EU Referendum: 'Yes' Is the Correct Answer to the Wrong Question

Pubblicato Marzo 7th, 2016 di DiEM25 & inserito in Articles, Uncategorized.

This article by Dr Richard Barbrook first appeared on Huffington Post on February 25, 2016
On 5th June 1975, I cast my first ever vote in a referendum on whether or not Britain should remain within the European Common Market. Like David Cameron, Harold Wilson – the Labour prime minister of the time – had organised this ballot to manage his own party’s factional squabbles rather than to determine the future of the nation. Then as now, the British establishment warned the electorate of the dire political and economic consequences of quitting the European project. Even the American government made unsubtle hints encouraging a Yes vote in this referendum. More than anything else, the pro-European cause was helped by the ‘No’ campaign’s bizarre alliance of those on the Right who mourned the loss of empire and those on the Left who wanted Britain to become Cuba with worse weather. Why risk this leap into the unknown when its leading proponents couldn’t agree on what would happen if they won the referendum? Not surprisingly, like 67 per cent of the British people, I decided for the better-safe-than-sorry option of ‘Yes’.
Ever since the 1975 result was declared, the losing side has been arguing for another referendum that would deliver a different outcome. In Britain as in other member states, the mainstream parties’ hypocritical tactic of publicly blaming the EU for unpopular policies which they tacitly supported has encouraged a growth in Euroscepticism over the past four decades. For some of the Left, Tony Benn’s warnings in 1975 about the European boss’ club still seem prescient. The unaccountable EU technocracy is now imposing its austerity economics of welfare cuts, privatisation and financialisation on the whole continent. As the Greeks recently discovered, parliamentary democracy becomes meaningless when the most vital decisions are made in Brussels. Yet, apart from a dwindling band of Stalinists, the British Left’s rejection of the EU’s disastrous infatuation with neoliberalism hasn’t recruited many of its leaders and activists to the anti-European side this time around. Instead, the ‘No’ campaign for the 2016 referendum is dominated by the isolationist Right. Ever since Margaret Thatcher’s reign, Tory newspapers have regaled their readers with lurid tales of bureaucratic meddling and financial shenanigans by the EU institutions. As their readers’ comments reveal, Europe has become the Right’s symbol of everything that is wrong with modern Britain: mass immigration, political correctness, gender bending and military weakness. The EU is the EUSSR – a demonic federal superstate crushing the national sovereignty and cultural distinctiveness of the English race. As Thatcher discovered, handbagging the Brussels bureaucracy is an excellent method of securing these patriotic voters for the Tories. But, as her successors have also understood, the party of big banks and big business can never deliver the ultimate goal of its Europhobic supporters: the secession of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The insiders know that EU-bashing is just fun-and-games which no one should take too seriously.
Unfortunately for the Tory grandees, the outsiders on the Right truly believe in the Eurosceptic message. While the demands for a new ballot on EU membership by backbench MPs, constituency activists and newspaper columnists can be safely ignored, UKIP candidates threaten to split the anti-Left vote in both local and national contests. During the run-up to the 2015 general election, David Cameron dealt with this competition from the isolationist Right by promising to hold a new referendum which he knew that his LibDem coalition partners would never allow to take place. But, when the Tories won their unexpected outright victory, this clever wheeze no longer seemed so clever. Having profited from Eurosceptic rhetoric for decades, the British establishment is now assailed by those who want to turn its words into deeds. Worryingly, with the Euro in crisis, the Schengen Agreement disintegrating and the EU’s borders overwhelmed by desperate refugees, selling the case against Brexit has become more difficult. However, the ‘Yes’ campaign still remains the favourite. Imitating Harold Wilson’s successful strategy before the 1975 referendum, David Cameron is touring the continent’s capital cities to put together a package of minor concessions which will enable ambitious Tory MPs to swap their erstwhile Europhobia for newly found Europhilia. Battle-tested in Scotland in 2014, the great-and-good’s Project Fear will terrify the electorate with predictions of job losses, expensive mortgages and a falling pound if Britain leaves the EU. UKIP’s supporters will be warned that the UK couldn’t survive England voting ‘No’ and Scotland voting ‘Yes’. The US president, the NATO Secretary-General and the Queen will express their concerns that the status quo must prevail. In the unlikely event of a ‘No’ victory, like when the Irish initially rejected the EU’s Lisbon Treaty in 2008 and then were sent back to the polls in 2009 to correct their mistake, this political farce will be repeated until the British public sees sense and chooses ‘Yes’. The Eurosceptics must learn that the Tory elite’s words should never be mistaken for deeds.
By holding the 2016 referendum as an exercise in party management, David Cameron hopes to restrict the debate over Britain’s relationship with Europe to the in-or-out question. What at all costs must be avoided is any serious discussion about how the EU could be made to work in the interests of all of its citizens. The official ‘Yes’ campaign will concentrate on the negative consequences of British withdrawal because making the positive case would have to include proposals to tackle the serious failings of the European institutions, especially their scandalous lack of democratic accountability. Contrary to the Eurosceptic assertion, the EU is not a federal superstate, but instead is an inter-governmental treaty organisation. The Brussels bureaucracy takes its orders from the Council of Ministers rather than the European Parliament. Crucially, for the national leaders of the EU’s member states, neoliberal solutions have the inestimable advantage of advancing economic integration without requiring political unification. Behind closed doors, they can adopt policies which favour tax-dodging corporations and too-big-to-fail banks – and then impose them upon their own local electorates without consultation. But, following the 2008 financial collapse, this technocratic strategy has been undermining the European project. From the Euro crisis to the influx of refugees, national leaders have proved incapable of managing continental problems when neoliberal dogmas no longer work. Yet, the Brexit-style retreat behind state borders can only exacerbate dependence upon these failing market mechanisms. Instead, Yanis Varoufakis – the former Greek finance minister – argues that the citizens of Europe should now take their destiny into their own hands. In the DiEM25 manifesto, he advocates the rapid democratisation of the EU institutions. While David Cameron’s referendum only offers two versions of defunct neoliberalism, Yanis Varoufakis wants the British to participate in the election of a Constituent Assembly of the European peoples. Seeking to widen the debate beyond the Tories’ facile in-or-out question, the new leadership of the Labour party has responded positively to this initiative. Both Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell voted ‘No’ in the 1975 referendum. In a strange twist of fate, these admirers of Tony Benn are now becoming the most plausible advocates of European federalism in Britain. From climate change to tax avoidance, there are national problems which can only be effectively dealt with at a continental level. By urging a ‘Yes’ vote in 2016, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are championing democracy as the precondition of successful European governance. The bankers and technocrats had their chance and they’ve messed up big time. Now it is the turn of the citizens of Europe to have their voices heard in the corridors of power. The wisdom of the many must prevail over the folly of the few. I’ll vote ‘Yes’ to that!
Dr Richard Barbrook is a Politics lecturer at the University of Westminster, trustee of Cybersalon and member of the Labour party.

Faces of Democratic Deficit

Pubblicato Marzo 7th, 2016 di Slavoj Žižek & inserito in Articles, Uncategorized.

Slavoj Žižek

Sometimes faces become symbols – not of the strong individuality of their bearers but of the anonymous forces behind them. Was not the stupidly smiling face of Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the Eurogroup, the symbol of the EU’s brutal pressure on Greece? Recently, the international trade deal TTIP acquired a new symbol: the cold face of EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström who, when asked by a journalist how she could continue her promotion of TTIP in the face of massive public opposition, responded without shame: “I do not take my mandate from the European people.” In an unsurpassable act of irony, her family name is a variation of maelstrom.

