Skip to main content

An example of standardized answers from the European parties in power

... and another proof of their devotion to neoliberalism

by system failure

Standardised answers from the European parties in power is a characteristic that someone can easily observe especially during the period of economic crisis. The uniformity of arguments is quite impressive through the whole eurozone, despite the special conditions in each country, and this is another indication of the pan-european unification of the neoliberal forces against political parties that threaten their domination.

Such an example is a discussion between Hannes Swoboda, of the European Socialists in euro-parliament and Joseph Paul, of the European People's Party, for the France24 network and EuroparlTV of the euro-parliament.

The journalist asks among other things: “Up till now, the two large groups have shared the European Parliament, 2,5 years each, as neither of you could form an absolute majority. Will that change much this time?

Among other things, Daul says that: “On 25 May we'll wait for the election results. [...] but I think the democratic parties will keep the majority in the Parliament.

Here, one can see clearly the dominant perception of the European parties in power. It's the same perception that is continuously propagated by the mainstream media, which is that, only the parties from the "centre" should be considered "democratic", as if they have the "copyright" of Democracy. They are of course the same parties that completely adopted cruel austerity and have chosen to save banks instead of people. They are the same parties that criminalized demonstrations in Spain and Greece. They are the same parties that are trying to destroy the social state in Europe. They show us clearly how they realize democracy.

To another question, Swoboda says among other things: “The centre dominates the evolution of the policy in Europe. It's the centre right and the centre left. Secondly, one must observe that these aren't concrete proposals from the far left or the far right. Thye're a facade with no content. They're words and mainly negative words. We cannot build a strong Europe, a Europe that serves the interests of citizens, with words. We need actions, visions and concrete proposals. And we, the Socialists offer concrete proposals.

Daul rushes to agree:

... but, as Hannes Swoboda said, we can't manage policy just with slogans.

Here is clear that, the political thinking of the European parties in power coincides perfectly by considering that they are the only ones that have concrete suggestions. This standardised "argument" is used all the time in Greece too by the parties of the government coalition. It is so standardised that ends to be a ... slogan.

This shows that there is a central management of the way with which the parties in power face the rival political forces in Europe, which means that, the parties in power in Greece - a country, which is the centre of the European crisis - are taking probably specific orders from the corresponding parties in Europe to use a specific rhetoric.

But this is also an indication of the unification of the neoliberal lobby, which is self-considered as "moderate centre" and thinks that it is the only one that has "realistic" proposals in contrast with the "far" Left for example. It's not a surprise since these proposals are totally favor big capital's interests which funds to a great extend those parties.

Socialists, especially, instead of criticize the proposals of the Left, they prefer to propagate that the Left has no proposals. This is also something that someone should expect, as Socialists appear that they are trying desperately to regain the "exclusivity" of the social sensitiveness.

An independent Left as a pure representative of people's anger against big capital interests, cannot be easily managed. Socialists, instead, can be good to everyone: on the one hand they vote every bill in favor of the big capital which funds them, on the other hand, they pretend that they fight for the majority's rights, throwing a few "crumbs" to the people to justify their "Socialistic" ideology and heritage.

Swoboda's anxiety to the next question is characteristic:

Journalist question: “On the other hand, during the crisis, it's a fact that a lot of people expected the Socialists to have a response. That response didn't come and you didn't act as the counterbalance to austerity.

Swoboda: “We did respond, but we don't have the majority. That's why we are fighting for a social Europe, a Europe without austerity, a Europe that respects social rules, a Europe that wants to improve transform and change the directive on the posting of workers. We need to change Europe. We're not defending the Europe of today. We need change and that's our response.

Swoboda forgot that the destructive IMF was brought by his colleague, president of the Socialist International, George Papandreou, that the head of IMF then was another "Socialist", Dominique Strauss-Kahn and that, the man who replaced Papandreou in the Greek Socialist Party (PASOK) leadership, Evangelos Venizelos, has chosen to adopt politics of destruction by making a coalition with the neoliberal Right in order to stay in power.

He also forgot that, Socialists in the euro-parliament allowed a nationalist, Nigel Farage, to monopolize the reaction against politics of destruction and therefore, allow his popularity reach high levels and gain high percentage for his party. Farage, for his own reasons of course, dared to say truths when his party had minimum power in the euro-parliament. Where were the "Socialists" then?

