Miguel Ángel Benedicto: ‘The European Union must address Europeans' lack of affection’

University professor and president of the Ideas y Debate association, Miguel Ángel Benedicto, analysed his latest book on Onda Madrid's programme ‘De cara al mundo’. He also considered the challenge of immigration in Europe.

Could polarisation directly bring about the end of the European Union? 

On the one hand, it could, but on the other hand, it could also activate it. In other words, it's a bit like what we say in the book. Perhaps the consensus that has always existed in Europe, since its inception in the 1950s, has made us see it as something very distant, like a bureaucratic entity, far removed from us. 

When we see the European Union becoming more politicised, partly thanks to political polarisation, we see that people are encouraged to vote, people are discussing European policies, which means that there is a positive and a negative side to it. The positive side is electoral mobilisation, greater interest in European politics; and the negative side is that the understanding that has always existed in Europe since the 1950s between the different political parties can obviously be affected. 

Is polarisation in the media also a determining factor, according to the title of the book? 

It is in the national media where I see the most polarisation, more than at the European level, because we cannot say that the European media do not exist; they do exist, but at the level of the European bubble, media such as Político and the Financial Times, curiously, most of which are Anglo-Saxon, are not polarised. 

At the national level, yes. We can go to any country, but the Spanish case is particularly clear, where we see polarisation between the media, depending on the editorial line of each outlet, and increasingly influenced by political power, in my view. This is not at all positive in a society that is also increasingly divided, and which the media does not help at all. But the main culprits are not the media, but rather the political powers, in my opinion.  

This book discusses the gap between European citizens and institutions, which is one of the serious problems, isn't it? 

Yes, it always has been, this kind of deficit of affection towards the European Union, this lack of popular legitimacy, not democratic legitimacy, because the European Union is democratic, but it lacks popular legitimacy, people don't talk about it, we don't really vote in European elections or referendums, turnout is always low, they are second-degree elections. 

That's not good for Europe, and it's very difficult to understand the institutions, in my view, and I think that's where the European Union went wrong at the beginning, in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, even in the 1990s, when it tried to pursue a more communication-based policy, to explain itself more, to disseminate information about what the European institutions were. Ultimately, people want European policies to work or to be communicated much better, and in fact, the communication that was very propagandistic at the beginning of the European Union has changed over the years and has become much more professional, especially since the economic crisis of 2008, when we realised that Europe had a very important force and that it greatly influenced what could happen at any moment. That was a very important turning point in European communication, when we realised that what was happening in Europe influenced our daily lives. 

Miguel Ángel, do we need to recover the certainty, the reality that the European Union is the best invention of the last few centuries in the world? 

It's a kind of network. From Spain, we Spaniards see that it has democratic values, that there is respect for the separation of powers and the rule of law. On the other hand, in the countries of the European Union, we feel that if we are inside, whatever happens in our countries, in some way there can be this saving network that can, in some way, hold us back when we fall into the abyss of autocracy. As we have seen in some countries, such as Hungary, or Poland at the time. Even how Spain has been in the last two years. 

And yes, Europe is a good invention in that sense. It has worked well for us, that is the truth. The case of Spain is paradigmatic. Since we joined the European Union, you only have to look at the economic growth figures, you only have to look at how our infrastructure has changed, how our lives have changed, even our way of thinking. It has had a very positive effect, not only in Spain, but in the rest of the member states. And if not, just look at an experiment like Brexit, where after a few years outside the European Union, the United Kingdom is realising that perhaps it was not such a good idea to leave that network.  

It was undoubtedly a very bad idea. Perhaps in that respect, Miguel Ángel, the leaders of the countries with serious problems are responsible for what is now called the crisis of the European Union. What is happening? Because small and medium-sized businesses, or people who need this aid, which other countries are using, and very well, and we have it sitting there, and what's more, it will have to be paid back.  

It is a shame that Spain does not know how to implement these Next Generation European Union funds, when we are the second country with the highest number or amount of funds received after Italy. The deadline for implementing these funds is the end of August 2026, and I really don't know if it's a problem of poor planning, poor strategy, or a lack of officials specialised in this area, but the Spanish government has certainly not done its homework in this regard. 

Even so, we have done well, within the limits of what is possible, and the economy is not doing too badly thanks to these funds, which are specifically intended to promote digitalisation, ecological transition and territorial cohesion. But of course, the implementation by this government is a disaster. 

Are you concerned about the situation in France? Prime Minister Bayrou has presented a plan, a budget, where there is a lot to cut, but Macron has tried several times in the last eight years and then the yellow vests came out, etc., and the reform that France needs, because it is unsustainable, could drag the rest of the European Union down with it. 

