Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems - by George Monbiot

NEOLIBERALISM

Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

If you do have the capability to distinguish between "Right and Wrong",  and  are not too preoccupied with other "things" to do, it might be worth your while to read this rather lengthy, but most informative article, to help you understand why the world is in the total mess it is.  Have fun, and don't get too depressed. Tomorrow might bring better tidings - R.M - EU-Digest

Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.

Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.

Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me?  in which he describes his main concern how social change has led to this psychic crisis and altered the way we think about ourselves.re :epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. Unfortunately we are all neoliberals now.

The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the gradual development of Britain’s welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.

In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises’s book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.

With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as “a kind of neoliberal international”: a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement’s rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.

s it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek’s view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among American apostles such as Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.
Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.

At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins. The postwar consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes’s economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment, developing new public services and safety nets.

But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, “when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up”. With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter’s administration in the US and Jim Callaghan’s government in Britain.After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, “it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised.”

It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan “there is no alternative”. But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet’s Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied – “my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism”. The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.

Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.

As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet’s coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman described as “an opportunity to radically reform the educational system” in New Orleans.

Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating “investor-state dispute settlement”: offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.

Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead created one.

Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.

The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.

Those who own and run the UK’s privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world’s richest man.

Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can’t Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. “Like rent,” he argues, “interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort”. As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.

Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.

Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.

The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.

Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.

Chris Hedges remarks that “fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the ‘losers’ who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment”. When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.

Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to “cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey them”.

Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities.

The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that “in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised.

The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. “The market” sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What “the market wants” tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. “Investment”, as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities “camouflages the sources of wealth”, leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.

A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.

These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.

The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman’s classic work, Capitalism and Freedom.

For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.

Neoliberalism’s triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.

Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental destruction.

What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it’s not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century.

 EU-Digest - Neoliberalism : "The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by its private citizens"

France: World War I commemoration: Macron rebukes nationalism at commemoration = by David Jackson

Bells tolled across France and Europe on Sunday as President Donald Trump and other global leaders gathered to honor the dead of World War I and heed its harsh lessons to prevent conflicts.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who has criticized Trump's "America First" foreign policy, decried excessive "nationalism" at the root of World War I and successive conflicts.

"Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism," Macron told a gathering of world leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Trump. “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism by saying, ‘Our interest first, who cares about the others?’ "

Hosting an event to mark the centennial of the armistice that ended World War I, Macron told fellow leaders they have a "huge responsibility" to defeat modern forces that threaten a "legacy of peace" from the two world wars of the past century.

"I know there are old demons coming back to the surface," the French president said. "They are ready to wreak chaos and death."

Macron did not refer specifically to Trump, who occasionally frowned during the speech.

Trump did not respond to Macron publicly. 

During a speech later Sunday at a World War I-era cemetery, Trump praised the French leader for hosting the event he called "very beautiful" and "well done."

In defending "America First," Trump has often said the United States needs to address its own needs. air."

Read more: France -World War I commemoration: Macron rebukes nationalism at commemoration

USA: Opinion: Politically motivated violence in Trump′s America is no surprise

Let's start with an important caveat. The investigation into the potentially explosive devices – which were mailed to the homes of former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to CNN addressed to former CIA director John Brennan, and other leaders –is still unfolding. So it is not prudent to dwell at this point on the possible nature and background of what appear to be attempted terrorist attacks, which came on the heels an explosive device that was sent to liberal billionaire George Soros on Monday.

But it is both possible and necessary to say that the deeply toxic, increasingly partisan American political climate has at least provided fertile ground for anyone even contemplating such politically motivated attacks. It is also both possible and necessary to say that US President Donald Trump has been the key driving force behind the unprecedented deterioration of the political climate in this country.

He ran and won his presidential race on a campaign based on fearmongering and ad hominem attacks against political rivals and the news media, which he has repeatedly labeled as the enemy of the people. He has a long-established track record of using cavalier language and vague threats against anyone who expresses disagreement of criticism of his policies or statements. Just a few examples in Clinton's case: allowing raucous crowds to chant "lock her up," proposing the "Second Amendment people" can do something to stop her, suggesting her Secret Service personnel no longer carry guns and "let's see what happens to her." It's not a leap of logic that some die-hard Trumpers could see his statements as tolerance, if not an outright call, for politically-motivated violence.

After the death of a counterprotester at a right-wing march in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump – who just a day ago casually and without garnering huge media attention described himself as a "nationalist" at a Texas rally – initially hesitated to offer a clear condemnation of the right-wing extremist perpetrator.

At his campaign rallies, he has repeatedly insinuated violence against the media and opponents. And less than two months ago, in a closed-door meeting with evangelicals, Trump warned the group of "violence" from the left should Democrats win the midterm election.

Trump's rabble-rousing rhetoric is based on a winning-at-all-cost attitude that accepts no criticism and knows no compromise. While that is a problematic disposition in a person, it is a dangerous disposition in the president of the world's most powerful nation.

In the brief three years since his arrival onto the political scene he has single-handedly transformed the Republican Party into his own political fighting machine. And as a consequence, he has fomented and ramped up the already existing deep divisions in the country to an extent hardly deemed possible. That some of his supporters – or anyone at all, for that matter – may interpret the president's rhetoric and behavior as a call to exert violence against his political detractors should surprise no one.

Read more: Opinion: Politically motivated violence in Trump′s America is no surprise | Opinion | DW | 24.10.2018

France - US Relations: French President Emmanuel Macron rocks US Congress with great speech

French President Emmanuel Macron hit on the issues of climate change, nationalism, trade and the 2015 Iran nuclear deal in his speech to a joint session of US Congress, calling on the United States to engage more with the world.

After what has been seen as a friendly state visit to Washington, Macron's speech laid out a view of global leadership starkly different from US President Donald Trump's "America First."

What Macron said

• The United States and France have a long history together
• He criticized Trump's isolationist principles
• Climate change is real. We have no Planet B
• Macron is sure the US will someday come back to to the Paris Agreement
• We must fight against fake news
• Iran will never have nuclear weapons nuclear weapons
• At a press conference later, Macron said he believed Trump would pull the US out of the Iran nuclear deal

"We have disagreements between the United States and France. It may happen, like in all families," Macron said.

Read more: French President Emmanuel Macron rocks US Congress with speech | News | DW | 25.04.2018

EU - Tribalism: Back to the past? 98 European Union Member States? - by Jordi Angusto

Scotland, Veneto, Lombardy, Catalonia… these are all EU regions demanding greater self-government, in some cases including independence from their home states but never from the EU. An apparent paradox given that their demands have increased along with the EU’s own growth in power. But there is no contradiction.

