Inside Europe 5 September 2024

Hello and welcome to Inside Europe. I'm Kate Laycock in Germany. In light of the AFD's

election victory in Thuringia, we'll be spending the next half hour in the company of people

grappling with what this might mean for Germany, both at a regional and federal level. Expect

disaster prepping from Takeover author Arne Zemsrott.

It gets harder later when they're bigger, when they're stronger, but you always have

a responsibility. And even when it's too late, it's not too late.

Political analysis from Thomas Sparrow.

I think already parties are not only thinking about branding, but also trying to see how

they can position themselves within all this debate when it comes to the federal election

in 2025.

And Eastern German soul-searching from poetry slammer Aaron Box.

That is Björn Höcke, leader of the AFD in the Eastern German state of Thuringia,

a man international media have dubbed the most dangerous man in Europe.

It's 2017 and Höcke is addressing a gathering of AFD,

youth activists in Dresden. And what he's saying will send shockwaves around the country.

The AFD, he says, is the last evolutionary chance for the German Vaterland. No longer

must German patriots be shackled by the remembrance culture symbolized by Berlin's

Holocaust memorial, which he calls a monument of shame. What Germany needs, he says, is a

180 degree turn on the politics of remembrance.

Make no mistake, Björn Höcke, who began his career as a history teacher,

knew exactly what he was saying in that speech. In the past year alone,

Höcke has been fined twice for using banned Nazi rhetoric. And prior to that,

a German court upheld the media's right to describe him as a fascist on the grounds that

there was enough evidence to say that he was a Nazi.

And this is the man who, last Sunday, September 1st, 2024, led Turingia's AFD to a thumping

state-level election victory. Across the border in Saxony, their colleagues came a close second,

picking up over 30% of the vote. The situation is serious, but it could have been a lot worse.

Although the AFD in Turingia took almost...

33% of the vote, the other parties were left with paths to possible coalition governments

that are expected to keep the party from state-level power, for now at least.

In a recently published book titled Machtübernahme, Takeover, What Happens When Right-Wing

Extremists Get Into Government, Anna Zemsrott, editor-in-chief of the transparency platform

Frag den Staat, Ask the State, imagines a scenario where no such party can be

opened. It's a detailed look at the mechanics of democracy hijacking, but also a timely play-doer

for those determined to stand in its way. Soon after Sunday's results became clear,

I turned to Anna for his take on just what it was that we were looking at.

We're looking at a nightmare, basically. So we're looking at a fascist party that has the power

in Turingia, at least.

Of a minority that can block very important decisions. And the ones that have been debated

in the media most are the ones where it's about the constitutional court of Turingia.

Members of the constitutional court can only be elected with two-thirds of a majority,

and that means that during the coming legislative period, the AFD is in power,

to influence that decision.

So the constitutional court is the biggest prize. What else, given the results that we've

had, is the AFD likely to be able to do?

One would be that by tradition, usually, the biggest group, the biggest fraction in parliament

would get the president of the parliament. In Turingia, it would be the AFD, traditionally.

So they have the power to at least suggest the first candidate. I certainly hope that the other

parties won't vote for that person. And more importantly, that they can all decide on one

person instead. If they can't, if they all put out their own candidates for that position,

it would mean that in the third round of elections, in the end, you don't need an absolute majority,

but only a relative majority.

And that would mean that the AFD gets to have the president of parliament, who has

a lot of power over procedures in parliament.

What about, Anna, the scenario that you sketch out in your book, the one where the AFD does

get into government? How close on a state level did we just come to that scenario?

Pretty close.

At least the closest ever.

Yeah.

In the history of the Federal Republic, the AFD is still 10 to 15% away from an absolute

majority where they don't have to rely on other parties to form a government. But, I

mean, we're not in the clear yet. It's not clear, both in Saxonia and Turingia, whether

we will have a stable democratic majority, because we're in a situation where the other

parties haven't formed a coalition together.

Yeah.

So we don't know about how that's going. And there's always a scenario, that's one

that I'm sketching out in my book, where it might be possible that we're kind of coming

to a chaotic evening where maybe the other democratic parties are fighting over something.

And then the AFD comes in and says, look, you can have the prime minister. We don't

need it. We're the strongest party, but you can have it. You can have a minority government.

And we'll just tolerate it. And here's the three things that you need to do for that.

You've sketched out in detail what this might look like. How did you go about making

that portrait of a really dystopian future? What can we concretely say about how that

might look?

