How can the European Union win Donald Trump over? Why is immigration beneficial and morally right? What is the EU's possible for change and reform? Leszek Jażdżewski (Fundacja Liberte!) talks to Philippe Legrain, erstwhile economical advisor to the president of the European Commission, Visiting elder Fellow at the European Institute of London School of Economics and author of the books "Them and Us: How Immigrants and Locals Can 3 Together" and "European Spring: Why our Economics and Politics Are in a Mess and How to Put Them Right" (2014).
Leszek Jażdżewski (LJ): In your last column, which you wrote for task Syndicate, you say there are at least 3 different ways in which Europe can win president Donald Trump. Can you briefly tell us why we should strive for this and how we can do it?
Philippe Legrain (PL): Firstly, president Trump's re-election is simply a devastating blow, not only to the United States or the EU, but besides to the thought of the West itself – the thought of a common sense of intent and values shared by the US and Europe, as well as an alliance for safety and close economical political relations, which are based on these shared values.
At the same time, we must effort to make the best of this tragically horrible situation, due to the fact that Europe is weak. She's economically weak. Poland is, of course, doing better than most countries, but many another economies are having difficulty developing. Europe is besides dependent on exports. Above all, however, she is weak militarily. Together, we took refuge under an American atomic umbrella and cheated that we, as Europeans, did not gotta defend ourselves due to the fact that no 1 would dare endanger us.
This illusion has been destroyed. It was broken first by president Putin's aggression in Ukraine, and now it is broken up by the re-election of the President, who at best takes a transactional approach to European security. In any cases, it is openly hostile to the EU and European countries. All this is disturbing.
Therefore, the question is, how best to exploit this terrible situation? I think we must effort to convince president Trump, show him that it is in his interest to take a different attitude towards Europe than the 1 he presented in his speeches and tweets during the election campaign.
In order to do so, we must first of all emphasize individual relations. In my article for task Syndicate, I stated that the perfect individual to be sent to convince Donald Trump is Giorgia Meloni, the nationalist right-wing leader of Italy, who is well received in conservative circles in Washington, D.C., is adored by Elon Musk and who, despite the fact that I may disagree with her politics, in her government acted more like a conventional conservative (and surely more in accordance with the interests of the EU as a full than could be feared earlier) and who, most importantly, has an antiputinian and proukrainist attitude. Let's start with her.
Second, we should meet him with gifts. In this respect, Europe should primarily effort to avoid a trade war with the United States. This means that the EU should offer Trump something he can declare as a triumph in the area of trade – without having to rise duties to accomplish this. 1 apparent solution is to increase production. Even now, shockingly, the EU is inactive buying liquid gas from Russia. For both parties, it would make sense to increase purchases from the US. Moreover, we should besides consider a possible simplification in the duties that the United States considers harmful to them – for example, the fact that we have advanced duties on imports of cars or foodstuffs. This is the first step.
The second case concerns defence. In this area Poland was in the vanguard, taking a much more proactive approach and saying that Europe must increase its defence spending – and large efforts were made in this area, for example in Estonia, but much little in France, Germany or the UK. That's why Donald Trump is right, saying that Europeans request to do more to finance their own defense. It is so reasonable to safeguard ourselves against the likelihood that Trump will not stand up for European countries that do not spend adequate in this area.
As I suggested in my article, Europe must decision from the 2% of GDP mark for defence spending to 2.5% next year – preferably 3% by the end of Trump's four-year term. Poland with a safe supply exceeds this level. Of course, this is the first line. And if Ukraine falls, Poland will be next in line.
In that case, most importantly, the EU must effort to convince Donald Trump that abandoning Ukraine would make him appear weak. That it would not be a fantastic deal that president Putin would get, but it would be terrible. That he would look like he was moving distant – akin to his own accusations against president Joe Biden to do the same in Afghanistan. In a sense, he would be outsmarted by another strong man he admires, Vladimir Putin. And that China, which he so much cares about, would conclude that the United States (and especially Donald Trump) are actually much weaker than they effort to show it. It is so in his individual interest to enter into a more equitable agreement, which, if it does not accomplish the maximum objectives which Ukraine can number on, will at least supply Ukraine with peace and safety on the least unjust terms.
