The EU’s weak stance on the Catalonian referendum is unsustainable
It is tempting, when looking at the events around Sunday’s Catalonian referendum, to not take a stance. The process went wrong from the very beginning, and it is easy to find fault on both sides of the story. So, it would be easier to brush the problem aside as a Spanish internal matter.
This seems to have been precisely the EU’s position, following the referendum and the subsequent over-reaction of the Spanish National Police. Very few voices were raised against the way the referendum was pushed through the Catalonian Parliament under a dubious procedure, but even fewer against the completely disproportionate reaction by the Spanish central government. The EU clearly does not want to rattle one of its member states, especially when its government belongs to the prevailing political family in Europe (the European People’s Party).
But, in this case, a neutral stance is not an option. Not reacting to the strong-arm tactics of the Spanish government to try to prevent the referendum from taking place, will only bolster governments in countries like Hungary or Poland, which have already shown a penchant for authoritarian forms of government, completely at odds with the European ideal of freedom and liberal democracy.
So let’s be clear: the EU should unequivocally condemn any use of police or military force when dealing with what is, at its heart, a political problem. Furthermore, the EU should have taken a role much earlier in Catalonian referendum issue, trying to mediate between the parties on both sides, helping them achieve a satisfactory settlement under the umbrella of the EU’s democratic institutions.
If the EU is to fulfil what its forefathers dreamed of, it would be irrelevant whether Catalonia were a part of Spain or not, as they would both part of a larger area of freedom and citizenship.
All of us should unequivocally condemn the use of force to prevent a referendum, regardless of the merits or legal validity of that referendum. The EU should be a platform dedicated to the promotion of peaceful co-existence, the upholding of human rights and civil rights, and the quest for democratic solutions to Europe’s problems. To that end, the EU must become, itself, more democratic and responsive to all its citizens aspirations, and use that increased legitimacy to help mediate any conflicts within its borders.
José Luis Malaquias is a DiEM25 member and a Physics engineer based in Portugal.
The Inevitable and the Unpredictable
DiEM25 is the first attempt to create a new political experience that does not accept any regression to the national dimension. This is why I have supported DiEM25 since the beginning of the project.
Now DiEM25 is going to be presented in some Italian cities, and this is my contribution to the discussion.
The political dissolution of the European Union seems inevitable, as racism and nationalism are growing in many countries of Europe. But we must remember the words of John Maynard Keynes: the inevitable generally does not happen, because the unpredictable prevails instead.
DiEM25 has this function: helping the unpredictable to emerge.
The growth of nationalism and racism is not a provisional conjuncture, but the manifestation of the death of internationalism and the dismantling of the neoliberal illusion. Internationalism was once the only way to avoid the kind of global civil war that is now spreading everywhere and threatening to destroy every remnant of human civilization.
The Yugoslavian civil war marked the end of internationalism, and the Union was responsible for that crime. Now the predictable future of Europe is the end of Yugoslavia.
Let’s look at the dynamics that outline the coming European civil war.
In France, Emmanuel Macron (who was elected with an embarrassingly low number of votes, in the face of an electoral abstention of 56 percent) is engaged in the enforcement of austerity measures against salaries and the dignity of labor, and is simultaneously supporting a form of economic protectionism and aggressive nationalism. “National-liberalism” is the mark of the Jupiterian president.
In Italy, a racist coalition is in charge, as the troika of Minniti-Salvini-Di Maio plans the expulsion and extermination of migrant people.
In Germany, a hypocritical psychodrama is taking place: the press and politicians are complaining because ninety nationalist-racists have entered the Bundestag, but they forget that the origin of this tragedy lies in the Hartz labor-market reforms of former chancellor Gerhard Schröder.
The center-left’s cynical support for financial predation is resuscitating Nazism. Joschka Fischer says that Germany is entering a Weimar-like situation. He is wrong: all of Europe is on the brink of a Weimar-like situation.
In Catalonia, the libertarian cosmopolitan town of Barcelona is in the grip of a fight between a revival of franquismo centralista and Catalan national-liberalism, waving the flag of independentismo.
