Hello, this is Febz Talks, the podcast series of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies from Brussels. My name is Lars Lohander, I'm the Secretary General of Febz and today I have the great pleasure to welcome in our studio Sergei Stanishev. Sergei, welcome to Febz. Good to see you Lars Loh. Maybe some of our listeners would need a little introduction of you, for them I will say that you are just completing your term in the European Parliament. You have been an MEP for
10 years and previously you were an MP in your national parliament. I looked into the analysis for 17 years, you were a Prime Minister of your country for four years and you were President of the Party of European Socialists from 2011 until 2022, which is 11 years and that's an enormous political experience. You are I think very well situated to share some thoughts about the recent European Parliament elections as a parliamentarian who is completing your mandate.
What is your assessment? What has been your thought about the outcome of the elections in the recent weeks? Well, thank you very much for this interview, it's always interesting to discuss with you, knowing your experience and your knowledge of the political processes in Europe. So it's a challenge
for me and I hope it will not be too boring for the audience, but what can I say? Frankly speaking for me there are no surprises in the outcome of the elections because you know I read a lot in the media now about the right-wing, anti-European wave and I'm trying to find it, I'm looking around and I cannot see it really, because if you look at the figures of the numbers of the members of the European Parliament which will belong to the two groups which are Euroskeptic in a different way,
which are more right-wing, all together the two of them will be less than the S&D group alone. And if you take the three groups which were the basis of the majority in the previous legislation, the Socialists, the EPP and the Liberals, the three groups which are definitely pro-European,
together they will have about 400 MEPs. So there is a clear pro-European majority. I'm not saying it to underestimate the signals from many voters who are concerned about many things in the European Union because they see the imperfect situations, they see deficits in policies and I can give you some examples and it is worrying that in some of the key countries, as France, the most outspoken example, we have really a rise, a massive rise of the right-wing, Euroskeptic forces and in Germany
as well. So this is why it is a problem but it's more a problem for Europe in general than for the European Parliament itself because there is a clear majority which is pro-European. Of course, I don't underestimate also that among these 100 MEPs who are non-aligned, independent, there are many right-wingers as well but as always they are very divided on many issues. On Europe in general, on Ukraine, on Russia, on many many things which will not make them really a consistent power,
which can speak in one voice and disrupt but there is one but. I mentioned the 400 MEPs at least because there are also Greens, there is Gouer, also on the right side I would say of this political division but the question is will there be a majority which is consistent enough in policies because on a number of issues there are divisions among the three major groups and there is a temptation also for the EPP which was evident before and during the campaign in their
messages, in some political actions as well in the outgoing parliament that they may revise some policies and try to play the centrist role on some issues, relying with the social Democrats and the Liberals and maybe the Greens on other issues, relying with the extreme right and I think it was very correct on behalf of the PES family to say clearly and to warn the EPP. If you guys go in this direction, for us the cooperation with the anti-European right-wing parties is no go,
then don't count on our support. Now we come to the very delicate and difficult issue of negotiations and it's not only about who would be the president of the commission, the council, the high representative and the president of the parliament which are the four major posts on the table but it's about what is the real policy, is there consensus on these policies which would be the basis for a
solid pro-European majority and here we move to the issue what are the major challenges for Europe. I mentioned to you some of the weaknesses of European policies and I can give you some examples.
First on migration, it is a real concern for many people in many countries about the absorption capacity, not only technically where to put all these people who are coming as refugees or as migrants because these are two different categories and they should be treated in a different way but also how to integrate them into the societies successfully.
But if you remember it was 2015 when the refugee crisis emerged and there were really hundreds of thousands of people coming in the very short time from Syria but also not from Syria, not only from Syria, from other regions of the world. Since then it has been nine years and in this period with all its internal complications the European Commission, the European Parliament with the political divisions
came out with forward proposals. What should be changed in our asylum and migration policies in order to adjust it to the new realities and to show European citizens that the issue is handled and dealt in an adequate and effective way. What was the weak part of the chain of the structure? The European Council. It took the European Council nine years to come in the end with an agreement, to an agreement with the other institutions and finally have a new package on migration.
