lunes, 1 de junio de 2026

The Spanish Exception (The Atlantic, June 1, 2026)

The Spanish Exception

The country’s leaders avoided a populist backlash by engineering an economic boom. Now the boom is creating problems of its own.

By Rogé Karma

June 1, 2026, 7 AM ET

As recently as five years ago, Spain was no one’s idea of an economic success story. Southern European countries have long been notorious for lagging behind their neighbors to the north. Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain were referred to by the intentionally unflattering nickname “PIGS” after they had to be bailed out following the 2008 financial crisis. “Greece, but also Spain and Portugal have to understand that hard work—meaning ironfisted money-saving—comes before the siesta,” the German tabloid Bild wrote in 2010.

And yet, since the coronavirus pandemic, Europe’s major economies—including the United Kingdom, Germany, and France—have slumped, while Spain’s has boomed. Over the past three years, Spain has accounted for one out of every three jobs created across the European Union. Disposable income has risen three times as fast as in France and eight times as fast as in Germany. Unemployment, poverty, and inequality have fallen to their lowest levels in nearly two decades. In 2024, The Economist ranked Spain as the No. 1 economy in the world. That success has helped the country’s main center-left party, the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, remain in power for eight years, even as incumbents across the continent have lost ground to right-wing populists.

I recently spent some time in Madrid, Spain’s capital, trying to figure out how exactly the country had pulled off such an unlikely turnaround. What I learned surprised me. Since the pandemic, Spain’s economic agenda has embraced the kinds of overtly progressive policies that left-of-center parties around the world have tried to distance themselves from. It has welcomed record numbers of immigrants while hiking the minimum wage, implementing energy-price controls, and even providing a type of guaranteed income.

That program helped deliver material prosperity while neutralizing the political far right. But after spending years boosting economic demand, the country faces a devastating housing shortage. Abundance in one domain can create scarcity elsewhere. By fostering prosperity, Spain’s leaders avoided the fate of other incumbents in Western democracies. If they can’t address their housing crisis, though, that success is unlikely to last.

Following the 2008 financial crisis, several of Spain’s major industries collapsed, the unemployment rate soared to 27 percent, and the banking system entered such a vicious cycle that not even the Spanish government could afford to rescue it (hence, the EU bailout). More than a decade later, incomes and employment still hadn’t recovered to pre-crisis levels. “I left; my friends left; everyone was leaving,” Jorge Galindo, who grew up in Valencia and graduated college in 2008, told me. “For a long time, it seemed like Spain’s economic nightmare was never going to end.”

Spain’s anemic recovery radicalized its politics. Protests erupted across the country, support surged for parties on the far left and right, and regional separatists began claiming independence. In the 2019 national elections, Vox, a far-right, anti-immigrant party, went from holding zero seats in Parliament to becoming its third-largest party, with 15 percent of the vote. The country’s politics appeared to be at a breaking point. “It’s important to contextualize just how terrifying this was for many Spaniards,” Omar G. Encarnación, a political scientist at Bard College who studies Spanish politics, told me. “The far-right dictatorship of Francisco Franco had only ended in 1975. It was still in living memory for many people. And it felt like maybe the country was headed in that direction again.”

Then, just months later, COVID hit. Suddenly, the government was faced with the prospect of a new economic crisis before it had recovered from the last one.

To better understand what this moment was like, I talked with Diego Rubio, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s chief of staff. We met at Moncloa, an ivy-covered complex of red-brick buildings that includes Spain’s version of the White House. Rubio had graduated from college during the financial crisis and left Spain to continue his education abroad, returning in 2017 to take a prestigious academic position. When Sánchez asked him to join the team leading the government’s pandemic response, he had only one thing in mind. “The most important priority was making sure we avoided a repeat of 2008,” Rubio told me. “There was no way we could let the country go through something like that again.”

Like most of Europe, Spain kept most workers on payroll by paying their wages and helped businesses stay afloat by extending generous loans. But as the world began to reopen in the spring of 2021, Rubio and his colleagues had another problem: too much demand. Tourists were beginning to travel again, consumers were starting to spend their pandemic savings, and public investment was beginning to flow to major infrastructure and energy projects. Spain, with one of the fastest-aging populations in all of Europe, didn’t have enough workers to keep up. If that shortage persisted, the country’s entire welfare state would be in jeopardy.

