Libertas and the German Ambassador. Short skirmish or full blown war? March 20, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in European Politics, European Union, Irish Politics.trackback
I’m in two minds about the latest thoughts of Libertas as related in the following missal from the Chairman’s aides:
Another unelected bureaucrat criticises democracy – Libertas
The German Ambassador has once again clearly demonstrated the contempt in which he as an unelected bureaucrat holds the Irish people in comments attributed to him in this morning’s Irish Independent, Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley said today.
According to the Independent, Ambassador Christian Pauls said that Ireland would “throw away its future” by rejecting Lisbon a second time. Mr Pauls has previously stated that Ireland is a “coarse place with a sad history where the natives are obsessed with money”, along with criticising public servants and attacking the car-buying habits of Irish people. On that occasion, Mr. Pauls received a stern rebuke from the Irish Government.
Commenting on Ambassador Pauls’ latest comments, Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley said:
“These latest comments from a senior EU diplomat should remind every Irish person of the absolute contempt in which the unelected representatives of Brussels hold them. Ambassador Pauls’ statement is utterly false, and is a disgusting attempt to bully ordinary people down a course that he has chosen for them.
It is absolutely extraordinary for a foreign diplomat to try to tell the Irish people what way to vote, and it demonstrates once more that the price we are called to pay for a pat on the head from Brussels is our own right to vote as we please.
I hope that on this occasion, the Irish Government will show the same courage in standing up to the Ambassador as they did when he called our people “coarse” and mocked our history. This pattern of behaviour is unacceptable and insulting to any decent Irish person.
Libertas is absolutely committed to the future of Ireland and Europe, and Ambassador Pauls and his masters in Germany do not have a monopoly on the world our children will grow up in. His latest comments should bring home to the Irish people the lack of democracy or respect that permeates today’s Brussels establishment”.
First up it’s a bit of a stretch to argue that the German ambassador is somehow ‘a senior EU diplomat’, that being the case then any member of any foreign service of any European country is therefore an ‘EU’ diplomat, senior or otherwise. Yeah, that’s right. Ireland’s Ambassador to – say – South Africa is an “EU diplomat”. If so we’re surely twisting the meaning of the term into an unrecognisable shape. Secondly as a German diplomat, he therefore isn’t per se an ‘unelected representative of Brussels’. He’s a representative of Berlin. Is the Chairman suggesting that the civil service, or diplomatic appointments in particular should be subject to election?
Which leads me to the next point. When the Chairman argues that ‘It is absolutely extraordinary for a foreign diplomat to try to tell the Irish people what way to vote, and it demonstrates once more that the price we are called to pay for a pat on the head from Brussels is our own right to vote as we please.’ I fear he is ignoring the fact that he as an unelected perhaps politician is all too quick to instruct not merely the Irish people how they should vote on Lisbon I and II, but has now made something of a career of traipsing around Europe telling the citizens of ‘foreign’ countries how they too should vote. And has gone further by establishing, as best he can (which is not necessarily as best as it should be) a political framework within which to directly influence the outcome of the upcoming European Elections.
Which is all fair enough, indeed more than fair enough, as regards his lobbying – except that he appears to be denying the right to make any observation by others on this issue.
Which also sits oddly with his evident delight at the comments of Czech President Vaclav Klaus who acted entirely contrary to his governments stated policy on the EU by meeting and supporting Ganley quite publicly (and as an aside, the method by which the Czech President is elected is a fine example of ‘indirect’ democracy).
Now, I think Paul’s intervention is misguided. A little silence from him on matters Irish and European might be no harm at all in the current period, particularly given his track record (although his previous pronouncements had more than an element of truth in them – particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis).
But… that said the man is the representative of his nation, Germany, and as such has every right, as I see it, to make statements on what that country believes is in its strategic interest and the strategic interest of its partner across three decades, the Republic of Ireland. I may disagree with those statements, but I think that his right to make them is at least equal to, and arguably, greater than, that of the Chairman who is – as yet – the self-appointed leader of a pressure group.
And the Ambassador wasn’t criticising democracy… he suggested that:
“A second No would have horrific consequences for Ireland and I am not the first to say it. I don’t think there is anything particularly new in that.”
We can disagree with that statement, or agree with it. But we can’t have a fit of the vapours about it and pretend that he has no right – no right at all – to make it, or that that in and of itself ‘criticises’ democracy. A criticism of democracy would be to suggest that the vote itself was illegitimate or that it should not be brought before the people.