The EU has super-imposed a new order that sits uneasily with the previous settlements between regions and nation states, both in political and economic terms. An incompatibility requiring an adjustment at EU level rather than at states’ level if we still want “an ever closer union”. Both in Italy and Spain, North to South fiscal transfers were designed as a stabilising mechanism to recycle trade imbalances. It meant the North’s trade surplus financing the South’s trade deficit fiscally: a closed mechanism that made sense while trade and fiscal flows were symmetrical, as was the case before the EU single market and the euro; but hard to justify once the flows are asymmetrical. As a case in point: before the euro, Catalonia used to have a trade deficit with the rest of the world and a huge trade surplus with the rest of Spain; nowadays, it enjoys a 6% GDP trade surplus with the rest of the world while that with the rest of Spain has been halved. But fiscal transfers to the rest of Spain remain untouched, at 8% of GDP.

Both in Italy and Spain, North to South fiscal transfers were designed as a stabilising mechanism to recycle trade imbalances. It meant the North’s trade surplus financing the South’s trade deficit fiscally: a closed mechanism that made sense while trade and fiscal flows were symmetrical, as was the case before the EU single market and the euro; but hard to justify once the flows are asymmetrical. As a case in point: before the euro, Catalonia used to have a trade deficit with the rest of the world and a huge trade surplus with the rest of Spain; nowadays, it enjoys a 6% GDP trade surplus with the rest of the world while that with the rest of Spain has been halved. But fiscal transfers to the rest of Spain remain untouched, at 8% of GDP.

As the Catalonia/North Italy demands for lower fiscal transfers have given the impression that they are selfish and opposed to the solidarity required in any society, it’s worth analysing those fiscal transfers both under moral and efficiency principles.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker expressed recently his fears around an unmanageable EU of 98 states. However, with 28 members holding veto rights for main questions, the EU is already unmanageable. The question is not the number of states but the institutional architecture. For policy reasons, the EC is used to working with the 272 existing regions in the EU and only few of those are ready to assume full self-government. Finding a satisfactory solution for those regions that are ready and willing to do so and reforming the EU’s architecture to make it more social, democratic and manageable is a daunting challenge that must be tackled. Anybody willing to take it up?

 Read more: 98 European Union Member States?

The Extreme Right in the EU: Why do Far-Right White Nationalists Support Zionism?

Wilders:Extreme Right, Nationalist or just an opportunist?

The success of Sebastian Kurz in Austria's recent election means that the extreme right Freedom Party, the FPO, will likely join the governing coalition. 

 Populist right-wing parties are on the rise in many European countries in recent years. 

These parties include the Party of Freedom in the Netherlands headed by Geert Wilders, the National Front in France headed by Marine Le Pen, the Sweden Democrats headed by Jimmie Akesson, and more. Although highly nationalistic in their politics, these right-wing parties are very similar to each other. They share an Islamophobic and xenophobic ideology, and very interestingly, they all share a strong support for Zionism and for the state of Israel.

 Michael Colborne wrote an article for the Haaretz newspaper with the title "Rise of a New Far-right: The European 'Philosemites' Using Jews to Battle Muslims," to address the seeming contradiction in the European far-right. Indeed, there really is no difference between philo-Semitism and anti-Semitism. 

There is no such thing as positive racism. The far-right groups did not replace their hatred of Jews with the hatred of Muslims. They continue to hate both groups. Richard Silverstein told The Real News about how the election of President Trump emboldened those groups in the United States.R. SILVERSTEIN I think that the anti-Semites in the United States are affiliated with the alt-right movement that you correctly associated with Breitbart, and this alt-right movement includes a very big cadre of anti-Semites, and they feel empowered by Trump's victory and his nativist, kind of populist, extremist kind of views. 

That's why a lot of the anti-Semitic attacks are happening, and they're very much linked to the attacks on the Muslim community, which is why American Jews should really be making common cause with Muslims. SHIR HEVER: White nationalism has its roots in Europe in the 19th century as it developed and took form in order to serve as justification for European colonialism. In those European countries that had smaller and fewer colonies, such as Germany, Italy, and Hungary, white nationalism turned inwards in the form of fascism, implementing the strict, hierarchical, colonial structure on their own citizens. It sought to find its enemies within and turned on minorities. 

During the Second World War, an unprecedented industrial genocide was perpetrated against Jews, against Sinti and Roma, against homosexuals and lesbians, against people with mental disabilities, and against others who were deemed enemies of the state. Since Jews were targeted above all other groups during this genocide, and since the State of Israel, which was founded three years after the Holocaust, defines itself as a Jewish state, it raises the question of why does the European racist right-wing support the State of Israel? 

Aren't they on completely opposite sides? There are two explanations for this. 

One is that the Zionist movement and the State of Israel seek to convince Jews from all over the world to migrate to the State of Israel. The prospect of European Jews and North American Jews leaving their homes and moving to the Middle East appeals to many racist groups. 

The second explanation for the alliance between the Western far-right and the State of Israel is that Israeli policies towards immigrants, towards Arabs and towards Muslims, are precisely the kind of policies that the European and North American far-right would like to implement. President Trump, during his campaign for the presidency, commented on Fox & Friends on how the US can and should imitate Israeli racial profiling.DONALD TRUMP: Our local police, they know who a lot of these people are. 

They're afraid to do anything about it because they don't want to be accused of profiling, and they don't want to be accused of all sorts of things. You know, in Israel they profile. They've done an unbelievable job, as good as you can do.

Read more: Why do Far-Right White Nationalists Support Zionism?

EU Citizenship Has Its Obligations: ′You belong here,′ Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel tells Germany′s Turks

Less than 48 hours after announcing a major shift in policy towards Turkey, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Saturday sought to calm fears among Turkish nationals living in Germany that they are not targets in an ongoing political row.

Gabriel penned an open letter, published in German and Turkish in the mass circulation newspaper Bild, where he called the friendship between Germans and the estimated 3 million Turks living in the country a "great treasure."

His message followed a further week of wrangling between the two countries following the jailing by a court in Istanbul of several human rights activists - including German national Peter Steudtner - accused of what Germany says are the trumped-up charges of being linked to a terrorist organization.

Note EU=Digest: Very true.This also goes for immigrants to any country in the world. You can't have your cake and eat it too! In case you do prefer your home country over the one where you immigrated to, nothing stops you to go back from where you came. It must also be noted that Governments of  former citizens, who immigrated to other countries, and became citizens there, also have no right to claim authority or any rights over these former citizens.  

Read more: ′You belong here,′ Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel tells Germany′s Turks | News | DW | 22.07.2017

Thousands join pro-Europe rallies across Germany and EU

Thousands of people have joined rallies across Germany and other European countries to show their support for the idea of a united Europe.

The weekly protests began last year as an attempt to counter growing nationalist sentiment on the continent, often expressed in opposition to the European Union.

