DOCSLIB.ORG

EU Solidarity in Times of Covid-191

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EU Solidarity in Times of Covid-191 EU solidarity in times of Covid-191 Lorenzo Cicchi, Philipp Genschel, Anton Hemerijck and Mohamed Nasr2,3 Abstract. European solidarity is in high demand as the Covid-19 pandemic delivers a deep and asymmetric shock to EU economies and societies. Will there be sufficient supply? The European Council meeting of 17-21 July has agreed on a historic €750bn EU recovery fund. Yet, it has also exposed deep rifts among governments about the appropriate level and scope of European solidarity. The success of the agreement ultimately depends on voter attitudes. Will they support – and pay for – European solidarity or will they oppose it? We use new survey evidence (April 2020) to assess public support for European solidarity in 13 EU member states and the UK. Our analysis yields a number of important findings: support for solidarity varies by geographical distance, by issue, and by the perceived net-benefit to the own country; support is motivated by expectations of reciprocal benefit rather than feelings of moral obligation or common identity; in terms of instrumentation, most respondents prefer permanent EU arrangements of risk and burden sharing to ad hoc mutual assistance; a relative majority of respondents prefers a Europe that protects to a market Europe or a global Europe aspiring to international leadership. 1. Solidarity: high demand but short supply What’s new? In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, European solidarity is in high demand, bringing back haunting memories – a déjà vu if there ever was one – from the 2010-2015 eurozone sovereign debt crisis and the 2015-2016 migration crisis, when the supply of solidarity remained meagre at best. Practically overnight, European institutions, from the Schengen open border agreement to the single market have come under siege. The freedom of movement was suspended, first by Austria and then by 21 more EU member states. The spread of the pandemic brought havoc first to Italy and Spain and then to Germany, the Netherlands and other member states. It exposed economic divergences that had been hidden behind the veil of a timid recovery in recent years. Some member states were much better placed to fight the downturn with discretionary fiscal measures than others, thus reinforcing the contentious quest for European solidarity. Trying times for EU solidarity, but there are silver linings too. Compared to the eurozone crisis, when EU leaders wavered to do the bare minimum to keep the EU together and to save the euro, the coronavirus crisis response proved more expedite and better coordinated. The ECB moved fast to contain interest rate spreads in the Eurozone in March. The member states agreed on a loan-based first aid package of 1 An earlier version of this article was published in mid-July as a Policy Brief, before the EU leaders reached a deal on July 21st on the bloc's long-term budget and economic recovery fund after four days of intense negotiations. 2 Lorenzo Cicchi is Research Associate at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and coordinator of the European Governance and Politics Programme; Philipp Genschel is Joint Professor of European Public Policy, Department of Political and Social Sciences and the Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies; Anton Hemerijck is Professor of Political Science and Sociology, Department of Political and Social Sciences; Mohamed Nasr is PhD researcher, Department of Political and Social Sciences, European University Institute (EUI) and assistant lecturer at the Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Cairo University. 3 We would like to thank Stephan Shakespeare and Jonathan van Parys for stimulating feedback on the paper and generous support for the EUI-YouGov EU Solidarity Survey, as well as Waltraud Schelkle for comments. 540 billion Euros in April. In July, they passed an EU recovery package of 750 billion Euros, a large part of which is grants-based. While some have hailed this as a breakthrough towards more European solidarity, the fraught negotiations also revealed the divisiveness of the issue among government leaders anxious keep their voters happy. But how critical are voters really? When do they support and when do they oppose solidarity with other member states and why? Our analysis is based on the third iteration of the EUI-YouGov survey on Solidarity in Europe. The survey covers 13 EU member states and the UK4. It was conducted in April 2020 at the height of the Corona pandemic in Europe. As in earlier (2018, 2019) renditions of the survey, it explores how support for European solidarity varies by issue (solidarity for what?), instrument (solidarity how?) and by member state (solidarity by whom for whom?). In addition, the 2020 survey contains questions on the ‘kind of society’ and the ‘kind of Europe’ citizens wish to live in. The dataset is available for download in Open Access from the EUI research repository through this link. 2. The multi-dimensional political space of (European) solidarity Solidarity as insurance. Organized solidarity provides the members of a community with an insurance mechanism against ‘bad luck’. This allows individual members to accept more risk, thereby enabling the group as a whole to pursue more ambitious goals and to more effectively defend its community cohesion under conditions of adversity. That is the overriding advantage of solidarity. Yet, this advantage only materializes in the long run and before the victims of bad luck are known. Once the veil of ignorance is lifted, and the identity of the victims is revealed, there are also short-run problems (as highlighted in the 2018 report): i. Solidarity is costly. It requires that group members pass some of their own physical, financial, human or organizational resources to other members of the community in order to improve the well-being, or reduce the suffering of