The obvious solution was to allow a lot of immigration, and fast. “We really didn’t have another option,” Rubio said. But with the far right ascendent, simply flinging open the country’s borders would be too great a political risk. Rubio and his colleagues needed to figure out a way to bring in as many workers as possible while minimizing the chance of a populist backlash. This meant, first, visibly cracking down on the most controversial form of immigration in Spain: African migrants crossing the Mediterranean by boat and entering the country illegally. This represented a tiny share of overall migration, but it was the form most opposed by the Spanish public and, as a result, the one most frequently used by Vox to gin up anti-immigrant sentiment.

At the same time, the Spanish government dramatically increased the least-controversial form of immigration: Latin American migrants entering the country legally to work. Spanish society has always had a relatively high tolerance for Latin American immigrants, who speak the local language and share certain cultural affinities. The government provided fast-track work authorization for immigrants in sectors with labor shortages, streamlined the process for employers to apply for foreign work visas, and made it easier for immigrants to settle in so-called Empty Spain, where the working-age population has dried up.

From 2021 to 2023, more than 3 million migrants entered Spain, the largest three-year surge in the country’s history. Relative to Spain’s population of 48 million, that is more than three times the size of the immigration surge to the U.S. over that same period.

Whether Spain’s approach should be categorized as progressive, because the country welcomed huge numbers of foreigners, or conservative, because it prioritized those foreigners deemed most likely to easily assimilate, is difficult to say. What is clear is that the plan succeeded beyond the administration’s expectations.

The new arrivals injected life into the Spanish economy. By filling labor shortages, they allowed existing businesses to expand to serve more customers, which, in turn, created the need for even more workers. The migrants were also, of course, consumers, who bought goods and services. Many also started their own businesses. Rather than harming native-born workers, the immigration surge seems to have helped them. The unemployment rate for native-born Spaniards has plummeted while incomes have risen by double digits; the poorest workers experienced the largest increase. A report from the Bank of Spain estimates that a quarter of the rise in the country’s per capita GDP from 2022 to 2024 could be attributed to immigrants. “I’ve been writing about Spain for 50 years at this point, and I’ve never seen its economy perform quite like this,” William Chislett, a senior fellow at the Elcano Royal Institute, in Madrid, told me. “And there’s little doubt in my mind that immigration is the most important factor.”

Alongside the immigration push, Spain’s leaders also pursued a suite of left-wing economic policies. They raised the country’s minimum wage by about 30 percent, implemented new worker protections that slashed the use of temporary contracts, created the country’s first-ever “minimum basic income” scheme for poor families, worth up to about $1,900 a month, and invested tens of billions of dollars in green energy. When Europe was hit by an energy crisis after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Spanish government instituted a cap on the price of natural gas to keep costs low.

Carlos Cuerpo, now Spain’s deputy prime minister, helped spearhead the country’s post-pandemic economic strategy. He does not come across as a left-wing populist. He’s an economist by training who has spent much of his life as a career bureaucrat. He speaks carefully and precisely, backing every argument he makes with references to at least two academic papers and three data points.

For Cuerpo, Spain’s economic approach was rooted in economic and political realism. One lesson from 2008, he argues, was that boosting the incomes of those at the bottom is the only sustainable way to grow an economy. When the rich get extra money, they tend to save it, which simply pushes up asset prices; when the poor get extra money, they spend it, which creates all sorts of real economic activity. “You have to give people some economic security, some stability, in order for them to go out and consume and create these positive feedback loops,” Cuerpo told me.

A second lesson from 2008 was that inequality is a corrosive force that generates class resentment and populist anger. The austerity policies that Spain undertook during that crisis—such as freezing the minimum wage and cutting social spending—had produced an immensely unequal recovery and become the target of populist movements. “We have to understand the underlying sentiment of the voters, which is a sentiment of economic insecurity,” Cuerpo said. “If not addressed quickly and properly, that might lead to dissatisfaction with institutions and attraction to populistic options.”

One school of thought holds that high levels of immigration and a robust social safety net are incompatible; natives don’t want to share their nation’s generosity with foreigners. Spain’s leaders flipped that idea on its head. The best way to ensure social support for immigration, they reasoned, was to make sure that existing residents feel materially secure. “The far-right wins when it weaponizes people’s economic security by identifying a clear enemy,” Pablo Bustinduy, Spain’s minister of social rights and consumer affairs and a co-founder of the far-left party Podemos, told me. “The best chance we have to counter this phenomenon is not by abandoning our principles. It’s by putting forward a model that guarantees better living conditions.”

