The Love Hate Relationship: Future of EU-Turkey alliance

Through its rich history and geographical location, Turkey has always been an important partner to the European Union. The idea of Turkish membership to the European Union was first presented in 1963 with the establishment of the ‘Ankara’ agreements. Due to the Cypriot it took Turkey another 36 years before it became an official candidate.

As long as the Turkish government believed that accession to the EU remained plausible, it made colossal efforts to reform its system and comply with European Standards of democracy and Rule of Law. Even the Islamic and conservative party (AKP), who has been in power since 2002, implemented liberal and democratic reforms, improving human rights and civil liberties. Reforms such as the abolition of the death penalty, reduction of the use of torture by security forces, or the limitation of the Army political powers have been warmly supported by European leaders.

From 2006 onwards, negotiation slowed down as result of tensions in Cyprus. In subsequent years, doubts appeared about willingness and sincerity of European member states to allow Turkish membership. Despite promising eventual accession, European states did little effort realise these promises. This humiliated the Turkish population and its government, and far less effort were thus put into complying with European requirements. Prospective membership became an increasingly imaginary vision.

From then on, both Turkey and the European Union used the membership negotiation as a lever in their diplomatic relations when they needed something from each other, knowing that it will never come to a conclusion.

What does it mean to be European?

The wave of enlargement at the end of the 1990s and beginning of 2000s was led by an important enthusiasm for the European project. The European Union was perceived as a tool to spread democracy and rule of law in nearby countries.

Nevertheless, at the time of recognising Turkish candidacy, three principle questions were not asked at the European level. They are now one of the reasons why the negotiation process was jeopardized. In fact, it was only once the negotiation process started that European leaders began thinking about these 3 questions of borders, identities, and the impact of the integration of a large and diverse population member into its institutions. Questions about geography, religion and cultural differences became problematic. Where do European Borders start and end? Is the EU a Christian project? How would a Turkish demography affect the equilibrium in European politics? These questions divided the European leadership and established a precarious basis for accession negotiations.

These are important questions, but questions that Europe cannot answer right now. It goes to the soul of the European identity, and is central to the vision of the future of Europe. While important, there are so many other challenges that have to be solved before any further enlargement becomes conceivable. The toxic relationship, of mutual mistrust, that Turkey and the EU have should be brought to an end.

Towards a new relationship

Turkey is an important political and economic partner. As the main European ally in the Middle Eastern region, a strong bond is necessary. Even in times of mutual mistrust, common ground can still be found, as the 2016 EU-Turkey migrant agreement shows. It shows that despite all the tensions, mutual agreement is fruitful for both parties. It is on this basis that a new interaction with Turkey should be forged.

Striving for stability in the Middle Eastern region should be one of Europe’s most important Foreign Affair priorities. It is from there that many of the crises that Europe faces come, and ending the perpetual conflict will do much to help European domestic affairs. Turkey is a vital partner in this. Far from being a rival in the region, as it is sometimes presented, it should be recognised as an equal partner. It has far more potential to provide for a long term solution. Turkey itself is equally affected by the regional conflicts, and sees it in its own interest to bring an end this insecurity. Europe and Turkey can achieve far more by working together and coordinating their agendas.

Granted, many questions can be asked about Turkish actions and human right standards. It is one of the important criterion that had to be rectified to allow for Turkish accession. Europe cannot let this go uncriticized, the hundreds of journalist that have been and are still imprisoned is scandalous and should be resolved. Yet it does have to impede any increased collaboration. Much of the criticism brought down against Turkey is build on the idea that accession talks are still open. Any deterioration in Turkish human right standards cannot be accepted as it is still officially a candidate to join the EU. Officially terminating this candidature illusion will allow both parties to start a partnership based on an current interests. A privileged relationship, with Turkey as the focal point of European Middle Eastern diplomacy, would create a further ground for future collaboration. From there eventually even the current human right and Rule of Law standards can be improved. Visa liberalisation and economic harmonisation with Turkey can do much to create democratic change in Turkish institutions.

This more dynamic interaction will also give Europe the time to think about the fundamental questions about its identity and the goal of this integration process. The question of Bosnian and Albanian membership of the EU will have to be tackled in the near future. Both these Muslim majority countries will raise questions about what it constitutes to be European. Yet the potential accession of these countries will impact European politics much less than the accession of a state the size of Turkey. It will allow these questions to be solved in a more concrete way, and potentially close the debate.

With the current state of affairs, the current toxic relationship provides a difficult basis for a prosperous Europe-Turkey alliance. This while there is much more to gain from strong cooperation and mutual trust. With a European recognition of Turkish potential, European foreign policy challenges would be easier to tackle. Further economic cooperation would be beneficial to both parties, and can eventually lead to stronger democracy in Turkey. Eventually, in decades time, Europe might be faced with the question of Turkish membership of the EU again, but that is a question for then.

By Mélanie Véron-Fougas – A 1^st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.

Structural and cultural aspects of gender equality in Europe

In 1949, Simone de Beauvoir made a famous observation about the assumed role of women in society. In that time, she argued that “One is not born but becomes a woman” through the fixed traditional roles of the female sex. Fortunately, in Europe gender equality has improved; women living now are more free in becoming what they want, instead of who they are supposed to be.