And the Ambassador makes a reasonable point when in response to the comments by Libertas he noted that:
“We are in a different stage in the ballgame now. . . Everybody seems to be forgetting that this is a family issue involving 27 family members. I find the prospect of a second No frightening and I am going to continue making that case.”
And he makes the even more reasonable point that:
The ambassador rejected suggestions his remarks could be considered undiplomatic. “They are not. I am simply conveying what my government thinks. That is my job.”
It is indeed his job. And perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps a bit of bluntness in this debate is no harm. Perhaps it needs people to say that the choices facing this state and its citizens are stark, perhaps it would be nice to say that whatever path is taken there will be costs.
But the swooning and fainting fits at Libertas entirely ignore that in a bid to find insult where there is none. And it points to yet another contradiction at the heart of their project. Calling for transparency and openness is commendable. But it is, as it happens, a two-way street.
And here is a curious paradox. If one casts ones mind back some weeks a speaker at the John Paul II Society conference in Ballagahaderreen, Co. Roscommon argued that:
Public figures should never be afraid to speak of their faith, their beliefs and their values…
So let’s take the phrase ‘yes we can’ and recognise that ‘yes we must’. Yes, we must take risks for truth. We must not be suppressed or cowed or embarrassed to stand up for our values, for our families and to show love for one another.”
Now of course, the context was more religious than secular, but I think it’s fair to say that any person of conviction would expect the application of the principle to be across both areas.
And who, by the way, is the sage who uttered those words?
Step forward the Chairman…
Christian Pauls is not only a German ambassador but he was also involved in planning NATO’s 1999 attack on Yugoslavia … on the webpage of the embassy, it is stated as “1996 – 1999 – Foreign Office, Bonn – (Ambassador Balkan Task Force, Political Department)”
All the stranger then for Libertas and Ganley given the latters Atlanticist approach to be criticising him…
Incidentally kudos to you for the Lords of the New Church clip on the website…
Em, this is a difficult one. I agree with the notion that Pauls has a right to comment on Irish affairs. Particularly given that we may end up, with our in all likelihood irresovlable financial predicament, with a choice between financial assistance from the Four Horsemen of the IMF or the German state, acting throught EU. Regardless or where you stand on the left, I think it’s obvious which is preferable.
Having said that, Pauls’ should perhaps have kept quiet, if he really wants to see Lisbon ratified. I think current volatility is such that Lisbon is now a completely ‘domestic’ issue here and ‘outside’ interference, no matter how well intentioned or coherent, will be counter-productive. Telling the Irish electorate that it will, effectively, suffer for taking a straightforward democractic decision is not helpful.
I went against Lisbon, last time round. Nonetheless, what’s happened since June last year leaves me thinking that altough it still stinks in many areas, it may be the least worst problem we face at the moment. So, I’m semi-inclined to take a more optimistic view of the many positives of Lisbon.
What really, really enrages me, however, and wipes out any positive regard I may have (with reluctance) convinced myself to feel regarding the EU and Lisbon is this kind of carry on:
The EU consults with its citizens http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0320/citizens.html
50 “scientifically selected” citizens!! What, did they catch them with Butterfly nets on Grafton Street?? Either take decisions in secret, ignore what the electorate think (thereby respecting people’s intelligence as they expect this); or, allow EU treaties to be voted on by the people. But don’t engage in a pseudo-scientific focus group exercise in delusion, as a way of “consulting with citizens”. One can imagine the outcry if the Chinese were to say that “no, were not going to have elections, but we are going to provide focus groups for scientifically selected citizens. That will represent a huge improvement on the current understanding of democracy, where all kinds of silly people have a vote. Scientific selection of citizens’ opinions is the way to go!!!!!”.
Yeah, no disagreement at all with you there. It’s stinky and gimmicky and does no credit to those involved. I’d be equally dubious about the scientific selection – and… surely a sample of 50 is far from representative in any case. It reminds me of the isaac Asimov story about a future US where Multivac the computer asks questions of one citizen in order to determine who will be President. Not exactly the most democratic way forward.
