Europe today

The European Union we know today is the result of a long process of gradual unification. The purpose here is not to describe the history of this unification. But we can say with good reason that the EU officially started with six countries who founded the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951: Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In 1958, that community became known as the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1993, the name was changed again to the European Union.

Meanwhile, the European Union has grown into a union of 27 member states, covering an area of more than 4 million square kilometres and with a population of 447.7 million people. The impact Europe has had on our daily lives, our work, our leisure time, etc. should definitely not be underestimated.

European impact on transport
In discussions with union members in the transport sector, I can say that about 85 per cent of regulations in the industry are determined at European level. It may be even higher.

The driving and rest period rules that determine how long a professional driver may drive at one stretch before having to rest. The tachograph that checks whether the driver is complying with the rules. The cabotage regulations that determine how long a truck driver is allowed to drive around a European country before being required to return home. The rules on crewing levels for inland navigation soon to be set at European level. And we shouldn’t forget the negative role played twice by Europe when it came up with the ‘ports package’. Those proposals sought to undermine the relatively protected status of dockers in many European countries.

All this is and will be decided on a European level. Often after very lengthy discussions and often after compromises are made between different interests. These things are always the outcome of a complex procedure whenever the European Parliament, Council of the European Union and the European Commission have their fingers in the pie.

And you can think what you like about that. You can be critical about it (I criticise it quite a lot myself), but the fact is the European Union exists and has a huge impact on the lives of the citizens in its member states. This means that as a trade union militant you are obliged to engage with it. Especially if you want to defend the interests of the people you represent. And that’s what we want, isn’t it? If we do not engage with Europe, at least Europe will engage with us. And probably not in the way we would like it to.

For or against?
As trade unionists, do we still dare to say that we support the European project? How many politicians, let alone trade unionists, are still willing to say that they support the European Union? That they are convinced that cooperation across national borders can bring progress for all European citizens? Do we still dare to explain to the young generation that the construction of Europe has ensured more than 75 years of peace in Europe? Remember the time when we needed four different currencies when travelling by truck from Belgium to Portugal: the Belgian and French francs, the Spanish peseta and the Portuguese escudo? And who wasn’t irritated beyond all reason by the endless paperwork and sometimes long waits at the borders?

The opposite is considered to be the case today. If you ask the average docker in Antwerp what he or she thinks of Europe, you will quickly get a very negative story about various attacks on the status of the Belgian docker. And about how European regulations are used to undermine a good statute.

You will get the same answer from a trucker, too, who sees his or her job tarnished by the social dumping rampant in Europe. A trucker who first saw Eastern European colleagues flood the market, followed by workers from countries outside the Union: Uzbeks, Belarusians, Ukrainians and even Filipinos. All paid too little, all exploited, all involved in the race to the bottom taking place in the transport industry.

And we know very well that Brexit was not only promoted on the right in Britain. We can hardly call Nigel Farage a progressive. But a lot of working people, including trade unionists, also actively campaigned for Britain’s exit from the European Union. Whether they are still convinced of that choice today is another question. The fact is that part of the left in Britain – including the Labour Party – also actively or at least passively supported Brexit. And, let’s face it, even Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Labour at the time of Brexit, was not exactly clear on the matter.

However, the idea of setting up a European structure was in principle a leftist and progressive story. Italian socialist Spinelli wrote a blueprint of what Europe could look like when he was imprisoned on the island of Ventotene. We’re talking about the 1930s, when the fascist Benito Mussolini was in power in Italy. Legend has it that Spinelli wrote down his blueprint for Europe on cigarette papers, which were smuggled out of prison in the bra of the woman he married later.

Internationalist
I myself am an internationalist. I feel nothing for nationalism or being locked into the national idea of a country or a region.

It was François Janssens, a former president of the FGTB, the socialist trade union federation in Belgium, who introduced me to the powerful message of French socialist Jean Jaurès. On the eve of World War I, Jaurès wanted to prevent the war. But he was assassinated by Raoul Villain, a French nationalist who wanted war with Germany. That cowardly murder – he was shot through the head from behind – shows just how strong Jaurès’ message was. He was active in the socialist, international movement. Jaurès knew that wars are not the wars of working people, but are decided by powerful groups that enrich the military-industrial complex.

