The European Union (EU) is at its essence “founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.” When European countries become members of the EU, they voluntarily commit to uphold these principles—just as the EU vows to respect their “national identities,” also reflected in their political and constitutional structures.

A Union of 28 countries with more than 500 million citizens is hardly a monolith. The European Union is instead the very expression of unity in diversity. Up to now, this has been our strength. We are united but we do not seek uniformity. We are diverse but we seek to avoid divisions. Compromise and overcoming differences is at the core of how the EU operates and is what makes us stronger on the global stage. Indeed, experience suggests that the EU is greater than the sum of its parts when it acts with a single voice, whether on trade, regulation or competition policy. As European Commission President Juncker likes to say “together, we stand taller.”

However, in a more complex and uncertain world where the pace of technological change accelerates profound changes in our governing (and governance) systems, economies and societies, can this diversity actually sharpen differences among Europeans and foster division? If so, what impact will this have on the European Union and its policies? What does this mean for our democratic systems and founding values?

A look back may provide a few pointers on some of these difficult questions, as well as what they could mean in the future. During Europe’s migration and refugee crisis of 2015/16, it became clear that, while many Europeans shared a sense of humanitarian duty to provide shelter to those fleeing conflict, just as many felt concern about what the influx might mean in terms of national identity and how it might impact the social welfare state, or even security and public order. The values of “openness” for some and “protection” for others were clearly in opposition and could not be reconciled.

Matters of cultural, religious and ethnic diversity, as well as integration, are sensitive issues in Europe and almost a taboo for mainstream European political families. Yet, this “speechlessness” for fear of being accused of racism or xenophobia allows the political fringes to simplify complex issues, dominate the airwaves and grow their share of the vote. Together with disinformation campaigns that have sought to exploit or magnify differences within society, finding the appropriate policy responses at the European level have become increasingly problematic.

A look forward shows that values may be changing further in Europe and beyond—what we valued in the past, we may not necessarily value in the future. How else can one explain 13 consecutive years democratic freedoms declining around the world? One cannot deny that the road to authoritarianism has often been paved by democratic elections and free choices that citizens have made at the ballot box. Is this an indication that value systems are changing? Is economic stability and security— or “taking back control” and restoring sovereignty by leaving multilateralism behind—more important than freedom in this new century? Is the rise of the global middle class perhaps not a boon to democracy and open economies but rather the opposite? And how could we have been so wrong in assuming what people value most?
 

These questions are of vital European interest as they shatter long-held expectations and call on policymakers to better understand and anticipate what citizens may value in the future. Are we prepared to have this debate? And are we ready to start talking about key sensitive issues in an open and constructive way? Or will we leave this ground to be exploited by the political fringes on the left and right?