Since returning to the White House on Jan. 20, Donald Trump has imposed one-sided tariffs on the European Union, forced the bloc to commit to buying vast quantities of American natural gas, and effectively threatened annexation of Greenland. The latest indignity for Europe includes a White House National Security Strategy that calls on far-right parties to muster patriotic resistance to European policies. Instead of standing up to this blatant foreign interference, EU leaders have repeatedly tried to appease Trump and avoid any possible escalations of tension — even at the cost of their dignity. Examples include European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen weakening EU environmental and digital regulations in line with American demands, and NATO Secretary General Marc Rutte addressing Trump as "daddy" in front of the world's media. Trump may be the proximate cause of this annus horribilis for the EU. But the reasons for subservience run far deeper, says Dave Keating, a broadcaster and the author of a new book, The Owned Continent. A key factor is US command and control over the NATO military alliance, which Europe has relied on for protection from Russia for nearly eight decades. Trump and Maga are now openly exploiting that military dependency, amid Russia's assault on Ukraine, to block European regulation of tech oligarchs and fossil fuels. "Never before has there been an explicit connection from the US government between the military protectorate and EU policy," says Dave, who says the extortion is "a first" for the Trump administration. Another factor behind the European reluctance to treat the US in a more adversarial fashion, even as Maga amps up its belligerence, is the pervasiveness of American culture through cinema, news media, social media and streaming platforms. "Europeans are inundated by American culture from birth" says Dave. That also makes it "hard to accept that the US is a threat." Freeing Europe from its long vassalage is a strategic priority that starts with creation sovereign EU defense capabilities, says Dave. But that would require acknowledging that France was right to resist reliance on US military systems and hardware. It also would require Europe to make a decisive break with Atlanticism, an ideology that prioritizes NATO and that remains deeply entrenched among EU elites and in Poland and the Baltics. But Atlanticism may be an increasingly hard sell. It relies on increasingly implausible assumptions: that the US will keep large numbers of troops in Europe and uphold its mutual defense commitment under the NATO treaty despite abundant evidence otherwise. "At what point do citizens say, 'enough is enough, we've had it with these centrist European leaders lying to us, gaslighting us'?" Dave asks. "If Europeans keep electing these people, then they are signing their own death warrant as a sovereign continent." 

SOMO report on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.

The Authoritarian Stack project on the threat posed by tech billionaires. 

Support the show

The lurch rightwards in our politics has brought a wave of disinformation and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people. As well as exacerbating prejudice, the anti-LGBTIQ+ campaigns, many supported by US evangelicals and Russian oligarchs, foment social divisions and aim to weaken liberal democracy. That's why the new era of bigotry should be seen as a strategic threat for Europe, former Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar explains in this episode. Leo is currently a Senior Fellow for the Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program at the Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School. He stepped down as Taoiseach last year after serving two terms and making history as Ireland's first openly gay head of government. Among Leo's current concerns: how US diplomats and corporate executives who formerly supported LGBT rights have changed position or melted away, leaving regions like Central and Eastern Europe especially vulnerable. "The fact that America is withdrawing from that space has left it open to Russia," says Leo. "That’s where I think the European Union needs to come in and needs in many ways I think to fill the space of the Americans." A particular focus is Hungary, the EU state that is the subject of what Rémy Bonny, executive director of Forbidden Colours, calls the largest human rights lawsuit in the bloc's history. That lawsuit concerns a so-called child-protection law that censors inclusive sex education, equates LGBTI lifestyles with pedophilia, blocks adoption for LGBTI couples, and restricts content in media and advertising. A top advisor has already issued a preliminary finding against Hungary and the Court of Justice of the EU is expected to reach a verdict next year. A definitive ruling against Hungary "can't go without a meaningful response" from EU authorities, says Leo. "The treaties are worth nothing if that's the case." When it comes to EU politics, Leo encourages a return to centrist leadership rather than reliance by his political family, the center-right European People's Party, on the possibility of majorities with the far right. "I much prefer us being in alliance with Liberals and Social Democrats and Greens." Leo also critiques fellow conservative Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, for saying "too little, too late" about homophobia in Hungary — and about Israel's conduct of the war in Gaza. Even so von der Leyen does "come around to the right position eventually, which is better than the reverse." As for Donald Trump, who Leo met several times as Taoiseach, the US president is taking a far more hostile approach to LGBT rights compared to his first term. Whether Trump actually leaves office after 2027 general could come down to the US military. "It's a dangerous time." Asked whether he could have done more as Taoiseach to regulate the giant US tech companies that have bases in Ireland, Leo says he oversaw stepped up enforcement during his time in office. There was however a wider failure, where tech companies still are shielded from liability for the illegal and highly polarizing content hosted on their platforms. "We allowed them to really get away with this idea that they're not publishers" and "that wasn't right," says Leo, who says he supports a crackdown on algorithms that amplify hate and toxicity.