In the background we can glimpse the great migration turning into an intractable emergency, because the Union has refused to launch a project of reception and integration. Foreign workers are badly needed by the aging populations of Europe, and rejecting them is provoking a dangerous time bomb.
The European Union has opted to be a fortress, but this fortress is frail: the white-majority era is over for cultural and technical reasons.
In his lucid folly, Kim Jong-un has said: “Westerners should awake from the dream that they are safe when they bring death to the lands of other peoples because the other peoples cannot react. Now we can bring death into the lands of the West.”
We know that this is true.
White supremacy is not a marginal manifestation of American ignorance. It is rather the tired roar of an old beast that, before dying, attempts to destroy the last remnants of humanity and the history of humankind.
The supremacy of the white imperialists of the past (Europeans, Americans, Russians) has provoked a wave of violence that is now avenging the humiliation with murderous suicide: the nuclear bombs of the North Koreans, and the jihadist human bombs in the European metropolis.
Is the spread of boundless civil war inevitable? It is: it’s too late to avert the explosion of a device that has been triggered by centuries of exploitation. So why discuss, why act, why organize, why take part in the DiEM25 project?
The answer is: because we have not forgotten the wise words of John Maynard Keynes.
If our analytical mind is clearly predicting the inevitable, our imaginative mind has to stay active so that we can be alert and seize the unpredictable way out of hell.
In the next ten years, I do not expect the unlikely restoration of democracy, but I think we should perform two political actions: the first is to prepare the unpredictable (a technical invention, or an artistic insurrection of precarious cognitive workers, or a psychedelic pill that makes visible what at present we are unable to see).
The second action is to reformulate and transmit an agenda of social egalitarianism, of freedom from the theological domination of technology, so that a trace of solidarity may be passed on to the next generation, beyond the apocalypse that dominates and obscures our vision.
DiEM25, in my humble opinion, has to work in two directions:
The first is to multiply non-identitarian shelters in order to defuse the civil war.
The second is to launch a cultural campaign for the general reduction of labor time, for a basic income, for the redistribution of wealth.
This may sound utopian today, I know, but in the coming years of disruption and turmoil, these propositions will become more and more realistic, as they are the only way for humankind to reemerge human from the storm.
This article originally appeared in e-flux conversations.
Schäuble leaves but Schäuble-ism lives on
Wolfgang Schäuble may have left the finance ministry but his policy for turning the eurozone into an iron cage of austerity, that is the very antithesis of a democratic federation, lives on.
What is remarkable about Dr Schäuble’s tenure was how he invested heavily in maintaining the fragility of the monetary union, rather than eradicating it in order to render the eurozone macro-economically sustainable and resilient. Why did Dr Schäuble aim at maintaining the eurozone’s fragility? Why was he, in this context, ever so keen to maintain the threat of Grexit? The simple answer is: Because a state of permanent fragility was instrumental to his strategy for using the threat of expulsion from the euro (or even of Germany’s withdrawal from it) to discipline the deficit countries – chiefly France.
Deep in Dr Schäuble’ thinking there was the belief that, as a federation is infeasible, the euro is a glorified fixed exchange rate regime. And the only way of maintaining discipline within such a regime was to keep alive the threat of expulsion or exit. But to keep that threat alive, the eurozone could not be allowed to develop the instruments and institutions that would stop it from being fragile. Thus, the eurozone’s permanent fragility was, from Dr Schäuble’s perspective an end-in-itself, rather than a failure.
The Free Democratic Party’s ascension will see to it that Wolfgang Schäuble’s departure will not alter the policy of doing whatever it takes to prevent the eurozone ‘s evolution into a sustainable macroeconomy. The FDP’s sole promise to its voters was to prevent any of Emmanuel Macron’s plans, for some federation-lite, from being agreed to, and for pursuing Grexit. Even worse, whereas Wolfgang Schäuble understood that austerity plus new loans were catastrophic for countries like Greece (but insisted on them as part of his campaign to discipline France and Italy), his FDP successors at the finance ministry will probably be less ‘enlightened’ believing that the ‘tough medicine’ is fit for purpose.
