Today, we celebrate a monumental victory for the Labour Party in the UK. This triumph marks a pivotal moment in our journey towards a more equitable, inclusive, and progressive society. The Labour Party's success resonates deeply with ProgressivA’s mission to foster a united, socially just Europe.

Why This Victory Matters:

🌍 Global Solidarity: Labour's victory signifies a powerful statement against the rising tide of populism and nationalism. It reaffirms our commitment to a world where solidarity transcends borders.

💪 Championing the Working Class: This win is a testament to the enduring strength and voice of the working class. It echoes ProgressivA's dedication to ensuring that the needs and aspirations of ordinary people are at the forefront of political agendas.

🌿 Progressive Policies: The Labour Party's platform, emphasizing social justice, climate action, and economic equality, aligns perfectly with our vision for a Europe that prioritizes the welfare of its citizens over profit and power.

Key Election Figures:

🗳️ Seats Won: Labour Party already secured 407 seats (Majority at 325) and are heading for large majority, showcasing a strong mandate from the people.

📈 Vote Share: Labour achieved a vote share of 34.1%, reflecting widespread support across diverse communities.

🏙️Voter Turnout: **The election saw a high turnout, indicating a highly engaged and motivated electorate.

A Step Towards European Integration?

The Labour Party's success not only revitalizes the UK's progressive movement but also reinforces the importance of a cohesive, progressive European identity. Together, we can build a Europe that stands united against inequality, environmental degradation, and social injustice.

What’s Next?

ProgressivA is committed to working alongside like-minded allies across Europe to push forward policies that benefit all citizens. We will continue to advocate for greater political unity, social justice, and open communication to bridge divides and foster a truly inclusive European community.

Let’s celebrate this victory and use it as a stepping stone towards a brighter, more progressive future! 🌟

#LabourVictory #ProgressivA #UKPolitics #EuropeanUnity #SocialJustice #WorkingClass

Since October 18, Sweden's new government consists of the conservative Moderates and Christian Democrats together with the center-right Liberals. The three are in minority and have struck a formal agreement with the far-right Sweden Democrats. The agreement gives the government support of a 176 to 173 majority in the Swedish Riksdag. The new government, as well as the preceding electoral campaign and the formation negotiations, represent several novelties and changes in Swedish political life. It also means major policy changes for the labor market, migration, and energy sector, with consequences for Sweden, Europe, and beyond, changes that suggest that it matters greatly if the left or the right is in office.

The Electoral Campaign

The electoral campaign cemented a historical reconstellation of the parliamentary parties (eight in number, since 2010). Ulf Kristersson, the Moderate leader, lauded the far-right, anti-immigrant and nationalist Sweden Democrats for their consistent stance in questions concerning migration and law and order. He stated that the only thing that would keep them from getting government portfolios if his proposed coalition won was the party’s inexperience. In this way, the Sweden Democrats completed their journey from a party sympathizing with Nazism in the 1990s to a formally coalitionable party in the 2020s.

The Sweden Democrats hit a new all-time high, becoming the second-largest party with 20.5 per cent of the vote and 73 seats. This is perhaps not so surprising, given the recognition that the Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals gave the party, and given the media’s focus on migration and criminality, issues that the Sweden Democrats have managed to make their own and where many perceive that they have credible solutions. The center-right thus campaigned on tougher treatment of potential gang members and refugees, coupled with a revival of nuclear power as the solution for the problems of rising energy prices and global heating.

On the other side of the political spectrum, the former government party, the Social Democrats, campaigned on... nothing, really. They put forward their leader, Magdalena Andersson, as a guarantor of wisely negotiated policies in general, stressed their active role in tightening Sweden's migration laws, and deliberately made no specific reform proposals. The Greens, Left, and Center parties were pushed to the side and received little attention, with the exception of a far-right sympathiser's failed attack on, or attempted murder of, Center leader Annie Lööf in July, allegedly for her implacable stance against the Sweden Democrats.

Thus, on the one side in the electoral campaign was a determined center-right, who managed to appear cohesive despite the apparent impossibility of uniting the Liberals and the far-right Sweden Democrats. The latter’s spokespersons have expressed support, for instance, for Hungary’s undermining of the free media and Poland’s restraint of the independent judiciary. On the other side was a relatively visionless and incohesive center-left, including a Left party whose current policies resemble the welfare-state reformism of the Social Democrats in the 1980s and a Center Party whose economic policy might be the most pro-business and market-friendly of all Swedish parties and that insists on labelling the Left as extreme. Despite this inequality in determination and apparent cohesiveness, the win was close. Furthermore, it should be seen in the light of decreased turnout and the formation of an ethnic migrant's party (Nyans) that got some support in traditionally leftist electoral districts, thus ironically benefiting the right-wing government and its far-right support. Beyond this, the campaign might best be remembered for the Christian Democratic leader brandishing a traditional Swedish sausage in a debate and the Liberal leader lauding the hot dog.

The Government Formation

The government-formation negotiations took about a month, which is relatively long by Swedish traditions, but potentially normal in the new landscape of eight parties, some of which are quite far from each other. The first procedure of the new parliament was to elect its speakers (by secret ballot). It was noteworthy that a few votes were cast for parliamentarians who had not been put forward as candidates and that the second deputy speaker, a Sweden Democrat, had to be voted on twice before being accepted. Commentators suggested that her creationist beliefs might have been a reason why not all government-party parliamentarians supported her at first.

After about a month, an agreement, the Tidö agreement (Tidöavtalet), was signed between the three government parties and the Sweden Democrats. The most prestigious portfolios went to the Moderates. The Liberal Party leader emphasized that behind the scenes, he and his party had secured support for publicly funded media and an investigation into the profits made by private firms who run publicly funded schools. The Sweden Democrats, in turn, received a number of committee chairmanships as compensation for being excluded from government and a coordination office was created to guarantee their insight into and influence over the agreed government policy and budget negotiations.

Many Liberal Party politicians expressed qualms about the Tidö agreement, but demands for a reconsideration were denied by the leader. A former leader quit the party and the Liberals were forced to defend against their exclusion from the European Parliament party group Renew Europe, in which politicians from other European states criticized the party for making itself dependent on the far-right Sweden Democrats. Indeed, if the choice of the Liberals to lend credit to a conservative-nationalist government appears puzzling, it is because it is. Arguably, unless it is a question of pure power politics, the best explanation for the Liberals' choice would be that its leaders are more alarmed by the potential socialism of the welfare-state policies of the Social Democrats and Left Party than with the anti-democratic and, for lack of better word, illiberal intentions of the Sweden Democrats. 

The policy and intentions of the New Government

The Sweden Democrats are thus in a position where they can act as both government and opposition. They can claim credit for policy that they believe in or that appears popular and they can criticize policy that does not have the results they want or does not go as far as they wish.

So what is the policy of the new government? Immediately after accession, the new Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson adopted a much more conciliatory and cautious tone, invoking the insecure international situation and the complexity of the problems that Sweden faces. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that the government has only just started, a few things from the Tidö agreement itself have already received some attention. 