It's not perfect probably but after all people are expecting from the European Union to be efficient. To deliver and in this case we've shown that we're not delivering fast enough and good enough. So you're suggesting that this is part of the reasons for the dissatisfaction with the European Union. Exactly, so that's exactly what I meant. You're suggesting that some protest is justified if the decision making and the problem solving is so slow sometimes controversial.
Of course, of course we should not mock or ignore people who are voting to extremes because we should say many of your concerns are real. We understand them, we hear them and we're looking for solutions and I think otherwise the extremist vote will only grow if somebody in Europe or the major political actors and institutions continue doing business as usual. Business as usual is not a reply. You have a formal majority which is pro-European
then we should relax. No, on the contrary we should be ambitious enough to start changing and pressing these issues. Now I'll give you another example. Few months ago the European Council was presented by two very important in my understanding reports
by two former prime ministers of Italy, Mario Draghi and Enrico Letté. They're both focusing and analyzing the challenges to Europe's competitiveness, economic development and performance in comparison to the rest of the world and it's no secret that we are lagging behind. We are losing positions consistently for many years now. We are lagging behind in productivity, innovation, in the development of production, an industry which was always the core of Europe's
success since maybe 18th century until now. Why was Europe the center of the world in many ways? Because Europe was the center of science, innovation and production. Industry. And now we are losing this position. We are risking with China growing, America continuing to grow first or second. They're competing for the first place economy in the world. While Europe is becoming in no kind of an attraction where people could go for holidays and see historical monuments.
Do we want us to be a historical relic? Can we be competitive in this modern world with so many powers catching up economically, improving their living standards, which is good? And there are partners, trade partners in many other ways, but we should focus on ourselves and really see what are the weaknesses of the European market of our social systems, which is the unique thing about
Europe. That differs us from America, from China, from the rest of the world. And we have to preserve it, but in order to preserve it, we have to really modernize economically in every aspect, from innovation to put away all the limits to make it more centralized in the way more European, European white. And I'll just remind you that our old friend Martin Schoes has often been saying that there are two types of countries in Europe. One who know that they're small and others who
still don't realize it. And even Germany or France or Italy, the three biggest countries by population and by dynamic power are too small in comparison to the rest of the world. So only if we manage to reform and adjust our common market and our common policies, be it in environment, be it in industrialization, be it on labor market, we can compete with the rest because the rest, they can have one political will of the state, the United States, China to formulate long term
priorities and implement them. They have the tools and very often Europe as a European Union don't have the tools. Most of the tools are at the national level, which cannot adjust. They're sometimes confronting each other and making in the end Europe weaker. This is the big challenge, I think, that economy, our economic performance, social way of life, how to preserve them and to develop them is the major challenge for the next institutions. Also happening in a rapidly
geopolitically changing world. And the war in Ukraine is just one of the examples, maybe the most shocking and striking for us also being neighbors to this region, but also in the rest of the world it's not stable, it's not calm. And we have to adjust to this. This is why geopolitics are becoming also a very important factor in European policies because look at the enlargement
policy. It was more or less stalled since Croatia joined in 2013. But finally, due to the war in Ukraine and other circumstances, we can see that the European Union woke up and said, okay, there are no empty spaces on earth and in life in general. So if we don't move in, if we don't give perspective to these countries who are willing to join the Union, it cannot happen overnight, miraculously. But if we don't move in this direction, then we shall be on the losing side again.
So there are many, many changes happening. They're so complex, they're so difficult. And I think coming back to the question of the outcome of the elections, so there are worrying things. But if we are adequate in our reaction, we can repair and give perspective because politics is always a conversation about the future. You can say we did this during the COVID, we provided and we did provide it and the socialist family has a great contribution to the reconstruction
instrument, the 750 billion euro which was provided to all countries to recover after COVID. But okay, it's passed. Yes, it's under implementation, but people have put an order game good to you that you did it. But what next? So we have to focus on what's next. Yes, I would like you to come back
a little bit later to the question of what's next. But if we could just zoom in the discussion on the election outcomes on our own party, which as you also hinted at this, has displayed a stable performance more or less in terms of the aggregate of the votes and the mandates. There is a stable representation in the European Parliament.
