα στην ΔΕΘ (Σεπτέμβρης 2014), το λεγόμενο Πρόγραμμα της Θεσσαλονίκης, διαχώρησα την θέση μου από τον Αλέξη Τσίπρα και την ομάδα του με άρθρο μου (με τίτλο “Μια άλλη ΔΕΘ“) στο οποίο κατέκρινα την παροχολογία και δήλωνα πως θα ήθελα να δω να εκλέγεται μια κυβέρνηση που θα πει στους πολίτες:

Γιατί να μας ψηφίσετε; Επειδή σας υποσχόμαστε μόνο δύο πράγματα: Αίμα και Δάκρυα. Αν θέλετε να μας ψηφίσετε να το κάνετε επειδή τα Δάκρυα και το Αίμα που σας υποσχόμαστε τα θεωρείτε ως ένα μικρό αντίτιμο για να ακούτε από κυβερνητικά χείλη την Αλήθεια. Για να έχετε αντιπρόσωπους στην Ευρώπη που δεν θα παρακαλάνε αλλά ούτε και θα ενστερνιστούν την τακτική του τσαμπουκά και της μπλόφας αλλά που, αντίθετα, θα υιοθετήσουν μια στρατηγική που καμία ελληνική κυβέρνηση δεν τόλμησε να υιοθετήσει έως τώρα: τη στρατηγική κίνηση του να λέμε την Αλήθεια στους εταίρους, στους λαούς των εταίρων και στους πολίτες της χώρας μας. Την Αλήθεια για την κατάσταση των τραπεζών (αντί την προσποίηση ότι είναι «ισχυρές»). Την Αλήθεια για τα ανύπαρκτα πλεονάσματα του κράτους μας. Την Αλήθεια για τις επενδύσεις και τις ανύπαρκτες προοπτικές τους όσο συνεχίζεται ο θανάσιμος εναγκαλισμός πτωχευμένου κράτους, πτωχευμένων τραπεζών, πτωχευμένων επιχειρήσεων, πτωχευμένων θεσμών.

Πόσο πιο πολύ μπορούσε κάποιος να διαχωρίσει την θέση του από το Πρόγραμμα της Θεσσαλονίκης του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ προεκλογικά;

Αργότερα, τον Νοέμβριο, όταν η ηγετική ομάδα του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ μου ζήτησε να αναλάβω το ΥπΟικ σε περίπτωση εκλογής του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, έθεσα τρεις όρους, με πρώτο-πρώτο το ότι δεν δεσμεύομαι από το Πρόγραμμα Θεσσαλονίκης. (Μην ξεχνάμε ότι ως μη μέλος του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ δεν είχα καμία ηθική ή πολιτική δέσμευση σε αυτό – ιδίως μετά την δημόσια απόρριψή του). Δεύτερος όρος ήταν το σχέδιο αποτροπής του κλεισίματος των τραπεζών και η κοινή απόφαση ότι όταν μας απειλήσουν με αυτή θα τους κλείσουμε το τηλέφωνο.

Αποφασισμένος να είμαι απολύτως ξεκάθαρος απέναντι στους πολίτες, μέρες μετά (8 Δεκεμβρίου 2014), στον Αντ1 έλεγα ζωντανά:

«Αν ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ δεν είναι διατεθειμένος να αντιμετωπίσει την απειλή της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας για κλείσιμο των ΑΤΜs και να πει στον κ. Ντράγκι ότι δεν δικαιούται να θέτει μια νεοεκλεγμένη κυβέρνηση υπό αυτή την καθαρά δικτατορική και αυθαίρετη απειλή, που δεν προβλέπεται από καμία ευρωπαϊκή συνθήκη, ούτε από το καταστατικό της ΕΚΤ, και να του κλείσει το τηλέφωνο, τότε δεν έχει κανένα λόγο να εκλεγεί»

Πόσο πιο ξεκάθαρα να προειδοποιήσω τον ΣΥΡΙΖΑ και όσους μας ψήφισαν ότι αν δεν είμασταν έτοιμοι για ρήξη με την ΕΚΤ δεν είχαμε λόγο να εκλεγούμε;

Τέλος, τρεις μέρες πριν τις εκλογές της 25ης Ιανουαρίου, σε ντιμπέιτ στον ΣΚΑΙ με τον Δ, Σταμάτη, βουλευτή της ΝΔ, και την Μιράντα Ξαφά, τοποθετήθηκα με σαφήνεια για την οικονομική πολιτική που θα ασκούσα διαχωρίζοντας πλήρως και ευθαρσώς τις πολιτικές που θα ασκούσα στο ΥπΟικ από το Πρόγραμμα της Θεσσαλονίκης. Τόσο πολύ που ο κ. Σταμάτης που έλεγε ξανά και ξανά ότι αυτά που προτείνω και που εξαγγέλω “δεν είναι το πρόγραμμα του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ”. Τόσο πολύ το είχε εμπεδώσει ο κ. Σταμάτης που, κάποια στιγμή, μου είπε: “Θα σας διαγράψουν!”, οπότε του απάντησα: “Ας με διαγράψουν!”

