“Het medicijn is zo sterk dat de patiënt sterft” – De Standaard 24/11

BRUSSEL – Het lijkt wel alsof men Griekenland wil doen boeten vanuit een soort calvinistische strengheid. ‘Men mag de Grieken hun waardigheid niet ontnemen’, zegt Annemie Neyts.
Duitsland en Nederland moeten niet te hoog van de toren blazen tegenover landen die in slechtere financiële papieren zitten, vindt Annemie Neyts. Zelf kampen ze met enorme samenlevingsproblemen. ‘Er is dus geen reden voor enige arrogantie’, zegt ze aan de telefoon op weg naar het Italiaanse Palermo.

Daar neemt ze vrijdag, na zes jaar, afscheid als voorzitter van de Europese Liberalen en Democraten, de derde politieke formatie in de EU. Ze geeft de scepter door op een bijzonder moeilijk moment voor Europa.

Wacht ons een een catastrofe?

‘Met de munt zelf is niets aan de hand. Het probleem zijn onze financiën, de financiële sector en de markten. Wat mij als goede liberaal meer en meer begint te ergeren, is dat men doet alsof de markten hoogstaande morele wezens zijn, die slechts één bekommernis hebben, namelijk begrotingsdicipline, terwijl de speculanten er vooral op uit zijn om in een zo kort mogelijke tijd een zo groot mogelijke winst te boeken.’

‘Dat gedrag moet aan banden worden gelegd. We moeten een mechanisme opzetten waarbij, indien nodig, zodanig veel middelen kunnen worden gemobiliseerd dat de speculanten daar niet meer tegenop kunnen.’

De rol van de Europese Centrale Bank moet dus worden uitgebreid?

‘De hoofdtaak van de ECB mag er niet in bestaan inflatie te voorkomen. Prijzenstabiliteit is belangrijk, maar men moet de bank ook de middelen geven om de crisis te bestrijden. Ik begrijp de bekommernis van de Duitsers die willen voorkomen dat de ECB een ongecontroleerde geldpers wordt, maar de slagkracht van de bank moet groot genoeg zijn. Men zou haar een mandaat moeten geven dat meer gelijkt op dat van de Amerikaanse Federal Reserve.’

Bespaart Europa zich niet kapot? Moeten we de koopkracht niet stimuleren en meer investeren?

‘De situatie in de lidstaten verschilt zo sterk, dat één maatregel niet voor alle landen kan gelden. Voor Griekenland mag men bijvoorbeeld geen medicijn toedienen dat zo sterk is dat de patiënt sterft. Men mag ook geen dingen opleggen die tegen het gezond verstand ingaan. Als men Griekenland nu dwingt om binnen de kortste keren alles te privatiseren wat geprivatiseerd kan worden, dan zal dat tegen dumpingprijzen gebeuren. Dat is niet verstandig. Men moet de hand aan de Griekse pols houden, maar hen toch ruimte laten.’

Nu laat men Griekenland te weinig ruimte?

‘Men laat hen geen enkele ruimte. Er zit daar een calvinistische strengheid in: de Grieken moeten boeten want ze hebben lichtzinnig gehandeld. Dat biedt misschien een soort morele genoegdoening, maar het moet economisch zin hebben en men mag de Grieken hun waardigheid en toekomstperspectief niet ontnemen.’

Er komt een scheiding in Europa, zoals door die ‘Triple-A meetings’.

‘Die aparte vergaderingen van sterke eurolanden als Duitsland, Nederland en Finland, dat is de arrogantie ten top.Ik denk dat de scheidingslijn te maken heeft met het moment waarop de verschillende landen door de crisis zijn geworsteld. Ze zijn allemaal door die fase gemoeten, alleen is dat in Zweden en Finland veel eerder gebeurd, namelijk begin jaren negentig. Ik zou dus zeggen: heb iets meer mededogen.’

‘Ik zou er ook willen op wijzen dat bepaalde buurlanden kampen met samenlevingsproblemen, die misschien niet terug te brengen zijn tot de financiële toestand, maar toch bewijzen dat het daar niet allemaal perfect is. Kijk naar Nederland en Duitsland, naar de armoede en het zinloos geweld daar. Er is dus geen reden tot arrogantie of misplaatste triomf.’