And so the never ending crisis of Europe’s social economy, that feeds the xenophobic political monsters, continues.
G20 – they colonized our future
When Beethoven composed his ‘Ode to Joy’ in 1824 he probably wouldn’t have thought that merely 200 years later the Donald Trumps of this world would listen to it, while the masses are rioting in the streets outside. Actually, not all people became brothers during the G20 summit on July 7 – 8 in Hamburg this year. Three months later fiery public debates about the tremendous violence during the summit days still continue and every day more coverage of police violence against protesters crops up in social media.
Apart from that, major media outlets still seem to refuse any coverage on the realistic alternative policy approaches that were framed and discussed e.g. during the Alternative Summit on July 5–6. So the world has gone back to business as usual and the question “what actually changed with the protests?“ sounds ever-increasingly ironic. But why is that so? As activists are our protests maybe failing to address a crucial aspect of the G20’s power?
Colonizing our futures
One issue completely missing in the agenda of protests and counter-events during the summit is a very peculiar form of colonization that renders all of us alike its subjects. The G20 states are not merely colonizing the world economically and geopolitically. They also wield a timesavvy colonization of our futures. How does that happen?
Since the 2011 summit the G20 has eagerly incorporated into its proceedings and policy agendas a specific kind of knowledge through consultations with ‘Think 20’ – a think tank focusing on future scenarios. “What’s the problem with that?” one might ask, because after all scientific consultation in the process of policy-making seems to be a good thing. Yes and no. Scenario building is nothing new. In the 1950s it started out as a military planning tool during the cold war and spread more widely during the 1970s and 1980s in the form of corporate foresight in the economy. After the fall of the iron curtain and from then on, strategic foresight tools were implemented in almost every domain of policy-making and now national and global power bodies (USA, EU, NATO, ASEAN, etc.) incorporate strategic foresight into their decision-making on almost every issue.
The two major methods of strategic foresight are forecasting and backcasting. Forecasting is a prognosis of future events grounded in analyses of present trends, while backcasting is a prognosis of desired futures accompanied by strategic guidance on how to get to these particular futures. So these methods refer to probable, possible and preferred future scenarios.
Normative projection
The problem with the future is that it is highly uncertain, meaning there is a profound lack of information about it. Now a rich tradition of organizational studies tells us that whenever social actors lack information to handle a situation they rely on social mechanisms such as power relations, institutions, networks, routines and traditions. However, it is no secret that all the latter are normatively structured as they carry certain social values implicit within them. As a result, strategic foresight is not just about analyzing and calculating but rather about normatively projecting narratives about the future that unavoidably carry the values of those people creating and using them.
This is seldom reflected in scenario building. So these narratives – treated as objective and rational – are very powerful as they enable actors to manage future uncertainties in the present and act accordingly to bring about preferred futures.
Although one might consider future scenarios as fictional, the minute they are regarded as credible they must inform, justify and legitimate decisions. Therefore, they help unfold economic and social processes, which means that they have all too real consequences.
Social futures are indeed constructed, and foresight tools now play a major role in this process. But because they require huge amounts of financial, intellectual and social capital, the capacities available to build scenarios are distributed highly unequally.
Governance – local, national and global – is not possible to imagine without strategic foresight any longer. But the latter is not at all pluralist and inclusive as of now. At this moment in time, it is at the service of specific economic and political elites. In the context of ‘Think 20’, a minimal and privileged faction of the global population (without any democratic mandate) creates these future narratives, which are then deployed in the process of global governance.
In one respect in particular the ‘Think 20’ scenarios could be accurately described as the utilitarian future–making tools of the 1%: they do not go beyond the infinite growth paradigm. This is explicitly reflected in the G20 Leaders’ Declaration 2017. With infinite growth being the foremost reason for social inequality, neo-colonial aggression and climate change, the declaration is a mere charade. However, G20 forecasting prolongs the infinite growth paradigm into the future, while G20 backcasting draws strategic conclusions for present action from a desired future where the infinite growth paradigm is still intact. It is obvious how this process is closely tied to the notion of ‘there is no alternative’.