these other members. Solidarity involves sharing in a real, that is material sense. In the short-run this may be perceived as a net-loss rather than a beneficial insurance premium for the long-run. ii. Solidarity is uneven. Solidarity involves transfers from better-off to less well-off members of the community. The transfers are zero-sum, at least in the short term. They flow from good risks to bad risks, from givers to takers, from net-contributors to net-beneficiaries with no immediate compensation. This may give rise to perceptions of inequity and unfairness. iii. Solidarity breeds the suspicion of moral hazard. Solidarity unburdens actors from the need to self- protect against bad risks. This may induce careless or even openly exploitative and fraudulent behaviour that elicits unnecessary bad risks, i.e. risks that could have been avoided through appropriate self-protection, and this further increases the costs of solidarity. Even when victims act with all appropriate care, the sheer suspicion of carelessness can lead to distrust and denial of solidarity. There are solutions to each of these problems but they are ambiguous. To reduce the costs of solidarity, risk should be put on many shoulders. Hence, the risk pool should be relatively large. To avoid the same actors always ending up at the paying-end of the solidarity relation, the risk pool should be 4 Total sample size was 21779 adult respondents (2151 from the UK, 2014 from Denmark, 1005 from Finland, 2033 from France, 2004 from Sweden, 1007 from Greece, 1032 from Hungary, 2021 from Italy, 1013 from Lithuania, 1136 from the Netherlands, 1012 from Poland, 1017 from Romania, 2281 from Spain). Fieldwork was undertaken between 17th and 29th April 2020. The survey was carried out online. All figures are based on data taken from the YouGov survey. heterogeneous so as to increase the chances of turn-taking in solidary giving and taking. Yet, to reduce (the suspicion of) moral hazard, the risk pool should be small and homogeneous. People tend to trust people who are like them because they have more scruples before betraying their own kind. The EU is large and its societies are diverse. This makes European solidarity potentially very rewarding for all, but also very fragile. Does European solidarity exist? European solidarity is real. In the EUI-YouGov survey, we ask respondents on a 0-10 scale whether they think national governments should spend national resources only on their own country and the welfare of their own people or also on other EU countries and other people. We summarize the answers in Figure 1. The figure shows the country averages (left-panel) and maps these averages geographically (right- panel). It shows two fairly coherent regional clusters: the least resourceful South-Eastern bloc of countries shows more willingness to pay for others, whereas the more resourceful North-Western bloc shows less willingness to pay. Support levels in the North-Western group fall below the European average (represented by the vertical dashed line) whereas the seven South-Eastern countries in our sample are above average. This chimes with the entrenched divisions in the European Council between Northern creditors and Southern debtors, the ‘Frugal Four’ and the ‘Friends of Cohesion’. Note, however, that the European average is fairly high and the spread around the average is fairly compressed. General support for solidarity varies from moderate (an average of 5 for Denmark) to moderately-high (average 7 for Romania). Hence, the overall picture is quite positive. Figure 1 – Support for spending national resources on other EU countries. The left-panel represents country averages with 95% confidence intervals. The right-panel represents the European map, where darker colours express more support for solidarity. The survey question is: “Some people think that the member states of the European Union should mostly spend their resources on their own countries and the welfare of their own people. Other people think that the member states of the European Union should pool their resources and spend them on all countries and all people across the whole of the European Union.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A New Political Economy for Europe Post-COVID-19
    EUV0010.1177/1781685820968301European ViewBergsen 968301research-article2020 Article European View 2020, Vol. 19(2) 131 –137 A new political economy for © The Author(s) 2020 https://doi.org/10.1177/1781685820968301DOI: 10.1177/1781685820968301 Europe post-COVID-19 journals.sagepub.com/home/euv Pepijn Bergsen Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented economic support measures from governments across Europe. With this, the crisis has provided an occasion for a significant demonstration of the ability of states to implement policies and deliver services. This could create expectations among electorates of permanent changes to the macroeconomic regime, towards one characterised by a more protective state and a rebalancing between the state and the market. Significant political barriers to such a shift remain. The article argues that, in contrast to the aftermath of the two previous economic crises in Europe, many new ideas are floating around and support for a more protective state is emerging across the political spectrum. The current crisis might thus represent a turning point. Keywords COVID-19, Europe, Political economy, Industrial policy, Fiscal policy Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has shocked European health systems and economies. So far it has not led to any political shocks. A crisis of this magnitude is unlikely to pass by without significant political consequences, though, particularly as it comes at the tail end of a decade of economic crisis in Europe that has not led to a fundamental shift in either the political or the economic regime. The global financial crisis of 2008–9 and the subsequent crisis in the eurozone had already led to demands for changes to the economic settlement.