Protesters in Berlin, Frankfurt, Cologne and dozens of other locations danced, sang and waved the EU flag — 12 stars on a blue background — during the rallies Sunday.

The protests are organized on social media by a group calling itself Pulse of Europe .

The group says it isn’t tied to any particular political party.

EU=Digest

EU: Immigrants and refugees: Le Pen, Petry and Wilders all trying to cure the symptoms not the cause - by RM

The European Destruction Team

Senior members of Alternative for Germany cut short a meeting Monday with the Central Council of Muslims, accusing the group of failing to renounce religious beliefs that they claim clash with the German constitution.

The confrontation came days after the party — known by its acronym AfD — launched a campaign against the construction of a mosque in the eastern state of Thuringia, joining up for the first time with the group known as the Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West.

When you read all the nonsense the so-called right-wing nationalist parties, specially those in France, Germany and the Netherlands are saying, reporting and announcing, you can only wonder if the electorate has gone crazy, or if the existing political leadership just does not have it together anymore?

This is the reason why Europe has a refugee problem

The large flow of immigrants to Europe is certainly not because they find Europe such a wonderful or great place to be living in, but mainly because we, together with our so-called "allies",  have bombed their cities, homes and countries into oblivion.

As the saying goes - "you always harvest what you sow".

Geert Wilders (Holland), Marine Le Pen (France) and Frauke Petry (Germany) have taken full advantage of the fact that our present European political leadership have never dared to tackle the true cause, as to why all these refugees came to Europe.

Obviously the electorate, which had been kept in the dark by their political leaders on the true cause  and reasons of the refugee influx into Europe, unfortunately resulted in the fact they started  listening to the garbage coming out of the mouths of Wilders. Le Pen and Petry,.

They put the blame of the refugee problem on national Government policies, related to immigration and refugees, not on the real cause of the refugee problem re: the military involvement of EU countries in the Middle East wars.

Instead the Ultra-Right focused on Islamophobia, decay of national economy/sovereignty. and the functioning of the  EU,  without producing any plan to back-up their arguments .

It is a sad state of affairs and will not get better unless the EU and its member states take a more independent direction and stance when it comes to military alliances and foreign policies.

If the nationalist succeed in breaking up the EU - no country in Europe will be able to stand-up on their own against the manipulations of the USA, China or Russia. It is as simple as that.

EU-Digest ©

Are narcissists taking over politics ? - Trump in the White House, with Geert Wilders, Marie Le Pen and Frauke Petry waiting in the EU wings

Xenophobia is growing in Europe

Xenophobia is growing in Europe, with France, the United Kingdom, Austria, Greece, Denmark and Sweden all electing far-right nationalist candidates.

Like Trump did, they unite voters with a platform of blocking migrants from the Middle East and Africa. More blatant demonstrations of anti-Semitism flared up in Greece, with its Golden Dawn party donning Nazi-like uniforms and symbolism.

Cas Mudde, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, commented on the parallels between European and American politics. “I see the phenomena as very similar. Trump is the functional equivalent of the far right in Europe; he performs the same functions in the political system, and attracts the same kind of support… white, nativist, lower-educated and those very unhappy with the establishment.”

Looking at Europe we see that also there a narcissists group of populist political personalities have benefited from the great disparity between the "have and have's not" and distrust by  the people of political parties who are not serving the people, but rather corporate interest.

Following focus is on three countries which will be  holding national elections this year where ultra-right narcissist  politicians have made major inroads. 

In the Netherlands: Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who founded the right-wing Freedom Party, also endorsed Trump, tweeting, “Make the Netherlands Great Again.”

Wilders, who also bears a weird physical resemblance to Donald Trump, applies similar nationalistic rhetoric with confusing undocumented statements, sprinkled with vague plans.

France: French Jews who also hold Israeli citizenship will have to give up one of their nationalities if Marine Le Pen, the far-Right French Presidential candidate, wins the presidential election this spring.

The leader of the anti-immigration Front National said she would bar the French from holding the citizenship of countries outside the European Union, except for Russia, which she described as part of “the Europe of nations.”

Germany: You can tell well in advance when Frauke Petry, the leader of Alternative für Deutschland, a burgeoning new right-wing party, is going to give a speech. AfD members put up posters all over a town’s main streets declaring, “Frauke Petry Is Coming.” As the appointed hour approaches, police assemble, and usually demonstrators, too, protesting against a woman known to her enemies as “Adolfina” and “die Führerin.”

More than a century ago, philosopher George Santayana reminded us that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

His words ring true today.  The growing rise of Nationalism on virtually every continent should give cause for great concern.

Following World War II, the global goal was to create political and economic structures and forge alliances like the UN, EU, IMF, WTO, NAFTA and the recently signed Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership to bring peace and prosperity to the world.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. More people than ever now have the means to travel outside their native countries.  Global investments have given rise to vastly improved living conditions in poorer countries.  Political structures like the EU have led to the creation of powerful new markets for global commerce.  Modern communications now transcend borders in Nano-seconds, bringing the world ever closer together.

But, achievements like these have come with a price: The re-emergence of Nationalism throughout the world was also caused by the disruptions brought about by globalization.

Global Trade must become Fair Trade again, not one controlled by large corporations who get unfair tax breaks and special favors from the local governments where they operate.

Nationalism is a powerful force and can at times work positively. It can be the glue that holds people together especially in challenging times.  It celebrates a country’s culture, history and religion.  It instills national pride and a sense of strength, but also, unfortunately, at times, creating scapegoats, real or imagined. The latter is happening today

Don't be fooled by the "nationalistic talk" of Wilders, Le Pen, Petry, and many other so-called nationalists - they definitely are not true nationalists and will sink all of us in Europe into a deep hole if they ever are elected and allowed to rule by you the voter. Worse of all, if you do elect them, you might never again get the power to vote them out of office.  Just look at Turkey today and see what  has happened there. 

Or see how Donald Trump has performed the first weeks of his Presidency. Scary stuff.

For example, the common US belief today exposed by Donald Trump that China has claimed the bulk of jobs lost in America since 2000 is not true. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, roughly 700,000 of the six million US manufacturing jobs lost in the first decade of this century went to China. The rest disappeared because of decreased consumer demand after the 2008 global financial crisis and technological advances that made many jobs obsolete.

Job losses aside, perhaps the biggest impact of the 2008 global financial crisis is that it intensified a worldwide backlash against globalization and the ever increasing disparity between poor and rich that had been festering for decades, further bolstering the steady global tilt toward Nationalism.

But not all is lost - if you get involved. Staying at home and complaining will not work. Go to local government, city and town meetings, ask questions, protest if you don't like what you hear.

Don't vote for politicians and parties who have not delivered what they promised.

