The effects of the corona crisis on health and the economy are unprecedented. In the course of its development, the different perceptions and needs of the EU countries have become clear and painful memories of the financial crisis have been reawak-ened. At the same time, political decisions of hitherto unknown magnitude have been taken, illustrating the extent of the political room for manoeuvre. It raises the question what significance solidarity should have in the EU?
The single market and the common currency means that creditor/donor countries, especially the strongest exporting countries, also benefit from the provision of support to se-verely affected economies since this stimulates demand.
Financial support is a signal of solidarity and mutual trust. Both are important prerequisites for effective cooperation between the EU community of states, for example, when dealing with global players such as China or the USA.
Financial solidarity strengthens the belief in the EU in affect-ed populations. In this way, efforts to leave the EU are avoided.
The economic weakness of some EU countries is primarily a result of their own financial and fiscal policies. Financial support from other countries undermines necessary structural reforms.
The support of economies of other countries cannot be ex-plained to one’s own population. This strengthens Eurosceptic initiatives.
It is impossible for governments and experts to distribute funds as efficiently as the free market does. EU financial in-terventions in national economies therefore restrict growth.
In favour but EU money need to be spent wisely (borrowing=next generations will be paying it back). Introduce sort of efficiency scrutiny to avoid MS spending this money to face short term inefficiencies/finance artificial projects, cooperation with private sector to see which actor investment makes more sense/ensure competition/more SMEs. Finally more enforcement re-EU money spendings; more political courage from the Commission to pursue countries via infringement procedures and naming and shaming (i.e. EU semester recommendations do not impress Member States - they are encouraged to launch labour market, fiscal, administrative reforms but not much is happening). We need more discipline to gain support of EU citizens for economic solidarity).
Those member states that already received financial support following the 2007 crisis could be mismanging funds and member states cannot be forced to change their fiscal policy, while donating states cannot be guaranteed in which way financial aid is being distributed within a country.
If all EU citizens have similar social security coverage, the sense of community and a European identity will be strengthened. This creates support for future shared pro-jects.
Social and societal progress are fundamental values of our European society and democracy ("EU’s promise of pros-perity").
High standards of living and socially desirable prospects in each Member State reduce poverty-related migration within the EU.
Given the different social security systems and cultural back-grounds among the EU Member States, a centrally controlled social policy can only fail.
The same social security for all EU citizens would consume large sums of money which would then no longer be available for other investments for the future such as environmental protection, digitization or education.
Even within individual EU countries, an ever widening prosperi-ty gap has emerged in recent decades. It must therefore be the task of the States to protect their own populations against the risk of poverty.
EU should eventually become one, convergent social single market but it requires wider reform including pan-European taxes. No taxation without representation.
Investing and intervening too much in social policy measures diverts responsibility from individual country heads, towards the overarching EU. Each country needs to make their own decisions based on their local needs and values.
It is better to change course today than tomorrow. If we con-tinue to delay fundamental reforms to avert the climate crisis, negative consequences for the Earth, societies and democ-racy will become ever greater- as will the costs of transfor-mation.
To overcome the economic corona crisis, the EU is taking on large debts that will have to be repaid over decades. There-fore, all EU investments should be sustainable, both eco-nomically and ecologically.
The Corona crisis shows that change becomes possible when it is necessary. Europe is currently experiencing a turnaround. This historic opportunity for modernisation must not be wasted.
If subsidies are withdrawn from CO2-intensive industries, many jobs and prosperity are under threat, especially during and after the current crisis.
Many wealthy countries have increased their prosperity with the help of fossil energy sources. Countries whose economies have a lot of catching up to do cannot be expected to abandon this in favour of a costly reconstruction of their systems.
The energy turnaround is a lengthy process. In order for it to be successful, we must remain competitive. Therefore, the transition must be made gradually.
The EU has a unique chance to regain its global leadership with its Green agenda (other countries start following us so let's keep the momentum). Fit for purpose regulation and financing should follow.
Changing course has to be addressed world wide and not only in the EU, to really make a difference. Investing too much time and money could be futile in the big picture / not make enough difference to matter.
Should the EU move towards more mutual solidarity?
1. Should wealthy EU Member States provide more economic support to Member States that are particularly hard hit by crises?
The voting results are made up of 945 together registered results.
2. Should the EU invest more in social policy measures to tackle social inequality between the Member States?
The voting results are made up of 933 together registered results.
3. Should the EU, in the interest of future generations, primarily focus on environmentally friend-ly innovation and jobs?
The voting results are made up of 932 together registered results.