Now a third anonymous face has emerged: Frans Timmermans, the First Vice-President of the European Commission, who, on December 23 2015, scolded the Polish government for adopting a new law which poses a threat to the democratic constitutional order since it subordinates constitutional court to the authority of government. Furthermore, Timmermans condemned the new media law which was rushed through Poland’s parliament a couple of weeks: the law will enable the parliament to immediately sack all executives at the country’s public television and radio companies and to appoint their replacements. The ruling party justifies this law as necessary to stifle unfair criticism of its actions, while the opposition decries it as a severe limitation of the freedom of the press. In an immediate and sharp reply, the Polish side warned Brussels “to exercise more restraint in instructing and cautioning the parliament and the government of a sovereign and democratic state in the future.”
From the standard Left-liberal view, it is of course inappropriate to put these three names into the same series: Dijsselbloem and Malmström personify the pressure of the Brussels bureaucrats (without democratic legitimization) on states and their democratically-elected governments, while Timmermans intervened to protect basic democratic institutions (independence of courts, free press) from a government that overstepped its legitimate powers. However, although it may appear obscene to compare the brutal neoliberal pressure on Greece with the justified criticism of Poland, did the Polish government’s reaction also not hit the mark? Timmermans, a EU administrator without any clear democratic legitimization, exerted pressure on a democratically elected government of a sovereign state.
Do we not encounter a similar dilemma in today’s Germany? When I was recently answering questions from the readers of Sueddeutsche Zeitung about the refugee crisis, the question which attracted by far the most attention concerned precisely democracy, but with a rightist-populist twist: when Angela Merkel made her famous public appeal inviting hundreds of thousands into Germany, which was her democratic legitimization? What gave her the right to bring such a radical change to German life without democratic consultation? My point here, of course, is not to support anti-immigrant populists, but to clearly point out the limits of democratic legitimization. The same goes for those who advocate radical opening of the borders: are they aware that, since our democracies are nation-state democracies, their demand equals suspension of democracy – a gigantic change should be allowed to affect a country without democratic consultation of its population?
And does the same not hold for the calls for transparency of the EU decisions? Since in many countries the majority of the public was against the Greek debt reduction, rendering EU negotiations public would make representatives of these countries advocate even tougher measures against Greece… We encounter here the old problem: what happens to democracy when the majority is inclined to vote for racist and sexist laws? I am not afraid to draw the conclusion that emancipatory politics should not be bound a priori by formal-democratic procedures of legitimization. People quite often do NOT know what they want, or do not want what they know, or they simply want the wrong thing. There is no simple short-cut here, and we can well imagine a democratized Europe with much more engaged citizens in which the majority of governments is formed by anti-immigrant populist parties.
Leftist critics of EU thus find themselves in a strange predicament: while they deplore the »democratic deficit« of the EU and propose plans to make more transparent the decision-making in Brussels, they support the »non-democratic« Brussels administrators when they exert pressure on (democratically legitimized) new »Fascist« tendencies. The context of these impasses is the Big Bad Wolf of the European liberal Left: the threat of new Fascism embodied in anti-immigrant Rightist populism. This scare-crow is perceived as the principal enemy against which we should all unite, from (whatever remains of) the radical Left to mainstream liberal democrats (including EU administrators like Timmermans). Europe is portrayed as a continent regressing towards a new Fascism which feeds on the paranoiac hatred and fear of the external ethnic-religious enemy (mostly Muslims). While this new Fascism is directly predominant in some post-Communist East European countries (Hungary, Poland, etc.), it is also getting stronger and stronger in many other countries where the view is that the Muslim refugees invasion poses a threat to European legacy.
But it this Fascism really Fascism? The term “Fascism” is all too often used as an excuse to avoid detailed analysis of what effectively goes on. The Dutch Rightist populist politician Pim Fortuyn, killed in early May 2002, two weeks before elections on which he was expected to gain one fifth of the votes, was a paradoxical symptomal figure: a Rightist populist whose personal features and even (most of his) opinions were almost perfectly “politically correct”: he was gay, had good personal relations with many immigrants, with an innate sense of irony, etc. – in short, he was a good tolerant liberal with regard to everything except his basic political stance: he opposed fundamentalist immigrants because of their hatred towards homosexuality, women’s rights, etc. What he embodied was thus the intersection between Rightist populism and liberal Political Correctness – perhaps, he had to die because he was the living proof that the opposition between Rightist populism and liberal tolerance is a false one, that we are dealing with the two sides of the same coin.
Furthermore, many Leftist liberals (like Habermas) who bemoan the ongoing decline of the EU seem to idealize its past: the “democratic” EU the loss of which they bemoan never existed. Recent EU policy is just a desperate attempt to make Europe fit for new global capitalism. The usual Left-liberal critique of the EU – it’s basically OK, just with a “democratic deficit” – betrays the same naivety as the critics of ex-Communist countries which basically supported them, just complaining about the lack of democracy: in both cases, the “democratic deficit” was a necessary part of the global structure.
Obviously, the only way to counteract the “democratic deficit” of global capitalism would have been through some trans-national entity – was it not already Kant who, more than two hundred years ago, saw the need for a trans-nation-state legal order grounded in the rise of the global society? “Since the narrower or wider community of the peoples of the earth has developed so far that a violation of rights in one place is felt throughout the world, the idea of a law of world citizenship is no high-flown or exaggerated notion.” This, however, brings us to what is arguably the “principal contradiction” of the New World Order: the structural impossibility of finding a global political order which would correspond to global capitalist economy. What if, for structural reasons and not only due to empirical limitations, there cannot be a world-wide democracy or a representative world government? The structural problem (antinomy) of global capitalism resides in the impossibility (and, simultaneously, necessity) of a socio-political order that would fit it: the global market economy cannot be directly organized as a global liberal democracy with worldwide elections. In politics, the “repressed” of the global economy returns: archaic fixations, particular substantial (ethnic, religious, cultural) identities. This tension defines our predicament today: the global free circulation of commodities is accompanied by the growing separations in the social sphere. While commodities circulate more and more freely, people are kept apart by new walls.
Does this mean that we should by-pass the topic of democratising Europe as a blind alley? On the contrary, it means that, precisely because of its central significance, we should approach it in a more radical way than just demanding more open democratic procedures. A whole series of difficult questions is to be raised: how to effectively counteract ideological brain-washing by mass media? How to enable people to be properly acquainted by crucial choices and decisions obfuscated by cultural wars, decisions about TTIP and other half-secret agreements? Etc. The problem of democratizing Europe thus quickly turns into a more substantial one: how to transform the basic coordinate of our social life so that democracy becomes possible.

Etichette: Transparency

DiEM25 Finland!

Pubblicato Marzo 6th, 2016 di DiEM25 & inserito in Articles, Uncategorized.

On 3 March 2016, the 2nd Self Organized DiEM25 Finnish Gathering was held at a lecture hall of the University of Helsinki, Finland. Around 80 people found their way to the event which was organized in rather short period of time and advertised mainly in Facebook and with a few posters around the campus.

Heikki Patomäki, Professor of World Politics at the University of Helsinki, opened the gathering providing a brief overview of the history of the discussions on the state of democracy in the EU and connection between it and economical power. Then he shared some key points about the global trends e.g. failed and soon-to-be-failed economic policies and the rise of authoritarianism and nationalism in many countries. In addition he introduced some of his own ideas about more functional and equitable structures for the new version of the EU.

One of the organizers of the event Katariina Pietiläinen, introduced the proposed 6 battlegrounds and steps to the Conventional Assembly, and some ideas about organisational aspects at the local level in general. In the discussion ideas around the need of making information about the ideas and facts behind DiEM25 easily accessible, and of gathering together other activists, movements and organisations which are now fighting the same fight in different stages separately, were raised. Could the idea of democracy build bridges between them?

Thomas Wallgren, docent in philosophy and long-term activist, shared in a most structural way!, he’s experiences, hopes and doubts about diem-like movements. He pointed out that there is strong wave of activism rising due to the painful experience of how the Troika crushed down on Syriza after its victory in elections. DiEM25 seems to shine with the brightest light amongst them in Europe. Still it is highly important to think how to create solidarity and cooperation between different like-minded initiatives and of what we could learn about former struggles and failures in order to avoid  fragmentation of ”good people”.

Pietiläinen, Patomäki and Wallgren all spoke in their role as social movement acticvists. They are also known in Finland as activists of the Green Party (KP), Left League I(HP) and Social Democratic Party (TW).

The discussion was lively and a variety of questions, ideas, doubts and views was shared. One participant recorded some 50 contributions to the debate with a strong male dominance (more than 80 % of speakers). Spirit was high and many people showed their interest to be part of organizing structures and action around DiEM25 Finland. After the event in the university around 30 people continued the discussion in the pub nearby and many new friends was made. The amount of work is huge before us, but people seemed to be in accordance with the idea that something new needs to be built up.

The cold wind of austerity and unreasonable politics has finally reached Finland and many people feel that their government has lied and failed them big time. Our goal is to make those people to connect the dots and see that the people in other European countries suffer symptoms of the same disease. The disease of the democracy-free decision making.

Carpe DiEM!

Video of the event (in Finnish): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nPVmbMV5zM

Urging Sweden and the UK to free Julian Assange

Pubblicato Marzo 6th, 2016 di DiEM25 & inserito in Articles, Uncategorized.

Before the 31st United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva today, 500 human rights organizations, law professors, former UN office holders, and high-profile rights defenders including four Nobel Peace Prize winners have urged the governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom to respect the United Nations’ decision to free Julian Assange. The statement was delivered to the Swedish and UK Permanent Representatives to the United Nations in Geneva.
—
“We the undersigned, including legal and human rights organisations, academics, and policymakers condemn the reactions of the governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom to the finding by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that Julian Assange is arbitrarily detained.
The governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom are setting a dangerous precedent that undermines the United Nations Human Rights system as a whole. We urge Sweden and the United Kingdom to respect the binding nature of the human rights covenants on which the decision is based, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; as well as the independence, integrity and authority of the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
We therefore call on the governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom to comply without further delay with the Working Group’s findings and “ensure the right of free movement of Mr. Assange and accord him an enforceable right to compensation, in accordance with article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
—
Signatories include

• more than 500 high profile signatories from more than 60 countries
• more than 100 human & legal rights organizations including 16 national associations of lawyers and jurists
• 50 international law professors, former judges and jurists
• 4 Nobel Peace Prize winners
• 25 Freedom of expression organizations including Reporters Without Borders, the EFF and The Freedom of the Press Foundation.
• The immediately former UN Special Rapporteur for Arbitrary Detention Mads Adenas and five other former UN Special Rapporteurs, Experts and Working Group Chairs.
• The cities of Madrid & Barcelona
• Activists: Ai Wei Wei, Pussy Riot, Naomi Klein & Arundhati Roy
• Over 100 academics from 65 universities

Full list of signatures below.
 

