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.
Which one, between the economic and the social dimension of the EU, is more prominent? Both, in practice and in theory? Why is this so according to your viewpoint? Over the past few years, there has been much talk about structuring a better Social Europe. How do you evaluate the steps that have been made so far?
Kristen Aigro, European Youth Forum: Definitely. The freedom of movement and to find a job everywhere in the Union needs to be completed with a set of guarantees, of social rights which must be equal for all. The EU must spur the development of its social dimension.
Ivan Butina, VOLT Europe: The EU project has been primarily economic until now. This is not to say that its economic policies do not need to be improved. But the social and political dimensions have been left out of the picture. In the face of many propositions, little actions were undertaken. But thinking about the development of social policies we have to keep in mind that we have different levels of welfare across the Union, depending on each national context. Moreover, we need to rethink how welfare works and should work from scratch. I would say that, as Europeans, we have a mission to do this, jointly with developing science-driven policies for the environment. The centrality of the environment and of welfare in Europe is distinctive feature distinguishing us from the United States of America. In Europe, even centre-right parties take for granted that a welfare system is a necessity. Nevertheless and again, work has changed, and so needs to do our welfare system: we need to modernise it.
Loes Rutten, European Students’ Forum: I totally agree that there is a lack of “structure” in the EU that depends on the fact we have focused so much on economics. For example, when many Eastern countries accessed the EU, many foreseeable imbalances emerged. These should have been tackled from the outset by means of a collective social framework. We urgently need a streamlining of social policies.
Philipp Tzaferis, Young European Socialists: The development of more and better social policies in Europe is necessary but not sufficient to overcome its structural weakness. We have to revise the way our economic policies work. If the latter continue to be managed mainly at the national level, without any significant form of coordination, divides will grow. Nowadays, the free movement of people in the EU is turning into a “brain drain” at the expense of Southern countries. These are issues that can only be tackled by the coordination of economic policies.
Thiébaut Weber, European Trader Union Confederation: The main shortcoming of the European Union, was thinking that the Single Market on its own would lead to a dynamic of convergence. Although it is true that, in history, many people came together to trade with each other increasing their welfare, this is not enough to create stable societies. To obtain an economic and social convergence, we need a political strategy, which, at the moment, is lacking. Off course, we have institutionalised the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), but the latter can only be a basis for the discussion we need to have at the political level to develop a more profound “social action”. The competition between people within the Single market should not become the driver of a worsening of living conditions.
Jacopo Barbati, Young European Federalist: Deep institutional reforms are essential. We can go on forever in discussing the policies we would like to have, but if there are no concrete opportunities to drive promote these reforms, the discussion is fruitless. We need proper federal institutions. Many policies are decided and run either at a national level or at best, at an inter-governmental level, a method that has proved to be a failure. Here we stand, and we won’t go anywhere. In the long-term, we need a federal Union. In the short term, however, we could think about having European tax-resources filling up a budget which can be called “effective”. Our current Multiannual Financial Framework is just not doing the job, the size of our collective economy would require.
Philipp Tzaferis, Young European Socialists: At this point in time, with a crisis that is still unfolding its effects, institutional reforms would be impossible to achieve. We need immediate political decisions and programs to be taken up by current policymakers. For instance, why don’t we challenge t the mandate of the ECB? Why can’t we think about an ECB that is ensuring as well employment levels, besides inflation targets? For such a change, we need just a change of statute of the ECB, which is a political decision. Not institutional reforms. It would be a mistake to think that there aren’t actions we could endorse within the current framework.
Jacopo Barbati, Young European Federalist: Yet, I think that you can have profound institutional change only in time of crisis. We need to seize this opportunity, this window of change made up of countries and citizens who are questioning the fundamental structure of the EU. If we do not enact this change, we don’t know if we will ever have a chance again.