Meanwhile, many opposed Prime Minister Meloni's engagement in this process. However, Europe cannot afford specified a dilemma. On the another hand, others said we shouldn't give gifts to Trump. However, the reality is that Europe is weak.
In the average term, Europe can become stronger due to the fact that it will gotta deal with itself. However, in the close future we simply cannot do this due to the fact that the situation in Ukraine is the most urgent. And if Ukraine falls, Poland, the Baltic countries and Europe in general will be in grave danger. It is so absolutely essential that any peace reached in Ukraine should be on fair terms that will not lead to further Russian aggression.
LJ: What should be the EU's strategy for China? Should it take account of the fact that we inactive request safety guarantees from the United States? And does this mean that trade relations with the US (and relations with the United States at all) are necessary?
PL: Europe is in a very hard situation. In particular, Germany, but besides another smaller countries, became excessively dependent on Chinese exports and production. This addiction makes them very susceptible in a fresh geopolitical situation, in which the EU and China will inevitably become more conflicted, while the US (which guarantee Europe's security) will most likely adopt an even more hostile attitude towards China and request that the EU follow in their footsteps.
At the same time, we must remember that Donald Trump is completely erratic. While the way Biden's administration increased economical and political force on China was in any way systematic and thoughtful, it is rather possible that Trump could start a trade war with China, anticipate Europeans to follow in his footsteps and then make a wonderful deal with Xi Jinping, which would completely undermine Europe's position. This is so a very hard situation – even if Europeans want to get active and follow in its footsteps.
The possible economical consequences are very real. If we were to imagine a affirmative scenario, namely that Donald Trump imposes 10% or 20% of the work on imports in general and 60% of the work on imports from China, then in comparative terms production in Europe will be little affected than production in China. That is why we could presume that Europe can benefit from this.
However, given that the Chinese economy has weak demand, China is presently facing a crisis of local government debt. The country is besides facing a real property crisis, akin to what we faced in Europe 10, 15 years ago. They are dependent on exports and current account surpluses in order to keep growth, which can lead to a redirection of exports and a situation where many products they have planned or hoped to sale in the United States will effort to sale in the European Union.
The crucial difference that we can see present is that the European and Chinese economies have previously been mostly complementary (manufacturing different products), while they are now increasingly competing with each other. In any cases China has proven so competitive that the European counterparts of their products have completely disappeared from the market.
Solar panels are a large example of this phenomenon – at 1 point Germany dominated the production of solar panels, but now the German solar manufacture does not be at all. besides the production of electrical vehicles (or cars in general) is of course a immense industry. presently Germany, as well as the general European automotive industry, is incapable to compete with Chinese imports. I fishy that Europe will go a different way than the United States due to the fact that it seems that the United States intends to completely close its marketplace to Chinese electrical vehicles. Following a combination of different measures (including duties), sales will be negligible. The European strategy will so focus on encouraging Chinese companies to produce cars in the EU. In this way, at least part of the benefits (in terms of employment and the spread of technology) will proceed to exist.
Ironically, we are now talking about the transfer of technology from China to Europe, while in the past it has always been the other direction.
LJ: What issues could Europeans possibly work with Donald Trump to aid him accomplish what he truly wants?
PL: We will gotta work with president Trump, due to the fact that he will shortly be the most powerful individual in the world. Therefore, we have no choice. If we were to look for a possibly affirmative script in Ukraine – although I admit that it may be a grasping razor – it helps the fact that Trump seems to want the war to end. He wants to make her his large triumph and be able to set the example of his ability to make deals.
At the same time, the Russians are constantly moving forward and it is possible that Trump would propose an agreement, and Vladimir Putin would reject it due to the fact that he feels he is winning, so why would he now want to make any deal? In specified a situation it is easy to imagine that Trump may feel offended by this position and feel the request to show Putin that Trump must be taken very seriously.