De liberaal Olli Rehn kreeg in de EU-Commissie meer macht om landen die niet genoeg besparen, te beboeten. Dat verzwakt de socialistische commissarissen.

‘De socialisten komen in dit hele debat hoegenaamd niet aan bod, niet omdat ze uitgesloten worden, maar omdat ze de grootste moeite hebben om met duurzame, beloftevolle alternatieven voor de dag te komen. Rehn is geen donkerblauwe karikatuur. Hij is eerlijk en fair. Als de socialisten daar niets kunnen tegenover stellen, is dat hun probleem.’

Waarvoor staat een Europese liberaal volgens u vandaag?

‘Voor een open, vrije samenleving waarin mensen kunnen bouwen aan de eigen levensloop, zonder anderen te schaden. Sommigen zijn van ons zijn meer aanhanger van Friedrich von Hayek en Milton Friedman dan ikzelf. Anderen hebben Keynes herontdekt. Maar niemand van ons laat zich herleiden tot een economisch receptenboekje. Voor ons is economie een middel en geen doel. Vandaar dat ik blij was te zien dat de Leuvense professor Paul de Grauwe ook niet langer een aanbidder is van de markten.’

U zet de liberalen in uw afscheidsrede af tegen de conservatieven.

‘Conservatieven zijn niet geneigd om a priori te wedden op de goedheid van de mensen. Zij zullen eerder wedden op de zwakheid van de mens, van het vlees.’

Een artikel van Evita Neefs in De Standaard 24/11, geraadpleegd op de website van De Standaard

Annemie Neyts opent laatste congres als voorzitter ELDR

Afgelopen ELDR congres in Palermo was Annemie Neyts haar 6de en laatste congres als voorzitter van de Europese liberale partij. Aan haar de eer om het congres te openen.

Dear Presidents, Leaders, Ministers, and Members of Parliament,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Friends,

 

It is my honour and pleasure to officially open the ELDR congress in Palermo, which is the sixth and last congress of my tenure as ELDR President. The realisation that an important chapter in my political life draws to a close fills me both with regret and joy. Regret because a wonderful period of hard work ends, and joy because of all the friendship and support I enjoyed during those six years, and hopefully will continue to enjoy in the years to come. Believe me: it is a good thing that our statutes limit the membership of the ELDR Bureau to a maximum of three successive terms. If this wasn’t the case I am indeed afraid that many of us would carry on way past the limits of our members’ endurance, because it is such an challenging and fulfilling undertaking to help shape European Liberalism.

 

Dear friends, before turning to the future, I have the sad task to ask you to share in the remembrance of two great Liberals who died in the last few months.

David Griffith was for years the devoted treasurer of successively Liberal International and ELDR, paying minute attention to our financial health and sustainability, and enlightening us with his vast wisdom and experience. His health had deteriorated these last few years, but he continued to come to Brussels as long as he possibly could. He died in August and will be regretted dearly by all of us.

 

Willy De Clercq was among the founders of ELDR in 1976, and was elected as its President in 1981. He remained our President until he resigned to become EU Commissioner for Foreign Trade at the end of that year. In that capacity he played a key role in opening up the world markets to European goods and services. In the meanwhile, he had presided over the adoption of the ELDR election Manifesto for the second direct elections of the European Parliament. When his Commission mandate ended, he resumed his participation in all major ELDR events, and so it came about that we could persuade him to run for the Presidency at the eleventh hour during our 1990 Congress in Ireland. He was duly elected and remained our President until 1994. And again he presided over the adoption of an election manifesto this time for the 1994 direct European elections.

 

I must confess that we gave him a harder time than you ever gave me during our congresses, but he always remained his kind, wise and benevolent self.

Willy De Clercq has been one of our strongest supporters through all of those years, and many of us keep the fondest of memories of his wife’s and his participation in so many of our events.

May I request a minute of silence in remembrance of our two friends?

 

Thank you.

