I was surprised when the BBC in its TV news bulletins yesterday (Monday 16th of January) interviewed our Nick Clegg by way of reaction to the infamous Trump interview by Gove and Bild Zeitung. Nick said that Britons and Europeans need to realize that from Trumps Inauguration, Europa has two big powers’ presidents who wish the EU to disintegrate; his words were “who wish the EU ill”.
In a previous posting, I enumerated how Socialist parties in the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain have withered away; and how leaders of such parties like Corbyn and the Dutch Lodewijk Asscher (presented as a May ally in the BBC evening News, Friday 13th) are withdrawing or flip-flopping on the support their parties have given for 30 years to the Four Freedoms of the Common Market.
Today I look at the history and state of some Social Liberal parties in the EU.
- In the Netherlands, D66 from 2006 survived and recovered from a serious internal crisis by unifying and battling the emergence of Geert Wilders and his PVV political party (formally launched in that years general election; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_66#1986-present ). From 3 seats in parliament (with 150 seats; about the proportion of the LibDems in the Commons) we’ve surged to 12 seats in the 2012 general elections; and pollsters give us plenty of extra potential.
- In Spain, part of the political and social revolt against the corrupt and paralyzing duopoly of PP (conservative, catholic) and PSOE (social-democratic), which had crushed the 1980’s social liberals CDS of ex-prime minister Adolfo Suarez (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_and_Social_Centre_%28Spain%29 ), was the emergence not only of the leftwing radicals of Podemos, but also the social liberals of Ciudadános (“Citizens”), now a supporting party of the second Rajoy government (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_%28Spanish_political_party%29 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Rajoy_Government#Investiture ).
- In Austria, the formally “Liberal” FPOe showed its true colors in the years around 1990 when Jörg Haider became its leader and convinced the OeVP Christian Democrats to form a government (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Party_of_Austria#Haider_leadership_ ). In 1993, the true liberals in the FPOe resigned from the party over a xenophobic petition drive, and founded “Liberales Forum” (LiF; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Forum; and its German Wikipedia equivalent), which immediately got “parliamentary party-status” in the Austrian parliament. FPOe left the Liberal International and LiF took its place. But LiF struggled to gain seats in parliament and councils because the old Duopoly-parties SPOe (socialists) and OeVP, and the rapidly surging FPOe (with neonazi undercurrents) diminished the available electoral space, and also because of the Austrian electoral thresholds. After not gaining any seats in the 2010 Vienna city council, it switched course and merged (2013-14) with other liberals to form NeOs ( das Neue Oesterreich; New Austria).
LiF had joined the ELDR/ALDE party in the European Parliament from 2005; NeOs gained a euro-seat in 2014 as ALDE member. In 2015 it gained seats in the councils of Vienna and its suburbs, and some provincial cities. In 2016 it was part of the coalition which got the Green politician Van der Bellen elected as Austrian President, against a FPOe opponent. NeOs has consistently advocated a EU-federalist future, in 100% contradiction with the FPOe.
- I don’t have to tell you how you LibDems again are fulfilling the promise of your Phoenix bird party logo after the May 2015 electoral disaster. Congratulations!
- In Denmark, the social-liberal “Radikale Venstre” (RV; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Social_Liberal_Party ) steadfastly refused to follow or copy the rightist-Liberal “Venstre” party in accepting a supporting role of the xenophobic, ultra-nationalist “Danish People’s Party”, DF) for its governments, but like D66 put itself as the 100% opponent of the DF (DF and Geert Wilders are old allies). In 2011-’15 when Venstre was in opposition, RV joined the Social Democrats (its usual ally since the 1990’s) in a government which showed that you don’t have to accept DF’s xenophobic dictats to govern well. RV party leader Margrethe Vestager (in 2011-’14 cabinet minister) became European Commissioner for Competition and started harassing the big boys in international business.