I can understand where CMK and WbS are coming from about this consultation exercise. However I have seen some of them in action – drawn from a wide range of civil society bodies which led to full blooded and sometimes very sharp debates about policy. Of course such exercises and can should be no substitute for elections. Since there is now some prospect of the Lisbon Treaty coming into force this makes the European elections in June very important because in future the law making powers of elected European Parliamentarians will be further extended. This is recognised even by those groups on the left (such as the German Left Party, the Danish Peoples Socialist Party, the French Anti-Capitalist Party and other left, green and radical groups elsewhere) who are most critical of the existing European political establishment
John, I think it’s the sense that such events ‘short-cut’ democratic engagement. I’m no more fond of similar exercises in national democracies. And consulting is all very well, but often it seems to be a cosmetic facade. I’m not 100% on the detail, but I see the German Left party is pro-EU integration (albeit in terms of a non-market oriented EU). What is their precise policy on Lisbon?
WbS – The German Left debate on Europe is light years away from what transpires on these islands. A useful starting point is a very thoughtful article published by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation – which supports Die Linke – the Left Party http://www.rosalux.de/cms/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/pp-Zimmer02_2008_.pdf
At the heart of the article is the following “This makes the challenge for democratic socialists and the modern left clear: they must prove themselves as international Europeans and as proponents of European integration.” Die Linke criticises the Lisbon Treaty but wants the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights made binding on all states by statute. Indeed across the piece of social, economic and environmental policy Die Linke wants much tougher and more ambitious EU standards. The Danish Peoples Socialist Party take a similar stand but support the Lisbon Treaty/ The French New Anti-Capitalist Party – although against the Lisbon Treaty – is opposed to EU withdrawal. But this, sadly, is the opposition being taken by sections of the UK left – including the CPB, the the rail union led by Bob Crowe. To make matters worse they say that if elected they will refuse to take their seats in the European Parliament but take the money for political purposes!!!!
John
The Die Linke article is indeed thoughtful, but you conveniently ignore the fact that at the heart of it is that “The Treaty of Lisbon should be rejected in a referendum”:
But people in Germany haven’t been offered a referendum.
Same as most people across the EU.
Pointing out that the (formerly Revolutionary Communist League – LCR) New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA) in France are not in favour of withdrawal from the EU is hardly a scoop. You would be hard pushed to find any left forces in the European Parliament who would advocate that course of action.However you would also be hard pushed to find people or parties in the left parliamentary group who support the Lisbon Treaty.
(As an aside the French NPA has rejected cooperation with communists, left socialists of the new Left Party (PG), and other progressive forces in the Left Front which has been established (even though a minority of NPA activists are supporting the Left Front).
There are many interesting and varied things going on in the parties of the left across Europe, including a debate about what sort of EU we need. Unfortunately the vast majority of the green and labour, socialist and social democratic parties have decided to uncritically pursue the undemocratic, millitarist, neo-liberal and exploitative model outlined in the Lisbon Treaty. One would have though that the economic crisis would give pause for thought on the broader left (including greens and socialists) before locking ourselves into a failed model of social and economic development.
Very interesting John. Certainly the debate is more nuanced there than here or in the UK>
dillettente, doesn’t German law prohibit referendums (as do quite a number of other EU countries) for very specific historical reasons? I’m dubious – from a point of view respecting internal sovereignty of states to suggest that they *have* to go to referendums to satisfy my political requirements. I take your point about the nature of support or lack of same for Lisbon, but I can’t help feeling that Lisbon has assumed a talismanic aspect for many on the left far beyond its actual content. I saw the same thing back in the 1990s in regard to EC related materials for DL where the continual refrain was hardly any different as regards CFSP being beyond the pale and yet somehow – as you note – contemporary parties of the left don’t wish to disengage from the contemporary structures and institutions although they do seek modification (bar the examples from the UK which again seems to me to be the result of local historical circumstance). It’s not that I disagree at all that there are elements of what you suggest in the EU as is, and potentially more so with Lisbon, but they’re still much less so than is often painted.
Diletantte – Surely you see there is a world of difference between those who oppose the Lisbon Treaty because it goes too far in promoting European integration and those – like Die Linke – who believe it does not go nearly far enough? I think it is a mistaken tactic which will only benefit the right and the far right who arte the real opponents of democratic European integration. Some sections of the Irish left and more sections of the British left oppose European integration in the name of national “sovereignty.” Die Linke in common with others on the socialist and green left elsewhere in Europe understand that – for more and more issues in a globalising world – you can only exercise sovereignty by sharing it with others. WbS is right about referendums in Germany. The post war West German constitution explicitly banned referendums at the insistence of the anti-axis allies because of the way they were used by Hitler and the nazis. Incidentally Marx denounced the use of referendums as an anti-democratic device he called “Bonapartist plebiscites.”
