Belgium (Brussels Morning Newspaper) September will be the time for the European Parliament, the home of European democracy, to debate the State of the European Union (EU), with reference to the opening speech of the President of the European Commission (EC) Ursula Von der Leyen.
In this OpEd, I do not pretend to anticipate that debate. Rather, I share a perspective on the moment, in a geopolitical framework that is accelerating uncertainty and volatility.
The joint response to the COVID-19 pandemic more or less intentionally led to a significant step forward in the European integration process.
For the first time, a common funding mechanism was implemented to support Next Generation EU and national recovery and resilience programmes.
The coordination of the health response, and in particular the vaccination programme, has created in the majority of European citizens a stronger perception of the benefits of the Union. At the same time, expectations and demands for responses to new threats have increased.
The first test came while the EU was still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. The invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation jeopardised the right to peace and sovereignty of the invaded country, but also the security and fundamental values of the European partnership.
The joint response to the threat has been consistent and strong. However, some of the impacts and how they are being managed will largely influence the State of the Union momentum.
The combined economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the war has put a brake on growth and brought inflationary pressures to the table. The response of economic policies and financial policies has shown a worrying misalignment. Investment incentive packages have had to coexist with the European Central Bank’s return to the neoliberal mantra of poverty as a solution. The worsening inequalities and the discrepancy in discourse are clear risks to the health of the State of the Union.
From another perspective, the invasion of Ukraine has raised the security challenge facing the Union and the need to structuralise its ability to respond jointly to new threats.
Some consistent steps have been taken in this direction. However, the appeal of security and fear management tends to distort the political picture and foster a disproportionate growth of right wing and far-right forces.
If the pro-European left loses the ideological fight for the shared security of goods and people, a dangerous imbalance will be created in the political structure that has maintained the Union on the path of progress and development.
Security is neither right wing nor left wing. It may be embedded in the values of the right or the left, but it is always security.
The attack on environmental security launched by the Green Deal, by a faction of the European People’s Party, demonstrates the broad spectrum of this decisive ideological struggle.
The emerging framework also presents the Union with the geopolitical challenge of integrating without hesitation into the alliance for freedom and the sovereignty of peoples and territories, without losing its foundation and its multilateral identity. The better the Union develops its capacity to cooperate with and support developing countries, the greater will be the Union ability to protect their security at the global level and to attract support for the defence of causes such as the Ukrainian cause.
In a context of multiple and hybrid threats, the Union has managed to maintain a strong cadence in its energy and digital transition plans and is preparing to move forward with a robust industrial modernisation plan.
Fair financing and the practice of climate justice are critical to consolidate European leadership in the energy transition and decarbonisation.
In particular, a people-centred approach, focusing on their rights but also on the increased services that can be provided to them, is the cornerstone for Europe’s digital transition to inspire global transformation in this area.
The challenges and threats we have identified require courageous, timely and flexible solutions. Something that increasingly collides with the rigidity of the Treaties.
Some member states have taken advantage of unanimity rules to block important reforms and agreements. However, opening up the discussion of the treaties could allow the European project to be contaminated by temptations of nationalist and populist regression, in a context where combating disinformation is increasingly complex.
When and how to revise the Treaties constitutes a strategic dilemma for the State of the Union, especially in a context of strong pressure for enlargement.
New and more complex challenges and more need for common action calls for more own resources. The support to Ukraine requires a continued effort and other policies need to have their budgets reinforced. Examples are humanitarian support and crisis management policy, migration policy, the social pillar, the digital decade, the green deal and its industrial modernisation plan.
It has been difficult to get consensus for this audacious review of own resources and for the establishment of a sovereign fund to boost the Green Deal Industrial Plan. The EU cannot hesitate on this path if it wants to maintain its global competitiveness.
The approach of a new electoral cycle, notably with the European Parliament elections in early June 2024, will be the cornerstone of the health of the State of the Union. The elevation of the debate and the ability to mobilise voters will be key indicators.
But all things considered, we have reason to be confident and at the same time cautious about the State of the Union.
Everything new and nothing new! The EU is us. The future will depend on our sense of belonging and our will to transform the European Union.