Concerning the labor market, the government wants to take the management of unemployment insurance away from the unions, which will decrease union strength further, and reduce unemployment insurance after 100 days of unemployment (the Sweden Democrats have made a big case for defending the current nominal levels in the initial period). Another policy directed against the unions is to introduce a "proportionality requirement" for strikes.

The government also wants to fight migrant exploitation in the labor market, but has declared that it wants to return the right to decide on labor migration to the employers, and not retain the system that was also in effect before 2008, in which unions, employers, and authorities together determined if there was need for labor migration in specific sectors. Instead, the only requirement for labor migrants is that jobs pay the Swedish median wage, which is a way to say that only high-skilled workers are officially welcome.

The government wants to make Sweden unattractive to potential migrants, conforming to EU minimum standards. Measures include restricting the right to family reunion, making it harder to get and easier to lose citizenship, and investigating the possibility to have the asylum-application process take place in transit centers, the possibility to expel people for bad behavior, and ways to make migrants return to their country of origin. Furthermore, rights to allocations and economic support for non-citizens will be restricted, and require qualification through work, tax payment, and legal residency.

In terms of law and order, the government wants to allow anonymous witnesses, criminilize gang affiliation, double the penalty levels for people who are gang members, and declare special geographical zones where the police can search people without a warrant. More money will be spent on law enforcement and the police, but with no requirement of reorganization to guarantee the presence of the police in local communities.

Concerning the environment and the climate, one noteable change is that the environmental ministry has been dismantled. Although the alleged idea is that the environment should imbue all policy, one is reminded of how the acceding center-right government in 1991 abolished the housing ministry with the intention to abolish housing as a political issue. In particular, the new government presents nuclear power as the solution both to energy costs and to the current climate crisis, despite its uncompetitive price and distant time scope. Gasoline consumption will be subsidized in the context of the current high fuel prices, support for wind energy will be withdrawn, and the reduced VAT on reparations will be withdrawn in order to promote the consumption of new merchandise. This all suggests that it is expensive pollution that will imbue the government's policy.

It should be noted that the government gives some attention to welfare state services and economic policy, too. The reforms within health care might have something to be commended. Yet, concerning owernship and economic distribution the center-right government is center-right, no matter the Sweden Democrats' insistence that they see to the interests of the common worker. Private organizations will be encouraged within welfare services, and possible restrictions on their publicly funded profits seem not to worry the companies that make up the "welfare-industrial" complex in Sweden. The Tidö agreement stipulates classical tax cuts, with (intended) consequences for both public funding and redistribution. As an example, in the coming budget, tax cuts on savings will be proposed. According to the Parliamentary Audit Service, this will benefit the richest. For instance, 24 per cent of the forecast cuts, 840 million SEK, will go to the richest 10 per cent. 

Final Note

The program of the new Swedish government is a mix of traditional center-right economic policy, nationalist identity politics, and measures that are openly hostile to a climate transition. Besides making life much harder for many (and better for a few), it will make Sweden poorer, given the loss of long-term economic injections that come with migrants, less redistribution towards the relatively poor (who increase their consumption more when their income increases than do the relatively rich) and forgone climate investment. 

Still, one thing should be clear. There are important political and ideological differences and lines of conflict. This is perhaps counter-intuitive, given that the Sweden Democrats have claimed much of the space left empty by the other parties that had been seen to draw closer to one another. Yet, it remains a fact that politics still matter, and that the differences between left and right are big, even when the win is as tight as 176-173 in terms of parliamentary seats.

🇮🇹 30 years ago Mafia killed the judge Giovanni Falcone, his wife Francesca Morvillo and police officers Vito Schifani, Rocco Dicillo and Antonino Montinaro.

👨‍⚖️Giovanni Falcone and his colleague and friend Paolo Borsellino (who mafia killed on 19 July 1992) were the first to have identified and sentenced the leaders of the Sicilian mafia, also know as Cosa Nostra, in what was called “maxi - trial”: there was 475 defendant, it lasted from 1986 to 1992 and it ended with heavy sentences.

⚖️ All civil society must take an example from these people and fight against all types of mafia for legality. We would like to share with you a Giovanni Falcone’s quote: “The men pass the ideas remain. Their moral tensions remain and they will continue to walk on the legs of other men”.

I moved to Berlin in September 2015. My first experience was the university introduction event. The technical university of Berlin put great emphasis on their support to students who had founded a “startup”. Many alumni presented their “startup”, explaining how their idea changed the world. I had arrived in the heart of Europe’s startup hype.

Just some months before my arrival the former mayor and prime minister of the German capital, Michael Müller, had been awarded the title of “Startup-mayor”. The startup scene was booming. That year more than 2 billion in venture capital flooded Berlin and by the end of 2016 the sector had created more than 70 000 jobs in the city of 3.5 million. Nowadays, with a density of unicorns (startup enterprises with a valuation bigger than 1 billion dollars) per million inhabitants of 6.8, Berlin is leading among the big EU-capitals.

“Startup” seems to be the word of the current time. No wonder I came across it as soon as I arrived in Berlin. However, when it comes to giving a clear definition of such enterprises the answers slightly differ. 

A former LSE student, now in the economic department of the Berlin-based startup cargo.one, describes a startup as a recently founded enterprise with great scalability. “Scalability” refers basically to the ability to grow or “scale up”.

This economical perspective coincides with the Wikipedia definition claiming that “A startup or start-up is a company or project undertaken by an entrepreneur to seek, develop, and validate a scalable business model.”

In 2021 Europe definitely became a major global player with respect to startups, with a new record of $100B of capital invested and 98 new unicorns. Europe's strength when compared to other global players especially concerns new foundations. For newly founded startups the EU attracts more capital than the USA: In the “seeds” rounds (<4€ million) our continent made up 38% of global investments, compared to 36% for the US and 16% for Asia.

Startups finance their development through different types of funding. When the investor is a private actor, they are known as a Venture capitalist (VC). These are private equity funds (investment funds interested in companies) willing to take the risk to back startups. The funding schemes are categorised according to the amount of invested capital. For instance, “Megarounds plus” are the ones raising more than €250 million. By contrast the  “seeds” rounds amount to less than €4 million, representing the lowest threshold. It is in this startup pipeline that Europe is performing so well.

“A startup is a company with an innovative idea and a digital business model”, says Johannes Heereman to me in an interview. During his PhD in Decision Neuroscience, he built a recycled boat and became aware of the amount of material loss in the cutting and milling processes. His startup Normcut develops a software that optimises the geometry of the cutting process. Thus, they obtain standardised leftover material. The company then resells the standardised pieces. Normcut offers both software expertise and a marketplace service. 

Subscribe now

Laura Esposito smiles and remains silent when I ask her how she would define a startup. “It is a company starting with a high risk of failure, but with the chance of a scientific breakthrough” she finally concludes. She started her deeptech startup Zenit just around six months ago.

Faenza is a 60,000-person city of Roman origins in the centre of Italy. Despite its smallness Faenza is known worldwide for its ceramic production. It is here that Zenit aims to connect ancient tradition to scientific breakthrough with its polycrystals meant for laser applications. Through the synthesis of nanometric powders Zenit creates a new material architecture that may be cheaper to produce and exhibits a higher energy efficiency than conventional monocrystals. 