I interviewed about 70 people, both working in government, civil society, and in the justice

system. Media, entertainment and even public policy, a lot of it that's being opposed.

people um i i looked at the at the past uh the german past in 1933 that's that's the nazi take

over that's really a lot to learn from and i looked at states like poland and hungary

where democratic governments slide it into autocratic ones um and what we can learn from

that is that usually it's not a scenario where the fascists come into power at least not nowadays

and from one day to another democracy ceases to exist but it's rather you know that slogan

democracy dies in darkness i think that's what it's all about it's a thousand little steps it's

for example telling the police to be a bit harsher on certain groups of the population

it would be them saying that the secret service should look into what the greens are actually

doing and maybe they would be left with a lot of money and they would be left with a lot of

extremists and they would set the stage for more concrete and more extreme measures it wouldn't be

from one day to the other but it would rather be a slow process one thing that really um surprised

me actually about your book anna was that and this is because you know it's coming from someone

who's the editor-in-chief of a transparency platform called ask the states which is used

to holding civil servants to account you actually place a lot of faith a lot of hope in the civil

in a scenario like this actually the start of the book and how i got the idea was me talking to

public servants about that kind of scenario and i realized that we've got five million people

working for the state in germany that's a huge group and a lot of them are thinking about what

they would do in that kind of scenario should they stay or should they go you know and a lot

of them told me

and when i researched that book oh you know i'll just wait and see and and i thought you know that

is exactly what led us into disaster 1933 people just waiting and not doing anything so the book

is an attempt to ask public servants what it means when they put their hand on the constitution and

said they they would protect the constitution what it actually means in practice

and and there's really a lot that they can do because people who wrote the constitution they

they learned from the nazi times and they put in for example the right and actually the obligation

for public servants to say no and if not only one public servant but actually you know dozens or

hundreds of thousands do that in in that case of an afd government that would actually buy us time

that would make it much harder for them we know it from the beginning of the 19th century but

we know from other governments that if public servants don't want to do anything it's really

really hard to go around them they're a really powerful group you can't see them a lot of times

but they're really the ones who have to have to do the bad things and they're the ones who can say no

there's um a quotation from the writer erich kessner which is doing the rounds a lot on sort of

german social media at the moment if i think it gets into the first chapter of your book actually

can you remind me of it the writer erich kessner who who was alive in the nazi times and who

actually had his book burnt by the nazis um he after the war said that in order to fight against

the nazis people should have done something in 1928 so five years before the nazi takeover

and that later it was too late and that it would mean that the way he he calls it you have to stop

the

avalanche before it's an avalanche you have to stop it when it's only a small uh ball of snow

but i think that the overall thing that he says is completely wrong i don't think that fascism is

an avalanche i don't think that it's something that happens naturally it's rather something that

is fueled by people and consists of people so you can always stop it with people and then i don't

think that it's an avalanche it's an avalanche it's an avalanche it's an avalanche it's an avalanche

it's ever too late of course it gets harder over time it gets harder later when they're bigger when

they're stronger but you always have a responsibility and even when it's too late it's

not too late anna zemsrott is the editor-in-chief of the german transparency platform fragt den

staat and author of the book macht übernahme takeover what happens when right-wing extremists

get into government now as we've just heard the ability and willingness of germany's

other parties to form coalitions which keep the afd out of power is seen as a crucial firewall

protecting the nation's democracy the role of germany's cdu or christian democrat party is key

here although its leader friedrich merz has ruled out his party forming state-level coalitions with

the afd there are those within the party who have made it known that they would be open to

collaboration and indeed at a local level there are already instances of collaboration between the

representatives of the two parties it's a dynamic dw's political correspondent thomas sparrow

has been following closely for some time i've covered the afd for a very long time now when

they were getting bigger and stronger let's say at a regional level i was also in the parliament

here in berlin in the bundestag in 2017 when for the first time you had the afd in in parliament

and i remember that the reaction was that the afd was going to be the first to be in the parliament

from other parties went from ah this is going to be just a temporary problem we might as well

ignore what they're saying to the complete opposite where basically every time the afd

said something all other parties had to react and i think to some extent in the last few years

there was a sort of middle point between not ignoring the party the party is in most regional

parliaments it's also here in the federal parliament but on the other hand making sure

that political parties

try and set their own agendas and not just respond to the afd the afd has been very good at setting

the agenda especially when it comes to migration that's their topic that's the topic that has

basically made them a big party here in germany and that's why other parties have tried to find

a way to deal with that and you mentioned the firewall because the firewall was basically