Πόσο πιο συνεπής μπορεί να είναι ένας υποψήφιος;

Το ζητούμενο εδώ έχει ως εξής, όπως αναφέρει η ανακοίνωση του DiEM25:

Η Νέα Δημοκρατία απαιτεί το δικαίωμα στην ασυνέπεια που έδειξε ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ με το Πρόγραμμα της Θεσσαλονίκης. Και ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ απαιτεί το δικαίωμα στην συνέπεια με την οποία η ΝΔ στο να παιρνά τους μνημονιακούς νόμους κόντρα στις πρότερες υποσχέσεις.

ΕΠΕΙΔΗ ΒΑΡΕΘΗΚΑΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΣΥΝΕΠΗ-ΑΣΥΝΕΠΕΙΑ ΤΟΥΣ, ΤΗΝ ΠΑΡΑΣΚΕΥΗ ΑΥΤΗ, 19 Μαΐου 2017, ΘΑ ΒΡΕΘΟΥΜΕ ΣΤΟ ΓΗΠΕΔΟ ΣΠΟΡΤΙΓΚ ΣΤΙΣ 8μμ
ΚΑΛΕΣΜΑ ΕΛΠΙΔΑΣ, ΛΟΓΙΚΗΣ, ΑΞΙΟΠΡΕΠΕΙΑΣ & ΣΥΜΜΕΤΟΧΗΣ ΣΤΟ ΠΑΝΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΟ ΚΙΝΗΜΑ ΠΟΥ ΕΝΕΠΝΕΥΣΕ Η ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΑΝΟΙΞΗ
ΕΛΑΤΕ ΝΑ ΜΙΛΗΣΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ: “ΤΙ ΠΡΕΠΕΙ ΝΑ ΓΙΝΕΙ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ”

 

Why we support Macron in the second round – op-ed in Le Monde (English original) and DiEM25 France in Mediapart

In today’s Le Monde I call upon French progressives to vote for Macron in the second round of France’s Presidential election. The article explains my recommendation to French voters and finishes off with the following promise to Emmanuel:

“I shall mobilise fully to help you beat Le Pen with the same strength that I shall be joining the next Nuit Debout to oppose your government when, and if, you, as President, attempt to continue with your dead-end, already-failed neoliberalism.”  

For the full article, in the original English, can be read below. (See also DiEM25 France’s collective position published earlier in Mediapart.)

A year ago, at an event at the New York Public Library, Noam Chomsky and I were asked by a member of the audience where we stood regarding the impending electoral duel between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Both Noam and I answered that, in swing states, progressive Americans should hold their nose with one hand and vote for Clinton with the other.

Similar advice to voters had been issued years before, in April 2002, by all leading figures of the French left when Jacques Chirac and Jean Marie Le Pen squared off in the second round of that Presidential election: “Hold your nose and vote for Chirac!” was the left’s unanimous line.

Is Marine Le Pen genuinely a less unpalatable proposition than her father was? Is Emmanuel Macron somehow worse, from a leftwing perspective, than Jacques Chirac was in 2002? If not, why are some leaders of the left today unwilling to support Macron against Le Pen? This is a genuine puzzle to me.

Progressive French voters have every reason to be angry with Emmanuel Macron.

His pursuit of labour market deregulation in the midst of a deflationary crisis was neoliberalism gone mad.
His current proposals for a reconfiguration of the Eurozone that would turn it into a Federation-light plays straight into the hands of Wolfgang Schäuble’s grand plan for a permanent austerity union in which France will lose whatever control it has retained over her national budget (“I want the troika in Paris”, I have heard Schäuble say once) in exchange for a macro-economically insignificant Eurozone common budget.
His more recent proposals for reducing wealth taxes and removing support from local government are on history’s wrong side.