 

 

Dear friends, we are assembled in Palermo, the capital city of an island that has played a key role in European and World history. As Leoluca Orlando reminds us, this is not only an islands graced by the Gods of Ancient times, it has been for centuries a meeting point of cultures, languages and religions. Alas, it has also been a battle field for most of the European dynasties.

It is also the unforgettable backdrop of Lampedusa’s classic novel “Il Gattopardo” in which the old patriarch says “everything has to change so that everything can remain unchanged.”

 

I don’t know whether that also applies to Europe, and maybe it does, more than we suspect. In any case, it is fitting that it was on this very island, in the city of Messinathat the foreign ministers of the six founding nations of Europe decided to launch the European Community. That momentous meeting took place in 1955. Two years later, in Rome, a Treaty was signed that indeed established a European Community.

 

The speed of it all was astonishing, especially if we contrast it with the painfully slow pace of the most recent institutional and regulatory adjustments. Some observers will remark that changes take longer when 27 members are involved, rather than the original 6. Unfortunately the gravest divergences occur not among the 27 member states, but precisely among the founding 6. So size is not the explanation. Then what is?

 

If we look back at the fifties, we should realise that the founding fathers anticipated on the impending changes and realised that they needed to unite better in order to withstand the challenges and threats that surrounded them. One was the irresistible economic growth and expansion of the United States which was a challenge, not a threat, and the other was the rise of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain that had been cruelly drawn right through the heart of Europe, a severe threat if there ever was one.

 

I would daresay that this spirit has survived through the decades, right until the resounding NO on the referenda in Denmark, France, Ireland and the Netherlands.

 

These days we are submerged under a tsunami of laments and articles by economists, political scientists, philosophers and other pundits who write that they had known all along that the Euro zone was a misfit and would never work; Paul Krugman, Noble Prize laureate, foremost among them.

I say, it is high time that we stop these laments, that we squarely face the situation and start doing something serious about it. The succession of small steps, each of them too little too late, should stop. If ever it was the moment to do something really bold, it is now. Several of our member parties are in government; the single largest ideological group in the Commission is formed by liberal commissioners. Together, we must lay the foundations for a renewed Union which succeeds in properly rebalancing the member states and the institutions of the Union. We are in this together; we should rescue ourselves before it is too late. And we can achieve this, if we start by looking soberly at the facts. The first fact I want to bring to your attention, is that the Euro currency is still, perhaps amazingly to some, going strong. The Euro still stands at about 1,35 dollars. It stood at 0, 87 dollars when it was introduced.   May I point to the fact that the Euro is NOT the problem; it holds most probably the solution.

 

So we should stop talking about the euro crisis because there is no euro crisis. But there certainly is a sovereign debt crisis. Here also, balance is probably the answer. The medicine to be administered should not be so strong as to kill the patient. Thirdly, something strong should be done about the market, the sacrosanct market. May I offer the opinion that there is no such thing as a benevolent, morally superior market, which is entitled to whip member states into discipline and conformity?   There are operatives, actors active on those markets, often acting as real predators anxious at making big bucks without any moral consideration whatsoever. We should not give them free rein. I am not sure that a financial transaction tax would do the trick, probably just the contrary, but we cannot allow pure speculators to destroy the very economic and financial fabric of our societies.

 

Of course the huge deficits must be diminished but at a rate and a pace that is sustainable and that leaves room for investment, perspective and hope.

Finally, we should anticipate the future.   Too often, the remedies which are devised are modelled on the last crisis, as if the next one will be a replica of that last one. Unfortunately, that is almost never the case. To drive a car while looking only in the rear window is dangerous business.

 

Foremost, we need to shake ourselves free from the paralysing fear, from the doomsayers. As I said in Helsinki last week, this is not the first crisis, or upheaval or whatever you want to call it, and it most probably won’t be the last. We have weathered the previous ones; we will weather this one, provided we believe sufficiently in ourselves and spread the hope around us.

I do very much wish that this congress will be the start of just such a renewal.

 

And, ladies and gentlemen I have one announcement to make which points to such renewal. Our secretary General Federica Sabbati is not among us, she began her maternity leave this week and is no longer allowed to fly because she will give birth for the second time in early December. Isn’t that a beautiful, a wonderful sign of hope?