Mr Assange’s Current Status

Mr Assange been granted political asylum by Ecuador in response to the pending prosecution pending against him in  the US  in relation to Wikileaks publications, which include revelations of the US spying on allied governments, as well as the UN Secretary General and the UNHCR. After a 16 month investigation, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) has found that Mr Assange has been unlawfully detained by the UK and Sweden and should be released and compensated.
The US states that it continues its ‘pending prosecution’ against WikiLeaks. The case is being handled by the Department of Justice National Security Division & Criminal Division.
The current status of the ‘preliminary’ investigation in Sweden: Julian Assange has not been charged at any stage and has already previously been cleared. For the one allegation remaining in the ‘preliminary investigation’ the woman says the police ‘made it up’, ‘railroaded’ her and that she did not intend to file a complaint. (see https://justice4assange.com/Assange-Case-Fact-Checker.html and  https://justice4assange.com/Accurate-reporting-on-the-one.html)
“Julian Assange should have been freed a long time ago.  The judgment of the UN Working Group is welcome, and should be implemented forthwith.”
—Noam Chomsky
“UK politicians [have] aimed at weakening the authority of the UN body for short-term opportunistic gain.”
– Prof. Mads Andenas, professor of international law (Oxford All Souls) and UN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary Detention.
 

Signatories

– Organisations

Acceso Libre, Venezuela

ACI Participa, Honduras

ActiveWatch-Media Monitoring Agency, Romania

Acção Académica para o Desenvolvimento das Comunidades Rurais, Mozambique

Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, Bolivia

Agência Publica, Brazil

Alternative Intervention of Athens Lawyers (AIAL), Greece

American Association of Jurists (AAJ), US

Arab Lawyers Union (ALU), Middle East

Articulação de Empregados Rurais do estado de MG (ADERE-MG), Brazil

Artistas, Cientificos y Movimientos Sociales, Cuba

Asamblea Nacional de Afectados Ambientales, Mexico

Asociación Mayoritaria de Afrodescendientes del Ecuador AMAE, Ecuador

Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC), Argentina

Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression, Egypt

Associação de Rádios Públicas do Brasil (ARPUB), Brazil

Associação Portuguesa de Juristas Democratas (APJD) (Portuguese Association of Democratic Jurists), Portugal

Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Australia

Brazilian Association for Investigative Journalism, Brazil

Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, Canada

Capitulo Cubano De La Red En Defensa De La Humanidad De Intelectuales, Cuba

Center for Constitutional Rights, US

Center for International Law, Singapore

Centre Europe-Tiers Monde (CETIM), Switzerland

Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia

CHARTA 2008, Sweden

City of A Coruña, Spain

City of Barcelona, Spain

City of Madrid, Spain

Code Pink, US

Coletivo Juntos! – Por outro futuro, Brazil

Comision Nacional de Organizaciones Sociales de Uruguay, Urugauy

Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT), Brazil

Comite Carioca de Solidariedade a Cuba, Brazil

Comite en Solidaridad con la Causa Arabe, Spain

Comité Chileno De Solidaridad Con Palestina, Chile

Comité de Derechos Humanos de Base de Chiapas Digna Ochoa, Mexico

Comité de Solidaridad con los Pueblos, Latin America

Comité Permanente por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos CDH, Ecuador

Comunidad de Software Libre de Nicaragua (GUL-NIC), Nicaragua

Confederación de Trabajadores y Servidores Públicos Nacional OSTNA, Ecuador

Confederación Intercultural Campesina del Ecuador AMARU, Ecuador

Consulta Popular, Brazil

Convergencia Nacional de Organizaciones Sociales del Ecuador, Ecuador

Cooperativa de Trabalho em Comunicação e Cultura Desacato, Brazil

Coordenação Nacional de Entidades Negras (CONEN), Brazil

Coordinador Nacional Agrario de Colombia CNA, Colombia

Cuba Si France, France

Demand Progress, US

Democratic Alliance for Knowledge Freedom, India

Derechos Digitales, Chile

Electronic Frontier Foundation, US

Equal Education Law Centre, South Africa

Eva Joly Institute for Justice & Democracy (EJI), Iceland

Executiva Nacional dos Estudantes de Biologia (ENEBIO), Brazil

Federación Española Pro Derechos Humanos, Spain

Federación Internacional Pro Derechos Humanos-España, Spain

Federação dos Estudantes de Agronomia do Brasil (FEAB), Brazil

Festivales Solidarios de Guatemala, Guatemala

Fora do Eixo, Brazil

Foro de Abogados de Izquierdas-red de Abogados Democratas (FAI-RADE), Spain

Foro de Comunicación para la Integración de Nuestra América, Latin America

Foundation for Fundamental Rights, Pakistan

Free Software Foundation Tamil Nadu, India

Free Software Mancha West Bengal, India

Free Software Movement Karnataka, India

Free Software Movement Maharashtra, India

Free Software Movement of India, India

Freedom of the Press Foundation, US

Fundacion Karisma, Colombia

Fundación Imagen, Bolivia

Fundación Pueblo Índio del Ecuador, Ecuador

Fundación Vivian Trías, Urugauy

Fórum Nacional pela Democratização da Comunicação (FNDC), Brazil

Giuristi Democratici (Italian Democratic Lawyers Association), Italy

Grupo Tortura Nunca Mais – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Guerrilleros Por la Paz GUEPAZ, Colombia

HackLab de Cochabamba, Bolivia

Hagámonos El Paro, Guatemala

Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), India

Initiative for Freedom of Expression, Turkey

Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, US

Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety, Azerbaijan

Instituto Brasileiro de Estudos Políticos-IBEP, Brazil

International Association of Democratic Lawyers

Intersindical Central da Classe Trabalhadora, Brazil

IT for Change, India

Japanese Lawyers International Solidarity Association (JALISA), Japan

Joao Daniel, Federal Congress Representative, Workers Party, Sergipe, Brazil

JustNet Coalition, India

Juventud en Progreso, Ecuador

Jóvenes ante la Emergencia Nacional, Mexico

La Corporación Colectivo de Abogados “José Alvear Restrepo” (CCAJAR), Colombia

La Quadrature du Net, France

Levante Popular da Juventude, Brazil

Liga Española Pro Derechos Humanos, Spain

Luna del Sur A.C. Oaxaca, Mexico

Marcha Mundial das Mulheres (MMM), Brazil

Movimento de Mulheres Camponesas (MMC), Brazil

Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens (MAB), Brazil

Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores (MPA), Brazil

Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais sem Terra (MST), Brazil

Movimento Nacional de Rádios Comunitárias (MNRC), Brazil

Movimiento de Liberación Nacional, Mexico

Movimiento De Solidaridad Nuestra America, Mexico

Movimiento Mega, Brazil

National Association of Democratic Lawyers of South Africa (NADEL), South Africa

National Lawyers Guild, US

National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, Philippines

Nouvelles Alternatives pour le Développement Durable en Afrique (NADDAF), Togo

O Grupo tortura Nunca Mais, Brazil

Observatorio por el Cierre de la Escuela de las Américas, Chile

Observatório da Mulher, Brazil

Organización de Solidaridad de los Pueblos de África, Asia y América Latina (OSPAAAL), Cuba

