Publicaties

March 25-26, 2017 was a most curious weekend in the Italian capital where people from all over Europe had gathered on the occasion of the 60^th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. With the political unease mounting in the wake of Brexit, the Trump election, and with various elections in EU member states on the horizon, not everybody was in the mood for a party.

Walking across town, one could see the closed-off areas around the buildings where the European officials would meet; witness the separate avenues reserved for the seven different citizens’ marches (and never the seven should meet); and come across the few remaining, slightly disoriented Saturday shoppers and tourists looking for diversions. Most local Romans had stayed home, discouraged by the fact that several main museums, tourist sites and popular shops had closed their doors out of fear of possible ‘terrorist attacks or riots’… Sure, you never know these days.

As if to challenge and defy the troubled, soul-searching atmosphere surrounding this 60^th anniversary of the European postwar project, a beautiful Roman spring sun was shining over the various pro- and anti-European passionados taking to the streets. Red, orange and pink blossoms on all trees, gorgeous light on all the Roman antiquities. Another Europe asserting itself.

The EBN was represented in Rome all day on Saturday, and first attended the full-house political forum ‘Europe fights back’, organized by the European Movement International, together with the UEF and Young European Federalists. In a packed Centro Congressi Roma Eventi, just behind the Piazza di Spagna, a chorus of political figures, MEPs, MPs, academics, journalists, civil society and youth representatives joined other European activists to discuss the future of Europe in a series of lively panels.

In the spirit of the special letter recently issued by the honorary council of the European Movment International (http://europeanmovement.eu/news/a-more-fair-safe-sustainable-and-inclusive-eu/), most panelists were constructive but not uncritical. As one of the panelists, Guy Verhofstadt, had it: ‘We are critical of Europe but not so stupid as to want to destroy it.’

When asked what people valued about all the work done in the European institutions over the last 60 years, most answers echoed the importance of the relative peace on the continent since the late 1940s. People underscored the basic values of security and prosperity to which the EU had substantially contributed. As several speakers reiterated: Europe may have been reshaped many times, but its values remain. They reminded the audience of the ways in which for decades the European institutions had managed to check the ugliest expressions of national egotism, which in the past so often had torn the continent apart.

Most speakers, however, were far from complacent. Pointing to the many worrying signs of new nationalism, everybody agreed that the familiar post-WWII narratives no longer suffice. Time has come for a bold revisiting of the EU, involving new pledges to Europe’s core values and a firmer institutional reconfiguration to live up to Europe’s promises. Many felt that too much energy had already been wasted in internal strife. No surprise, the EU had lost much of its ‘sexyness’ and appeal among large groups of citizens.

Many speakers mounted strong pleas for ‘major acts of courage and new institutional vision’. Much more coordinated attention should be paid to the great challenges and transformations of our days in the domains of climate, energy, ecology, new economic policies, new democracy. Several contributors argued for a smart transfer of power to citizens, notably the young. In the words of the president of the European Youth Forum: ‘The youth are not just the future of Europe, they are its present’. All agreed that 2017 should be a year of much deeper reform and conserted action, to prevent the European project from disintegrating under our eyes.

Around mid-day, the congress participants transferred to the Piazza Bocca della Verità (‘mouth of truth’), to join the March for Europe, organized by a series of pro-Europe organizations.

Thousands of people joined this march to the Colosseum, where speakers reminded the crowds about Europe being primarily a humanistic project.

Meanwhile, a couple of miles away from the Colosseum on the Via Cavour, a March of the Movement of Nationalists had gathered a thousand people, carrying banners for ‘La Patria’, ‘Our own Identity and Against this Europe’, ‘for national sovereignty’, and against ‘gender and gays’, ‘banks’, ‘Bolkestein’ or anti the ‘EU’ full-stop (as in ‘Fuck EU’).

In yet another quarter of the city, in the Teatro di Roma, the DiEM25 movement – led by Yanis Varoufakis and rapidly gathering force among people interested in new democratization of Europe -was preparing its large-scale event ‘A New Deal for Europe: A Time of Courage’, scheduled for later that day.

(See link to live stream recording: https://diem25.org/the-time-of-courage-diem25-live-in-rome/)

Walking around town and attending these various events, three observations stood out. All Europe gatherings in town had attracted people with considerable energy and passion. All marches had mobilized a clear percentage of young people, albeit with very different voices. And all gatherings took place in their own spaces, without much interaction with the other assemblies:  people uttering their views on Europe in a troubling kind of segregation, with no visible attempts to connect.

