Comments 13

Europa mit links verändern

Jun 24, 2016 Yanis Varoufakis

ATHEN – Das britische Referendum über den Austritt aus der Europäischen Union führte zur Bildung seltsamer Allianzen – und manch noch seltsamerer Gegnerschaften. Da die Tories gnadenlos übereinander herfielen, erhielt die Spaltung des konservativen Establishments viel Aufmerksamkeit. Doch eine ähnliche (glücklicherweise zivilisierter ausgetragene) Spaltung betraf auch meine Seite: die Linke.

Weil ich mich mehrere Monate in England, Wales, Nordirland und Schottland gegen einen britischen Austritt engagierte, war ich zwangsläufig mit der Kritik linksgerichteter Unterstützer eines „Brexit“ konfrontiert – oder eines „Lexit“, wie dieser Schritt genannt wurde.

Die Anhänger eines Lexits lehnen die Forderung der DiEM25 (der im Februar in Berlin gegründeten radikalen Bewegung Demokratie in Europa) nach einer paneuropäischen Bewegung für den Wandel der EU von innen ab. Sie sind der Ansicht, dass eine Erneuerung progressiver Politik den Austritt aus einer unverbesserlich neoliberalen EU erfordert. Die Linke würde die anschließende Debatte benötigen.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Featured

Only Poles Can Save Polish Democracy

Jul 13, 2018 Sławomir Sierakowski
The Economic Consequences of Trump’s Trade War

Jul 12, 2018 Barry Eichengreen
Reading the Signs of the Times

Jul 9, 2018 Ian Buruma
Xi Jinping’s Vision for Global Governance

Jul 11, 2018 Kevin Rudd
Three Cheers for Regulation

Jul 17, 2018 Diane Coyle

0 Comments on this paragraph, 23 in all 23 Comments on this article

Joe S Jul 5, 2016

First let me say I think Yanis a brilliant thinker and has much value to offer to the world on this topic. However, his solution is a short sighted. This solution has already been tried. Let me explain

Yes, increasing the role of democracy is the best answer we have to counter autocratic rule. He has that correct. If not implemented, the results will most likely be destabilization of one form or another.

The problem with this solution is we have already seen how the forces that desire autocratic rule handle democracy. Just take a look at the US.

If you consider the loss of true democracy in the US, it quickly becomes apparent that a similar out come would be the result in Europe even with a more democratic Eu government.

So what is the solution? Start by asking yourself, how and why democracy is failing in the US. Then ask yourself, if I was forming a government today, how would I counter or balance the forces that are causing that failure.

Those are the same forces that will eventually over power democracy in the EU if established. And while it took generations in the US, it would be accomplished much more quickly in Europe.

Do I agree with democracy? Absolutely, but we are already losing that freedom. It desperately needs stronger protections in the basic governance structure to survive. Duplicating it in it's current form will simply put Europe on the coat tails of the US and follow down the same path.
Barry Rosenfeld Jun 29, 2016

But much of the Labour vote in 2015 went to UKIP. Corbyn, the dumbest leader of a major party in a major country, basically stood aloof, because he had nwither the brains nor the strength of charactor to take a stand one way or the other. If Varoufakis thinks the Conservatives have a problem, he is looking through the glass darkly.
Benedict Kavanagh Jun 29, 2016

Yanis you say "In and against" was the motto of the left. What movement and what leader / writer suggested this approach? What historical movements used this strategy succesfully? Can you provide clearer semantics for the motto? Does this mean you recommend that the left in the USA should try to take over the Democratic Party as opposed to creating a separate movement?
Luca Grande Jun 29, 2016

Dear Yanis, please recall a single situation where high calibre politicians admit their errors... they never do, they fight with all possible and even illecit means to defend their ideas. The EU evolution after the early '90s were full of mistakes, the Euro was a mistake but no force from within will be able to undo the mess they've created. A reaction is only possible after a distruction, or crisis.
Peter Bore Jun 28, 2016

Dear Yanis,

During your conversion with Phillip Adams you indicated that the British government could not take the option of failing to respect the will of the British people by ignoring the referendum. I would offer two comments.