set up by other parties to say there's no way they can cooperate with the afd already

at a very local level you see that wall with certain holes if you if you will and you're right

when you point to the fact that even within the cdu there may be politicians that are at least

considering the possibility of working with the afd but overall this doesn't seem to be something

that will change very soon but i imagine that it is something that will be part of the debate

moving forward and of course it's not over yet we have

regional elections coming up in brandenburg later in the month that's correct so brandenburg

elections brandenburg is also in the east of the country it's a little bit different than

thuringia and saxony nevertheless basically everyone will be looking at those regional

elections also to understand not only how the afd perform but also how other parties perform

because i think already parties are not only thinking about brandenburg but also trying to

see how they can position themselves within all this debate

when it comes to the afd and the afd and the afd and the afd and the afd and the afd and the afd and the afd and the

to the federal election in 2025.

And in terms of those wider implications, Thomas, one of the big questions, of course,

is how did the other parties respond to a re-energised, re-invigorised AFD?

I think the answer to that we're seeing play out already.

There's no topic that is more controversial now in Germany than the issue of irregular

migration.

And that's why not only the government parties, but also the opposition, in particular the

CDU, have met and have tried to bring proposals to the table to reduce irregular migration.

It's still a lot of speculation.

There's still very little concrete results that have come after these regional elections.

But it does seem that migration is going to be the focus, that they are going to be trying

to determine how to move forward, how to present proposals.

They aim, at least, to take some of that topic away from the AFD.

So, in other words, the main parties, and particularly the CDU, are, to some extent,

at least adopting AFD framing and concentrating on AFD topics.

So the AFD, even though it's not in power, is having an immense influence.

Absolutely.

If you ask the CDU, they would probably reject that notion that they're taking some of the

AFD's rhetoric.

But it does seem to be relatively evident that in some of their positions, those positions

are very similar to some that the AFD has presented in the past.

And again, this points to that idea of how do you react towards a party, a far-right

party, that has been successful now in these two regional elections, that has one concrete

topic that people know and follow.

How do you react to it?

Do you just ignore it?

Do you take over their positions?

Do you focus specifically on concrete options that can be implemented?

All these.

These ways are now important when it comes to these parties, and in particular the CDU,

positioning themselves when it comes to the AFD, and also, by the way, positioning themselves

towards the government parties.

And this, all of it, has to do with that election that's coming up in Brandenburg, and that

election that's coming up next year, the federal election, because I very much believe that

migration will still be a key topic next year in the federal elections.

Then these parties.

All of them need to position themselves accordingly, based on their own principles, based on their

own priorities, so that when the election comes in 2025, they have all their ideas and

all their plans in place in order to attract voters.

DW's political correspondent Thomas Sparrow there.

Follow DW News for all the latest analysis from Thomas and his colleagues.

I'm Kate Laycock in Germany.

You're listening to Inside Europe.

My final guest this half hour is Aron Boeks, a 27-year-old poet-writer, writer, and bookworm.

He's a member of the Harvard School of Philosophy, and he's a professor at the University of Michigan.

He's also a member of the Harvard School of Philosophy.

He's a member of the Harvard School of Philosophy, and he's a member of the Harvard School of Philosophy.

Poetry slammer, author and project manager of a public discussion tour organised by PEN Berlin to coincide with the regional elections in Thuringia, Saxony and later this month, Brandenburg.

The discussions are taking place under the title Das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen, the Anglophone equivalent of which would be something like it's not PC, but I can say what I want.

Aron's role in the whole thing is that of a patient moderator in amongst the public, enabling ordinary people to have a frank exchange of views on difficult topics.

My job is kind of to give them the feeling, OK, but you can say something and you will get reactions for that.

There was one guy, he was very irritated from everything, but he was very calm during the discussion and said, OK, I took all the way here and I really want to say I lost my trust.

In media, kind of, and I don't know how to get it back.

But he stayed and said why he was irritated about what is written in the media.

And then he said what his own fears were.

And then we had other events where the topic of the East and West differences was very big, where people say, OK, I still have that feeling that it's such a big topic, but I don't know why.

And how is it with our children?

Why is it?

Is it still such a big topic for them or is it even a big topic?

That's really interesting, Aron.

I wanted to ask you about the East-West divide, because whilst the AfD is by no means just an Eastern phenomenon, it is true that former GDR states are seeing very, very high polling for the AfD.

I mean, you grew up in a small place in Sachsen-Anhalt.

A lot of people feel ashamed.