This exposes perhaps the most pressing challenge to anyone interested in European reform. As is increasingly manifest, for instance in the results of recent elections around Europe, we are facing widening social divides between citizens and hardening silos. In the face of this predicament, a much more fundamental labour of reconnection is required. The current anguish in Europe has many well-documented sources: economic, cultural, effects of globalization. But rather than rearticulating the same anxieties over and over again in segregated spaces of deliberation among like-minded people, we need to re-establish new meeting- and dialogue arenas to find some degree of common ground and shared solutions between people of different walks of life.

So here’s the burning question. Can we drop the unproductive anguishing in segregated spaces (online and offline) plaguing European discussions today and start devoting considerable energy to reconnecting? Can we prioritize the creation of more shared spaces to come up with solid solutions for the future? Can we put the rich traditions of knowledge of Europe to better common use? Can we actually meet face to face for proper dialoue, engage in more respectful exchanges and explorations, and build a fairer future from there? Can we? Still?

Godelieve van Heteren, chair European Movement Netherlands (EBN)

The Dutch elections have passed, Dutch people have spoken. After months of heated debate and fierce campaigning, 80% of Dutch electorate came out to the ballot box yesterday to cast their vote. All of Europe was watching, and many commentators expressed a sigh of relief when the party of mr. Wilders (PVV) did not become the largest. Quickly people claimed this to be ‘a victory for Europe’, or in the words of the current PM: “A clear ‘no’ to ‘the wrong kind of populism’.”

This may be a bit too quick a conclusion.

It is early in the day. The final results will only be confirmed by next Tuesday. It may be wise to take a deeper look at the complex party political landscape of the Netherlands and try to assess what actually emerged yesterday.

For weeks, the polls indicated a close call between the Conservative VVD of the current Dutch PM, mr. Rutte, and the PVV of mr. Wilders, each fighting for the lead which in the Netherlands as coalition country gives one the first right to form a coalition government. After the diplomatic clash between the current government of the Netherlands and the Turkish government over an unwanted proposed referendum rally by Turkish ministers in Rotterdam last week, it appeared that many people last minute turned to the VVD instead of the PVV, landing mr. Rutte’s party in a comfortable lead yesterday.

Overall, a majority of Dutch citizens yesterday turned to the established center parties. If this election shows anything, it is that the tacit Dutch political center reasserted itself. However – and here is the major caveat – it would be misleading to read this as back to business-as-usual. Underneath the ‘grey-right or green-right’ coalition government, which will most likely now emerge, several strong socio-economic and cultural changes are manifest, which constitute the deeper transformations in the Dutch political arena. And they may not be unique for The Netherlands.

These changes can no longer be characterised in terms of traditional opposites. Especially among the younger electorate, left-versus-right labeling no longer applies, if you see which shifts-of-parties voters have actually made. Generally speaking: people vote much less collectively, and much more on the basis of individual current concerns. They vote less for ‘programs and manifestos’, more for individuals/individual issues and different senses of self and future. However, people are still carried by deeper cultural preferences, which are not always so explicitly discussed.

What appeared yesterday is that:

• Young people have voted in large numbers for social liberal parties as D66 (liberal democrats), the Greens and an ecological party (Animal Welfare party PvdD). For their European orientation, this choice can be welcomed, since all these parties propose international openness, a strong, reformed Europe, and inspirational politics, which is what especially the young Green Party leader was offering his supporters. However, many of the youths which came out in strides to support these parties are middle-class, higher educated. It remains to be seen how many of the other youths actually voted. Recent reports worried about their connection to the political scene, specific groups of youths may have stayed home.
• ‘Identity politics’ and specific issue parties dealing with basic human rights (such as Art. 1) have entered the scene. One ‘identity party’ DENK, a spin-off of the Labour party, strongly focusing on the rights of migrant communities, has swept up the votes of some people in migrant communities (2-3 seats), who traditionally voted Labour. Their concerns are serious, their gains may also relate partially to the conflict with Turkish president Erdogan last week, which left many Dutch citizens of Turkish background uneasy.
• The Dutch social democrat party (PvdA) has lost dramatically and is now reduced to being the 7th party in the Parliament. The Socialist party (SP) is the sixth party and also lost one seat (against the expectations in the polls). The Labour losses were especially dramatic in the cities. The major urban centers have turned to the Conservatives on the one hand (i.e. entrepreneurs, SMEs, corporate interests, e.g. Rotterdam) and to the D66 and Greens (new urban liberalism, e.g. Amsterdam, Utrecht, Groningen) on the other. Thus, the traditionally Labour/social democrat urban centers such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Groningen, Utrecht etc Labour have moved to three other parties, leaving the social democrates diminished to their very hard core electorate.
• This continues a downward trend for the social democrats, which has been there for a while but was blurred by the unexpected, tactical victory the party had in the 2012 elections. Whereas Labour had already lost much of its old Labour base (unions etc.) to the Socialist Party before the 2012 elections, they now also seem to have lost many of their higher educated, liberal progressive urban voters and many of the young. A very dramatic result indeed, which deprives them of a lot of innovative power and social base. Much of this needs to be further analyzed. Commentators seek the initial answer for Labour’s demise in the ‘governmental style and self-centeredness’ the party has adopted in government, and the fact that the compromises they had to strike with the Conservatives were often harder to explain to Labour supporters (many of the policies being closer to Conservative dictums). It is significant, however, that the Socialist Party did not benefit from Labour’s loss either. In fact, some of the SP voters may actually have transferred to the Wilders party, as people who feel nobody is looking after their interests.
• The shifting electoral sympathies also demonstrate that the party-political system is not a very strong vehicle of ideological positions anymore. People switch more easily between parties. This is reflects deeper socio-cultural and economical divides, even within the current parties, which are visible in the following:
• The ultra-conservative, national conservative and nationalist forces are now spread over a part of VVD, part of the Christian-Democrats, Wilders party PVV and Forum for Democracy, the small Christian parties and part of the Socialist Party (SP). They are split into center conservatives (i.e. VVD Conservatives, part of the Christian-Democrats and the small Christian parties, which add up to 60/150 seats; nationalist populist forces (Wilders PVV and Forum voor Democratie), which up to 22/150 seats; and old Socialist party forces which are culturally often conservative (14/150).
• The progressive, urban liberal democratic, Green and ecological forces are spread over D66, Greens and PvvD and add up to 38 of the 150 seats) (19 plus 14 plus 5 seats respectively). The Dutch Labour party is reduced to 9 seats and has to reinvent itself. It is very unclear where it will position itself in opposition and from what premises it will seek its regeneration, a situation which again is not unique for The Netherlans, but in different forms and shapes also applies to social democrats in other European countries.
• This Dutch election was characterized by the emergence of a wide range of new small parties, many representing specific issues of identity or cultural roots not served sufficiently by the major parties. The fact that none, except for DENK and the Forum for Democracy (FvD), made the threshold to enter Parliament does not diminish the importance of this trend of fragmentation.

Given all these subplots, we should be very wary of settling too quickly into a victorious rhetoric, or fall into the trap of new complacency. Surely, progressive Europe constructive parties will enter government. And surely, the Wilders forces did not take the lead. For a variety of reasons, they dispersed. And yes, identity and one-issue parties did not win major gains. But the sentiments are there and represent real concersn of people and a tough set of social challenges, which in a mature democracy should not be ignored.

Adding everything up, the social polarization is not gone. The mixed majority of Dutch moderates has asserted itself. But at least 20-30% of the Dutch electorate feels attracted to nationalist policies, feels underserved by established politics and expresses fear or opposition to internationalism, multiculturalism and ‘Europe’ as an anonymous projection screen. The fact that many of the Wilders supporters voted last-minute for the Conservatives does not mean their discontents have now subsided. The people attracted to Wilders are now spread over Wilders own party (PVV), the VVD (the winning Prime Minister’s party), the newcomer Forum for Democracy (with 2 seats), the CDA and others.

The fragmentation and continued social disconnects put a huge burden on whoever will govern next, to build the bridges, of the kind that during election campaigns are never built.

Godelieve van Heteren, chair EBN

EBN-lid Jaap Hoeksma van Euroknow schreef in de aanloop naar de viering van de 60e verjaardag van het Verdrag van Rome een artikel voor de Internationale Spectator.