In my previous blog, I shortly mentioned the principle of gender equality, founded in the European Treaty of 1957. This principle ensures legal grounds for equality between men and women when it comes to salaries. Through the years, more legislative measures have followed, making Europe one of the best continents to live in as a woman. Gender equality in Europe however, should not be taken for granted. In some fields, for instance regarding the male/female ratio across European political institutions, one can ask if the balance could not be improved. In this article, I will therefore start by looking at the current structural gender equality in the European political space. Furthermore, as some of the current popular right-wing European parties seem to adhere to the traditional unequal gender culture, I will discuss potential cultural pressures on gender equality in Europe.

When it comes to the European political space, there are still large structural differences in gender ratios in favour of men. Among member states of the European Union, the average percentage of female ministers is 29,5%. Inside the European Parliament the percentage of female MEP’s is currently at 36,2%. In the national European parliaments average percentages of female representatives are even lower. Of course, unequal gender ratios do not have to indicate gender discrimination. The difference could also be explained by a gender based preference for political professions. However, when looking at the share of women in the EU population, which is at 51%, one can hardly argue that the current European Parliament is a good representation of its citizens. Setting a gender quota as a solution for such a gender in-balance is often criticized for being inefficient and unfair. In my view, this argument is flawed, as the opposite is also true. The process of assigning a new person to a certain position, whether it is a new politician or CEO, is not always done by choosing the most efficient candidate. This process could also be influenced by a certain tunnel-vision or gender-bias: a men-led firm is likely to remain men-led. Ensuring an equal gender ratio therefore, can be seen as a counterforce to these biases. In Sweden, the national parliament currently uses a voluntary quota system, where political parties can decide themselves whether they want to strive for gender balance or not. Several parties have adopted this voluntary quota, making the Swedish parliament among the most gender balanced in Europe, with a percentage of 46% female representatives.

Moving from the structural approach of gender equality in European politics, I now want to discuss if a changing political culture could influence gender equality. As mentioned, European countries are currently among the best of the world when it comes to gender equality. When looking at the increased popularity of right-wing movements and their ideas, one can ask if these achievements are currently under pressure. In Germany for instance, the main populist party ‘Alternative für Deutschland’ actively protests against gender equality and promotes the traditional role of women in society. One of the founders of AfD, Alexander Gauland, argued that “modern family structures in our country are too colourful” and that female employment is a “misconceived view of feminism”. In the Netherlands, ‘Forum voor Democratie’ (FvD) has had a big victory in the last elections. The party is led by Thierry Baudet, a man who is also difficult to describe as being a feminist. As both of the parties are doing particularly well among male voters (for FvD the percentage of male voters was 64%), I think Europe should be alert of potential changes to our current culture of gender equality.

In the coming year, the new president of the European Commission will be chosen. Until now, all European Commissions have been led solely by men. Margrethe Vestager, currently the European Commissioner for Competition, will be one of the candidates for the new position. Now seems to be a good time for a stand for gender equality; the appointment of the first female president of the Commission would be an important step.

By Tim Draijer – A 1^st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.

21 years on: Reflections on the Good Friday peace deal

Every year on Good Friday the Dublin Unitarian Church reads aloud the names of the victims of Northern Ireland’s conflict. This process takes 3 hours. Yet 21 years on from the Good Friday peace deal, more names continue be added to this list. On Thursday night Lyra McKee, a 29-year-old journalist, joined this list of names to be read the following morning. In a statement released by Saoradh, a dissident group, it was said that McKee had been “killed accidentally” by a Irish Republican militant who was targeting the police. After the 30 years of violence, the 1998 Good Friday peace deal managed to achieve some semblance of peace in Northern Ireland. All this could be at stake now.

Northern Ireland continues to be in a state of political tension, exacerbated by the Brexit process. It is a place where complex strains already existed: including deeply divided communities; general lack of opportunity; and active rival paramilitaries set on recruiting the young. Broadly, the Brexit referendum and its consequences have heightened the impression that London doesn’t care about the region. Debate at Westminster surrounding the Good Friday Agreement seems to have become increasingly cavalier and offhand, leading to talks of renegotiating the peace deal. No doubt this is dangerous rhetoric, particularly when it can be seen as encouraging incisive paramilitaries who oppose the peace deal.

The Irish backstop, an important section of the agreement for Britain’s planned withdrawal from the European union, has been a source of contention for the nation since the beginnings of the Brexit process. But the two actors most affected by the potential outcomes – the Republic of Ireland and Northern ireland – often are left out of the conversation. Northern Ireland is in a continued state of political instability. The devolved assembly at Stormont has been suspended since January 2017 after power-sharing broke down. The Brexit process has led to increased inter-community tensions and uncertainty about future arrangements at the border with the Republic of Ireland, as well as additional questions over citizens’ rights. So what do Ireland and Northern Ireland want as Britain heads towards this next deadline? Is it possible for both to be satisfied?

This Easter long weekend, no matter its personal meanings to you, marks a good moment to reflect on the gravity of the Brexit situation and the importance of the European Union in maintaining peace throughout Europe. Since its inception in 1950 with the European Coal and Steel Community, which tied European nations together economically and politically, the European project has been pioneered with the vision of a peaceful, prosperous and united Europe. The death of a young woman should signal to everyone, in the EU and the UK, the need to put first safety and peace above the petty politics that has become so common today.

by Niamh Saunders – A 1^st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht. You can follow her on Twitter here!

