(64), a diplomat by training and the party’s specialist in international affairs, will top the ADR list for the European elections on 9 June. Freshly re-elected as a member of parliament, he will be supported by two ADR politicians currently in the Chamber of Deputies: (73, writer) and Alexandra Schoos (35, veterinary surgeon). Rounding out the list are Sylvie Mischel (57, civil servant), (49, lawyer) and Véronique Stoffel (48, lawyer).
“The list was drawn up on the basis of skills,” explains Kartheiser. “We wanted to a list in which the candidates’ expertise could add value to the European Parliament and to Luxembourg’s representation if they were elected. Ms Schoos and Mr Engelen are specialists in agricultural issues, while Ms Michel is an engineer who deals with industrial and economic policy. Mr Penning and Ms Stofell are two lawyers specialising in European law who sit on the Council of State.”
Paperjam: What are the issues at stake in this European election?
Fernand Kartheiser: They are of several kinds. Firstly, Europe needs to shape a policy of peace rather than a policy of war. War is one of the biggest problems facing Europe today, a war that is also detrimental to the economic development of our continent and bodes ill for its future. For us, it is very important to return to a policy of peace. Secondly, we need to relaunch Europe’s economy. Our businesses are suffering enormously from American competition and the imperfections of the internal market. So we need to give new impetus to economic integration. Finally, we need to preserve Luxembourg’s rights in a united Europe. These rights seem to us to be threatened by the desire of the other political parties to abolish the principle of unanimity in decision-making. In particular for foreign and defence policies, and for fiscal policies.
What do you think a peace policy is?
It’s a policy that tries to put an end to the war in Ukraine and returns to the principles of the 1999 Istanbul Summit, i.e. a European security architecture that enables every European state to guarantee its own security, provided it does not do so at the expense of other states. This is essential to give Europe a degree of stability. We also need to rethink the sanctions against Russia, which are doing us a great deal of harm. More so than the Russians. Our industry needs fossil fuels. At the moment, we are buying more expensive fossil fuels from Russia indirectly via Azerbaijan or India. This is as illogical as it is dishonest. It’s an irrational policy that must come to an end.
What should Europe do to stimulate the economy?
We must first ensure that the internal market is finally completed and that the same rules apply to everyone to avoid any distortion of competition. For Luxembourg, it is also important to put an end to restrictions on supplies that force companies to use certain routes rather than others to obtain their supplies. We also need to promote this capital union, which would enable European capital to be mobilised for investment in Europe rather than going to the United States.
And to make the internal market work even better, we certainly need to cut red tape. We have a situation where companies have to produce a lot of reports that nobody reads in the end. The demands on companies are enormous, and it’s not clear what the outcome will be. We also need to review the draft directive on respect for human rights by subcontracting companies (the corporate sustainability due diligence directive). These regulations transfer responsibility from governments to companies. This is not the primary mission of companies and it can have harmful consequences for them.
What would be your ideal Europe?
A peaceful Europe that knows how to organise its international relations in such a way as to avoid confrontation and encourage cooperation with other regions in the world.
A Europe that develops harmoniously from an economic point of view.
A Europe that respects individual freedoms and freedom of expression. In our view, the Digital Services Act threatens these freedoms. With these regulations, there is a strong trend towards censorship and the weakening of individual freedoms. Fundamental freedoms in Europe are under threat. Certain offences are being made “European Union crimes.” Take the case of disinformation and hate speech. These are concepts that are not defined anywhere in positive law.
In fact, disinformation is information that does not suit those in power. As for hate speech, we are criminalising feelings instead of facts. We are not in favour of hate speech or disinformation. But today, these concepts are used by all those who ultimately want to avoid discussions by force of law, and who in so doing demonstrate the weaknesses of their arguments. These are methods that will one day lead us to a dictatorship. We face our political competitors with the strength of our arguments, not with legal restrictions.
What is at stake in this election for your party?
We became the fourth largest party in the country at the last general election. We’ve gone from strength to strength in recent years. In an unspectacular way, of course, but in a steady way that reflects the growing acceptance of our ideas among the population. We are one of the four political parties with a fraction in the Chamber of Deputies, we have two councillors on the Council of State and we have a number of local councillors and a mayor--although local elections have never been the ADR’s strong point. Having a member of the European Parliament would enable us to be active at all political levels.
On the evening of 9 June, what would make you say that you have run a good campaign?
As with all the parties, the interest in the European elections lies first and foremost in obtaining a mandate. There are also financial objectives. The funding of political parties also depends on the results obtained in the European elections. A good result, even if there are no MEPs at the end, is already a help. Basically, a good campaign depends above all on the choice of subjects. And we have already succeeded in making ADR issues key points in the election campaign. This applies in particular to the discussion on unanimity in the European institutions. This is a subject we raised in the Chamber of Deputies with a motion that was also voted for by the CSV and the DP. Mr Goerens [editor’s note: Charles Goerens of the DP], whatever he may say, has been disowned by his own party on this issue.
Another issue close to our hearts is peace in Europe. We are no longer the only ones advocating this. The Communists, Mir der Vollek, the Conservatives and other voices in Luxembourg’s political landscape have taken up the issue. It’s a subject we were the first to raise on 24 February 2022 when the invasion took place.
Do you really think the Russians want a peaceful solution at this point in their operations?
Yes. I’m a career diplomat. My first instinct is to believe what people say and then we’ll see. The Russians are telling us that they want to negotiate, so let’s take them seriously and try to negotiate. I don’t want to criticise them before I’ve tried, but both sides have to be prepared to negotiate, i.e. the western countries and the Russians. The Ukrainians have very little room for manoeuvre because they depend so heavily on the west, so we have to be realistic.
You have just been re-elected to the Chamber of Deputies. If you were elected, would you go and sit in Strasbourg?
Yes. I’ve been a member of the Chamber of Deputies for 15 years now. I was an officer in the army and then a diplomat. The European Parliament would be a continuation of what I’ve always done in life. I’ve been involved in European and international politics in various organisations. If I’m elected, I’ll go without hesitation. International politics is my whole life. I’m a child of the Cold War and I’ve always been interested in these issues. And all the candidates have undertaken to honour this mandate if elected.
This term in the European Parliament has been marked by the Qatargate scandal. What impact do you think this has had on the institution and the way it operates?
This affair has certainly damaged the credibility of the European Parliament. But as far as I’m concerned, it was an accident of fate, not a matter of major policy. Major European policy involves discussions on whether or not to give the European Parliament a right of initiative, or the question of transparency in the institutions. On this point, Qatargate has led to a tightening of the rules on transparency. In principle, transparency is a good thing. But it’s like with everything: you can't go overboard either. You have to be able to continue to work and meet with representatives of the industry, farming associations and so on, without being suspected of anything and without having to fill in 300 pages of justification afterwards. And I think we also need to maintain a certain confidentiality in the discussions if we want them to be fruitful.
This article in Paperjam. It has been translated and edited for Delano.