Additionaly, his rhetoric appears to be characterized with something that himself blames the Left and the "far": it is full of generalities, wishes and therefore without substantial proposals.

In a next question, journalist asks: “Mr. Swoboda, in Greece we've seen that the economic crisis has brought to the fore the Greek far left in the person of Alexis Tsipras who is the driving force. Do you not think today that in the end you will lose a whole section of your voters who will move to the far left? In addition, this Greek far left has a figurehead, Alexis Tsipras, who might stand as President of the Commission. Don't you think you could lose support?

The answer of Swoboda: “Yes, in some countries like Greece we'll lose a few voters. That's true. It's because of the crisis but it's also the response to the crisis. I was, for example, against the Troika because it would like to destroy the social resources or to destroy the social state. That's why the far left has gained support. And that's why we, as Socialists, have asked the European Commission and the majority of contributors, the majority of the EPP and the Member States, to change the structure. Greece must be reformed, but without this destruction of the social state. We must clearly stop the work of the Troika. We must ask for practical reforms of the state, but there must be respect for the needs of the social strata. [...] What are Mr. Tsipras' alternatives? He can't propose any alternatives.

What is remarkable here is that SYRIZA is considered far Left, despite the fact that its leader is a candidate for the leadership of the European Commission! But there is also a big contradiction in Swoboda's arguments since he states clearly that he is against Troika's policies and that these policies must change so that the destruction of the social state to be stopped, but instead of seeking a support from the "far" Left, which is coordinated to this perception, he insists on seeking alliances with the European People's Party, which is basically responsible for the adoption of those neoliberal, destructive policies through the whole Europe!

Next, Swoboda insists on the standardised "argument" concerning the lack of an alternative proposition from the Left, targeting personally Alexis Tsipras, but it seems that he ignores the fact that his Socialist colleague in the euro-parliament, Hoang Ngoc, quite recently, contradicted Othmar Karas of the European People's Party, who supported (as expected), that Tsipras has no realistic proposals. Ngoc said that SYRIZA's president came in Strasbourg with specific proposals.

Swoboda's answer to a next question clearly shows that Socialists are determined to support the neoliberal Right in Europe, excluding any possible alliance with the "uncompromising" Left:

Journalist: “When we see that the European United Left could become the third party, could overtake the Liberals and perhaps make unnatural alliances, could you see yourself making an alliance with that group?

Swoboda: “No. We make alliances with parties in the centre. Of course, we have discussions about specific collaborations with the far left, if the far left can accept the rules of democracy, can accept the rules for participating in practical negotiations. But we've often found the far left in this Hemicycle making demands upon demands, but if the vote is needed to support a pragmatic solution, a compromise, they withdraw support. It's unacceptable.

It would be useful if Swoboda could make clear what he means by saying "pragmatic solution" and "compromise". Does he mean the full retreat of the Socialists to the neoliberal doctrine? Who is the one who decides about the rules of Democracy? Banks or multinational corporations?


  1. Anonymous26/2/14 05:12

    Outstanding story there. What occurred after? Take care!

    My blog post; τεχνικός υπολογιστών


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Τραγωδία στο Μάτι και δεξιό παρακράτος: νέα στοιχεία για πιθανή επιχείρηση προβοκάτσιας

globinfo freexchange     Όπως είχαμε επισημάνει ήδη από τον Σεπτέμβριο του 19, η εγχώρια μιντιακή χούντα και οι καθεστωτικές μαριονέτες της Μητσοτακικής δεξιάς είχαν επιλέξει τελικά να ρίξουν το μεγαλύτερο βάρος της αντι-ΣΥΡΙΖΑ προπαγάνδας σε δύο βασικούς πυλώνες: στη συμφωνία των Πρεσπών και στην τραγωδία στο Μάτι.    Όσο περνούσε ο καιρός και αφού κατακάθισε η σκόνη της μιντιακής προπαγάνδας, όλα έδειχναν ότι το σενάριο μιας πιθανής προβοκάτσιας στην υπόθεση "Μάτι" ενορχηστρωμένης από το δεξιό παρακράτος (όσο και αν αυτό φάνταζε εξωφρενικό), δεν θα μπορούσε να αποκλειστεί.   Τα πρώτα ισχυρά σημάδια για την πιθανότητα ενός τέτοιου σεναρίου τα έδωσε το ίδιο το καθεστώς Μητσοτάκη με την επιβράβευση των υπεύθυνων αξιωματικών για τη διαχείριση της φωτιάς στο Μάτι, οι οποίοι πήραν προαγωγή! Κάτι φυσικά που απέκρυψαν επιμελώς όλα τα συστημικά κανάλια της μιντιακής χούντας (στην οποία ανήκει ασφαλώς και η Μητσοτακική ΥΕΝΕΔ) που στηρίζει σύσσωμη το καθεστώς. Πρόσφατα, ήρθαν και νέα

The death of neoliberalism

New Economic Thinking     Market fetishists may not know it yet, but it's over. Suresh Naidu breaks down neoliberalism, and why it can no longer support itself.  