 

I have a last duty to perform on this stage, and that is to present Markus Löning with a farewell present. Just as me, Markus has completed his six years mandate on the ELDR Bureau and therefore is leaving. Markus has been a wonderful colleague and one of the strong holders of the ELDR bureau. Therefore, in the name of all of us, I say: Markus, thank you so much and please accept this souvenir.

 

 

Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck

ELDR President

MEP

Annemie Neyts neemt afscheid als president van ELDR

Palermo, Friday 25 November 2011.

 

Dear President in waiting,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Friends,

 

One of my biggest weaknesses is that I absolutely hate farewells and goodbyes. I much prefer to tiptoe discreetly away, hide my regrets and come back later, in a different capacity and with a light heart. As this is not to be, I ask you to bear with me for a few more minutes.

As I hand over the ELDR presidency, it is fitting to make an inventory of the many strengths and the weaknesses of our party on this very day.

Among its strengths, the greatest one is certainly its staff: multinational, multilingual, talented, dedicated and fiercely loyal : one couldn’t wish for a better team. ELDR owns its office space, within walking distance of the European Parliament and that includes a meeting room for some 20 people. It offers not only a sense of belonging but could also serve as collateral, if that ever was needed. Highly unlikely for the moment because our finances are healthy and safe, but much will depend on the outcome of the next European elections. The size of our grant is indeed directly linked to the number of MEP’s elected on the lists of our member parties.

For it is an inescapable truth that ELDR’s strength depends on the strength of our member parties. ELDR is only as strong as they are and does weaken when they do.

The map of liberal Europe offers some stark contrasts. As this juncture, our political group in the EP has no members from Portugal, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Poland, the Republic of Cyprus and Malta. Several more of our member parties have disappeared from their national Parliaments as well. Two more seem on the brink of suffering the same fate in days to come.

This obviously is a sorry state of affairs and it won’t be easy to correct, but we must continue to attempt it. We greatly increased our efforts towards party building with seminaries and trainings both “in theater” if I may say so and in Brussels. The truth however is that you cannot found nor build nor even sustain a political party from the outside. What you need for party building are teams of women and men “in loco”, “on the spot” with the will, the motivation and the ambition to build and sustain a political, in this case a liberal party.

My liberal heart bleeds when I watch liberal parties, and that includes my own, resign themselves to decline.

The explanations are many, some of them well founded, but resignation is certainly not the answer.

One of the most frequent explanations is that liberalism is unpopular and one is then told that this has been the case since the 19th century or, more recently, that the preset financial turmoil doesn’t exactly provide a good context for liberal proposals.

About two years ago ELDR and ELF, together with a team of academics decided to verify the validity of such allegations. We conducted a survey in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Austria to find out whether or not the basic tenets of liberalism (most of them to do with individual freedoms) are popular and, more critically, to what degree the public associates them with the self-avowed liberal parties.

We found that liberal ideas are indeed widely approved but that they are not spontaneously attributed to liberal parties. On one point however the respondents in Hungary, Bulgaria and Poland diverged from liberal orthodoxy. They trust the state more than the private sector to provide jobs and overall security.

A first tentative conclusion is that the weakness of liberalism in those countries is not due to the feeble degree of acceptance of liberal ideas, but is most probably linked to the weakness of the parties that are supposed to embody them.

These findings and the too  many blind spots on the map of European liberalism literally lay out for us the work that needs to be done in the years to come.

It may very well be that economic liberalism is in dire need of reinvention and refoundation and to start doing that would certainly be most exciting. Imagine : ditching Ayn Rand, rediscovering Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill (although he calls himself a socialist in his autobiography) wouldn’t that be truly, really exciting?

Giving liberal humanism pride of place, reducing economics to what they are: a means, and not an end. Wouldn’t that be just as exciting?

But in the meanwhile we absolutely need to look after and care for “the little ones” as we say in Dutch, I mean in this case, the member parties.

We are nearing the half term of the European legislature. The new bureau and its President face the daunting, but exciting task to prepare the next European elections, and to prepare them well. Our whole future depends largely upon them.

If I can be of any help, you can count on me.

En attendant, I wish you well and thank you for all your support.

 

 

Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, MEP.