No wonder Laura’s definition of a startup stresses the concept of “scientific breakthrough” as much as Johannes’ does a “digital business model.”

Though the definition of “startup” may slightly vary, new enterprises with great entrepreneurial risk and great opportunity to grow are spreading around our continent. The EU is now home to 230 unicorns, compared with only 55 just 5 years ago (2017). The estimated value of startups in the EU has increased in the same time window from €475 billion (10^9) to €1.6 trillion (10^12)  today. European startups such as Skype, Spotify, and Zalando are part of our everyday life.

Most importantly, this flow of money has created jobs. According to European Startups, a project created by Dealroom and Sifted, the annual growth of jobs related to startups is around 10%. More than 2 million jobs rely on these companies, which translates into 1% of European jobs.

The interaction with states in Europe

Startups are often related to the potential of a free market economy: big funds invest in brave entrepreneurs that in the free market can make use of their creativity for the good of all. In this picture, there is no room for state intervention.

This perspective is reflected by the view of many VCs. According to Atomico’s State of European Tech survey, 70% oppose direct state intervention. Pia Poppenreiter, former CEO of the Berlin-based company Ohlala, claimed that the German startup ecosystem just “does not need political action from the mayor”. She claims that a successful ecosystem requires “a removal of regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles for startups.”

In fact, such a narrative and such statements do not take account of the fundamental role that governmental institutions play in the European startup boom. 

A look at further statements by founders in Berlin underlines the dependency of their success upon politics. Philipp Rogge from Styla underlines how the success of the Berlin startup scene depends on the development of rents and the presence of professionals. The containment of rent costs is a priority of the Berlin government.

However, the role of the state doesn’t stop at indirect interventions. First, we note that the explosion of startup establishments has increased with government funding, which topped $4.2 billion in 2020. There are big differences between European regions, but overall state funding is fundamental everywhere. While in the Nordic countries government funding is around 19% of total investments, it is as high as 53% in Central and Eastern Europe. 

Last year, the European Commission (EC) announced plans to directly invest in startups. The EC wants not just to cooperate with VCs, but to become their competitor. Some investments will be linked to the possibility to take over 50% equity for areas of strategic interest. In this way, the EC aims to “ensure foreign investors do not have the last say in the future of strategically important companies.”  

Johannes tells me proudly over Zoom that Normcut was his second founding. At first, he could finance the work with his own resources that came in part from the sale of his first startup. He got a considerable amount of funding through convertible loans from friends and family, and a strategic investor. “It is the most common early-stage funding tool. Basically, the company gets the money and guarantees some shares by the next funding rounds. It is unbureaucratic and fast.” However, unsurprisingly Normcut also relies on public assistance. The BMBF (the German Ministry for Education and Research) fuels the project with €50 000, and Johannes is currently waiting for feedback from many other purpose-driven grants that he has applied for from German or European institutions such as the European Innovation Council and Sprint.

The role of politics and the EU goes beyond mere funding. A large amount of information quoted in this article for instance is provided by the European Startups project. This database is supported by the European institutions with the aim of facilitating conversation in European Tech and thereby enhancing the startup economy. This strategy is also embodied by the EC’s Startup Scale Up initiative, a portfolio of policy actions and EU-funded projects that address topics such as data exchange, implementation of best practices in member states, and the closure of investment gaps in targeted regions.

It is with great passion that Laura explains how Zenit is turning the patent of the polycrystals technology into a business: “We are now in the proof-of-concept phase, for which we raised €250 000 both from a strategic partner and the VC LIFFT.” The idea for Zenit dates back more than a decade. The non-trivial scientific achievement was possible thanks to years of research carried out by Laura and her colleagues along with many PhD students at the National Research Council (CNR), the biggest public research institution in Italy. It was in the framework of a public institution that the patent was developed.

In fact, what at first glance was a company financed by private capital turns out to be interlinked with public institutions. Laura underlines that Zenit was born as a spin-off of the CNR. “It is important to stress that our startup can use the facilities of the CNR. Furthermore, for the first three years of our work, I can dedicate 30% of my time as an employee of the CNR to Zenit.”

The company reflects the deep dependence of the startup ecosystem on high-quality public research. Indeed, a look at some data reinforces this correlation. It is telling that Cambridge heads the ranking of cities with the most startups per capita: A small city, but with an ideal academic humus.

Similarly, BioNTech was founded 2008 as a spin-off of the University in Mainz. Now the European startup is known for the development of the first Covid-19 vaccine with a new RNA technology. For the first 10 years of its existence the biomedical company received €9.4 billion from EU funding schemes. The first private investors entered with Series A funding only in 2018.

Purpose driven

When at the end of the interview I ask Johannes how he contextualises public interventions in the startup ecosystem he reflects shortly and says “Purpose-driven.”

The word purpose in this context refers to a company with a business model aimed at improving social or environmental conditions. Such enterprises are becoming more and more common in Europe. For instance, 11% of European public and private funding in 2021 was raised by startups with a product that contributes to the United Nations’ environmental Sustainable Development Goals.

My personal interest for startups arose not only because more and more friends ended up working in them, but mainly because I wanted to understand how much these companies really have an impact on our European societies and which role politics could and should have in this field.

Concluding our chat, Johannes further developed his thought: “The problem of private VCs is that they are never only purpose driven. The fact is that with venture capital you have no guarantee that your focus in the long term will be the problem that you originally wanted to solve.” He stops one moment and continues, “Look at the story of Air B&B. The idea was to respond to the high rental prices and housing shortage in San Francisco by accessing the unused supply of empty apartments. In the meantime, Air B&B globally has exacerbated the problem of housing prices and opportunities in cities.”

Share

🩺Today is International Nurses Day! 💪

On 12 May 1820, Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing, was born exactly. To celebrate this day, we would like to share with you her story.

Florence Nightingale and other 38 nurses were the first women to leave as volunteers for the Crimean war. Many injured soldiers used to die because of poor hygiene, but Florence Nightingale and her colleagues assisted many patients and improved environmental and individual hygiene. The mortality rate decreased dramatically.

During the Covid 19 pandemic, nurses were at the forefront with doctors, healthcare assistants and all medical staff. They had exhausting work shifts and they are subject to great psychological stress. Most people called them “heroes”, but, in some EU Member States, they are underpaid.

This is not acceptable. It is necessary that nurses’ work is always appreciated, not only in emergency times. They must have an adequate salary. But above all, the safe working conditions of nurses must be guaranteed.

The picture below is “Game Changer”, Banksy's new work on display at the General Hospital of Southampton, dedicated to nurses.

#internationalnursesday #nurses #banksy

🇪🇸On 26 April 1937, the Basque city of Guernica was razed to the ground by German aircraft supporting the troops of general Francisco Franco.

🖼 1655 people died and Picasso immortalized that horror in the famous painting "Guernica", which is now located at the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia (Madrid).