Organização “Coletivo Quilombo”, Brazil

Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Gaza, Palestine

Pastoral da Juventude Rural (PJR), Brazil

Periódico Resumen Latinoamericano , Latin America

Podemos, Spain

Prensa Comunitaria, Guatemala

President del Partido Revolucionario Febrerista, Paraguay

President Fundación Manuel Gondra, Paraguay

Progress Lawyers Network, Belgium

Progressive Global Commons

Proyecto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (ProDesc), Mexico

Proyecto mARTadero, Bolivia

Red Alba TV, Latin America

Red Alternativa de Informacion Vientos del Sur VISUR, Colombia

Red Latina Sin Fronteras, Latin America

Red Nacional Communia, Brazil

Red Tz’ikin, Guatemala

Rede Ecumênica da Juventude (REJU), Brazil

Reporters Without Borders / Reporters Sans Frontières, France

Revista Reflexión, Peru

Rättssäkerhetsorganisationen (The Rule of Law Organisation), Sweden

Secretaría Operativa de ALBA, Latin America

Sindicato Unificado dos Petroleiros de São Paulo, Brazil

Society for Knowledge Commons, India

Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), Thailand

Spanish Association for International Human Rights Law (AEDIDH), Spain

Sursiendo, Costa Rica

Swadhin, India

Swecha, India

The Haitian Platform to Advocate Alternative Development (PAPDA), Haiti

Union de Juristas de Cuba, Cuba

Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina

Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Peru

Universidad Popular del Buen Vivir, Ecuador

União da Juventude Rebelião (UJR), Brazil

União da Juventude Socialista (UJS), Brazil

União Nacional dos Estudantes (UNE), Brazil

Veterans for Peace, US

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), Switzerland

World Forum for Alternatives, Venezuela – Individuals Jean-Michel Jarre, Electronic Pioneer Musician and Composer, UNESCO Ambassador and President of CISAC, France Heidie Moreno Castelli, Dr in Law, Writer (born in Buenos Aires, Argentina) Living in Paris, France Enrique Acosta Estévez, Human Rights Activist, Paraguay Mirta Acuna de Baravalle, Co founder Mothers and Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, Argentina Phillip Adams AO, Journalist, Australia Juan Agosto, Journalist, Argentina Shahzad Akbar, Human rights lawyer, Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR), Pakistan Santiago Alba-Rico, Writer, Spain Marina Albiol, Member of the European Parliament, Spain Professor Manuel Alcántara Sáez, Professors of Politics, Spain Tariq Ali, Writer and Publisher, UK/Pakistan Martín Almada, American Asociation of Jurists Executive Committee, Right Livelihood Award winner 2002, Paraguay Azyz Amami, Blogger and cyber-activist, Tunisia Slim Amamou, Activist and former Secretary of State for Sport and Youth, Tunisa Alejandra Ancheia, Executive Director and Founder, ProDESC, Mexico Alejandra Ancheita, Human Rights Defender, Mexico Professor Mads Andenas, Former UN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary Detention, Norway Jacob Appelbaum, journalist and programmer, Tor Project, US Profa. Dra. Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Brazil Carmen Aristegui, Anchor of Aristegui CNN Español, Mexico Renata Avila, Lawyer, Guatemala Pepe Baeza, Photographic Editor, Spain Aral Balkan, Founder of Ind.ie, Turkey Olivia Ball, Human Rights Specialist, Australia Edith Ballantyne, Secretary General (WILPF) 1969 – 92, awarded Gandhi Peace Award 1996, Switzerland Adam Bandt, MP, Australia Greg Barns, barrister & former National President of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, Australia David Barsamian, Investigative Journalist, Armenian-American Andrew Bartlett, Research Fellow, ANU, Australia Helene Bergman, Journalist, Sweden Patricia Bermúdez, Iniciativa Guayaquil, Ecuador Almudena Bernabeu, Director Transitional Justice Program, Center for Justice & Accountability, Spain Valeria Betancourt, Internet Rights Expert, Ecuador Frei Betto, Writer, Brazil Jeremy Bigwood, Investigative Reporter, US Johann Binninge, Founder and Chairman of the Legal Certainty Organization, Sweden William Blum, Author, US Professor Atilio A. Boron, Political scientist, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina Luchezar Boyadjiev, Artist, Bulgaria Estela Bravo, Documentary filmmaker, US Dr. Benedetta Brevini, Journalist and Lecturer, Australia Professor Jean Bricmont, Academic, University of Louvain (UCL), Belgium Luis Britto-García, Writer, Venezuela Gilbert Brownstone, President, Brownstone Foundation, US Dr. Fernando Buen Abad Domínguez, Academic, Writer, Cinema director NY University, Philosopher, Writer, Mexico Dr. Scott Burchill, Senior Lecturer, Deakin University, Australia Al Burke, Editor Nordic News Network, Sweden Julian Burnside, QC, Australia Professor Tom Bäckström, Academic, University Friedrich-Alexander (Erlangen-Nürnberg), Germany Maria Stella Caceres, Director: Museum of Memory: Dictatorship and Human Rights, Paraguay Dr. Agnes Callamard, Director Colombia University Global Freedom of Expression Project, former Chef de Cabinet Amnesty International, US Maria Augusta Calle, Asambleísta de PAIS, Presidenta Comisión RRII d Asamblea Nacional, Ecuador Peter Carey, Author, Australia Remo Gerardo Carlotto, Diputado de la nación Argentina por la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina Mike Carlton, Journalist, Australia Guillermo Carmona, President of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chamber of Deputies, Argentina Anibal Carrillo, 2013 Presidental Candidate, Paraguay Jordi Casanova, Political Officer, Dominican Republic Bernard Cassen, Academic, University of Paris 8, France Professor Alicia Cebada-Romero, Professor of International Criminal Law at Universidad , Spain Mercedes Chacin, Director Epale, Venezuela Ramon Chao, Journalist and Writer, Spain Professor Noam Chomsky, Academic, MIT, US Dr. James Cockroft, Lecturer and writer, New York State University, US Gabriella Coleman, Academic Writer, McGill University, US Professor John Cooper, Academic, Bucknell University, US Javier Couso, Member of the European Parliament, Spain Alfonso Cuarón, Film Director, Producer, Acedemy Award for Gravity, Children of Men, Y tu Mama Tambien, Mexico John Cusack, Actor, US Joao Daniel, Central Única dos Trabalhadores – CUT, Brazil Roy David, Author, UK Pablo A de la Vega , Regional coordinator Inter-American Platform for Human Rights, Democracy and Development, Latin America Adail Ivan de Lemos, Journalist, artist and Filmmaker, Brazil Professor Willem de Lint, Professor in Criminal Justice, Flinders University, Australia Professor Olivier de Schutter, Former UN Special Rapporteur, University of Louvain (UCL), Belgium Professor Radhika Desai, Academic, Author, University of Manitoba, Canada Mohamed Diab, Screenwriter and Director, Egypt Josefina Duarte, President Febrero Revolutionary Party, Paraguay Paul-Emile Dupret, legal expert and staff advisor at the European parliament, Belgium Professor Mirta Díaz-Balart, Academic, UCM, Spain James Early, Academic, US Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, former judge, lawyer, Iran Professor Hedvig Ekerwald, Academic, Uppsala University, Sweden Osman El-Hajjé, Former Chair-Rapporteur of UN Working Group on Enforced Disapperances, Lebanon Daniel Ellsberg, Former United States military analyst and source of Pentagon Papers, US Professor Aant Elzinga, Academic, Gothenburg University, Sweden Brian Eno, Musician and Artist, UK Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Argentina Edgardo Esteban, Journalist and Writer, Argentina Ahmed Ezzat, Human Rights Lawyer, Egypt Professor Mireille Fanon-Mendes, Academic and Activist, University Paris V-Descartes, France Gaël Faye, Musician, Burundi Luis E. Sabini Fernández, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Chairman Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, Sweden Alberto Ferrari, Journalist, Argentina Marcelo Ferreira, Academic, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Tom Findlay, Recording Artist, UK Jeremy Fox, Journalist and Writer, Open Democracy, US Alberto Fraguas-Herrero, CEO Instituto de Estudios de la Tierra, Spain Maria Luiza Franco Busse, Journalist, Brazil Professor Marianne Franklin, Chair of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network, University of London, UK Professor H. Bruce Franklin, Cultural Historian and Scholar, Rutgers University, US Jane Franklin, Historian, Author, US Dr. Des Freedman, Academic, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK Alipio Freire, Journalist, Writer and Artist, Brazil Professor Johan Galtung, Professor of Peace Studies, Norway Lidia García Díaz, Coordinadora de Incidencia Política del Centro de Documentación en Derechos Humanos, Ecuador Nuria García Sanz, Equipo Jurídico Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España, Spain José Luis García-Siguero, Academic, University of Madrid, Spain Baltasar Garzon, Jurist, Fundación FIBGAR, Spain Franck Gaudichaud, Lecturer, University of Grenoble Alpes, France Marcela Gereda, Journalist, Guatemala Canan Gerede, Film-maker, Turkey Bennu Gerede, Actress, Turkey Professor Jayati Ghosh, Economist, Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi, India Peggy Gish, Former co-director of the Appalachian Peace and Justice Network, Christian Peacemaker Team, US Charles Glass, Author, Journalist, and Broadcaster, US Professor Gerard Goggin, Professor of Media & Communications, Sydney University, Australia Dr. David Goldberg, Editor, Australia Horacio González, President of the National Library of the Argentine Republic, Argentina Adelaide Gonçalves, Historian, Brazil Walter Goobar, Journalist, Argentina Belén Gopegui, Writer, Spain John Goss, Journalist, UK Kevin Gosztola, Journalist, US Andrew Greig, Writer, UK Anand Grover, Former UN Special Rapporter on Health, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of India, India Rafaela Guanes de Laino, Organización de Mujeres Campesinas e Indígenas (CONAMURI), Paraguay Sol Guy, Film & Music Producer, Canada Bill Hackwell, Photojournalist, Resumen Latinoamericano, US Dr. Harry Halpin, Academic, MIT, US Laura Hanna, Co-founder Debt Collective, US Marta Harnecker, Writer, Chile Nozomi Hayase, Writer, Japan/US Professor Mary Heath, Associate Professor of Law, Flinders University, Australia Chris Hedges, Journalist, US Amado Heller, Editor, Argentina Tom Henheffer, Journalist, Canada Professor Edward S. Herman, Academic, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania, US Scott Horton, Host of Anti-War Radio, US Srećko Horvat, Philosopher, DiEM25, Croatia Dr. François Houtart, Co-Founder World Social Forum, Ecuador Andrew Hsiao, Editor Verso Books, US Professor Wang Hui, Intellectual, China Emin Huseynov, Journalist and human rights activist, Azerbaijan Iole Iliada, Fundação Perseu Abramo, Brazil Maria Antonieta Izaguirre, Phycologist, Venezuela Andrés Izarra, Journalist and Politician, Venezuela Ivanka Jenkings, Publisher, Brazil Diane Johnstone, Journalist and Author, France Eva Joly, MEP, former investigating magistrate and Presidential Candidate, France Alicia Jrapko, Solidarity activist, Resumen Latinoamericano, US Marcelo Justo, Journalist, Argentina Professor Venko Kanev, Academic, University of Rouen, France Professor Vrasidas Karalis, Chair of Department Sydney University, Australia Professor Priscilla Karant, Academic, New York University, US Dr. Athina Karatzogianni, Academic, Leicester University, UK Tawakkol