In an interview with EUROPP’s editor Stuart Brown, former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis discusses the launch of his new ‘Democracy in Europe’ movement (DiEM25), the UK’s upcoming referendum on EU membership, and why a surge of democracy is needed to prevent the EU from sliding toward disintegration.
You have just launched a new political movement, DiEM25, which has the aim of democratising Europe. Your manifesto states that ‘the EU will either be democratised or it will disintegrate’ and calls for a constitutional assembly to be convened to decide on a future democratic constitution that will replace all existing European treaties within a decade. Why does Europe need DiEM25?
For a very simple reason. In 20 years’ time, if we don’t do something like what we’re proposing, the next generation will look us in the eye and say, where were you? Why didn’t you stop this slide into the abyss? In exactly the same way that in the 1950s young people asked their parents’ generation why they didn’t stop what was going on in the 1930s: a period that culminated in such a catastrophe in the shape of the Second World War.
We are now in a similar situation. We’re witnessing the disintegration of the European Union. Schengen is being suspended. The Eurozone is in an advanced state of deconstruction. Eastern European governments are openly stating their opposition to the principle of solidarity. The British electorate has become alienated from Brussels and might only vote to stay in out of fear of what would happen if it left. The only thing that can put an end to this inexorable slide toward catastrophe is a surge of democracy that gives hope and stabilises Europe.
What would you say to those who might argue that Europe has tried to establish a democratic constitution before and it essentially ended in disaster?
Of course the constitutional treaty was a disaster. A failed President of France took it upon himself to write a charter of the rights of capital. This is not how you write a constitution. All proper constitutions, like the constitution of the United States, are concerned with the rights of men and women.
What we need is to have a constitutional assembly, where the peoples of Europe are empowered through their representatives to author this document. Otherwise we’re going to end up with another kind of debacle. But in order to get to that point we first need to stabilise Europe. The Europe of today is not in the position that it was in ten years ago. It’s in a slide toward disintegration and we need to stabilise it.
We need to do this through transparency and a rational reconfiguration of policies within the next one or two years – this is all the time we have left in my estimation. And once we do that we will see to the constitutional assembly. This is what DiEM25 stands for.
Following David Cameron’s renegotiation, the UK has set the date for its referendum on EU membership as the 23rd of June. How should British voters who are dissatisfied with the EU view the referendum?
We should reject wholeheartedly the fudge that David Cameron came back from Brussels with. He is asking the public to support staying within a reformed Europe, but he has deformed Europe in the process of creating this fudge.
Yet at the same time we should also reject the Eurosceptic view that Britain should leave the EU, but stay within the single market. I have a lot of respect for Tory Eurosceptics with a Burkean view of the sovereignty of national parliaments. The problem is that they also support staying in the single market. This is an incoherent proposition: it’s impossible to stay in the single market and keep your sovereignty.
Neither withdrawing into the safe cocoon of the nation state, nor giving in to the disintegrating and anti-democratic EU, represent good options for Britain. So instead of seeing the referendum as a vote between these two options, and these two options alone, the UK needs a third option: to vote to stay in the European Union so that it can fight tooth and nail against the EU’s anti-democratic institutions.
Note: This article gives the views of the interviewee, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics.
,
Holding Yanis Varoufakis as always in admiration and highest esteem for the fact, he explains the reality clear and to the point, that, areas that, no doubt, others probably wish to express explain yet for whatever reason do not unfortunately.
The politicians, financial world and banks should take on board Yanis Varoufakis points raised, he is a true professional, an expert in his field, and if the only way to reach out and raise awareness generally, is to revert to call a spade a spade direct to the point approach, so be it, and who can blame him.
His message over and above other recommends transparency and democracy in Europe, simple, and if these two rules are not set in place, are not followed and/or put into motion, if not its the next generation that will suffer, which we should all take awareness of as indicated.