Moving forward – from making history to making the future
If strategic foresight is an elite tool for executing power by prolonging the status quo into the future – how can we as activists not address this issue? After all, what are political activists if they are not future makers? We struggle for a more socially just, ecologically sustainable and peaceful tomorrow and we know that this is not achievable within the frameworks of infinite growth.
Therefore, we need to uncover the power nexus as well as the normative content of these future–making tools, to distribute them more equally, and make future scenarios more pluralist and socially inclusive. Right now every human being’s future is colonized by the powerful future narratives of infinite growth, with the G20 as the major political agency that incorporates and enacts these narratives.
Unfortunately, the only future narratives in our hands right now are our so-called ‘utopian visions’, constantly refuted on the grounds that ‘there is no alternative’.
Often these utopian visions derive from a materialist conception of history, which is not wrong at all. But we also need to see how modern societies are fundamentally directed and referencing towards the future. So activists need to incorporate this same principle into their action, moving forwards from making history to making the future, thereby reclaiming the ability to construct futures from the global elites. We need to form a progressive international that – apart from its many other capabilities – has its own capacity for strategic foresight that can produce a heavyweight and substantial counter-narrative to the future narrative of infinite growth which the G20 circulates so eagerly. And there is hope.
DiEM25 – radically democratizing European futures
As a European citizen born and raised in Hamburg, Germany I regain hope by engaging in a young and very promising movement called ‘Democracy in Europe Movement 2025’ – or ‘DiEM25’ for short. DiEM25 was founded in February 2016 as a result of the experience of EU austerity politics in Greece. What became clear with the Greek Referendum on July 5, 2015 was that there is no democracy at the EU level. The sovereign people of Greece declared their rejection of the EU’s austerity policies. Nonetheless, they came into brutal effect, with heavy human costs lasting to the present day.
DiEM25 will not accept that. We are convinced that no European people can be free if other people are suppressed and that the European crises cannot be solved by returning to our nation states. And so, until 2025, we struggle to create a radical democratic European social state – by bringing into effect a real European constitution that renders all current treaties obsolete. This fully-fledged European democracy, will feature a sovereign Parliament that respects national self-determination and shares power with national parliaments, regional assemblies and municipal councils. It will dismantle the habitual domination of corporate power over the will of citizens and re-politicise the rules that govern our single market and common currency.
The democratization of EU institutions and the economy is one major task. Besides that we also have to democratize the sciences, freeing our universities from their dependence on private financing, thus enabling them to make science for social progress and emancipation – not for corporate interests. Such universities are the places for a critical futurology that can reflect its methods properly to make it a social science serving the good of society as a whole.
Other examples for truly democratic future making are the ‘Transitions Movement’, ‘Focal Engineering’ and ‘Fab Labs’. All these projects revolve around both imagining alternative futures and implementing respective technologies locally. They are community approaches that show how strategic foresight can be made available to all of the people, making it more democratic, pluralist and inclusive. Also, they are deeply related to common goods as they re-embed engineering processes in the public. Interestingly, DiEM25 calls for the provision of basic common goods (e.g. energy) in the ‘European New Deal’.
DiEM25 published its ‘European New Deal’ on March 25 this year. This is a plan to reform current EU economic policies, which would stabilize the EU crises, shift the economy towards engendering social justice and lay the groundwork for a real and solidary political union in Europe.
That sounds utopian, right? However, the New Deal can be implemented tomorrow and it is far less utopian than any conceivable claim that current austerity policies will solve the EU crises. So although it sounds utopian, it is realistic, and offers future scenarios that include all of Europe’s people.
This is because it was created in a decentralized, radical democratic process, basically including all of our 60,000 members, with the additional help of experts around the world. In my opinion, DiEM25 has the potential to tackle the G20’s future colonization of our lives so let’s join forces to widen this potential of making truly democratic futures! In these days storm clouds are forming on the horizon of change, but they are accompanied by a slight breeze of hope. There is a fresh wind blowing in this world and it is now or never that we progressives shall set sail for future shores!