Support parties which focus on your needs: more jobs, better education, health care, a clean environment, alternative energy  and cutting military spending' 

For it to succeed, real European integration—of which much more will be needed if Europeans want to retain stability and current levels of economic well-being—needs to learn a crucial trick from the nation. In much the same way that the power of the nation made people look beyond the blood bonds of family and tribe and elevate solidarity to a higher level, so European integration needs to surpass citizens’ attachment to the nation and raise it by one level. 

The trick is not to dismiss the lower-level identity and try to make it superfluous. The way to go is to leave the nation undamaged by adding another layer that can become politically and emotionally meaningful.

This rising nationalism in Europe also demands that leaders on the left look beyond austerity to a more robust economic policy built on investments in infrastructure, jobs, and education.

EU-Digest

European Politics & populism: Marine Le Pen, Beppe Grillo, Geert Wilders, Frauke Petry: has their big moment arrived? - by Toby Helm

Populism and the media

Dogged by the migration crisis and the traumatic business of Brexit – to name just two current, existential challenges to their project – those who run the European Union felt they had enough on their plates before Donald Trump seized the White House.

News of his triumph broke on Europe, as had that of the British vote to leave the European Union on 23 June, in defiance of opinion pollsters and the assumptions of political elites that maintained that the world’s most advanced democracy could never deliver such a blow to the established order. Then it did.

In EU capitals, where they had preferred to dismiss Brexit as a one-off revolt by the union’s most difficult member, Trump’s election prompted the same elites to question their easy assumptions and entertain, for the first time, the impossible.

For the European Union such an outcome – Le Pen winning – would be far, far worse than Brexit. Brexit is containable. A France conquered by an anti-EU presidential candidate is not.

Everyone agreed last week that her winning would destroy the EU. “It would be cataclysmic, existential, the end,” said one EU diplomat.

In Berlin, Stephan Mayer, a Christian Social Union (CSU) MP in the Bundestag and his party’s home affairs spokesman, declared that, if Le Pen took France out of the euro and the EU, the European project would be done for.

Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Bundestag, and one not prone to dramatic overstatement, said countries at the heart of the EU integration process could no longer regard themselves as necessarily immune from populist movements. “What we have to take into account is that disruptive things can happen and the unthinkable can happen, so we should not take it for granted that Le Pen cannot win,” he said.

Note EU-Digest: Yes indeed everything is now possible, given the "average stupidity of the voter", who usually votes with his or her emotions rather than their head. 

Yes it will bring change, but eventually also chaos. The perspective is that globalism is at fault here. Initiated and expanded by a tiny group of banking interests, globalism has also been consolidating worldwide power with a group of massive corporations, governments and technocratic leaders. 

The danger is that populism could also be their plan B, giving them even more power, but in a different way. Time will tell , but it is so much resembling the mood of Europe when the Treaty of Versaille was signed on the twenty eighth of June 1919 that set conditions for drastic change throughout Europe. 

Many of the war reperations imposed on the defeated nations of the Central Powers were too much to be ever repaid. The economies of European nations were in turmoil after the war and many nations were politically unstable. This political instability had pathed the way for new reforms in many countries in Europe during this period. The early years of the twentieth century ushered in new radical ideologies that presented new challenges in inter-state relations. Mass uprisings and government reforms were on the main agenda. 

It resulted in the birth of two also populist based ideologies - Fascism and Nazism.

Are we going back to that scenario ?

Read more: Marine Le Pen, Beppe Grillo, Geert Wilders, Frauke Petry: has their big moment arrived? | World news | The Guardian

EU-USA: Cult of Personality: How Trump Uses the Playbook of Europe's Far Right - by Emily Cade

For months, pundits dismissed Trump’s candidacy, arguing that once voters started paying attention, his lack of substance would crater his support.

Now that he’s the Republicans’ presumptive nominee, it’s clear the early naysayers sorely miscalculated. The lesson from th

is race: A strong cult of personality can trump ideology. And that’s been proved by generations of demagogues. The support behind Italy’s Benito Mussolini was “more about the leader than...about the party or the ideology,” bypassing or even upending the traditional party structures, says Arfon Rees, a specialist in Soviet and Russian history at the U.K.’s University of Birmingham.

There are other parallels, says Joseph Sassoon, an associate professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. When Trump says he’s his own best adviser and has no speechwriters, “this is really a prototype of Saddam or Qaddafi or Nasser...the wanting to control the language of their speeches,” says Sassoon, referencing former leaders of Iraq, Libya and Egypt. “ An essential component of the cult of personality is it cannot be shared with anyone.”

German philosopher Max Weber coined the term charismatic authority to describe leaders whose power is built on their “exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character,” as opposed to the rule of law or simply brute force.

Many may not regard Trump the candidate in an admirable light, but to his followers, his business success and his personal wealth — which freed him from the unseemly campaign fundraising dance of his primary rivals — make him inviolable. American politicians are “all bought and paid for by somebody,” 62-year-old Trump supporter Nick Glaub said outside the suburban Cincinnati Trump rally.

“The only person that isn’t is that man right there,” said Glaub, gesturing to the community center where the real estate mogul had just spoken.

Trump’s charismatic authority stems from this belief that he is above politics-as-usual, says Roger Eatwell, a politics professor at Britain’s University of Bath. And it goes beyond his reality-TV fame. “Celebrity...tends to be a fairly passing phenomenon, and it doesn’t tend to be a very emotional phenomenon,” Eatwell explains. But Trump’s campaign offers something deeper: “a sense of identification.”

There is, however, one glaring difference between the Republican front-runner and Europe’s right-wing leaders in 2016: Trump’s conspicuous wealth. While he flaunts his billionaire lifestyle, Europe’s populists play up their everyman credentials. Nigel Farage, head of the right-wing U.K. Independence Party, “loves to be photographed in an English pub” having a beer, says Eatwell.

It’s a show of solidarity that’s important on a continent where class remains a salient divide and austerity’s bite is deep. Americans, in contrast, embrace capitalism far more openly and aren’t necessarily turned off by Trump’s gilded excess.

Note EU-Digest: It is interesting to see that many voters in the US and the EU have not learned from the past .....in politics and economics, nationalism has always turned into a disaster when it was applied by politicians in power as a national state policy

Instead, politicians seeking unity and cooperation among political parties and nations have usually succeeded in creating peace and prosperity at home and abroad.

The rise to the top of far-right politicians in Europe and the US  is a guaranteed recipe for political and economic turmoil.

 Cult of Personality: How Trump Uses the Playbook of Europe's Far Right

EU - The Naysayers Are Wrong About Europe (Again) · Kevin O' Brien

Unity in diversity

Public displays of optimism in Europe are often discounted like faux pas or symptoms of a brain parasite. The continent’s history is long and bloody, and although it has enjoyed 70 years of relative tranquility, it’s best to keep your exuberance in check.
 
