EU Scream

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