Europe, choices against decline, thinking together reform of institutions, defence and industrial policy
Europe must finally be considered in its entirety. It is also necessary to build, as part of a single political design, its security and sustainable development, strengthening of freedoms and spread of a fairer and more balanced welfare, investment capacities (starting with AI, the new requisite for knowledge and competitiveness, with all their consequences) and the long-term balance of public finances. In short, we need to finally sustain a combination of currency and the sword, pillars of every state organisation or unitary structure of states (we already have the former, a miracle of political and financial engineering; we need to build and sharpen the second rapidly). But we also need institutions and the economy, as an engine to generate and distribute wealth.
These are the considerations that come to mind when we read the news from the various arenas of ongoing geopolitical crises (Ukraine, the Middle East…) and reflect on the data and facts that demonstrate the EU’s fragility in the face of fundamental decisions by the United States and China, India, aggressive and expansive Russia and other key international players, old and new.
In short, the growing risks of decline are evident. One of the main ones is demographic. “A Europe without children”, reports Il Sole24Ore, citing Eurostat, which shows how the European working-age population will decrease from 265 million in 2022 to 258 million in 2030 and without corrective action could fall even further to 250 million in 2050. “We need 7 million workers by 2030,” calculates Confindustria’s newspaper (3 March). New policies to reform the labour market are therefore vital and urgent (bringing in the millions of women and young people who, in Italy for example, are still excluded) and above all better immigration policies, for millions of new people from Africa and Asia.
“Inflows are a requirement,” insists Alessandro Rosina, a competent demographer. There are people to be trained, qualified, brought into the positive cycle of production and citizenship and of rights and duties. It’s an immense task, a historic responsibility.
These are the issues on which it is essential to reflect, precisely in these months leading up to the June elections for the new EU Parliament. And even if it seems that public debate, not only in Italy but also in the other major European countries, favours issues of national internal politics and too often seeks to exploit fears, localised resentments and exclusionary ideologies – attempts to play on “gut instincts”, not promote the intelligent planning essential for building a better future – it’s vital that we act responsibly to ensure the electorate understands that we’re at the beginning of a new historical cycle. In this situation, the fundamental choice is clear: either we’ll be able to achieve more Europe and a better Europe, or we’ll face a radical crisis of the Europe that we have wanted, built and experienced thus far: European decline, the waning of our model of democratic and, all things considered, prosperous civilisation.
In a time so charged with uncertainty and preoccupations, therefore, it’s worth returning to the foundational documents. The Ventotene Manifesto (signed in 1941 by three extraordinary Italian intellectuals, Altiero Spinelli, Ernesto Rossi and Eugenio Colorni, with the world in the grip of war and Nazi and Fascist violence and the three imprisoned on the island of Ventotene as anti-fascists; the document was then circulated by two courageous women, Ursula Hirschmann and Ada Rossi). The writings of the “founding fathers”, Konrad Adenauer and Alcide De Gasperi, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, Paul Henri Spaak and Joseph Beck. The Treaties, starting with the Treaty of Rome, which in 1957 gave birth to the EEC (European Economic Community) of Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. And, again, all the other documents that strengthened the Community institutions and made the construction of Europe more effective and efficient, gradually expanding to the current structure of 27 countries (envisaging further enlargement to 35). The choices inspired by great Europeans such as Jacques Delors and political leaders like Charles De Gaulle and then François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl. The birth of the euro and the European Central Bank. Contemporary choices, including the Constitution.
It’s a complex path, by no means lacking in shade, conflict, limitations, bureaucratic failings, scant spirit of collaboration, and national self-interest (after all, human history never proceeds in a triumphant straight line). It is nevertheless a path of great value, not to be underestimated or set aside. The British themselves are now viewing the Brexit decision critically, the break with the EU that has weakened its economy and social and cultural relations.
It’s the Europe of 70 years of peace and economic development, during which we have succeeded in sustaining the coexistence of liberal democracy, the market economy and the welfare state, that is, freedom, growth and widespread well-being. From an international standpoint, it represents a unique heritage, one that it’s necessary to study, claim, defend and promote. It is heritage for the generations to come.
The new Parliament and new Commission will therefore be tasked with refoundation and relaunch, in an original fusion of continuity and innovation. The institutional revival must move beyond slow and often paralysing unanimity governance in the direction of majority decisions. Reform of government processes is also required, starting with the Stability Pact and the other instruments in the hands of the Commission. Another area is financial renewal, from strengthening the EU 2024–27 multi-annual budget to issuing eurobonds on international markets, to finance reinforcement and development programmes. Renewal of planning is also required.