- In Belgium, the liberal PVV (founded in the 19th century) switched from being rightist- to social-Liberal due to the conversion of its leader, Guy Verhofstadt in 1987-’91; he re-branded the party as VLD (Flemish Liberals & Democrats; from 2007 Open VLD; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Vlaamse_Liberalen_en_Democraten ). During its transformation, it absorbed the progressive wing of the “Volksunie” (VU), which split up and disappeared (the other wing, the Flemish-nationalist NVA, dominates Flemish regional politics). Both PVV and especially (Open) VLD firmly opposed the “Vlaams Blok”, extreme Flemish nationalists with family ties to Nazi collaborators in both World Wars. Verhofstadt and VU liberals like Sven Gatz (who in 2001 co-edited a volume of articles about the social-liberal tradition in Belgium and Holland; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Gatz ) have been EU-federalists and staunch opponents of Vlaams Blok, the Le Pens and Farage.
In the continental countries with strong Fascist or Nazi parties in their past (Austria, Holland, Belgium, Spain) we presently see a resurgence of social-liberal and EU-federalist parties. And in the UK, the Liberals and LibDems were the only “federal” party with a staunchly pro-European line, and a tradition of opposition to rightist, xenophobic extremists like Enoch Powell, the Referendum Party of James Goldsmith, and UKIP after that.
D66 in the Netherland has launched its campaign for the General Elections in March 2017 with (in the polls) 150% of the number of seats of Asschers Labour party (PvdA). The LibDems are successfully fighting a reconstruction struggle to replace Labour like Labour replaced the Liberals in the 1920’s. In Spain Ciudadános does (and PSOE and Podemos don’t) have influence on government. And the Radikale Venstre is again in the forefront of the opposition to a Venstre-DF coalition strengthening their previous anti-immigrant and xenophobic laws. And now Trump is signaling to anti-EU populists all over Europe that he will support their destructive politics.
My proposal: let’s unite as social-liberal parties and try to become the nucleus, hard core of a pro-EU fightback against Populists, Trumpists and of course Putin and his (social) media trolls. We don’t want to break up ALDE; but we can co-operate more strongly to consolidate each other’s anti-Brexit, anti-EU breakup, and anti-Populist stands.
* Dr. Bernard Aris is a historian, a D66 parliamentary researcher and a LibDem supporting member.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
John Smith
Peter Martin
expats
theakes
14 Comments
Agree completely, but we must also stand against left wing populism of all types too. Some of Trump’s economic positions are inherently leftist – pro tariffs, pro re-industrialisation, opposition to TPP / NAFTA / job offshoring and ISDS – all classic leftist proposals.
Even in the UK there is support for leftist populism – renationalisation of rail / mail / NHS services, opposition to foreign governments running or providing public services and infrastructure, anti banker sentiment and much of the Brexit campaign was about socking it to Goldman Sachs and the City.
It is feasibly possible that unless liberal economics and liberal social views with a global focus become the official opposition, the people may consider the alternative to right wing populism to be left wing nationalism – a sort of SNP / Red UKIP mould.
There is a precedent for this proposal: in 1924 leaders of the French Radical party and Radikale Venstre founded a confederation of social- or leftist Liberal parties, including the Dutch D66 predecessor VDB, the British Liberals (from 1928), and the Weimar-German DDP of Rathenau; in 1931 it accepted Spanish-Catalan predecessors of Ciudadános. There was a separate confederation of more conservative liberal parties (as far as they, more nationalist-minded, were interested).
The Social-Liberal confederation shared a feminist position, and witnessed a touching reconciliation of its German and French politicians; but due to very different religious (catholic, protestant, Lutheran) and national-politcal heritages, the confederation never rose above the level of a (very friendly, enthusiastic) debating club. In 1935 the Liberals hosted the conference of member parties of this “Radical Entente”; Liberal MP Sir Percy Harris was very active in those conferences (and was 1946-7 co-founder of the Liberal International; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Harris ).
The Radical Entente never explicitly addressed the rising Fascist and Totalitarian threat as a conference agenda point (as far as I can see); but more or less supported the French Radicals’ participation in the “Popular Front”-government of Blum with the different Socialist parties (as an alternative to Action Francaise, Croix de Feu and other Rightists). In 1939 its planned conference was canceled due to war breaking out.