Support the show

The buzzword in Brussels is simplification. In reality it’s a euphemism for sweeping deregulation and it marks a dramatic U-turn for the European Union. For decades, the EU prided itself on being a regulatory superpower, capable of extending its influence through protective and demanding regulation. That's now changing. A year ago Mario Draghi, the former president of the European Central Bank, dusted off the timeworn idea of cutting red tape. Draghi's message was eagerly embraced by many EU leaders, many from conservative and far-right parties, and many of them increasingly aligned with Trumpian ideas on blocking migrants, ignoring the environment and canceling overseas aid. Draghi's ideas have since snowballed. In the works are measures to water down laws on everything from technology and chemicals to farming and finance. Executing on those plans, and more, is European Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen. She’s been using the deregulation mantra to deflect criticism from her far-right rivals and to placate US tech giants and Donald Trump and his threats to abandon Europe militarily. To be sure deregulation is having a moment. In Argentina, in India, and in the US where Elon Musk's DOGE dismantled entire agencies, almost certainly illegally, and where Russ Vought at Trump's budget office says wants to put civil servants in trauma. The approach in Europe is far less blunt and belligerent. But there are significant parallels according to Alberto Alemanno, the law professor at HEC Paris and the founder of The Good Lobby. Alberto sees an ideological and methodological alignment across the Atlantic that includes the sidelining of legislators, the privileging of executive fiat, and the possible DOGE-style downsizing of the European Commission. Alberto also warns that von der Leyen is "pushing towards illegality" by bundling together deregulatory measures in so called omnibus laws that bypass the usual channels of evidence-based policymaking and of democratic consent. The European Ombudsman, Teresa Anjinho, has opened an investigation into the omnibus process. But her opinions are non-binding. Meanwhile EU governments are pushing for continuous rollbacks, and von der Leyen has promised to deliver. But there is a deeper unease here, that simplification is not just about deregulation, or pandering to Trump, or the far right, rather that simplification will end up undermining the capacity and legitimacy of EU administration itself. A pair of US academics have described this phenomenon as ungoverning, discrediting institutions and the machinery of government and creating circumstances where enforcement and the rule of law suffer and authoritarians can thrive. Alberto doesn’t see the quite the same deliberate campaign in Europe as in the US. But he warns that von der Leyen’s willingness to take a chainsaw to previously agreed laws — and to act as little more than the executor of member states’ demands — is a kind of dereliction of duty that risks permanently weakening the Union at a moment when many Europeans are looking for answers beyond national borders. As Alberto puts it: the EU is becoming ungoverned — by its own political class.

Support the show

Three years ago, as part of efforts to weaken Putin's war chest, the EU banned imports of Russian crude oil. But those countries with a high dependency on Russia were allowed to continue importing, the idea being they needed more time to adapt. Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic have since stopped. But not Slovakia, and not Hungary. Both still take deliveries of Russian crude through the Soviet-era Druzhba or "Brotherhood" pipeline. In this episode, Attila Steiner, the Hungarian State Secretary for Energy, acknowledges that his country is increasing, not decreasing, dependency on Russian crude, and that Hungary is expanding links with the Druzhba network. That's not how EU sanctions are supposed to work. It's also fundamentally at odds with the REPowerEU plan to stop all Russian oil imports by the end of 2027. The behavior of Hungary, which is facilitating Russian oil exports amid Putin's continued assault on Ukraine, shows contempt for Brussels and Kyiv. Moreover an alternative to Russian oil already exists in the form of the Adria pipeline that can deliver oil from suppliers like Kazakhstan via Croatia. But Steiner using the Adria is neither advantageous for Hungary nor for its giant energy conglomerate MOL. And, in any case, it looks like the pressure is off Hungary to quit Russian crude, at least for now. Steiner credits a recent diplomatic campaign by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, first with Donald Trump, who is no longer calling on Hungary to change suppliers, and second, with former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who effectively gave her blessing to continuing Russian crude imports. But that's unlikely to be the end of the story. There's domestic politics to consider too. Hungary imposes a tax on the profits that are partly generated from importing the relatively low-priced Russian crude. Yet prices at the petrol pump remain above the EU average, and that contributes to an already delicate political situation for Orbán's ruling Fidesz party, which is trailing in the polls ahead of elections next year. It's also a delicate situation for Steiner himself. He seems set to go head-to-head with Péter Magyar, the main opposition figure in Hungary who opposes Russian imports, in a forthcoming contest for a parliamentary seat in Budapest. That, Steiner says, will be "an interesting fight".

