The new European Parliament and European Commission: Who won the 2024 power-play in Brussels?

On February 11, 2025, the European Studies Centre at University of Oxford hosted an insightful seminar featuring Klaus Welle, former Secretary General of the European Parliament, and Anthony Teasdale, visiting professor in Practice at the European Institute of the London School of Economics. The event, chaired by Catherine Briddick, Andrew W Mellon Associate Professor of International Human Rights and Refugee Law at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, focused on the shifting power dynamics in Brussels following the 2024 European elections, highlighting governance challenges, parliamentary realignments, and the future direction of European integration.

Klaus Welle opened the discussion by emphasising the unique structure of the European Parliament. Unlike national systems where power is fused within a parliamentary majority, the European Union (EU) operates through a diffusion of power. This federal-style system ensures that no single party dominates; instead, the EU is governed by a complex web of institutions—the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council—where alliances are essential to achieving legislative goals.

A key takeaway from Welle’s remarks was the changing composition of the European Parliament. The 2024 elections resulted in a divided assembly, with one-third of members aligned with left-wing parties, a strong centrist faction, and a growing presence of right-wing representatives. The steady rise of right-wing populist parties across member states, such as Le Pen’s National Rally in France and the Alternative for Germany (AfD), mirrors the broader European political landscape. Notably, the so-called “progressive majority” that had characterised the previous Parliament has now disappeared, with left-leaning parties falling below the 45% threshold necessary to form a stable coalition.

Traumerland: How Poland's WWII past shapes its collective mentality and politics today

Poland's history is deeply marked by the trauma of World War II, a period that continues to influence the nation's collective mentality and political landscape. The concept of "war trauma" is central to understanding the psychological and social dynamics in Poland today. On February 4, 2025 European Studies Centre hosted a seminar on this topic featuring Michał Bilewicz, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Warsaw, and was chaired by Timothy Garton Ash, Professor of European Studies at the University of Oxford. It looks into the lasting effects of this trauma, exploring how it manifests in contemporary Polish society, politics, and attitudes toward historical events.

The trauma of World War II left an indelible mark on Poland, not just in terms of physical destruction but also in the psychological scars it inflicted on the population. Stefan Baley, a psychologist, observed the profound changes in the minds of young people after the war. He described them as "suspicious, irritable, anxious, and mistrusting of institutions," with a pervasive sense of injustice. This generation, traumatised by the war, developed a mentality of breaking norms and rules, often feeling that everything was a lie. This "war complex" has been passed down through generations, influencing how Poles react to crises and perceive the world around them.

The trauma of WWII didn't end with the war; it lingered, manifesting in symptoms akin to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Anxiety, flashbacks, and hypervigilance became common among those who lived through the war. This trauma was also transmitted to subsequent generations, who, while not directly experiencing the war, inherited the psychological scars of their ancestors. This phenomenon, known as secondary traumatic stress, means that younger generations are more reactive to events that echo the traumas experienced by their elders.

EU-China Relations – Can cooperation and competition coexist?

The relationship between the European Union (EU) and China is one of the most intricate and consequential in today’s global landscape. 

On January 21, 2025, the European Studies Centre hosted a seminar featuring Dr Lucie Qian Xia, Lecturer at the Department of Politics and International Relations, and Dr Dimitar Bechev, Lecturer at the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, University of Oxford. The discussion was chaired by Othon Anastasakis, Director of the European Studies Centre. The seminar explored the historical, theoretical, and contemporary dimensions of EU-China relations, offering valuable insights into how these two major powers navigate their shared interests and diverging priorities.

EU-China relations: A historical perspective

The roots of EU-China relations date back to 1975, during the height of the Cold War. Xia emphasized that this relationship has always been shaped by a network of institutions, despite the presence of opposing forces. Over the decades, it has evolved into a multifaceted dynamic, as encapsulated by the European Council’s 2019 strategic outlook, which frames China as simultaneously a partner, competitor, and systemic rival. This tripartite characterization reflects the inherent complexity that defines EU-China relations.

China, for its part, has consistently viewed the EU as a major strategic partner, as evidenced by its policy papers in 2003, 2014, and 2018. However, a significant gap in perception persists. While China’s rapid economic rise—driven by Deng Xiaoping’s “reform and opening” policies—has reshaped the global economic order, the EU has struggled to reconcile its economic interdependence with China with growing concerns over China’s geopolitical ambitions. This tension lies at the heart of EU-China relations.