Heading into the 2023 election, most commentators predicted that the Sánchez government would succumb to the anti-incumbent fervor sweeping Europe and that Vox would enter government for the first time. Instead, Sánchez’s party actually gained support while Vox lost more than a third of its seats in Parliament. Spain’s approach appeared to be vindicated.

But this success story has a wrinkle. There is one key area where the government has failed to deliver. And it is currently threatening to reverse Spain’s progress at keeping the far right out of power.

In 2022, after nearly 15 years abroad, Jorge Galindo finally returned to his home country. The economy was booming. Galindo landed a well-paying gig at a new policy think tank in Madrid. “For the first time, I felt optimistic about my economic prospects in Spain,” he told me.

But when Galindo began looking for a place to live, he discovered something disquieting. Although he was making a higher salary than in any of his previous jobs, he was struggling to find a home that he could afford to buy. “I was really confused at first,” Galindo, who now directs the Esade Center for Economic Policy, told me. “Spain has always been known for having one of the cheaper housing markets in Europe. But suddenly prices in Madrid and Barcelona were starting to look like Paris or Berlin.”

Figuring out how this had happened became an obsession for Galindo. The Spanish housing crisis became the focus of his research, culminating in a 2025 book, Tres Millones de Viviendas (Three Million Homes). During a conversation at a café outside the Reina Sofia Museum, in Madrid, he gave me an oral history of the housing market in Spain.

As recently as the early 2000s, Spain built more houses annually than Germany, France, and Italy combined. But after the real-estate bubble burst in 2008, Spain’s home-building industry collapsed. In an effort to prevent another speculative frenzy, cities and towns across the country imposed new restrictions on what could be built, and the national government passed regulations making it harder to finance new construction.

At the time, these laws didn’t make much difference. For much of the 2010s, Spain’s problem was that it had too many homes and not enough people who could buy them. That situation reversed after COVID. The post-pandemic surge of immigrants, combined with a rebound in tourism, higher incomes, and the rise of remote work, created huge demand for housing. But the country was now building homes at just over a tenth of the rate it was building them prior to 2008. With too much demand chasing too little supply, average home prices increased by more than 50 percent from December 2020 to December 2025, more than twice as much as wages increased over the same period. “If we were building even half the number of homes we were building 20 years ago, then we’d have more than enough for everyone,” Galindo said. “The problem is we’ve made it almost impossible to build anything here.”

Across just about every public opinion poll, housing has become the top issue for Spanish voters. “Look, the government has done a lot of things right,” Antonio Roldán, an economist at IE University, in Madrid, told me. “But raising wages and handing out checks can’t solve a housing shortage. And the housing shortage is the thing preventing people from reaching the middle class.”

 

When I spoke with members of the Spanish government, all of them acknowledged the severity of this problem and insisted that they were doing everything in their power to address it. They pointed to, among other things, a national rent-control scheme, regulations to prevent homes from being turned into Airbnbs, and investments in public housing. These measures, however, have hardly made a dent in the problem. Several recent papers suggest that the rent-control scheme might even be making the housing shortage worse in some places by causing landlords to take units off the rental market and dissuading developers from building.

This failure has provided a new opening for the far right. After its poor performance in 2023, Vox pivoted its message away from immigrants taking jobs and toward immigrants taking homes. Its leaders began blaming the country’s housing crisis on foreigners and the party adopted the slogan “Fronteras seguras son pisos asequibles,” or “Secure borders mean affordable housing.” Gradually, Vox began rising in the polls, aided by the Sánchez administration’s corruption scandals. In 2025, after the government proposed granting amnesty to about half a million immigrants living illegally in Spain—a proposal that initially had wide support—Vox pounced, arguing that this would overwhelm Spain’s already limited supply of affordable housing. The party proposed banning landlords from renting apartments to undocumented immigrants as well as a “Spanish first” policy that would give native-born citizens and longtime residents priority over recent immigrants for public housing. (Vox party representatives did not respond to my interview requests.)

The strategy of tying the housing crisis to immigration paid off. Immigration has surged from a relatively low concern among voters to one of their highest priorities. In two recent regional elections, Sánchez’s socialist party lost a fifth or more of its seats while Vox doubled its share. “What Vox has successfully done is link the issue of housing to the issue of immigration in the minds of many voters,” Carmen González Enríquez, a senior fellow at the Elcano Royal Institute who specializes in immigration and public opinion, told me.

