The Outsiders, Maylis Roßberg and Raül Romeva – EFA’s Spitzenkandidaten [Advocacy Lab Content]

At the European Free Alliance (EFA) General Assembly, the party’s two Spitzenkandidaten, Maylis Roßberg and Raül Romeva, sat down with Euractiv’s Jennifer Baker to discuss their brand of politics and the 2024 campaign.

JB: Today is Women’s Day, and it’s poignant to have a young woman as a Spitzenkandidatin. Can you tell me about EFA’s track record in women’s representation – I know you have some women MEPs?

MR: Yes, the first thing I wanted to mention was that we have some very active female MEPs who are doing great work. And in general, I would say that compared to others in the political bubble, we are very, very good at engaging women, empowering them, and giving them the opportunity to take on responsibility.

And, of course, I would say that I’m the best example for that! EFA trusted me as a woman – also as a very young woman – to take on this responsibility. So, I think maybe some other parties, to be honest, should follow our example.

JB: EFA has talked a lot about diversity and is obviously doing well with gender diversity. But looking around the room, there’s not a huge amount of racial diversity. That’s a problem for Brussels in general. But how does EFA view it?

RR: You’re right. It’s a fact that [the Brussels bubble] does not represent the reality and the diversity of not only skin colours, but of the traditions and origins that we have nowadays in Europe. And it is a problem in the sense that as long as all those communities are not represented, they do not have role models either and their participation in politics is going to be diminished.

We always come into the same end: there is a need to create role models so that everybody feels themselves represented whether in terms of gender, sexual orientations, gender identities or languages.

So as long as you don’t have institutions that represent all the diversity that we have in the European Union, the reality is going to be unbalanced. And this is a responsibility that the parties themselves have. We have to create the mechanisms that will allow this diverse representation to be put into place. But you are right, it’s one of the deficits that we all have.

MR: I think in this context, it’s also important to add that I believe that EFA is very aware of how much value diversity at a table adds to political discussions and political decisions. I think we are good at that. But we are not quite there yet. But of course, it’s one of our priorities to not only talk about diversity, but to really live it and be a reflection of Europe’s diversity.

JB: When it comes to choosing Spitzenkandidaten, for many parties, it’s about really getting someone into that role as Commission President. That seems unrealistic for EFA, so is it about symbolism? And if you don’t actually get people into those top positions, how does that matter?

MR: I think it’s a very good question, because for me, personally, it is not about symbolism. For me, it is about being in the big debates, and pointing out topics that the other parties will not talk about. Of course, our chances to become President of the Commission are very, very small, but I am participating in this to be a voice and to talk about taboo topics that otherwise will not be mentioned and put them on the political agenda. So, for me it’s not symbolism, it’s activism. That’s what I’m doing here.

RR: I fully agree – it’s not just to get someone in the post, but to define what kind of politics you want to make and what kind of institutions you want to have. So, we hope it is not at all symbolic in that sense. And if we could only play if we had a chance to win, where is the democracy? Is it only big parties that have a chance to be elected? To me, that’s a lack of democracy.

JB: Is it a learning process? For EFA or for yourselves? Has there been anything that has surprised you?

MR: I would say it is a learning process for other European parties because we haven’t done this many times!

RR: I think there’s a learning process for the European Union with the Spitzenkandidaten. Nowadays, you have the perception that you can indirectly vote for the President of the Commission. That’s a novelty. That’s something that we all need to get used to. And to me that’s an improvement in terms of democracy. So, from that perspective, it is a learning process in terms of European democracy.

JB: Presumably, you would like to see the process go even further, and for there to be a possibility for direct voting. Can you imagine that happening?

RR: Why not? I do imagine it.

MR: For me a very important issue is to bring the European Union and its institutions closer to its people. And I believe that the Spitzenkandidaten process is already one step. It’s also not perfect yet, but of course, it would be very cool to let the European people decide more about who’s going to represent them in the world. That’s an issue we talk about a lot.

JB: When Raül was asked who would be in the Berlaymont if EFA was successful and you said it would be the young woman sitting next to you. Is there also an argument for sharing or flexibility with the Commission President role?

MR: Well, in general, I believe that the leaders of the European Union should reflect the diversity we have within the EU. And that’s one of the most important points. What exactly that looks like, is an interesting debate especially in the European Union, because people define diversity very differently. But we in EFA are the European party that in my opinion really stands for being united in diversity.

RR: We need a new concept of leadership. And I think shared leadership is something that we should be very much used to, even if it is not working everywhere. But it is something that demonstrates to be a good exercise for leaders. I think that it is happening more and more at root levels and is normal procedure for several parties. And I think it’s something that even at the institutional level could be explored.

JB: In your presentation, you mentioned several times the question of tackling the far right. It is something that we’ve seen rising around the world. And I’d like to know how you might view a second Trump presidency, what that means for relations between the EU and the US?

MR: I think the European Union has to be more ambitious and connected to all the global relationships no matter who their leaders are. We cannot just be a ball other countries are throwing around. We need to be strong. We need to stick together for our values. We need to set standards in the world.

RR: Well, it definitely would not be a good year if this happens. But the consequence would be that the European Union would need to have a strong and different voice. And this is something that is only possible if you have credible institutions. Right now, that is not the case. There are still too many state dominated policies, instead of having one European policy that is credible, and this weakens the European message.

JB: Finally, EFA says it is the party of democracy, but almost all of the political parties would say they stand for democracy. So, what actually distinguishes EFA?

RR: If you say you’re democratic but then you will not permit all languages or stateless nations, all minorities, all groups to be represented then maybe, you should ask yourself about democracy principles. So, when we say democracy, we mean that everybody feels represented in the institutions. So, it’s true that everybody says they are democratic, but as long as your democracy excludes populations, then, to me, there is a deficit in that concept of democracy.

[By Jennifer Baker I Edited by Brian Maguire | Euractiv’s Advocacy Lab ]