Defence or Welfare? Europe Can Afford Both, and Must

[Celerity]

Amidst geopolitical shifts, the notion that Europe must choose between security and social support is not only politically dangerous but also economically unsound.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/defence-or-welfare-europe-can-afford-both-and-must



President Trump’s reshaping of the United States’ global role has made it undeniably clear that European societies must strengthen their collective defences to deter potential aggressors. While the prospect of increased military spending is hardly welcomed by most Europeans, it is widely seen as an inevitable and indeed necessary step to safeguard fundamental values: democracy, liberties, and the rule of law. However, the implications for another deeply cherished European principle, the welfare state, are less clear. A growing sentiment, particularly in some circles, suggests that greater investment in defence will inevitably necessitate cuts to public spending on vital services such as schools, hospitals, and pensions.

Those who subscribe to this view are divided into two opposing camps. On one side are those who prioritise social protection over military expenditure. Some adopt a pacifist stance, expressing concerns that military escalation could lead to armed conflict. Yet, they often struggle to provide a convincing alternative for self-protection should Europe face adversaries less inclined towards peace than they might assume. Others openly admire President Putin, opportunistically aligning themselves with pacifists by professing a newfound support for the welfare state and “peace”.

Conversely, the other side argues for increased defence spending, advocating that it should be financed by reducing expenditure on social protection. Most present cuts to the welfare budget as an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of the need for fiscal space. Some, however, appear to view these cuts as desirable in themselves, a long-overdue correction to what they perceive as an excessively generous welfare state that has weakened European societies. They would welcome a reduction in its size, aiming to end what they see as European exceptionalism and make Europe more akin to the United States.

Despite their diametrically opposed conclusions, neither side seems to question the fundamental dilemma of welfare versus defence. Both take it for granted that a choice between the two is inescapable. We disagree. Framing welfare against defence is a politically damaging proposition. It is easy to see how this could be exploited by anti-EU populists and Europe’s adversaries. President Putin, undoubtedly, would welcome such a division. But the entire narrative that Europe faces a supposedly unavoidable choice between protecting its social model and bolstering its defences is not only politically unfortunate; it is empirically unfounded.

snip