The point is this: a great European project that considers Europe from the perspective of common defence (in the Atlantic alliance, of course, but with greater independence from the US, as the US itself actually urges) and energy (European atomic energy). Again, there’s the perspective of the environmental transition to be made compatible with the competitiveness of European companies and social sustainability, the perspective of developing the digital economy and Artificial Intelligence (a European AI, to build rapidly to face up to US, Chinese and Indian decisions; we’ve talked about it already in blogs of previous weeks). There’s also the perspective of science and of open and inclusive culture to consider, according to the finest canons of Western culture.
In short, long-term economic and social changes are under discussion. They need to be addressed from a long-term perspective, which is to say with the requisite gradualism, but with a clear, demanding vision of the future. We therefore need a European industrial policy – we’ve written about this several times – that hinges on the defence industry and insists on the factors of productivity and competitiveness, leaving the choice of instruments for investing in the various sectors and growth to companies. One example is technological neutrality for the automotive world, without limitations concerning the dominance of electric cars. And common fiscal policies are needed, which have an effect on the budget, avoid asymmetry between countries (encouraging tax evasion and avoidance) and reconfigure public spending, making it more efficient and productive (agriculture is one of the key sectors).
Too difficult? Marco Buti and Marcello Messori (Il Sole24Ore, 3 March) recall that the ambitious principles of reforming and relaunching the EU were fulfilled in the past. In the construction of the Single Market, with the White Paper of 1985 and the consequences that emerged in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and then monetary union. In Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes” in July 2012, “which went beyond conventional monetary policy and averted an irreversible eurozone crisis.” In the initiative of Merkel and Macron and of the EU Commission that led to the post-Covid Recovery Plan and resulted in the launch of Next Generation EU in the summer of 2020: “Existing political capital has thus been rendered flexible, crossing ‘red lines’ that seemed insurmountable.”
These experiences should be repeated, also by overcoming “the taboo of reforming the Treaties” according to Buti and Messori, thus providing Europe with a better and more effective governance structure, more in line with times of crisis and change: more Europe, despite everything.
Europe must finally be considered in its entirety. It is also necessary to build, as part of a single political design, its security and sustainable development, strengthening of freedoms and spread of a fairer and more balanced welfare, investment capacities (starting with AI, the new requisite for knowledge and competitiveness, with all their consequences) and the long-term balance of public finances. In short, we need to finally sustain a combination of currency and the sword, pillars of every state organisation or unitary structure of states (we already have the former, a miracle of political and financial engineering; we need to build and sharpen the second rapidly). But we also need institutions and the economy, as an engine to generate and distribute wealth.
These are the considerations that come to mind when we read the news from the various arenas of ongoing geopolitical crises (Ukraine, the Middle East…) and reflect on the data and facts that demonstrate the EU’s fragility in the face of fundamental decisions by the United States and China, India, aggressive and expansive Russia and other key international players, old and new.
In short, the growing risks of decline are evident. One of the main ones is demographic. “A Europe without children”, reports Il Sole24Ore, citing Eurostat, which shows how the European working-age population will decrease from 265 million in 2022 to 258 million in 2030 and without corrective action could fall even further to 250 million in 2050. “We need 7 million workers by 2030,” calculates Confindustria’s newspaper (3 March). New policies to reform the labour market are therefore vital and urgent (bringing in the millions of women and young people who, in Italy for example, are still excluded) and above all better immigration policies, for millions of new people from Africa and Asia.
“Inflows are a requirement,” insists Alessandro Rosina, a competent demographer. There are people to be trained, qualified, brought into the positive cycle of production and citizenship and of rights and duties. It’s an immense task, a historic responsibility.
These are the issues on which it is essential to reflect, precisely in these months leading up to the June elections for the new EU Parliament. And even if it seems that public debate, not only in Italy but also in the other major European countries, favours issues of national internal politics and too often seeks to exploit fears, localised resentments and exclusionary ideologies – attempts to play on “gut instincts”, not promote the intelligent planning essential for building a better future – it’s vital that we act responsibly to ensure the electorate understands that we’re at the beginning of a new historical cycle. In this situation, the fundamental choice is clear: either we’ll be able to achieve more Europe and a better Europe, or we’ll face a radical crisis of the Europe that we have wanted, built and experienced thus far: European decline, the waning of our model of democratic and, all things considered, prosperous civilisation.