Stimulating Simulations: Lessons learned from Strasbourg

In my last contribution to this blog I touched upon a rather technical subject: that of the influence of policies on politics and vice-versa. To show that the European Union can also be fun I have decided for this blog to talk about what I was up to last week: participating in the largest, most realistic simulation of European politics: the Model European Union Strasbourg 2019. How is it like to be in the seat of a real parliamentarian? Is it just fun and games, or are there real lessons to be learned as well? In this blog I will share some reflections on a week of simulating legislative procedure (how could that possibly be fun?), the choices involved in making legislation and some take-aways on how this project can positively affect the EU as a whole.

When discussing European Integration in an average university course, the style is often rather dry and theoretical: various different theories of integration are outlined, the role and function of the institutions is discussed and the history of the European Union is laid out in slide after slide. While background is important to a full understand the EU, we should not forget that the EU is also a practical undertaking in which thousands of experts, policy makers, journalists and lobbyists collectively try to influence the course of our future. For most people this world remains vague and far away, something which other might have the time to engage with but not something which actively deals with them or their interests. While it is true that the world of EU policy making is rather opaque, all the interest representation is also the consequence of the fact that EU policy making tries to include such a wide variety of voices.

It is in this opaque world of crafting EU policy that the participants of the MEUS 2019 were involved with. Set out over the span of 7 days, of which 5 for sessions in European Parliament, young people from all over Europe and beyond were tasked to represent the interests of their Member of European Parliament, their Government minister or their interest group as a lobbyist. I had the honour and the privilege to represent a Socialist from Poland and was immediately faced with a double loyalty: Socialist & Democrat on the one hand, but still a MEP from Poland with a different outlook than a German member of the SPD would have. In parliament we focussed on a directive on collective redress and a regulation on the governance of an Energy Union. Important technical difference between the two being that the directive requires governments to transpose EU legislation into national law (and passing appropriate implementation measures) while a regulation becomes EU law the moment it comes into effect. My voice could be testament to the fact that dealing with two pieces of legislation in only 5 days requires a lot of talking, caucusing and lobbying. There are so many choices available which you can use to further your interests, and yet it also became clear that you cannot do it all: time is precious and you have to make choices in what you do and what you prioritize.

I think there are three political lessons from this MEUS which we can apply to real life namely that structure matters in politics, that proactive individuals at the right time can make real impact and that being a centrist is difficult. Firstly, structure matters. The rules relating to process are incredibly important in EU policy making and the ways in which legislation passes back and forward between the Council and the Parliament (which in theory should be equal legislators *cough*) affects the outcome. Secondly, the right individual at the right time can make a difference: in politics we talk about the macro-level so much we sometimes forget about the micro level interactions of which people have thousands on a daily basis. To underestimate the influence of proactive individuals which are good at making sure that their points are heard (and are good at pulling the wool over people’s eyes) is a serious mistake. Thirdly, being a centrist is hard. Democracy can only live if compromises are made among a wide range of actors, but during the simulation we saw how successful far-right parties were in splitting up parties. One far-right MEP admitted to the fact that his first objective was ensuring that the EPP was thoroughly divided on everything so he would have an easier time later on. Shouting from the side-lines is easy, and making actual policies which are good for more than just your constituency is hard.

I think that there are also three wider points to be made about what is the exact point of simulations like these. First of all I would say that a simulation like MEUS is a great opportunity to have a safe environment to practice and engage with politics. Yes, certain participants were not really representing the interests of their role well and yes there were unrealistic decisions regarding faction changes, voting, and parliament-council interaction but to have an environment where you are still able to learn is a real luxury. Secondly, a simulation of this magnitude situated in the heart of the EU attracts people from all over Europe. Putting so many interesting, motivated and ambitious students in one room is bound to create stirring conversations about a wide range of issues. Many people did not live in the country they are from, showing how mobility is appreciated by those supporting the European Project. I got to know many fun and interesting people from all over Europe, which also means that couchsurfing just got a lot easier.

As a Dutch person I did note that there was a real lack of fellow countrymen attending this event: from the 3 Dutch people (compared to 19 Italians) that were participants none actually lived in the Netherlands itself. Is there a reason why not more Dutch people applied? Do the Dutch lack the positivity of the mediterranean youth about the EU or are the Dutch just busy with their exams during this MEU? While it is not yet the case, the possibility that different conceptions of what the EU is and what it should be will diverge over time is very likely. Having all nations and a wide variety of people present at events like this is paramount to ensuring the continued diversity of the EU. Otherwise simulations like these run the risk of ending up creating Brussels bubbles avant la lettre. Lastly, even a 5 day simulation shows that running the EU policy system is hard work. Technical issues become political and political issues become technical, compromise is necessary for results yet loud shouting is what gets you elected. EU policy making is slow and at times inefficient, but trying to include a wide variety of voices is sometimes more important than speed or efficiency. Is including a wide variety of voices, celebrating diversity and being willing to compromise not what makes Europe, Europe?

By Maarten Lemstra – A 1^st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht. You can follow Maarten on Twitter here!

Brexit and a Window of Opportunity

This whole Brexit Odyssey might soon be over. The first act anyway. With France firmly pushing for a Brexit on April 12^th, and building a coalition around that idea, the fate of Britain lies in the hands of the ability of its MP’s to quickly come up with an acceptable new approach to prevent a no-deal Brexit. With every passing day making a no-deal Brexit more likely, the British House of Commons is the only actor that now can take the initiative. May won’t. After all last week alone both the Scottish first minister Nicolas Sturgeon and the Labour party complained about how she only wanted her form of Brexit and was unwilling to compromise. Even the house of Commons, which last week managed to pass a government unfriendly bill, will have difficulties in agreeing on a path to follow. The issue parliament faces, is that no matter what path it takes, there will be consequences. Whether it is a no-deal Brexit, a revocation of article 50 or May’s withdrawal agreement. There will be consequences and most MP’s are trying to figure out which is the least destructive path to take.