Maybe about the GDR and especially about the Third Reich, they don't say it like this.

But I think in families and in private discussions, there is not that typical talk about this.

And while I was there, I watched very distanced talk about that time where it gets personal.

Talking of getting personal, sorry, I'm going to be a bit cheeky and take this as permission.

Because I wanted to ask you, you were born in 1997, right?

1997, yes.

Yeah.

So, I mean, your childhood growing up in a fairly small Eastern German town is not that far away.

Yeah.

You left, right?

You went to Berlin.

Did you always know that you were going to leave?

Yes.

Yes, that was clear for me very soon.

Because I always dreamt of being in Berlin and I think Berlin is the greatest city in the world.

The AfD is performing particularly well with young people.

So, yeah.

Your demographic.

Yeah.

Do you think the fact that a lot of people of your age who can leave, do you think that's connected?

I realize how easy it is to think, OK, because I am young, I think everybody who is young thinks like I am.

And so it was very shocking for me when I realized that so many young people vote for the AfD.

And I really want to understand that more.

And 2015 in Germany was...

It was a very important year for me because there was when Merkel said the sentence, wir schaffen das.

We can do it.

And this is the refugee crisis.

We can take in all these people.

We can rise to the challenge.

Yeah.

And I was in the 12th grade back then.

And it was shortly before I left my hometown, before I did my A-levels.

And I really saw people like that I saw before.

For me.

Normal people that are now were screaming and shouting and saying very racist things.

And I was very shocked because and for me, I never I was not political at that point.

There was a time which is very different from from now.

And we realized that a lot of young people never experienced that situation, that there was a Germany before the AfD, that the AfD was a very new party for us who raised right power.

They...

They grew up with a normalization of the AfD and in parliaments and debates and the media.

This is very different, I think.

Aachenbox is a poetry slammer, author and project manager of PEN Berlin's Open Discussion Tour.

Das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen.

We'll be featuring other Eastern German voices in upcoming shows as part of our ongoing coverage of the regional elections and their fallout.

So do subscribe.

Subscribe to Inside Europe on any of the usual podcast platforms to make sure that you don't miss it.

This is Inside Europe with me, Kate Laycock in Germany.

Inside Europe.

Thank you.

This is Inside Europe and I'm Kate Laycock in Germany.

Coming up for you this half hour, we'll be tackling everything from Russian sabotage to Luxembourg's free public transport system via British smoking bans and a guest appearance from this guy.

I'm John Bewin. I am the host and producer of a podcast called Seen on Radio, which comes from the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University in North Carolina.

That's all coming up.

From the studios of Germany's international broadcaster, DW, this is Inside Europe.

This summer brought intelligence agency warnings that Russia was stepping up sabotage attacks across Europe in an attempt to disrupt arms supplies and support for Ukraine.

One of the countries most prepared for such incidents is Finland, whose former president has been asked to share the country's lessons.

Inside Europe's security correspondent, Terry Schultz, sent us this report.

When Finland started seeing repeated attempts to break into water facilities around the country over the summer, Finns knew it was likely more than some strange coincidence of vandalism.

I'd say that there's a very big possibility that Russia is behind this.

Pekka Toveri is the former head of Finland's military intelligence, newly elected to the European Parliament.

He came under fire recently in Finland.

for saying Russia is waging war through sabotage and hybrid attacks.

But he stands firm on that belief and says it's actually a war on the entire West, not just Finland,

and that hybrid tactics, like meddling with water supplies, are very effective for Moscow.

You pay a couple thousand euros for some criminal just to go in and break the door,

and that's enough to cause the whole huge headlines, people worried, tying up a lot of resources and studying what's happening.

If I would be a Russian journalist...

If I were a military intelligence officer and wondering how do I make people worried in Finland to punish them for joining NATO and all the other things,

well, that's a very easy, very cheap way to do it.

What's happening in Finland is mild at the moment compared with incidents elsewhere in Europe.

One of the most shocking plots uncovered recently was a reported Russian plan to assassinate the CEO of Rheinmetall, a major supplier of arms to Ukraine.

In Poland and Lithuania, strong allies of Kiev,

a mall and an Ikea were destroyed by fire.

Polish authorities have made arrests linking the incidents and implicating Moscow.

But if any country is ready for such attacks, it's Finland,

which, unlike most of Europe, never let its guard down after the Cold War.

Protection of critical infrastructure, including water facilities, has remained paramount even during peacetime.

I visited a water treatment facility in Helsinki where Mari Heinonen, director of water services, explained the Finnish approach.

