The Trade Unions in the European policy

European politics has not always been the same. A shared European policy would have strengthened the position of each country. This was the dominant position of European trade unionism. In this context Emilio Gabaglio - coming from the CISL, one of the three largest Italian trade union confederations together with CGIL and the UIL, - was elected at the head of European trade unionism at the beginning of the 1990s. An important position in the development of the European policy, considering the history and strength of trade unionism in Europe.

Gabaglio established a friendly relationship with Jacques Delors who was the head of the European Union. And Delors willingly participated in the main meetings of representatives of European trade unionism.

Those were not ordinary times. In effect, a new role for the European Union was emerging after the unions of Eastern Europe had entered, or were about to enter, following the end of Soviet-style socialism. Emilio stood out for his leadership skills among national unions. Admired for his leadership and mediation skills, he was re-elected several times and remained president of the ETUC, European trade unions confederation, from 1991until 2003.

These were years of profound changes in European politics. Germany, led by Helmut Kohl, had been engaged in the unification of the country. France, first governed by Mitterrand, had passed under the socialist government of Jospin at the end of the decade. Italy, which had managed to enter the European Union overcoming the difficulties that had characterized the 1990s, was led by the second government of Giuliano Amato. Gabaglio left European trade unionism in a strong position that reflected his commitment. But we know that in the following years things went differently.

They were dominated by difficulties that reduced growth and employment levels. Schröder, at the helm of Germany, had chosen, after the first years as chancellor, a restrictive policy that was reflected in the whole of European politics. Emilio was no longer at the helm of European trade unionism, which suffered with little capacity to react to a policy of substantial stagnation that was negatively reflected on employment levels and wages. A new phase in European politics was opening.

The European Commission had as its central objective the reduction of the budget deficit, while greater spending on public investments, supporting employment and the standard of living of the working classes would have been necessary. The global economic crisis around 2008-09 had a negative impact on Europe.

The unions were in difficulty at a national and European level. Gabaglio remained convinced that the European Union could (should) be an important stage in the economic development of the countries. But European politics was following a different path that increased difficulties. The Italian government was unable to extricate itself from the uncertain European politics.

The European Union had paradoxically adopted a line in contrast to that practiced by the major countries with market economies. The United States, where the crisis had begun, started to grow again around 2010 under the presidency of Barack Obama. In Europe, the recession, particularly severe in Italy and Spain, contributed to the increase in debt, unemployment and the reduction of wages.

The European Commission continued to set the reduction of national public debt at 60 percent of national income while the crisis doubled or tripled the actual debt of many member countries. Many years later we are witnessing the consequences of a clearly senseless European policy.

The United States let debt grow to 120 percent of national income while continuing to increase public spending. Japan, the third largest economy in the world, has a public debt of 260 percent, more than four times that established in Europe.

Emilio Gabaglio clearly saw the errors of European politics. It is no coincidence that he wrote about the risk that Europe was running, dominated "by the market economy and neoliberal recipes"; a  policy - he wrote - that "will create a precedent elsewhere too, causing social costs, marginalizing the role of trade unions" (The Union without Borders, published in 2021). His pro-European vocation never prevented him from grasping the limits and errors of European policy.

Sadly, Emilio Gabaglio died in early October. When he was leading European trade unionism for more than a decade, the future looked different. The European Union was in a phase of expansion. Many countries were asking to join, and trade unionism was a central resource of European politics.

Now the context is totally changed. France and Germany, the two countries at the center of the European Union, are in economic and political crisis. The European economy is marked by substantial stagnation, while other centers of growth are emerging on different continents.

The future of Europe is shaping up to be different from what many of us had imagined. It was not a predetermined destiny. The legacy of Emilio Gabaglio, who had long been at the center of European trade unionism, shows us that other paths could have been taken.