The debate on NATO and the European Union has come from the hands of Javier Barraycoa and Katja-Elisabeth Hermann.

How do you think the principle of sub-parity affects the European Union, would it be just an economic concept? Because we see that the European Union in certain cases sets an ideological agenda that punishes countries that do not follow it.

In this sense, Javier Barraycoa, has spoken of the differences between the EU and the US “Europe is not a political idea, to enter the EU they only put economic and even geographical conditions. Europe doesn't have a soul, that's why they don't have a foreign policy, for example, because for that they had to have a nationalization law, which there isn't”.

For her part, Katja-Elisabeth Hermann clarified that "she does not agree that the European Union does not have legislation, nor that they do not have that identity, which is currently being developed", she added that "the states do have competence in the European Union. Los parlamentos pueden alzar su voz, durante 12 semanas y tres días creo que es, se denomina la tarjeta amarilla y a través de la tarjeta roja. Me gustaría plantear una pregunta sobre cuántas veces los españoles han alzado este mecanismo, no lo han usado”.

Hermann has assured that foreign policy in the European Union does exist, but we see that it is now developing, so I do not agree that it is not a geopolitical actor.

Javier Barraycoa, the European Parliament is not a parliament like that of the states, they do not have the same function, they have disguised themselves by saying that they are a legislator but the commission legislates, the parliament endorses it and if it rejects it there are other mechanisms”. 

 

 Katja-Elisabeth, “European identity is being created. The parliament is a co-legislator, they can reject what the commission proposes, the commission is elected and the European Parliament approves it or not. Up to two times what the commission has proposed has not been approved.” 

Regarding foreign policy, Hermann highlighted the EU as a member state project, "while NATO is something else, they are states but they do not have the idea of economic integration", and added that, "in the European Union we do not expect there to be this disagreement because we are a collective. Regarding European security, what it wants is to guarantee security in Europe, the European Union wants to strengthen the commitment with its own means, because we must remain in NATO, because the European Union cannot create its own army, NATO is based in the war". 

For his part, Javier Barraycoa explained that "the NATO, in principle, was designed for the Cold War and Europe could not afford its own defense. There are contradictions because everything depends on the unilateral decisions of the US”, something that the intervener has refuted since she has affirmed that in the face of those decisions in Spanish territory dependent on NATO there are articles within European legislation that directly influence the defense of the territory. 

Can a foreign policy be developed that is compatible with the European Union and the Atlantic alliance?

While Barraycoa believes that it is not compatible,  Katja-Elisabeth has stated that 

“It is compatible, because in essence the capacities that each one contributes are different; they are compatible because they are complementary. It is important that they overlap to be able to advance further”.