De kern van het betoog is dat we de EU na het Verdrag van Lissabon niet langer door de traditionele bril van staten en diplomaten moeten bekijken, maar vanuit het burgerlijke perspectief van democratie en rechtsstaat. Het debat over de toekomst van de EU komt daardoor in een nieuw daglicht te staan. Dat debat gaat namelijk niet meer over de vraag of de EU een federale staat of een statenbond moet worden, maar hoe de Unie een betere democratie kan worden.

Voor volledige tekst zie:

https://www.internationalespectator.nl/article/heeft-de-eu-nog-een-toekomst

Five days to go to March 15 Dutch national parliamentary elections. A chorus of 28 parties, listing 1114 MP candidates for a 150-seat Dutch Parliament leaves many voters and foreign observers equally baffled.

International journalists wonder why ‘there is not more panic’ in the Netherlands where the PVV party of Geert Wilders competes for the lead with the Dutch Conservative VVD of current Prime Minister Rutte, and the topics of economics, migration and identity are high on the agenda. Some predict Trumpite scenes in the Dutch political arena in the aftermath of next Wednesday’s vote.

For Europe, this first election this year involving one of the founding member states of the EU could have strong implications. The interest in other EU countries for next week’s votes in the Low Countries is therefore unusually high. Reason why we are uploading English-language summaries of the Europe paragraphs of the main parties political manifestos.

The EBN will follow election night, report on the aftermath and will participate in a number of international debates. Follow us on #EBNtweets and on #EuropeElects

For: Brief Introduction Europe in Dutch Political Party Manifestos 2017, see Pdf 1

For: Europe Paragraphs in Top-7 Manifestos, see Pdf 2

For: Summary of some key positions in top-11 Manifestos, see Pdf 3

Europese Commissie voorzitter Jean-Claude Juncker heeft afgelopen week in het Europees Parlement het Witboek ‘The Future of Europe. Reflections and scenarios for EU27 by 2025’ gelanceerd. Het document is de Europese Commissie’s jongste bijdrage aan het hoogst urgente debat over de toekomst van Europa. Directe aanleiding: de viering van het Verdrag van Rome (1957) op 25 maart in de Italiaanse hoofdstad. Daar zal uitgebreid worden stilgestaan bij wat er – rain or shine – de afgelopen zestig jaar in Europa is bewerkstelligd.  Maar veel belangrijker dan een jubileummanifest is het Witboek een startpunt van een brede consultatie die de Europese Commissie wil houden met Europese burgers over hoe nu verder, in de aanloop naar de State of the Union in September 2017.  Tussen nu en dan zijn er verkiezingen in diverse oprichterslanden van de EU, waarbij heel veel op het spel staat voor Europa.

Het Witboek bevat vijf scenario’s voor de toekomst:

• Scenario 1: Carrying On – In dit scenario gaan de EU27 lidstaten (na het vertrek van het VK) voort op de ingeslagen weg en richten zich op de uitrol van de agenda zoals die door Juncker in 2014 en 2016 in een New Start for Europe en de gezamenlijke Bratislava Declaration is uiteengezet.

• Scenario 2: Nothing but the Single Market – In dit scenario richten de EU27 lidstaten zich weer exclusiever op de interne markt, omdat het moeilijker is in andere politieke domeinen overeenstemming te vinden.

• Scenario 3: Those Who Want More, Do More – In dit scenario mikt men op een Europa van verschillende snelheden, en gaan lidstaten die verder willen dan de status quo op bepaalde terreinen, zoals defensie, veiligheid of bepaalde sociale terreinen samen in verschillende ad hoc ‘coalitions of the willing’. Het Europese beleidsveld wordt hiermee gedifferentieerd. In Nederland adviseerde een paar jaar terug de AIV al in deze richting.

• Scenario 4: Doing Less, More Efficiently – Dit scenario verkent wat er gebeurt als de EU27 zich harder gaat inzetten voor een betere uitvoering op een aantal specifieke, geselecteerde beleidsterreinen, terwijl ze stappen terug doen op andere terreinen waarop de toegevoegde waarde niet zo groot is gebleken of men niet tot overeenstemming komt. De aandacht en beperkte middelen worden in dit scenario vooral op de geselecteerde beleidsterreinen gericht.

• Scenario 5: Doing Much More Together – In dit scenario besluiten lidstaten om meer macht, middelen en beslissingsbevoegdheden te delen. De besluitvorming op Europees niveau wordt versterkt en aanzienlijk versneld.

