End of Year Reflection: Integration is our European Way of Life
Looking back on 2019, there is not much to celebrate for refugees. Neither the situation in Turkey and Greece nor the situation in Northern-Africa has improved and a great need for change remains. Refival therefore hopes that 2020 will bring a common European solution for accepting people in need of asylum. It further wishes that Margaritis Schinas, the new EU commissioner responsible for both “promoting our European way of life” and coordinating the improvement of integration of migrants and refugees into society, will be successful.
The question is, what “our European way of life” actually means, because (although these are stereotypes) the direct Dutch, precise Germans, expressive French/Italians, proud Croats and silent Fins are very diverse and, at first sight, do not share that much. Although European values are clearly defined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the way various member states and their citizens interpret them differs substantially.
The European Union has grown from a small group of countries that are historically strongly intertwined, to currently 28 member states, which have much less in common. Therefore, the risks that EU values get diluted and that the Union’s members grow apart instead of closer become substantial. As such, diversity and starting-point differences are no hindrance to convergence. These variables reflect a status rather than a direction. However, if Europe wants to become more united from generation to generation, there is no space for going back into divergence. Refival, therefore, thinks that it is essential to guard the “growing together” process and set clear standards. In the context of its “microcosmos” refugee integration initiative for small rural European communities, it has therefore designed a European values matching framework to do so.
Looking at the individual level, the direction should be to avoid “the winner takes it all” type of maximized materialism. Currently, this principle generates inequality and threatens the “have-not’s” existence. Instead, the focus should be on personal freedom, independence, and self-reliance for everyone. This would reduce material inequality and the poorest people’s often violent struggle to survive. It would replace daily hardship by coexistence founded in the principle of ”live and let live”. Approaches like Universal Basic Income and Refival’s Universal Basic Employment could be catalysts to enable such individual convergence.
From a group perspective, it is important to reduce tribalism and nationalism over time. Since both emphasize the borders between the group and others, local communities should instead focus on becoming more open via inclusion and on solidarity with non-members. The result would be learning from each other and social convergence. The EU’s freedom of movement can play an important role in this. Those who permanently relocate between member states (being self-supporting) tend to become less nationalistic and share a more European or cosmopolitan identity. With its inclusion sourcing, refugee incubation, three-step migration, and education strategies, Refival targets to similarly stimulate the geographic, economic and social mobility of refugees/migrants and thus improve their integration into Europe.
Finally, from a European governance point of view, there is a need for more direct citizen participation to achieve society level convergence. Misrepresentation, a risk which both autocratic and technocratic regimes embed, should be prevented. Long-term harmonization can only be based on citizen consensus and cannot be forced by regulation. The above implies that if member state governments move away from the European values they subscribed to upon accession, this cannot be tolerated. Unless there is general consent about a change of these values, divergence must automatically lead to a compulsory termination of EU membership. Nevertheless, expulsion does not necessarily equal exclusion; since Europe can maintain good relationships with Russia, the USA and China, it can also do this with others.
On a refugee integration level, a similar but reversed tension exists. Those whose aim is to return to their home country should in principle minimize assimilation because this will hinder their reintegration. Instead, they must try to retain their national identity and traditions. At the same time, they will have to balance this with necessary “good guest behavior” and show respect for the rules of their host country. However, if over time their goal changes towards a permanent stay, this consequently implies the obligation to become convergent with European values.
Other than the USA’s concentration on the individual’s rights to defend oneself, or China’s focus on discipline, centrally set values and state control, the European alternative offers a very rich multi-layered social interaction between diverse communities. Since the main common denominator between people in this system is solidarity, Europe should strive to become the continent where people are willing to voluntarily give up their surplus for “someone else who is in greater need”, and thus optimize the sharing of available resources. In doing so, there will be room for new countries to join its society model and for refugees to become European citizens.
For the past four years, I have managed to privately finance and dedicate myself full-time to Refival. At the same time, I, unfortunately, have not been able to bring the needed stakeholders together in a pilot or demonstration project. With my personal funds being depleted, I have currently no other choice than to put Refival’s activities on hold until external funding is realized. Since my commitment to rural revitalization and European refugee integration has not changed, I hope to be able to find a new role in one of these fields. If you are aware of any suitable job or project opportunity for me, I would be very grateful to get introduced.