    [Show full text]
  • European Union, 2020
    08 Malone article.qxp_Admin 69-1 22/02/2021 15:06 Page 97 Administration, vol. 69, no. 1 (2021), pp. 97–109 doi: 10.2478/admin-2021-0008 European Union, 2020 Margaret Mary Malone Institute of Public Administration, Ireland The year was defined by the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, which unleashed a public health crisis and an associated economic crisis unlike anything experienced in modern times in Europe and beyond. The disease triggered a combined negative supply and demand shock of unprecedented intensity and the EU entered unchartered territory. National and regional serial lockdowns were introduced in a bid to curb the spread of Covid-19 and avoid health systems becoming overwhelmed. In a show of solidarity commensurate with the unfolding economic emergency, EU member states agreed a financial stimulus package of some €1.8 trillion to rebuild the battered EU economy. The package comprised the EU’s budget, or Multi- annual Financial Framework (MFF), for the period 2021–7 plus a temporary novel recovery instrument, Next Generation EU (NGEU). Funds for NGEU are to be borrowed, exceptionally, by the European Commission on the international capital markets. This decision was a landmark departure for the EU. Developments in the institutions of the EU On 1 January Croatia began its presidency of the Council of the EU for six months. A member state since July 2013, this was the first time Croatia had presided over the Council. Its priorities were driven by an unwittingly prescient motto, ‘A strong Europe in a world of challenges’. On 1 July Germany took over the Council presidency with 97 08 Malone article.qxp_Admin 69-1 22/02/2021 15:06 Page 98 98 MARGARET MARY MALONE the challenge of combatting the economic, social and budgetary implications of Covid-19 front and centre.
    [Show full text]
  • European Debt Mutualisation
    EU BUDGET POLICY PAPER NO.255 JULY 2020 EUROPEAN DEBT #EUBUDGET #RECOVERY #DEBT MUTUALISATION MUTUALISATION FINDING A LEGITIMATE BALANCE BETWEEN SOLIDARITY AND RESPONSIBILITY MECHANISMS Photo by CafeCredit under CC 2.0 ▪ ANDREAS EISL Executive Summary ▪ Research fellow, Jacques Delors Institute In the upcoming European Council on July 17 and 18, EU member states will fight for a compromise on the European Commission’s main project to tackle the economic fallout ▪ MATTIA TOMAY of the Covid-19 crisis across Europe: a new 7-year EU budget propped up with a temporary Political scientist, Recovery Instrument (Next Generation EU) amounting to EUR 750 bn of jointly issued debt Member of the Académie and to be passed on to EU countries as grants and loans. It is one of the most ambitious in Notre Europe 2019-2020 a long line of proposals for European debt mutualisation. While joint borrowing can carry a lot of advantages, debt mutualisation has always been very controversial. Confrontations between those countries supposedly benefiting and losing from mutualising debt have repeatedly centered on the legitimate balance of solidarity and responsibility that such debt implies. Democratic legitimacy in solidarity-responsibility arrangements can be achieved when they can deliver in terms of output legitimacy (being effective in economic terms), input legitimacy (ensuring sufficient room for domestic politics in deciding national policy trajectories) and throughput legitimacy (being run in a transparent and accountable manner). THINKING EUROPE • PENSER L’EUROPE• EUROPA DENKEN 1 ▪ 20 This paper analyses the solidarity-responsibility arrangements of various proposals and rea- lized forms of European debt mutualisation made over the last decades to evaluate their shortcomings and potential in finding a legitimate balance of solidarity and responsibility mechanisms for all EU member states.