Karman, Politician, Journalist, Nobel Peace Laureate 2011, Yemen Claudio Katz, Economist, Argentina Professor John Keane, Professor of Politics, Sydney University, Australia Bernard Keane, Journalist, Australia Stephen Keim , Barrister, South Coast Medical Service Aboriginal Corporation, Australia Zach Kerschberg, Filmmaker, US James Kesteven, Documentary Film-Maker, Australia Maina Kiai, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, Kenya Axel Kicillof, Former Minister of Finance, Argentina Professor John King, Emeritus Professor, Warwick University, UK Dr. Bernard Kirtman, Academic, UCSB, US Naomi Klein, Author, Canada Mary Kostakidis, Journalist, Australia Hans Otto Kroeger, Atorney, Paraguay Dennis Kucinich, Former presidential candidate and Congressman, US Domingo Laino, President Plataforma de Estudio e Investigación de Asuntos Campesinos, Paraguay Salim Lamrani, Writer and Academic, University of La Réunion, France Archie Law, Executive Director ActionAid, Australia Pepijn Le Heux, Attorney, Netherlands Michael Lebowitz, Emeritus Professor of Economics, Canada Dr. Margarita Ledo Andión, Journalist, Writer and Film-Maker, USC, Spain Pablo Leighton, Academic, University of Western Sydney, Chile Bibiana Leme, Deputy Editor Boitempo, Brazil Jonathan Lethem, Novelist, US Ken Loach, Film Director, UK Barbara Lochbihler, Member of the European Parliament, Germany Antony Loewenstein, Journalist, Author and Political Activist, Australia Geert Lovink, Research Professor, Institute of Network Cultures, Netherlands Michael Lowy, Sociologist, France Kintto Lucas, Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Ecuador, Ecuador Senator Scott Ludlam, Senator, Australia Tony Lujan, Politician, Argentina Professor Rick Luttmann, Academic, Sonoma, US Jake Lynch, Associate Professor, Sydney University, Australia Ryan Lynn, Actor, US John R. MacArthur, Journalist, Author, President of Harpers magazine, US Gavin Macfayden, Executive Director, Center for Investigative Journalism, Goldsmiths College, University of London, UK Stefano Maffei, Lawyer, Italy Paolo Magagnoli, Research Associate, Queensland University, Australia Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Co-founder Women for Peace, Northern Ireland Rachel Maher, President EngageMedia, Australia Professor Mahmoud Mamdani, Herbert Lehman Professor of Government Columbia University, Uganda Eduardo Mangas, Lawyer, Nicaragua Professor Robert Manne, Emeritus Professor of Politics and Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow, La Trobe University, Australia Professor Michael Mansfield QC, Barrister, Legal Scholar, City University, UK Sanjuana Martinez, Journalist, Mexico Eusebio Veron Martinez, Secretario de Organización del Partido Paraguay Tekopyahu e integrante de la Coordinadora de Desarroll, Paraguay Professor Aitor Martínez-Jiménez, Professor of Public International Law and International Criminal Law , Spain Alberto Mas, CAP Coordinator and Journalist, Argentina Mwalimu Mati, Former head of Transparency International Kenya, Kenya Professor Patrick McCurdy, Associate Professor in Communications, University of Ottawa, Canada Nick McKim, Senator , Australia Dr. Cynthia McKinney, Former U.S. Congresswoman and 2008 Presidential Candidate, US Gayle McLaughlin, Politician, US Hind Meddeb, journalist and filmmaker, France Amina Meddeb, Diplomat, France Bartomeu Melià, Jesuit Priest, Autonomous University of Social Movements, Mexico Bonita Meyersfeld, Director, Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) at University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa Alan Mills, Writer, Guatemala Alex Mitchell, Journalist, Australia Samwel Mohochi, Executive Director Kenyan Section of International Commission of Jurists, Kenya Edgar Morin, Philosopher, France Evgeny Morozov, Author, Belarus Jacqueline Moudeina, Right Livelihood Award winner 2011, Chad Professor Michel Mujica, Academic and Diplomat, Ecuador Craig Murray, Former UK ambassador, UK Carmen Márquez-Carrasco, Academic, Derechos Humanos y Globalización, Spain Cecilia Nahón, Former Argentinain Ambassador to US, Argentina Mirjana Najcevska, Former President of the Helsinki Committee, UN Expert, Macedonia Jean-Luc Nancy, Philosopher, France Toni Navarro, Cinema Director, Organización Internacional pro Derechos Humanos, Spain Enrique Naveda, Journalist, Guatemala/Spain Eric Nepomuceno, Writer, Brazil George Newhouse, Lawyer, National Justice Project, Australia Tim Norton, Digital Rights Watch, Australia Fís Nua, Political Party, Ireland Rebecca O’Brien, Film Producer, UK Tomás Ojea Quintana, Former SR on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Argentina Professor Manuel Ollé Sese, Professor of International Criminal Law , Spain Dr. Winston Orrillo, Author, Premio Nacional de Cultura del Perú, Peru Jordi Ortega, Promotor de Forum Ecòlogic, Forum Ecòlogic, Spain Carlos Ortellado, Coordinador de la mesa nacional por los DDHH del Paraguay, Paraguay Jean Ortiz, Academic, University of Pau & Pays de l’Adour, France Okoth Osewe, Author and Blogger, Kenya Stockholm, Sweden Elizabeth O’Shea, Lawyer, Australia Yongjun Park, Academic, Hongik University, South Korea Melissa Parke, MP, Australia Airton Paschoa, Writer, Brazil Gastón Pauls, Writer, Argentina Maja Pelević, Writer and Dramaturg, Serbia Rene Perez, Musician (Calle 13), Puerto Rico Philip Pettit, Rockefeller University Professor of Politics and Human Values at Princeton University, US Bernard Pignerol, Conseiller d’Etat, Government of France, France John Pilger, Journalist and Filmmaker, Australia/UK Professor Rafael Pla-Lopez, Academic, University of Valencia, Spain Laura Poitras, 2014 Pulitzer Prize winner, Academy Award for Best Documentary 2014, US Vladimir Pomakov, writer, Bulgaria Dirk Poot, Politician (Pirate Party of the Netherlands) and Programmer, Netherlands Jesselyn Raddack, Lawyer & former Department of Justice ethics chief, US Professor Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Founding Director of the Program on Human Rights and Justice at MIT., Professor of Law, US Ana Maria Ramb, Writer & Editor, Argentina Professor Ignacio Ramonet, Academic, France Sonia Randhawa, Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF), USA Justin Randle, Researcher, Australia Michael Ratner, President Emeritis Centre for Constitutional Rights, US Professor Robert Reed, Academic, Boston College, US Madeleine Rees OBE, Lawyer, UK Professor Stuart Rees , Emeritus Professor, University of Sydney, Australia Víctor Regalado, Journalist and Filmmaker, El Salvador Dr. Ellie Rennie, Deputy Director of the Swinburne Institute for Social Research, Australia Miguel Repiso, Journalist, Argentina Lee Rhiannon, Senator, Australia Janet Rice, Senator , Australia Daniel Richter, Artist, Germany Angela Richter, Director and Writer, Germany Jennifer Robinson, Lawyer, Australia Dr. Rigmor Robèrt, M.D, Sweden Silvio Rodriguez, Composer and Musician, Cuba Martin Rodriguez-Pellecer, Journalist, Guatemala Yudith Rolon, Director General Justicia y Reparación Defensoría del Pueblo, Paraguay Andrew Ross, Academic and Writer, New York University, US Peter Rosset, Academic, Michigan University, Mexico Agustin Rossi, Minister of Defense 2013 – 2015, Argentina Arundhati Roy, Author, India Guy Rundle, Journalist, Australia Douglas Rushkoff, Writer, Lecturer, Media Theorist, US Emir Sader, Academic, Brazil Professor Héctor Salazar Zapatero, Academic, Hiperderecho, Peru Felix Salvador Kury, Program Director & Faculty Advisor, Clínica Martín-Baró, SFSU-UCSF, US Luc Sante, Writer, Belgium Ivan Santos, President Organizacion Aculco, Spain Professor Saskia Sassen, Sociologist, Columbia University, US Ildo Luis Sauer, Director of the Institute for Energy and Environment, University of São Paulo, Brazil Peter Schey, Executive Director Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, US Justin Schlosberg, Academic, Birkbeck College, University of London, UK Sylvia Schulein, Journalist, Ecuador Laureano Seco-Tejada, Activist and Politician, Spain Professor Richard Sennett, London school of Economics & New York University, UK Pascual Serrano, Journalist and Writer, Spain José Miguel Serrano, Director of the National Board of Student Aid and Scholarships (Junaeb), Chile Rachel Siewert, Senator , Australia Germán Silva Lozada, President La Fundación Humanitaria Por La Paz y la Integracion de los Pueblos del Sur, Colombia Robert Simms, MP, Australia Pertti Simula, Director, Assocoacao de Amigos sem Terra da Finlandia, Finland Vaughan Smith, Executive Director, The Frontline Club, UK Professor Jean-Marc Sorel, Professor of International Law, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France Raji Sourani, President of the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR), Director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, 2013 Right Livelihood Award, Palestine Professor Robert Sparrow, Research Fellow, Monash University, Australia Dr. Jeff Sparrow, Author, Australia Richard Stallman, President of the Free Software Foundation, GNU Project, MIT, US Aleen Stein, Founding partner Criterion Collection, CEO and Publisher of Organa L.L.C., US Alan L. Stewart, Director of Progressive Global Commons, US Bernard Stiegler, Philosopher, France Danae Stratou, Visual Artist, Greece Oliver Stone, Film Director, Screenwriter and Producer, US Professor Joan Subirats, Academic, Universidad Autónoma Barcelona, Spain Brita Sundberg-Weitman, Former Chief Judge and Associate Professor of Public International Law, Sweden George Szamuely, Author, Senior Research Fellow at the Global Policy Institute, Hungary Alex Taek-Gwang Lee, Academic, Kyung Hee University, South Korea Peter Tatchell, Human Rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell Institute for Human Rights, UK Michel Taupin, Director of Communication, Cuba Si France, France Svante Thorsell, Lawyer, Sweden Ernesto Tiffenberg, Director Pagina 12, Argentina Michael Edward Tigar, Emeritus Professor, Duke Law School and Washington College of Law, US Trevor Timm, Executive Director Freedom of the Press Foundation, US Nadya Tolokonnikova, Conceptual Artist and Political Activist, Pussy Riot, Russia Miguel Urbán, Member of the European Parliament, Co-founder PODEMOS, Spain Patricia Vaca Narvaja, Ambassador of Argentina in Mexico, Argentina Walter van Holst, Lawyer, Netherlands Marc Vandepitte, Philosopher, Belgium Yanis Varoufakis, Economist and former Greek Minister of Finance, Greece Cristina Vazquez, International Vice President of Workers United, US Horacio Verbitsky, President, Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Argentina Professor Manuel Villoria-Mendieta, Director of Government Administration and Public Policy, Institute Ortega y Gasset, Spain Professor Ben Wagner, Sociologist, Germany Larissa Waters, Deputy Leader of the Australian Green Party, Australia Professor Joel Weisberg, Academic, Carleton College, US Ai weiwei, Artist and Activist, China Rohan Wenn, Journalist, Australia Vivienne Westwood, Designer, UK Leonardo Wexell Severo, Journalist and Writer, Brazil Peter Whish-Wilson, Senator, Australia Stuart Wilson, Lawyer, South Africa Tracy Worcester, The Marchioness of Worcester, Actress and Environmentalist, UK Ofelia Yegros, Architect, Paraguay Professor Stephen Yellin, Academic, Stanford University, US Professor Spencer Zifcak, Professor of Law, Australia Slavoj Žižek, Philosopher and International Director of Humanities at Birkbeck, Slovenia