Despite its recent gains, Vox still holds less than 10 percent of the seats in Spain’s version of the House of Representatives, considerably less than far-right parties in France, Germany, and Italy. And Sánchez, who has already announced his intention to run for a third term in 2027, has recently seen a bump in his popularity after several high-profile public standoffs with Donald Trump, who is incredibly unpopular in Spain. But the 2027 election is still a ways away, and in the meantime, Spain’s housing crisis isn’t likely to suddenly fix itself. “The lesson for me is that scarcity is the ultimate gift to the far right,” Galindo said. “When there isn’t enough housing or public transit or health-care services for everyone, it’s so much easier to point a finger at immigrants than to address the actual causes of that shortage.”

Spain’s success over the past five years has undermined many long-standing political-economic truisms. Raising worker pay doesn’t necessarily come at the cost of economic growth; in fact, it can boost it. Immigration and a generous welfare state are not inherently incompatible (although very few countries have the advantage of a huge supply of foreigners who already speak the local language). At the same time, the downsides of the Spanish boom show just how precarious these sorts of gains can be. The political euphoria that arises from economic growth can quickly curdle into anger if the growth prices the middle class out of life’s necessities. And that anger threatens to empower political parties that would reverse the progress that created the growth in the first place


viernes, 1 de mayo de 2026

The many crises of Europe (and possible solutions)



The War in Ukraine and Geopolitical Europe: Putin has given birth to geopolitical Europe

martes, 20 de enero de 2026

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Unhappiness (Nicholas Kristof)

 

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Unhappiness

Nicholas Kristoff, The  New York Times, January 2026

We Americans like to boast, “We’re No. 1,” and we certainly are in our military capacity to invade other countries and abduct odious foreign leaders.

But in the well-being of ordinary citizens? A careful study released Wednesday and based on a measure called the Social Progress Index suggests that in terms of quality of life, the United States ranks 32nd out of 171 countries, behind Poland, Lithuania and Cyprus.

More alarming, the United States has fallen steadily in the rankings over the years, under Republican and Democratic presidents alike — and now seems poised to fall further because of cuts in health care and other services by President Trump.

The Social Progress Index was introduced in the 2010s by a high-powered team of scholars and experts. The United States ranked 18th in 2011, and while that was troubling, we were still ahead of France, Italy and Spain. Now they outrank America.

The Social Progress Index has 12 components, and since 2011 the United States has fallen in the rankings in all of them, said Michael Green, the chief executive of the group that publishes the index each year.

“The quality of life in America is not just worse than in a handful of small Scandinavian countries but also worse than in all of America’s G7 competitors,” Green told me. “We’ve slipped behind former Communist countries like Slovenia, Lithuania and Estonia and behind other relatively new democracies like South Korea.”

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
“The U.S. won the Cold War by being an economic superpower and a social progress superpower,” Green added. “Over the last 30 years, America has simply let go, in terms of social progress.”

The Social Progress Index is just one set of metrics, of course, and one could quibble about this or that score. But it is a useful exercise to employ objective data to weigh quality of life across countries:

In safety, the United States ranks 99th, the index finds, behind Pakistan and Nicaragua.

In K-12 education, America is 47th, behind Vietnam and Kazakhstan.

In health, we rank 45th, behind Argentina and Panama.

Most other attempts to assess nations by well-being also show the United States struggling in recent years. The recent World Happiness Report, ranking countries based on polling about happiness and how people evaluate their lives, has the United States at 24th — down from 15th a decade earlier. The Atlantic Council’s freedom index ranks America No. 22 and in decline, and the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index puts the United States at No. 28.

This year marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, with its celebration of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In a sense, the Social Progress Index and these other assessment tools evaluate how well we’re doing by our own metrics.

The United States does a fine job generating economic growth, but it lags at translating that G.D.P. growth into the things we most care about.

For a contrast, consider Latvia. It has less than half the per capita G.D.P. of the United States, but it enjoys similar scores on the Social Progress Index.

The index is not, of course, definitive. I think the United States is more honest than some other countries in data collection (in areas such as neonatal mortality), and I worry that Western Europe, for all its social gains, has an economic model that suppresses innovation and long-term growth.

Yet the index also captures something real. It explains some of the frustration and discontent that helped elect Donald Trump on the right and Zohran Mamdani on the left. When Americans say that the system is not working for them, these rankings illuminate why they feel such frustration.