Making predictions, even at this late stage is difficult. There are so many different interests involved. In the short term, anything can happen. In the long term, predictions are dependent on the final terms on which this Brexit saga ends. The British situation will be drastically different if it crashes out of the EU without a deal than if it begrudgingly ends up agreeing to May’s less than stellar withdrawal agreement. However, there is one prediction I dare make. Namely that a British exit of the European Union is a window of opportunity and may yet provide positive change.

As a European of British descent, it was heart-breaking to learn that Britain had voted to leave on that fateful June 24^th morning. I stayed up all night watching the results come in, and fell asleep on the couch. After all I consider myself European, but have also always been proud to be British. Even now I find it inconceivable that a Europe can exist without the United Kingdom being part of it. How can it? Since Roman times Britain has been involved in continental affairs. They took part in the brutal medieval wars, experienced the religious reformation sweeping across Europe, and were involved in the dangerous years of the early 20^th century. But a different narrative prevailed in England, the narrative of the “little Englander”, alone isolated on their Island, and now they are seemingly turning their backs to our shared history. But I will keep faith in Britain. Britain might have committed social suicide, ruining its relationship with all her friends, but I will keep hoping that one day in the future, Britain will return to us.

The issue Britain has, is that for many it is still living in days long gone. Older generations still look at the days of British imperial rule over half of the world with pride. And admittedly it is a catchy story. A story about Britain “ruling the waves” and being the saviour of democracy in western Europe. But those days are past. That version of what the UK was is long gone, and it will not return. Britain must find a new identity. An identity to fit this modern new world in which it now exists. Brexit will provide for that opportunity. After the clouds of Brexit have dissipated, and damages assessed, there will be an opportunity for Britain to reinvent itself. And it will look at the narrative of what it wants its relationship with the EU to be. Britain has always been a reluctant partner in this arrangement. Half committed, wanting to be in and out. Wanting at the same time the benefits of membership, without the burden that accompany it. Brexit is the opportunity that Britain needs to figure out what it wants, what relationship it wants to have with continental Europe. A marriage can only ever be healthy if both are equally committed. And Britain is in its midlife crisis, where she is happily married, but fondly remembers those days of partying and one night stands. Days in which she was independent and could do want she wanted. Yet she cannot have both. She must choose and Brexit is the break she needs. It will have to be a period of reflection and debate about what its future holds. There will be bitter feelings, broken hearts and difficult debates. Debates about its coming to terms with its past. Debates about the present and a British national identity encompassing not just England, but also Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And debates about its future, not only its relationship with Europe but also with the rest of the world. Difficult days lie ahead. But ultimately, I believe that Britain will come back. It will take time, sweat and tears, but when that day comes, and that Britain is truly ready to re-join the union, Europe needs to be ready.

A European Union without Britain, is a project incomplete. In or out, Britain is important to the EU. Economically, geopolitically and symbolically. The European project cannot be a full success until all European countries feel that they are welcome. And Brexit provides the EU with an enormous window of opportunity. Firstly, Britain has always been a reluctant partner that has stopped significant integration in certain areas. With Britain out of the way, Europe can progress in those areas where it previously could not. Secondly Brexit provides with an opportunity to change British mentality. It will be in the European interest to outcompete the UK. Grass outside of the EU cannot be greener than within. Yet at the same time, the future relationship of Britain with the EU is at stake. Ultimately it is in the European interest to have Britain in the project. They are a vital partner that can only strengthen the EU.

This window of opportunity cannot be wasted. The younger generation has overwhelmingly voted to stay with Europe. And with reason, they have grown up in the days following British accession to the European Economic Community. They have had the possibility to hop across the channel for a quick city trip in Paris, Vienna and Milan. They can easily go study abroad and find work in other European member states. The reality in which they have grown up is completely different from that of the baby boomer generation. They already have an overwhelmingly positive image of the Europe, and their identity is much more closely affiliated to continental Europe. With Brexit, the delusion about this old Britain, this Imperial Britain must be broken. And an opportunity must be given for Britain to be born anew. A Britain identifying with the rest of Europe, looking outwards not inwards. A Britain where the dreams of the young generation can bloom. Europe should capitalise on this opportunity. It should tread a fine line. Be hard enough on the UK to ensure that Brexit is not a success, but not too hard so to create animosity towards the EU and turn Britain into a permanent adversary. Brexit is an opportunity that cannot be squandered. Ultimately whether now or in the future, we do want the UK to be part of our European project. It is only sensible that we ensure that this is still possible within our lifetime. Failure to do so will antagonise Britain for generations. Success and a new friendship, stronger than ever can emerge.

By Misha Stocker – A 1^st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.

Rise of Protests in Europe: Maybe it is time to listen?

Ever since 2000, populist parties have been considered a threat to the European idea of democracy. Since then, every elections became a tug of war between more traditional parties and populist ones, and it is a tug of war that is seemingly never ending. Time after time, hopes for receding populism have been dashed by resurging parties. In the Netherlands, the government recently lost its “senate” majority to a strong populist performance. In France, anti-European parties have managed to maintain their support, and sometimes even gain ground.