Een kort schema (zie in doorlink in de eerste bijgevoegde weblink hieronder) geeft weer wat sommige voors-en-tegens van de verschillende scenario’s zijn. De Commissie komt de komende maanden met aanvullende achtergronddocumenten en organiseert debatten in diverse Europese steden en regios.

In eerste reacties op Juncker’s speech en het Witboek geven velen aan dat ze denken dat de Europese Commissie vooral Scenario 3 voorstaat: een Europa van meerdere snelheden. Men wil weg uit het ‘zinkend schip’ gevoel, en wil op punten met volle vaart vooruit. Diverse regeringsleiders lieten zich de afgelopen dagen ook al in die richting uit.

Maar voor elke vooruitgang zijn Europese burgers de sleutel. En daar zit ‘m vooralsnog een fors probleem.

Het Witboek start met een cruciaal citaat van Europees grondlegger Robert Schuman: “Europa wordt niet in een keer gemaakt of volgens één enkel plan. Het wordt gebouwd in allerlei concrete acties die allereerst de facto solidariteit tot stand brengen.” Dit citaat stamt uit een fameuze reden van Schuman op 9 mei 1950 en heeft een verbazingwekkende actualiteit.

In de naoorlogse wereld van eind jaren veertig was het een enorme opgave in het reine te komen met de verschrikkingen, de diepe pijn en haat van mensen. Bouwen aan de facto solidariteit is in zo’n omgeving waarlijk geen sinecure en vergde behalve nieuwe samenwerkingsverbanden ook veel wijsheid in relaties tussen mensen.

In onze eigen tijden van nieuwe polarisatie, geweld, non-dialoog en marginalisering van grote groepen mensen gaat het in de grond evenmin om ‘masterplannen’ of rationele schema’s (hoe nuttig die soms ook kunnen zijn). Wat ontbreekt is precies dat fundamentele gevoel van solidariteit, dat zich in concrete acties manifesteert, waarnaar Schuman verwijst. Terecht of ten onrechte: de instituties slagen er niet meer in die solidariteit te mobiliseren of burgers de indruk te geven dat ze daarvan zijn. Het is tragisch voor de vele hardwerkende Europeanen die echt wel beter willen, maar het schort gewoonweg aan vertrouwen.

Op dat vlak is dus een veel dieper scenario nodig. Europa als solidariteitsproject zou weer opnieuw moet worden vormgegeven. In hele concrete, voor mensen herkenbare acties, die een de facto solidariteit representeren, misschien wel voor alle institutionele herinrichtingen uit. Stap voor stap voor stap voor stap. Hoe dit te bewerkstelligen, dat is de 6-miljoen euro kwestie.

De tijd dringt, dat is zeker. Maar alles is gelukkig niet verloren. We zien drie bronnen van hoop. Allereerst geven ook kritikasters van Europa aan dat er veel terreinen zijn waarop samenwerking in Europa dringend gewenst is. Ten tweede wil het gros van de mensen – hoe onzeker ook – nog niet helemaal de handdoek in de ring gooien. En daarnaast wordt er op tal van plekken gewoon doorgewerkt aan Europese verbanden en ontstaan er ook heel veel nieuwe initiatieven van Europese samenwerking. Onder die laatste treffen we interessante proeftuinen van de nieuwe solidariteit.

Dus is er naast de scenarios van de Europese Commissie een zesde scenario nodig: een scenario dat zich exclusief richt op de nieuwe bindingen tussen burgers. Een scenario dat niet bij de instituties begint maar bij de vitale maatschappelijke bewegingen die zich overal aandienen, met positieve energie en concrete alternatieven: Europese stedenverbanden, Europese organisaties voor nieuwe democratie, Europese verbanden van mensen die nadenken over duurzamere economie en klimaat, Europese clubs die tanden bijzetten voor de rechtsstaat.

We stellen dus een zesde scenario voor dat die energie centraal stelt: een Solidariteitsscenario: een Europees Reclaim en Reconnect scenario.

Om burgers terug te winnen zou het motto moeten zijn bij die burgers te beginnen. Als Europese civiele beweging maken we ons graag hard voor dit zesde scenario. In concrete acties die dialoog en solidariteit herwinnen.