Besides, war and nationalism go hand in hand. Moreover, in the region where I was born, Flanders, nationalism goes hand in hand with the right. Usually with the authoritarian right. The N-VA (Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie), which has been co-ruling at various levels in that same Flanders for 20 years, defends a socio-economic programme that can be called right-wing liberal. And the even more extreme Vlaams Belang pretends to stand up for ordinary men and women, but in practice relies on a programme that wants to keep minimum wages low, defends wage moderation and opposes lgbtq+ rights.

By the way, the right and certainly the far right are riding the wave of the anti-European sentiments held by a large part of the population.

For the populist right, it is common to propose a narrative that opposes the so-called elite, the establishment. Brussels, the capital of the European Union, is a favourite target for this. Journalist and Europe expert Caroline de Gruyter stated in an interview with De Morgen newspaper: “Before Brexit and before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there were plenty of EU exit scenarios doing the rounds. Until they saw the havoc wreaked by Brexit and how by Ukraine superpowers are crashing into each other over our heads. They then realised that one country alone is weak. Which is why all of the member states are strengthening their European convictions and countries like Finland (with the radical-right Finnish party in government) are joining NATO. So the far right has moved away from the old exit discourse. Now they want to take to the European stage and change Europe from within. That is their new strategy. It may not be that easy, because they still remain nationalistic and are still at odds with each other a lot. But on limiting socio-cultural freedoms, such as gay rights and press freedom, you can already see them all punching the air.”

If we want to respond to the populist anti- European discourse of the far right, we must have the courage to make clear choices and the courage to go against that simplistic and unrealistic discourse. Then we must dare to defend Europe. Not the current Europe: the Europe of privatisation and liberalisation. But a social Europe. Without a social Europe there can be no Europe.

A different Europe

But we mustn’t be naive. The Europe we know today does not correspond at all to the project envisaged by Altiero Spinelli and his comrades.

Let’s be honest: Europe is primarily an economic construct. With the free movement of goods, people and services as its sacred cow. Europe today is a market, where it is good to do business, where it is good to make (a lot of) money as a private company. Everyone also knows how callously Europe dealt with the Greeks during and after the 2008 financial crisis. Greece had teetered over the edge into bankruptcy, and spurred on by Germany, it was dealt with harshly by Europe. The Greeks had to make major cuts. It may already seem forgotten today, but healthcare in Greece collapsed at the time and pensions were cut dramatically. The sale of public Greek infrastructure was one of the conditions for the emergency loans Greece received to avoid bankruptcy. Piraeus port was sold, with China’s Cosco holding a majority 67 per cent stake. Thessaloniki is also under private ownership. The operation of 14 airports was transferred to the operator of Frankfurt Airport and passenger rail transport is now in the hands of Italy’s Trenitalia.

Budget discipline is one of the cornerstones of the European structure. Any country where the warning lights come on receives comments immediately. Budget rules are binding, discipline is ironclad. It often forces member states to cut corners. And when that happens, it’s public services and social security that carry the burden. Also, these strict rules do not exist in the social sphere. If any agreements are made in the social
sphere, they are not binding. Such as the European pillar of social rights. This makes it very difficult to explain to someone working in the freight department of the French railway company SNCF that Europe is a positive and hopeful project. That same rail worker sees how SNCF has been forced to sell off and privatise its freight department, under pressure from European regulations. Surely with dire consequences for staff.

We’ve already mentioned the trucker facing social dumping (“all Europe’s fault”) or the dockworker having to fight against various port package proposals that tried to break down the protection of dockworkers. Often working people feel powerless in the face of the all-consuming monster called Europe. That’s entirely understandable: decision-making procedures at a European level are complex and an ordinary person can’t find their way around them. However, it is possible to have an impact on the decision-making process in Europe.

Taking action in Europe pays off!

The trade union actions waged against the various port packages in Europe are a good example of how dockers have resisted the European Union’s disastrous plans to strip away the strong status of dockworkers in many European countries.

Twice Europe has come up with a package of measures to ‘regulate’ the ports sector. Or rather disrupt it. These were the Port Packages 1 and 2: two attempts to force member states to phase out the protected status of dockworkers in Europe. One of the painful issues here was self-handling. This means that the ship’s crew would be able to load and unload ships themselves. Even a child knows that stevedoring is a difficult and dangerous job. Which is why dockers are well trained and taught how to load and unload a ship safely. Only a well-trained dockworker is able to carry out that type of work properly. Despite the strict rules involved and weeks of training, the European Commission still wanted to get rid of them.