Nevertheless, it is nothing less than scandalous for any progressive to keep an equal distance from Le Pen and Macron. Of course we all wish, at least those of us on the left, that the French electoral system were not binary. But it is. And given that it is, I refuse to be part of a generation of European progressives who could have stopped Marine Le Pen from winning France’s Presidency but didn’t. This is why I am writing this article: To support unequivocally Macron’s candidacy in the second round. The National Front cannot be allowed to stumble into the Elysee due to our misguided tactical indifference.

While that would have been my position whoever run against Le Pen on a non-racist ticket, there is something more in my endorsement of Macron: During my tenure as Greece’s finance minister in early 2015 Emmanuel revealed to me a side of him that few progressives have seen. While the troika of Greece’s lenders and the Berlin government were strangling our freshly elected left-wing government’s attempts to liberate Greece from its debt-bondage, Macron was the only minister of state in Europe that went out of his way to lend a helping hand. And he did so at a personal political cost.

I remember vividly the afternoon of 28th June 2015, that awful Sunday when the Eurogroup had decided to close down our banks to punish our government for resisting yet another predatory loan and more anti-social, recessionary austerity attacks on the weakest of Greeks. It was at around 6pm when I received a text message from Emmanuel with which he informed me that he was struggling to convince President Hollande and Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s Vice Chancellor, to find a solution: “I do not want my generation to be the one responsible for Greece exiting Europe,” he said.

Less than a minute later I replied: “But of course. Just know that we need an agreement that offers respite for the long run and a prospect that this situation will not be repeated in a few months.” Emmanuel agreed. He would talk to his President and get back to me: “Sustainable solution is key, I agree with you,” he wrote, proposing that he travel to Athens the next day, incognito, to have dinner with me and Alexis and to hammer out a deal between Athens, Berlin and Paris.

After midnight, while we were in the thick of our preparations for the bank closures, Emmanuel wrote again to inform me that President Hollande was planning to issue a statement in the morning to re-open the negotiations. I thanked him and waited. “Ok,” Emmanuel said a little later, “I am ready and I am sure that Alexis, you and me could find a deal… I will convince the President tomorrow. We have to succeed!”

Next morning, Monday 29 June, the day he was meant to come to Athens, Emmanuel called asking for a favour: Could Alexis contact President Hollande to confirm that he was ready and willing to receive Emmanuel in Athens as the French President’s emissary? I called Alexis, explained the opportunity that was being presented to us, and he agreed. An hour later, however, Alexis called me back, understandably angry. “What is going on?” he asked. “Hollande’s office replied that they have no idea about a possible mission by Macron to Athens. They referred us to Michel Sapin. Is he pulling your leg?”

When I relayed this exchange to Emmanuel, he sounded upset. His explanation shocked me: “The people around Hollande do not want me to come to Athens. They are close to the Berlin Chancellery. They clearly blocked Alexis’ approach. But let me have his [Alexis’s] personal mobile phone number. I shall go to the Élysée personally in an hour to speak with him [Hollande] and ask him to call Alexis directly.”

Some hours passed but Hollande never called Alexis. So I texted Emmanuel: “Do I take it there has been no progress?  And that your trip has been cancelled?” A dejected Macron confirmed that he had been blocked – by his President and his President’s entourage. “I will push again to help you, Yanis, believe me,” he promised. I believed him.

Three months after my resignation, in October, I met Emmanuel again in Paris. He told me that in a summit meeting before his failed attempt to mediate with Alexis, he had used my line that the troika’s deal for Greece was a modern-day version of the Versailles Treaty. Merkel had heard him and, according to Emmanuel, ordered Hollande to keep Macron out of the Greek negotiations.

*****

By crushing the Greek Spring the troika did not only deal a blow to Greece but also to Europe’s integrity and soul. Emmanuel Macron was the only member of the establishment that tried to stop it. I feel it is my obligation to ensure that French progressives, as they are about to enter (or not to enter) the polling station in the second round of France’s Presidential election, make their choice fully aware for this.

For my part, my promise to Emmanuel is this: I shall mobilise fully to help you beat Le Pen with the same strength that I shall be joining the next Nuit Debout to oppose your government when, and if, you, as President, attempt to continue with your dead-end, already-failed neoliberalism.

The following is an extract from my book Adults in the Room: My battle against Europe’s Deep Establishment, published in London by Boadly Head on 4th May and later in French by Les Liens qui Libèrent

 

 

A message from DiEM25 Barcelona – The European Revolution Starts with You