We have been quite well prepared already before these two-and-a-half year's happenings in Ukraine.

So, in general, I would say that the preparedness level is relatively good,

but, of course, this type of activities which we have had now during the last months,

of course, we have to re-evaluate if we have something to do more.

This type of safety issue is always matter of continuous improvement,

always a matter of continuous improvement.

Finland is also prepared to protect its people. Underground shelters, which can withstand conventional or even nuclear war, can fit almost 90% of the entire population of Finland. In Germany, it's just over one half of 1%.

In addition, Finnish citizens are periodically trained to take on specific crisis operation tasks in case of emergency.

These are all reasons European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö a special advisor who'll write a report on the EU's civilian defense and preparedness.

So we have a lot to learn from Finland.

In an exclusive interview with DW, Niinistö explains that while structures are important, much of Finland's readiness is a mindset that comes with the territory.

That 1,300-kilometer border with Russia.

But he says all of Europe needs to wake up to these threats.

We have to be strong, and we have to show that we are strong so that outsiders also see it.

And if you're strong, nobody hurts you.

It's no use of frightening anybody.

But we have all the reasons to remind that, well, peace and security.

They are value number one, because if you don't have them, you have nothing left.

Niinistö won't reveal what specific recommendations he may make to the EU in his report, but he does give one preview.

He'd like to see public and private sectors cooperate more to provide better security against hybrid attacks.

I'm well aware about some restrictions of secrecies and competition legislation.

But nevertheless, I would like to see more.

Trust between public and private sector so that private sector can share its experiences and its skills.

And public sector, which has always some sensitive knowledge, could be a bit more open.

In Finland, that trust is easier to build than in many other countries.

But Niinistö hopes his report and his advice will help all of Europe understand the need to work together.

To counter this...

The shared and increasing threat.

Terry Schultz, DW, Helsinki.

Psst.

Can I just interrupt normal Inside Europe programming at this point to tell you about a fantastic podcast that I've just discovered?

It's called Seen on Radio, and it is a Big Ideas podcast from the Kenan Institute of Ethics at Duke University in the USA.

It's produced and hosted by the Institute's Director of Storytelling and Public Engagement, John Buwen.

The current series...

The current series is called Capitalism, and fresh off the back of a major listening binge, I hauled John into a digital studio for a chat.

Perk of the job.

What do we mean, I asked him, when we talk about capitalism?

Well, that's such a great question.

And we spend a number of episodes even kind of laying that out by trying to tell the story of how it emerged in the world.

You know, I mean, there's the kind of dictionary definition, which is...

It's an economic and political system in which the means of production are owned privately, and they're run in terms of a profit motive.

You know, things like that.

What we end up saying is we talk about the role of capital, which, guess what?

It's in the word.

It's in the name.

And the fact that under capitalism, you have people taking the wealth...

The wealth that they've gained, and using that money to make more money through investment, through the creation of more economic activity, and then, you know, always driving toward profit, which in turn, some of which at least can be used as capital again to make more money.

So there's this kind of exponential expansion and growth of the pile of wealth that capitalists have to start with.

So basically, our world, the system that anyone listening to this podcast is almost certainly going to be living in.

And in terms of sort of telling the story of capitalism, how it became so ubiquitous, it's a story really that begins in Europe.

Oh, absolutely.

Yes.

And most economists, economic historians say that in Britain in particular is where it really sort of got momentum.

But yes, Western Europe.

The Dutch, the French, the British, the Spanish, the Portuguese.

And really, it started in, say, the early 1500s.

Well, we call Columbus's voyage to the New World a kind of starting gun.

But what followed from that was really a colonial effort, where you had Western Europeans sending ships off to Africa, and then to Asia, and to the New World, to the Caribbean.

And what would become the United States, and the slave trade being absolutely fundamental to the initial accumulation of wealth and capital that would then, to a large extent, create the wealth that would be used to start the Industrial Revolution.

It's interesting that you've given me that sort of definition there.

And right from the beginning, we've got exploitation sort of baked in.

Did it have to be baked in?

Were there sort of moments where we could have had a little bit of exploitation?

Had a different type of capitalism?

There actually is a long-running debate among economic historians about, you know, could you have had a capitalism that didn't have this feature?

And Jayati Ghosh, who's an Indian economist that I interviewed, basically kind of gets impatient with the question and says, you know, who cares whether it could have gone some other way?

This is how it went.

And you can't really separate the two.

It's a very uncomfortable reality.

