“People
realise that only a stronger European Union can solve the problems we
face today”
Philippe De
Backer, 37, is one of the younger members of the European Parliament
(MEP). As a member of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for
Europe (ALDE), the group led by Guy Verhofstadt, De Backer is a part
of the most pro-European integration party in the Parliament. Europe
HOpes on 8 December had a talk with the Belgian MEP in his office in
the Altiero Spinelli building of the European Parliament in Brussels.
A conversation about frustrations, hopes and a Christmas wish for the
European Parliament.
Interview by Rick
Van Assel
It does not happen
very often that a PhD in biotechnology ends up being a member of the
European Parliament (MEP). However, for Philippe De Backer this is
the case. Fascinated by science, he started his academic career
studying biotechnology at Ghent University in Belgium, while at the
same time he became politically active. De Backer was a student’s
representative at Ghent University and during his PhD he became
president of the youth wing of Open VLD, a Belgian liberal political
party known for its pro-European integration stance. Thus, a
biotechnologist in the European Parliament (EP) does not seem so
strange after all. “As a scientist, I was in contact with
universities from different European countries when I was
participating in a European research project. So I was aware of the
scientific and economic opportunities that the European Union could
offer. At the same time, I saw the political difficulties of the EU,
that was in the process of its first big enlargement round. Those two
factors combined have made me want to become politically active on a
European level”, Philippe De Backer reveals. After completing his
PhD, he started working for an investment fund specialized in health
care for a few years. But in 2011, De Backer’s life drastically
changed when he entered the European Parliament, replacing an Open
VLD MEP that retired. Four years later, a combative and resolute De
Backer has high hopes for the European Union’s (EU) future. “The
EU is in crisis. Things are going bad on more than one issue. But at
the same time I am optimistic. A big part of the European population
realises that a strong European Union is necessary to tackle problems
such as climate change, terror and migration. You do not think that a
region as Flanders, or large countries as Germany and France, can
solve these issues on their own? However, therefore the European
Union needs to be given the instruments, so that we can implement
strong policies.”
The turnout for
the European elections has been decreasing ever since the first
election. In 1979 62% of European citizens showed up, whereas in 2014
a small 43% turned to vote. At the same time the European Parliament
has become an important co-legislator. How do you explain this
paradoxical evolution?PHILIPPE
DE BACKER: “I
think that people are disappointed, because they expected more from
the European integration project. We have promised economic stability
and growth, but the EU has not delivered on these fronts. There are
many explanations for these problems, but the main reason lies in the
fact that the EU is an unfinished project. Europe lacks the necessary
instruments to achieve such ambitious goals. It is still too
dependent on the goodwill of the member states. So I do understand
the disillusion of people. However, people do not see the advantages
of the European Union anymore either. They do not realise how easy it
is to cross boarders without passports or to be able to pay with a
single currency.”
Education might
also play an important role. Do you remember if you had any classes
on European integration during your time in secondary school?
DE BACKER: “No. But education is indeed important. The political history of the EU should be a part of the standard curriculum. Youngsters from all over the EU should realize that something is happening and that the European Union also has an impact on their life. The Erasmus programme for example allows young European citizens to see that the EU can offer an added value to their life. Education is becoming more important, which is a good thing.”
DE BACKER: “No. But education is indeed important. The political history of the EU should be a part of the standard curriculum. Youngsters from all over the EU should realize that something is happening and that the European Union also has an impact on their life. The Erasmus programme for example allows young European citizens to see that the EU can offer an added value to their life. Education is becoming more important, which is a good thing.”
Do you think that
by 2050 the European Parliament will still make a trip to Strasbourg
once a month? DE BACKER: “No,
because this is just not tenable. This issue actually represents the
failure of the EU in miniature. I do not want to go to Strasbourg. I
oppose this monthly trip. I always vote against it. Yet, I need to
explain to my constituents why I have to go to Strasbourg every
month, while at the same time I am not able to do something about it.
I am dependent on the goodwill of the member states. Because if I
want to change this, I need their permission. This issue really needs
to be addressed in the next treaty change.”
LIBERAL OPTIMISM
The EU has been
described as a peace project, or as an economic project. Others
mainly see it as a club of countries that share common values. How
would you define the nature of the European Union?DE
BACKER: “It entails different aspects, but there are two core
elements that are complementary and that shape the EU’s nature. In
the first place it is a project about common values, including
fundamental human rights, emancipation, freedom and equal chances. In
order to give people these chances, you need to take down as much
barriers as possible. That is what the European Union is about. If
you want to go work in France, or go study in Spain, you are free to
do so. So the fact that it is a project of freedom and values
automatically implies certain choices with regard to economic
freedom. These two aspects are strongly tied to each other.”
As a liberal, you
want to proclaim an optimistic discourse, unlike conservative powers
that try to exploit the fear that people hold. But what are the
things that European citizens can be optimistic about today? DE
BACKER: “About a lot of things. We are living in the most
prosperous region of the world. We have a high standard of living. A
lot of EU countries have a well-developed social security system,
offer excellent education and provide a lot of chances. I do realize,
however, that the EU is not having its finest hour and I understand
the problems of citizens that today lack perspective. But I got into
politics to change things. We face a lot of challenges today, and it
is our duty as politicians to come with solutions. I would love to
see some political families acting with a bit more voluntarism than
they do today.”
Which political
families?DE BACKER: “Every
political family apart from the liberals (starts
laughing).”