    [Show full text]
  • Frugal Member States Vs. the Eu : Not Too Much Please
    PENSER L’EUROPE • THINKING EUROPE • EUROPA DENKEN BLOG POST BLOG POST FRUGAL MEMBER STATES VS. THE EU : NOT TOO MUCH PLEASE 27/10/2020 | DANIEL DEBOMY | DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP Daniel Debomy, Associate Research Fellow at the Jacques Delors Institute, Director of OPTEM 2020 has been a year marked by arduous negotiations which resulted in the adoption of the recovery plan for the European economy, hit hard by the consequences of the COVID 19 pandemic. During these negotiations, the leaders of so-called “Frugal Four” Member States expressed their major disinclination towards a solidarity-based commit- ment to recovery (and ultimately only came around when granted substantial financial concessions): the Netherlands – although a founding Member State of the European Community –, Denmark, Sweden and Austria. As the negotiations between European institutions continue, in particular with a view to finalising the European Mul- tiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027, this paper analyses the state of public opinion towards the EU in these four countries, as expressed prior to these events. This paper is based on data from the European Commission’s Eurobarometer survey conducted in the autumn of 2019 and from the 2019 surveys of the European Parliament, the most recent comparable data available on the state of public opinion. Positive opinions regarding the economic situation Citizens of the “Frugal Four” Member States stand out for their highly positive opinions with regard to the economic situation in their country: 90% deem the situation positive in the Netherlands as in Denmark and 76% in Sweden and Austria - all scores which are much greater than the European average (47%).
    [Show full text]
  • What Does the Road to Recovery from COVID-19 Look Like? Expert Survey on Worldwide Effects of the Pandemic
    26 EconPol 2020 October POLICY REPORT Vol. 4 World Economy: What Does the Road to Recovery from COVID-19 Look Like? Expert Survey on Worldwide Effects of the Pandemic Dorine Boumans, Pauliina Sandqvist and Stefan Sauer (EconPol Europe, ifo Institute) headed by KOF Konjunkturforschungsstelle KOF Swiss Economic Institute EconPol POLICY REPORT A publication of EconPol Europe European Network of Economic and Fiscal Policy Research Publisher and distributor: ifo Institute Poschingerstr. 5, 81679 Munich, Germany Telephone +49 89 9224-0, Telefax +49 89 9224-1462, email [email protected] Editors: Mathias Dolls, Clemens Fuest Reproduction permitted only if source is stated and copy is sent to the ifo Institute. EconPol Europe: www.econpol.eu World Economy: What Does the Road to Recovery from COVID-19 Look Like? Expert Survey on World-Wide Effects of the Pandemic Dorine Boumans, Pauliina Sandqvist and Stefan Sauer1 The outbreak of COVID-19 has had a detrimental effect on global health care systems, with a ripple effect on every aspect of human life as we know it. On January 30, 2020 the World Health Organisation declared COVID-19 as a global emergency (WHO, 2020). In response, to “flatten the curve”, governments have enforced border shutdowns, travel restrictions, and general lockdowns with numerous social distancing measures such as closed schools, shops, services and, to a lesser extent, the manufacturing industry. This in turn led to an impending economic crisis and recession all around the globe. The IMF World Economic Outlook of June 2020 projects global growth at -4.9 percent in 2020 (IMF, 2020a). After more than six months of coronavirus being part of our life, most economies have opened up again, although with certain restrictions against the spread of the virus.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Between the Lines of Council Agreement on the MFF and Next Generation EU Jorge Núñez Ferrer
    No 2020-18 / July 2020 Reading between the lines of Council agreement on the MFF and Next Generation EU Jorge Núñez Ferrer Abstract The recent agreement on the EU budget is an unprecedented and historic achievement for the European Union. It has broken a taboo and advanced the integration process. We all saw that the negotiations were arduous, but given the magnitude of the challenge facing the heads of state and government, it would have been naïve to expect otherwise. It is virtually impossible to find a comparable agreement between numerous countries in any other part of the world; by this measure alone it is impressive. Having said that, what has been agreed is complex and bewildering to many. While attention has focused on the Next Generation EU, the agreement also includes the ‘normal’ multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2021-27. Comments to the effect that the EU has deleted all funding for health, or much of the research budget, are based on the Next Generation EU ‘temporary’ measure and not on the underlying MFF. This paper aims to present a brief rundown of the actual changes in numbers and reflect on the meaning of the agreement. Jorge Núñez Ferrer is a Senior Research Fellow at CEPS. CEPS Policy Insights offer analyses of a wide range of key policy questions facing Europe. As an institution, CEPS takes no position on questions of European policy. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the author in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which he is associated. Available for free downloading from the CEPS website (www.ceps.eu) © CEPS 2020 CEPS ▪ Place du Congrès 1 ▪ B-1000 Brussels ▪ Tel: (32.2) 229.39.11 ▪ www.ceps.eu 2 | JORGE NÚÑEZ FERRER In a nutshell, the major decisions taken are the following: a) The level of grants in Next Generation EU was cut from €500 billion to €390 billion.
