Steve McGiffen

Professor Steve McGiffen recently had a paper published in the peer-reviewed quarterly journal Socialism and Democracy [McGiffen, Steve. (2017). On Brexit and Democracy: Response to Emma Bell. Socialism and Democracy. 31. 74-81. 10.1080/08854300.2017.1379796.] Professor McGiffen provides the following Op-Ed summarizing his article.

"Bell wrote a paper on Brexit, which was published in Socialism and Democracy. While it made a number of telling points, it also contained a great deal with which I disagreed. I wrote to the editor criticizing her piece and he invited me to write a response. My central point was that while most young people voted against Brexit, there was also a huge Labour vote from the same age group in the general election, which wiped out the Tory majority. There is a contradiction in this, as much of what the newly-radicalised Labour Party under Corbyn includes in its political programme would be illegal under the Lisbon Treaty.

The UK government, unlike the power structures of the EU, is relatively easy to remove and replace. For the first time since 1983, a real social democratic party is challenging for power and the Tory government is ripe to be ousted. The Labour manifesto for last year's general election was arguably the party's most left wing ever. Although Labour failed to win on this platform, it deprived the Tories of their overall majority, forcing them into coalition with the far right (Northern Irish) Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), whose main aim is to preserve the protestant-unionist ascendancy in the North of Ireland.

In my paper I cite a number of instances where the Lisbon Treaty clashes with Labour commitments: on industrial policy and state aids; on the renationalisation of private rail operators and the Royal Mail; on the normative content of trade deals both for goods and services; on commercial aspects of intellectual property; on foreign direct investment; and on the Multilateral Investment Court, which in the Trade Union Council view, will 'undermine domestic legal systems, threaten workers’ rights and public services” and enable “corporate lawyers … to claim legitimate policies passed to protect workers and society are a form of ‘indirect expropriation’.'

The referendum 'debate' was a disgrace to the country, but lies and half-truths were told by both sides, which scarcely distinguishes it from general elections. Moreover, the referendum was at least democratic insofar as the side which got the most votes won. In general elections, the prize of government invariably goes to a party which most of the electorate did not vote for. No party has won more than 50% of the votes cast since the Second World War.

Bell fails to define some of her most important terms. Democracy is conceived rather narrowly in purely parliamentary terms. Democracy is not simply a matter of elections, however, and Britain’s undemocratic nature is not limited to its electoral system. It has an unelected head of state and an unelected upper house; successive governments have deprived local authorities of substantial powers and resources; and no attempt is made to ensure that the people are well-informed about the decisions they are electing people to make on their behalf.

Finally, Bell does not really ask, let alone attempt in any sustained way to answer the question of why the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, whose predecessor it joined over forty years ago. UKIP and the Conservative right, in inadvertent collaboration with the Guardian-reading liberal 'left', succeeded in transforming what should have been a debate about economics and politics into a culture war. A large slice of the electorate appeared to be voting on the basis of their beliefs about culture and identity, in relation to which EU membership is in reality scarcely relevant. By the day of the vote, the referendum question might as well have been 'Are you okay with foreigners?'"

At the invitation of the Climate Change Network of the UK's Media, Communication and Cultural Studies Association, Professor McGiffen addressed a conference at Sheffield Hallam University on September 7th. The conference was the third in a series of events entitled Shared Solidarities. This one was on 'Framing Catastrophe' and looked at the threats of nuclear war on the one hand, and climate change on the other. Dr McGiffen spoke on the latter.

Professor McGiffen says: "I explained the concept of the Anthropocene, which I'll also be doing at the AGS Wine and Cheese event on 28th September, but I also spoke on the climate change policies of three newly emerged – or revitalised in the case of the British Labour Party – progressive movements under Mélenchon, Corbyn and Sanders.

"As well as my work as a professor, I am a former environmental advisor to the European Parliament United Left Group, followed this issue closely then and have done ever since. Climate change as a subject of academic study perfectly suits my interdisciplinary background – I've taught history as well as international relations – and long-standing lay interest in science.

Climate change is not simply an issue in itself, but is central to such pressing international questions as the avoidance of war, the huge exodus of people from the Middle East, Asia and Africa into Europe, and the destructive power of corporate capital and its friends in high places. "  

See MeCCSA website

Professor Steve McGiffen was approached by the Joint Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services of the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) to assist with their deliberations on the issue, by outlining water services funding systems in other European Union member states, and drawing the lessons from their experiences. “I wrote a book on EU water policies a few years ago. I’m a former member of the Secretariat of the United Left Group in the European Parliament, and my main responsibility was for environmental policy,” Prof. McGiffen explains, “so I imagine my name was put forward by Irish politicians with whom I worked then.”

Ireland is the only EU member state which makes no direct charges for water, funding domestic water supplies instead from general taxation. This is against EU policy, and so the country has come under heavy pressure. It succumbed to this three years ago, but public resistance led to rapid withdrawal of the charges.