Support the show

There is an expanding landscape of lies, distortions, and half-truths shaping global politics. The latest instance is the immediate blame heaped on the left for the killing of Charlie Kirk despite evidence that right-leaning attacks are more common. It's one more sign that the line between reality and fabrication is getting blurrier. And as misinformation metastasizes, there are mounting concerns about whether democratic institutions can survive. This episode turns a spotlight on Slovakia, the central European nation that's become a hotspot for post-truth politics. Seven years ago, Prime Minister Robert Fico was forced from power after the execution-style murder of investigative journalist Jan Kuciak and his fiancée. But Fico made a comeback, formed a coalition with the far right, and now is surrounded by an array of ultranationalist reactionaries, white supremacists and delusional post-truthers. They include Rudolf Huliak, the misogynistic tourism minister; Peter Kotlár, the Covid denier who takes his cue from RFK Jr.; Filip Kuffa, the state secretary for the environment who mocks endangered species; Lukáš Machala, a powerful official prone to flat-earth theories; and his boss, Martina Šimkovičová, an aggressively homophobic culture minister who is putting Slovakia's public broadcaster under political control. That makes Slovakia a key test for the European Commission and for its new Media Freedom Act, which aims to stop political interference in editorial decisions. But whether the Commission will take action remains an open question. Like other leaders of would-be autocracies, Fico uses strategies to feign compliance to throw up roadblocks to enforcement. There are also geopolitical concerns. What if enforcement pushes Slovakia even further into the Kremlin's orbit? That’s the wrong question says Pavol Szalai of Reporters sans frontières. In reality the Commission's failure to act would expose Slovakia to yet more post-truth, pro-Russia messaging that weakens the EU's ability to defend Ukraine and itself. In this episode: Pavol describes how the EU can help Slovakia combat a trend that's hobbled media in Hungary, left Polish media in disarray, and that promises to damage media in Czechia if, as expected, the far right comes to power there in October.

Support the show

The recent European heatwave killed some 2,300 people with more than half of deaths attributable to human-caused climate change. But what if temperatures can be lowered using technology? It's a highly charged question. One of the ideas out there is to create a parasol of particles around the earth to reflect sunlight back into space. Cooling the planet this way is known as solar geoengineering. Many Europeans reject geoengineering outright. They say nobody should be playing God with the climate. Yet exploration of geoengineering, backed by private investors, looks to be zooming ahead. Unregulated. But in anticipation of strong future demand in a world where temperature rises are on course to reach nearly 3 degrees this century. That's way above the 1.5 degree target concluded a decade ago under the Paris climate agreement. In this episode: a conversation with Cynthia Scharf. Cynthia participated in the Paris climate negotiations as an aide to former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and she's now with the Brussels-based think-tank, the Center for Future Generations. She is not giving up on the Paris deal from a decade ago. Far from it. Efforts to drastically cut emissions are essential. But Cynthia also says the time has come to consider the implications of what she calls technologies of desperation like dimming the sun with solar geoengineering.​ And time for the Europe to take a leadership role to determine if the technology can ever be safe and viable — or if it's just too dangerous even to try. China’s preference for state secrecy makes it unsuitable for such a role, while the US, under Trump, has walked out on climate action and collective security. That leaves the European Union well placed to pick up the mantle of responsibility and to try to put up international guardrails against careless or malign use of geoengineering. Opening up discussion of geoengineering could also help to quell conspiracy theories linked to the technology, like the idea that contrails from aircraft are chemtrails for mind control. Less clearcut is how the EU can promote international governance of solar geoengineering in an era when multilateralism has hit the rocks and anti-science forces are on the rise. 

This episode was made in partnership with the Center for Future Generations. You can find more on Cynthia's work here and more on the Center's work on advanced AI, biotech and neurotech here.

Support the show

Millions of people in more than a hundred countries march at Pride festivities each year. Attendees come mostly to express support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans gender, queer and intersex people — the LGBTQI+ community. And although Pride may be on every continent, there's a swathe of countries where Pride still is not freely celebrated. Take Russia, where a court last decade issued a one-hundred-year ban on Pride events. Or Turkey, where police in recent years have been harassing, attacking and detaining activists and members of the LGBTQ+ community. And then there's Hungary, which is inside the EU but out of step with its laws and values. This year Hungary's illiberal prime minister Viktor Orbán said he intended to stop Pride in the capital Budapest, on the pretext of child-protection. Under-18s are supposedly at risk from so-called displays of homosexuality, displays that themselves were banned four years ago. That's a direct echo of Russia's anti-LGBT statute on Protecting Children and Traditional Family Values signed into law by Vladimir Putin more than a decade ago. This month Hungarian police duly imposed the Budapest ban that Orbán called for. And they added a dystopian touch: facial recognition technology. Attendees identified at Budapest Pride could face fines of 500 euros; they also could face neofascist thugs from far-right splinter groups. But Budapest mayor Gergely Karácsony says this year's event is going ahead this weekend just the same. After all, Budapest has had Pride marches for the best part of three decades. It's also worth recalling that Pride was born out of state repression. The first marches were held in the early 70s in a handful of US cities to mark the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. That name, Stonewall, comes from a bar, the Stonewall Inn, in New York City's Greenwich Village. The gay and transgender patrons of the Stonewall had grown sick of police harassment and abuse, and their uprising in 1969 still marks a key moment for civil rights movements everywhere. One beneficiary of such hard-won victories is Marc Angel, one of five so-called Quaestors at the European Parliament overseeing matters affecting the chamber's 705 members. Marc is a Socialist from Luxembourg and also co-president of the European Parliament's intergroup on LGBTIQ+ rights. For him, this weekend's Budapest Pride events amount to a protest — a protest against bogus limits on freedom of assembly in Hungary, and a protest against an international anti-gender movement, backed by Russia, supported by US ultraconservatives, and aimed at polarizing societies and weakening democracy.