So perhaps it is fitting that an American who’s lived for more than two decades in Germany is arguing that Europe won’t just survive but will thrive despite its perfect storm of financial and currency troubles, demographic woes, right-wing resurgence and refugee chaos.

I know what you’re thinking. I’m going to dish out that old upbeat, can-do mumbo jumbo you’ve heard before. Even many Americans, stuck in their own economic funk and captives of a gridlocked, unresponsive political system, don’t believe it anymore, you might argue.

That may be true. But I’m not here to sing “Happy Days Are Here Again.” Sure, it would be easy to take the opposite tack, don the continent’s traditional black street garb and fall into a pessimistic, bohemian funk. There are many reasons to be worried.

Right-wing nationalists may take control of France.  Britain, always ambivalent toward the European Union, may leave and go rogue.

The dark side of the force is on the march on the continent, awakened by refugees. Poland and Hungary are rediscovering their inner Soviet child, talking trash again to the West.

The euro has been patched like an old tire. The financial mechanics on the continent say the roadside repair will hold, but not everyone believes them. On the eastern edge of Europe in Ukraine, Russia is gnawing on the principles of European liberal democracy, again.

Most troubling, the refugee crisis is exposing the design flaws of the European Union, a 28-nation bloc that drapes itself in the terminology of American federal control and member “states,’’ but in reality is often an opt-in, self-service club without active members.

So here, in the face of all that bad karma, is my argument for why Europe will prevail.

A big reason, perhaps the biggest, is that Germany won’t let it fail. It’s one of the big reasons why bank accounts here, 16 years on, are still denominated in euros. World-famous economists have predicted the currency’s demise since its birth. Each time, they have erred.

If Europe fails, Germany, the world’s third-largest exporter, would seize up. Given its history, Germany can’t win by going it alone. It needs open borders, foreign consumers and economic partners more than its European neighbors. It needs the European Union. Deep down, Germans and especially German businesses, know this. 

The public flogging of Angela Merkel over the refugee crisis will eventually ease as footpaths to Germany are closed. Wounded politically, Ms. Merkel will finish her term, and if she wants, win again in 2017.

If not, there are able candidates to replace her, all committed Europeans: Wolfgang Schäuble, confined to a wheelchair since 1990 after being shot by a deranged man at a campaign rally; Ursula von der Leyen, the defense minister, a physician and mother of seven with a near-Wagnerian biography, and a moderate, measured policy wonk named Friedrich Merz.

But Germany alone won’t keep Europe alive. Those uncooperative, bickering E.U. member neighbors will stare into the abyss of the refugee crisis, weigh up the trade lost by resurrecting internal borders, and bite the bullet to repair some of the E.U.’s structural flaws. 

Turkey may even help them, expediting its long-awaited entry into the bloc and European respectability. The first signs of progress may be joint control of the E.U.’s outer perimeter.

Emboldened by their ability to actually do something together, E.U. countries may move on to tackle other thorny issues, such as better coordinating the anti-terror police effort, developing a more coherent immigration strategy, and even, God forbid, taking in refugees.

Sure, you say, that’s just optimistic palaver – the equivalent of baloney in Germany – the view of someone unfamiliar with military setback and total destruction. That is true.

But nearly 20 years ago, I saw how Europe can work.

\It was in 1998 before the birth of the euro currency, when I was a journalist babysitting the high-stakes, closed-door meeting in Brussels where the first batch of euro countries were haggling over setting exchange rates for their old currencies.

National pride and national fortunes were on the line.

As big meetings often do in Europe, this one ran late, and rumors flew. Midnight passed, and by 3 a.m., the doubters seemed to be winning the day. But close to dawn, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl emerged to face the press, a little red-eyed and weary, but ready to prove the pessimists wrong once again.

Read more: The Naysayers Are Wrong About Europe (Again) · Handelsblatt Global Edition

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has his act together: "Unity is what is needed in Europe, not isolatio and nationalism"

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker

Speaking at the 14th Norbert Schmelzer lecture in the Hague, Netherlands on March the 3rd 2016, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker noted.

"Dear Ms Schmelzer, dear Dries, dear Ben and others, dear Sybrand, dear Ruth, senators and members of the House of Representatives and of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen,

I am glad to be here with you this afternoon. This is what one is always supposed to say on these occasions, but most people do not mean it. But this afternoon it is true because I really am happy to be here to deliver this Schmelzer lecture. I am especially happy because Ms Schmelzer has done us the honour of being here. This is the second time that I have been invited to give this lecture. If I am not mistaken, I am the only person to deliver it twice. Those who have done it only once must now be hoping that they too will get an opportunity to deliver it a second time. On the last occasion I was here, in 2007, Norbert Schmelzer was still with us. He died one year later. Norbert for me was a role model —someone you could look up to, someone who offered guidance, someone who always knew how to give European integration a deeper meaning in that he saw the European Union and its creation — the integration of a continent – in direct relation to European, and also Christian, values. So that is why I am glad to be here today.

When I was here in 2007, the world was very different to how it is now. We were full of optimism. It did not take much courage to support Europe, even though, after saying ‘No’ in 2005, many Dutch people found it hard to fully back Europe and the European Union. We are living in different times now. When I became President of the European Commission, it was already clear to me that we were living in a time of multiple crises. But I could not have imagined that it would become so serious, even though I raised the issue of refugee flows and migration in my address to the European Parliament at my hearing.

2007 was the year before the outbreak of the economic and financial crisis. Budgets were being brought under control, debt levels were coming down, unemployment was high though it had not reached current levels. That crisis, the financial and economic crisis, kept us on edge for years, particularly me, because I was unlucky enough to be President of the Eurogroup at the time.

We have not yet put that crisis behind us. But we have not been beaten by it because the countries of Europe, the Member States of the eurozone, found the strength to come together.

You will remember the issue of Greece. During the first half of last year we again came under extreme pressure to either prevent a Greek exit from the euro zone or speed it up. Some people were for, others against. I never wanted a Greek exit from the euro zone because slamming doors shut is not the way forward for Europe. And now we are plunged into other crises. The financial crisis did some good in that we were able to do two things: one, to remember the values — you spoke of Gaudium et Spes – that are the truly fundamental values of the European social market economy. One of the factors that brought about the crisis was because those primarily responsible disregarded the cardinal virtues of the social market economy. We know that now. Second, the crisis made us move forward with Economic and Monetary Union – something we had to do – so that today banks and the banking sector and the real economy are better prepared to withstand external shocks than they were in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Banking Union is making progress, though not as much as I would like. Banking supervision works. Everything we have achieved over the years is working well, although more must and will be done to complete Economic and Monetary Union.

It became clear to us in the aftermath of the crisis – and as I just said, the crisis is not yet fully over – that we needed to do more to address Europe's real issues. There is a virtuous triangle in European politics – as I explained to the European Parliament – consisting in the necessary consolidation of public finances. No one should think that public finances can be left to their own devices. Governments need to continue bringing down their deficits. Europe's deficit and debt levels are still too high.