As I suggested, things may get worse. As I wrote recently, Trump’s cuts in health care may cost 51,000 lives annually and result in 101,000 cases of untreated addiction annually, along with 138,000 cases of untreated diabetes.

Liberals may be tempted to focus on Trump’s shortcomings. But there is something larger going on here as well: Since about 1970, the United States has been lagging peer countries in some quality-of-life measures.

“It’s not about Trump,” Green said. “Obama and Biden did little to reverse the decline, nor did the Bushes or Clinton. It’s a multipresident, bipartisan, long, slow car crash. Yet voters seem to have been anesthetized by a rising stock market and economic growth, until in recent years it’s become clear to people that their living standards have stagnated — and that’s why they’ve turned to the populist promise of MAGA and Trump.”

He added, “We have to think about Trump as the consequence rather than the cause of America’s progress decline.”

So what’s the solution?

Part of the answer may be investments in human capital — in children, education and lifting skill levels. That’s everything from early childhood initiatives to vocational training, from drug treatment to community colleges.

Our relentless decline in our international standing should be an alarm bell in the night. We are not the nation we think we are, and we should shake off this complacency unless we’re comfortable with our patriotic boast becoming, “We’re No. 32!”

sábado, 5 de abril de 2025

Europe cannot fathom what Trumpian America wants from it (The Economist, April 3 2025)

Europe cannot fathom what Trumpian America wants from it: From tariffs to Ukraine, Europeans are stuck in the Fog of Peace 

Carl von Clausewitz, a 19th-century Prussian general, described warfare as “the realm of uncertainty”. The fellow never had to deal with an American administration run by Donald Trump. Forget the fog of war Clausewitz posited; Europe is discovering the perils of wading through the haze of Pax Americana, MAGA edition. Wish it luck. Being the biggest trading partner of a country that seeks “liberation” through tariffs, or a decades-long military ally of a superpower now parroting Kremlin talking points, is akin to inching through a geopolitical pea-souper. Europe is hardly alone in being flummoxed by Mr Trump (many Americans are, too). But it faces a unique problem: Europe cannot fathom what it should do to fix its already broken relationship with the new administration. Even if Europeans wanted to help their historical partner—a big “if” these days—disagreements abound as to what that partner wants.

The alliance with America has never been entirely straightforward. Yankee gripes about anaemic European military spending go back decades. A continent striving for ever-closer union was occasionally splintered into factions for American convenience, as when George W. Bush’s lot tried to pit “old Europe” against “new Europe” during the Gulf war. American regulators clobbered French and German firms with billion-dollar fines while decrying any constraints on their own tech giants doing business in the European Union. Even pro-European administrations wound up blindsiding the continent’s policymakers. In 2022 Joe Biden announced generous green-industry subsidies (Bravo!) which turned out to be closed to market-leading firms in Europe (Zut alors!).

But this time is different. The Trumpian top brass making decisions of great import to Europe—not least over the fate of Ukraine—hold America’s historical allies in startling contempt. In a recent leak from a not-so-secret Signal group of top officials, Europe was decried as “PATHETIC” by Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary. J.D. Vance was just as critical, though this was predictable after the vice-president had blasted Europeans at a conference in Munich in February. Mr Trump had himself set the tone, imagining that the EU had been set up with the sole intent to “screw” America. On April 2nd he whacked European imports with a tariff rate of 20%. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said she felt “let down by our oldest ally”.

Speaking to diplomats in Brussels and beyond, Charlemagne has heard three theories to explain MAGA hatred of Europe. Understanding which is correct matters, because each comes with its own set of remedies to assuage the Euro-bashers.

The first possibility is that Mr Trump simply shares his predecessors’ desire that Europeans bear the burden for their own defence, and feels unconstrained by diplomatic niceties in making the case. Barack Obama warned over a decade ago that America would “pivot to Asia” (ie, away from Europe and the Middle East) to address a Chinese threat that has since grown more acute. That did little to motivate Europe into spending more. By contrast, Trumpian goading—insulting as it might seem—has been effective at getting allies to step up. If scrimping on defence is indeed what troubles America, the solution is on its way: Europe will promise to spend much more on defence at a NATO summit in June.