 
Header image by Elekh, licensed under CC-BY-SA

DiEM25 Assembly: Transparency in Europe Now!

Pubblicato Marzo 6th, 2016 di DiEM25 & inserito in Articles, Uncategorized.

As Europeans, we are too often forced to choose between two dreadful options: retreat into the cocoon of our nation-states, or surrender to the Brussels democracy-free zone.
But we know an alternative exists, and you have joined DiEM25 to participate to its simple yet radical objective: to democratise Europe by 2025 at the latest.
It is now time for our first pan-European Campaign TRANSPARENCY IN EUROPE NOW!, which will aim at demanding that all EU-level decision-making be exposed to European citizens’ gaze. We shall demand that meetings of the European Council, ECOFIN, Eurogroup, FTT, ESM etc. become accessible to Europeans. Additionally, we plan to expose the opacity of decision-making processes that have a capacity to ban democracy for a very, very long time (e.g. the current TTiP negotiations).
We cordially invite you to the DiEM25 Assembly: Transparency in Europe Now! which will take place in Rome – 23 March 2016.
This event is organised together with European Alternatives, Piroetta and Talk Real and will mark the launch of this campaign and simultaneously launch the DiEM25 movement in Italy. Here’s how you can take part:

• Attend in person. Tickets are limited, so reserve yours and come to Rome on March 23rd (Piazza Manfredo Fanti, 47) to contribute with your voice to this crucial conversation. For those who are already asking: there will be a possibility of volunteering at the event, but please give us the time to work through our current backlog of volunteer emails first…
• Watch the livestream – we will send out the link in time.
• Participate in the online discussions – while the forum at diem25.org is not ready yet (apologies…), members like you have created many places of discussion on Facebook, Reddit, Consider.it and blogs.
• Share the news about the event and prepare blog posts, videos, viral images and the like on the topic of transparency and democratic accountability, which we can distribute from March 23rd onwards. Let us make it impossible to ignore us!
• Support the event by making a donation: donations will be used to cover the cost of the event, including live streaming and simultaneous translations in order to open the conversation to the widest possible audience. If costs are covered, anything extra will be invested in DiEM25’s next events.

For any additional information, check out the “Democracy in Europe” event website or email us at [email protected]
We warmly thank you for your support, everyone can help!
We look forward to seeing you in Rome.
Carpe DiEM25!

Yanis Varoufakis' Advice To U.K.'s Jeremy Corbyn… And George Osborne

Pubblicato Marzo 2nd, 2016 di Yanis Varoufakis & inserito in Articles, Uncategorized.

Originally published in Newsweek on May 2nd, 2016.
Much was made recently of the U.K.opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn’s statement that I was helping his team “in some capacity.” George Osborne, for one, jumped at the opportunity to take a shot at Labour by mocking me, luxuriating visibly in my defeat in the hands of a despotic EU. Even David Cameron, not to be left out, added his own little quip.
One senses that our economies are faltering and our governments are clueless when zero interest rates produce lower investment and leading politicians resort to personal insults in response to legitimate questions about their Treasury’s falling tax take or the unaffordability of housing.
Before delving into what truly matters here, a correction is in order: I was never asked (nor would have I accepted if asked) to be an advisor to Jeremy Corbyn or his team. As a full time politician, and initiator of DiEM25 ( Democracy In Europe Movement) it is not my job to advise other politicians. Engaging with parties and organisations across Europe is another matter. It is in this “capacity” that I am involved in Britain with Jeremy Corbyn, his Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, and also politicians from other political parties, including Caroline Lucas (Greens) and my good friend Norman Lamont (Conservative).
But enough on trivial details. What truly matters today is that our economics and our politics are in disarray. Throughout Europe.
Markets perform their function when they synthesize dispersed information, that no one agent possesses, into signals that help coordinate our productive efforts. Similarly, democratic politics works well when it brings together people who individually do not have the answers but who can, collectively, generate decent policies.
The trouble is that in Europe we are failing on both counts. We are generating the lowest level of investment relative to savings (despite record-low interest rates) and the worst record of political coordination in the history of the European Union. Both on the continent and in Britain, these two spectacular failures lead to spasmodic reactions, dead-end policies and generalized pessimism that reinforce the economic malaise.
In the economic realm, self-defeating austerity is the symptom of a vicious cycle. Low investment begets low economic activity which depresses the government’s tax take, reinforcing the kneejerk tendency to bring in new cutbacks in a budget made unsustainable not by the size of public expenditure but by low, and diminishing, investment. Austerity, in this reading, is a symptom of low investment which can never be cured either by austerity or by negative interest rates. This applies across Europe, in the Eurozone but also in Britain.
A similar doom loop poisons Europe’s politics: the economic malaise undermines our capacity to engage in a high quality debate on how best to address the systemic economic crisis. In the absence of such a debate, our peoples and politicians descend into a mire of petty squabbles, blame games, insults, nationalist crescendos and xenophobia that, in turn, solidify the dead-end policies responsible for the economic malaise.
Worse still, Europe’s two vicious cycles, economic and political, feed off each other, pushing the good ship Europe toward the eye of a perfect storm. It is time that politicians took a moment to reflect on how best to deal with the causes of our collective failure—not its symptoms.
The Labour Party has an instinctive urge to protect those left behind by the long years of uneven private-debt-fuelled growth and its austerian aftermath. This is good and proper. However, it would be a mistake to waste Labour’s energies on tirades against austerity. If I am right that austerity is a symptom of low investment (and of a government keen to push the inevitable burden on the weaker citizens), Labour should concentrate on policies that will shift idle savings into investment funding, engendering new technologies that produce green, sustainable development and high quality jobs.
Such an economic program will require the creation of a public investment bank that issues its own bonds (to be supported by a non-inflationary Bank of England quantitative easing strategy targeting these bonds), but also a new alliance with enlightened industrialists and parts of the City keen to profit from sustainable recovery. Labour, I believe, will only overcome its infighting, and the toxic media campaign against its leader, by escaping into a Green, investment-led British Renaissance.
The fact that this is also what the Eurozone needs offers Labour a golden opportunity to link its optimal referendum campaign with an appealing domestic economic agenda. Proposing an economic program that is relevant both in the UK and in the Eurozone would be a good start.
Having summed up my ‘advice’ to the Labour Party, I shall end with a message for the Chancellor (and his Prime Minister):
Dear George,
Michael Gove, Michael Howard and Boris Johnson are arguing, against you, for Brexit on solid intellectual grounds concerning the EU’s curtailment of your Parliament’s democratic sovereignty. Even though our democracy was indeed crushed last summer by the EU, I happen to disagree with them.
However, I am intrigued that you seem not to realize that by mocking me in that same Parliament you reinforced their already strong case for Brexit. My failure as finance minister was due to the ironclad determination of an authoritarian EU to continue with its failed Greek economic program. My ministry’s Policy Program for Greece, which Brussels pushed aside, I had put together with input from economic experts including Lord Lamont and [American economist] Jeff Sachs. I trust that, with hindsight, you would not have taken that cheap shot. It was one that the “Stay” campaign can ill afford.