The virtuous triangle is the consolidation of public finances, growth, and jobs and investment. Investment was the issue I pushed at the beginning of this Commission's term of office; if we compare the investment levels of recent years with those of 2007, we see that investment, whether public or private, is still 15 % down compared to 2007. And this applies to every country. Even Europe's biggest economy, Germany, has a level of investment that is 52 % lower than in 1991. There is therefore an investment gap in Europe that we are trying to address with the Investment Plan, which could mobilise €315 billion in public investment. €61 billion have already been mobilised under the Investment Plan in just three months.

It is not enough for Europe to talk about budgetary policy, economic policy, fiscal policy and so on. One must also show people that the European Union is also responsible, together with the Member States, for growth and jobs. Many of our fellow citizens hear only negative news about Europe: cuts, cuts and more cuts - and it was important when the Commission took office to talk about growth and jobs as well. Because Europe's biggest problem remains weak, very weak economic growth and scandalously high unemployment. In the years to come, we will of course also be judged on how we have dealt with the refugee crisis. But we will also have to answer questions as to why we have not been able to get unemployment down. And so this is a major, ongoing issue, alongside everything else we have to do.

The Commission receives an unending stream of criticism from many countries, which is understandable: they need the Commission to be a scapegoat when they are unable to do what they promised their electorate. This I bear patiently but ever less meekly. This Commission has achieved a paradigm shift, something we made clear in the election campaign, including here in the Netherlands, namely that European policies, and therefore the European Commission, deal with the really important issues facing Europe: to be big on big things and small and modest on smaller things

That is what we are doing. When I say this in elections and to the European Parliament, I get a lot of applause. But when it comes to the nitty-gritty, I get a rather different reaction. Because everyone sitting in the European Parliament, every national minister, everyone involved in politics has a very precise idea of what Europe ought to be doing. And if you ask what Europe ought not to do, again everyone has their own point of view. If it is then carried out, however, what an outcry there is. Led by Frans Timmermans, the first Vice-President of the Commission, we have emblazoned ‘better regulation’ on our banner because we think that Europe cannot go on dealing with everyone and everything; it gets on people's nerves. We prescribe, we demand, we sanction, things that no one is interested in.

We have taken yet another decision – one I knew nothing about because the decision was taken by the Member States but the Commission will be blamed anyway – this time to lay down how fast Christmas candles should burn. With a perfect sense of timing, we published it in the Official Journal of the European Union in time for the third Sunday of Advent. I was very surprised and wondered 'Who was responsible for that?'. It is said it was a Commission decision. But in fact it was the 28 Member States, acting at the behest of the candle industry. Only the United Kingdom and the Netherlands abstained; the UK and the Netherlands are often in the same boat, which is sometimes a good thing, though not always.

Consequently, we painstakingly examined all the draft legislation before the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers and withdrew over 80 drafts so that now only around 400 still have to be dealt with. We have announced 23 new initiatives. This is significant in that previous Commissions launched an average of 130 initiatives a year. And not all initiatives ended where they were supposed to. It is important to show that 'being big on the big things and small on the smaller things' is not just a slogan but what we genuinely do it. 'Better regulation' is of course also a very popular subject in the Netherlands, and we take it seriously in Europe too. I had and still have the impression that the more we interfere in people's everyday lives, the greater the already very considerable distance becomes between European citizens and European policies, and thus also the European Commission. Big ideas require big plans.

I am not talking about the Juncker Plan, though it’s a great thing (and it’s not called the Juncker plan just because I named it so but because many people thought that nothing would become of it and then it would be good if it bore the name of someone who could be blamed, so that is why the Investment Plan is called the Juncker Plan); I am talking about other things. We are taking European Energy Union very seriously. Energy is a continental matter, which makes such heavy demands on solidarity as do other matters. Energy union will come about. The digital internal market is being vigorously promoted, because, in digital terms, Europe lags behind other parts of the world and we have to reduce this digital gap. Banking Union and Capital Markets Union is another matter. Capital markets union is of key importance and is also being tackled in a very focused fashion. We have submitted all these plans and I am very glad that the European Parliament has endorsed all the projects, just as I am overall very pleased that the Commission and the European Parliament have found a new way of engaging with one another. It has always surprised me how it is that the Commission and Parliament always manage to argue in public over every little thing, even though they are the two Community institutions that should be working hand-in-hand to fashion the future of Europe.

I am the first Commission President to have been elected by the European Parliament, after we came up with the idea of choosing a leading candidate for the party lists. I have to believe that I was put into office by the people of Europe. I know so. Only the people themselves don’t know this; so we need to ensure that this method of selecting the Commission President – top candidate in a continent-wide election, Parliament approval – that this method does not disappear again. Because the European Council, shocked by the result of the first election, decided in June 2014 that for 2019 the way in which the European Commission President is appointed had to be reconsidered. And when 28 governments put their thinking caps on, the virtue of the outcome is not a God-given certainty and therefore every democrat needs to make sure that things remain as they are. There are quite a few former ministers here. And though it used not to be the case, sound common sense now follows what governments are doing, except that governments are far quicker. Thus sound common sense (which is not evenly spread across Europe anyway), does not fully succeed in getting through to the centres of government.

I am therefore very glad about the effective cooperation which the Parliament and the Commission have managed to achieve in the first twelve months of the new Commission, and I am very much of the view that the European Parliament wrongly comes in for criticism (often in the Netherlands too). People do not really understand the role of the European Parliament: it is a European legislator comparable with national parliaments and deserves the same degree of respect as national parliaments.

I said, in a moment of autobiographical weakness, that the new Commission (people only refer to the new Commission although it is already old and already has its first wrinkles) would be a political Commission because I had the impression, and still do, that the European project is increasingly seen as a problem rather than a solution. And that is precisely because we very often approach the continent's problems in a bureaucratic and technocratic manner. I have tried to change this by reinventing the Vice-Presidents of the European Commission and by giving them specific remits: for example, Frans Timmermans in the field of 'better regulation'.

These Vice-Presidents all come from small countries just as the Commission President comes from a small country - a Grand Duchy but a small country nonetheless. This is important because Commissioners and Vice-Presidents from smaller countries have different views on what needs to be done in Europe from the 'know-it-all's who arrive in Brussels from larger countries. And this really works very well.

I took care to ensure that fully mature and experienced professional politicians became Commissioners (not the way it once used to be, when the people sent to Brussels were those for whom no place could be found at home), but former Prime Ministers, four in all, and former Foreign and Finance Ministers so that in the Commission too, there is an overall understanding for the state of affairs and constraints facing the Member States. Many of those here today have, for their sins, attended Council meetings as national ministers. Now they are Commissioners, they understand better what they can propose and what they had better not propose because some governments would promptly object. To this extent, we are a political Commission in terms of our composition but also in the way we conduct political business in the Commission.