The second theory of MAGA Euro-hostility is more worrying. According to this school, the invective directed at Europe is about more than freeloading on defence. After all, America’s Asian allies also underspend on their armed forces but are facing no such abuse. Rather, Europe is being punished for its crime of lèse-Amérique. By banging on about global norms, Europeans are an irritant to might-makes-right Trumpians. How dare the EU regulate Big Tech? How dare Denmark think Greenland would not be better off in American hands? Europe’s role should be to play second fiddle, or, better yet, pipe down. On this reading, to be a better ally, Europe would have to bend the knee, for example by helping constrain China at Washington’s behest. This may be humiliating, if not downright unrealistic in the case of ceding Greenland, which is not Denmark’s to give away. But seasoned EU diplomats think it may provide the basis for a fraught but workable relationship.

Yet some European officials perceive a third kind of MAGA animosity, one they are powerless to do anything about. For this contempt is aimed at a continent that exists only in the imagination of Fox News presenters (as Mr Hegseth once was). Europhobes of this type see it as a flailing continent on the economic skids, one bent on demographic suicide, where the only people who enjoy free speech are Muslim extremists imposing sharia on a woke populace. For them, Europe is a cautionary tale: what America might degenerate into without Mr Trump’s “help”. This fantastical vision offers Europe no way to indulge America, short of handing over power to the likes of Alternative for Germany, a Nazi-adjacent party bafflingly admired by Mr Vance.

Who do you think we are?

To be fair to the MAGA Euro-bashers, their spite towards Europe is reciprocated—as any leak of European leaders’ candid Signal chats about Mr Trump and his team would probably attest.
Without any certainty as to why they are loathed in Washington, Europeans are falling back on their old diplomatic instincts: keep engaging and don’t despair. Sometimes it works. On March 29th Alexander Stubb, Finland’s president, spent hours playing golf with Mr Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Soon after, Mr Trump declared himself “pissed off” with Russia’s Vladimir Putin for failing to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine—a useful win for Europe. Many hope America might still give concrete support to a Europe-led “reassurance force” in Ukraine. Occasionally, the two old allies still manage to find one another, through the bitter mist

miércoles, 15 de enero de 2025

Course Description

G1808 “EUROPEAN CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION”
(DIPLOMA IN SPANISH HISTORY AND CIVILIZATION, UNIVERSIDAD DE CANTABRIA)

ECTS
6
Taught by
Prof. Dr. Jesús Ángel González, gonzalezja@unican.es
Course language
English
Schedule
Classes: Wed 12:30-13:30, Thu 10:30-12:30
Content


The course will deal with the concepts of culture and European unity and diversity. Therefore, the different concepts of culture and the diverse dimensions of Europe (geographical, historical, religious, economic, cultural) will be analyzed and followed by an individual analysis of the culture and civilization of some specific European countries. The course will also present key facts about the creation and development of the European Union. Some of the topics to be covered are: Origin of the EU, how the EU works, monetary union, European issues and priorities, the EU in the world, current developments and future possibilities.
Assessment

-Class attendance and participation 10% (MINIMUM 80 %)
-Oral presentation 30% Students will choose one European country and prepare an oral presentations about its culture and civilization.. The presentations should last between 20 and 30 minutes and some of the following fields could be covered: Background, history, geography, languages, sociological overview, education, religion, economy, politics, the Media, cultural conflicts, cultural products (Literature, Cinema, Art). Special emphasis should be placed on each student’s field of expertise or University Major.
- Reading and Writing Assignments: 20 %: Students are expected to read a number of articles, discuss them in class and hand in article reviews. 
- Final paper: “What is then a European?" 40 %. Remember that the university uses a detection system ("Turnitin Integrity") to check for plagiarism and inappropiate use of AI.

Teaching methods
Participants will be encouraged to actively participate in class and share their experiences and ideas with others to explore new ways of thinking. The course will be conducted using a mixture of lectures; small group activities; practical exercises, facilitated discussions and oral presentations.
Teaching material




§  Core Texts: Class materials to be picked up by students at the Interfacultativo Copy Centre

§  Additional material:

Barbour, P. (Ed.) The European Union Handbook. Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. 1996

Chernotsky, Harry & Heidi Hobbs. Crossing Borders: International Studies for the 21st Century.

        CQ Press, 2015. Díez Medrano, J. Framing Europe. Princeton University Press. 2003.

González López, Jesús A. An Introduction to North American Culture and Literature.

       Santander: TGD, 2006.

Harari, Yuval Noah. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. London: Penguin, 2011.