This article first appeared in openDemocracy.
Sören Altstaedt Coordinator of DiEM25 in Hamburg, member of DiEM25’s Federal German Committee, main organizer of DiEM25’s actions and events during G20 summit week 2017 in Hamburg.
Our ‘Greek New Deal’ presented in Patra – Greece’s third-largest city
DiEM25 and its co-founder Yanis Varoufakis were well received in the city of Patra in Western Greece. The “Royal” theatre was packed with people who were keen to hear about DiEM25’s “New Deal for Greece”.
In his speech, Yanis noted that: “The MoUs have made all Greek governments utterly powerless. Parties who are not willing to disobey the troika, cannot make any promises to the people and keep them.” Answering a question from the audience about alliances, he replied: “We want to cooperate with all democrats who are against the establishment, but if the other political parties are not willing to cooperate, we will have to form our our political organisation to do so.”
“We want to represent all Greek people who are victims of austerity,” added Yanis, “but especially those who voted NO to the referendum of 2015. Their will was not respected.”
On refugees, Yanis said: “Italy and Greece take a lot of responsibilities but so far, Europe has let them down. We don’t have a refugee problem in Europe; the problem is that we have lost our soul. Lebanon, a small country, is accommodating one million refugees, whereas Europe, a whole continent with a population of 500 million, claims that 2 million refugees are a significant problem.
DiEM25’s concept of transnationalism is the exact opposite of globalisation: It’s about regulating transactions of capital and letting people move freely.
Yanis also commented on Brexit and the outcome of the recent German elections:
“We hoped that Brexit would shake up the establishment and make them think again about the consequences of their arrogance. Alas, it is clear that Michel Barnier’s team has a mandate to wreck any mutually advantageous deal. It’s this same arrogance and religious obsession with austerity that led also to the disastrous outcome of German elections. In 2015 I warned Merkel and Schaeuble about the consequences of crushing the Greek Spring, while practising socialism for bankers. I said that monsters would take advantage of people’s despair; and now those monsters are here.”
“But the 20%+ rise of the FDP and AfD means one important thing as well,” added Yanis. “Macron’s strategy for a federation lite is dead.”
Event video
Not just another political party
For some time now, a debate has been raging among members regarding DiEM25’s possible direct or indirect involvement in elections. Should we? Shouldn’t we? If yes, in what capacity? How can we become involved in elections without losing our ‘movement character’ and our capacity to converse and influence existing parties through dialogue? How can our mission of deepening democracy be made compatible with the rather superficial act of fielding candidates?
During the summer, DiEM25’s Coordinating Collective (CC), DSCs (local groups) and members in general have submitted their input to this debate, with the great diversity of opinion that is DiEM25’s trademark. Among ourselves the question now is: How do we move beyond mere debating towards reaching a decision?
This question has become all the more pressing after the recent German election which, without a shadow of a doubt, killed off the last remaining hope of a federalist democratic push by the Macron-Merkel duo, the deep establishment’s last hope. This is the right time for DiEM25 to respond.
The CC, in our regular meeting that took place on Saturday, September 23 via teleconference, noted that time is running short. Too many windows of opportunity are closing too quickly. If DiEM25 is to make any impact on the 2019 pan-European (EP) elections; if DiEM25 is to live up to its inaugural commitment to act before Europe disintegrates (before 2025?); if we are to keep open the fast-closing window of opportunity for redressing climate change or the wholesale dominance of xenophobia… we must decide soon. In this context, the CC proposes the following process:
Step 1: CALL FOR OPTIONS. Deadline: October 20, 2017
Members, DSCs and PNCs are invited to submit brief, specific proposals (that may of course be accompanied by longer explanatory texts) on DiEM25’s electoral presence to be presented to members in an all-member vote.