I said earlier that the Commission often comes in for a lot of criticism – we all used to be keen critics, though I am not quite so keen now; but that’s the way things are. What is not acceptable, though, is constantly seeking to take the Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, down a peg or two. Brussels does this, Brussels does that – Brussels is always doing something. And Brussels is always to blame for the dreadful state of the world. Brussels is to blame for a lot of things. But Brussels is not just 28 Commissioners. Brussels is also 28 governments. And it is quite impossible to dictate Europe’s direction against the will of the national governments and Member States. So when people say Brussels, they in fact mean themselves. The finger pointed at Brussels actually points to those who are always going on about Brussels, Brussels, Brussels. Yes, Brussels gets a lot of things wrong. But Brussels also does a lot of things right that governments would get wrong if Brussels weren’t there. So it does not help at all when people hurl criticisms of all sorts at the Commission, as the Italian Prime Minister has been doing these last few months; as the Polish government is doing; as the Finnish Foreign Minister did, when he said the Commission should not busy itself with the observance of fundamental rights in Poland, that was not Europe’s business but purely a matter for the Poles themselves – although the Treaty clearly calls on the Commission to watch over this kind of thing.

We now face a crisis – the refugee crisis – that we never thought would beset us. On taking office, the Commission devoted considerable space to the issue of migration, because we already sensed – sensed rather than knew – that something was coming. Anyone who has kept a careful eye on the world situation, anyone with a real concern for Africa rather than just talking about Africa, anyone who has observed the veritable exodus under way there over the years – there are 60 million refugees in Africa, 60 million of them – must have known something was coming. That it would happen on such a scale, in such concentration – that we never imagined. But that something was coming, quite literally – that we did know. As early as May last year, the Commission therefore put forward proposals – European proposals: namely that the refugees should be shared out – relocated – across all the Member States of the Union. The Council of Ministers approved the scheme last autumn. And the Member States – though not all of them – are refusing to implement their own decisions. It is the first time this kind of thing has happened in the European Union, for the Council to adopt legislation and then decide a few days later not to apply it. Here, we, the Commission will not back down from calling on the Member States to do what they have themselves decided. I know that it will not be easy. Because what is needed is not just for the Member States to be prepared to take in refugees – which they are increasingly willing to do, though not yet to the extent required. The refugees themselves must also be prepared to accept the invitation. What bothers me in particular – and we see it every day – is when refugees in Greece and Italy, especially Greece, simply choose where they want to go themselves. The refugees in Greece all say: Germany, Germany, Germany. That cannot go on. As a result, some countries have to bear a very heavy burden: Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands too – last year the Netherlands took in 57,000 refugees. That is twice as many as the year before. And this year the number will not be any lower unless we frame our policy to prevent it from happening. So we will have to focus hard on this issue all the time, making it clear to refugees – above all the genuine ones, not the economic migrants but the genuine asylum seekers who make their way to Europe to escape from war and violence – that it is not up to them to decide where to go, that it is up to the governments to decide where to assign them a home. Luxembourg was the first country to start implementing the decision. The Luxembourg government publicly announced in Greece that 30 refugees could come to Luxembourg. But no one wanted to go. It was like searching for a needle in a haystack to find 30 who were prepared to board a plane to Luxembourg – as if Luxembourg were the poorhouse of Europe. It is a very real problem and the message needs to be brought home again and again. It makes me weep to see the images that assail us. But it also has to be realised that the broad picture is not just black and white – yes, governments must do more, but refugees must also be cooperative.

We urgently need to strengthen the protection of our external borders, as is currently being done. On 15 December, the Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal for protecting the EU's external borders and coastlines, which governments approved in principle, although they are now having trouble implementing the decision. Council Working Groups, some 20 in total, are being held in which national representatives are saying precisely the opposite of what was backed by their heads of government at the European Council, which is holding up any real progress. However, if we fail to better protect our external borders, especially the border between Greece and Turkey, we will never manage to overcome the crisis. This is why, in Turkey and at its border with Greece, we have to bring the flow of refugees heading from Turkey to Greece, and then onwards to northern Europe under contIn the waters between Greece and Turkey, we now have NATO ships, although the exact demarcation is a subject of heated debate between the two NATO countries. NATO is helping, a fact which is proving difficult given Turkey’s reluctance to allow these ships into its waters. Nevertheless, we are managing to resolve the issue. Yesterday, Greece also began sending back refugees to Turkey – a fact which many are unaware of. Just yesterday, 308 refugees were returned. Although only a small number, this is the first time the readmission agreement between Greece and Turkey has actually been implemented.

With Turkey, we have agreed a Joint Action Plan, at a cost of €3 billion to Europeans. This is not €3 billion which will be handed over to Turkey, but €3 billion which will fund projects to help Syrian refugees in Turkey. We will be building schools and hospitals. There are hundreds of thousands of Syrian children currently living in Turkey who are not going to school despite being of school age. If we fail to manage the issue of helping children, in particular orphaned children, a lost generation will emerge. We cannot allow that. We must remain active on this front, as we currently are. Next week will see projects worth a total of €300 million getting under way, and over the coming years we will see more of the same if the need is still there.

Yesterday, the Commission agreed a €700 million emergency aid programme for Greece and other countries. However, the focus will be predominantly on Greece, given the large-scale humanitarian crisis beginning to unfold there – indeed, for many, it already exists. That is because Europe is not acting like it should. It is because there is not enough Union in the European Union and not enough Europe in the European Union, with Member States thinking that the refugee crisis can be solved by working alone, as nations. But only a European response can solve a Europe-wide problem that has been imported to Europe from other parts of the globe. Isolated national action, although sometimes understandable, in not welcome because when one country secures its own borders, this (a) does not solve the refugee problem and (b) will destroy the internal market completely.

People need to know that there are 1.7 million cross-border commuters in Europe. People need to know that 52.4 million cross-border freight transport operations occur each year in Europe. People need to know that it costs €53 when a lorry has to wait at a border for 30 minutes. Knowing how many lorries in the Netherlands travel between Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands every day, you can soon work out how much this costs. The internal market will not survive the refugee crisis if we do not manage to secure our external borders jointly and if we do not move away from this senseless policy of countries doing whatever they want, without any thought for the impact of their actions on the neighbouring Member States.

It is regrettable that border access has been restricted by Austria, as this basically closes the border between two Schengen countries. Doing so has nothing to do with protecting our external borders. When, much to my disliking, Hungary built a fence along its border with Serbia and Croatia, this could be called external border protection given that those countries are not part of Schengen. It is not the ideal form of protection, but so be it. However, by closing the border once more between two Schengen countries, we are slowly but surely destroying the European internal market and everything associated with it. Consequently, we must resist this kind of thing vigorously.