My source for this short Radical Entente history is the Ph D thesis on the Interbellum predecessor of D66, the VDB, by Dr. M.H. Kleinsma.
Good piece, I like to hear how liberals in other European states are faring.
Could you please follow common practice and write your full references at the bottom of the article or add hyperlinks to single words?
It’s very difficult to read when the text is so frequently interrupted by full hyperlinks.
‘Nick said that Britons and Europeans need to realize that from Trumps Inauguration, Europa has two big powers’ presidents who wish the EU to disintegrate; his words were “who wish the EU ill”.’
Maybe – but doesn’t that stance rest on the tacit assumption that all this was permanent? I don’t think anyone ever promised a pro-EU, pro-NATO US President in perpetuity did they? Certainly I fail to see why a US President should be obligated to see the geopolitical situation as pickled in aspic. At it’s most basic I wouldn’t want to be the one that explains to Rust Belt Americans that NATO is in their interests.
My point I suppose is that I don’t think that any of this was unforeseeable. Frankly the alarm bells were ringing for 8 years under Bush. At its worst some people seem to be skating very close to, ‘how dare the US and Russia get on well.’
Similarly with the EU and the four freedoms did anyone ever say that support for that was permanent and irrevocable? Indeed successive LDP manifestos made the point that an EU of 28 is rather different to an EU of 6. The EU Treaty of course contains an explicit leave clause so I assume that when leaders signed it they understood states could leave.
None of what happened in 2016 was unforeseeable and leaders who assumed permanence need to take a long, hard look at themselves.
Thanks for this Bernard. We do need this sort of mapping – rather like what Michael Meadowcroft did for us in the 1960s and 1970s. If Guy Verhofstadt were on the panel I could be persuaded to go back to watching Question Time! D66 show us that if you are rooted in a satisfying philosophy and set of values you can come back from near extinction. I’ve no idea what happened to the French Radicals.
One crucial difference between the right wing populists and the left wing variety as depicted by Stimpson is that the right wing lot are more effective at infecting mainstream parties and their traditional support than the other lot. For most of my political life I have watched British Socialists (the genuine sort who have little to do with posturing at Labour Conferences) talking to themselves in Monty Python fashion with a taste in mutual denunciation. It cuts little ice with voters.
Meanwhile taking Bernard’s assessments seriously is a helpful tool both for reclaiming the much abused liberal label and taking on the forces of darkness pervading Europe which are much more far-reaching than Trump or Farage (and his heirs and successors).
Stimpson,
One of the things I like most about the EU is that many of the countries have a much more mixed economy, with state ownership of various parts of the economy, than ours. The EU also exerts considerable control and regulation over markets, and would like to introduce things like financial transaction taxes to reduce the excesses of unfettered market capitalism. This is why the likes of Gove and Farage are so against it
I would certainly not like to see us nail our colours to the mast of the extreme wing of liberalism (eg. poisoning other people with cigarette smoke is perfectly Ok), which is where Nigel Farage sits…
@ Andrew McCraigh:
there remain fundamental differences between Libertarianism and Social Liberalism; for starters Social Liberalism wants a mutually correcting, taming mix of Government and Individual Enterprise.
Harming others might fit into Libertarianism, but it never fits in Social Liberalism.
And the continental EU states have experienced big Privatization waves in the 1990’s, so the difference with Thatchers Britain is smaller than it seems.
And just like Britain (Housing crisis; inefficiently fragmented Railway system) we’ve come to rue the excesses of that era.
@ Little Jackie Paper:
I agree many developments were forseeable; but what has surprised everybody is the extent to which those developments kept on going, growing. For example:
*) two superpowers in thrall to irrational ideologies: Trump to Populism, Putin to the same jingoism as the 19th century Slavophiles (Dostoyevski/Solzhenitsyn). If only one was irrational, the other could tame it; now someone els has to fulfill that role.
*) both want to destroy the EU, a large ordered market that is more efficient for (dealmakers in) Washington and Moscow to trade with than the 1930’s patchwork of sovereign states.