Russia's war against Ukraine: Consequences for South East Europe

On 3 December 2024, the European Studies Centre hosted a compelling seminar on the impact of Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine on Southeast Europe. The discussion featured a distinguished panel, including Julie Newton, Research Fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford; Maxim Samorukov, Fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Centre; Kyril Drezov, Lecturer in Politics at Keele University; and Vuk Vuksanovic, Senior Researcher at the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy. The event was chaired by Othon Anastasakis, Director of the European Studies Centre and Southeast European Studies at the University of Oxford. The seminar delved into the far-reaching consequences of Russia's geopolitical strategies on energy security, political alliances, and regional stability in the Balkans and Southeast Europe.

Context
Julie Newton opened the seminar by contextualising Southeast Europe’s pivotal role in Russia’s broader confrontation with the West. She described the region as a "grey zone" in European security—a strategic area where external interventions by Russia and the West remain likely. This zone is crucial for Russia, as it seeks to weaken Western cohesion while maintaining influence through populist and illiberal allies in countries like Serbia and Hungary. At the same time, Southeast Europe presents challenges for the West, given its vulnerabilities in governance and susceptibility to societal frustration, which can fuel populism and external manipulation.

Newton identified Russia’s medium-term goals, including neutralising threats from Ukraine, reshaping European security to counter NATO, and shifting the global balance of power away from Western dominance toward a Russia-China-led alternative. Southeast Europe, she argued, will continue to serve as a key battleground in this broader geopolitical conflict.

The New Politics of Poland

On November 26, 2024, the European Studies Centre hosted Jarosław Kuisz, the editor-in-chief of Kultura Liberalna and an Assistant Professor at the University of Warsaw, to present his recent publication The New Politics of Poland. The seminar was chaired by Eli Gateva, Lecturer in International Relations at Oxford’s Department of Politics and International Relations.

Understanding post-traumatic sovereignty

At the heart of the seminar was the concept of post-traumatic sovereignty, introduced by Kuisz as a framework for understanding Poland’s historical and contemporary struggles with autonomy and identity. This concept reflects the lingering psychological impact of periods when Poland was denied statehood, such as during the partitions of Poland and its subjugation in World War II. These historical experiences continue to resonate today, particularly in the context of Poland’s role within the EU and broader geopolitical tensions, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Kuisz underscored that sovereignty, while rooted in deep historical traditions, remains a modern and contentious political issue. Its interpretations are fiercely debated in Poland, where the trauma of partition and occupation has left a lasting imprint on collective memory. These historical experiences fuel anxieties about sovereignty and autonomy, shaping Poland’s political discourse.

Climate politics and public support for green transition in Europe

On November 19, the European Studies Centre hosted a seminar on "Climate Politics and Public Support for Green Transition in Europe." Chaired by Dr. Federica Genovese, Professor of Political Science at the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Oxford, the seminar featured Dr. Liam Beiser-McGrath, Assistant Professor in International Social and Public Policy at the London School of Economics. The discussion explored the complexities of transitioning Europe’s energy systems toward sustainability while navigating political and public support challenges, drawing on recent empirical evidence.

Dr. Beiser-McGrath opened the seminar by emphasizing that energy policies serve as a cornerstone of green transition efforts. He highlighted how government interventions aim to cushion the economic impacts of these policies. With the energy sector central to decarbonization narratives and fiscal sustainability concerns, he stressed the need for targeted policies to balance economic and environmental priorities.

A critical theme was the shift from universal to targeted financial transfers in renewable energy subsidies and efficiency improvements. Universal programs, while simpler to execute, may lack efficiency and face political resistance due to perceived inequities. Targeted policies, although potentially more effective, require nuanced public communication to prevent backlash, particularly among higher-income groups.

Turkey and the European Union – Moving beyond membership with external differentiated integration

On November 12, 2024, the European Studies Centre hosted a seminar featuring Meltem Müftüler-Baç, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Sabancı University, and Galip Dalay, senior consulting fellow at Chatham House and a doctoral researcher at St. Antony’s College, University of Oxford. Chaired by Dimitar Bechev, the seminar explored the historical evolution of Turkey-EU relations, efforts in political and economic integration, and the future prospects of alternative models to full EU membership.

Müftüler-Baç began by tracing Turkey’s engagement with the EU, which dates back to its 1959 application for associate membership in the European Economic Community and the 1963 Ankara Agreement. These milestones provided a legal basis for Turkey’s eligibility for membership, though not a guarantee. While Turkey officially opened accession negotiations in 2005, progress has stagnated due to political and economic concerns, including opposition from France and Germany. In 2019, the European Parliament formally called for suspending negotiations, citing democratic backsliding and concerns over the rule of law. Despite these challenges, Müftüler-Baç highlighted alternative pathways for Turkey to maintain strong ties with the EU, such as adopting frameworks akin to those of Norway, Iceland, or the United Kingdom. These models allow for economic integration without full political membership. Turkey’s foreign ministry described its ties with the EU as a "strategic partnership" in 2016-2017. However, this concept remains vaguely defined and lacks institutional clarity.