Support the show

An initial wave of support for Israel after the Oct. 7, 2023, attack in which Hamas killed 1,200 people and took 251 hostages has been eclipsed by 20 months of reprisals in which Israel has killed nearly 55,000 Palestinians in Gaza including thousands of children. Public support for Israel is sinking and the country's staunchest allies are rowing back. Even so, a huge gap remains between the political rhetoric and the reality of what Israel's partners are doing to stop the atrocities. Among the European Union states that have been most reluctant to condemn Israel is Germany, where the history of the Holocaust is a complicating factor. Germany considers ties with Israel part of its so-called Staatsräson, or raison d'état, effectively aligning German foreign policy and security with that of Israel. And despite the abundant evidence of disproportionate and indiscriminate strikes by Israel, Germany has continued to allow arms sales and to oppose severing trade and political ties. Sharing Germany's support for Israel are countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic with Spain, Slovenia and Ireland among those most supportive of the Palestinians. But as the EU's biggest and richest member state, Germany has an outsized influence on the bloc, and its stance has fed the perception that Europeans are reluctant to restrain Israel. Adding to that impression is Ursula von der Leyen, a German conservative, and the president of the bloc's powerful executive, the European Commission. She only recently shifted tone on Israel by calling targeting of civilian infrastructure abhorrent. In this episode: German journalist Katrin Pribyl on the extent of her country's the pro-Israel stance and the awkward silence von der Leyen has long maintained over Gaza — and on whether von der Leyen has inadvertently imposed Germany's Staatsräson on the rest of Europe.

Support the show

Call it the real nuclear option for bringing Viktor Orbán's Hungary to heel — but also call it a risky thought experiment. Tom Theuns of Leiden University wants to empower the EU to sever ties with a rogue member state like Hungary, where Orbán has fashioned an autocracy and set about cultivating the EU's strategic rivals. Introducing an expulsion threat could push EU autocrats like Orbán to show more respect for rule of law and democracy, says Tom, while the current lack of any such mechanism has instead emboldened them. For now, Tom's ideas still are legally theoretical, not to mention politically delicate. In his new book, Protecting Democracy in Europe, Tom envisages democratic states each leaving the EU and then immediately re-founding the Union — an EU 2.0 — minus any autocratic states. More than two dozen countries would need to coordinate national consents in advance, using the same EU treaty article that Britain used in Brexit. But if all doesn't go to plan — think obdurate legislators, sudden calls for referendums, or a even French demand for more subsidies — the exercise could usher in the kind of political warfare that sinks the EU for good. Tom's goal is, above all, to end what he calls fatalistic and defeatist thinking — that the EU must remain stuck in perpetuity with Orbán's brand of kleptocratic illiberalism. "Supranational union with an autocratic state is a choice," insists Tom. "EU member states can also choose to disengage." In this episode Tom also reflects on what happened a quarter-century ago, when European authorities failed to block Austria's far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) from government, to elucidate a pattern of insufficient EU responses in the Hungarian context. 

Support the show

Musk, Zuckerberg and Vance have stomped into the EU's canteen, overturned the tables, smashed the glasses, and drawn their pistols. They are scanning a crowd of bewildered Eurocrats and asking menacingly: who really wants a fight over what belongs online? It wasn't meant to be this way. Three years ago the EU agreed a landmark law, the Digital Services Act, or DSA. Hopes were high that hate speech, content that harms minors — as well as fake news and weaponised social media — could be reined in. The biggest platforms would be fined up to 6 percent of global annual turnover if they failed to deal with issues like election interference that amount to a systemic risk. Since then the transatlantic far right has stepped up a campaign to discredit the EU's rules, and often in fanatical terms. Under this new form of McCarthyism, any impediment to online expression is branded as a form of censorship. That is patently absurd. Bans on speech linked to the Nazi period have been in place in parts of Europe for decades. But concerns are growing that the European Commission's ongoing cases against X and Meta under the DSA could become bargaining chips or even get traded away to ease standoffs with the Trump administration. Already the Commission is reportedly lowballing digital markets fines against Silicon Valley giants and talking about simplifying its range of digital regulations — including the DSA. That looks like complying in advance with US intimidation. On the other hand, the Commission could use the Trump administration's bullying tactics to invoke another law — the so-called Anti-Coercion Instrument. That could restrict aspects of Musk's businesses as well as the services of some US digital companies — and it would amount to a more muscular response. In this episode: two prominent MEPs urge the European Commission to hold firm on enforcement of the DSA after their mission to Washington, where they met MAGA hardliners like Congressman Jim Jordan and where they witnessed the kind shocking disdain for Europe echoed most recently in Signal messages shared with The Atlantic. "Everything we are doing in EU is seen as an attempt to be anti-American," says Christel Schaldemose, the Danish social democrat who is a vice president of the European Parliament and an architect of DSA. "That was very, very scary." Christel also is a coordinator on plans to combat foreign influence with a so-called Democracy Shield, which she suggested could allow for suspension of social media in the run up to elections. Sandro Gozi, the Italian liberal who is a former member of French and Italian governments, says the EU must show it has the nerve to impose its laws in the face of U.S. coercion. Sandro says lawmakers would never agree to sacrifice the DSA, which he characterises as "non-negotiable," in exchange for lower tariffs. Sandro also excoriates Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her party for retreating from previous enthusiasm for Ukraine — and for the DSA.