🇺🇳 A full-size tapestry copy of Picasso’s “Guernica”, by Jacqueline de la Baume Durrbach, hangs at the Headquarters of the United Nations in New York City at the entrance to the Securiry Council room.

📍 A widely repeated story is that a German officer once asked him, upon seeing a photo of Guernicain Picasso's apartment, "Did you do that?", and Picasso responded, "No, you did."

Relations between Bulgaria and Russia have always been anything but simple. Through the years, a number of studies and surveys have provided insight into Bulgarians’ perception of Russia. Nevertheless, in order to understand the statistical information, there are a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration. This will help us to not just see the picture, but also to explain it.

“We go way back”
i.e. historical background

Without a doubt, Bulgaria and Russia share deep historical, cultural, religious and political ties. Both countries are Slavic and have a common Orthodox Christian culture. What’s more, they both use the Cyrillic script, which dates back to the 9th century in the First Bulgarian Empire. The similarities, however, haven’t necessarily translated into harmonious relations through the years. That being said, it is also worth mentioning some of the milestones that have framed and shaped relations. For one, the Russo-Turkish war of 1877 - 1878 led to Bulgaria regaining its sovereignty from the Ottoman Empire after spending five centuries under the Empire’s rule. To this day, March 3 – the day when the Russian Ambassador to the Sublime Porte signed a peace treaty – is Bulgaria’s national holiday. Nevertheless, tensions started building after Russia didn’t support Bulgaria in its unification process, and during the following Serbian-Bulgarian war. The fact that Russia would continuously favour Serbia contributed to Bulgaria’s stance during the two World Wars and further worsened its relations with Russia.

Despite this, the Soviet Red Army backed the Bulgarian coup d’état in 1944, which brought the Bulgarian Communist Party to power. Even though it never officially formed part of the USSR, Bulgaria would half-jokingly be called the Union’s “16th Republic”. Until 1989, the country was highly dependent on Soviet patronage, and it transitioned from an agrarian economy to heavy industry with the import of Soviet technology, funds, and raw materials. After 1989, relations between the two countries entered a new stage, influenced by the political position of the ruling party in Bulgaria. Understandably, the left were more inclined towards close ties with Russia than were the right. The disputes between Russophile and Russophobe fractions would turn into an ever-present characteristic of Bulgarian society and mentality. The arguments are just as frantic today as they’ve always been, even more so, given the dynamic conjuncture.

“A hungry bear doesn’t dance”
i.e. economy matters

Russia is a major partner in trade for Bulgaria, mainly owing to oil and gas. Due to energy dependence the trade deficit is structural, and two companies (Lukoil and Gazprom) dominate trading relations between the two countries. Furthermore, Russia is the tenth-largest investor in Bulgaria and there are a significant number of Bulgarian companies where Russian individuals and entities hold between 5 and 100% of shares. Tourism is also an important sector for economic relations, but after several years of growth, for a number of  reasons, there has been a fall in the number of tourists.

The Kremlin’s influence over energy in Bulgaria doesn’t just stem from the country’s volume-related consumption of gas, but also from Moscow’s financial and political leverage over local energy projects and policies. Russia is the sole exporter of natural gas to Bulgaria, and the Kremlin’s TVEL Fuel Company provides all nuclear fuel cycle services in the country. The complex network of contacts secures Moscow’s interests in Sofia.

“Bear huggers”?
i.e stats, surveys, studies

So what do the surveys show? Given the changing state of play in the world, it is necessary to look at the most recent data. However, it’s also beneficial to take into account past results, if we want to understand what shapes Bulgarians’ perception of Russia and how.

For instance, a public opinion poll, conducted in 2015 by the European Council on Foreign Relations found that “Bulgarians continue to like Russia but they do not believe that the country can be a model for development and provide more credible guarantees for prosperity and security than the membership in the EU and NATO”. The national representative study was conducted the year after Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It demonstrated  that “in a year Russia managed to provoke in the generally Russia-friendly Bulgarian population a change towards a negative attitude (in 30% of the interviewees) that is four times larger than the change towards a positive attitude (only in 7% of the interviewees)”. Moreover, given the long-standing economic relationship between Bulgaria and Russia, the majority of Bulgarians (61%) did not support the imposition of severe sanctions against Russia, as opposed to 39% who did.

In 2021, the global think tank GLOBSEC, based in Bratislava, published the results of a survey called “Image of Russia: Mighty Slavic Brother or Hungry Bear Nextdoor?”. According to the findings, there is no single image of Russia, and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe could be divided into three groups: bear huggers, bear feeders and bear sceptics. Bulgaria falls under the “bear huggers” category, with the survey demonstrating the impact of Kremlin rhetoric, resulting in a gradual decrease of support for NATO in Bulgaria (declined by 9% since 2019 and at the time of the survey standing at 47%). Some other key findings for Bulgaria are that Russia was perceived as an important strategic partner by four in ten Bulgarians, that the Russian victimhood narrative is prevalent (accepted by nearly half the population), and that the oldest and university-educated are the most sympathetic to pro-Russian narratives.   
  

Figure 1: Perceptions of international superpowers and their policies in Bulgaria

Source: Gallup Balkans (author translation)

At the end of 2021, a global survey was conducted by the Gallup International Association on the topic of perceptions of international superpowers and their policies. The results (see Figure 1) show that it was the most difficult for Bulgarian society to form a clear position on Russia, as the largest percentage of answers (37%) are “I can not judge”. 30% believe that Moscow's policies stabilise the world, and 33% are in the opposite position. Over the past year, attitudes towards Russia's international policies have visibly deteriorated. The net value of the assessments of Russia's policies, across the range of responses in Bulgaria, puts it in the negative (destabilising) range, at -3. A year earlier the net score was +17.

Figure 2: Attitude towards Russian president Vladimir Putin - from 2020 to 2022

Source: Alpha Research (author translation)

Given the current world situation, a survey was conducted by Alpha Research at the end of February 2022 and it has expectedly reflected the changing Bulgarian perception. In the first days of hostilities, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has enjoyed a positive rating for years, has lost much of his popularity in Bulgaria. During the period 2020-2022, between 55% and 58% of Bulgarians expressed positive opinions (compared to 20% negative), but now the situation is changing radically (see Figure 2). Positive opinions decreased by almost half, to 32%, and negative ones increased to 48%. The unprecedented unification of European countries in imposing uniform sanctions against Russia and aid to Ukraine is considered the right policy by 63% of Bulgarian citizens (see Figure 3). Moreover, 47% of the respondents declare their readiness to pay higher prices as a result  of the imposed sanctions. However, 36% (likely people with limited financial resources) are reluctant or could not pay higher prices.

Figure 3: Opinion on the sanctions against Russia and aid to Ukraine

Source: Alpha Research (author translation)

“Смотреть правде в глаза/ Face the truth”
i.e. conclusion

Saying that relations between Bulgaria and Russia are complicated would be an understatement. On the one hand, it’s hard to ignore the role that the past plays and according to Dr. Dimitar Bechev, the image of Russia as a Slav brother and liberator is “embedded in both history textbooks and national literature”. In one analyst’s opinion, the long-standing ties to Russia are what keeps Bulgaria “vulnerable to the Kremlin’s pressures”. GLOBSEC’s “Vulnerability Index” report on Bulgaria, prepared by the Center for the Study of Democracy, shows that the country is among the region’s most vulnerable to external influence. An information environment strongly influenced by Russia plays an important role in shaping widespread pro-Russian public attitudes. 