On two occasions, proposals were tabled to undermine the status of dockworkers. But on both occasions these attempts were stopped. Not because the dockers asked the European Commission nicely to withdraw their proposals, but because European dockworkers took action: lobbying politicians, seeking support from sympathetic MEPs, taking to the streets and demonstrating – right up to Brussels and Strasbourg. The dockers’ opposition to the disastrous deregulation proposals is a great example for the labour movement in action – and one that should encourage us to believe in our own strength. If we really want something, we can achieve it!

But the European mobility package is also a great example of the influence we as transport workers can have if we want to. It is a package of measures put on the table by the European Commission to curb social dumping. The Commission’s findings made good sense, but the so-called solutions were an unmitigated disaster.

The European transport union ETF managed to tweak these disastrous proposals into an acceptable compromise. We certainly didn’t get everything we wanted. But we made our contributions to the discussions in Parliament, the Council and the Commission. How many times did we stand with our flags and banners in front of the European Parliament buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg? How many meetings, contacts and hearings did we attend with our persuasive documents and the harrowing testimonies of drivers? We were heard. Again, not by asking nicely, but by demonstrating that we have power. The power of the street, the power of voters, consumers and working people, etc.

The 2024 European elections

From the fringes to the mainstream
There has been a breakthrough of far-right, populist and nationalist political parties in a number of European countries. Viktor Orbán in Hungary, which is itself a European Union member country, is constantly stirring up unrest within the same Union.

In several European countries we now face authoritarian governments, such as in Hungary. In Italy, a neo-fascist party is in power in the person of Meloni. In Spain, at least in the regional elections, there was a breakthrough by the far-right Vox Party and the conservative Partido Popular did not hesitate to join forces with them to form regional parliaments. In Spain’s early parliamentary elections in July 2023, Partido Popular won quite a few seats, becoming the largest party. But fortunately, they did not gain enough seats to form a majority together with the far-right Vox. The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party even gained seats after being in government. A new Italian scenario was temporarily (?) blocked. In Finland, True Finns are part of the government.

The list is gradually getting very long. What started out as a fringe phenomenon is quietly becoming a real force. It is worth taking a look back at the political climate before World War II. Back then, too, the Italian fascists were a fringe phenomenon. Communists and socialists were ubiquitous in the Po Valley. Yet Mussolini (an ex-socialist, by the way) managed to sweep away the progressives in a fairly short time and use coercion and seduction to win the workers to his cause. Let it be a lesson. The democratic content of quite a few member states is deteriorating and that threatens to spill over to the European Parliament.

Left-wing forces mobilising
We will have to mobilise all the left and progressive forces in 2024 to make the voice of the ordinary person in the street heard in the European Parliament and to give a political voice to the frustrated sighs of those who still work.

The two traditional power blocs, the Progressive Alliance group of Socialists and Democrats and the EPP Christian Democrats, risk losing their joint majority in parliament. This means it is becoming more difficult to reach compromises between the two groups. Moreover, we see the EPP including more and more populist and outright radical- right parties among its number. Moreover, the role of the EPP and its members is crucial. Will this European group make agreements with the far right to secure its dominant position in the European Parliament? That possibility exists and it is downright worrying. After all, recent history teaches us that when the moderate right adopts the views of the far right, the same far right radicalises still further. A derailment on the (far) right is therefore certainly on the cards.

The EPP’s current group leader Manfred Weber is already steering his group to the right today. The role the EPP played in the recent climate debate is worrying. Hopefully, not all Christian Democratic parties will be dragged into the right- wing derailment and there will be a backlash from moderate Christian Democrats if it comes to that. US Republicans derailed by the Tea Party movement in that way.

Caroline de Gruyter, a Dutch journalist who mainly writes about European political developments, gives the example of the CSU in Bavaria in De Morgen when the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) was also growing there: “The conservative Christian Democrats saw their votes dwindle and then went far-right in an attempt to win back voters. But in doing so, they did not succeed at all. They just lost more voters. Current Bavarian culture minister Markus Blume put an end to that in mid-2020 by going against the AfD. He then said something I will never forget. When a newspaper asked him why he turned the wheel yet further, he replied: ‘Du kannst ein Stinktier nicht überstinken!’ You can’t out-stink a skunk! That much had become apparent from practice. Every time the CSU moved to the right and adopted their discourse, the AfD jumped further to the right anyway. And before you knew it, you had made the whole far-right ideology mainstream.”