I loved that moment of impatience, actually.

But, I mean, you know, she's right in that it has so shaped the world that we're living in today that I was really interested by a recurrent theme amongst the people that you interview.

Often people share their kind of wake-up moment, their moments where they start to question the system.

And I was sort of thinking, well, you know, have I had a moment like this?

And just anecdotally, I was sort of thrown back to two years ago.

I was sort of thrown back to two years ago.

2009, because that's how old I am.

And I was a student on Blackheath Common.

And it was a climate camp on Blackheath Common.

And you sort of got there and the compost toilets went up and the tripods went up and all the paraphernalia of a sort of a climate activist protest camp was set up.

And then this great big banner was unfurled.

And the banner said, capitalism is crisis.

And I remember there was a huge debate because so many people, and this was a self-selecting group of people who were, you know, concerned enough about the environment to take part in a climate camp.

A very significant group felt really uncomfortable with that message.

If you were to unveil that message today, I don't think anybody certainly in those circles would be questioning it.

You know, the debate has moved on.

And the fact that PRX is distributing a series like yours that is taking such.

A critical and questioning look at the sort of the structures that we're all living in today is perhaps testament to that massive shift that's happened in the space of just 15 years.

That is really an interesting observation.

Yeah.

And I do think that that we've seen a really significant shift and climate is a core reason for that.

And increasingly, you have people recognize that capitalism is absolutely central to the explanation of how we've got ourselves into this fix.

But hang on.

You know, capitalism has brought us prosperity on a level never seen before.

You know, we have a quality of life that would have been unimaginable pre-capitalism.

So it can't all be bad.

There's a great deal of truth in that narrative.

It's undeniable that something very dramatic happened starting two or three hundred years ago in terms of the material accumulation and the material wealth of humanity and capitalism.

And that's the real thing.

And it's something that's running through our minds.

And we can clearly see what's going on.

We can clearly see how capitalism was central to that story.

And a lot of us are benefiting from it now.

But we certainly can ask ourselves, you know, all things considered, is this the best we can do as a species and as a group of societies?

Can we arrange our material lives and our work lives and the way that we deal with the resources that we all need in a way that takes better care of each other while also, you know, understanding that, yeah, we have a great deal of wealth.

Yeah.

wealth that has been accumulated over time, however that has happened.

And we're at a really exciting stage in the series in this context, because we're starting

to look for those answers, for those other ways of doing things. And some of those answers

you find in Europe.

Yes. Europe, for starters, is a place where, of course, many countries have what we would

call social democracy. Actually, you would call social democracy. Americans hardly even

use that phrase. But where you have what is really simply a kind of a blend of capitalism

and socialism, right? Where you have free enterprise, capitalist corporations, and so

on, but you also have a strong overlay of government programs, government-run industries,

and a strong safety net, a strong welfare state, right?

Right.

It provides lots of things that in the U.S. we don't have, because we have generally opted

for a much more sort of capitalism-first, markets-first, less government kind of approach.

So, you know, universal health insurance to start with, for goodness sake. And, you know,

much stronger systems of public housing and colleges paid for often in Western Europe.

You know, we don't have those things in the U.S. So that's one whole angle to that.

But then you also have people thinking, actually, who are in business doing things differently.

We go to actually a couple of places in Barcelona, a clothing company called Two Thirds. It's actually

started and run by a German guy who lives in Barcelona, Lutz Schwenke. But it's just a very

overt and intentional effort to create a clothing company that avoids a lot of the really egregious

sins of the clothing industry.

And fashion industry in terms of, you know, outsourcing your production. They avoid even

pesticides in the production of cotton, and they avoid waste. So just this kind of conscious

thing of we are going to operate in a different way that does less harm in the world. We also

go to Triodos Bank, which was founded in the Netherlands, but we went to the Barcelona

branch. And it's a bank that we'll invest only in...

That's my bank.

Is it your bank?

It's my bank.

Right. So you're one of the 750,000 customers in Europe. As a customer, you have your savings

account. Well, that money is only going to be invested in what they consider to be socially

positive, socially valuable efforts like a wind farm. So, you know, yes, there are people in

business, in the for-profit business world, who are really trying to do better to make capitalism

more humane, more fair, more sustainable.

Do you think that you will, in your lifetime, see the end of capitalism and the beginning

of something new?

I don't know. John Fullerton, who is a former J.P. Morgan investment banker, rising star

in that iconic Wall Street bank, who had a change of heart. He thinks that we are already,

moving into a new era. He thinks the change will be as big as the shift from the medieval

to the modern world that will be in a different epoch. I think it's possibly true. I fear

that that kind of shift will happen because we have had a calamitous sort of breakdown.

