The crisis afflicting the Old Continent is not just financial and economic, but rather risks becoming systemic. Within a very short space of time, there has been a great degree of change, like never before throughout history. Old differences have been heightened, and new ones have come into play, made keener by the crisis. These all have had difficulty being absorbed, until what has prevailed is conformity, which is far-removed from the tolerance and dialogue between diversities that has always been Europe’s Grundnorm (or ground rule). Modern-day humans have suddenly found themselves without ideological and cultural guidance, without a clear vision of the world, and without any further identity.
Weighing heavily in all this – it was submitted – is the obvious responsibility of leaders. Hence, in order to avoid reaching the point of considering the lull in the West’s fortunes irreversible, and with a view to emerging from this modern-day Babel, it is necessary to hark back to the strength of values, reformulating rights and duties. There was thus a perceived need for a prodigious capacity for dialogue that, in spite of differences, discerns a way of encapsulating the major European religious and cultural experiences, such as the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions. The identity of a nation and of a continent will have to be rediscovered, because it is precisely a properly embraced identity that underpins the building of common ground. While it was conceded that a plurality of identities can subsist, it was also underlined that complexity needs to be fleshed out, avoiding any homogenization or reductionism.
It was stressed, however, that in an age of fading ideologies, debate not infrequently turns into an emotional outburst, with too much emotion on display, but no vision. In the Babel of our times, it is regulations, rules, and law that make differences sit cheek to jowl, yet complexity must first and foremost be understood, something that was not accomplished before Brexit, and which would seem difficult to achieve even now in the course of negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
The notion that diversity is enriching is easily grasped when it comes to technology, but in the ghetto fringes of large metropolises, it is more difficult to foster its acceptance. Indeed, there has been – and continues to be – a lack of governance at the European level of the migration phenomenon and the anger and hostility of communities on the receiving end of it. Diversity also depends on social stratification and how it is perceived. This – it was felt – is why, in sociological terms, the principle has failed to gain acceptance, without forgetting too that 120 million Europeans are at risk of social exclusion and will, by inference, help swell the ranks of populists.
It was the view of some that there is a mounting urgency in Italy – as a landing destination of exponentially increasing (albeit recently less imposing) numbers of migrants – for an amnesty to be declared. There was also a call for a return to managed migration flows and selective immigration planning policies, favoring those countries that cooperate in ensuring the lawfulness of migration flows. In the face of an influx of low-skilled workers, it was seen as desirable for steps to be taken to move on from “brain drain” to “brain gain”.
Indeed, the migration phenomenon has knock-on effects for the fundamentals of the real economy, since it is within the workplace that real integration takes place. The example given came from the manufacturing sector, with figures cited for the Modena district viewed as telling: immigrant workers make up to between 30 and 35% of the workforce, a percentage that demonstrates the model’s absorption capacity. This was also hailed as a winning formula on all other fronts, with five major carmakers being represented (including Ferrari, Maserati, and Lamborghini), university involvement, allied industry for 187 firms, 120 million euro generated in turnover, more than 3,000 employees, exports of 20% with significant growth potential, and creation of annual demand for 380 engineers.
Several participants called attention to the key role of training in also improving the relationship between supply and demand. It was noted, for instance that there is a shortage of marine engineers in Italy, a country where allied shipbuilding industry is estimated to generate around a billion euro a year. Reference was made to the German example of business-sponsored dual studies programs, which envisage young people undertaking studies at professional colleges or universities. It was emphasized that, in future, training can no longer be solely considered as a cost, but rather, as is the case for R&D, it should benefit from tax breaks. Much work was also seen as needed in the area of careers guidance, which should start from eighth-grade level. It was urged that, essentially, training should be treated as a matter of national interest.
Pointing up the issues of security, migration, governance, training, employment, and rights protection, it was argued that managing the associated growing complexity may only be possible if social cohesion is maintained. In dealing with the chaos that the modern-day Babel presents, it would be worthwhile having some guiding precepts, a strong non-homogenized philosophy, such as a return to liberalism, that cornerstone of European civilization. A philosophy, in short, that counters certain forms of – especially religious – absolutism, which are a hallmark of our times. Indeed, it was suggested that maintaining a liberal identity entails fighting absolutism, cherishing tolerance as a value, and living as free and mutually supportive beings.
More particularly, this freedom was viewed as entailing equality for all, but with the right to be diverse, and spared the fear that engaging with “those different to ourselves” can produce. It was emphasized that diversity needs to be managed in a manner that prevents it from becoming disruptive, but the safeguarding of security should not just be top-down. With this in mind, the forging of a new pact was proposed, as a kind of joint venture between the political arena, institutions, and civil society that redresses the current phenomenon which is seeing a marginalization of sorts of institutions by the political sphere.
It was envisaged that there would be no shortage of shocks encountered in the near future, in the face of which not all will react rationally upon finding themselves very vulnerable. Helmsmanship – a conductor, as it were, for the new symphony – was accordingly seen as likely to be crucial, entailing visionary and cultivated political leadership. Also deemed as potentially useful was aspiration to a “sustainable utopia” – one not confined to the realm of economics but extending to policies tailored to creating the resilience necessary to overcome said shocks. To that end, the participants asked whether the UN’s 2030 Agenda might not serve as a useful starting point, given that – without forgetting the contributions of the Brundtland Commission in 1987 – it offers a systemic approach within which the term sustainability has more than just environmental significance, encompassing various sectors and proposing a complex, and at the same time coherent, vision for the future.