But as a former president of the PES, how do you see the evolution of the party? How the performance, the approach has developed in this past period, a decade or two decades, where you have been
the leadership and at the very top? Well, first of all, we have to be realistic in our assessment of the situation because very often I hear and I can feel it and I suffer it as well that, okay, we are not at the numbers which we had in 1990 as members of the European Parliament when the European Parliament was much smaller as numbers because much less countries were in the European
Union. But we have to admit and to realize that society has changed drastically because we are not expecting we are living through new industrial revolutions, the digital one,
the green transition and now the artificial intelligence. And you know the history of social democratic movement is strongly linked to the first industrial revolution which created working class really, which created industrial society, etc. But it took a long time to the societies to adjust and now a big contribution not only to the national states but also to the European project that is that the welfare state became social state, social market economy became commonplace.
This is a fight which was not granted, it was fought for by our political family, by the left in general, by the trade unions and by the people in the end. Now we have a society which is much more fragmented without such a clear, you know, massive class structure, working class, bourgeoisie, the middle class, etc. Now many other things involve into the political affiliations of people and less and less people are committed to one political family, not just because it's it was my father's or
my grandfather's political family and I stand here and I continue the tradition. That's not enough. There are new elements because of cultural issues, the national against global issues, many other things which contribute to the general picture and we have to be very flexible. But if we compare to the last elections which I was actively involved in, like in 2014 with the Spitzon candidate, Martin Schulz was one, we made a brilliant campaign, a very good one, we had strong results.
Yes, we second after you, people with big numbers. Back in 2019, I remember just one year before the elections, there were predictions by the media analysts and even within our own family. I don't want to quote the people but very skeptical saying that we shall be not second, but we shall be third
or maybe fourth, but it will force in the European Parliament. But we found a way to have a very strong candidate, Franz de Mermans, very clear political messages which were on the top of the agenda of the society at that moment and we ended up strong second, close to EPP. I was expecting, as I already mentioned, the results this time to be more or less like they are. For some reasons, first of all, we want the European elections to be truly European, but are they?
Because in most countries, it's after all voting in favor or against the government and it's a very suitable way to punish the parties in government. So it's one of the elements which
plays a role. We had a very good candidate, in my understanding, Nicolas Schmidt, because I was always saying, okay, now at this moment when people are having so many concerns about their future jobs, about inflation and the standard of living, about how green transition will affect their life, will they be protected to show our social credentials and identity with all the achievements
which Nicolas Schmidt is having as a commissioner. And I think he did a great campaign. But again, we have to look into the realities, the realities which are concerning major issues of concern for two European citizens. And look at the Green Deal. I did support it as well as our group and we are standing there because there is no oppose button on the climate change. It is happening.
