Oldal 69 [69]
Inequalities and Social Europe | 67
of them to see the existing contours of a Social Europe in a more appealing
light from their respective perspectives (Whyman et al. 2014).
Apart from principles and theoretical considerations, some claims against
a more binding and active social policy are also practical. As an Eastern
European conservative MEP put it: “The countries admitted to the EU after
2004 ... still cannot afford the same level of spending for social purposes”
(European Parliament 2017).
In the meantime, while many supporters expressed their fears concerning
the EPSR being an EU “business as usual” initiative (Roy and Kitzmann
2020), some elements of the Pillar may gain special attention. One such is
the issue of the guaranteed minimum income (Principle 14). In the ESPR,
the term refers to social benefits acting as the last resort of the safety net
in Member States, provided on a discretional basis for those in need only.
However, the advances that have happened since the introduction of the Pillar
point into a direction that involves more proactive and fewer optional social
regulations in the EU (Konle-Seidl 2021). This is especially true of the EP’s
December 2020 resolution on a “strong social Europe for Just Transition’, in
which the Parliament called for legally enforceable social rights (European
Parliament 2020).
The COVID-19 crisis has undoubtedly reframed the underlying conditions
as well as the perception of the idea of Social Europe, and it has most probably
played a significant role in the turn towards a greater awareness of the social
dimension of integration. Nevertheless, some - mostly progressive/green/
social democratic parties and theoreticians - propose an alternative and long¬
debated approach, to wit the universal basic income (UBI) (Van Parijs 2013;
Neves and Merill 2020). This alternative approach aims to enhance social
inclusion and mitigate inequalities and the resulting social tension. On the
whole, the objective is to keep the community viably together.
The arguments for the introduction of an unconditional UBI are far from
being idealistic, though. Instead of centering on social and equity, they are
rooted in the extreme vulnerability of the euro zone: the lack of important
buffering mechanisms as substitutes for the lack of the wiggle room available
to Member States from exchange rate adjustments; the problems arising from
internal migration within the EU; the problem of the four freedoms? eroding
the redistributive capacities of Member States; and finally a seemingly more
symbolic issue, namely the citizens’ sense of belonging (Van Parijs 2013). There
is no question that this initiative interferes with many of the abovementioned
concerns and raises several issues, and as such it remains controversial across
Europe (Benecke 2020). However, it also has clear advantages, starting with
its complex nature in terms of its consequences not only in the social realm,
but also in that of the economy.
? The free movement of capital, people, goods, and services across internal EU borders.