Today, I bring you an interview with Eva Maydell, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Bulgaria. I will send the podcast version of the interview to premium subscribers only, and I thought it would be a good opportunity to mention some of the articles I’ve recently published for premium subscribers only:
I think this interview shows again one of the main problems of the EU:
The missing vision about how should this project should look like in the next decades.
Discussions about the future of the EU seem to only take place within Bruessels disconnected from national politics.
Asking friends living in smaller member states the impression seems to be that the purpose of the project is just integrating into German economy and everything else is just a show to hide this intention.
The economic integration is going well , I don't see that as a negative point. But taking this away what would be left ?
The Ukraine war is now showing that western security politics is situated at NATO and the "EU engine" France and Germany is not willing or able to provide leadership.
Regarding common culture and a feeling of living in a common sphere:
All arguments regarding this also apply to GB and the US maybe even to the whole anglosphere.
As a German the USA seems much closer than Portugal and honestly Australia is closer than Romania.
To set up the EU as a cultural project the question has to be answered:
What distinguishs the EU from the "Western World" ?
How are we special, what do we have in common what we don't have with other western countries?
I think the answer to those questions would also provide a vision how to proceed into the future.
May 13, 2022·edited May 13, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo
Thank you, Tomas.
I was in Brussels in 2019 and took a tour of the European Parliament. I have not been outside the U.S. since then due to the pandemic, and so I take the EU issues particularly closely. I understand the challenges of democratic governing of a large number of diverse countries and realize that there are no perfect solutions. Nevertheless, two ideas come to my mind:
1. When deciding on the voting rules such as unanimity, 2/3 majority, and simple majority -- another option is rank voting. Rank voting makes people believe that their votes are not wasted and they are more likely to vote.
2. Europe would benefit of a unified energy policy. For example, if German's economy gets a disproportional hit from shutting off gas supply from Russia, other EU countries would share their gas with Germany.
Is idea-2 impossible? It's definitely very difficult. On related topic, German's resistance to nuclear energy is irrational, because a nuclear disaster at a French or Czech power plant would affect Germany similarly to Chernobyl's fumes covering Western Europe.
Please continue working with decision makers and raising critical issues,
And yet again no mention of the possibility to reduce the areas where politics intervenes. It would most likely bring better outcomes and will probably be even more widely accepted.
Her comment here is a really core part of the problem: "I would need to think more about the steps that could reinforce our European identity. You know, we don't even learn in school about the European Union. There's a half page on it in school books. I came to Brussels and everybody is talking about Alcide de Gasperi and Simone Veil and I'm asking myself: Why are we not taught about them in schools?"
I have not heard of either of these men (and would appreciate a good book recommendation in English) and have a hard time distinguishing the European Commission from the Council from the Parliament, but I'm not European.
My wife, who is Swedish (and therefore an EU citizen), wouldn't have any better understanding than I do, though, despite Sweden entering the EU when she was in primary school. Nor is understanding about other European states' national cultures much better in generally quite cosmopolitan Sweden: Swedes know a lot about politics and culture in the UK and US (neither of which is in the EU) but would have a very hard time telling you anything useful about French, Spanish, or Italian politics. Much hand-wringing is happening right now in Sweden about how little they even know about their neighbor, Finland, which is set to join NATO with them this year (and was part of Sweden for 500 years!). This is not fertile ground for a common European nation. And building this vast administrative state, judiciary, and bewildering series of treaty relations on top of a continent where there just isn't a common European culture is very problematic. The process is also rather un-democratic, a lacking in legitimacy.
It's much the same challenge as faced the American Colonies in the immediate decades after independence. At least there, they spoke the same mother tongue (mostly) and had a common colonial parent (though neither was true of all future US States). But how did a common American nation get formed? How did a minority of radical Patriots bring the rest of the population along to the independence project? And then toward the idea that the original Articles of Confederation (much more like today's EU) was insufficiently unified and centralized and we needed a new, more cohesive federal structure via the 1789 Constitution? Maybe politics was strictly an elite affair back then and they didn't have to care what regular people thought? Perhaps the threat of war (from Napoleon's France) and then an actual war (the War of 1812) helped? But very deep schisms remained for two generations thereafter: Did it require a devastating Civil War to hash out differences? We keep being reminded that the wounds from that never really healed, though. Maybe a whole series of external threats and near-constant warfare helped to solidify an American nation?