Zie voor volledige tekst van het Witboek en andere achtergronden:

Press Release: European Commission White Paper on the future of Europe

Webpage: The EU at 60

The European Story: 60 years of shared progress

President Juncker’s 2016 State of the Union address: Towards a better Europe – a Europe that protects, empowers and defends

https://europadecentraal.nl/europese-ster/de-europese-ster-nr-859/#europese-commissie-presenteert-toekomstscenarios-voor-eu

The long-awaited speech by British PM Theresa May has been watched and commented upon around the world. Its keypoints were not surprising, but their delivery did sound paradoxical at moments.

May announced the incompatibility of her agenda with membership of the European Single Market, but in the same breath insisted on ‘bold, ambitious and comprehensive deals’ with the EU. She indicated that an exit from the European Court of Justice was imminent and some cherrypicking in the Customs Union most likely (not willing to pay 10% extra tariffs). She tried to console Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but unsuccessfully so, since within the hour the Scottish PM issued a statement not to be in agreement. Mrs. May attempted to put to rest any anxieties of the other European by underscoring that ‘it is not in Britain’s interest if the EU would unravel’. The speech’s refrain was ‘trade, trade, trade’ and global glory. It abounded in references to ‘making Great Britain great again, recovering its role as an open, global trade nation’, albeit with borders hypercontrolled. The PM’s speech was rich in visions of ambitious deals with friends old and new, but without an inkling of how exactly such deals would be negotiated.

In short, the fog, which had surrounded the Brexit speculations since June 2016 was lifted a little, but not fully. The ‘how-to-Brexit’ question remained unresolved, most likely since very few people have a clue on how to deal with the disentanglement, which a hard Brexit would necessitate. It may be that in the end a large portion of the EU legal ‘acquis’ of before June 2016 will just simply be relabeled UK law, to avoid part of that unravelling mess.

Independently from the fact, that it would not be uninteresting to challenge all the remaining 27 EU Prime Ministers to deliver their own versions of a Europe speech like May’s, no longer hiding all the national peculiar egotisms which paralyzes Europe, at a deeper level something else is revealed. What emerges all around the Western world in response to the real and complex economic and social-cultural challenges is a trend which proposes a flight back into an imagery of regaining ‘a great nation’ which upon sober reflection never existed.

“Making America great again”, “Making Great-Britain great again”, “Maak Nederland Weer van Ons”: these slogans pop-up all over the place. Superficially speaking ‘We want our country back’ sounds like a legitimate desire. Every human being wishes to feel ‘home’, somewhere. But if you dig deeper into what the ‘lost nation’ stands for, the responses are rather diverse to the point of being totally incompatible. Nobody, especially not the young, have any desire to return to the 1950s (for them the prehistoric land before internet and cell-phones). Nobody wishes to relax at night in front of a television set broadcasting two national channels in black-and-white. Nobody wishes to revive working conditions that kill off people before the age of 45. And most women do not want to find themselves fulltime behind the kitchensink again.  So ‘our land’ is a very blurred metaphore, echoing very different senses of belonging, familiarity, and control. Powerful, so it appears, but the conversation about what the ‘great nation’ really means has barely started. And thus, instead of being in a back-to-the-future scenario, we find ourselves in a controversial ff-to-a-past-that-never-existed scheme.  This does not constitute a very productive route to follow and thus demands from us –urgently – clear alternatives.

Godelieve van Heteren, chair European Movement in the Netherlands (EBN)

For Theresa May’s full speech, see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/

Impressions of the EU Poort “Scenarios for a post-American Europe”, Dec 15, 2016

‘Europe has to step up urgently and engage in the defense of liberal values in a world which is scared, confused and increasingly polarized, and most likely abandoned by the US with more isolationist policies on the horizon after Trump’s election.’ This was one of the stark messages which The Guardian policy editor for Brexit and former Washington Bureau chief Dan Roberts shared with his audience in the EBN Urgency debate in Nieuwspoort on Thursday December 15.

The very animated debate set the tone for the crucial engagement with the great global transitions, which the EBN wishes to stimulate in the coming year. In the confusion after Brexit and the Italian referendum and in the leadup to crucial elections in several European member-states in 2017, the call for a vital rethink of Europe is growing louder by the day. Around the globe, we hear many voices urging a much more fundamental revisiting of the deeper causes of all the social unrest, uncertainty and malaise that also affect our continent. There are a wide variety of appeals to work much more energetically against isolationism and exclusion politics. In fact, the ‘Trump moment’ and ‘American retreat from the world’ according to some may also constitute a window of opportunity for the rest of the world to redraw its own positions and international relations, more independently of the American hegemon.