What many of the populist parties do correctly is encouraging people to go out and vote for them. Especially citizens who otherwise would not be inclined to go voting in the first place. Among other reasons, their success stems from their ability to speak to people that feel ignored and to address truths that they feel cannot be challenged (such as globalism for example). Moreover the 07-08 economic crisis, and the decade of financial instability that followed it led to much anger among the population that populist parties were all too willing to dip into. As an entire part of the of the population felt left behind by the traditional politician, there was a lot of room for populist parties to frame the entire political establishment as the responsible of the crisis. They accused politicians of being unwilling to solve the crisis, and find solutions that only fit their own interests. Their discourse blaming the so called ‘political establishment’ was successful in catching attention of those who lost interests in politics, and found firm fertile ground for their rhetoric.

Many parties have reacted to this by trying to implement talking points of right wing populist parties, such as anti-immigration politics. However, this is often missing the point entirely. Although immigration might be a very visible point of interest that they care about, it is not the only one. Merely stealing away ideas will not fully appease them. Adopting problems that populist parties address does not mean that non-populist politicians should include their ideas in their program. The idea of a referendum on European membership in Britain is the best example of the failure of this strategy. To takes votes away from UKIP at the general election, and calm radical elements in his party, Cameron supported the idea of a referendum on EU. Unexpectedly the conservatives won a full majority in the house, and instead of having to form a coalition with the liberal-democrats, his government had to organize a referendum they themselves did not want. Merely copying ideas, even without having the agenda is ineffective as prevention tool, and can in fact be dangerous. Parties in essence are carrying out the agenda of those extreme parties and normalizing the discourse around those dangerous topics by adopting that stance as well. Consequently, nothing is effectively done to gain those lost voters back as they will expect more of the same next time.

The sense of abandonment, and lack of interest from government and politicians alike should instead be tackled. With the European elections around the corner, now more than ever we should start listening and interacting with people that feel left behind. Looking at the yellow vest protests, the massive demonstrations taking place in Brussels and the recent election of Zuzana Caputova in Slovakia, shows that people want to be heard and have a say in politics. Instead of adopting policies or complaining about the extremism, one should put proper mechanisms in place in order to allow more engagement in politics. There should be more opportunities created to influence policy and interact with political leadership. Whether this be at a local, national or indeed European level.

Creating forums for people to talk, debate and provide their own solutions to leadership is important for them to feel valued and listened to. Without creating a feeling of mutual need, there won’t be respect, which then breeds apathy and anger. A study at the University College London showed that by having a citizens assembly where everyone is involved and heard, even on a topic as divisive as Brexit, can lead significantly more agreement on the path to follow (up to 70%). It does not mean that all feedback from citizens should be followed, or that every instruction has to be carried out. However it does mean that you create a platform for people that have ideas to share them. For people that have issues, to address them. For people that are angry, to vent their anger.

Instead of taking ideas from populists’ parties or criticize them, politicians should listen more to their citizens and their daily problems. Concerns for populism should not only come during election period but remain there permanently. It is important to understand what makes populists so attractive nowadays. As their discourses suggest, as opposed to usual politicians, populist are more concerned with daily issue of “everyday people”. It may be that usual politicians have to pay closer attention to problem of average peoples. Populist grew up as protests movements. The problem become when contestation become majoritarian. This means that politicians should have payed attention to some issues before. Understanding the ideas and problems that people face, and addressing them will create a more thorough debate. It allows creates a better platform to explain process decisions and see the societal benefits. Moreover it creates a better forum for ideas and gives a feeling of being listened to. For populists being elected by criticizing Europe, it is maybe time to ask what kind of Europe people want and how it should be improved. As Monnet said “Europe will be built in crisis and will be the result of the solutions”.

By Mélanie Véron-Fougas and Misha Stocker – 1^st year Master students in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.

Inequalities, the EU and the concept of convergence

Inequalities are like misfortunes: they never come alone. When a family is relatively low on the ladder in society regarding income, chances are high its lacking behind as well in education, health and other social aspects. Inequality therefore, is not only an economic or political issue: it appears in different forms.

In this blog, I want to discuss some of the existing European inequalities. I will start by giving a very short moral introduction, describing why I think maintaining high levels of inequality and a stable society at the same time are a challenging combination. Moving to the European perspective, I will mention the possibilities for European policies addressing inequalities. Whereas inequality is not only an economic issue, global wealth and income inequalities are currently very intense. In my blog, I will thereby mainly focus on economic inequalities.

Before starting any discussions on how to deal with inequalities, the first question should be if there is something inherently bad about inequality in general. In my opinion, there is, for at least two reasons. First, with high levels of inequality in a society, it is almost impossible to build or sustain a stable community. When there are large differences between people in a group, it is quite naïve to expect that people would feel connected to each other. Second, inequality in essence means that a majority of the people do not have much resources, while a minority of the people does. As politics is often (perhaps sadly enough) about effective lobbying, a small group of people with a lot of resources could have a disproportional impact on public policy. Democratically speaking, inequality is therefore not very desirable.