Day 806: Julian Assange still in prison

failed evolution   World's number one political prisoner, Julian Assange, still in high security prison for exposing horrendous war crimes carried out by the US imperialists and their allies.     

Day 821: Julian Assange still in prison

failed evolution   World's number one political prisoner, Julian Assange, still in high security prison for exposing horrendous war crimes carried out by the US imperialists and their allies.      

The notorious London spy school churning out many of the world’s top journalists

The fact that the very department that trains high state officials and agents of secretive three letter agencies is also the place that produces many of the journalists we rely on to stand up to those officials and keep them in check is seriously problematic.   by Alan Macleod   Part 3 - The British invasion Unsurprisingly for a university based in London, the primary journalistic destination for Department of War Studies graduates is the United Kingdom. Indeed, the BBC, the country’s powerful state broadcaster, is full of War Studies alumni. Arif Ansari, head of news at the BBC Asian Network, completed a masters analyzing the Syrian Civil War in 2017 and was soon selected for a leadership development scheme, placing him in charge of a team of 25 journalists who curate news primarily geared toward the substantial Middle Eastern and South Asian communities in Great Britain. Many BBC employees begin studying at King’s years after their careers have already taken off, and balance their pr

OPCW chief misleads UN with new lies, excuses on Syria cover-up

The Grayzone Facing growing outcry, OPCW Director General Fernando Arias went before the United Nations Security Council and told new falsehoods about his organization’s Syria cover-up scandal — along with more disingenuous excuses to avoid addressing it. Scholar and researcher Piers Robinson joins Aaron Maté to debunk Arias' latest evasions and distortions.  

Reddit captured by national security state

Redacted Tonight   Lee Camp looks into the fall of Reddit. The website was originally a bastion of free speech where antiestablishment viewpoints and news could be amplified over the corporate propaganda that people in the modern west are used to. The ruling class wouldn't allow that to stand. It's a sad story that has brought us to this point where the front page of Reddit acts as a repository for corporate and State Department propaganda. 

Roger Waters bravely gives the finger to Facebook's oligarch

Roger Waters   Zuckerberg was a little prick when he was grading co-eds. Being very rich changes nothing, he’ll always be a little prick!  

The notorious London spy school churning out many of the world’s top journalists

The fact that the very department that trains high state officials and agents of secretive three letter agencies is also the place that produces many of the journalists we rely on to stand up to those officials and keep them in check is seriously problematic.   by Alan Macleod   Part 5 - The Bellingcat Boys While the journalists cataloged above are not spooks, some other Department of War Studies figures working in journalism could possibly be described as such, particularly those around the influential and increasingly notorious investigative website Bellingcat . Cameron Colquhoun, for instance, spent almost a decade at GCHQ, Britain’s version of the NSA, where he was a senior analyst running cyber and counter-terrorism operations. He holds qualifications from both King’s College London and the State Department. This background is not disclosed in his Bellingcat profile, which merely describes him as the managing director of a private intelligence company that “ conduct[s] ethical in

The bourgeoisie did not respect its heavy heritage

232 years later, regression towards the new Feudalism  by system failure It was 14th July of 1789 when the representatives of the bourgeoisie in France promised a different world. Indeed, authoritarianism and depression by Monarchy and Feudalism brought naturally a desire for a more equitable society. The triplet "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" was not a simple slogan reproduced to become a cliche, but represented the pure willing of the majority for a big change. 128 years later, another revolution, in Russia this time, promised to impose the implementation of those things declared in 1789, as the proletariat was building a class consciousness and the bourgeoisie had already abandoned its initial declarations. Several decades since then, two ostensibly different worlds were fighting against each other. On the one hand, the Soviet Communism that imposed a direct state authoritarianism and a monstrous bureaucracy, on the other, the indirect authoritarianism by the Western stat