    [Show full text]
  • Coronavirus Politics
    Coronavirus The Comparative Politics Politics and Policy of COVID-19 EDITED BY Scott L. Greer, Elizabeth J. King, Elize Massard da Fonseca, and André Peralta-Santos Coronavirus PolitiCs Coronavirus PolitiCs The Comparative Politics and Policy of COVID-19 Scott L. Greer, Elizabeth J. King, Elize Massard da Fonseca, and André Peralta-Santos, Editors University of Michigan Press ann arbor Copyright © 2021 by Scott L. Greer, Elizabeth J. King, Elize Massard da Fonseca, and André Peralta- Santos Some rights reserved This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Interna- tional License. Note to users: A Creative Commons license is only valid when it is applied by the person or entity that holds rights to the licensed work. Works may contain components (e.g., photo graphs, illustrations, or quotations) to which the rightsholder in the work cannot apply the license. It is ultimately your responsibility to inde penden tly evaluate the copyright status of any work or component part of a work you use, in light of your intended use. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ For questions or permissions, please contact um . press . perms@umich . edu Published in the United States of Amer i ca by the University of Michigan Press Manufactured in the United States of Amer i ca Printed on acid-f ree paper First published April 2021 A CIP cata log rec ord for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-i n-P ublication data has been applied for.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Strategy for Shaping the Post-COVID-19 World
    A Global Strategy for Shaping the Post-COVID-19 World Jeffrey Cimmino, Rebecca Katz, Matthew Kroenig, Josh Lipsky, and Barry Pavel A Global Strategy for Shaping the Post-COVID-19 World The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world. The Center honors General Brent Scowcroft’s legacy of service and embodies his ethos of nonpartisan commitment to the cause of security, support for US leadership in cooperation with allies and partners, and dedication to the mentorship of the next generation of leaders. This report is written and published in accordance with the Atlantic Council Policy on Intellectual Independence. The authors are solely responsible for its analysis and recommendations. The Atlantic Council and its donors do not determine, nor do they necessarily endorse or advocate for, any of this report’s conclusions. © 2020 The Atlantic Council of the United States. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the Atlantic Council, except in the case of brief quotations in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. Please direct inquiries to: Atlantic Council 1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20005 For more information, please visit www.AtlanticCouncil.org. Cover credit: Museo del Prado Title: The Triumph of Death Artist: Pieter Bruegel the Elder Year: circa 1562 Location: Museo del Prado This painting by Pieter Brueghel the Elder is a moral work that shows the triumph of Death over worldly things, symbolized through a great army of skeletons devastating the Earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Italy Between a Disaster and a New Development Strategy
    POLICY PAPER SERIES IZA Policy Paper No. 167 Italy between a Disaster and a New Development Strategy Francesco Pastore NOVEMBER 2020 POLICY PAPER SERIES IZA Policy Paper No. 167 Italy between a Disaster and a New Development Strategy Francesco Pastore University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli and IZA NOVEMBER 2020 Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor econom- ics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world’s largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Policy Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5–9 Phone: +49-228-3894-0 53113 Bonn, Germany Email: [email protected] www.iza.org IZA Policy Paper No. 167 NOVEMBER 2020 ABSTRACT Italy between a Disaster and a New Development Strategy Italy has probably been one of the first ships to cross the storm of the pandemic, soon after Wuhan in China, and one of the worst performers with a GDP fall of -10% in 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Quo Vadis Europe? a Strategic Compass for the EU’S Path to the Future