Is Greece not another compelling reason to vote for Brexit on 23rd June?

Pubblicato Febbraio 29th, 2016 di Yanis Varoufakis & inserito in Articles, Uncategorized.

Proponents of Brexit implore British voters to reclaim their democracy by voting to ‘leave’ the EU. On the day he announced his support for Brexit, Boris Johnson, London’s Mayor, based his announcement on the (correct, in my view) judgment that the EU lacks “proper democratic controls”.

Last July the European Union completed a brutal coup d’état against the freshly elected Greek government, imposing upon it another huge, unsustainable ‘bailout’ loan that would, with mathematical precision, prolong Greece’s six-year-long Great Depression.

If there was ever any doubt that the EU’s institutions are deeply contemptuous of democratic process, and unabashed about their readiness to ride roughshod over rationality and over the will of a sovereign European people, the events of July 2015 dispelled it.

In this light, it is natural and right to ask two questions in the run up to the 23^rd June UK referendum:

• Was the treatment of Greece last summer not another piece of decisive evidence that the EU is governed in an authoritarian, irrational and anti-democratic manner?
• Should voters across the UK (especially after the way Greece was treated last summer) not vote in favour of LEAVE as an important step in reclaiming their Parliament’s sovereignty and their democracy?

My answer to the first question is a decisive YES and to the second an unequivocal NO!

There are two reasons why the accumulating evidence of the EU’s irrationality and authoritarianism does not strengthen the argument in favour of LEAVE.

First reason: Sovereignty cannot be reclaimed while remaining in Europe’s Single Market

Brexit’s supporters argue that Britain is better off outside of the straitjacket of the EU’s legislative process while remaining within the Single Market. This is an objective at odds with the aspiration to reclaim the British Parliament’s sovereignty.

The Single Market is not the same as a free trade area lacking tariffs and quotas. It also involves three crucial elements: Common industry standards, common labour protection rules, and common environmental protection rules. Additionally, it requires a common legislative process to produce the legislation in support of these three common elements, an executive to implement them and a judiciary to try cases when these common rules are violated. In short, a Single Market requires all three of Montesquieu’s powers (legislative, executive and judicial) that make up a common sovereignty and a single jurisdiction.

Put differently, EU critics are correct to say that, under the present arrangements (prior to any Brexit), Britain’s government (and, indirectly, the Houses of Parliament) maintains a frustratingly tenuous influence over the EU’s decisions that determine much of Britain’s economic and social life. This is, indeed, highly imperfect and inconsistent (as Brexit’s supporters argue) with full sovereignty of the House of Commons.

However, as long as Britain remains in the Single Market, Brexit will remove even this tenuous influence. Voting to LEAVE the EU (but to stay in the Single Market) is the equivalent of submitting fully to an utterly alien (Brussels-based) jurisdiction that ignores Britain’s Parliament, government and judiciary.

In conclusion, Britain should leave the EU only if ready to exit also the Single Market as well, with a credible plan to re-configure its economy on the basis of some autarkic model that is almost impossible to imagine. No notion is more fanciful than the idea that British democratic sovereignty can be reclaimed through Brexit while Britain stays in the Single Market.

It is in this sense that, to reclaim its democracy, Britain should vote to STAY in the EU in order to confront the EU institutions from within. The operative words here being: ‘confront’ and ‘within’.

Our Greek government attempted to do this in the spring of 2015 – to confront from within the EU’s inane policies and its contempt for democratic process. By July 2015 we were crushed by bank closures and monetary asphyxiation. British democrats, like democrats everywhere, were incensed. But this should not lead them to the lazy conclusion that Brexit is the answer.

Second reason: Brexit will make the EU’s fragmentation faster and surer, begetting a post-modern 1930s from which the UK will not escape even if out of the EU

As an outside observer of the developing Brexit debate, I am often struck by a false assumption made by both sides of the Brexit debate: the assumption that the EU is an ‘exogenous given’.

Both sides of the debate argue as if the EU is ‘constant’, ‘out there’, on the Channel’s other side, and that its solidity and constancy is independent of what British voters choose on 23^rd June.

Both sides of the debate couch their claims on the basis of whether this ‘exogenous’ EU is something the British public should or should not want the UK to be part of.

Neither side seems aware of (or willing to allude to) the fact that the EU is disintegrating as we speak. That, under the weight of its own hubris, the EU is falling apart, with new divisions, new economic divergence, and new centrifugal forces tearing the Union apart. Indeed, neither side acknowledges the obvious fact that a vote to LEAVE the EU will speed up the EU’s disintegration. And neither side offers any analysis of what such disintegration will mean for Britain.

My view is that Brexit will, inexorably, cause ruptures in the EU that will lead to the Union’s effective dismantling. Will this serve the purposes of Brexit’s supporters? Will Britain be better of after the EU collapses? I do not believe it will. While undoubtedly many EU critics will get some satisfaction watching the EU’s unloved institutions collapse, they (along with the rest of us) will soon be consumed by the frightful vortex of the EU’s sinking vessel.

To begin with, a new fault line will develop along the river Rhine and across the Alps, separating:

(i) a new Deutsch Mark zone (that will include Germany, the Netherlands, part of Belgium, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Baltics and Finland) mired in deep deflation – as a result of the fast appreciating new Deutsch Mark

from

(ii) a stagflationary Latin (dis-) Union (spanning France, Spain, Portugal and Italy) where currency(ies) devalue precipitously, spearheading runaway inflation with high unemployment.

Simultaneously, a second fault line will divide Eastern from Western Europe, with ultra-nationalism, toxic social conservatism and a beggar-thy-neighbour migration & economic policy mind-set taking hold in the East and making its way West-ward (boosting the chance of politicians like Marine Le Pen).

From an economic point of view, these developments will deprive Britain of a large share of its export markets, push the City of London into a deleveraging mode not seen since 2008 and, worse still, reinforce the already negative global developments in the US and the emerging markets (as the EU represents the world’s largest economic bloc) that will impose nasty secondary effects upon the UK.

From a political point of view, these same developments will create a European hinterland inimical to the values that British democrats cherish and hostile to a democratic Britain.

In summary, British voters should not err into thinking that their 23^rd June decision will leave the EU more or less ‘constant’. Their vote to LEAVE will devastate the ‘environment’ within which a newly ‘emancipated’ UK must work and live.

Conclusion

Those of us who detest the EU’s way of doing things have a moral and political duty to (a) jettison the illusion that Brexit will have positive consequences and (b) stick together (across national borders) to fight shoulder-to-shoulder in order to democratise the EU through an almighty confrontation with its current, inane, authoritarian rulers.

Last year, we tried to do this in Greece. Our Greek government stood up to the combined might of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund to demand common sense changes to their modus vivendi. We were crushed in a manner that made the stomach of every democrat churn. But this is no reason not to try again, especially given that the alternative (i.e. the EU’s disintegration, which will be sped up by Brexit) will only produce a post-modern 1930s. This is why many of us, from across Europe and including Britain, have come together to form the Democracy in Europe Movement – DiEM25.

Returning to the lessons Greece has for British voters facing the 23^rd June choice, it is important to remember this: Britain is not Greece! Britain is a powerful country uniquely capable, due to its long democratic tradition (that is respected by both sides of Britain’s politics), to confront the EU’s anti-democratic decision-making processes.

To do this, on 23^rd June the British public must shun the lazy choice of LEAVE. They must vote STAY and work, from 24^th June onwards, towards electing a government that can bring about the changes the EU must undergo on behalf of its peoples.

Britain needs a government that no longer sees the EU as a necessary evil from which to extract short-term, pecuniary benefits (while eschewing all the ‘bits’ that London does not like).

Britain deserves a government that stops attending the various Brussels decision-making outfits like a university friend of mine who used to go to parties only so as to have something to bitch about the following morning.

Britain needs to join the rest of us on the other side of the Channel in the only fight that is worth having: the struggle to democratise the European Union.

Etichette: UK referendum

Reply to Open Letter by Green Members to DiEM25

Pubblicato Febbraio 28th, 2016 di Yanis Varoufakis & inserito in Articles, Uncategorized.