Support the show

Following the horrors of Nazism, the post-war far right needed to proceed strategically, and patiently, if it was ever to stage a comeback. Some far-right actors in Europe and in particular the French Nouvelle Droite took the Italian political philosopher Antonio Gramsci as their guide. Gramsci's teachings — culture first, politics later — were eventually absorbed by the US radical right. And in recent weeks US Vice President JD Vance and Trump adviser Elon Musk have brought such tactics back to Europe. It's a great irony of political thought that​ the most assiduous students of Gramsci — a Marxist jailed by Mussolini in 1920s and 1930s — would come to include so many on the far right. The history of how Gramscian thinking has flowed back and forth across the Atlantic is of particular interest to Philipp Adorf at the University of Bonn. Philipp is the author of two books on the radicalisation of the US Republican Party and he's a leading analyst of the rise of the far right Alternative for Germany, the AfD. Philipp also has closely analysed how groups including a "Vorfeld" or vanguard, which supports the AfD, are drawing on Gramscian principles to prepare Germany for a far-right future. Such tactics are helping to make what was once unthinkable for Germans — such as mass deportations and "remigration" of naturalised citizens — something that many of them now are prepared to vote for. 

Support the show

There are many more politicians and policymakers from the far right on our TVs, in our social media feeds, and in our legislatures. They have a new swagger and an even more conspicuous disdain for their adversaries. "They act like they own the place," observes Raquel García Hermida-van der Valle, a liberal member of the European Parliament for the Dutch D66 party. Two far-right groups, the Patriots and Sovereigntists, still face a so-called cordon sanitaire. But another, the European Conservatives and Reformists, has been welcomed into a right-wing mainstream that includes the party of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. And, in reality, all three far-right groups have much in common, from xenophobia, to distrust of state institutions, and a fixation on free speech. In this episode: Raquel talks about her recent showdowns with increasingly combative far-right lawmakers including a race-baiting Bulgarian and a conspiracy theorist from Hungary. Raquel speculates that some far-right MEPs have "gone down the rabbit hole" and actually believe the EU is replacing white Christians with Muslims and people of colour. Others, says Raquel, are probably following Steve Bannon's notorious battle plan, "to flood the zone with shit," so as to disorient the media and voters. Raquel also talks about how she's looking to better coordinate with other MEPs to counter a European far right that appears to be growing more openly radical as it grows in size and influence. Also in this episode, snapshots of MEPs from the three far-right blocs: Stephen Nikola Bartulica, Zsuzsanna Borvendég, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Ivan David, Geadis Geadi, Sarah Knafo, Rada Laykova and Jaak Madison.

Support the show

Big Tech bosses. Their immensely profitable corporations. And the fabulously wealthy venture capitalists who fund them. They are gaining power over the destinies of nations. Yet they also contribute to injustice and inequality, even in areas like Silicon Valley that are typically celebrated for generating wealth and innovation. The Valley's crumbling infrastructure and its stark disparities form part of The Tech Coup, a new book by Marietje Schaake, a former member of the European Parliament for the liberal Dutch D66 party. Since leaving the Parliament in 2019, Marietje has spent considerable time at the Cyber Policy Center and the Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence at Stanford University in the heart of Silicon Valley. Her book is packed with concrete and compelling examples of how the tech industry, in its quest for power and profit, undermines democracy, civil liberties, the environment, and even national security. But the book is not a counsel of despair. Marietje lays out proposals such as revamping public procurement, banning rogue cryptocurrencies, and trialling Artificial Intelligence models before letting them loose on the public. To be sure, the new transatlantic era complicates the challenges posed by the Tech Coup. Donald Trump and Vice President-Elect JD Vance ran campaigns funded by tech magnates who will want to leverage US power to resist unfavourable regulations, including those from the EU. But Marietje says there's still time to develop alternative technology models that uphold liberal democratic values and that avoid capitulating to Silicon Valley — and to its mythologisers. 

Marietje Schaake serves as one of four chairs leading the development of the first Code of Practice for the European Union's A.I. Act and is a senior fellow at the Centre for Future Generations, which partnered with EU Scream in producing this episode. 

Support the show

Close your eyes. Imagine a young person you know and care about. Picture them at age 90. And then think about the kind of world you want to leave them. Is it ridden by conflict and chaos? Or is it peaceful and habitable? Such thought experiments can lead us to change behaviour and priorities. But they also have wider application to government and policymaking, says social philosopher Roman Krznaric who wrote The Good Ancestor and is Senior Research Fellow at Oxford University’s Centre for Eudaimonia and Human Flourishing. Roman's thinking has become part of a push to get governments and leaders to make better policy choices by taking a far longer perspective. That push seems to be bearing fruit. President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen may create a portfolio for intergenerational fairness for her next five-year term, and UN Secretary-General António Guterres seems set to appoint a Special Envoy for Future Generations at a summit this month in New York. But how a focus on future generations works in practice raises thorny questions, among them: how many generations of descendants should we plan for, and over what time spans? And how can the focus on future generations be kept separate from controversial ideas like Longtermism and Effective Altruism that are associated with jailed cryptocurrency mogul Sam Bankman-Fried? Also in this episode: Roman introduces his new book History for Tomorrow in which he explores the role of so-called radical flank movements, like Extinction Rebellion. "It's too late to leave the problems of our time to simmer on the low flame of gradualism," he says. "You need the disruptive movements to accelerate things." 