After having shortly discussed the broad aspects of inequality, I now move to the European perspective. Among all European crises (Brexit, migration), tackling inequality seems not be the phenomenon that is particularly high on the EU’s agenda. This is not without some reason: average income inequality rates in Europe are very low compared to countries around the world. Income inequality however, is only one side of the economic ‘coin’. Whereas incomes are being relatively even distributed in Europe, wealth (or capital) is much more concentrated. The difference between the two is that income is a flow (the money you get for working), while wealth is a stock (the house you have). As private capital has been growing steadily compared to public capital, wealth inequality has increased in Europe. Moreover, the European crises mentioned above can be viewed as being consequences of inequalities. The Brexit for instance, which was addressed by last week’s blog, could be seen as a long term result of existing inequalities in the UK. Inequality therefore, deserves more European attention; because of higher wealth inequality levels, but also because of the possible long term effects of inequality. As the European countries face comparable challenges regarding wealth inequality, the EU appears to be a logic policy level for addressing this topic. This might be particularly true for existing regional wealth inequalities inside Europe. As European cities (with high levels of wealth) are economically diverging from their corresponding regions, people in those regions might feel more connected to people living in similar circumstances in other European states.

Lastly, the question is how inequality should be tackled at the European level. The EU could be seen mostly as a community bound together by treaties and legislations. Its policies should always be grounded in some sort of legal foundation. As the EU has only shared competence on social policy and limited competence on tax policy, Member States can decide themselves on whether they want to address inequality-issues. The division of competences, however important they are, are luckily not the only base for European policy making. Values and certain ‘commitments’ matter as well. The principle of gender equality for instance, has been a founding value included in the European treaties since 1957. For income and wealth inequalities such legal bases are not so clearly stated. There might be a window of opportunity for tackling these inequalities at the European level however: the concept of convergence. This important concept describes the need for European Member States to grow economically closer to each other. In my opinion, convergence should not only occur between the Member States of the EU, but also between wealth and income levels of the people of the EU. Contents of future EU policies to achieve this economic convergence can be straightforward: whereas inequality is a complex problem, the solutions do not have to be. In essence, solutions could be divided in bottom-up or top-down approaches. Accessible education as a bottom-up way to balance inequalities is often mentioned, by including lower income groups to the ‘ladder of mobility’. A possible top-down solution is also very well known, but obviously less popular: raising taxes. As wealth itself is not limited by borders, capital moves to the EU Member States where the taxes are lowest. Levelling taxes on a European level thereby demotivates this movement of money.

Economic inequalities can be seen as the “defining challenge of our time” (Obama, 2013). High levels of inequality are not only unfair in a democratic sense, they also lead to long term negative consequences. Being a continent where values are sources for policy, EU policy makers should be proactive in addressing and tackling inequalities.

By Tim Draijer – A 1^st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.

Sources: World Inequaltiy report 2018, EUR-Lex

Euroscepticism is here to stay

The result of the United Kingdom’s referendum on EU membership in 2016 is a crisis representative of a crucial threat to the European project – the politicisation of Euroscepticism. For so long, European member states have ambled down the path towards an ‘ever closer union’, but in more recent years this has been challenged by a growing voice of popular dissent. Until recently, European matters tended to be contained largely to the European arena. However, as integration has become increasingly politicised, and radical right-wing populist, single issue parties have contested the ‘elite consensus’ (that more of Europe is a good thing), domestic politics have played a heightened role in attempting to solve European issues. This politicisation of Europe has left incumbents in an uncomfortable situation, as they are forced to mobilise on an issue that they would rather see left off the agenda. Brexit represents the first crisis where band-aid policy solutions that incrementally induce further integration have been halted and a member-state has opted to leave the union. Arguably it is the politicisation of Euroscepticism within Britain that was unique, and unlike previous EU crises, began the process of potential disintegration.

Following a week of Brexit votes at Westminster, we are presented with continued evidence that Eurosceptic views should not be pushed to the side and ridiculed or mocked: this stands for both political and academic communities. Perhaps in May we will see the collapse of British-dominated Eurosceptic parties in the European Parliament, however, we must resist the assumption that Euroscepticism has successfully been contained to just the UK. Movements of this sort are no longer confined to nation states or the fringes of Europe, they operate effectively across borders in transnational networks of opposition. If the UK successfully leaves Europe, it will be an example for Eurosceptic supporters that it is possible to leave the EU and survive – as the case may be, while also waving their national flag and beating their chests in triumph.

We can hope that the UK is a unique case of Euroscepticism, and there certainly is resounding evidence for the link between Euroscepticism and a resurgence of English nationalism, however the growth of radical right parties throughout Europe suggests that this problem is about more than just Britain’s historic indifference towards Europe. The social cleavages exposed (and not created) by the Brexit vote exist in variations throughout Europe and the world, illustrated by the growing rise of populism and radical right-wing parties globally. Radical right parties have increasingly, and successfully, used opposition to the EU as a tactical lever to help move them beyond their traditional anti-immigration/single-issue labelling. While last week’s article urged an increased engagement with everyday politics of Europe, surely it is not too much to expect our representatives to engage with the everyday issues of European citizens. This is particularly relevant with the great success single-issue Eurosceptic parties have had in harnessing non-Europe related issues under the banner of Euroscepticism.

Euroscepticism has dominated discussions of European crises. Two views of the phenomenon have dominated popular and academic discourse on European integration. Firstly, the popular narrative sees Euroscepticism as the expected kink to be worked out in the birth of any new political system – there are and always will be those who disapprove, either in principle or in practice, and we cannot expect the EU to be any different. Unfortunately, there must always be losers in any new system and, politically, it is the perception of this loser that is fundamentally important. The condemnation of Eurosceptics as people who cannot or will not understand the way the world is changing is fuelled by the effective adoption issues important to the disenfranchised population who currently feel ignored by mainstream parties. With regards to Britain’s eurosceptics, one could write for hours on the impact of party realignment for Labour and Conservative voters and their subsequent shift to the waiting arms of more radical right parties like the UK Independence Party (or British National Party in its heyday), however it only serves to highlight the failure of mainstream parties and the danger of a continuing drift towards a centric convergence. Another perspective accords Euroscepticism a higher level of political legitimacy. From this angle, Euroscepticism exists honourably in the spectrum of politics as a struggle; political actors take, and should take, any opportunity to advance their opinion or agendas. These two perceptions have determined the way in which elite responses to Euroscepticism have been formulated.

