Objectif Liberté: An Open Letter to Martin Schultz and parliament's president Hans-Gert Pöttering

The following letter has been sent by the Hayek Institute in reaction to some unacceptable claims issued by Martin Schulz, Chairman of the Party of European Socialists group in Brussels Parliament.

La lettre qui suit a été envoyée par l'Institut Hayek en réaction à des propos inacceptables tenus par M. Martin Schulz, président du groupe socialiste au parlement européen.

---------
An Open Letter to Martin Schultz, Chairman of the Party of European Socialists group in the European Parliament, representative from Germany, and parliament's president Hans-Gert Pöttering.

Dear Mr Deputy, Dear Mr. President,

Many people are deeply shocked by the reaction of Mr Schulz, Chairman of the European Socialists group, to the widely applauded speech given by Mr. Vaklav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, to the European Parliament on Thursday, Feb. 19.

Several papers reported the following Martin Schulz's declarations. According to the own web page of the socialist group, Mr Schulz said that:

"We take note that a person who is totally isolated was applauded by a mixture of anti-Europeans and neo-fascists. He made a speech that shows he has no understanding of democracy or the workings of the European institutions. My message to Mr Klaus is that the Treaty of Lisbon will be put into effect."

We, European liberals, feel deeply shocked and insulted by the grotesque assimilation made by Mr. Deputy Schulz, asserting that those those who Applauded Mr. Klaus could only be anti-Europeans and neo-fascists.

This attempt to associate some of the people who feel unhappy with the ways the european construction has been driven in the recent years, whose point of view is brilliantly defended by Mr. Klaus, to « anti europeans », and more shockingly, to « neo fascists », is an awful resurrection of old stalinist or goebbelsian tactics, when abject ab hominem attacks took place as sole arguments to justify the prosecution of dissents.

Surprisingly, these awful comments came from a man who has been himself insulted in the rudest way by Mr. Silvio Berlusconi, in a famous incident that is emphasized on Mr. Schulz Wikipedia page. We could have expected more measured words from a man who has been placed in the same situation that the one we're denouncing today.

No, Mr. Schulz, people who, all around the world, applauded Mr. Klaus, are neither « anti-europeans » nor « neo-fascists ». First, you surely noticed that Mr. Klaus, in his speech, carefuly repeated twice that according to him, there were no alternative to a succesful european integration for his country. Only the modalities this integration was conducted seemed disputable in his regard, as they seemed highly disputable to the people of three countries who rejected, for different reasons, either the projected european so called « constitutional treaty », or the lisbon treaty. Would Mr Schultz dare to say that all Nay-voters were « anti-europeans » or « neo-fascists » ? I hope, not. Perhaps ordinary people have, according to Mr. Schulz own words, no understanding of democracy and the way european institutions are working. Stupid people, indeed, but you shoud show more respect to the people who disagree with your own views of what Europe should be, if you want most people to love the european idea, instead of considering Europe as a problem.

Secondly, Mr. Klaus, as a genuine liberal, who made so much for rebuilding his country after more than 40 years of submission to the most awful dictatorship, can hardly be dismissed as a « neo-fascist » by association, as Mr. Schulz attempted to do. Assuming that every people who oppose the way the european construction is currrently driven could be assimilated to a « neo-fascist » makes me fear that it's Mr. Schulz who lost his understanding of what democracy really is.

This fear is reinforced when Mr. Schulz claims that « the Lisbon Treaty will be put into effect », despite having been rejected by one member country, and carefuly taken away of any general ballot in every other country of the union, even when polls showed that public opinions were in deep disagreement with their parliamentary representation.

Let me remind you, Mr Schulz, why so many people deeply attached to individual liberties don't like the Lisbon treaty, no more than they liked the « constitutionnal treaty ». This treaty conveys a deeply flawed approach of the principle of subsidiarity that is consubstantial with individual freedom. The treaty makes clear that states keep their competence over legislative fields, only when the european level didn't exercise its own. We know that this principle is already badly reverted in many member states of the union, you might understand that adding a layer of institutions that keep the power of deciding the ways our lives should be lead away from us, doesn't provoke enthusiastic reactions from freedom lovers.

This feeling is alas reinforced by many directives that have been voted by the european parliament in the previous years, ruling over and over more and more aspect of our everyday life, sometimes in way that seem totally absurd to the rest of us. We're astonished when TV channels show us how short and superficial the debates over directives are, and how expeditive the voting process seems to be. We fear that the power could be confiscated by bureaucrats with absolutely no democratic legitimity when we realize that european parliament has no real power on its legislative agenda.

For all these reasons and others, europeans liberals are backing president Klaus when he stands up as one of the only people with some influence in the union, who wants to correct all these basic flaws in the way the current european institutions are working.

I understand that you could feel uneasy when Mr. Klaus asserts that most of the current priorities of the european institutions « are, moreover, driven by the ambitions of professional politicians and the people connected to them, not by the interests of ordinary citizens of the member states ». As a professional politician yourself, you might feel offended by such a claim. Just be careful that it's not an isolated point of view of a so called « isolated man », as you depicted him, but a growing feeling amidst more and more people in the union. You won't avoid a debate about the confiscation of powers by a class of professional politicians just by treating those who dare to applaud to such denounciations with adjectives like « populists » or « neo-fascists ». Limiting the power of professional politicians to confiscate our liberties, is the just cause Vaclav klaus is defending, and that's why most european liberals stand so strongly aside him in this fight.

At least, I would say to Mr. president Hans-Gert Pöttering, that when he argues that « in a democracy, it's the view of the majority that matters », this is true only if the view of the majority doesn't impose undue burdens to the minorities, and can't be imposed at the expense of individual's basic rights. This very basic understanding of what the democracy is, or at least should be, should never be forgotten by our european representatives, especially their president.

Yours respectfully,

Vincent BENARD,
President of Insitut Hayek, Brussels
http://www.fahayek.org

-------
nb. Hans Gert Pöttering est issu des rangs du PPE et non du PS, comme le lien vers sa citation pourrait le laisser croire.

Commentaires

Vous pouvez suivre cette conversation en vous abonnant au flux des commentaires de cette note.

Bravo !
je comprends mieux maintenant les huées qui ont acceuilli le pourtant très beau discours de Klaus...

Rédigé par : LOmiG | jeudi 26 février 2009 à 10h05

Bravo ! J'ai été choqué par le compte-rendu qu'Arte a fait de ce discours. La caque sent toujours le hareng.

PS : on dit "AD hominem".

Rédigé par : Jan Laarman | jeudi 26 février 2009 à 19h47

Bravo pour cette lettre qui voit juste. Les constructivistes européens sont engagés si loin dans leur meccano européen inextricable qu'on se demande pour qui ils fabriquent tant de complexité (sinon pour auto-justifier et faire perdurer leur condition de privilégiés). Problème : quand on échafaude un édifice européen si sophistiqué, on court le risque évident de dégoûter les résidents de la Maison Europe. C'est ce qui se produit. Une armée de technocrates retranchée dans sa tour d'ivoire d'un côté, une foule de citoyens désabusés par tant d'euro-intégrationnisme obsessif de l'autre.

Rédigé par : Dangar | vendredi 27 février 2009 à 09h53