Solidarity must include everyone in the EU, says Ana Bobić

With far-right parties gaining stronger representation throughout the European Union, the EU is being pushed to take a tougher stance on immigration and refugee policy. But what role should the EU play vis-à-vis those living within its borders, both EU and non-EU citizens? What is the EU, and who is it for? According to Ana Bobić, Senior Researcher at the Hertie School’s Jacques Delors Centre, these fundamental questions remain unanswered. In an interview, the Croatian scholar discusses transnational solidarity in the EU, why we need to rethink the relationship between the EU, its Member States, and its citizens, and whether solidarity with Ukrainians might serve as a model for inclusive solidarity in the future.

Dr Bobić, you research the topic of transnational solidarity. What is transnational solidarity, and how does it relate to the EU? 

Transnational solidarity is a socio-economic and political connection between people – between EU and non-EU citizens alike – one that transcends the borders of the EU’s individual Member States. Transnational solidarity asks us to leave behind our concepts of an EU citizen and a third-country national, and it demands that the EU institutions create conditions for a connection between people, regardless of, for example, their economic success, religion, or the language they speak.

Why does solidarity with non-EU citizens play such an important role in your understanding of solidarity?

Plainly put, I can only see myself as a free agent if I'm recognised as such by others; this is the basic Hegelian idea of freedom. If there is someone in my society, for instance an asylum seeker, who is not allowed to work and who cannot move freely in the same way that I can, that is also a problem for me: our encounter cannot result in mutual recognition of each other as free agents. 

Traditionally, the EU has granted rights based on the market achievements of its citizens. This means that the right to mobility is treated by EU law as a fundamental right. This means that, for example, my right to provide services in another Member State may even require the host Member State to breach the fundamental rights of someone else. The Court of Justice has on many occasions balanced market freedoms against fundamental rights and often found the former to take precedence. For example, the Court infamously held in Viking and Laval that collective action by trade unions inherently interferes with fundamental market freedoms and must therefore be justified according to the proportionality test in each individual case.

I’m a Croatian living in Germany who studied in the UK. I’m really proud of the flexibility I have to decide where I live and how I define myself, but not everyone has these opportunities. Think of asylum seekers and refugees. The EU regulates their right to seek asylum and during that period to be present in the Member States. Yet, it is the Member State who must ensure that the needs of these groups are met. But they can’t afford to do this on their own anymore (and face high contestation domestically); at the same time, the EU hasn’t stepped in to fill the void, and it arguably does not have the powers necessary to do so.

Calls to stem the tide of refugees coming to Member States have become loud throughout the EU. What role does the EU play in that?

At the moment the EU is mimicking short-term political debates happening at the national level. For example, the EU agreed on a new migration and asylum pact that more or less fulfils the wishes of the Member States by making it more difficult for refugees to get asylum and easier to deport people. This speaks volumes about the EU’s current inability to foster mutual respect between human beings who live in its territory, regardless of the passport they hold.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, we saw a lot of solidarity with Ukrainians throughout Europe. Could this serve as a model for inclusive solidarity within the EU?

The solidarity we saw for Ukrainians after the Russian invasion offered us a glimpse into what we could be. Take the EU Temporary Protection Directive: this was never really used in the past, but for Ukrainians, we were able to get on the same page and implement it immediately. At the local level, it was really beautiful to see people were hosting Ukrainians all around the EU and people here in Berlin filling up vans and driving to the border to help. 

At the same time, many people raised the critique that Ukrainians have enjoyed this support because we see them as culturally and religiously similar to us. We do not extend the same to Syrian refugees for instance: the moment Bashar al-Assad’s regime was toppled in Syria, EU Member States called for Syrians to be sent back, although the regime fell to a group that we know very little about.

Alongside this, while it’s heartwarming to see EU countries rallying for allegiance in the face of Russian aggression, with rearmament, the original narrative of uniting to prevent war has been lost. I think the EU now needs to ask itself: “What is the EU”, “Who is the EU for?” and perhaps most importantly, “Can the Union meet its own ideals?” These existential questions remain unanswered.

Follow this link to read more about Dr Bobić’s research into transnational solidarity in the EU: https://bit.ly/43DEjgH

Ana Bobić is the Principal Investigator of the DFG-funded project ‘Judicial conflict and the reconfiguration of control in the EU constitutional order’ as Senior Researcher at the Jacques Delors Centre and an adjunct faculty member at the Hertie School.

The Hertie School is not responsible for any content linked or referred to from these pages. Views expressed by the author/interviewee may not necessarily reflect the views and values of the Hertie School.