Nevertheless, the conflict in Ukraine has drastically changed the attitude towards Russia in Bulgaria, just as the annexation of Crimea had between 2014-2015. Bulgarians condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine and support European solidarity. In time, it will be possible to see if this trend is here to stay.

Today we want to celebrate with you the liberation of Chile from Augusto Pinochet's regime happened on the 11th of March 1990

📌Pinochet seized power by overthrowing Salvador Allende's democratically elected government in 1973. During his dictatorship, Pinochet dissolved political parties and pursued   nationalist, anti-liberal and anti-communist policies. Serious violations of human rights were committed: it is estimated that 2,298 people were murdered or executed, 1,210 people disappeared into thin air,  and 28,259 were victims of torture.

❗In his last speech about him during the 1973 coup, Allende said: “other men will overcome this gray and bitter moment in which betrayal is imposed. Know that, sooner than later, the great avenues will open up again, through which the free man will pass, to build a better society. Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers! ”.

💪And this is exactly what the Chileans did on March 11, 1990: they voted "NO" to the plebiscite for a new presidential term in Pinochet, regaining democracy.oday we want to celebrate with you the liberation of Chile from Augusto Pinochet's regime happened on the 11th of March 1990

📌Pinochet seized power by overthrowing Salvador Allende's democratically elected government in 1973. During his dictatorship, Pinochet dissolved political parties and pursued   nationalist, anti-liberal and anti-communist policies. Serious violations of human rights were committed: it is estimated that 2,298 people were murdered or executed, 1,210 people disappeared into thin air,  and 28,259 were victims of torture.

❗In his last speech about him during the 1973 coup, Allende said: “other men will overcome this gray and bitter moment in which betrayal is imposed. Know that, sooner than later, the great avenues will open up again, through which the free man will pass, to build a better society. Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers! ”.

💪And this is exactly what the Chileans did on March 11, 1990: they voted "NO" to the plebiscite for a new presidential term in Pinochet, regaining democracy.

🇪🇺⚖️With a fundamental ruling, the European Court of Justice has given a lesson to Poland and Hungary: those who do not respect democratic standards do not receive European funds.

💪🏻Now the European Commission can start the procedures to block funds to those who have shown in recent years that they do not respect the fundamental values of the European Union!

Two comedians stand resolute in Kyiv. Volodymyr Zelenskiy is a professional comedian and actor elected President of Ukraine in 2019. And even Putin himself is laughing at Boris Johnson swooping to the rescue. The threat they are defending us against is an invasion of Ukraine much larger than that which we saw after the country’s last pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, was toppled in 2014. Russian military forces are lined up at the Ukrainian border, and the United States is sending troops to Europe. The United Kingdom has accused Russia of planning to invade and install a puppet government.

This is not an article about NATO or natural gas or great power politics, but an invitation to get to know the European country at the centre of the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Europeans are eyeing the eve of war with trepidation, but not the kind of desperate fear that we might expect. Because the land of forty million people where this international drama is unfolding is little known to many of us, and, if we’re honest, it still doesn’t really feel like Europe. The danger is not quite on our doorstep.

The European Union has worked since 2014 to strengthen its relationship with Ukraine by unseating Russia as the country’s largest trading partner and welcoming Ukrainians to work throughout the continent with rights and protections. But Europeans are still getting to know Ukraine. The eastern cities of Budapest, Krakow, Tallinn and Bucharest, and even non-EU Sarajevo and Belgrade, have become top travel destinations for western Europeans increasingly interested in eastern culture, food, and history. But Ukraine remains shrouded by its perceived economic backwardness, political corruption, and instability.

Ukraine is ‘other’ in the minds of many, but it is a wholly European country with an unmistakably European culture. In Lviv, bars and cafes spill out into the squares. In Odessa, beach clubs pump Europop hits and sunbeds line the sand. In Kyiv, spectacular churches litter the skyline. This country at the centre of the crisis is just like your latest holiday destination and the places that you feel most at home. In past and present, Ukraine is Europe.

A shared history

A common European culture has been shaped by centuries of migration and religious and political conflict that has seen the map of Europe redrawn over and over, long before the fall of the iron curtain. Much of present-day Ukraine was Christianised in the tenth century, when Kievan Rus was one of the largest and most powerful states in Europe. Like other European people, Ukrainians suffered through the destructive wars of the middle ages, and during the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries their territory was partitioned among imperial powers: Polish-Lithuanian, Russian, Ottoman, and Austrian. This meant that Ukrainians fought on both sides of the First World War, and like the peoples of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, (then) Czechoslovakia, (then) Yugoslavia, and Ireland, the Ukrainians made a bolt for independence in its wake. 

But the Ukrainian People’s Republic survived just a few short years, and during the interwar soviet era, the Holodomor famine of 1932-3 killed at least 4 million Ukrainians. During the Second World War, Ukrainians once again found themselves on both sides of the fight. Millions of Ukrainians served in the Red Army, and hundreds of thousands — including my grandparents — worked in German munitions factories and entered the ranks of the Wehrmacht after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Many of these people lived in parts of the country that had been partitioned to Poland in the Treaty of Versailles and occupied by the Soviet Union in 1939. Like much of Europe, Ukraine was devastated by the war. At least two million Ukrainians were displaced, and those that were unable to return home lived in refugee camps for some years after the war before eventually settling around the world. 

Ukrainians in the European Union

After the Second World War, there was substantial migration of Ukrainians to other parts of the Soviet Union, contributing to sizeable diasporas in today’s Poland, Slovakia, Latvia, Romania, Czechia, Croatia, Estonia, and Lithuania. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, large numbers of Ukrainians also migrated to Italy, Greece, Portugal and France. These economic migrants often took up lower paying jobs in service and care work, and many of them were women. In Italy, for example, 80 per cent of (legal) Ukrainian migrants are female. 

In addition to permanent migration, seasonal labourers (often illegal) flocked west. Anecdotally, for those living in border regions, the appeal of earning enough in just one month working in Poland to live off for six months in rural Ukraine was enough to eclipse any safety or legal concerns. Since 2017, Ukrainians have had access to visa-free travel within the European Union, and countries such as Poland have made work permits easier to access, strengthening the rights of seasonal labourers. Today almost three million Ukrainian citizens work in the EU - about one million of them in Poland’s agricultural sector. The Ukrainians already living in the European Union perform vital jobs and contribute to the diversity of European life.

Welcoming Ukraine to Europe

In 1991, 90 per cent of the Ukrainian population voted for independence from the Soviet Union. Efforts to negotiate an Association Agreement with the EU from the early 2000s were stymied by political corruption that was inconsistent with the EU’s common values and in particular the rule of law. Perceived electoral corruption, and the intimidation and imprisonment of political opponents, triggered major popular uprisings in the 2004 Orange Revolution and 2014 Euromaidan. Both protests engaged swathes of the Ukrainian population, including a large proportion of young people, in the fight for Ukrainian nationhood and democracy. 