In a time so charged with uncertainty and preoccupations, therefore, it’s worth returning to the foundational documents. The Ventotene Manifesto (signed in 1941 by three extraordinary Italian intellectuals, Altiero Spinelli, Ernesto Rossi and Eugenio Colorni, with the world in the grip of war and Nazi and Fascist violence and the three imprisoned on the island of Ventotene as anti-fascists; the document was then circulated by two courageous women, Ursula Hirschmann and Ada Rossi). The writings of the “founding fathers”, Konrad Adenauer and Alcide De Gasperi, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, Paul Henri Spaak and Joseph Beck. The Treaties, starting with the Treaty of Rome, which in 1957 gave birth to the EEC (European Economic Community) of Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. And, again, all the other documents that strengthened the Community institutions and made the construction of Europe more effective and efficient, gradually expanding to the current structure of 27 countries (envisaging further enlargement to 35). The choices inspired by great Europeans such as Jacques Delors and political leaders like Charles De Gaulle and then François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl. The birth of the euro and the European Central Bank. Contemporary choices, including the Constitution.
It’s a complex path, by no means lacking in shade, conflict, limitations, bureaucratic failings, scant spirit of collaboration, and national self-interest (after all, human history never proceeds in a triumphant straight line). It is nevertheless a path of great value, not to be underestimated or set aside. The British themselves are now viewing the Brexit decision critically, the break with the EU that has weakened its economy and social and cultural relations.
It’s the Europe of 70 years of peace and economic development, during which we have succeeded in sustaining the coexistence of liberal democracy, the market economy and the welfare state, that is, freedom, growth and widespread well-being. From an international standpoint, it represents a unique heritage, one that it’s necessary to study, claim, defend and promote. It is heritage for the generations to come.
The new Parliament and new Commission will therefore be tasked with refoundation and relaunch, in an original fusion of continuity and innovation. The institutional revival must move beyond slow and often paralysing unanimity governance in the direction of majority decisions. Reform of government processes is also required, starting with the Stability Pact and the other instruments in the hands of the Commission. Another area is financial renewal, from strengthening the EU 2024–27 multi-annual budget to issuing eurobonds on international markets, to finance reinforcement and development programmes. Renewal of planning is also required.
The point is this: a great European project that considers Europe from the perspective of common defence (in the Atlantic alliance, of course, but with greater independence from the US, as the US itself actually urges) and energy (European atomic energy). Again, there’s the perspective of the environmental transition to be made compatible with the competitiveness of European companies and social sustainability, the perspective of developing the digital economy and Artificial Intelligence (a European AI, to build rapidly to face up to US, Chinese and Indian decisions; we’ve talked about it already in blogs of previous weeks). There’s also the perspective of science and of open and inclusive culture to consider, according to the finest canons of Western culture.
In short, long-term economic and social changes are under discussion. They need to be addressed from a long-term perspective, which is to say with the requisite gradualism, but with a clear, demanding vision of the future. We therefore need a European industrial policy – we’ve written about this several times – that hinges on the defence industry and insists on the factors of productivity and competitiveness, leaving the choice of instruments for investing in the various sectors and growth to companies. One example is technological neutrality for the automotive world, without limitations concerning the dominance of electric cars. And common fiscal policies are needed, which have an effect on the budget, avoid asymmetry between countries (encouraging tax evasion and avoidance) and reconfigure public spending, making it more efficient and productive (agriculture is one of the key sectors).
Too difficult? Marco Buti and Marcello Messori (Il Sole24Ore, 3 March) recall that the ambitious principles of reforming and relaunching the EU were fulfilled in the past. In the construction of the Single Market, with the White Paper of 1985 and the consequences that emerged in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and then monetary union. In Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes” in July 2012, “which went beyond conventional monetary policy and averted an irreversible eurozone crisis.” In the initiative of Merkel and Macron and of the EU Commission that led to the post-Covid Recovery Plan and resulted in the launch of Next Generation EU in the summer of 2020: “Existing political capital has thus been rendered flexible, crossing ‘red lines’ that seemed insurmountable.”
These experiences should be repeated, also by overcoming “the taboo of reforming the Treaties” according to Buti and Messori, thus providing Europe with a better and more effective governance structure, more in line with times of crisis and change: more Europe, despite everything.