From the analysis of the main political conflict lines tearing apart the EU, to the issue of populism. From the relation between economic and social Europe, to the evaluation of the European Pillar of Social Rights. Young leaders from the JEF, YES, AEGEE, ETUC and EYF, debate the state of the Union and possible developments in the upcoming months leading to the European Parliamentary elections of 2019.
EuVisions met Ivan Butina [VOLT Europe], Philipp Tzaferis [Vice-President Young European Socialists], Thiébaut Weber [Confederal Secretary ETUC], Jacopo Barbati [Vice president of JEF Europe], Loes Rutten [AEGEE President], Kristen Aigro [Board Member European Youth Forum] in Strasbourg on the occasion of the Yo!Fest2018 and the EYE2018.
You can read the full interview here, or browse answers by interviewees to single questions by checking out our feature page.
North vs South, East vs West, Supranational vs National, Left vs Right: how do you perceive this lines of conflict in Europe? Which one do you think is the most relevant? And why?
Ivan Butina, VOLT Europe: The traditional conflict between left and right parties is losing its centrality. For instance, let’s look at the case of Italy. You have souvranist parties which often propose leftist economic policies. On the other hand, centre-left wing parties, like the Democratic Party (PD) are sustained by the bourgeoisie. So what’s left of the classical “left-right” clash? In my understanding, the north-south conflict line is the most relevant nowadays in Europe. It suffices to see how important the issue of debt is and “who decides” about its sustainability or potential restructuring. Many citizens are voting for anti-European parties or Eurosceptic parties because the latter blame northern countries for their economic conditions. Often, however, this way of doing politics is not based on facts solely, but on perceptions, which, in turn, are often drivers of specific voting behaviours. That’s why we need pan-Europen parties and pan-European politics to bridge different forces and create a new consensus around political, economic and social policies. Leaving this task in the hands of traditional parties, however, would imply never being able to reach a federal or more united Europe. We need political platforms whereby people from different countries can interact and create mutual understanding.
Loes Rutten, European Students’ Forum: Another layer to add to Ivan’s description, is the emergence of populism. We can observe central parties confronted by populist forces both on the left and the right. Thus, we have new forms of polarisation. Talking about Euroscepticism, it’s not only a matter of finding a “scapegoat”. Facts tell us that we there are people that have directly benefited from the European integration and the freedoms it came with, and others who haven’t. I think that all the aforementioned lines of conflict boil down to this experience somehow. We really need to understand if Europe is something that can be beneficial to all of its citizens, and if this is not the case yet, we urgently need to move in that direction.
Jacopo Barbati, Young European Federalist: I agree that the distinction between left and right is not relevant anymore. Better said, progressive and reactionary forces relate themselves ever more pro-integration and anti-integration stances. We have both communist and right-wing parties that are against the European Union and the Euro. For what concerns the geographical divides (north-south, east-west, etc.) they are undoubtedly relevant, but their influence on the political debate depends on specific regional contexts. That said, Loes is right in saying that there are other dynamics at play, but the winner-loser distinction does not explain specific national dynamics, such as the Hungarian. People in Hungary have largely benefited from the European Union, and still, the political discussion is all about how the EU is having an impact on citizens’ lives. The electoral campaign in Hungary was centred around the issue of “invasion”. In this specific case, the main conflict line shaping the political debate was “supranational authorities against national prerogatives”.
Thiébaut Weber, European Trader Union Confederation: The four lines of conflict are manifestations of another divide between those are advantaged and those who suffer, those who are more informed and connected and those who are not. I would use the connotation of “winners Vs losers” of the globalisation. Moreover, and consequently, I believe urban areas VS rural areas divide is all the more essential to understand political outcomes.
Kristen Aigro, European Youth Forum: There is yet another cleavage no one has mentioned so far, namely young VS old. It suffices to mention the common statement that our generation will experience worse living-conditions than our parents. More specifically, we’ll be the first generation earning less than our parents. Nevertheless, we are the most educated generation ever. Inter-generational concerns are and will be essential to understand political developments in Europe.
Philipp Tzaferis, Young European Socialists: Similarly to what Thiébaut said, in my understanding the divide between the rich and the poor, the haves and have-nots, or, if you want, between Labour and Capital, continues to structure all the different phenomenological clashes you described. Consequently, we have to find new ways to debate how our economy works. This does not imply that the specified lines of conflict are not relevant to provide good politics. But they are not structuring our society.