Prof. McGiffen writes: "Clearly payment through general taxation is the fairest system, but there is a problem, as it provides no incentive for conservation. Yet Irish domestic water consumption is not exceptionally high when compared to similar countries. What is high is the rate of loss through leakage, which ordinary consumers can do nothing about. In addition, resistance has been fuelled by wasteful practices by major non-domestic users which have the effect of discrediting domestic water conservation measures which may be seen as inconveniencing ordinary people. In this situation it is the state’s responsibility to avoid waste itself and ensure that other major non-domestic users do so. Excessive bonuses paid to water company staff, and €50m shelled out to consultants (my own submission was pro bono!) have also fuelled discontent."

McGiffen suggested that given “the fact that the Irish public is clearly unhappy about the way in which water charging was introduced and conducted, the first priority may be to reassure them that it will not be reintroduced, and that some alternative method will be adopted to cover the costs of maintaining the water supply system and financing… urgently needed improvements.” Professor McGiffen notes that “My views seemed to me very close to that of the Expert Committee which was commissioned to write the report on which I was asked to comment, that ‘the goals of a water delivery charging system: covering costs; making these costs and the way in which they are covered transparent; conservation of water resources; and protecting low-income households from financial burdens which they are not in a position to carry.’ he advised the Committee in addition that “evidence points conclusively to the fact that the sine qua non of achieving these goals is public ownership of the domestic water supply.”

Having laid his cards on the table in this way, he gave an account of the systems used in France and the Netherlands, which, he says “are the ones I know best.”

McGiffen’s conclusion was that Ireland should not impose water charges on its people, given their sustained resistance to such a system. Instead, it should deal with issues of major waste by non-domestic users, and encourage, including by subsidy, adoption of domestic technologies such as low-flow shower heads and replacement flapper valves, which should be done in the context of a major effort by government, educational institutions and the media to educate people as to the importance of the issues, which is not always obvious to people who live in a country notorious for its high rainfall.

A final conclusion looked at the broader implications at what is a difficult time for the European Union: “Opposition to both charges and to privatisation needs to be respected if people are not to conclude that Ireland’s democracy is being undermined by outside forces, principally the European Commission, which is widely believed to be committed to finding ‘market’ solutions to anything and everything. A series of overturned or ignored referendum results in Ireland and elsewhere have undermined the EU’s image as a family of democratic nations, and for obvious historical reasons Irish citizens do not welcome being dictated to by foreign entities. As things stand Ireland has avoided the rise of a far right party such as UKIP, the Dutch PVV or France’s Front National, and it is important to maintain this state of affairs. So the question of Ireland’s water, how to pay for it and how to finance the necessary modernisation of the system are also questions involving democratic rights and how these are understood, defined and exercised in your country. Ireland’s people, in common with those in many other European Union member states, have a thirst not only for wholesome and affordable drinking water, but for the feeling that they control their own country, their own towns, villages and neighbourhoods; that they are, in other words, citizens of a democratic society.”

The complete submission of 6 pages is not available as yet on line, but Prof. McGiffen would be happy to supply the text to any student who’s interested. “This might not seem an obvious topic for IR,” he says, “and until recently it may not have been. However, pressure from multinationals means that states are coming under pressure to privatise their systems, and this gives the issue an international dimension. I would recommend also the Public Services International Research Unit website, which has a huge amount of information on not only water delivery but public services in general.”

A paper by Professor Steve McGiffen has been included as a chapter of a book published in February, 2014 by the Africa Institute of South Africa. The book, entitled The Social Contract in Africa employs the events of the “Arab Spring” of 2011 to reflect on the event itself and beyond. Some of the chapters address the colonial encounter and its lingering reverberations on the African sociopolitical landscape. Others address the aftermath of large scale societal violence and trauma that pervade the African context. The contributions indicate the range of challenges confronting African societies in the postmodern era. They also illustrate the sheer resilience and inventiveness of those societies in the face of apparently overwhelming odds.

"Overall the book examines the questions of sovereignty, democracy and power," says McGiffen. "I look at the EU’s role. There is a glib identification of the European Union with 'democracy promotion', yet the term 'democracy' and what it means to promote it are rarely if ever defined. In my view the EU’s credentials are poor: not only did its leaders support the North African dictatorships until the day they fell, it is also responsible for overriding democratic decisions following referenda in France, the Netherlands and Ireland and effecting what amount to coups d’état in Greece and Italy. Hardly a suitable CV for a democracy promoter. I argue these points in my chapter, which is entitled “European ‘Democracy Promotion’: Dynamic versus passive revolution in the Arab Spring.”

See more information on the book on the Africa Institute of South Africa website

Professor Steve McGiffen has been invited to Brussels to give a talk to Members of the European Parliament from the Swedish Left Party, along with their staff, on 20^th March. The subject of his presentation will be ‘Prospects for the radical left in the European Parliament elections of May, 2014’.