We could talk for hours about the refugee crisis. That is indeed what our heads of government have been doing for the last six months and will be doing again next Monday, when talks will finally be held with Turkey. I would like to thank you, Léon, for saying that without Turkey, there is no solution to the crisis. Turkey is certainly a difficult partner. I could also talk for hours about human rights, press freedom and similar issues in Turkey. However, on the matter of stemming the flow of refugees, Turkey is the European Union’s most important partner – although in principle I am not in favour of pushing back the flow since it is my view, based on the Christian values adhered to in the European Union, that we are duty-bound to offer a new home to those fleeing war and violence.

What has become of us? The richest continent in the world, with 500 million inhabitants, and yet to say from the outset that we would be unable to accept one or two million refugees. Talking to the King of Jordan and the Lebanese Prime Minister, as I do on a regular basis, leaves me feeling ashamed. Jordan, a country with 8-9 million inhabitants, has taken over 630 000 refugees from Syria, a figure which excludes the 500 000 Palestinian refugees. In Lebanon, 25 % of the population are refugees, newly arrived from Syria. And we, as Europeans, say we can’t manage. What must the others think of us? This is ‘reputation damage’ we are inflicting on ourselves: people around the world who have always looked at Europe with great hope are suddenly discovering that we are mired in our own egoism, unable to agree with one another in order to tackle the refugee crisis decently.

I am therefore urging Member State governments to resist those ideas which are springing up everywhere: for example, the idea of taking national measures after the end of an EU Presidency. This is not the road we should be going down in Europe. Likewise, we must not trivialise the refugee crisis. This is why I have said that there are also obligations for refugees. We need to see the overall picture, look at everything that is happening, with a sense of solidarity. And given that the mass migration will continue, we need a permanent distribution mechanism between the 28 Member States of the European Union.

We are currently living in a time of referenda. Mr Orbán, the Hungarian Prime Minister, is holding a referendum on the basis for distributing refugees between all 28 countries. And these referenda seem to be contagious. The United Kingdom will be holding its referendum on 23 June – although that cannot possibly go badly because it is also Luxembourg’s National Holiday. All will be fine. The Hungarians will be holding their referendum, and then the Dutch, with the good experience of referenda which there is here, will be holding theirs on 6 April. I will not be interfering. I once said it would be a bad idea to vote ‘no’ and was, in turn, savaged by the Dutch press, as if to say no one ever has the right to talk about matters concerning the Dutch people. Seen the other way round, this would mean that the Dutch no longer have the right to talk about matters affecting other people, which, if it were the case, would leave the Dutch newspapers half-empty. In this respect, I'll say it loud and clear: having one’s say without coming across like a schoolmaster is pointless. I have not come to the Netherlands to say: listen here; you should do this and that. This is not how things are done, most certainly not in the Netherlands.

It is no laughing matter, however. If the Dutch vote ‘no’, Europe will have a problem. That problem is destabilisation. We need to bear this in mind, because Ukraine expects Europe to stick to what was agreed. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that this is about Ukraine joining the EU. Many Dutch people I talk to in Brussels – ordinary people, not Commission officials – make that mistake. In reality, it is about trade and trade agreements. I can hardly imagine an old, successful trading nation like the Netherlands rejecting a trade agreement with a country, like Ukraine, that is so important for European stability. So let me repeat: we need to explain to people that it is not about EU accession. Ukraine will not join the EU during my term of office. In any case, I have said – rather bluntly – that there will be no new members over the next five years, because I do not believe any of the countries in waiting will fulfil the conditions in that time frame.

We have rushed things in the past when it comes to enlargement. I am also guilty, because I thought it was an historic event and that we had to reunite European history and geography. Hence the accession of the ‘new’ Member States (in 2004). In some cases, though, we jumped the gun, and we will not make the same mistake again. Ukraine will certainly not join the EU in the next 20 to 25 years. Nor will it join NATO, Secretary-General. I actually wanted to talk about the Dutch referendum, not lecture the Ukrainians, but I know many Dutch people are very worried that this will be the first step to Ukraine joining the EU. But we can definitely say that is not the case. I would therefore be happy if the Dutch voted ‘yes’, because it is about the Dutch, Europe and the other parts of Europe. Everybody who goes to the polls will be a statesman and should ask themselves what the final outcome would be if everybody else voted like them. I know the Dutch are practical people, and I expect them to vote ‘yes’ rather than ‘no’, because the last ‘no’ caused a lot of headaches in Europe. Luxembourg held the Council Presidency at the time, and now a Luxembourger is in the Commission President’s chair, and I do not want to have to go through that again.

Just a word on ‘Brexit’ – though without really saying anything, as I have resolved never to say much on the frequent occasions when I talk about it, since it would not be fitting for a Commission President to interfere in the British referendum campaign. The Commission is even more unpopular in the UK than in other countries, and it is quite an achievement to be unpopular in the UK. Everything a Commission President or the Commission says to the UK has unintended consequences. I would only say that the Prime Minister obtained as much as he could and the other 27 leaders gave as much as they could. It is a fair deal for the UK and for the other Member States. I would be very happy if we could consign the issue to confines of history as quickly as possible, because if it drags on for years, everything will go wrong in Europe. That is why there can be no renegotiation with the British, whom I am otherwise very fond of, after a ‘no’ vote. Not just because the Prime Minister voted against me as Commission President, but also because this time he was extremely glad we were able to help him sort out his problem, a problem of his own making.

When talking about Europe, we should not forget why, after the Second World War, the States of Europe decided not to repeat the crass errors of the last century. And the people returning home from the front and the concentration camps at the end of the war did not complain about the tasks that lay ahead as much as we do today. When I compare my life with my father’s it is clear to me that we are very fortunate. We grew up in bright sunshine, while others still have to live in darkness. Our fathers and grandfathers knew nothing but rain, thunderstorms and hail. So what is at stake is still the same. Verdun – 100 years ago. Verdun is a poignant story, because of the terrible things that happened there, but also because, at the end of the 1920s, young people from Germany and France shook hands on its battlefields. Then 10 years later it all started again – peace can never be taken for granted. Anyone who thinks peace is everlasting could not be more wrong. War is again being waged in Europe. When there was talk of war in Europe a couple of years ago, people laughed it off. No one is laughing any more after the events in Ukraine and Crimea. And we had no cause to laugh because 20 years ago war was raging in Bosnia, Kosovo and throughout the Balkans, which remains a highly complicated and sensitive region of Europe. That is why we must not lose sight of the Western Balkans when it comes to the refugee question.

So, I think that Europe will always benefit if we constantly remind people that it is a great project for peace. Those who do not believe in Europe, doubt it, or are exasperated by it should visit the graves of our wars.

Thank you "

Almere-Digest