When some think w are unclear what we or any party stand for , I say unless a cult or sect , all democratic parties are coalitions.
Stimpson above , who I respect , yet who is on te economic right,is as of another world compared to David Raw , frequently expressing views nearer Corbyn’s Labour left ! I am neither.
Similarly, while nearer Bernard in philosophical stance, I cannot buy into this EU obsession, as an unreformed out of date club we are as a country , leaving ! I voted remain, we lost , we fight for a better Brexit and greater democracy , and , fine , a say on the deal, but enough already !
Bernard, do not assume all Liberally inclined Europeans are so gung ho for unlmimited freedom of movement , and would you refrain from pretending or kidding yourself and others that the more centrist or even centre right Liberal or liberal parties of Europe are nothing to do with us ! Some are to the left of Stimpson on economics , as am I !
Stimpson –“Some of Trump’s economic positions are inherently leftist – pro tariffs, pro re-industrialisation, opposition to TPP / NAFTA / job offshoring and ISDS – all classic leftist proposals.”
These policies are also inherently conservative corporate protectionism, hence why Trump is proposing them. Remember the extreme right only really want the right (for them) to gain access to a market and then prevent others from entering so that they can exploit it and to have minimal regulation of their activities by governments…
@ Lorenzo Cherin
As member of a party
*) who had reform (direct elections Eur. Paliament) in the founding brochure published to canvass public support,
*) whose directly elected MEP’s were in Spinelli’s Crocodile Club in the ’70 (see wikipedia; for institutional reform), and
*) whose MEP’s have always pleaded for fundamental reforms as abolition of the 7-year budget cuts and reduction of the dominant weight of CAP (Common Agricultural Policy),
I can quote what Verhofstadt said last week on Dutch public radio: “I want to reform the EU even more than most Eurosceptics”.
It is the Christian- & social Democratic duopoly (as around the EP chairmanship) that has resisted reforms.
I’m very sorry to see the British leave, especially the slamming-door part of it. I fear that choosing a “hard Brexit” will incite some on the EU side to be even mess accomodating. And that at a time when the Guardian is already publishing articles of “mixed mariages”(Britons and EU continentals) being forced to leave sick spouses to reapply from the continent for re-entry.
When politicians and administrations play hardball with each other, individual inhabitants or citizens get hurt easier. Not my way of doing things…
oops some typo’s:
*) Crocodile Club was 1979-’84;
*) and I meant to say “less acomodating”…
Bernard
I always admire your diligence in articles and responding to comments. You make a good point . But I do believe it is frustration with our own Liberal Democrats, and I mean , our, because you are a fellow member, lack of brio on EU reform over decades,that causes my irritation. We have always had good policies on the EU,immigration, the economic future needs, but you would think we are only at times capable of one thing, reaction !
Pro or anti tariff are not inherently left or right. When the main leftwing party in the UK was the Liberals, they were the anti-tariff party.
Trump’s protectionism is just crazy. What makes his kind of populism repugnant is the mixture of attacks on minorities with nationalistic sabre-rattling. This does recall 1920s and 1930s Fascist parties (which were sometimes not obviously right-wing) but certainly doesn’t recall Corbyn or even Militant Tendency, twisted and ruthless though they were.
I’m not at all sure the Trump-Putin axis will stick: after all, it won’t appeal to many Republicans in Congress and Trump, unlike Putin, is unpredictable. But European peace and liberty are under threat. Can the EU rise to the challenge?
Bernard, would you kindly provide a little more information about D66? I read yesterday in The Times an interesting article about the ‘EU’s shift on free movement’ by Rachel Sylvester, which quoted the Dutch Labour leader (I won’t try and spell his name!) as saying that the way in which the system of free movement is implemented ‘has to change’. Is this an opinion which your party could share? Opinion even here in the Liberal Democrats has perhaps shifted slightly, with talk of ‘managed migration’, and if the Liberals of ALDE could have some common voice on the issue, it would assist our arguments for remaining in the EU. Does D66 have any other ideas on future EU development and reform? It would be good to know.