Music this episode by border.

Listen to part one of this series with Elizabeth Dirth of the ZOE Institute. 

Support the show

There's a lot of talk right now about future generations. Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission says she'll create a portfolio with responsibilities for intergenerational fairness. A Summit of the Future to be held in September at the United Nations also helps explain the buzz. In this, the first of two episodes, a conversation with Elizabeth Dirth, member of a real-life network for the future described in Kim Stanley Robinson's bestselling novel The Ministry for the Future. In the book the Ministry helps to push nations beyond a series of dystopian events to bring climate change under control. Elizabeth says it's time to move that approach to the real world, and to give future generations a voice in reshaping the economy, curbing disease outbreaks, and sustaining action on climate change. The ZOE Institute, a German economics think tank where Elizabeth is managing director, is among the organisations pushing the UN Secretary General to appoint a Special Envoy for Future Generations, a role Elizabeth describes as "a potential minister for the future at the UN level." Elizabeth says her ideas are markedly different from that of tech titans like Elon Musk who have a penchant for the future. For Musk and his acolytes, protecting future generations means putting resources into highly speculative technologies that could be highly profitable. They also seem to be betting on colonising Mars — ahead of preserving life on Earth. Listen out for Part Two of this series: a conversation with author and philosopher Roman Krznaric on how far into the future we should plan for, and on whether controversial concepts like Longtermism and Effective altruism have a role to play. Music this episode by Maarten Lichtert. 

Support the show

Border violence. Hostage diplomacy. Vaccine purchases. Just some of the areas where opaqueness in EU decision-making can erode public trust and ultimately democracy. These also are areas where accountability journalism like freedom of information requests can help uncover undue influence by lobbies and foreign powers as well as abuses by security services. One of the highest profile cases of accountability journalism in Europe to date is the decision by The New York Times to sue the European Commission for access to phone messages — messages in which the Commission's president, Ursula von der Leyen, and the chief executive of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, reportedly negotiated vaccine purchases during the Covid-19 pandemic. Matina Stevis, the outgoing Brussels bureau chief for the Times, who is part of that lawsuit, says such scrutiny would be comparatively banal in jurisdictions like the US where news media and government regularly wrangle in court over the line between an executive's ability to govern and the public's right to know. But in the EU such scrutiny still can arouse accusations of euroscepticism and even sympathies with Brexit. Matina says the EU's accountability muscles need "deepening and flexing and exercising" but she also suggests reporters working EU corridors may need to do more to avoid "falling into the traps of access journalism" and "going, going softly so that people keep answering their phones when you call." Also in this episode, the pros and cons of reporting on the case of Johan Floderus, the EU official recently released from captivity in Iran. And a hard and harrowing look at the evidence of deadly actions by the Greek coastguard toward migrants on the Mediterranean Sea — and at the half-hearted attempts by Brussels to rein in such abuses amid tectonic shifts in refugee law and policy. These include calls for the so-called externalization of migration where refugees and asylum seekers must have their applications to enter the EU assessed offshore in countries like Albania or even Rwanda. Such shifts also entail discussions on reforming and even abandoning the 1951 Refugee Convention that was a key plank of postwar humanitarianism.

Support the show

How did politics long deemed unacceptable go mainstream so quickly? Pundits have blamed disinformation, social media and growing distrust of elites. But these factors don't adequately explain how illiberalism and identitarian ideologies have spread so rapidly even to countries thought to be immune. It's a puzzle Portuguese political scientist Vicente Valentim set out to solve. In this episode Vicente discusses his findings against the backdrop of European Parliament elections that are expected to deliver more seats than ever for radical right lawmakers. Vicente's research demonstrates that a larger proportion of the population than previously assumed already had views at odds with liberal democracy. Initially these individuals kept these views latent, or private, falsifying their preferences for fear of social disapproval like losing a job. But a trigger event for example an influx of migrants emboldened some of these individuals to break with social norms and to air their views more publicly. Political entrepreneurs then spotted an opportunity to win elections by amplifying these views, and these first successes at the ballot box prompted even more skilled and savvy politicians also to promote a radical right agenda. As the shame and stigma at expressing pre-existing radical right views fell away there was a rapid normalisation of the radical right. Vicente also discusses the phenomenon of feminationalism in light of the rise of Giorgia Meloni of Italy and Marine Le Pen of France. These leaders cultivate an "aura of ambiguity" to gain mainstream acceptance and to continue to connect with their more extreme bases. Vicente says trying to keep radical right preferences latent may seem appealing but masks the dangers to groups like vulnerable minorities. Better to have long-term strategies at the level of civics and education and to instil liberal democratic values early. Vicente's forthcoming book The Normalisation of the Radical Right has been lauded by leading political scientists like Daniel Ziblatt of Harvard and Catherine E. de Vries of Bocconi who calls it "an instant classic for anyone interested in the future of our democracies.” 