Professor McGiffen was a member of the Secretariat of the United Left Group/Nordic Green Left from 1999 to 2005, and worked mainly on environmental issues. "The coordinator, a MEP responsible for organizing a political group’s work on a particular committee, was Jonas Sjöstedt, who is now his party’s leader. I met him at a conference recently and perhaps that’s what gave them the idea of inviting me, as we discussed my research on this issue." says McGiffen. The radical left, comprising all of the parties to the left of the social democrats, is predicted to increase its representation from its current level of 41 to at least 55, with the center-left outstripping the center-right to become the European Parliament’s biggest bloc. 

Professor Steve McGiffen's paper, "European Neighbourhood Policy: Path to Democracy or Road to Co-option? Dynamic versus Passive Revolution in the Arab Spring" will be published early in 2014 as part of a book, Renegotiating the Social Contract in Africa, to be published in South Africa by the Africa Institute of South Africa.

On 18th-19th January 2014, Professor Steve McGiffen will attend a conference of progressive European political parties in Amersfoort, Netherlands. The conference is hosted by the Socialist Party of the Netherlands (SP), for whom Professor McGiffen works as translator and occasional advisor on European Union affairs. Subjects on the agenda will include the ongoing Euro crisis, the process of European integration and May's election for the European Parliament. On February 22nd, Professor McGiffen will be a guest at the Socialist Party's pre-election convention.

On 15th December Professor Steve McGiffen gave a talk to an invited group of officials at the European Commission in Brussels, on the subject of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. Professor McGiffen was the guest of European Commissioner for Social Affairs László Andor. The author of Biotechnology: Corporate Power versus the Public Interest (Pluto Press, 2006), McGiffen spoke about the political and economic aspects of the issue.

“I’m not a scientist,” he says “but I’m something of a science nut, and in order to explore this subject I have had to learn a lot of biology. However, my focus is on the way in which, in my view, a false consensus has been generated by powerful biotech corporations. This relates to the IR theoretical idea of ‘epistemic communities’, transnational networks of experts who act as advisors to elected and appointed decision-makers. What I believe we have here, and also in for example economic policy, are what I have called co-opted or embedded epistemic communities. Governments are receiving the same advice, and ignoring the views of many scientists who are just as qualified to comment. When I spoke at the Commission, I was able to go beyond theory – which is very important when you get outside academe to the sharp end of politics – and recommend some actual scientists who are critical of the use of GMOs in agriculture.”

Professor McGiffen, who worked at the European Parliament before taking up his post at the American Graduate School in Paris, says that “knowing the European institutional culture helped in being taken seriously. One of the people attending was my counterpart in the conservative group when I was environmental advisor to the left, during which time I worked on the present legislative framework governing the use of GMOs in European agriculture. Despite our political differences we’d got on well, but when he agreed to attend the talk he didn’t realize it was his old sparring partner, so that was a pleasant surprise.”

To request a copy of McGiffen’s talk, youcan contact him on steve.mcgiffen@ags.edu

On November 10, Professor Steve McGiffen attended a conference on climate change at the European Parliament in Brussels, organized by the United Left Group/Nordic Green Left European Parliamentary Group (GUE/NGL) in the run-up to the Conference of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol to be held in Durban, South Africa in December, 2011.

The conference, entitled "A social green revolution; towards and after COP 17" was addressed by, among others, French philosopher Michael Löwy, and European Commissioner László Andor. Professor McGiffen, until 2005 an environmental policy advisor to the GUE/NGL, was there as a guest of Kartika Liotard, MEP, with whom he recently co-authored a book on EU water policy, Poisoned Spring: The EU and Water Privatisation (London: Pluto Press, 2009). Also in attendance was AGS alumna and Academic Coordinator Sarah Pedersen, who is about to start a Ph.D on a closely related subject.

On August 19th-20th Professor Steve McGiffen, who also works as a consultant and translator for the Socialist Party of the Netherlands (SPNL), attended a gathering of 'Modern Left Parties' in Amsterdam. The small, informal meeting was called to discuss alternative approaches to overcoming the crisis, as the parties involved find the austerity imposed by the EU neither effective nor humane. The conference guests were Members of Parliament and senior party figures from the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Portugal and Cyprus. Speakers included the Icelandic Minister of Finance, Steingrimmur J. Sigfusson, who outlined his government's proposed route out of the chaos which followed the financial collapse of 2008 and Finland's Minister of Culture and Gender Affairs, Paavo Erkki Arhinmaki. Professor McGiffen was asked to speak on the links between the crisis and the recent riots in London and other English cities.

Professor McGiffen has guest-edited a special edition about the European Union of the U.S.-based quarterly journal Socialism and Democracy, published by Routledge. This edition, which will appear in July, contains an article by Mc Giffen entitled "Bloodless Coup d'Etat: the European Union's Response to the Eurozone Crisis", as well as articles by AGS alumna Stine Jensen (class of 2009) on "War, Xenophobia, and the Death Agony of the Danish Social Democratic Welfare State", and AGS alumnus and faculty member Patrick Clairzier (class of 2009) on "Paths to Development through Trade: E.U.-led Trade Liberalization vs. South-South Cooperation". Full access is only for subscribers, but a selection from past editions is available at http://sdonline.org/.