To kickstart the process, the CC took into account all previous discussions and created a proposal as follows:
CC PROPOSAL: That DiEM25 will not turn itself into a political party but, rather, seeks to register (as one of its many instruments and initiatives) an ‘electoral wing’; a genuinely transnational party organisation in as many European countries as possible. These organisations would not be independent but bound to the movement’s internal votes. Whether and where DiEM25’s ‘electoral wing’ contests elections will be decided by DiEM25 all-member voting on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with DiEM25’s Manifesto, Organisational Principles and the policy document entitled ‘NOT JUST ANOTHER POLITICAL PARTY‘.
To share and discuss your proposals or that of the CC go to our forum or a discussion group of your choice. Once you have a final version of your proposal (must be votable, not a stream of thoughts!), send it to us via this form. Note that Oct 20 is the final deadline, so we recommend that you plan to submit your proposal via the form by Oct 15, lest any last-minute delays prevent you from making your voice heard on time.
Step 2: VOTING. Date: November 1, 2017
Between the deadline for option submissions (October 20) and November 1, the CC undertakes to collate (if necessary) the various responses into vote-able counter-proposals to that of the CC above, as well as to amend its own proposal in view of the feedback. Then, on November 1, 2017, our internal all-member voting process will commence with at least two options on the menu: The (amended) CC proposal (see above), a NO ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION option, and other options that will be put forward by members (as collated by the CC).
Step 3: Possible 2nd round of VOTING. Date: November 8, 2017
If the first vote does not yield one option that attracts 50%+1 of voting members, a second runoff round will ensue.
As our second anniversary is approaching, this is a decision that we must make, as always, collectively and after we consider fully all views and available evidence.
Thank you for guiding and enriching our movement’s momentous next steps!
>>DiEM25 Coordinating Collective
Our Italy tour kicks off!
Starting tomorrow, our very own Yanis Varoufakis and Lorenzo Marsili will be putting on their motorcycle helmets and touring Italy.
Their mission? To meet activists and political figures across the Eurozone’s third largest economy and put forward DiEM25’s proposals for tackling Europe’s common problems. From inequality to the scandalous tax evasion of multinationals, from migration to climate change to ending the scourge of involuntary under employment.
As our members are currently debating how to deploy an electoral wing that would effectively take DiEM25’s Progressive Agenda for Europe to ballots across the Union, the electoral expression of our proposals need as many like-minded European democrats on board as possible. And it’s vital for us to strengthen our network of “rebel cities”: from Barcelona to Zagreb, from Warsaw to Naples.
The tour will see Yanis and Lorenzo share a stage with DiEM25 friends like Luigi de Magistris, Nicola Fratoianni and Giuliano Pisapia, among others. They’ll be stopping in Milan, Turin, Ferrara, Bologna, Naples and Palermo. And of course, meeting DiEM25 members wherever they go!
Tour stops are below.
Event organised by Fondazione Feltrinelli
“There is (no) alternative?: Progressive proposals for Europe”
with Yanis Varoufakis, Lorenzo Marsili, Giuliano Pisapia and Tonia Mastrobuoni
Wednesday 27th September – 18:00
Milan, Feltrinelli Foundation (Viale Pasubio 5)
Event organised by Sinistra Italiana
Proxima Festival 99%
with Yanis Varoufakis, Lorenzo Marsili, Nicola Fratoianni, Maurizio Landini and Lucia Annunziata
Thursday 28th September – at 20:30
Turin, Murazzi del Po (Long Po Armando Diaz)
Event organised by the Italian magazine Internazionale
The Time of Commitment – Festival of Internazionale
with Yanis Varoufakis and Lorenzo Marsili
Friday, September 29th – at 14:30
Ferrara, Municipal Theater (Corso Martiri della Libertà 5)
Event organised by Teatro Polivalente Occupato/Coalizione Civica
Movements and Cities of Europe
with Yanis Varoufakis, Lorenzo Marsili and Maurizio Acerbo
Friday 29th September 2017 – at 20:30
Bologna, Teatro Polivalente Occupato (Via Camillo Casarini 17/5)
FACEBOOK EVENT
FIRST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF DIEM25 IN ITALY
ONLY for members of DiEM25 Italia
Event organised by the DSC Naples1
From Saturday, September 30th at 14h to Sunday 1st October at 14h
Naples, Casa Tolentino (Gradini San Nicola da Tolentino 12)
Event organised by the City of Naples
From rebel cities to disobedient Europe
with Yanis Varoufakis, Lorenzo Marsili and Luigi de Magistris
Saturday 30th September 2017 – 18:00
Naples, Politeama Theater (Via Monte di Dio 80)
FACEBOOK EVENT
Event organised by the City of Palermo / DSC DiEM25 Palermo2
Palermo Europe: the future goes from the Mediterranean
with Yanis Varoufakis, Lorenzo Marsili, Leoluca Orlando, Andrea Cusumano, Hedwig Fijen, Davide Cammarone, Johanne Liu Yousif, Latif Yaralla, Ruska Jorjoliani, Bifo Franco Berardi
Sunday 1st October – 18:30
Palermo, Cinema De Seta (Via Paolo Gili 4)
All events are open to all and free, with no reservation needed. Follow any live events on the DiEM25 Italia Facebook page.
