At the end of her investiture speech before the European Parliament, Ursula von der Leyen mentioned on Thursday the “three prisoners who on the island of Ventotene in the 1940s outlined the vision of a united continent”. She was referring to Altiero Spinelli, Ernesto Rossi and Eugenio Colorni, who, exiled to the prison island by fascism, managed to project their ideas beyond bars, seas, borders and the time in which they lived – 1941 – to intellectually design something very similar to the foundations of what would become the European Union in the famous Ventotene Manifesto. Today, in different circumstances, it is also necessary to dare to imagine new common constructions, to equip ourselves for new paths. Whether we like it or not, the EU is entering uncharted territory, and we must prepare to move forward in it.
The terra incognita is the space created by several coinciding phenomena. The resurgence of Russian imperialism, the probable return to the White House of a Donald Trump determined to complete the isolationist, protectionist, nationalist project that he left unfinished in his first term, an increasingly assertive China, connected to Russia and the protagonist, with the US, of a ruthless competition. All this while, within, the sovereignist forces opposed to integration are not the majority, but they are stronger than ever. Climate change, technological revolutions, and other destabilizing changes are also added. The EU arrives in this space with serious dependencies, in terms of security, technology, strategic raw materials, with an unfavorable demographic trend. It is possible that soon, with the arrival of Trump, it will be substantially alone, for example in the face of the Russian threat, and embroiled in a trade conflict with the US and China at the same time.
Small, incremental reforms do not seem a rational option to adapt the EU to this new space and time. And Von der Leyen’s investiture speech, a script that carefully captured the main desires of the different families whose support was necessary to obtain a second mandate, reflects the awareness of the urgency of a profound change.
First of all, she pointed out the objective of competitiveness. It is correct to point to it as a priority, because it is a necessary condition for the fulfilment of other objectives, whether social, green or geopolitical. Only competitiveness can give us the strength that guarantees autonomy. In this sense, Von der Leyen announced a European competitiveness fund. Very well. But, in this sector, it is not just a question of better channelling private capital and increasing public investment. An effort to reinvent the traditional framework of the common market will be imperative, which does not only imply completing it in the incomplete aspects – that of capital, for example – but modifying policies that have been the soul of the common project until now: competition and state aid. They will have to be rethought to guarantee the consolidation of companies with sufficient size to compete on a global scale, to succeed in attracting the implementation of strategic industrial projects of international companies, and to do so while guaranteeing internal balance between Member States. A great conceptual challenge.
Secondly, security. Von der Leyen spoke of “building a genuine European defence union”. As in the previous section, this implies a Copernican shift, in a sector where competence remains in the hands of the Member States, but where it is possible to imagine policies that, through industrial means and voluntary cooperation, shed light on something that did not exist. The path – between national competences and the NATO framework – is tortuous, not obvious, but necessary. The German politician also spoke, on another level of security, of converting Europol into “a truly operational police agency”, another potentially delicate issue.
There is much more. One example of this is the announced European plan for affordable housing. Once again, we are faced with an issue in which the EU has no defined competence. But nothing prohibits the convergence of political wills to address it together. And it is opportune to do so, because it is one of the core issues of discontent that pushes so many out of the system – via radical vote or abstention. Responding in a community way can result in positive results, including that of seeing the EU as a driving force in resolving essential problems of daily life.
Von der Leyen also spoke of building a “European democratic shield”, of mechanisms to defend the quality of democracy against the many attacks it suffers. This is a very delicate experiment. All issues that affect the rules of the game, the pillars of democracy, must be approached with caution, never on a partisan initiative, but always through reflection that involves all the political and social sectors involved from the start and with the firm will to seek broad consensus that ensures appropriate and shared changes to the rules of the common game. Otherwise, attempts at protection or regeneration are doomed to end in agitation and degeneration by increasing polarization, suspicion, and resentment that — like interference and disinformation — corrode democracy. We must debate how to strengthen and consolidate our democracies against new and serious dangers, and this begins by outlining the correct process.
There is more to it. Von der Leyen said she believes a change of treaties is necessary, among other things to adapt the EU to a format with new members. Treaty reform is, notoriously, a complicated adventure, a potential Pandora’s box. But here too, imagination must be projected wherever necessary to adapt to the new times, to the new path.
The task seems immense. Two lights should guide the way. It is essential to alleviate the discontent of the broad layers of the population for whom the current world is hostile and threatening. It is non-negotiable to equip ourselves so that, together, we can deter or confront scenarios that may entail major disruptions.
A series of talks held this week in Strasbourg, within the framework of a trip financed by the European Parliament, painted a picture of a considerable willingness among the pro-European political families to cooperate among themselves in the construction of new facets of the community. Meanwhile, the two most extreme ultra groups are furiously opposed to this leap of integration, while in Giorgia Meloni’s group there is much rejection and some signs of compromise. But there is no doubt that, as a whole, problems will come from this flank, not solutions.
As for the pro-European majority, there may be incidents along the way, especially in the green and immigration matters. But, in both cases, major legislation was approved in the previous term, and what is now needed is its implementation. So we can hope that the turbulence of the pro-European majority, the convergence of the PP with far-right forces, will be limited and punctual. The implementation of those policies is important, but today the crucial element is the conception of new policies for the new times. The unknown land that lies before us will be better faced together than separately. Better with courage than with fear. With daring and imagination, like the three great prisoners of fascism in Ventotene.