For a number of years Eurobarometer data has indicated that public support and mistrust of the EU is at a low and, consistently, European policy-makers have been slow to respond. Engaging with the opposition is crucial at any level of politics and indeed central to the democratic process. To continue to ignore the issues facing Eurosceptics would be to do so at the risk of the EU itself. About 390 million European citizens will go to the polls in May, and do so at a time when the EU faces one of its greatest crises to date. The EU is used to having a European Parliament in favour of its supranational system and over the last 35 years it has continued to acquire power. Regretfully, this period might be coming to an end. Eurosceptics are emboldened by the flaws in status quo Europe: the euro does suffer from design flaws; EU migration policies are deeply unpopular; the perceived democratic deficit and, crucially, that the EU is often fuel to the fire of globalisation rather than a protector of everyday citizens. This is not in anyway an attempt to sing the praises of Eurosceptics, but rather a response to the dangerous practise of mainstream parties insisting on continuing with a business as usual approach. In order to effectively address Euroscepticism, it must react to it on every level of European society. In short, Europe needs more politics, more debates and more disagreements. People need real choices and solutions to the issues that really concern them, and mainstream parties must oblige.

Brexit should no longer be a question of who is better at playing the blame game. The onus now falls on politicians and regular EU citizens alike to engage with their ‘other’, opening a dialogue that fosters greater democratic legitimacy for the European project. Euroscepticism has existed since the beginning of the European project (albeit not always under this name) and, for the foreseeable future, it is an issue that is here to stay. It is the politicisation of Euroscepticism that has wreaked havoc in the UK and it’s spread throughout the radical right parties of Europe indicates that it needs to be addressed in Europe and domestically.

by Niamh Saunders – A 1^st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht. You can follow her on Twitter here!

The Everyday EU: the Politics of Policies

When following the news on the European Union it seems as if we are going from crisis to crisis. One cannot escape the constant bombardment of messages telling you Europe is going to blow up any second now. Brexit, migration, terrorism all speak vividly to the imagination of an European public who demand that their political leaders act swiftly and decisively. Many pages can be written dedicated to all these topics, and this blog will undoubtedly dedicate the proper attention that these topics deserve, but in my first contribution I want to take a more unusual perspective. I don’t want to argue that these topics are not important, but rather that much of the iceberg that is politics takes place below the waterline. If we want to understand how we can make Europe a better place to live in, we cannot solely focus on the high EU politics of Spitzenkandidaten, European armies and the European Council. Instead, we must move our gaze to the smaller, every-day decision making which through its thousand little decisions shape the future of our continent. While common EU topics deserve all the attention that they get, we also have to look at policies and the way in which we ourselves critically reflect on them to get the full picture.

Concrete achievements

Why is policy so important? To answer that question we have to go back seventy years ago to when Robert Schuman, French foreign minister, presented the Schuman declaration in which he called for a united Europe. In his vision, “Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.” Those concrete achievements are the building blocks on which our everyday interactions with the EU are based. The European Union institutions are highly technocratic, dealing with details ranging from a common fisheries policy and health standards to peacekeeping missions and development strategy. The choices which policy-makers and civil servants make in the creation of European Union directives are both highly complex and highly important as these policies have real life impacts on many facets of everyday life. Policy-making is not as technocratic as it is sometimes made out to be and involves making political judgements and choices. They should therefore not be seen as side-issues, worth attention only from a select group of professionals, but should be actively scrutinized by media, NGO’s and the wider public.

Policies as the glue of politics

What effect do policies have over time? The subfield of policy feedback looks at the ways in which past policies influence the future political landscape. “New policies create new politics” is one of the key insights in this field and we should be aware of the effects of an ever increasing acquis communautaire (the accumulated EU legislation), which binds the EU together. The European Union might be a union of values, but it definitely is a union of laws. Individuals living in the EU are often not aware of the multiple and overlapping European directives, treaties and policies which affect their lives, but that does not detract from their importance. The fact that you don’t have to show your passport at a national border, can shop online seamlessly all over the EU, can move for an Erasmus exchange to the other side of the EU and are protected by European consumer protection laws are all the consequences of EU policies. More importantly, they represent complex negotiations between multiple parties, countries and institutions where politics is engaged in. When these policies create winners and losers, these policies need to be legitimised in a democratic fashion and losers need to be compensated in other areas. Policies are therefore not only the end products of politics, but also shape future issues through the various choices which are made within them.

What is to be done?

If we want to take policy seriously, we must change the attitude with which we critically reflect on the actions of our political leaders and the policies they implement. We might expect the media to do that for us, but EU affairs are too important to be left only to others. Too often we see politicians list the things they want but offer no realistic way of getting there. It then is not very surprising that ordinary citizens mistrust politicians who continue to promise everything, but often don’t know how to actually deliver results. Often policies may sound sympathetic, but are not actually fully thought through and turn out to have unintended negative consequences. To stop this cycle of creating problematic policies, it is very important that we start judging politicians on the achievability of their concrete proposals, instead of the worth of their ideals alone. Of course, professional politicians have a responsibility to bear, but change starts closer to home. Even though it is not realistic to assume that every member of the general public will have the same amount of information or expertise about specific EU issues, a basic amount of critical thinking skills is enough to get a cursory overview of the issues at hand. No amount of media fact-checkers can properly compensate for the importance of individuals having their own critical thinking skills. In the internet age of today, possessing critical thinking skills is more important than ever.