As always well said Yanis, dont stop raising awareness until the message sinks in, that others take a leaf from your book, if they have common sense for now and the future.
J.Douglas
Mallorca
“Of course the constitutional treaty was a disaster. A failed President of France took it upon himself to write a charter of the rights of capital. This is not how you write a constitution. All proper constitutions, like the constitution of the United States, are concerned with the rights of men and women.”
At the time of posting this comment, I have not heard the panel discussion. Can someone advise please if the Trade Deals with the United States were mentioned. I think this a factor that ordinary men and women should be interested in. I guess at the time of voting on 23 June there will still be unknowns regarding the outcome of TTIP. The US election is on 8 November 2016. I for one would consider boycotting certain US goods depending on forthcoming scenarios. On 23 June 2016 there will still be regulatory uncertainties looming over our heads. For example in the United States I understand the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) have been involved with a petition calling on USDA officials to bolster the agency’s scientific integrity policy. Corporate Europe Observatory have been calling for reform of the EU’s regulatory system. http://corporateeurope.org/financial-lobby/2009/11/financial-industry-shapes-eu-regulation. I think a Brexit could give consumers even more cause to be concerned. I would be interested to hear the panels view point on the Alternative Trade Mandate.
I believe many politicians both Eurosceptic and pro Europe have a naive concept of “free trade”.
Yes, I feel we do indeed need a third option maybe more.
“The Alternative Trade Mandate Alliance is an alliance of currently almost 50 organisations, developing an alternative vision of European trade policy that puts people and planet before big business.”
http://www.tni.org/es/node/12596
Boris Johnson has proposed a fourth strategy for UK voters: vote to leave, use this leverage to negotiate a more democratic Europe and then vote again to stay.
Could we end up with a Varoufakis / Johnson tactical alliance, whichever way the vote goes?
The mind boggles.
Here is George Monbiot’s take:
http://www.monbiot.com/2016/02/10/the-lesser-evil/
“On behalf of party donors, old school chums, media proprietors and financial lobbyists, the government is stripping away any protections that European law has not nailed down. The EU’s enthusiasm for treaties like TTIP is exceeded only by David Cameron’s. His defence of national sovereignty, subsidiarity and democracy mysteriously evaporates as soon as they intrude upon corporate power.
I believe that we should remain within the union. But we should do so in the spirit of true scepticism: a refusal to believe anything until we have read the small print; a refusal to suspend our disbelief. Is it possible to be a pro-European Eurosceptic? I hope so, because that is what I am.”
Here’s the problem with the referendum: It’s being painted as a Yes/No vote, even though there are those who want something different. I’d like to stay in the EU but retain better autonomy from the controls of the EU. The problem is that the EU has been acting as a sovereign government that forces a lot of unwanted treaties and so on on its “electorate” and has little actual accountability. In the same way that Yes Minister was Jeeves and Wooster on steroids (and ported over to a political environment), the machinations of the European bureaucracy seem to be Yes Minster on steroids.
Unfortunately, the inherent problems within Europe and the lack of controls on many countries (e.g., permitting unrestrained borrowing, bending the rules for almost any situation in its bid to expand and so on) seem to be culminating in a disaster waiting to happen. While the EU has brought about many benefits, these benefits are relatively superficial compared to the problems within.
Thought I’d better point out I am not the person who wrote this article, despite sharing the same name.
I might accept that as Greek finance minister Varoufakis fought “tooth and nail against the EU’s anti-democratic institutions” but he resigned when the majority of the Syriza leadership showed a lack of resolve to stand-up the bullying Evil Empire that is the contemporary EU. Why should the UK heed his advice to wear itself out raging against the contemporary EU and likely suffer the same fate he did of being despised and rejected by EU fraternal partners? The EU will fail because it has become an Evil Empire, anti-democratic in nature and incapable of reforming itself, so the UK’s deliberations only amount to determining the timing of Brexit, not the fact of it, I very much hope.