What's the Milton Friedman quotation that only a crisis, real or imagined, can bring

about change?

I think that's a very important insight. And so in that sense, I am encouraged as a

result of spending this time immersed in this question and talking to people who are thinking

about these things more deeply than most of us are. Those folks and their practices will

come to the fore when it becomes absolutely necessary. And I hope before it becomes absolutely

necessary.

If our listeners want to pick up some of the best of the ideas that are lying around,

then I cannot recommend enough the latest series of Seen on Radio Capitalism. And I

am delighted to have been joined by you, John John Bewan, host of Seen on Radio. Thank you

so much for joining me.

Thank you, Kate. It's been an absolute pleasure.

John Bewan is producer and host of the Seen on Radio podcast from the Kenan Institute

of Ethics at Duke University.

University. Episode 11 of the current season, Capitalism, in which John travels to Barcelona,

is out now wherever you get your podcasts. This is Inside Europe, also, of course,

available wherever you get your podcasts, but you know that already. I'm Kate Laycock in Germany.

Another nail in the coffin of the traditional British pub. That's how pub landlords in the UK

have reacted to a government proposal to ban smoking almost everywhere, including in outdoor

spaces.

Like beer gardens. The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, says it will save tens of thousands

of lives. But rather than protecting non-smokers, this is about trying to deter the smokers

themselves. And that has sparked a debate about how far the state can go in deciding over people's

lives. We sent our reporter Dan Ashby to, well, the obvious place, really, the pub.

If you had to poetically evoke the

traditional British drinking establishment, you might imagine the rattle of ice.

Or the gush of soda.

Or pints of happy beer.

But when it comes to the smell, it might be the hazy tang of tobacco smoke.

The beer gardens across the country are full of drinkers enjoying a smoke,

but now the government wants to,

to extend the indoor smoking ban to many outdoor places. And in this pub, well, let's just say the

issue has lit up. Ridiculous. Why's that? I used to smoke. I've stopped smoking.

There's no harm in smoking outside. If you start saying that smoking's, you know,

costing the NHS this, that and the other, when does it stop? Do we stop people playing sport

at a weekend? They might break the leg. I just think it would kill the hospitality industry.

Already struggling.

You're a grown adult. If you want to, like, smoke, even if it is detrimental to your health,

it's your choice. You know what I mean? So, yeah.

Not popular in the pub, but it is popular in politics. The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer,

told an interviewer that a ban on smoking is justified because of smoking's cost.

80,000 plus people lose their lives through smoking every year. That's a huge number.

That's a huge impact on the NHS.

And, of course, the cost is picked up by the taxpayer.

More than 70% of the world's population is covered by at least one smoke-free rule or law.

But full bans on smoking in outdoor areas are still rare, such as in Mexico and in Sweden.

It's long been known that smoking causes painful early deaths.

And for years, the UK has used adverts and messaging to try to get rates down.

When you smoke, the chemicals you inhale cause mutations in your

body. And mutations are how cancer starts.

And it worked. Half a century ago, about 45% of people in Britain smoked. Today,

it's estimated it's more like 13%. But the government says smoking costs the health

service millions, and it's time to get rid of it altogether. I put that to Mike Kill,

the CEO of the UK body that represents pubs.

Fewer people going to hospital protecting smokers. Mike, what's not to like about this?

Being quite frank about it,

we manage these gardens very well anyway, with smoking and non-smoking areas,

keeping food away from vapes and smoking. So this is happening already. So I think this

intervention is really just, you know, a step too far. There are a multitude of other things that

impact on the NHS in the way that we're talking, whether we talk about cars,

alcohol, lots of different sort of ways. And I think the concern from many of the people,

not only our consumers, but also from businesses, is how far are we going to go with this?

It has indeed raised the question. What should be up to the government? And what's up to us?

Historically, British laws have curtailed actions that harmed others. But this proposal is primarily

about stopping the smokers hurting themselves. Is that going too far?

Richard didn't want to die, but he couldn't stop himself.

The collision with the car didn't kill him, but he wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

So he continued on his journey.

Campaigners say the government is not going to stop the smokers.

The campaigners say the government is not going to stop the smokers.

There are precedents. Take seatbelts. They used to be voluntary. Now they're obligatory

to protect the user as much as everyone nearby. John Waldron is from the anti-smoking charity

Ash and says cigarettes are so uniquely harmful, curtailing someone's choices is justified.

