The War Against Extintion

ECR Congress on Family to Counter Europe’s Demographic Winter

The idea that Europe should attempt to create a future while relying on others to have children was the main point made at the Third European Congress on Family by the European Conservatives and Reformists Party in Dubrovnik. In discussions held on 11 and 12 September, speakers examined demographic decline through the lenses of economics, education, technology, and culture, with their most compelling argument being that societies should make it a realistic and worthwhile aim to form a family.

The problem addressed at the Dubrovnik congress is so significant that it leaves no room for complacency. The most recent demographic review from Eurostat’s latest demographic overview shows that the fertility rate in the European Union was 1.34 children per woman in 2024, which is well below the replacement level of around 2.1. The implications extend beyond pensions, labour shortages, or the sustainability of European welfare states; they also involve national identity, since passing on culture from one generation to the next will be interrupted unless the winter of demography ends.

To treat children merely as future taxpayers is to miss the mark. Parenthood includes relationships, responsibilities, and hopes which cannot be measured in economic terms. A reasonable conservative approach has to acknowledge both the importance of families to the public sector and their independence from the state. Governments ought to assist people in raising the families they want while at the same time respecting that the final decision is theirs.

A very useful theme in Dubrovnik was the gap between what families want and what is actually possible in practice—put another way, the difference between saying what one wants and acting on it. According to research carried out by EMG, Fabrizio Masia pointed out evidence that people often desire more children than the number they currently have. Such comparisons do require careful thought since the fact that people express a preference does not mean that they will actually make the decision to do so. Yet they do raise an important question: what obstacles stop a desire for a family from becoming a reality?

Housing came up time and again. When Elina Treija, who speaks on behalf of Latvia’s large families, talked about the need to know that suitable accommodation will still be available as a household increases in size, her comment reduced the discussion to the real decisions that couples have to make. For example, having a second or third child might mean needing another bedroom, moving to a different neighbourhood or taking out a larger mortgage. General statements of support are unable to deal with those practical uncertainties.

It is at this point that conservative family policy ought to adopt a more ambitious approach to economic reform. Since the government is intended to encourage people to have children, it should make it easier for them to build houses, launch businesses and secure productive employment. Delays in the planning process and unnecessary restrictions have an effect on family formation, even if the officials responsible for them do not take demography into account. Advancing the interests of currently established groups at the cost of young households goes against the social continuity which conservatives say they wish to protect.

Jorge Jraissati, who is the president of the Economic Inclusion Group, linked the anxiety about demographic trends to the difficulties encountered by young workers and entrepreneurs. He maintained that economic dynamism serves to revive confidence in the future. This point should be given due consideration; people are more likely to enter into lasting commitments when they think that their efforts can improve their situation and when opportunities are not limited to those who already possess property or have inherited wealth.

Public support also has to be reliable. Masia expressed doubt about depending on temporary bonuses and stressed the importance of measures which enable families to plan over a longer period. The responsibilities of having a child go beyond the length of a budget year. When parents can understand, access and reasonably expect tax relief, housing assistance and childcare arrangements to continue, these measures are more effective.

Italy’s family minister, Eugenia Roccella, offered an alternative reason in her online statement. She said family policy should include employment, parental leave, childcare, housing, and the social position of parenthood, and stressed that motherhood should not stop women from pursuing their professional goals. A society cannot realistically claim to celebrate mothers if it makes their working lives unnecessarily insecure.

That ought to refute a crude stereotype of conservative politics. It doesn’t have to mean prescribing the same kind of domestic setup for all households. A few parents would like for both adults to be in full-time work; others prefer fewer hours or a period focused on looking after the children. A proper policy should leave families more scope in making their own decisions and should acknowledge the importance of unpaid care as well as paid work.

Men should also be at the heart of this discussion. Antonio Giordano has clearly broadened the debate on the dignity of motherhood to include fatherhood. It is important because demographic responsibility cannot be confined to women alone. A culture which regards families as important should expect men to show reliability, care and commitment. Public policy ought to make it easier for men to be responsible fathers, and the public debate should make it worthwhile to aim for responsible fatherhood.