But first, the communication is very weak, I think, towards the European citizens, because if I ask average compatriots of my own in Bulgaria, the impression generally is that some kind of bureaucratic Brussels elite created this policy and imposed it on us Europeans and we have to suffer, we have to close our facilities like the coal plants and mines. Nobody else in the world is doing this, which is not true. Look at the United States. Yes, they withdrew from the Paris agreements
in 2020. But then in 21 they returned and there is a big change in their policies. Look at China, because China indeed is one of the probably the biggest polluter at this moment, but that is also changing their policies because they were planning to start reducing the CO2 emissions after 2035. Now they move it to 2030. And if you look at the renewables, China is producing and deploying more renewables than the rest of the world together. Which means what? This is a general
process of the planet. And the last agreements on this issue in Dubai, they're very substantial, it's big progress. So it will be happening, but we didn't provide security to the people. Our family, Nicholas Smith as well, we're always saying the green transition cannot towards a decarbonized economy can only be successful under one condition. If the people are with us on this, if which may
means we have to provide the tools to protect them. Those who might be maybe losing jobs or perspectives to provide new jobs, new skills, and it needs a lot of money. And the Just Transition Fund, which is important, which is our win in the European institutions, is completely insufficient from the point of view of the needs. So this is one challenge which I can outline, but only
one. After all, again, the general process is about European economic performance, because our growth is much weaker than in America, than in America, or in many other parts of the world. So we have to reform ourselves, and at the same time we have to protect security to the people, so they could see that Europe
is working for them, and not for some imaginary, you know, ideas. And addressing these issues in complexity and their relations, because I can see, you know, this symbol behind you, which shows how complex our societies and how many issues we have to address simultaneously, in order to address the concerns of the people, the social issues, the economy, the environment, the gender equality, the world, what is happening there, migration, etc. And to find our next
life identity in this, based on our values, which are unmovable, I would say, because the value of human dignity of every person, the value of social justice in the society, the value of equal opportunities, irrespectively if you come from a rich family, or from a working class family, or from a poor family, simply, they are very much alive, and they touch, you know, the emotions of people and their own concerns. But we have to find the right tools to say them,
yes, we know this is what worries you. And this is how we shall provide you equal chances, how you provide good education to your children, social protection, if you lose your jobs, and of course, quality jobs, which was always our key point. And communication is also very essential, because the other element which changes our society is internet. 30 years ago, people were reading newspapers. Who is reading newspapers nowadays? Everything is on our mobile
device, on the websites, or, but this is not enough, it's moving forward. It's now on the social networks, because people are going this direction. And another element which I think is, at least I feel it, very important for our societies, is that somehow, the feeling of commonness has been lost in this fragmented world.
You know, people are communicating within their own islands of same-minded people and groups, on the internet, or somewhere else, or they read very specific, you know, websites and news devices, which doesn't help to create a communication, dialogue within society. And we social democrats have always been in favor of dialogue. We have always been looking for broader consensus in society. I think this is one of our strengths historically. Building up consensus, of course, on our principles,
but also listening to the other consensus. And this is why I'm always underlying that we should not ignore these voices of anger and fear, because they're easily mobilized and, you know, the right wing is playing on them, saying to the people, I mean, complex message, of course, but we shall protect you from the insecurity of this world, which is not, which is threatening you by bringing you the golden past, which by the way never existed. There never was a golden
past. There was always a moving one for every period. Then the national state will protect you. How can a national state in Hungary or in Bulgaria or even in Germany, as I mentioned, provide economic perspective, competitiveness, strength and jobs and social welfare to all the people in this very globalized world, which is becoming more globalized. So many challenges ahead, not easy to resolve. And there is no silver bullet to say we do this and we win over
helping support of the people and we resolve all the problems. There is no magic solution. Yes, but I think it is true that in Europe, no one but the social democrats will outline the progressive past. So there is no substitute. I think it's also one of the lessons of this recent EP election that some people might have opined in the previous decades at some point the Greens
will take over or someone else will take over. And it seems that our own political family is much more resilient, even if in certain countries there are critical developments. But altogether, it's the social democrats which have a broad agenda and can sustain a comprehensive progressive strategy for the European society. I agree on this. We have a mission.
Yes, exactly. Which is not going away. Before talking more about the details of this mission for the coming period, I thought we could explore a little bit your personal experiences in MEP because you are completing your mandate.
You're going to leave the European Parliament. I'm sure you have done some kind of stop taking about what the key issues have been for your personal agenda in the European Parliament and some lessons from this work, which perhaps the new ones would like to hear about. Well, first of all, the European Parliament is an excellent class for negotiations because everything in the European Parliament is negotiations.