An Association Agreement was finally ratified by all Member States and granted by the European Council in mid-2017. The main obstacle for candidacy remains the high level of corruption, particularly in the judiciary. Significant changes are also required throughout the economy, for instance in the energy sector, the regulation of banking, food safety, and land use, as well as regional infrastructure development. 

Joining the EU represents an opportunity for Ukraine to reform these institutions, not simply for the purpose of accession, but to strengthen its democracy and economy for the benefit of its people. But it’s important that the economic transformation prioritises citizens’ wellbeing rather than simply the creation of a market economy that is secure for international investment.

The transition from soviet-era state capitalism to liberal market capitalism is not automatically seeing benefits ‘trickle down’ to ordinary people. The election of Zelenskiy as a populist president reflects people’s frustration with political leadership, and with the absence of progress made to improve their everyday lives and ensure the security of their future. When the immediate crisis is over, the EU and Member States should strengthen their efforts to integrate Ukraine, and do more to support a wellbeing focus during the process of reform.

The domestic political conditions of Ukraine’s reform programme have long been challenging, and the present threat of war is a disturbing escalation. But the EU’s economic sanctions were not enough to stop Russia from continuing to occupy Crimea since 2014, and efforts at integration have not been enough to prevent Ukraine from being placed as a pawn once again at the centre of today’s crisis.

A disclaimer and an invitation

This abridged history is shaped by the stories of my family who live in the Ivano-Frankivsk region near the historic city of Halych, heart of Galicia. The region is historically a centre of Ukrainian nationalism and considered pro-European. Being a long-occupied and partitioned country, you might get another history from another Ukrainian. And I encourage you to ask, because the histories of Ukraine are the histories of Europe.

Today, more than ever, we must remember that 75 years ago the Red Army liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp, revealing to the world one of the greatest horrors in history.

Today more than ever, given the spread of racism and anti-Semitism that, instead of being contained, are fomented and nurtured.

Liliana Segre, an Italian Senator who survived Auschwitz, warns: "𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦: 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥. 𝘔𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘷𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦."

After the recent death of David Sassoli, who in any case had announced his intention not to run again, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) elected their new President for the second half of the 9th Legislature: Roberta Metsola. Metsola, a member of the European People's Party (EPP) received 458 valid votes out of 610.

Both the left and the right wing rejoiced: finally, the European Parliament is once again led by a woman. Metsola is, in fact, the third woman to hold this office. Before her were Simone Veil from 1979 to 1982, and Nicole Fontaine from 1999 to 2002. A second cause for celebration: the European institutions are almost all female-led. In addition to Metsola in Parliament, we have Von Der Leyen at the Commission and Lagarde at the ECB.

On the other hand, the feeling that a woman would end up at the helm this time was already in the air. Together with the newly elected President, two other women had been nominated: Sira Rego (Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left) and Alice Bah Kuhnke (Greens/European Free Alliance). The only man in the running, conservative Kosma Złotowski (European Conservatives and Reformists), withdrew his candidacy before the vote. It was therefore written in the stars that David Sassoli's successor would be a woman. 

Frankly, however, I would think twice before heralding victory over male chauvinism and gerontocracy just because Metsola is the third woman, and the youngest, to be elected President of the European Parliament. In fact, what is Metsola's position on the fundamental rights of women?

Roberta Metsola was elected MEP in the only state of the European Union that completely bans abortion: Malta. Metsola herself has defended the anti-abortion line followed by her country on several occasions. In the past, together with EPP colleagues Therese Comodini Cachia and David Casa, she has expressly stated that she is against abortion:

“We fully support gender equality and are committed to achieving this goal. However, we remain categorically against abortion. It is regrettable that a report analyzing the situation of gender equality has been hijacked to include unacceptable references to abortion. The PN* has always maintained that this is an issue that should remain the exclusive competence of the Member States, in which the EU cannot and must not be involved… we voted against the whole report to underline our strong opposition to abortion and to express our serious reservations about attempts to violate the principle of subsidiarity ".

* PN = Maltese Partit Nazzjonalista (Nationalist Party)

Just six months ago, the newly elected President voted against the report on the situation of sexual and reproductive health which, among other things, called for universal access to safe and legal abortion across the European Union. At a press conference held after her election, she suggested that her personal views would not prevent her from actively promoting the views of the European Parliament:

"The position of the Parliament is my position".

It is useless to praise feminism and gender equality just because a woman has been elected President of the European Parliament. Electing a woman President is not enough. Rather, it is necessary to elect a woman who is President for all women. It is necessary that the President recognizes all the rights of women - including that of abortion - and that they fight so that these rights are recognized and respected by others. That the leaders of the European institutions are explicitly and fully in favour of abortion is especially important now, given the drift that is occurring on the protection of this right in countries such as Hungary and Poland.

Therefore, before celebrating, let's wait and see how President Metsola will operate within her mandate, and if she will really be willing to adapt her personal position on abortion. Only then will there (perhaps) be a reason for European women to rejoice.

Dopo la recente scomparsa di David Sassoli, che comunque aveva annunciato l’intenzione di non ricandidarsi, gli Europarlamentari hanno eletto la loro nuova Presidente per la seconda metà della IX Legislatura del Parlamento Europeo: Roberta Metsola.

È stato quasi un plebiscito quello della Presidente Metsola, eletta con 458 voti validi su 610.

La maggior parte degli esponenti sia della sinistra che della destra hanno esultato: finalmente il Parlamento Europeo torna ad essere guidato da una donna (Metsola è infatti la terza donna a ricoprire tale carica, prima di lei Simone Veil dal 1979 al 1982 e Nicole Fontaine dal 1999 al 2002). Ed ancora: le Istituzioni Europee sono quasi tutte a guida femminile (oltre a Metsola al Parlamento, abbiamo Von Der Leyen alla Commissione e Lagarde alla BCE).

Che questo fosse il turno delle donne alla guida del Parlamento Europeo, d’altronde, era nell’aria. Assieme alla neo-eletta Presidente, erano state canditate altre due donne: Sira Rego (Gue/Ngl) e Alice Bah Kuhnke (Greens/Efa). L’unico uomo in lizza, il conservatore Kosma Złotowski (ECR), ha ritirato la propria candidatura prima del voto.

Era quindi scritto che il successore di David Sassoli fosse una donna. Facciamo una premessa. Credo sia necessaria un po’ di autocritica da parte dei progressisti. Se pensiamo alle donne più potenti sulla scena europea negli ultimi decenni, esse purtroppo provengono quasi tutte da un ambiente di destra o moderato. Basti pensare a Angela Merkel, Theresa May, le già nominate Von Der Leyen e Lagarde. Anche figure certamente estremiste e negative come Marine Le Pen e Giorgia Meloni mostrano comunque la capacità nella destra di produrre leader donna, una capacità che la sinistra sembra avere solo in parte. Ovviamente per donne conservatrici è più facile raggiungere il potere, perché non minacciano lo status quo, ma questo nel 2022 non può essere un alibi per la sinistra. Non si vede al momento una AOC europea per intenderci.

