How did we get here?

A few years ago Ryan Heath, the then Senior EU Correspondent and Associate Editor at Politico Europe called out the diversity issue in Brussels via #BrusselsSoWhite. Beyond the issue of manels (all male panels) at Brussels events, Heath covered how it was nearly impossible to get an opportunity to work in Brussels for anyone who hasn’t been brought up speaking multiple languages or can afford to live off of a credit card as you start a Brussels internship. How those from ethnic backgrounds are ignored or even get uncomfortable stares when they walk through the halls of EU institutions and advocacy organisations. His call out about #BrusselsSoWhite continues to be used even today. 

This glaring disconnect has also led to the creation of The Brussels Binder, a useful resource aimed at helping people and organisations with clout and connections to include a wide range of voices and perspectives in the policy making space. Periodically tagging #BrusselsSoWhite or calling out #manels, is this the best we can do?

We are often told, “Policymaking in the EU typically takes place by 'ordinary legislative' procedure. This procedure involves the Commission, Parliament, and Council, who aim to come to agreement on the final legislation.” Many will tell you that the population part, people’s lived experience point-of-view comes from the elected EU Parliament. But for the EU bubble, which is famously known for running on power, clout, connections, and extensive budgets, putting the people part of policymaking only on the EP seems like a tick box exercise, a cop-out. 

With European elections coming up in June 2024, many are speaking about the increased polarisation in Europe, the migrant crisis, and the climate crisis. Those in the D&I space are happy to see a few people on the fringes recognising the intersectionality of sustainability and D&I, migrations and D&I, and the economy and D&I. But is this enough? And why even bother?

Recently, we saw the resignation of EU's chief competition economist, Fiona Scott Morton, an American, a capable but nonetheless American economist, to be filled by an American-bred-Austrian-born, Florian Ederer. Furthermore, concerns were shared about Ursula von der Leyen's leadership, with her staff calling her work environment toxic. These recent examples have shed light on two pressing issues in Brussels: 

• Incorporation of D&I in how the Brussels bubble does its policymaking and 

• Toxic leadership is affecting the workplace cultures of advocacy organisations.

Every time I mention D&I in Brussels, I usually get an enthusiastic “Yes! We need it in this policy town” or “Oh yes, my team member leads this topic (as an add on). You should meet her.” Those who understand it do not feel equipped to integrate D&I into the in-house policymaking efforts, nor do they feel encouraged to bring it up as part of their workplace culture discussion. Others leave anything to do with D&I to a fringe working group leader or the CSR efforts of the Brussels advocacy organisations. This cannot continue in a city ruled by power and elitism. Cynical? No. Simply being a realist.

But “We have enough on our plates”, “There is so much work,” “Even if he had to take it on, what are you talking about? Where do we start? And what does good look like?”