Generally speaking, the European institutions are structured in a way very different from national democratic institutions because in every country, in most of the countries you have elections, winner or a coalition which is winning and being formed afterwards, they have a majority, 50 plus
one, so they do implement their agenda. But if that principle would be applied in a very simplistic way at the European level, that it will explode because few countries with many MEPs or with a lot of votes in the European Council would impose their will and their understanding on the rest. And then the rest would say we don't like this union because our voices and our concerns are not being addressed. We are not being heard and we don't have
the influence. So the European institutions in principle are based on the effort and willingness to establish a broader majority. As broad as possible and nobody's completely happy about this decision which are taken, but we can all live with them. So they're moving slowly in a painful way, in a complex way towards common progress. And now we are facing the next stage when we have to decide okay, if we need to address so many issues and we need reforms, do we go towards more integration?
Which is a reasonable question. Many people are saying okay until we become a federal state, more or less a federal structure, we shall not be able to compete with the rest. But there are also concerns which we have to address because many countries are saying okay, if we take to a simple majority, a simple qualified majority voting on too many issues, then we shall not be heard again. So what are the assurances to all these people, countries,
that it will work? So again this is the first lesson I would say that in the European Parliament you can hardly, but it's also about mathematics, about the numbers in the European Parliament for every political group, even the EPP which is the biggest, they cannot put forward and impose their own agenda. And neither can we. So we have to negotiate, make compromises, but of course it's very important never to lose the right compass.
They compass about values because there are compromises you can make for other priorities and reasons which are on your agenda, you want to put them at the table. But there are compromises you should not make, otherwise you lose your identity and your credibility.
So this is the first lesson, then second, I can say that for me being in the European Parliament my first task was a political one, not so much of a legislative, although I had a number of initiatives, reports etc. But being from 11 years present of the party of European Socialists, for me it was essential that the party and the group, which is our political embodiment of the whole family at the European level, democratically elected, have the same agenda, that there are no
contradictions among the group and the party. So at every stage I was very careful towards that any kind of discrepancies that don't happen. And I think this was a very important achievement of my free mandates in this capacity because we've seen other situations in the past and of course the foundation is a very important element of this triangle of relations in the family because you are the think tank, you are the brains.
I would say that the parties are the heart, you are the brain and the group is the strength, the muscle system of the family, but they're all together because this makes us one personality, one family in the end, one political personality of
course. So this is another thing which was for me very important and the third element is the relations with the other institutions because again very often people are saying the European Parliament, it's a very easy target, you know, we saw recently massive protests of farmers. So where do they go in front of the European Parliament? Which is the most, not the most powerful institution of the European Union, but this is the symbol of the Union in many ways.
While many of the decisions, sometimes indecisions, are in the European Council which is the most powerful institution in the end because this is the member state so we should always remind people that whatever decision is taken in Brussels in the European Union it's not just some anonymous bureaucrats, it's us, our governments, our parliaments as well who participate in every decision because on most of the key policies without the agreement of
all you cannot move forward. So ask your governments first. Indeed. Well that's also a sensitive kind of division of labour between the national and the European competencies and I think another lesson indeed from this recent election experience is that the citizen doesn't need to know all the time what is the competence of the European Union and the member states.
They just need a reassurance that the European Union is doing its fair share and it tries to contribute to solving the issues which ordinary citizens, families, working communities are facing in the daily life. Absolutely and it's not always successful in performing this task which is essential because it's about substance and it's about communication. Why from my point of view the green group lost quite a lot?
Because for them the climate change agenda, the green agenda, normally was a priority but they didn't care too much about the social consequences. Well we, I think we are on the right track again in comparison to EPP and the Greens because many people in EPP are saying yes we see the climate change
but it can be postponed. Some of them belong to the delays because it will harm our competitiveness now and we have to focus on competitiveness but in the end it will be more expensive for the same people who are concerned about their jobs. And the Greens are saying we have to impose because there is urgency and there is an urgency, we have to reach this goal of reducing the global warming to 1.5 degrees
at any cost because of the future generations. But if a person is losing job and is not sure about what will happen to him tomorrow they will not think so much about the next generations. Their concerns, immediate concerns are part too high. This is why we have to address these real problems and I think one of the very important things which have to be strengthened in European institutions is critical thinking.