The Congress also showed that relying on immigration as a way of solving demographic problems has its limits. Roccella maintained that Europe could not merely outsource its birth rate. The most straightforward way of understanding that argument is to say that bringing in workers from other countries does not get rid of the conditions which prevent residents from getting married and having families. Since migration policy and family policy deal with different issues, even though they may have overlapping economic effects.

The participants highlighted various points; George Simion adopted a more stringent stance on migration, whereas Carlo Fidanza supported limited, controlled and skilled legal migration. A convincing conservative programme should make these distinctions clear and be able to defend borders, integration and national continuity while at the same time acknowledging that migrants are people with families and hopes. The credibility of demographic policy is undermined each time human beings are regarded as interchangeable items in a population account.

Apart from economics, Dubrovnik posed a more fundamental question concerning authority—namely, who is responsible for bringing up the next generation? The conversation, which involved parents, schools and the state, kept coming back to the family’s main role. Cristina Dascălu clearly stated the practical concern: societies encourage people to have children but often make the real work of parenting unnecessarily difficult.

Parents ought to have a real say in their children’s education, with the right to access the curriculum and to oppose certain decisions. Schools should have professional autonomy and commit themselves to acquiring knowledge. Public authorities have to safeguard children. These responsibilities are most effectively achieved via well-defined boundaries and through cooperation. Continuous conflict causes families to lose trust and makes it difficult for teachers to carry out their fundamental role.

Sharon Keogan, who is an Irish senator, included the neighbourhood among the organisations that are often neglected: she stated that children need safe areas in which to play, to make friends and to become independent. This reflects a typical conservative viewpoint since it emphasises the connection between private households and the government. Streets, clubs, voluntary organisations and reliable neighbours all contribute to making family life easier to manage.

Her intervention also indicated a practical way of dividing up responsibility. The public authorities should be responsible for keeping communities safe and ensuring that public spaces are reliable. Families and local associations should have the possibility of organising everyday life without facing excessive interference. Parents do not benefit much from official praise if their children cannot walk safely in the street or if every activity has to be closely supervised. Everyday freedom is in part due to effective public order.

Technology added a new dimension. Although acknowledging the value of digital systems, Jürgen Joost cautions that they might replace parental judgement and human attention. Adrian-George Axinia also raised the question of whether children who get immediate answers from artificial intelligence are acquiring the knowledge necessary for independent thinking. These arguments were most powerful when they focused on particular habits and responsibilities rather than viewing the innovation as a whole being evil.

The important point is the way in which technology is used. It can assist a parent in organising their work or help a pupil to understand a difficult topic; it can also take up the time which would otherwise be used for reading, playing or having conversations. Conservatives ought to support the authority of parents and teachers to set boundaries while at the same time recognising that adults need to look at their own dependence on screens.

Cultural confidence was a feature of these discussions. The Bulgarian MEP Ivaylo Valchev stated that European identity gains strength from national histories and attachments. When this idea is applied to family policy, it implies that continuity depends on things which people regard as worthwhile passing on. Schools should teach history honestly, including its failures, and at the same time assist children in understanding the language, institutions and traditions they inherit.

Young people need to be given a future that they can actually take part in. If repeated cautions concerning civilisational decline merely cause prospective parents to feel anxious, then little will be achieved. The important thing to do is to show that commitment is rewarding and that societies will support those who make it. What families require is practical solidarity, not just public appreciation.

The political test doesn’t start until after the conference; Tina Mercep has called for demography to be given continuous attention at the highest level of government. This would mean that ministers had to look at the way their decisions regarding housing, taxation, education and employment affect families and have to keep their policies effective throughout electoral cycles. It would also be necessary to carry out a frank assessment when a measure that has been favoured fails to deliver.

The greatest contribution of Dubrovnik was to link those responsibilities. Just as much as through material opportunities, reliable institutions and a culture that is willing to honour commitment, family life depends on civilisational optimism. In order to adopt a conservative approach it is necessary to eliminate unnecessary obstacles, reinforce the communities surrounding parents and leave room for the next generation. European renewal will be seen as credible when young people can see the opportunities available to them and believe that it is possible to build a family.