To kick off Lund’s annual EU Days, Studentafton hosted a discussion on the future of the European Union on the 22nd of September. The focus was set on tackling Trump’s tariffs, elevating the EU’s economic standpoint, and upholding trust in times of war, economic difficulty, and unpredictability. Heavy but immensely relevant topics, headlines intensifying by the day. As the discussion began, a rainbow stretched across the sky above AF Borgen, a symbolic signal for hopefulness?

Accompanied by an exuberant applause, the panel consisting of Thierry Carlier, French Ambassador to Sweden; Christina Lehtinen, Deputy Head of Mission at the Embassy of Finland; and Kim de Jong, Chargée d’Affaires at the Embassy of the Netherlands, took the candlelit stage led by the evening’s moderator, Marius Lyckå, editor in chief at Lundagård. The first impression: a diplomatically loaded panel, which would soon reflect in their debate style.

The conversation was initiated with the question of the EU’s future, met with a unified response. Mastering the three intertwined challenges: the increasing need for security as the world is being shaped by war, the EU’s role as a pillar in NATO, and the drive for competitiveness, was seen as key. Protecting our core values, such as the rule of law, human rights, and democracy, must remain central while addressing these challenges.

Technology

On the note of competitiveness, the conversation turned to technology. The panel agreed that one of the main hindrances to the EU’s further success is capital. Nurturing startups and helping them grow would be of great importance, as there exists a difficulty in scaling up, even though the EU, and in particular Sweden, demonstrates strong innovative ability.

The discussion then moved to the proposition on Chat Control, which would allow messenger providers to scan through chats to discover cases of child sexual abuse. Is the risk of a sure leak too dangerous to secure children’s well-being? Here, the previously unanimous views diverged. Kim de Jong argued against the regulation, the invasion of privacy being too extensive and the potential abuse too daunting. France and Finland, in contrast, supported the proposal “no question,” though it would be necessary to find a balance with basic rights such as privacy.

Tariffs

In the face of Trump’s tariffs, the EU’s export orientation poses clear challenges. Thierry Carlier describes the current agreement as “better than nothing”, while emphasising the need to find effective measures to navigate the situation the US has put the EU in and observing the agreement’s implementation.

If the EU manages to navigate this challenge, then where does this leave the union’s trade in the future? Christina Lehtinen highlights the EU’s vision: prioritising free trade, promoting greater self-sufficiency, and expanding partnerships by entering into more free trade agreements with non-EU countries. Kim de Jong added the importance of simultaneously considering internal reforms to enhance its trade competitiveness.

Trust

The ongoing invasion of Ukraine and Putin’s belligerence depict one of the main motivators behind the EU’s new focus on security. The panel concurs that all EU countries should step up in supporting Ukraine, particularly in terms of long-term financing, and consider EU membership once the conditions are fully met. While their stance on Ukraine’s membership was clear, discussions around political developments in Hungary reveal a more diplomatic approach. A clear statement on necessary proceedings was withheld while still highlighting the importance of holding current Member States to the same standards as aspiring ones.

Marius Lyckå then directed a more pointed question to Christina Lehtinen: given Finland’s proximity to Russia and the debate on support for Ukraine being more extensive than actual action, can the country still trust the EU? Christina Lehtinen affirmed that the trust in the EU remains, as does confidence in their own defence.

To conclude on a hopeful and encouraging note, the panel shared what makes them optimistic. They agreed; the EU’s economic power, the youth, and the key role on the international stage. “Unity should be our strength” in facing future challenges, they agreed, while also “relearning the grammar of power” because “we are much stronger than we think”.

As the floor was opened up to audience questions, the previous hopeful framing began to crumble. Questions on the EU’s passive stance towards Gaza and thereby a loss of trust within the youth, the culture of talking about issues but failing to deliver change, and right-wing nationalism in the EU were parried rather than answered with a proper, thought-out response. Thereby, not contributing to rebuilding the trust of the youth in the EU in the slightest, even while highlighting the centrality of the youth for the union’s future. The panel’s diplomatic, passive, and iterative responses to the audience’s questions somewhat dampened the optimism that was sought to be conveyed over the course of the evening. 

In the end, they are still diplomats just doing their job, being diplomatic. However, their seemingly well-rehearsed answers to the moderator’s questions made it seem less like a conversation but rather like a carefully rehearsed presentation. Their diplomatic attitude turned out to be more of a hindrance to the conversation than an elevating aspect. If the EU cannot win back the trust, what grounds can the union’s future even be built upon?