The more right-wing the member states become, the more right-wing the European Commission and the Council of the European Union will be. The European structure needs refurbishment. Let us work for a democratic Europe with a directly elected parliament with much more power than at present. Incidentally, this is confirmed by Theo Francken of the Flemish nationalist party N-VA on social media: “What is true is that I strongly hope for a large centre-right majority in the European Council and the European Parliament after 2024. Only then will Europe become resilient again. Only that way can we stop things such as illegal mass-migration. It never works with the left. The past (and the present) demonstrate that.”

Progressives across the whole of Europe: be warned.

Recently, I bought a mappa mundi at a flea market. On the maps we were shown at school, Europe looked big and was at the centre of the world. A mappa mundi is more faithful to reality. Compared with other regions of the world, Europe is small and fragmented: a patchwork of mainly small countries.

Today, and for quite some time now, the challenges we face no longer stop at borders: climate change, migration, pandemics, terrorism, social exploitation, tax evasion, etc. A common approach is needed to tackle this problem. European countries are too small and insignificant to act alone. The nationalist call to exercise as many powers as possible at the level of nations or their regions is tantamount to capitulation: it is impossible to provide answers to the most important issues of our time by spreading ourselves too thinly. In reality, this would give free rein to powers that could play off one state against another. Large companies will not hesitate to take advantage of this to threaten to relocate where the rules are the most flexible and where they can make the most profit without being disturbed and without having to worry too much about social agreements.

Some left-leaning British voters were perhaps led to believe that Brexit would lead to greater prosperity or higher social standards. Today, they have come to realise just how naive they were: prosperity has fallen, and when there is less cake to go round, it is mainly social programmes that have to make do with a smaller slice. Nor are workers better protected; quite the contrary. The British are trying to improve their lost competitiveness by working at lower cost and by adhering to as few rules as possible. This does not improve the situation of workers, and an extension of social rights is not really on the agenda.

A left-wing government wouldn’t change anything either. The architects of the Brexit, led by Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, had obviously prepared their parachutes and have been living in luxury ever since thanks to their income from other sources.

The best guarantee of better social standards is to enter into agreements at a higher level – i.e. at European level. If each country set its own rules on, for example, driving and rest times, they would always insist on less stringent agreements, arguing that other countries are more lax: in other words, it’s a race to the bottom.

Europe is definitely a market without barriers, but it is not the Wild West, with no rules or agreements. Companies operating in the single market must comply with all kinds of environmental, social and consumer protection laws. It is almost impossible to impose the same level of legislation at national level, as the British are now also finding out.

It’s hard to find anywhere else in the world where the level of protection is higher than in the European Union: whether it’s toy safety, food safety, the use of pesticides or climate standards, European regulations are almost always stricter than in the rest of the world. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that these regulations all carry enough weight.

Even in the social field, Europe is generally stricter than elsewhere, offering more rights to workers. However, the regulations do not go as far as trade unions would like. In social terms, Europe has made slower progress than in other areas. This is mainly due to the fact that a number of Member States have hindered progress in recent decades. A number of countries wanted the right to relax standards independently in order to be more attractive “on the market”. This also applies to taxation – and to an even greater extent.

The good news is that social organisations, including the trade unions, are now well aware of these dynamics and are united in advocating a common approach based on higher and stricter standards and better social protection.

European politics is not predestined to veer to the right. Policies must be constantly reviewed and a majority must be reached for each regulation, both among the governments of the Member States and within the European Parliament. If proposals that may have harmful social consequences are circulating, there is the possibility of opposing them, as well as putting up resistance and pushing policy in a different direction. The reverse is also true, and at least as important: the trade unions themselves can also make proposals and therefore have an impact, by convincing people, by building a base, by encouraging MEPs to support them and by getting Member State governments to join them, etc. This is by no means an easy task: in many Member States, majorities lean to the right because many citizens have also voted that way – that’s how a democracy works. But the battle is always worth fighting and is never lost before it begins. We need good arguments, a fighting spirit and strong conviction. Fortunately, trade unions have rarely lacked these qualities.