Hartley, Emma. 50 Facts you Need to Know: Europe. Icon Books: 2006.

Marshall, Tim. Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Tell You Everything You Need To

       Know About Global Politics. London: Elliot & Thompson, 2015.

Oxford Guide to British and American Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Rifkin, Jeremy. The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream. London: Polity, 2005.



viernes, 12 de abril de 2024

Why most people regret Brexit: A majority of British voters now believe the split was a mistake

 

A majority of British voters now believe the split was a mistake

Apr 11th 2024| (The Economist)

It is rare for voters to change their minds soon after referendums. Experience from Canada to Scotland, from Norway to Switzerland, suggests rather that opinions tend to move in favour of a referendum result more than they swing against it. But Brexit seems to be an exception. Since the 52-48% vote in favour of leaving the European Union in June 2016, the majority view among Britons has shifted, and especially so in the past two years, towards the conclusion that the decision was wrong (see chart).



One way to take the temperature is to visit two English towns called Richmond which voted in very different ways in 2016. In Richmond-upon-Thames in London, which voted 69-31% to remain in the eu, opinion has hardened. Gareth Roberts, the Liberal Democrat council leader, notes that post-Brexit niggles such as longer border delays and more intrusive passport controls have helped to solidify local opposition. A Leave voter sitting by the river says he has not changed his mind, but that he is disappointed by the Tories’ failure to strike big trade deals outside the eu.

The other Richmond, in north Yorkshire, voted 57-43% for Brexit. One Leaver in the market square echoes his southern counterpart by insisting that he still supports Brexit but he complains that it has not been properly done and that immigration has surged despite repeated Tory promises to reduce it. A local bartender says that she voted instinctively to leave but that, were the referendum re-run, she would work harder to understand what it would really mean. Stuart Parsons, a former mayor of Richmond, claims that several friends have changed their minds, especially small farmers who feel betrayed by the Conservatives and now fret about future lost public subsidies.

Such anecdotes chime with polls across the country. Research by uk in a Changing Europe (ukice), a think-tank, finds that most voters have not in fact changed their minds since 2016. But because as many as 16-20% of those who voted to leave have switched sides, compared with only 6% of those who voted to remain, the balance has swung against Brexit. The passage of time is also having its inevitable effect: older voters were overwhelmingly keen to leave the eu and younger ones were fiercely opposed to the idea. Don’t-knows and those who did not vote in 2016 now tend to break strongly against Brexit.

Explanations abound for the disillusionment. Sir John Curtice, a leading pollster who works with ukice, points especially to gloom about the economy since 2016, which he says matters more than irritation over immigration. Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrat mp for Richmond Park, reckons that outright dishonesty on the part of the Leave campaign is to blame. Peter Kellner, a political pundit and former president of YouGov, a polling group, suggests that many Brexit supporters had no idea what would happen if they actually won. That differs sharply from the run-up to most other constitutional referendums.

Changes in the political background matter as well. The Conservatives under Rishi Sunak, who happens to be the mp for Richmond in Yorkshire and is a keen supporter of Brexit, are associated in voters’ minds with the decision to Leave. Party disunity and the chaos of four prime ministers in five years have helped to discredit something with which the Tories are strongly identified.

Just as the Tories have helped tarnish views of Brexit, so Brexit is likely to hurt the Tories at the next election. A chunk of people who voted Leave in 2016 say there should still be long-term benefits from quitting the bloc but argue that too little has been done to realise them. This group now leans against the Tories and may even prefer the Reform Party, an insurgent right-wing party. In contrast, those who were against Brexit in 2016 think they were right to fear its economic impact; many who were Tory then now back Labour.

The anti-Brexit mood of a majority of voters is clear but that does not translate into a burning wish to refight old battles. Brexit may be unpopular but its political salience has faded. Even keen Remainers have doubts about the wisdom of starting a lengthy campaign to rejoin. The Labour Party’s decision to talk as little as possible about Brexit is understandable: the party hopes to regain “red-wall” seats in the north and the Midlands that backed Brexit in 2016 and then voted Tory in the 2019 general election.

But if and when Labour does take office, there will be political wriggle-room to improve relations with the eu. Some in the party talk not just of expanding today’s thin trade deal but of broader alignment with European rules. Tory attacks on such ideas as a betrayal of the 2016 vote are less likely to resonate when Brexit itself has lost its appeal for many.