EU Scream

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