Let's hope this isn't what it does and would take to help Europe to unify at the cultural and social level as much as the EU has tried to push it at the administrative and legal level.
I think this interview shows again one of the main problems of the EU:
The missing vision about how should this project should look like in the next decades.
Discussions about the future of the EU seem to only take place within Bruessels disconnected from national politics.
Asking friends living in smaller member states the impression seems to be that the purpose of the project is just integrating into German economy and everything else is just a show to hide this intention.
The economic integration is going well , I don't see that as a negative point. But taking this away what would be left ?
The Ukraine war is now showing that western security politics is situated at NATO and the "EU engine" France and Germany is not willing or able to provide leadership.
Regarding common culture and a feeling of living in a common sphere:
All arguments regarding this also apply to GB and the US maybe even to the whole anglosphere.
As a German the USA seems much closer than Portugal and honestly Australia is closer than Romania.
To set up the EU as a cultural project the question has to be answered:
What distinguishs the EU from the "Western World" ?
How are we special, what do we have in common what we don't have with other western countries?
I think the answer to those questions would also provide a vision how to proceed into the future.
Thank you, Tomas.
I was in Brussels in 2019 and took a tour of the European Parliament. I have not been outside the U.S. since then due to the pandemic, and so I take the EU issues particularly closely. I understand the challenges of democratic governing of a large number of diverse countries and realize that there are no perfect solutions. Nevertheless, two ideas come to my mind:
1. When deciding on the voting rules such as unanimity, 2/3 majority, and simple majority -- another option is rank voting. Rank voting makes people believe that their votes are not wasted and they are more likely to vote.
2. Europe would benefit of a unified energy policy. For example, if German's economy gets a disproportional hit from shutting off gas supply from Russia, other EU countries would share their gas with Germany.
Is idea-2 impossible? It's definitely very difficult. On related topic, German's resistance to nuclear energy is irrational, because a nuclear disaster at a French or Czech power plant would affect Germany similarly to Chernobyl's fumes covering Western Europe.
Please continue working with decision makers and raising critical issues,
Victoria
And yet again no mention of the possibility to reduce the areas where politics intervenes. It would most likely bring better outcomes and will probably be even more widely accepted.
Her comment here is a really core part of the problem: "I would need to think more about the steps that could reinforce our European identity. You know, we don't even learn in school about the European Union. There's a half page on it in school books. I came to Brussels and everybody is talking about Alcide de Gasperi and Simone Veil and I'm asking myself: Why are we not taught about them in schools?"
I have not heard of either of these men (and would appreciate a good book recommendation in English) and have a hard time distinguishing the European Commission from the Council from the Parliament, but I'm not European.
My wife, who is Swedish (and therefore an EU citizen), wouldn't have any better understanding than I do, though, despite Sweden entering the EU when she was in primary school. Nor is understanding about other European states' national cultures much better in generally quite cosmopolitan Sweden: Swedes know a lot about politics and culture in the UK and US (neither of which is in the EU) but would have a very hard time telling you anything useful about French, Spanish, or Italian politics. Much hand-wringing is happening right now in Sweden about how little they even know about their neighbor, Finland, which is set to join NATO with them this year (and was part of Sweden for 500 years!). This is not fertile ground for a common European nation. And building this vast administrative state, judiciary, and bewildering series of treaty relations on top of a continent where there just isn't a common European culture is very problematic. The process is also rather un-democratic, a lacking in legitimacy.
It's much the same challenge as faced the American Colonies in the immediate decades after independence. At least there, they spoke the same mother tongue (mostly) and had a common colonial parent (though neither was true of all future US States). But how did a common American nation get formed? How did a minority of radical Patriots bring the rest of the population along to the independence project? And then toward the idea that the original Articles of Confederation (much more like today's EU) was insufficiently unified and centralized and we needed a new, more cohesive federal structure via the 1789 Constitution? Maybe politics was strictly an elite affair back then and they didn't have to care what regular people thought? Perhaps the threat of war (from Napoleon's France) and then an actual war (the War of 1812) helped? But very deep schisms remained for two generations thereafter: Did it require a devastating Civil War to hash out differences? We keep being reminded that the wounds from that never really healed, though. Maybe a whole series of external threats and near-constant warfare helped to solidify an American nation?
Let's hope this isn't what it does and would take to help Europe to unify at the cultural and social level as much as the EU has tried to push it at the administrative and legal level.
Where can we find the podcast, Thomas?