Because very often I see not only my colleagues, MEPs, also some institutions, you know acting according to their wish list or their mindset believing that people will take it anyway because they know the right policies. In my view policies should be much more based on real facts.
Do we like it or not? It's another matter but take them for real and calculate and shape your policies on the basis of the realities which are economic, international, social and only then you can be successful in policy delivery. There are many sensitive issues which have to be addressed on that basis in a thing I would say have to be modified. Again coming to the Green Deal we have to develop to continue with implementation but we need much more powerful tools to
assure people that they are not left behind. Only words are not enough. They're not enough or the question the issue of war and peace which is very sensitive as you know especially in the context of Ukraine. We of course had to support a country which is a victim of aggression and we did and we are doing a lot. The European Union, NATO, the member states but I've always been missing one element
the future. How do we see the future? Because when I hear we shall support Ukraine as long as it takes I always ask myself the question who formulates what is a win in this situation and what is the price which Ukraine and the people will pay because it's easy to say you know in sitting in Brussels in the European institutions until Russia withdraws from every inch of Ukrainian territory there'll be no peace but I don't know and I think nobody knows what is the real number of victims.
On the Ukrainian, on the Russian side but I'm afraid that it's much much higher than it is officially announced by both sides because the first victim of a war is the truth as we all know and what would be the economic price for Ukraine which is monthly being bombarded, the economy destroyed and people fleeing.
So in order to fight you need to have a perspective also and to see what will come next because war is always having its own logic which is only one and this is the logic of escalation and I said it in the in 2022 when I was leaving from my position we should never forget in Berlin being in the city of Bellybrand. We should never forget that the key mean priority key word for Europe is peace and we have to win the peace for the future.
As Bellybrand did he launched his you know new Eastern policy in the darkest moment I would say of the Cold War which was one year after the occupation of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw back troops which was a very nasty thing and something outrageous but he found the wisdom and the courage to move beyond and in the end his policy produced the best thing which we have seen during the Cold War the Helsinki
agreements which were good for both sides in the end. So my point is that of course we shall keep on supporting Ukrainian people and the country in in our ways but we have to work and elaborate the future of the European continent in general and work of our least image what would be the common European system of
security as it was working after Helsinki. Yes then everything changed okay but now we need we have a new reality and we have to prepare for it in order to make Ukraine not just a bleeding wound on the body of Europe with so much human suffering but to give more general stability and security for all countries otherwise it will not be over.
You have given a lot of elements of a to-do list for the European Union the governance of the EU the progressives would need to do and especially on the last question Ukraine and peace do you consider the European Union sufficiently geopolitical for delivering on on on this great task? Well definitely the European Union has become geopolitical much more than before the war.
As I mentioned already geopolitics entered the agenda and the thinking of the Europeans including the fact that before in recent years it was considered okay for many decades actually the security issue is the business of the United States.
Our issue is our economic prosperity because we have the guarantees anyway and now people feel insecure in some ways even to extreme exaggerations expecting that Russia would invade the European Union and NATO countries which I don't think is a very realistic assessment but these are real fields so you have to treat them as real.
So geopolitically the European Union is not good enough because the impression is that we just following the current something happens we react to it be it in Ukraine be it in Gaza but there is no really long-term common European strategy if every country is playing its own game but this was always the case of European foreign policy which doesn't have the common policy that have the tools we have 27 foreign policies many ways.
So the geopolitical would also require a higher degree of autonomy for the European Union but also a degree of integration which we need to achieve. I think so if we want to be a factor but the major priorities the economic and the social one I think for this the other things they are important and have they have to go together in interrelation but only if we are strong economically we can be
also a geopolitical factor. Thank you so much Sergius Tanishev for being with us today sharing your thoughts about the election outcome the recent past but also the very important tasks of the future. Thank you Lazlo for the very interesting challenging questions which provoked critical thinking again. Let's repeat it whenever we have an opportunity again. Thank you very much. All the best.