Support the show

Ireland and Spain are to grant formal recognition to a Palestine state as soon as this month. The move puts Dublin and Madrid at odds with most other EU states and with the United States. Sweden is the only other state to have recognised Palestine during its membership of the EU, and that was a decade ago. In this episode, Tony Connelly, the Europe editor for the Irish public broadcaster RTE, describes the historical and political backdrop to Ireland's decision. Reasons include pressure from the left-wing party Sinn Féin, the former political wing of the Irish Republican Army that had operational ties with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Recognition is a way to give moral support to Palestinians particularly in Gaza where the Israeli military has killed around 35,000 people in response to the attack by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7 that killed around 1,200. Recognition also marks a significant break with the long-established view that Palestinian statehood only should come after a two-state agreement with Israel. But who Dublin would recognise as the representatives of a Palestinian state remains an open question, and there's little expectation of any immediate impact on the Gaza conflict. The move also adds to bad blood between Dublin and Tel Aviv that's been aggravated by recent spats involving former prime minister Leo Varadkar and the Eurovision performer Bambie Thug. While a shared struggle for independence helps explain Irish readiness to lend Palestinians support, how modern Irish history maps onto Palestine is far from straightforward. During the 1920s some 700 Irish police were deployed to British-administered Mandatory Palestine to support a mostly British police force with a reputation for brutality, the Black and Tans. And in the 1940s Jewish militants fighting the British in Palestine actually identified with the IRA and its leaders like Michael Collins. An ambiguous Irish relationship with Zionism can be seen in novelist James Joyce's masterwork Ulysses. Joyce's protagonist Leopold Bloom proclaims unity among "all, jew, moslem and gentile" even as he must contend with virulent antisemitism in Dublin. Read Tony's recent reporting from the West Bank and watch the trailer for his TV documentary about his grandfather.

Support the show

Abortion is a deal breaker for some voters. That's the case in the US where Joe Biden is making Donald Trump pay a political price for his role in overturning Roe vs. Wade. That's also been the case in Poland where a wellspring of pro-choice sentiment helped remove the ultraconservative Law and Justice party last year. So could that same dynamic have an impact on voter choice across Europe? Yes, says Nika Kovač, the coordinator of the My Voice, My Choice campaign, which recently launched a petition for a million signatures using a European Citizens Initiative. My Voice, My Choice proposes a new EU fund to backstop abortion rights in Europe no matter what EU member state they live in. Women still could afford to go to other EU states offering the procedure — assuming crossing EU state lines isn't called into question. But for Nika and team members like Kristina Krajnc and Maria Mayrhofer, their campaign is not just a health or feminist matter. It's also about turning the spotlight on abortion rights to diminish the electability of the hard-right and ultraconservative theocrats in the European elections next month, in legislative elections in Austria this fall, and in other upcoming contests.

Support the show

What's the best approach to fighting the hard right? Suppressing toxic views? Or contesting them publicly? The answer lies in the middle of course — an open society must retain the means to reject intolerance and hate. But what's clear from recent events in Brussels is that hasty and ham-fisted bans on the hard right can amplify rather than diminish their message. In this episode the Charlemagne columnist at The Economist Stanley Pignal describes how Brussels mayors sought to shutout a conference organised by the National Conservativism movement. Those efforts backfired spectacularly. Not only did the hard-right's show go on (albeit at a down-at-heel dancehall and events venue) but the National Conservatives garnered global media attention. The likes of Nigel Farage, Viktor Orbán and Éric Zemmour lined up to claim they were victims of cancel culture. But the deleterious effects of their policies on Ukraine's war effort, women's health, the LGBTQI community and racialised communities got far less attention. Read Stanley's Charlemagne column about how the NatCon conference morphed into a crisis for liberalism. 

Support the show

Some people love Eurovision. Others don't get it. But beyond the camp and kitsch of the annual song contest there's much to observe about the politics of Europe and the wider region. In this episode, author and broadcaster Dave Keating starts with discord between Sweden and France over language. The sourest notes were struck in the mid-1970s after the Swedish group ABBA won with a song in English alluding to the historic French defeat at Waterloo. The French then stepped up their campaign against contestants using lyrics other than in their national languages. The so-called ban on English was only lifted in 1999 just as Sweden was once again emerging as a pop music powerhouse and as Eastern and Central Europe states were emerging from behind the Iron Curtain. They too were keen to sing in English. Since the turn of the century Eurovision has been buffeted by tensions between Russia and countries like Georgia and Ukraine that have used their performances to denounce Moscow. The dissonance has sorely tested the European Broadcasting Union, the state and public media alliance covering 56 countries behind Eurovision. Russia has traditionally been a major TV market for the contest and the Union only excluded Russian participation in 2022, after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In the build-up to this year's contest in Malmö, Sweden, on May 11, the focus has been on Israel's entrant Eden Golan amid the ongoing bloodletting in Gaza. Despite an outcry from artists and performers against the participation of Israel — and despite accusations of double standards now that Russia has been excluded — Golan looks set to perform. Israeli visitors to Malmö have been advised to keep a low profile while Swedish authorities have said they're well prepared for protests, including inside the contest arena. Read Dave's latest Substack about Eurovision.