    Independent Review on European Security and Defence Volume N° 37 Quo vadis Europe? A strategic compass for the EU’s path to the future The German EU Presidency: A European war college, a critical view from the an opportunity for European Parliament European defence? Nicola Beer MEP, Brig Gen Jean-Marc Vigilant, Vice-President European Parliament, Commander War College, Brussels/Strasbourg Paris www.magazine-the-european.com Edition 4/2020 Editorial No return to the good old times! Donald Trump’s presidency was characterised first NATO. But he would be well advised to take and foremost by his extravagant personality and his heed of the French President’s unequivo- populism, but it also wrought a profound change in cal statement in his speech of 7th February American politics. 2020 that a European defence capability Today, populism is a feature of all democracies and should eventually become a powerful pillar th the 46 President-elect, Joe Biden, would do well to within the NATO Alliance. Europe must be Photo: private, LISphoto.com cultivate a moderate populism if he is to “restore the resolute in showing the USA how and to Hartmut Bühl soul” of his people, as he put it in his victory speech on what extent it wishes to shape the future 7th November. But Joe Biden will only succeed in uni- of NATO. There should be no taboos and even NATO’s fying his divided nation if he can first unify his divided command structures should be reviewed to fit Europe’s party and stop it from tearing itself apart in fratricidal role and importance.
    [Show full text]
  • European Far-Right Parties and COVID-19
    Nationalities Papers (2020), 1–18 doi:10.1017/nps.2020.93 SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE Victims of the Pandemic? European Far-Right Parties and COVID-19 Jakub Wondreys and Cas Mudde* Department of International Affairs, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Abstract It has become received wisdom that the pandemic has “exposed” the political incompetence of far-right parties in government and that far-right parties in opposition have become its (first) “victims.” This is largely based on the generalization of one or two individual cases—most notably US president Donald Trump— who is the exception rather than the rule. This article provides a comparative analysis of far-right responses to the COVID-19 pandemic within the European Union. Based on theoretical insights from previous research, we expect the responses to reflect the main ideology and the internal heterogeneity of the contemporary far right as well as to show the increasing mainstreaming of its positions. We analyze four different, but related, aspects: (1) the narratives about COVID-19 from far-right parties; (2) the proposed solutions of far-right parties; (3) the electoral consequences of the pandemic for far-right parties; and (4) the success of far-right parties in dealing with the pandemic. Finally, in the discussion we shortly look ahead at the possible consequences of a highly likely second outbreak of COVID-19. Keywords: nationalism, far right; COVID-19; pandemic; Europe Introduction Given the recent obsession with “populism,” which increasingly has become a (problematic) shorthand for “far right,” it should have surprised few people that the combination of “populism” and the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flurry of public speculation.
    [Show full text]
  • Friends in Need. the Corona Pandemic Changes the Landscape
    NO. 26 JUNE 2020 Introduction Friends in Need The Corona Pandemic Changes the Landscape of Groups and Coalitions in the EU Kai-Olaf Lang and Nicolai von Ondarza The corona pandemic and its economic and social consequences are testing EU cohe- sion as well as the balance of power in the Union. The belated – or lack of – reaction by the EU during the crisis has reinforced the national sovereignty of the member states and the dominance of the intergovernmental method in moments of crisis. One of the palpable consequences has been an alteration in the “North-South divide” resulting from a European policy offensive by Spain and Italy, a stronger “southern orientation” by France, and a simultaneous crumbling of the “New Hanseatic League”. During the corona crisis, institutionalised groups of member states have acted pri- marily as interest groups that exacerbate differences rather than overcome them. Germany, which will assume a special mediating role as the Presidency of the Council from 1 July 2020, has to act as a bridge builder. To contain the corona pandemic and its as masks or protective clothing. Also, eco- secondary effects, the EU and its member nomic aid packages initially were mainly states, after a brief period of shock, adopted launched on the national level, whereas a series of exceptional measures that deeply the EU appeared to be hesitant and only intervene in public life and the economy. temporarily relaxed the rules, for example Through that process, they have exposed – on restrictions for state aid. Dutch vetoes and partially shifted – the power structures. against Eurobonds underline once again Divisions in the Union have become visible, that the EU can only take fundamental with some keeping their traditional con- decisions if all governments agree.
    [Show full text]