One step forward, two steps back?

What had not been achieved in the years of stubbornness in the face of major financial crises, debt explosions in several countries, underemployment and precariousness of large segments of the generations born since shortly before the turn of the century (which, unlike previous generations, have a high average level of education... which seems to be of little use to them), etc.., the ominous pandemic unleashed by an insignificant microscopic entity that does not even reach the category of a living being proper: the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.

I am referring, of course, to the great effort made by the European Union both financially, with the Next Generation EU initiative, and in terms of health, with the massive purchase of vaccines and their distribution, in equal proportion to the respective populations, among the Member States. A gesture of solidarity without precedent other than the now classic structural funds that have contributed so much to the development of the economically less developed members of the former European Economic Community. A gesture that surely comes at the right time, given the growing "euroscepticism" in many EU countries (not to mention the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union).

That said, since, after destructive criticism, there is nothing more damaging to human endeavour than complacency, I feel it necessary to point out a few buts.

First, with regard to the coronavirus vaccination strategy. This is not to question the role of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), but it is not easy to understand why, once the AstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, which were apparently the first to offer scientifically proven guarantees of effectiveness and safety, have been authorised, there has been no further expansion of the range of options with others, such as Sputnik V, for which there is reliable evidence of effectiveness following its use, the range of options has not been extended with others, such as Sputnik V, whose effectiveness has been proven in some countries (not for nothing has German Chancellor Angela Merkel suggested using it in view of the slow progress of vaccination in her country due to the difficulties in supplying the first vaccines mentioned). In addition to health reasons, there are also political ones: nothing would do more harm to public health, not only in Europe but worldwide, than a continued growth of the so-called "anti-vaccine" sectors, groups of people who tend to find fertile ground for their arguments in the widespread perception of the pharmaceutical business as one of the most "healthy" (pun intended) in the market. If to this perception is added the suspicion of some kind of favouritism towards some companies to the detriment of others, the circle of mistrust widens. And if, to top it all off, as in the case of the aforementioned Russian vaccine, it smacks of geopolitical interests (more transatlantic than European, by the way, if we continue to understand Europe as a continent that stretches from Finisterre to the Urals), then the conspiracists reach ecstasy without any need to resort to the eponymous drug...

Secondly, with regard to the Next Generation EU funds. First of all, let's forget about the reticence shown by some EU partners towards this initiative, reticence that at one point almost put an end to the project (the realisation that the "democratic" virus, when it came to killing, did not make much distinction between "spendthrifts" and "frugal" undoubtedly helped to overcome the trance). What matters now is to maximise the return on these funds in terms of welfare for the populations affected by the destruction of the economic and social fabric caused by the pandemic. Well, if this is the objective, an impartial observer would surely expect that, among the conditions to which the granting of this aid (even that considered "non-refundable") is subject, there should be certain criteria of social equity in its distribution. To put it bluntly: there should be some guarantee that the direct recipients of the aid (in principle, large companies, among others, in the energy sector, given the component of contribution to the so-called "energy transition" that the funds have) will implement beneficial projects, say, in terms of employment, the deterioration of which is one of the most dramatic effects of the pandemic. It is true that these "details" are more the responsibility of the various governments than of the European institutions. But, since in some areas the demands imposed by the latter on the former are very precise, it would be a good idea for them to go beyond the usual generalities on this point too, since it would be highly motivating for "euroscepticism" if national governments were not worthy of full confidence in certain chapters of expenditure and were in others... That would be, as the title of this article suggests, taking one step forward and two steps backwards.

Finally, with regard to the second point, in order to avoid misleading anyone (a misleading that would sooner or later end up discrediting its cause), it would be useful to clarify the accounts and explain that the net amount of the aid that arrives will not be the amount announced, but the amount resulting from subtracting from this the contribution that the recipient country makes to the EU budget. A contribution that, for some countries (not so much for Germany, which has seen its contribution reduced), will have increased due to the departure of such an important contributor as the United Kingdom (i.e. the remaining countries will have to cover the gap left by the British in the EU budget).

Basically, all the drawbacks mentioned here point to the same target: the need for the European Union, whose most remote origins lie in the attempts to create a customs union in the early years of the last century on the initiative of Germany, to overcome as soon as possible the limitations that these merely mercantile origins, like a heavy legacy, have been imposing on it and to move decisively towards political unity. Unity that today, especially since the relative trauma of Brexit, may seem utopian given the diverse mosaic of traditions, cultures and interests that Europe harbours within it. Unity that requires much greater harmonisation in many areas (taxation, for example), but which could well achieve a more stable balance than the current one between federal and confederal features (today, in some things, the majority, the latter predominate; in others, the former). Be that as it may, in this, as in many other areas, the dynamic is that of a river: without swimming upstream, it is impossible to maintain even the same position with respect to the shore.

Miguel Candel, Emeritus Professor of the History of Philosophy at the University of Barcelona