That’s an interesting point about sovereignty. Certainly you’re right in the Irish context (and presumably the UK one too) where national sovereignty as an issue for the left almost always trumps integration. And yet I can’t for the life of me work out why in the space that the EU opens up for working with like minded people/parties/groups/institutions the left in the main seems to take that view… although I guess the specific history of Ireland (and the UK) is naturally of considerable importance. And it’s not as if I’m an integrationist per se – I value national sovereignty highly and in any case think that natural constraints will limit integration on a practical/cultural/socio political level probably indefinitely, but to use the space that is extant and to leverage it… it’s such an opportunity. There is of course the issue that in the EU as everywhere the centre centre right is stronger than the left and the further left… sometimes I think the aversion is simply making a virtue of necessity (or reality) that the left/further left is less strong and therefore needs to make itself more distinct. I think that’s a terrible error. I often think if one looks at the US experience where the left is now closed out by the center centre right in the shape of the Dems and Republicans in a continental polity, that could be the shape of the future if the left isn’t *more* engaged, more *positive* about Europe, particularly in a context where national parliaments will continue to remain paramount…
WbS/John
As far as I understand, consultative referenda are permitted in Germany, as in the Netherlands. I agree about respecting the sovereignty of states on such matters, but in the case of the Lisbon Treaty the decision was taken by the European Council to avoid referenda wherever possible. And in any case it is perfectly legitimate for a significant political force in Germany – Die Linke – to call for a referendum in their own country – and to seek support from like-minded forces outside.
(The Gabi Zimmer article was written after the French and Dutch No votes, but before the Irish No. Since then the Treaty has been brought to the German constitutional court on the grounds that it represents a step backwards in terms of civil liberties and democratic rights of German citizens. As far as I understand it that one’s on a bit of a knife-edge.)
Surely the democratic argument would be to look at the palpable unease among people in many countries and to ask them what they think. The mechanism of a referendum may not be appropriate in all cases, but not having a referendum should not be an excuse for refusing to engage with public concerns about the direction of the EU and with the centralising, anti-democratic, neo-liberal, militaristic shift that it represents.
I agree that this process has been going on for a long time. And perhaps public opinion takes time to catch up with what are effectively constitutional changes (EU Treaties) that are not subject to popular debate and approval. There is a lot of resistance to the direction in which the EU is going. This has crystallised more around the Lisbon Treaty than around previous treaties, but Lisbon is part of a continuum. And just because large sections of the left accept the EU, does not mean that it has been going in the right direction. The whole EU approach over the years could be characterised as salami tactics. Small seemingly harmless changes in successive treaties, which end up fundamentally moving the EU in a direction which the political and economic establishment across the EU knows full well that people would not accept if it were subject to genuine analysis and debate.
It’s now time to have that debate. Railroading the Lisbon Treaty through will not allow us to do that. Rejecting it and having a genuine public discussion would appear to be a better way forward. Such a discussion should be about the tasks and responsibilities that should be entrusted to the EU, and under what mechanism of democratic decision-making.
In that context the like of the Gabi Zimmer article can be a useful contribution. Using it to imply support for the Lisbon Treaty is somewhat disingenuous.
I’m not sure which forces in Ireland are being referred to as opposing European integration “in the name of national sovereignty” at least not in such a sweeping manner. I think the mistake some people make is to confuse the Lisbon Treaty and the existing EU model with a process of progressive integration (that could win support on the left.
Sovereignty is an important and hard won thing. When peoples give it up (or pool it) in particular areas, they need to know that their interests are being served by so doing. They also need to know the mechanism for recovering it if its transfer subsequently proves not to be in their interests. This view would be more widely held on the left across Europe than you seem to imagine.
I appreciate you are both making arguments in relationship to particular British and Irish circumstances. Somehow I can’t help but thinking that a better understanding of the real nature of the political context and of the debate in other countries would do no harm before trying to transpose it to these islands.
John
I think the mistaken tactic which gives succour to the far right is to uncritically accept the EU and the ongoing centralisation of power. (The mainstream right not only have the neo-liberal prescriptions they want laid out in quasi-constitutional form in the Lisbon Treaty – and to a greater or lesser extent in previous Treaties – they have also succeeded in largely co-opting social democracy into their project).