Some Republicans besides claim that it is possible to temporarily increase military aid to Ukraine, but only to show the Russians that they are actually approaching the case and then to bring them to the negotiating table erstwhile that happens. This would be an highly beneficial script for both Ukraine and Europe. This is besides an area where we could work together.
On the another hand, erstwhile it comes to customs tariffs, they are clearly not something that we could work on because, in a sense, the US is focusing on the "American first" approach. Therefore, they are aimed at allies as well as perceived rivals and enemies. As I mentioned earlier, a triumph in this area can simply be a commitment to buy larger quantities from the US. What we can undoubtedly get on a larger scale is, of course, liquid natural gas. Another is American weapons and military equipment.
The European Union has made any advancement by expanding defence spending through joint purchases and joint procurement. Although I realize why any European politicians think it should be an industrial policy in disguise – and we clearly request our own defence manufacture in Europe – that makes sense at the same time due to the fact that the United States is producing large equipment. Buying more American military equipment besides makes geopolitical sense. Poland is already doing this, which is simply a sensible strategy – and it is surely beneficial for both parties.
Meanwhile, I do not think we can do much at national level. It is almost impossible to deport 1 million people, let alone 10 million or more who live in the United States without documents. It is surely possible to deport people who have just arrived and are being held in camps outside the American border – they can easy be deported and are actually deported on a large scale. However, people who have been surviving in the United States and surviving in communities for a long time are hard to identify and will be highly hard to eradicate. It is besides easy to imagine how specified a decision could lead to social unrest. Therefore, these numbers will not be as advanced as Donald Trump claims.
Nevertheless, the question of possible deportation is mainly theatre. Donald Trump won the first election based on his slogan “Let's Build a Wall” and striving for Mexico to pay for it. Apparently, it was forgotten that Mexico had to pay for it, but any of the wall had already been built. That's why Trump needed a fresh slogan for this year's presidential election and focused on mass deportation. As a result, the number of deportations is expected to increase. For any people, it will be unpleasant, but it will not happen on specified a scale as Trump's camp was founded, due to the fact that beyond the time of the war no specified thing always happened – and it will not happen.
LJ: erstwhile it comes to migration to Europe, should the EU separate between irregular migrants depending on where they come from? What are the possible arguments for border control and the introduction of an open migration policy?
PL: I firmly believe in the benefits of the free movement of people – not only in an economical sense, but besides in human terms. My parent was a exile from Estonia. So my individual household past taught me that people sometimes gotta flee their country to stay alive or stay free. This is not something shameful, but something fundamental.
Even if any asylum seekers in the EU are not truly asylum seekers, many others are asylum seekers. If we are going to have a policy to prevent people from entering borders, there must be safe and legal ways to apply for asylum instead.
As far as Australia and Canada are concerned, both countries have a wide-ranging exile resettlement policy, which most European countries do not. Now a large exception has been made for the Ukrainians, which is fantastic, but there are also places where desperate people request to escape from their home.
As far as the political context is concerned, the global context is that almost all asylum seekers and refugees are in developing countries alongside their country of origin alternatively than in Europe. Therefore, if we are going to prosecute a policy of strict border control, it must be combined with safe and legal asylum applications.
As far as the economical aspect is concerned, we see that even the governments who are most hostile to immigration and who consider it a threat to their national and Christian identity (as Viktor Orban in Hungary) tend to increasingly combine this approach with a policy of allowing abroad workers to be employed, due to the fact that even they consider that allowing people to do work that locals either do not want to do anymore, or cannot do so, is beneficial. A akin gap occurs in Italy, where under Giorgia Meloni there has besides been a crucial increase in labour migration.
Meanwhile, Poland, even under the erstwhile government, accepted immigrants from another countries to work. If you live in a comparatively rich country – and Poland is now besides a comparatively rich country – which has more and more aged people to look after, while at the same time the number of young people who do not peculiarly want to do all the work associated with aged people; with citizens who would like to support the payment of taxes, who are to finance wellness and social care over older people; a country that increasingly wants to compete internationally (to which it needs talented people who are not all born and educated in that country), this openness to migration is essential for economical growth.