The irony of today is that individuals have access to more information than at any time in the history of mankind, but there also are more conspiracy theories than ever before. One concrete way how you can personally improve your critical thinking skills is by going beyond your emotional, initial intuition on a subject and try to see if there are alternative explanations or perspectives you had never considered. Trying to understand the EU from different perspectives and different member states can help us to form a more complete image of what is going on. For example, try comparing English, German and Dutch newspaper EU coverage and be surprised at the differences! Instead of believing that one is free of all biases and preconceived notions, it is better to acknowledge and be aware of them. This blog is all about the fact that we need less shouting from the side-lines, and more active engagement to deliver upon a better future of all the peoples of Europe. While some political actors want to tear down the house of Europe without providing a better alternative, it is better to discuss important EU subjects and its relationships with every day people in a constructive manner. That requires a public which is well informed, critically thinking and not afraid of dealing with politics and policies.

By Maarten Lemstra – A 1^st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht. You can follow him on Twitter here!

« Europe Ahead ! » A constructive blog on the future of Europe

“The EU looks like the Soviet Union in 1991, – on the verge of collapse” So reads an opinion piece published by George Soros at the beginning of February. Therein he urges parties and individuals alike to come to the defense of Europe and its values. He concludes with calls for the awakening of the pro-European majority. All over the continent, populists more often nationalist than not, have dominated the narrative with immigration and national pride. They attack the political establishment, monster EU, its values, and want a return to the days of old, never specifying which. Often the political establishment fails to react properly to these challenges. When they do react, they adopt more extreme policies to cut ground away from those parties, or use technical speech about economic benefits of the EU. In Britain, the failed remain campaign went even further. Half-heartily campaigning, focusing on dire economic consequences, and threatening a doomsday scenario, they gave few incentives to motivate people. Whether they were right or wrong is beside the point. They were instantly branded as “agents of Project Fear” and created a dark and unappealing campaign. Instead of leading a campaign about what remaining in Europe could be about, it became one rooted in fear. A stick rather than a carrot. Follow us or else.

Now for authoritarian regimes fear may well work. After all, as Machiavelli once stated: “It is better to be feared than to be loved”. But this does not work so well for democracies which required democratic consent to rule legitimately. For a dictator, fear might not be as problematic when an army has got your back. But for the EU, it can become problematic if all member states complain and spread fear about you. Most people do not interact much with the European institutions. Indeed, in many countries the European elections are a second order election. That means that voters and parties alike see them as less important, less newsworthy. Citizens encounter the EU more often through interaction with their national institutions and politicians than directly with the EU. If those leaders only half-heartily support the EU, spread fear about leaving it or blame it for their own mistakes, then the only possible image that might be created is one of suspicion. One that reflects badly on the EU and its institutions. This does not mean the EU has not had its own missteps. The sudden appointment of Selmayr as general secretary of the Commission, the highest position in institution, certainly did not help its image. But for every one of those issues, a dozen more of the same mistakes can be attributed to national politicians.

Instead of a picture of a gloomy and out of touch Union, one should rather focus on creating a more positive image. An image of possibilities, an image of values, and of hope and ambition. An image of what the future can look like. After millennia of war, Europe finally emerged as a continent with unparalleled peace. It has been at the forefront of democratization and development, resulting in a more prosperous and more diverse society than ever before. Moreover, it has given Europe the capacity to promote important agenda’s such as the fight against climate change and Human rights.

There remains much promise in the European project, and everyone can contribute. It is the main reason why four of my friends and myself decided to start this blog in the first place. We love the concept of Europe ourselves, but we want to share it with others as well. We want Europe to be a positive force. Studying European Governance, we have our strong views about the current political landscape in Europe, its policies and its future. But we believe that by contributing to the debate, and sharing our vision of what Europe can look like, we can further push for a dialogue on the subject. In our opinion this is important, especially on a topic of the importance and scale as the European Future. Sharing what we think, our motivation and our optimism, will hopefully help inspire others. Only by creating widespread optimism and a positive vision of future European integration can we ever hope to see lasting integration.

Now is Europe as it exists perfect? No. Is its policy implementation perfect? Also no. But does it have a solid (strong and stable as May would say?) foundation? Yes. Some of the Eurosceptic claims are based on legitimate concerns. When they say that there are flaws within the European institutions. There can be a democratic deficit, some of the institutions seem out of touch, and some of its policies are questionable. However most of these problems can be addressed. There is nothing wrong with the fundamental values and aim of the Union. Those values are things we can all agree upon. After all who does not agree with democracy, plurality and the rule of law being at the core of our political system? Who does not believe in basic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to a fair trial? Instead of tearing the institutions down such as some suggest, we should focus on adapting them and ensuring that the flaws are rectified. It is a process in which everyone can play a role in, not just governments and politicians. Sharing and entering in a dialogue on what he/she believes is the best future for Europe is already a great contribution. Going out to vote for the European Elections is another. Politicians in favor of the Union, instead of bashing and spreading fear around, should rather share a vision of why they admire it, of what they believe Europe can come to represent and stand for.

By Misha Stocker – A 1^st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.