1. Just over one third of the electorate voted leave and about one third voted remain. Just under one third did not vote.

Of those who voted leave it is becoming apparent that some did so as a voice of protest whilst feeling confident that the remain vote would prevail. Others who voted to leave did so on the basis of information which even its proponents are now repudiating (more money for the NHS, less immigration etc)

Therefore there is significant uncertainty as to what the will of the people really is.

2. Those in the electorate who voted leave were in effect saying the they wished to buy something (exit from the EU) without knowing exactly what they were signing up to buy (the exit terms) or what the cost would be. Any responsible government could only take the vote to be an authorisation to find out what the exit terms would be and what it might cost and then put this information, honestly and without bias, to the electorate asking them if the still wanted to leave under the now known conditions.

If the EU continues in its unreasonable stance of refusing to discuss terms until Article 50 had been invoked then the referendum become irrelevant. Britain stays in the EU and the EU has found a means, unreasonable though it may be,
of making it difficult for any nation to ever leaving the EU.

Everybody, apart from the Conservative Party who have irresponsibly jeopardised the whole country to settle a fight between David Cameron and Boris Johnson, wins.

Regards

Peter Bore
norton philips Jun 25, 2016

I see our exit vote as a shock to help your efforts. Its a vote of support for you and diem25. A timely shock to hopefully assist your momentum. This is the spirit in which i cast my leave vote. Thank you for your relentless effort.
Paul Daley Jun 25, 2016

Great article! In the EU, but against the undemocratic institutions now at its core really is the way forward for a union that just will not stand as it now is constructed.
Igor Marincek Jun 25, 2016

I agree with most of the arguments, but come to different conclusions. I am an ardent supporter of the original idea of European unity, but the present EU is despairing and contradictory in many ways. Brussels is a dictatorship of unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists, and the member nations (rather member governments) follow 2 absolutely opposite political philosophies. On one side you have member nations with a federalist government structure with subsidiarity principles and a certain level of self-responsibility for local budgets (Germany, UK, Nordics, etc.). On the other side are member countries with historically centralized governments (France, Italy, Spain, Greece). They look for top-down approaches as soon as a problem emerges. So Paris wishes a strong Brussel and a strong EU-budget and budget solidarity among EU-members. Add to this the Euro and you have the initial exuberance of cheap money and then the call for help to the countries with more down to earth budget apporaches. Germany, but also England and the Dutch etc. do not like to take responsibility for budget failures of other members. And as we know from the Greek crisis, this can get very ugly and unfortunately the EU as a whole puts the blame and the pain on the ordinary citizens. This is morally inacceptable! When it comes to the migrant crisis, Germany behaves the other way round: now it wants solidarity from the other members and unburden its own mistakes on the shoulders of others. So in whatever policy field you look, the EU apparently favours disengagement of self-reliance and self-
responsibility. Let's now look in some more more detail into the migrant crisis. Not the relatively simple and managable refugee crisis linked to the Syrian war, but the ever increasing out-migration out of Africa. Why do Africans see no future in their continent? Are they only attracted by the social safety nets in Europe (pull-factor) or are the push-factors more important. Why are the prospects so dire for them even after 60 years of billions of $ in development assistance? I see 2 answers: development aid has de-responsabilized the african governments, they are now accountable to the donors and lenders rather than to their population. A "good" african government is a government which succeeds in getting many "goodies" from donors. So basically the participate in a beauty contest of the poorest country ... Nobel price winner Angus Deaton has written more relevant things on this. But there is more of EU responsibility in this. Look at the eport subsidies. Everybody agrees nowadays that agricultural export subisidies are evil and should be reduced to give developing countries a chance. Look at any given african city and you will find that the farmers in the neighbouring regions cannot sell their produce anymore because the cannot compete with the cheap imports from the EU (example chicken meat). So rural out-migration to the cities continues in full strenght. It is interesting to see that the word "to protect" has become one of the most evil words in most international fora (OECD, WTO, UN) and for governments right and left. But is protecting really a bad reflex. Wouldn't you help and protect an old women when crossing a road? African countries do not need more development assistance, but they need to be accorded the right to protect their agriculture! In the 80 M.S. Swaminathan wrote in an article for the the "UN Development": "Africa could one day feed us all", reminding that the agricultural potential of Africa is largely untapped. So it is bad policies which create famines, not the lack of agricultural land and opportunities!. Back to the agricultural export subsidy question and its link to the European migrant crisis. One would probably agree that 50% export subsidiy is worse than 20%, 90% is worse than 70% and so on. But as soon as we have an export subsidy is 100% , evrybody claps his hands. This is food aid, and it makes feel all donors so good and generous. Really? I have worked for the UN-WFP and I was ashamed of what I saw and its long-term consequences on development (and I was fired for my internal criticism). EU and the US are the largest donors of food aid. I do not contest food aid for emergency situations, but even therec you can have absolutely disastreous effects which could be easily mitigated with more intelligent forms of assistance. Let's take the Sudan crisis a few years ago. WFP was air-dropping food aid. The cost for the donors: 1200$/ton (when the world market price of wheat was about 200$/ton). I would bet any money of the world that when giving the Sudanese farmers a price guarantee for unlimited quantities of say 400$/ton (like the old EU farm support model which brought over-production), agricultural production would flourish and peace would come rapidly. Like the original idea of the EU (and the Marshall plan by the way): bring perspectives of economic improvment and everybody gets at work, and peace and stability comes as a "by-product". The EU should remind and inspire itself at its original approach. But that will only be possible if it find a positive interpretation of the word "to protect" for ints own citizens and for the rest of the world. Protecting the jobs and creating conditions and incentives for everybody to work is the true solidarity. So finance social systems by taxing labour so heavily? Isn't that nonsense (unfortunately never really challenged by the left). Why don't we change the construction of financing social systems, by taxing (and making more expensive) those resources which should work less, such as nature and maybe also taxing robots and to some extent even IT-tools (such as Google). But not for ordinary fill government expenses/budgets, only to finance social security measures. Yes, EU urgently needs to be re-invented so that continental and international cooperation can become a true perspective. I do not see how such reform can come from within.
markets aurelius Jun 25, 2016