Following the Berlin Launch of DiEM25, eleven representatives of the GREENS (including two Members of the European Parliament) sent DiEM25 an Open Letter welcoming its ‘birth’ and urging us to unite in the fight for a Democratic, Sustainable, Humanist, Open Europe. Here is Yanis Varoufakis’ reply to their Open Letter (which you can download here or here in pdf):
 
Dear Young European Greens,
Dear Florent, Julien, Karima, Michel, Rui , Vedran, Adam, Laura, Teo, Zakia, Patrick,
You are right: Dreaming of a united, democratised Europe is our only weapon against a divided, authoritarian, potentially Dark Continent.
Our common dream is the only antidote to the common nightmare already in the works. But to become an effective antidote we need to join forces.
We need to overcome the usual tendency of progressives to fall prey to the sirens of discord.
We need a broad coalition of European democrats from across the Left, Green, Liberal and Progressive Conservative divides.
As Brian Eno put it in DiEM’s Berlin Launch, democrats are people who know that they do not possess the answers but who, at the same time, remain convinced that, together, it is possible to come up with good answers, helpful actions, and sensible policies.
Your open letter, to those of us who initiated DiEM25, is a source of great hope that our utopian dream is not only the sole alternative to a frightful dystopia but also that it is a pragmatic project. The fact that you were with us at DiEM25’s Berlin Launch (some physically, others in spirit) makes DiEM25 your movement, your infrastructure. Together with the many others from different movements, organisations and political parties who have also joined DiEM25, you, we, others who will join in soon, have the opportunity to start building up our Conversation, to organise our Assemblies, to plan out Actions, to work towards the New Consensus that Europe needs to arrest the process threatening to deconstruct its institutions, dissolve its integrity, and lose its soul.
You bring to DiEM25 something invaluable: the voice of the younger members of the Green Movement.
Truth be told, some of us older members of the Left, of Social Democracy, of the Trade Unions, of the Liberal Democratic tradition, have in the past paid insufficient attention to the corrosive effect on our very thinking of the growth-at-all-cost mentality. Since then, we have grasped the extent of our planet’s stress (at the hands of a humanity driven by myopic private profit maximisation – or capital accumulation as we Leftists prefer to call it) and the simple truth that social justice can never prevail if human society continues obliviously to undermine its environment. Still, even though we have woken up to this reality, we need you, Europe’s Young Greens to keep us alive to the centrality of the environmental agenda in forging the mind set necessary to back any progressive project.
Let me now turn to practical matters – to how we propose to turn DiEM25 from an intention to a genuine movement. To make DiEM25 our common infrastructure, our joint movement, we need to energise millions of Europeans around six common threats and challenges that demand common European solutions:

DiEM25’s Six Campaigns, Six Assemblies, Six Policy Papers

To develop DiEM25 as a grassroots movement we must engage members in a continual dialogue on the following six discursive ‘battlegrounds’:

1. TRANSPARENCY NOW! – DiEM25’s first campaign will aim at demanding that all EU-level decision-making be exposed to European citizens’ gaze. We shall demand that meetings of the European Council, ECOFIN, Eurogroup, FTT, ESM etc. become accessible to Europeans. Additionally, we plan to expose the opacity of decision-making processes that have a capacity to ban democracy for a very, very long time (e.g. the current TTiP negotiations)
2. IMAGINING A DEMOCRATIC EUROPEAN UNION CONSTITUTION – and the process leading to the CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY that will bring it about
3. OPEN EUROPE: REFUGEES, MIGRATION & SOLIDARITY WITH ‘OTHERS’
4. LABOUR, ITS VALUE & THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME IN EUROPE’S SOCIETIES
5. THE EUROPEAN GREEN NEW DEAL & EUROPE’s MONEY – Financing the Green Transition while dealing effectively with DEBT, BANKING CRISES, INSUFFICIENT INVESTMENT, INTRA-EUROPEAN IMBALANCES & POVERTY ALLEVIATION. Plus, integration of monetary policy across the Eurozone-nonEurozone divide, DiEM’s strategy against the establishment’s violent backlash (including threats of shutting down the banking system of any member-state that adopts DiEM’s policies), a policy on parallel payment systems as well as parallel currencies, a broader perspective on how to organise the global monetary system (of which Europe is the largest economy)
6. GREEN TRANSITION & TECHNOLOGICAL SOVEREIGNTY – What should Europe be investing in? And how can Europe avoid becoming hostage to the technological choices made by multinational giants for multinational giants

Each of these issues-‘battlegrounds’ will occasion a process of grassroots meetings, taking place all over Europem, culminating to a large event, an Assembly, to be convened in one European city. We propose five steps:
Step 1 – PRELIMINARY AGENDA – A list of questions/issues for each of the six ‘battlegrounds’ will be circulated to motivate DiEM25 members to post ideas and proposals on diem25.org
Step 2 – EVENTS – Members will convene physical meetings in their region to discuss the particular issue-‘battleground’. (We envisage Town Hall meetings, meetings in theatres, cinemas, cultural centres etc.)
Step 3 – POLICY OPTIONS PAPER – All policy recommendations, concerns and suggestions emanating from the EVENTS will be compiled (one per issue-‘battleground’) with a view to putting together a POLICY OPTIONS PAPER to be submitted to the relevant DiEM Assembly
Step 4 – ASSEMBLY PAPER – Each POLICY OPTIONS PAPER will be debated in the respective Assembly, until a final ASSEMBLY PAPER is compiled
Step 5 – REFERENDUM – Each of the six ASSEMBLY PAPERS will be put to a vote of all members (using DiEM’s digital platform). If/when passed, DiEM’s POLICY PAPER on the issue will have been completed.
This bottom-up process will yield six DiEM Policy Papers on the issues that threaten to destroy the EU and which, taken together, will constitute DiEM’s Comprehensive Program for Democratising the European Union.
In addition to the Assemblies, and the process leading to them, DiEM25 will be organising other campaigns and events throughout Europe in response to unfolding developments. For example, in late May 2016, we intend to hold a DiEM Event in London, prior to the pivotal UK referendum on EU membership, to discuss the issue of sovereignty at the national and EU levels.
Dear Young European Greens, Dear Florent, Julien, Karima, Michel, Rui , Vedran, Adam, Laura, Teo, Zakia, Patrick,
There are no guarantees that we shall succeed. DiEM25 is offering only a glimmer of hope.
In Berlin, together, we lit a small candle, refusing to waste our energy cursing the darkness.
It is now up to us all to turn this candle into a beacon of hope. Your letter confirms that we have already begun.
So, let’s shake Europe together.
Gently.
Compassionately.
But firmly!
Carpe DiEM25

What makes DiEM25 a more effective movement? What is it doing differently?

Pubblicato Febbraio 24th, 2016 di Yanis Varoufakis & inserito in Articles, Uncategorized.

Primarily, our capacity to inspire a broad coalition of democrats from all over Europe. Not just leftists (like myself) but also social democrats, Greens, activists from a variety of movement, even liberal, centre-right, democrats who – like the rest of us – can now see that the anti-democratic nature of EU institutions constitutes a clear and present threat to liberal democracies everywhere.

So, how are we going to bring about this broad, democratic coalition? People will not coalesce just because our manifesto reads well. They will only come if they can see there is a process for creating pan-European answers to pan-European problems. Answers that will reinvigorate our national democracies by democratising and, crucially, rationalising EU institutions.

To become that pan-European movement we need to turn DiEM into the infrastructure that European democrats will use to develop jointly policies/positions on the 5 major ‘Battlegrounds for Democratising Europe’:

(i) A comprehensive Green New Deal for Europe – a policy options Green Paper that fully outlines DiEM’s proposals on how to tackle the sub-crises of Debt, Banking, Low Investment, Green Energy/Technologies Development, Poverty

(ii) Europe’s Money – our policy [in line with (i) above] regarding the integration of economic and monetary policy across the Eurozone-nonEurozone divide, DiEM’s strategy against the establishment’s violent rejection of any agenda that opposes its own austerian/troika policy choices (including threats of shutting down the banking system of any member-state that adopts DiEM’s policy), a policy on parallel payment systems as well as parallel currencies, a broader perspective on how to organise the global monetary system (of which Europe is the largest economy)

(iii) TTiP, WTO, World Bank, IMF – DiEM’s position on Europe’s membership of international agreements and organisations whose rules and arrangements determine Europe’s (and, indeed, the world’s) social outcomes

(iv) Migration & Refugees – DiEM will piece together a comprehensive policy on refugees (based on basic human principles and Europe’s obligations to the UN) and on migration. For centuries Europe has been colonising the world, exporting people, disease, war and various institutions to the rest of the planet. Now, the altered demographics guarantee that the trend is reversed, with non-Europeans migrating to Europe and institutions devised elsewhere determining outcomes in Europe. DiEM will propose policies for managing and maximising the benefits from this inevitable reversal both for Europe and for the rest of the world

(v) Decentralised Europeanisation & Constitutional Assembly – DiEM is committed to restoring sovereignty at the municipal, regional and national level by Europeanising crises [see (i) and (iv) above] that presently neutralise Parliaments and cities. DiEM rejects the notion that Europeanising these crises and seeking solutions at the European level can only come at the cost of further loss of sovereignty at the municipal, regional and national level. For this purpose, DiEM will present a policy options Green Paper explaining how its policies regarding (i), (ii) and (iv) above return power to the local, regional and national level in preparation of the Constitutional Assembly whose purpose will be to draft a Democratic European Constitution. DiEM will attempt to draw a draft of such a constitution.

PROPOSED PROCESS FOR PRODUCING THE ABOVE FIVE POLICY PAPERS

Step 1 –  DiEM will compile a list of questions/issues for each of the five ‘battlegrounds’ and will call upon its members to convene locally, and in the spirit of self-organisation, in order to propose to the rest of DiEM particular solutions and policies. We envisage Town Hall meetings, meetings in theatres, cinemas, cultural centres etc.

Step 2 –  All policy recommendations, concerns and suggestions will be compiled by a dedicated DiEM committee (one per ‘battleground’) with a view to putting together a Policy Paper Proposal that will be submitted to a DiEM Assembly – see Step 3

Step 3 –  Between now and the end of 2016 DiEM will fix five dates and cities, one per ‘battleground’, where the relevant Policy Paper Proposal will be debated and the DiEM Paper on the ‘battleground’ will be finalised

Step 4 –  Once each DiEM Paper has been finalised, it will be put to a vote of all members using DiEM’s digital platform.

• «
• ← Precedente
• 124
• 125
• 126
• 127
• 128
• 129
• 130
• Successivo →