Francamente però ci penserei due volte prima di gridare alla vittoria sul maschilismo e sulla gerontocrazia solo perchè Metsola è la terza donna e la più giovane ad essere eletta Presidente del Parlamento Europeo. Qual è, infatti, la posizione di Metsola sui diritti fondamentali delle donne?

Roberta Metsola è un’Europarlamentare eletta nell’unico Stato dell’Unione Europea che vieta completamente l’aborto: Malta. La stessa Metsola, in più occasioni ha difeso la linea anti-abortista seguita dal proprio paese. In passato, assieme ai colleghi Therese Comodini Cachia e David Casa (entrambi PPE come Metsola) si è espressamente detta contraria all’aborto:

“Sosteniamo pienamente l'uguaglianza di genere e ci impegniamo a raggiungere questo obiettivo. Tuttavia, rimaniamo categoricamente contrari all'aborto. È deplorevole che un rapporto che analizza la situazione dell'uguaglianza di genere sia stato dirottato per includere riferimenti inaccettabili all'aborto. Il PN ha sempre sostenuto che questo è un argomento che dovrebbe rimanere di competenza esclusiva degli Stati membri, in cui l'UE non può e non deve essere coinvolta. Su questa specifica relazione (relazione Tarabella) abbiamo votato a favore di tutti gli emendamenti che chiedono una migliore uguaglianza di genere, ma dato che gli emendamenti sull'aborto sono stati adottati, abbiamo votato contro l'intera relazione per sottolineare la nostra forte opposizione all'aborto e per esprimere le nostre serie riserve sui tentativi violare il principio di sussidiarietà".

Solo sei mesi fa, la neo-eletta Presidente votava contro la relazione sulla situazione della salute sessuale e riproduttiva che, tra le altre cose, chiedeva l'accesso universale all'aborto sicuro e legale in tutta l'Unione europea.

Francamente non rassicurano quanto vorrebbe la Presidente, le parole pronunciate durante la conferenza stampa tenutasi dopo la sua elezione:

"Le mie posizioni sull'aborto saranno quelle del Parlamento Ue, le promuoverò”.

Inutile quindi inneggiare al femminismo e all’uguaglianza di genere solo perché una donna è stata eletta Presidente del Parlamento Europeo. Non basta eleggere una donna Presidente, ma è necessario eleggere una donna che sia la Presidente di tutte le donne; è necessario che riconosca lei in primis tutti i diritti delle donne - ivi compreso quello di abortire - e che combatta affinché tali diritti vengano riconosciuti e rispettati da tutti gli altri. Una presa di posizione esplicitamente ed integralmente favorevole all’aborto da parte dei vertici delle Istituzioni Europee è necessaria, soprattutto ora, vista la deriva che la tutela di tale diritto sta avendo in paesi come l’Ungheria e la Polonia.

Prima di esultare, quindi, aspettiamo di vedere come la Presidente Metsola opererà nell’ambito del suo mandato e se davvero sarà disposta a modificare la propria posizione sull’aborto. Solo in questo caso ci sarà (forse) qualcosa da gioire per le donne europee.

After 50 years since Pinochet’s coup, Maya Fernández Allende, Salvador’s nephew, was appointed Defense Minister of the Boric government, in an executive mostly composed of women.

Socialist, 50 years old, she was two in those days of 1973 when she was forced into exile in Cuba, where her mother Beatriz, daughter of the President, died of suicide.

Today, almost fifty years later, the name of Allende returns to the government of Chile, where at this time there could be the pro-fascist ultra-right of Kast.

A highly symbolic but not formal name that restores dignity and memory to an entire political season of change stopped in blood.

📌 Whoever wins the election, will be the parliament's 32nd president. There have been 31 since the founding of the European Parliament in 1952, 16 of whom have served since the first European elections were held in 1979.

There are four candidates from different political groups are seeking the presidency.

1️⃣ Roberta Metsola (EPP)

2️⃣ Alice Bah Kuhnke (Greens/EFA)

3️⃣ Sira Rego (GUE/NGL)

4️⃣ Kosma Złotowski (ECR)

Roberta Metsola is the frontrunner, but stay tuned for updates!

🌳 Do you know that airplanes produce about 2,4% of global CO2 emissions?

✈️ Do you know that thousands of flights without passengers or with a few of them on board cross European skies?

🦠 Due to the spread of Omicron, thousands of passengers have cancelled their journeys. Airlines have difficulty filling their flights, but cannot cancel them. Why?

🇪🇺 European legislation provides for the rule of "use it or lose it": if an airline wants to maintain the right to take off and the right to land at an airport must start a certain number of flights; if it takes off fewer planes, it forfeits these rights and transfers them to another airline.

‼️This is a huge damage both economic and environmental. The European Commission must change this rule or even eliminate it. It would be in line with the European Green New Deal because the Commission has undertaken to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030.

European Parliament President David Sassoli died early Tuesday morning, aged 65.

Sassoli began his professional career as a journalist, working in newspapers before moving to television. He was first elected to the European Parliament in 2009 as a member of Italy’s center-left Democratic Party — part of the wider Socialists and Democrats group in the Parliament. On 2 July 2019, he was proposed by the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) as the new president of the European Parliament. On the following day, Sassoli was elected president by the assembly with 345 votes in favor.

One of the most serious, courageous and enlightened politicians in Europe died. A person who believed in Europe and dreamed of changing it, of improving it, of making it human.

Farewell President Sassoli.

🌹Afghan mother of two lost her life due to the freezing cold along the mountainous crossing between Iran and Turkey. The woman was found barefooted in the snow last Saturday, having put her socks on her two children like gloves to keep them warm.

Afghan women have two alternatives: to submit to the Taliban or to try to escape risking their lives, in the complete indifference of the Europe that has not kept the promises that it has made.

📌 Now, nineteen different countries use the euro;

📌 Euro is the 2nd most important global currency;

📌 Euro is used in over a 1/3 of transactions worldwide.

🇪🇺Euro has allowed EU countries to have a greater influence in the global economy and is a tangible sign of our shared European identity.

‼️But there is still a long way to go:

1️⃣ The European banking system must be strengthened and monetary union achieved through policies that do not only favour the richest countries.

2️⃣ Digitisation of money must be a priority.

3️⃣ Monetary policies must be accompanied by expansive fiscal and economic policies and aimed at reducing inequality and youth unemployment, developing the most impoverished areas and promoting the welfare of the population. Next Generation EU is a good first step, but we must continue in this direction.

#EUROat20

At the plenary session on Thursday 25th November, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted to endorse the Employment and Social Affairs Committee recommendation for a European Directive on fair and adequate minimum wages. Proposed last year by the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D Group), the directive would lay down a minimum requirement for wages of a ‘decent standard’ across the European Union, requiring Member States to assess and report on the level of their statutory wages, governed either by minimum wage legislation or collective bargaining agreements.