Dude, you need an editor. But first you need a point. Pseudo-intellectualism is not a style suited to making a point.
Michael Public Jun 24, 2016

From my point of view your ideas are sound hut your style of expressing them is convoluted and highbrow that very few, even here on PS, can easily follow what you are saying. In many areas of life how your deliver a message is just as important as what you say.
Steve Hurst Jun 24, 2016

Sorry was there some message in this article or was it just a leftist bubble bath of self justification. GR is just a serfdom. The euro is a wandering Ted Bundy. Well done, because you have been, well done over
- Steve Hurst Jun 24, 2016
  
  @M M
  
  There is no serious desire for reform at EU central, because reform means the end to federalisation and the recognition of diversity
- M M Jun 24, 2016
  
  Jose, the result of the referendum is indeed disappointing in the sense that this whole affair of the EU reforms, etc. could have been handled differently had there been a genuine goodwill on the part of the political / financial establishment in the EU. When the population are being asked to choose between hanging and jumping off a cliff, the choice is very limited and the outcome shall be exactly the same. Regarding Greece, the Greeks of Greece have always been supported by their compatriots or family members in the diaspora. The Greek economy is bankrupt and you are correct but find me today a single economy that is not “technically bankrupt”? It was all down to mismanagement. If Obama was not too hasty at pulling the US forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and at attacking Libya, none of the nonsense with the immigrants would have taken place (not forgetting the invite of our beloved German Queen, of course). The same thing applies to D. Cameron, he was too hasty at holding the referendum despite him making the pledge during the general election that this was not likely to take place until 2017 at the earliest. All of this was a culmination of mistakes by this political establishment in the EU and in the US.
- Jose araujo Jun 24, 2016
  
  @M M in the other post you were advocating the unavoidable end of the EU (which I agree), and now you are saying that the Greeks are better off outside the EU (which I agree also), but the thing is that Greece wll be much worse alone without an EU, and thats what Yanis also knows.
  