Support the show

Opposition to French-Malian singer Aya Nakamura performing at the Paris Olympics is whipped up by the "fachosphère" in France. The former head of the EU Border and Coast Guard joins the far-right and accuses former colleagues of a "project" to encourage migration. Those are just two recent examples of the kinds of prejudice and conspiracy theory that Julie Pascoet confronts at the European Network Against Racism, ENAR. In this episode Julie, who is based in Brussels, talks about poor representation of racialised groups at the only directly elected EU institution, the European Parliament. A recent study commissioned by ENAR shows that the proportion of racialised lawmakers stands at just 3.3 percent since the departure of British members. That compares to an estimated proportion of racialised people in Europe of around 10 percent, says Tina Magazzini of Integrim Lab, which conducted the study. Tina now expects the percentage at the parliament to sink even lower following EU elections in June. Also in this episode: European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson answers questions about the infiltration of law enforcement by extremist forces, gang violence in Sweden, and police brutality in France — and she encourages much greater diversity in policing. "What we also see is a very male, white police force” but “it’s important that the police also reflect the whole society." 

Support the show

Donald Trump wanted to buy it; Mette Frederiksen said it wasn't for sale. Greenland and its ownership is for Greenlanders to decide, the Danish prime minister told President Trump five years ago. In this episode Karin Axelsson, EU correspondent for the respected Danish daily Politiken, reflects on why the world's biggest island, which gained autonomy from Denmark 45 years ago and then withdrew from the European Union, is back in the headlines. Reasons include the visit by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to the Greenlandic capital Nuuk to inaugurate an EU office. High on her agenda: accessing the island's abundant deposits of critical metals and minerals for industries of the future. Karin also discusses growing unease over the threat posed by Russia. Jitters in Denmark were exacerbated by French President Emmanuel Macron's comments about putting European boots on the ground in Ukraine — and by Prime Minister Frederiksen's comments evoking World War Three. On the topics of migration and asylum, Karin explains how Prime Minister Frederiksen's plan to outsource controls to Rwanda went beyond what was envisaged by similarly hawkish leaders in Britain. That Danish plan is now stalled, says Karin, but it would go as far as blocking people granted asylum from choosing to come to Denmark. Such Rwanda-style plans were previously seen as too extreme by EU policymakers. But that may be changing. An election manifesto put forward by von der Leyen's center-right European political family would outsource such controls to non-EU countries while capping the numbers of people granted asylum eligible to come to the EU.  

Support the show

Frontex, the EU border and coast guard, is the bloc's best funded agency costing upwards of a billion euros a year. There are plans for a standing corps of 10,000 uniformed personnel this decade. But something is badly amiss. Migrants keep drowning in large numbers under Frontex's watch. That includes what is thought to be the worst disaster of its kind when the fishing vessel Adriana capsized in June last year in Greek waters with some 750 people aboard. An estimated 600 people perished in that catastrophe. In response, the European Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, looked under the hood at Frontex and at its relations with national coast guards. She found an institution that calls itself a border and coast guard but that lacks the power to carry out some of the basic duties that come with such an important job. Frontex must check with national authorities like the Hellenic Coast Guard before rescues and even before conducting additional surveillance. As for issuing emergency Mayday alerts — something Frontex can do — the agency still has no set protocol. You might say that weaker-than-advertised EU institutions are a reality of a European project where member states are reluctant to cede sovereignty. But in the case of Frontex the results are so lethal and inhumane that EU claims to uphold fundamental rights are undermined on a daily basis. In this episode Emily describes her inquiry into the Adriana and lays out her recommendations for fixing some of what ails Frontex. Emily also discusses the move by France to enshrine abortion rights in the constitution. She does so from the perspective of a former journalist who wrote about reproductive rights in Ireland in the 1980s and 90s, including in her book Masterminds of the Right. 

Support the show

The world is growing more violent. Worst affected countries include Myanmar, Syria and Mexico as well as those experiencing more obvious crises like Gaza and Ukraine. That's according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project or ACLED. But there's also growing concern about more developed countries with longer established democratic traditions like the United States. In this episode ACLED chief of external affairs Hugh Pope talks about how data can give a uniquely accurate and new perspective on unfolding events and help anticipate where conflicts will worsen and where peace building efforts should be targeted. "One of the reasons that people miss what they think are unexpected ‘black swans’ is they weren't watching the data," says Hugh, who notes that current ACLED early warning data show conflict in countries including Lebanon and Sudan at alarming levels. Among other recent findings: the upsurge in conflict in West Bank Palestinian territories last summer that may have presaged the attack by Hamas in October; and how peaceful Black Lives Matters protests were in the United States in 2000 relative to the gatherings involving armed militias. Among European findings: and the very high number of protests by German farmers in January compared to neighbouring countries like France. That suggests the potential for German farmers to mobilise again — especially if cost-of-living issues continue to bite and the far-right Alternative for Germany takes advantage of the movement. Hugh also recalls his warnings against the rush to war in Iraq in the early 2000s when he was a correspondent for The Wall Street Journal — and when he discovered how an astrologer's guidance could prove more compelling than his own reporting. There is a strong case, says Hugh, for promoting "data for a more peaceful world."

Support the show