“Much of the path followed by the European Union has been disappointing”

On the day that marks the 74th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, called Europe Day and celebrated annually, professor Eduardo Paz Ferreira analyzes for Jornal Económico the path of the European Union and what this day means to him.

He emphasizes that “much of the path followed by the European Union has been disappointing”, pointing out the lack of strength to defend democracy, exemplified by the “true dictatorships” that live today within Europe, and the poor redistribution of wealth that “would have necessary for the deepening of the integration” of the countries in the European bloc.

The wars in Ukraine and between Israel and Hamas are reasons for concern for the jurist. In the case of the conflict that has been ongoing in Ukraine, Eduardo Paz Ferreira emphasizes the “inability of the European Union to assume a decisive, united and impartial role that would help end the conflict”. In the case of the conflict in the Middle East, he emphasizes that the EU is not doing “everything in its power” to stop the “massacre” in Palestine.

Author of a book titled From Schuman’s Europe to Merkel’s non-Europein which he criticized Angela Merkel’s role and Germany’s excessive power in the European Union, the specialist in tax and financial law currently considers that Germany’s strength “is no longer decisive”.

Looking to the future, Paz Ferreira argues that the essential question “is knowing what legacy the European Union will leave”.

74 years later, what does Europe Day mean to you?

I belong to a generation in which people were divided between two poles of orientation: the approach to democratic Europe or the growing alignment with third worldism and the non-aligned movement.

For those who defended the European orientation, even though they understood that it should not result in the distancing of other countries and, in particular, the former Portuguese colonies, there were two fundamental aspects: the consolidation of democracy affirmed with the 25th of April and the support to the economic and social development of the country, which had already had some expression at the end of the 19th century and, in particular, with the accession to EFTA (European Free Trade Association).

Much of the path followed by the European Union has been disappointing. Europe seen as a space of democracy did not have the necessary strength to defend it and, within it, there are today true dictatorships, or illiberal states in the bizarre and contradictory expression that has come to be used. On the other hand, the so often characterized Communities as a club of the rich no longer made sense with several of the enlargements, without, however, having witnessed a redistribution of wealth that would have been necessary for the deepening of integration.

Any disenchantment reflected here would be heavier if we thought about the guidelines of the Economic and Monetary Union, and the way it served as a framework for an increase in far-right forces and the inability to deal with the problem of migration.

When celebrating Europe Day I think, above all, of its post-war role and the way in which millions of citizens responded to Winston Churchill’s call to come together and rebuild a devastated Europe, admitting that, even at a time when there are no great leaders similar to the founding fathers of the Community, it is possible to do better. And that is what we must demand from the Union.

How do you analyze the moment the European Union is going through, in a context marked by the war in Ukraine?

With the greatest pessimism about the development of terror in the field of war and the inability of the European Union to assume a decisive, united and impartial role, which would help to end the conflict and punish its promoters, committed to affirming the normality of barbarity.

The same would be said regarding the massacre in Palestine, where it does not seem to me that the European Union is doing everything it can, appearing paralyzed by its heritage in relation to the Jewish people.

Do you consider that Germany continues to dictate the rules in the European bloc? Has this changed with Angela Merkel’s departure from power?

It seems to me that Germany’s strength is no longer decisive, but I don’t consider that a bad thing in itself. During Chancellor Merkel’s time, I wrote a book entitled From Schuman’s Europe to Merkel’s non-Europe which reveals my thoughts on the overvalued role of Mrs Merkel.

What is increasingly pressing is the emergence of new leaders and new conceptions of domestic and foreign policy.

Given the situation in Ukraine and the growth of Eurosceptic movements, are the upcoming European elections among the most important in recent decades?

The next European elections are, in fact, of fundamental importance, but it is very impressive to think about the lack of interest of the European electorate in previous events. If things had been different, we probably would not have reached such a state of disunity, Brexit and the feeling that there is still so much to do in the European Union. May the elections give us the strength to overcome this situation.

Is the European Union facing a decisive moment, with divisive issues? Is it important to safeguard unity and cohesion?

Without a doubt, but not at any price, but rather around a project that recovers the founding ideals and eliminates the division between a first-division Europe and a second-tier Europe.

A strong and knowledgeable European Parliament, not made up basically of politicians linked to the exclusive interests of their parties or political groups, as the preparation of candidacies attested, will be fundamental for this path of progress and for moving away from the much publicized departure from democratic values ​​and the perception of a bureaucratic institution, like others that have lost their power of seduction.

How do you see the next few years in the European Union? Would you say that it needs to reaffirm itself on an international level?

This is a truly difficult issue, as it comes within a context of changing alliances and multiplying conflicts and in which the United Nations itself is unable to assert itself with the strength that would be necessary.

It would be good if the European Union did not fall apart and be remembered as the League of Nations, created at the end of the First World War, but which was unable to oppose the outbreak of a new conflict.

The League of Nations, despite several failures, is remembered with important aspects as the set of bodies: the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization and the Permanent Court of International Justice that would later become the United Nations.

The essential question is what will be the legacy we will leave.