France is one of the largest economies in the European Union, after Germany, and clearly needs structural reforms, but not now, but for some years now, due to the precarious situation of its public accounts with such enormous debt of 114%, which is destroying the country and will end up eating away at it with interest payments. Already, for this year, there is talk of 60 billion in interest payments, which is all of France's defence spending, for example, and by 2029 there is talk of 100 billion, which would be more money than France spends on education, which is the largest item in the budget. In other words, the debt is going to eat up the French budget. 

I don't know if the French realise that if they don't carry out the structural reforms that they failed to implement at the time, as others did after the economic crisis, such as Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, Greece, etc., the country will collapse because it is becoming increasingly difficult to finance itself. This is financing that they cannot sustain with their current level of economic growth. The problem is that France is very statist. Macron already tried it at the time, through pension reform, but then the yellow vests appeared, followed by tractor protests, etc. It is very difficult to change the French mentality, but they will be forced to do so by the facts, because they will not be able to cope with the social costs they are currently facing, especially now that they also have to increase the defence budget. 

You mentioned more than 60 billion in debt interest in France. In Spain, it's more than 40 billion, so we have a problem, more or less. When people say that Spain is doing well economically, I have my doubts. Miguel Ángel, may I bring in an expert? In addition to having lived in France, he was a correspondent there for several years and knows the country well. He is a good colleague of yours and mine, Don Pedro González, journalist and founder of the Euronews and 24 Horas channels.  

By the way, Javier, Pedro González is quoted in the book, in the book ‘Communicating or Politicising the European Union’, precisely as the founder of Euronews, and whom I interviewed a few years ago for this book. 

Congratulations, Pedro. These books written by Miguel Ángel are necessary to help us take a look in the mirror and, above all, face up to the challenges and take decisions, even if they are tough, as in France, in order to preserve something as important and positive as the European Union. 

I don't think they are necessary, they are absolutely essential books. Miguel Ángel's book addresses basic issues in the ongoing educational process that requires knowledge and understanding of the world we live in, which is precisely that of the European Union, and which is perhaps not given enough importance. Perhaps because, as we are immersed in it, it is taken for granted, it is there like breathing, it is not important. 

I think the case of Trump is extremely important because he is extremely fragile and poses many dangers, which you have listed in the interview with Miguel Ángel, but I think they lurk everywhere, even among our own allies. Apart from other issues, Trump, like some other presidents in the past in the United States, does not look kindly on a strong Europe, and I say this with caution. 

A strong Europe is perhaps much better for them than one that is almost dismembered, if in some way it deals directly with the metropolis, that is, the neo-colonial metropolis of our times, right? And maybe that's a little bit what they're looking for. In Trump's case, because he has a way of acting that is quite forceful and undiplomatic in many cases, it is less noticeable, but that's the general idea, isn't it?  

Miguel Ángel, I wanted to ask you another question, which is the great challenge facing Europe: immigration. You mentioned earlier that Brexit was a terrible idea, something that some of us were saying even before Cameron took that kamikaze decision. We have seen how France a few days ago and Germany yesterday reached agreements with the United Kingdom, alliances on defence. Pedro was talking about the uncertainty surrounding Trump and Putin, but immigration is one of the fundamental issues on which Europe needs to have a clear and effective policy, above all without thinking about cheap electioneering, because immigration is a fundamental issue that must be resolved. 

This new migration pact, which we have also been talking about for a few years, especially in 2015, with the migration crisis that occurred with the arrival of Syrian refugees, at that time in Germany, the problems caused by countries such as Hungary, Poland and others, is still being negotiated, tougher measures are being introduced, and I can understand that too, in order to prevent the rise of the far right. But of course it is an issue that needs to be managed well because immigration is necessary in Europe. That is very clear. I have just come back from Tangier, where I was a week ago, and you see families with three or four children, you walk down the street and all you see are children, whereas here you only see cats and dogs, right? You don't see children, that's the truth. 

So all of that gives you the feeling that, in the country, on the continent or in the supranational entity that is the European Union in which we currently find ourselves, faced with this ageing population and the large number of pensioners, there are many jobs that we, as nationals, do not want to do, etc. Migrants are often needed, but not only for that type of work; there are also highly skilled and high-level jobs that can be done by very bright immigrants, and I don't think this is talked about much either. Often, we have to import these bright minds now that the United States is somehow putting obstacles in their way, and I think we have to take advantage of this problem that the United States has. I think it is an important issue that needs to be resolved, managing regular migration, avoiding irregularity, and I believe that agreements need to be reached with third countries to manage this challenge better and better. More than a problem, because it is a problem, but it is also a solution to the ageing of Europe.