For the left to refuse to recognise the dangers posed by the logic of the EUs “free and unfettered competition” – cuts in social expenditure, deterioration of workers pay and conditions, etc. – would be irresponsible. The left needs to take on the right with regard to their xenophobic agenda, but it also needs to take on the economic model promoted by the EU which is designed to ensure that worker is set against worker for an ever decreasing slice of the pie. Those on the left who refuse to stand against the EU when it attacks workers pay and conditions must bear at least part of the responsibility in not giving voice to genuine fears of workers, in some cases leaving them no place to go but the populists and demagogues of the far right.
WbS – You are, I regret to say, perfectly right that during the past decade the centre-right and further right have been stronger across Europe as a whole than the left. This – inevitably – is reflected in the political balance in the Council of Ministers and, therefore, in the Commission. Interestingly the balance in the European Parliament is a little different. That is why the EP has been able to amend in a progressive sense so much legislation which has been passed at a European level. Of course in any fully democratic system decision making should be conducted at local, regional, national, European and (in the future) at global levels – depending on the issues involved. The left has every interest in opening up democratic decision making at the European and global levels – precisely because capital has long since globalised (as have military and securocratic bureaucracies). The economic crisis and climate change are just two policy dimensions which are crying out for decision making at EU and (when the institutions gave been created) at global level. That – I think is the gist of the article in the RLF article. I detect the beginnings of a serious left debate on Europe which accepts that progressive policies need more – not less – European integration.
Dilettante – the logic which drives social standards and workers rights downwards in neo-liberalism above all at the global level. The neo-liberals are fiercely opposed to the modest but important social advances which the workers’ movement and other progressive interests have secured at EU level in the past decades. My reading of developments is that the right and neo-liberal strategies are now increasingly discredited. There is great space opening up in the EU to campaign for a New Deal based on higher social rights and standards within the framework of sustainable (green) economic development. The Ganleys, UKIP, Tories should be left on their own waving their populist, racist, nationalist flags.
I’m not sure that there is an ‘overwhelming democratic argument’ for looking at something as intangible as ‘unease’. I’ll bet that could be thrown right back at us by the right. As regards a decision taken by the European Council, do you have chapter and verse on that? Nor is it as open and shut a case as regards the legal interpretation of Lisbon as being per se necessarily one that would require a referendum to be passed. The Czech’s certainly didn’t seem to think so once it was submitted to their Constitutional Court. The thing is that you seem to define a left critique of the EU as being synonymous with the (unexpressed) will of the people, something I seriously doubt. The basic reality of a centre and centre right majority in EU populations makes me suspect that the current shape of the EU isn’t vastly different from what people broadly accept. Indeed I’d go further and argue that it is the collaborative cooperative aspects of the EU that we want to strengthen which would probably draw more fire from EU populations. Which is obviously problematic on many different levels. And is fundamentally so when we then have to find ourselves on the same side of the balance sheet as the absolute oppositionalists.
But that doesn’t surprise me since this seems to me to a sort of process led treaty that doesn’t change the fundamentals.
Nor would I agree that the tendency in the EU even under Lisbon is anti-democratic. It’s very hard to argue that when one looks at the increased powers of the Parliament. I’d say that on balance it might even be slightly more democratic. Even as regards militaristic and neo-liberal aspects. I don’t know, do you think they’d be lesser given the preponderance of conservative governments under the status quo? Doesn’t seem likely to me.
As regards a debate. At every point since Lisbon 1 we were told that the Irish example would galvanise the people of Europe (usually, in fairness., this was expressed by Libertas, but also by the usual euro-sceptic crews…) agin it and the EU itself. And yet, not a peep. Bottom line? People don’t care as long as their parliaments are the final arbiters.
Which is why your point about the ‘real nature’ of political contexts doesn’t really convince me. Anti-EU sentiment is a minority sport (as you acknowledge above even on the left) on the political axis. Which is grand, but again it seems to me to be a diversion from the reality that true conservatism, outright reaction, is based in national parliaments rather than in the muddled vaguely social democratic EU institutions…even the modish tilt to neo-liberalism is still hedged by social democratic aspects of other issues.
I know, this is in some senses a philosophical argument as to ways and means, and as it happens there’d be some clear water between my own views and say those of John, but to me the cooperative space of the EU even as presently constructed is vital to generating something from social democracy outwards to other democratic socialist approaches that can counter the very tendencies that we all want to see pushed back.