We welcome the action to promote a decent standard of living for all workers, but the current proposal does not go far enough. Much more is needed to reach the goal of fair and decent living standards throughout the European Union. In this article, I discuss why we need a minimum wage, what this new directive will achieve, and what else we need to realise the goal of fairer living standards across Europe.

What is a minimum wage and why do we need it?

A minimum wage is the lowest level of remuneration that a worker can legally receive from their employer for their labour. By determining the minimum level of income that workers can receive, the minimum wage acts to reduce inequality by lifting the living standards of the most vulnerable workers. This means that minimum wages have a similar general goal to other types of welfare or social policies, but unlike welfare payments, a minimum wage isn’t a payment from the government and isn’t financed by taxation. While welfare transfers to those who can’t work act to redistribute income after market earnings and taxation, the minimum wage affects the initial distribution of income in the labour market by ensuring that workers are not unjustly exploited by employers paying an unreasonably low wage. Although, from a Marxist perspective, the exploitation of labour is the basis of all profits in a capitalist system, a minimum wage helps to fight inequality under capitalism by ensuring that an adequate proportion of what we collectively produce is distributed to workers, and not owners (capitalists).

One of the main arguments against a minimum wage is that it can reduce levels of employment and increase prices (inflation). This is based on a model of the economy which assumes that most profits are reinvested by capitalists – the owners of businesses – into production. The idea is that if wages go up, capitalists won’t be able to afford to hire the same number of workers, so the number of jobs available will go down and unemployment will increase. And if employers are forced to pay more for labour, in order to keep businesses profitable, they will have to raise the price of goods and services, so that the increase in wages doesn’t actually mean workers can afford to live a better life.

But while a very sharp rise in the minimum wage might put jobs in danger, stagnant low wages have a far worse impact on poverty and inequality. Studies of changes in the distribution of income and wealth over the last 120 years tell us that while income from wages has stayed about the same, the ‘rate of return’ on capital - that is, the money that owners make from both profits and interest - has tended to increase over time relative to the rate of growth in the economy. One of the ways we can and should deal with the accumulation of wealth is through taxes on wealth and inheritance, but a decent minimum wage also helps to promote a fairer distribution of income. As long as we live with capitalism, we need mechanisms like the minimum wage to help protect the many from the few.

What would the proposed European directive achieve?

The proposed European directive aims to guarantee decent living standards for workers and their families by setting a minimum standard for wages, although it isn’t exactly a European minimum wage. The draft directive proposes that all countries should have statutory wages that are set, at a minimum, at the benchmark for a ‘decent’ level of at least 60% of the median wage, or 50% of the average gross wage, in that country. What would this look like in practice?

The figure below plots the level of existing minimum wage legislation against the benchmark of 50% of average wages in 35 OECD countries for which data is available. Both rates are expressed in US dollars adjusted for ‘purchasing power parity’, or in other words accounting for the price of goods and services in each country. I’ve included countries outside of Europe for reference.

Figure: Minimum wage vs a ‘decent’ wage in Europe and beyond

Data Source: OECD.Stat

The Nordic countries, along with Austria, Italy, and Cyprus, are the only Member States without an existing minimum wage law. We can see that countries like Slovakia, Hungary, Greece, Portugal, Poland, and France already have minimum wages at or very close to the benchmark. This means that these countries could report positive compliance with the proposed directive already. The new German government has also promised to raise the minimum wage to 12 Euro per hour, which would lift the annual rate above the minimum standard. 

But, despite a ‘decent’ minimum wage, the actual purchasing power of a Hungarian minimum wage earner is about half of that of a Dutch minimum wage earner, even accounting for the difference in prices across the two countries. It is a good thing that the directive will encourage many Member States to lift the level of their minimum wage, but this would not address the disparity in wages and living standards across countries. To achieve fairer wages across Europe, we’ll need to see something more.

But there is one other important limitation to the directive. Although it requires Member States to assess and report on the level of their statutory wages, it does not require countries to legislate a minimum wage. They could meet the directive by expanding the proportion of wages set by collective bargaining agreements, as long as these agreements deliver an adequate level of remuneration. The directive explicitly aims to strengthen and extend the coverage of collective bargaining, especially in Member States in which collective bargaining is available to less than 80% of the workforce. This accommodation of ‘due respect for the autonomy of national social partners and well-functioning collective bargaining models’ has not been enough to gain the support of the Nordic countries.

Why do the Nordic countries oppose the directive?

The argument made by trade unions in countries such as Sweden is that the directive will undermine the existing system of collective bargaining. They argue that a minimum wage will likely be set at a relatively low level, and that that legal minimum will offer employers greater leverage in collective bargaining discussions so that workers will end up losing out. But employers associations in Sweden also oppose the minimum wage, even though the unions suggest that employers would win from the legislation by being able to pay less. The general view is simply that wages are not a matter for central government, and certainly not a matter for European level institutions, but are a matter for unions and employers associations to negotiate and decide for themselves.

But a minimum wage does not preclude the possibility of a higher wage, or collective bargains, and because the collectively negotiated wages are much higher in Sweden than a lot of Europe, the agreements made between unions and employers shouldn’t have any problem exceeding a ‘decent standard’. 

The unions also argue that statutory wage regulation might reduce the incentive for people to join unions, but Sweden has already been experiencing a decline in unionisation. Even though almost 88% of workers have access to collective bargaining in Sweden, only 65% of workers in Sweden are members of a union. The unionisation rate has dropped dramatically, from 82% in 1990. The proposed European directive aims to promote both minimum wage regulation and the expansion of collective bargaining

In addition, the types of workers that are excluded from collective bargaining are often the most vulnerable workers, especially new migrants and temporary migrants. These types of vulnerable workers would benefit most from minimum wage regulation. Setting the minimum wage at a decent standard of living provides protection for all workers, while collective bargaining and other union protections strengthen the power of organised labour. In my view, all European countries should have both.

What more do we need to reach fairer living standards across Europe?

Today’s European Union is an economic union that sets minimum standards on social policy in an attempt to protect its core values, but for real social change that promotes the European values of equality and inclusion, we need more uniform policies that move the continent toward a European social union. A binding directive for statutory minimum wages would be one step in the right direction.

But equalising standards of living across the continent also requires investment to improve skills and job quality in the regions of Europe with lower incomes, to promote the convergence of wages and purchasing power. We also need wealth taxes, which presently exist in only four EU countries. As discussed above, these are even more powerful instruments to address inequality.

The proposal for a European minimum wage is just one part of the S&D Group’s programme for a ‘Great Shift’ to sustainable wellbeing which includes a proposal for an EU wealth tax. The programme also presents tools to move beyond purely economic indicators of wellbeing. While we should absolutely support action to improve the distribution of income, it’s also time to recognise that economic wellbeing is just one indicator of living standards. Opportunities vary even within income levels, especially for women and minorities.

The EU could be a powerful force to overcome vested interests at the national level and drive transformative change. To achieve that, European citizens like you can elect MEPs that support this change and fight with us at Arbury Road for the democratisation of the EU. Because we need a European minimum wage, and much more.