  Greece and the Balkans are one of the clear losers today, along with Belgium and Luxembourg.
- M M Jun 24, 2016
  
  Exactly Steve, Yanis was better off getting back at the President of the ESM (the mouth speaker of the German establishment), Klaus Regling who accused Yanis of costing the Greek economy 100 billion euros, during his 3 months in office as Greek Finance Minister. Pathetic to say the least and this is the kind of people that are being entrusted with the finances of the EU. And Jose, the Greeks shall be much better off outside the EU, they have everything going for them, with the exception of their mind set.
- Jose araujo Jun 24, 2016
  
  Well Greeks have no alternative but to hope the EU doesn't brake because they will be left alone between the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire.
  
  I think the left and right divide has nothing to do with the European sentiment
M M Jun 24, 2016

The messages that came out of Berlin and of the German establishment in Brussels today were ones of defiance and of denial. Raising the stakes and threatening one’s own population will get them nowhere. The EU cannot be reformed from within, not with the current leadership anyway. Regrettably, today’s outcome of the UK referendum was to be expected and one can even say was self-inflicted. D. Cameron acted hastily, gambled and lost by betting on holding the referendums so soon. He could have waited until 2017 (after the French and the German elections) as was originally planned. He should have laid the ground work better and he should have done a better job with Brussels and Berlin before going to the nation for a verdict. The EU is finished. Next year there are two main general elections, Hollande and the left are going to lose, the French right have disintegrated and that leaves LePen with the agenda to pull France out of the EU, and if she is elected, she will do it. If no one party wins in France next year, France will join a long list of destabilised EU countries, like Spain, Portugal, Ireland, etc. The German establishment will never change, they will never learn; their arrogance and hypocrisy is beyond belief; unless the German people vote for change, the EU will by default disintegrate. It is not a question of left, right or centre anymore, it is a question of accepting the reality on the ground and today’s politicians are totally disconnected from their electorate and from reality, including you Yanis, if one can include you among the politicians.
- Steve Hurst Jun 24, 2016
  
  @Jose
  
  Junckers is on record as saying something to the effect that they know what needs to be done but they dont know how to get elected afterwards. If the electorate lose patience then their status quo game falls apart. Hubble bubble toil and trouble
- Jose araujo Jun 24, 2016
  
  @M M agree with you, we have passed the point of no return and no other political party will risk supporting the Stay after what is happening to Camernon and Corbyn
- M M Jun 24, 2016
  
  Jose, no one shall stay in the EU because there shall not be an EU in a couple of years’ time. It is a big shame listening to Merkel and Shultz today, this threatening behaviour against the population is what created this big mess in the first place. This generation of politicians took the population, and not only of the EU, but elsewhere as well, back to the 80s’, meaning they wiped out all the hard work of the last 4 decades or so. A very big shame.
- Jose araujo Jun 24, 2016
  
  Honestly, I don't see the Scandinavian countries staying.
Jose araujo Jun 24, 2016

No political leader will now be willing to pay the price of opposing the majority of the populations. I have no doubts that if instead of the abject Trump impersonator, the Brexit movement was led by Cameron or even Corbyn the results would have been crushing.

The European Union has ended and we will assist to the forces of history shaping Europe like they have always shaped, we will have the Britons with Scandinavia, the Prussians and the Latins (with or without Italy).
- Jose araujo Jun 24, 2016
  
  Belgium and Luxembourg , the Eurocrat Parasites, are the main losers today, along with probably Greece and the Balcans.

http://prosyn.org/ucAxNeI/de;

Log in/Register

Europa mit links verändern

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

Only Poles Can Save Polish Democracy

The Economic Consequences of Trump’s Trade War

Reading the Signs of the Times

Xi Jinping’s Vision for Global Governance

Three Cheers for Regulation

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

How to Protect Workers Without Trade Tariffs

The Long Human-Rights March

Let There Be More Than Light

Three Cheers for Regulation

The Evolution of Global Governance

The British History of Brexit

How the Middle East Can Escape the Middle-Income Trap

Fossil-Fuel Doublespeak

Cookies and Privacy