We see this in the European Union. The country where I was born and lived, the United Kingdom, was a immense beneficiary of migration – not only from Poland but besides from many another countries. This is seen in the form of fresh companies founded by migrants, as well as in the form of fresh ideas and Nobel Prizes generated and won by people born abroad. This is besides seen in the way in which a full scope of public services trust on people and employment immigrants on a disproportionate scale.
It is so so crucial to address political and cultural objections to migration. And so, if there is to be control, there must besides be alternatives to crossing a border, which are safe and legal. Therefore, politicians must honestly admit to people that if we want to have a prosperous economy in the 21st century, we must be open to foreigners to a certain degree in relation to a full scope of sectors and sectors.
LJ: 10 years ago your book "European Spring: Why Our Economics and Politics are in a Mess – and How to Put They Right" (2014) was published. How do you view your observations from that time now that a decade has passed? Is there anything you would change in it in light of the crises that have occurred in the last 10 years?
PL: I think the book has aged well. Given that its scope was deliberately wide, I have raised many issues in it that are inactive valid. The crisis in the euro area is already behind us, and so we see that the EU institutions and governments of many countries have found that the policy they were conducting during the crisis was wrong.
Therefore, indirectly, I was right to say that most of them are fortunately no longer a burning issue, although it cannot be excluded - given that the euro area is only partially complete - that the financial crisis in the euro area may come back. 1 example is France. If the French governments proceed to have large budget deficits, and in 2027 there will be a possible election of Marine Le Pen from the Eurosceptic organization National Unity for President, then it is not excluded that we can become witnesses of the financial crisis in France. As for the economical and political reforms I advocated in the second half of my book, it is striking how small has been done in this regard.
One of the things I mentioned in the book was that in reality Germany was far little successful than it seemed at the time. In fact, they did not reform, but alternatively engaged in cost-cutting (mainly at the expense of German workers and neighbours in the euro area) and yet it was a suicide strategy. Germany did not invest adequate and the companies there were not flexible adequate to cope with dramatic technological changes, they were besides also dependent on export. I think this analysis was correct and indeed correct.
The biggest challenge facing the EU is that – even though the global economical and financial crisis has long passed (and in the United States and many another countries we are seeing a reflection of growth, which Poland is doing much better than Germany or France) – the overall growth across the EU is slow. Especially in highly crucial sectors (such as technology as a full and artificial intelligence in particular) The EU is barely at all present.
You can function rather well as a museum if you have a tiny area. For example, in Venice, the flood of millions of tourists is not peculiarly pleasant for residents, but the city is already doing well economically and financially. However, the continent as a full cannot function like a museum – not with advanced standards of living, and surely not in a way that would be attractive to young Europeans.
I do not mean that there are no fantastic things in life in Europe due to the fact that they are. I am not saying that we must become the United States, but we must have a much more dynamic economy. The deficiency of reforms to make economical growth, as Mario Draghi late pointed out (and as my book, “European Spring”) pointed out earlier, is profoundly worrying and yet unsustainable.
Learn more about the guest: philippelegrain.com/
See the publication discussed in the episode: www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/u...rain-2024-11
This podcast was produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with the Movieno Liberal Social and the Liberté Foundation!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are liable for the content of the podcast nor for any way of utilizing it.
Podcast is besides available on platforms Sound, Apple Podcast, Stitcher and Spotify
Dr. Olga Łabendowicz translated from English
Read English at 4liberty.eu
![Obchody Święta Służby Więziennej Okręgu Lubelskiego w Chełmie [ZDJĘCIA + FILMY]](https://static2.supertydzien.pl/data/articles/xga-4x3-obchody-swieta-sluzby-wieziennej-okregu-lubelskiego-w-chelmie-zdjecia-filmy-1751705351.jpg)