ONE CHRISTMAS
WISH
I presume you
consider yourself a European federalist, just as your ALDE group
leader Guy Verhofstadt.DE
BACKER: “Yes. We should make clear that on a number of issues, the
EU needs to be fully handed the power. There should be a fundamental
debate on which tasks the government can fulfil a role and if so, on
which political level this should be dealt with. For a number of
issues this clearly is the European Union. We need rules for our
internal market. Further integration is required for the economic
governance of the Eurozone. And when it comes to the freedom of
movement, Schengen, there you should also guarantee safety.
Especially on these three topics we should get the EU to take the
lead.”
The political
climate in the EU is becoming more right wing. Do you feel that it is
becoming more difficult to proclaim a story about a unified Europe?
DE BACKER: “I do not think
that the political atmosphere is becoming more right wing. It is
radicalising and becoming more and more polarised. The debates are
being narrowed down to yes or no and pro or contra. This makes it
harder for our political group, the most pro European integration
one, to bring solutions forward that cannot be presented in one
catchphrase. But when you look at Eurostat
polls, you see that citizens expect more from the European Union on
the issues where we as ALDE group are coming with proposals. Think
about the terror attacks for example, with politicians that are
proposing false solutions to this issue. While everyone realises that
enhanced cooperation between member states and the establishment of a
European intelligence agency is the path that we should be taking.”
Christmas is
coming, so I will be generous. You may pick one policy domain on
which the European Parliament does not have a say today. What do you
choose?DE BACKER: “(laughs)
That is a good question really. I
should think about this for a minute (pauses).
Perhaps, when it comes to the EU’s economic policy, I think that
the Parliament could play a bigger role. The European Parliament
should be able to monitor the implementation of the goals that are
set with regard to a European common economic policy. We do have
debates sometimes with finance ministers, but this is merely on a
voluntary basis. We should have a much more important monitoring
function.”
ENERGY WORRIES
AND OPPORTUNITIES
You are a member
of the Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) committee in the European
Parliament. That committee is working on a very important initiative
at the moment: the European Energy Union. Jerzy Buzek, ITRE’s
president, is dreaming of trading energy between Portugal and
Finland. I suppose that you share his dream.DE
BACKER: “Yes. Interconnectivity is the key to a real Energy Union,
so we need investments in transport infrastructure between countries.
That way we can build a large energy- and gas network. The production
on this network should be more rational than it is the case today.
Explaining it with a witticism: solar panels should not be put in
some basement in Brussels, but in Greece or Spain. And windmills
should be located near shores, no longer in the inland.”
What could the
Energy Union mean for us, the European citizens?DE
BACKER: “A lot. The Energy Union will make it easier to complete
the energy transition. We know that we will have to shut down coal
power plants and that we should consider leaving the era of nuclear
energy behind us. The Energy Union will also have a positive impact
on our energy efficiency and consumption. And when it comes to energy
prices, there will be more perspective for our citizens.”
This all sounds
promising. But Poland keeps investing in coal and in Belgium the
nuclear power plants remain active, despite former promises to shut
them down. It seems that there is a lack of European solidarity. This
must be frustrating, especially as a member of the ITRE
committee.DE BACKER: “Of
course, but this frustration counts for a number of topics. National
politicians often claim that they are looking for a European solution
and that cooperation between member states is essential to solve
certain issues. And then they arrive in Brussels to negotiate with
us, the European Parliament. The first thing that they do, is remind
us of their national competences. And when they arrive back home,
they say that the EU is doing nothing. This is exactly what is
happening with the Energy Union. After the European Commission
proposed its plans for the Energy Union, the Council of the European
Union came with a statement. The first line of that declaration said
that the member states remain sovereign over their energy mix. How is
it possible then, to conduct a solid European policy if Poland can
decide to keep their coal power plants open? Or if Germany
unilaterally decides to shut down all its nuclear power plants
without considering the effects this has on its neighbouring
countries? I am not saying that the Parliament is not to blame
either. I do not want to turn this into a blame game. However, after
three years in the European Parliament, I regret to see that it is
still very hard to persuade member states to entirely support a
European approach of problems.”
There is a
constitutional problem of course. The treaties define energy as a
shared competence between the EU and the member states. DE
BACKER: “That is true. But it is not my intention of moving all the
energy competences to the European Union level. I do not want the EU
to decide where the city of Antwerp should install an electricity
cable. I am also a liberal. When I say that there has to be more
power at the European Union level, I do not mean more governmental
interference.”
The Energy Union
could also be a weapon with regard to tackling terrorism funding.
Saudi Arabia, a well-known financier of the extremist Wahhabism,
exports a small 9% of crude oil to the European Union.DE
BACKER: “Indeed. The Energy Union will also increase our energy
independence. We would be playing less into the hands of certain
regimes on which we are very dependent for our energy supplies today.
But this requires an energy transition, while at the same time we
also have to ensure the security of supply. The fact that the nuclear
power plants in Belgium remain active should be seen from this
perspective. We simply cannot permit ourselves that the light goes
out in Europe. On the other hand, we do need to conduct a policy that
ensures a decrease of our energy dependency. With the Energy Union,
the EU has launched a trajectory of ten years to deliver on these
issues. I hope that the member states start implementing and that
things will be different when we meet again in a decade.”
I
will ask your assistant to make an appointment for an interview in
2025.DE BACKER: “Great. That
means that I will get re-elected (laughs).”
No comments:
Post a Comment