In the case of tobacco, there really aren't any other consumer products that are as addictive

or as harmful as smoking. You know, around 80,000 people a year die from smoking in England.

And for every person that dies, many, many more people are sick.

And we still have around 350 young adults becoming regular addicted smokers every day

in Great Britain. So there's a desperate need to take more measures to denormalise smoking,

to support smokers to quit and to discourage people from smoking,

to start addressing some of those harms. The plans aren't still just proposals,

but Britain and much of Europe continues to move slowly towards a smoke-free world.

Future generations who may know no difference,

will perhaps one day raise a glass to their health. But don't expect the same

from the humble pub smoker today. They want to choose their own fun, however harmful it is.

Dan Ashby, DW, in the UK.

Choose your own poison, even if it's not everybody's cup of tea. And my poison of

choice, by the way, is beverage-based colloquial idioms from the UK. Cheers, Dan. Actually,

as it happens, we are about to...

End the programme with something else that genuinely gives me joy. Free public transport.

If you heard our Europe on the Move transport special last year, you might remember that

Little Luxembourg was the first country in the world to roll out free public transport across

the nation. Now that offer is being extended to cross-border communities in six neighbouring

French towns. But will it cut the commuter traffic?

Dan Ashby, DW, in the UK.

Daniel Rosny's been at the French-Luxembourg border to find out.

Luxembourg City is a prominent financial capital, and despite the country's small size,

it makes it very rich. Although less than 700,000 live here in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,

to give it its full name, around 200,000 travel in each day from one of the three bordering nations,

Belgium, Germany and France, which is where Xavier travels in from.

Just going to work in Germany.

Living in France, but using the public transport system in Luxembourg, what differences do

you notice?

The fact that trains are on time, that you can always sit, and also the fact that when

the doors close, they close. They will cut you in two parts if you don't respect that.

This new initiative of shuttle buses from six neighbouring municipalities in France

will pick commuters up in the morning and then drop them off here, where we are now,

in Mondorf.

Those passengers will then need to get off the bus and walk the 200 metres or so over a small bridge

that divides the two countries until you get here, Mondorf-les-Bains in Luxembourg.

And then workers can access the free public transport system across the country and can

get to the financial districts or wherever else they work in around 30 minutes or so.

For now, it's a pilot scheme, initially for six months.

So I'm Ronan Jager.

For the CCC-E.

CCC-E is the abbreviation for Communauté de Communes de Quatre Noms et Environnes.

It's a region of a collection of 22 small towns close to the Luxembourg border.

And Ronan is the mobility consultant for the administration.

This idea came from discussions between CCC-E officials.

They want to offer their residents a new transport solution to reduce solo driving and ease traffic jams.

For now, it's unexpected.

Initially, these shuttles are reserved for cross-border workers living in the six concert towns.

But it's possible that we will expand in the future.

And for now, it only operates towards Luxembourg between 6 and 9 a.m.

And only towards France between 4 and 7 p.m.

The fact that it's free, there's not a lot of towns or cities in France who do that.

So...

So for us, that's the best part, that it's free and it's like the public transport in Luxembourg.

The estimated cost for running these free shuttle buses to the border and back is around 300,000 euros,

paid for by the local government office of CCC-E.

They'll run every half an hour when in service.

But ask anyone around here in the border region of France and Luxembourg what their biggest gripe is,

and there's one answer.

Traffic.

I'm Marc Plata.

And I live here since a long time.

And I work in Luxembourg since 2003.

Like it's more, yeah, more 20 years.

French people who work in Luxembourg, the salary is not enough to live in Luxembourg.

So it's more easy to live in France.

And you have more money to live in France.

And how long does your commute normally take?

It's just 25 kilometers, but sometimes it's often one hour.

It's a lot of car on the road.

It's too early to know if the free cross-border transport initiative will do what many want and reduce congestion.

But it is an innovative way to try and make the commute a little bit less stressful.

For now, time to head off on another assignment.

Daniel Rosny, DW, on the French-Luxembourg border.

Our journey this week has reached the end of the line.

Time to put the programme.

Back in the depot.

Our feedback address is insideeuropeatdw.com.

You can also, of course, leave us a comment wherever you get your podcasts.

The show was edited and produced by Helen Sini, with help from me, Kate Laycock,

and sound engineer Jan Winkelmann, who was in turn helped by Timon Heidorn.

Inside Europe comes to you from DW in Bonn, Germany.