Dan Roberts gave a succinct analysis of the causes of Trump’s election and reflected on his recent transition back from the US to Europe. He commented on how Europe to outsiders, visitors and migrants still constituted a hugely attractive environment, for its organized communities, social safety nets, stable institutions and relative peace. But he emphasized that nothing should be taken for granted. Europe should free itself from its inward-looking anxiety, step up and relate more effectively to the changing world.

Wim Boonstra (Rabo bank) commented on the various ways in which European cooperation is currently under threat. High (youth) unemployment figures in many countries, in otherwise ageing societies, an unbalanced policy mix, with monetary policy losing its effectiveness, and little consensus in policy circles on how to move forward all undermine trust in the effectiveness of European cooperation. Better communication of the positive results of European integration is highly necessary, but not enough. Politicians should be fairer and stop abusing Europe, Boonstra maintained. He urged for safeguarding the internal market and the European freedoms, and a more pragmatic approach towards economic policy with more flexibility in times of recession. Boonstra made a plea for greater emphasis on how to increase the speed of reform in order to improve long-term growth potential and sustainability of public finance, improve labour market flexibility, access to quality education and social security to help people to adapt to change.

Kenyan former TV journalist and international relations lecturer Josh Maiyo approached the question of Europe’s new roles in the world from the perspective of the rapid geopolitical reshuffles, which are happening under our eyes. He commented in detail on the example of how China is stepping in the vacuum drawn by a too inward-looking Europe and an isolationist America. Maiyo – too – clamoured for Europe to regain a more significant role in promoting human rights and values, and fairer trade relations which could benefit the younger generations and development in Europe and Africa alike.

For the powerpoints presented during the evening, see below:
EBN Presentation by Josh Maiyo
EBN Presentation by Wim Boonstra
EBN Intro presentation

For a short filminterview with Roberts, Boonstra and Maiyo:

Ruim 48 uur nadat de helft van de Amerikanen Donald Trump het Witte Huis in heeft gestemd zitten mensen overal ter wereld zich achter de oren te krabben over hoe deze Trump-overwinning te duiden. Knap lastig omdat de New Yorkse mediafiguur Trump bewezen heeft dagelijks van script te kunnen veranderen.  ‘He may not govern as he campaigned’.

Europese Trump-vrienden van Farage tot Wilders meldden zich reeds enthousiast. Ze kondigden aan dat ook het ‘uitmesten’ van de hele Augiasstal van de bestaande politiek in Europa aanstaande was. Tweets met ‘Ook-Wij-Grijpen-Ons-Land-Terug’ teksten zijn niet van de lucht.

Op sommige plekken wordt men hier heel zenuwachtig van. Veel Democraten zijn in collectieve depressie na de slopende campagne en nederlaag. Europese progressieven en gematigden vragen zich angstig af welke echoes de Trump verkiezing teweeg zal brengen in de aanstaande verkiezingen. Commentatoren wijzen op het gevaar van afbraak van progressieve verworvenheden. Ze zijn bezorgd over het CoP21 klimaatverdrag, de Irandeal, Obamacare, de benoeming van een nieuwe rechter het Amerikaanse Hoogste Gerechtshof. Ze vrezen instabiliteit in internationale betrekkingen, handelsverdragen, het Amerikaanse klimaatbeleid, het internationale veiligheidsbeleid, de betrekkingen met nabuurlanden als Mexico. Ze vrezen een dramatische neoconservatieve terugval die vooral vrouwen, minderheden, LGBTs zou raken.

Dit zijn bloedserieuze zorgen, maar de toonzetting van het debat laat ook een gevaarlijk soort verlamming zien. Men praat alsof belangrijke progressieve verworvenheden per acuut verloren zijn, en niet dieper zitten ingebed in instituties en afspraken. Men reageert alsof belangrijke waarden niet verder gedragen worden door energieke mensen, los van wie de politieke boss is. Men maakt zich te afhankelijk van de vrees van de dag. Zeker, de verdeeldheid is diep, de polarisatie en grofheid in veel huidig politiek verkeer is ongekend. Maar dit is natuurramp, noch een tijd voor paralyse

Het is een zwaar appèl tot nieuw dieper engagement, juist omdat we al veel langer in een periode zitten van grote fundamentele transities: ecologisch, economisch, sociaal-cultureel. Trump zou niet moeten verbazen, hij is onderdeel van de grote politieke verwarring, die niet louter economisch, maar ook diep cultureel is.