Our view on Catalonia’s referendum
Last Friday, DiEM25’s Coordinating Collective (CC) received an urgent request from our Barcelona local group (DSC): that DiEM25 take a view on the referendum the Catalan government is trying to hold next Sunday, October 1.
This is a burning issue that not only affects Catalonia, but Europe as a whole. Thus, we agree, DiEM25 must clearly voice its stance. So here it is:
The current events taking place in Catalonia are worrisome to DiEM25, for they touch on the very essence of some of our movement’s founding principles, particularly our defence of democracy and of people’s rights to decide their future.
We understand the complexities surrounding the referendum organised by the Catalan regional government for next October 1, and are sensitive to the different views on procedures, legal aspects and arguments on all sides.
As per our manifesto, DiEM25 stands for an Open Europe, with neither borders nor asphyxiating central control. We dream of a Europe where a democratic Catalonia is part of a democratic Europe without anyone really noticing or caring whether it belongs or not to Spain.
We condemn the way democracy and fundamental rights like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are being curtailed by Madrid’s authoritarian response.
We stand behind DiEM25 member and Barcelona City Mayor, Ada Colau, in her call for all parties to establish a mature and sensible dialogue that will result in an agreed referendum with the central government, which provides all legal guarantees for Catalans to decide on their future.
We recommend subscribing to the declaration Ada and other like-minded democrats co-signed at yesterday’s assembly in Zaragoza.
The above does not by any means constrict the need for a membership-wide debate (and vote) on such crucial matters. There are DiEM25 members across Catalonia, Spain, and our Union, indeed, who must contribute with ideas and concrete proposals on how to address this and other democratic processes. So we welcome the creation of a thematic group, as per the soon-to-be announced initiatives our members have requested and which we will vigorously encourage and support. The above recommendations are in fact a confirmation of the principles that brought us all together.
>>DiEM25 Coordinating Collective
It’s time to make a choice
Reacting to the outcome of yesterday’s German elections, Chancellor Merkel said she had been “hoping for a better result” and that she now planned to “listen to the worries and concerns” of people who voted for AfD.
The alarm bells of Marine Le Pen, Brexit and Donald Trump clearly were not loud enough for the German establishment to foresee the rise of AfD. Tragically, Merkel and Germany have now been hit by the centrifugal forces that she herself cultivated (directly or indirectly) over the past 12 years, particularly after the Euro crisis set in.
It’s now Merkel’s move. She must not trade the integrity of the EU to remain chancellor by endorsing the anti-European policies of FDP’s agenda. And despite Schulz’s criticism of Merkel’s policies, SPD should also redefine itself. From this perspective, it would be better to remain in opposition, think and change in order to regain people’s trust.
But this is not a time for rest and reflection – our window of opportunity to make progressive change happen is closing fast. The results of the German elections leave no room for doubt: it’s time to make a choice:
We either allow the unequal, unjust status quo to endure, which will pave the way to a return to fascism across the continent. Or we rise up and lead a revolution capable of moving towards a progressive and humanist Union.
At DIEM25 we are working on the latter. Join us today and let’s make it happen.