Dus analyseer. Scherp.

Net als in analyses van populismen in Europa, laten de Amerikaanse verkiezingsanalyses zien dat het deels lage middenklasse witte kiezers zijn die Trump aan zijn overwinning hebben geholpen. Het zijn deels mensen die in de Rust Belt van Amerika de afgelopen decennia hun leven op de kop gezet hebben gezien, crisis op crisis hebben meegemaakt, economisch niet vooruit zijn gekomen en hiervoor verklaringen hebben gezocht.

Er spelen daarnaast ook andere, donkere sentimenten: seksisme, racisme. Trump is ook aan de macht gebracht door politieke luiheid of desinteresse, doordat mensen thuis zijn gebleven. Sins of omission. Dit is geen Amerikaans probleem, maar mondiaal. Mensen die een open maatschappijvorm voorstaan zou dit aan het hart moeten gaan.

We zouden kunnen beginnen bij de keiharde realiteit dat er grote groepen mensen zijn die systematisch niet hebben meegeprofitteerd van de algehele welvaartstoename in de Westerse wereld. Er is teveel weggekeken van mensen die hun vertrouwde manieren van leven hebben zien verdwijnen en niet het gevoel hebben dat de veranderingen hun veel goeds hebben gebracht. Er zijn mensen die de complexiteit en snelheid van het huidige leven een drama vinden, of zich om andere redenen overbodig of buitengesloten voelen. In onze gehypte ‘succes’ cultuur zijn veel mensen ook echt buitengesloten, genegeerd, voorbijgestreefd of belazerd door het systeem. Trump noemt dit deel van zijn kiezers de ‘forgotten people’. Hij heeft zich er als een Media-messias over ontfermd. Dit is de zoveelste keer dat men meer vertrouwen stelt in iemand als Trump dan in mensen met progressieve agenda’s of politieke ervaring. Dat te tackelen, daar zit de werkelijke uitdaging. Dat is geen public relations oefening, men moet echt aan de bak. Wie Trump zag zitten in het Witte Huis bij zijn eerste bezoek aan Obama kon ook waarnemen dat de man begint te beseffen dat het menens is. Game time is over. En dat geldt eigenlijk voor iedereen.

Wie zichzelf toekomstgericht vindt zou dit moment dus moeten omarmen als dé uitdaging van de eeuw. In plaats van te zwelgen in morele woede, of moedeloos de conservatieve storm uit te zitten, is dit het moment voor de al veel te lang uitgestelde progressieve evolutie. Het einde van de oude politiek zit al decennia in de lucht, de nieuwe politiek is overal in de maak. Met of zonder Trump moet er echt iets gebeuren.

Hoog tijd dus de scherpste pijnpunten in de grote veranderingen die de wereld doormaakt veel fundamenteler onder ogen te zien en werkbare antwoorden te zoeken. Het moeten economisch solide praktische antwoorden zijn. Het moeten antwoorden zijn die een duurzamere, socialere orde scheppen. Het moeten antwoorden zijn die voldoende cultureel divers zijn om mensen in te sluiten, voorbij de huidige domme polarisaties en gevaarlijke egotrips. En in tegenstelling tot conservatieve scenario’s moeten het antwoorden zijn die een open samenleving bevorderen, geen ‘eigen volk eerst’, omdat isolationisme op termijn niet loont.

Voor Europa betekent dit: Laat een progressievere toekomstagenda niet zo makkelijk wegslippen. Ga er nu eens aan staan. Put hoop uit de grote vitale energie en nieuwe kennis die er in jongere generaties zit. Bestrijd aanvallen op fundamentele mensenrechten. Houd de ruimtes voor vernieuwing open. Kom uit de comfortabele ruimtes van het eigen gelijk naar de plekken waar de uitsluitingen het hardst worden gevoeld en vindt menswaardige oplossingen. Zet intelligentie sociaal in, minder egocentrisch, minder hijgerig, dienstbaarder. Opnieuw.

Godelieve van Heteren, EBN bestuur

***De EBN zal de komende maanden een aantal actualiteitendebatten organiseren over de gevolgen van de Amerikaanse verkiezingen en gepaste Europese antwoorden, ook in het licht van de landelijke verkiezingen in ons land en andere Europese landen in 2017.