Language switcher

English EN Italiano IT Français FR
Italiano

Category: Blog

One Year after the Draghi Report: Challenges and Prospects for Europe’s Competitiveness

Posted on by claudia

On 16 September 2025, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Mario Draghi opened the High-Level Conference – One year after the Draghi report: what has been achieved, what has changed.
One year after the publication of his report on European competitiveness, Draghi reviewed the Union’s most pressing challenges: growth, resilience, economic security, and the green and digital transitions.
A clear and powerful speech, calling on Europe to respond with greater speed, unity, and ambition.

👉 Watch Mario Draghi’s full speech here: Audiovisual Service – European Commission President Ursula von der LEYEN hosts the conference “One Year After the Draghi Report”

Ursula von der Leyen’s exam: passed or failed?

Posted on by claudia

The 2025 State of the Union address by President Ursula von der Leyen, delivered on September 10 at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, marked one of the most substantial political moments of the legislature. With an urgent tone and a far-reaching vision, von der Leyen charted a course that wove together security and defense, the management of international crises, the green transition, social policies, and the strengthening of European democracy.

Among the key highlights were: the launch of a roadmap for common defense and support for Ukraine through new financial instruments; measures against Israel and a renewed commitment to a two-state solution; the announcement of new trade and industrial tools to support the green transition and European competitiveness; the Single Market strategy and technological acceleration; stronger attention to social justice, with the European Anti-Poverty Strategy and the Quality Jobs Act; the creation of instruments to counter disinformation and manipulation on social media; and, finally, a strong call for European unity and the defense of shared values.

2025 State of the Union Address by President von der Leyen

By Alfredo De Feo – Published in the Gazzetta di Parma, 11/09/2025

We now present the analysis and reflections of Alfredo De Feo, Scientific Director of the European College of Parma, who offers a critical and personal perspective on this crucial moment for the European Union.

On the morning of September 10, Ursula von der Leyen stood before the European Parliament with a ninety-minute State of the Union speech, addressing not only the institutions but the very democratic fabric of Europe.

The address was primarily directed at political groups which, despite their differences, broadly support the European project. In this respect, President von der Leyen could claim the backing of a majority even larger than the one that endorsed her for her second mandate. She can rely on a majority that, on different occasions, may draw support from the Christian Democrats, the Socialists, the Liberals, the Greens, and the Conservatives (the group led by Italy’s Fratelli d’Italia). Despite important distinctions, all groups were able to find key points reflecting their own demands.

The speech came at a moment of growing political fragility for the President, marked by criticism over the management of trade policy, her often accommodating stance toward President Trump, and internal EU tensions, particularly concerning the enforcement of sanctions against big tech companies for breaches of European law.

The program of proposals advanced is ambitious, aiming to defend Europe’s independence, security, competitiveness, and sovereignty in no uncertain terms. But will these ideas quickly translate into clear proposals that put Member States before their responsibilities? Or will the Commission fall back on the usual informal bargaining to secure the bare minimum of support? The doubt is legitimate — and in the latter case, the proposals risk reaching the starting line already weakened. Over the past 12 months, for example, only 11% of the more than 400 recommendations from the Draghi and Letta reports have been implemented, a sign of ambition often slowed by the difficulty of convergence among the 27.

The speech sought to please pro-European forces, but the challenge now is to demonstrate vision and leadership through action: turning intentions into bold proposals and persuading governments that investing in shared priorities benefits each Member State.

At the same time, realism is needed: it is unlikely that all the measures proposed will achieve unanimity among Member States. Yet this must not prevent progress with those willing to move forward, through the enhanced cooperation mechanism provided for by the Treaties — the same formula that, after all, made the euro possible.

It is therefore to be hoped that the Commission will fully exercise its institutional role, while bearing in mind that it is the Member States who hold the purse strings — and most of the proposals come with additional costs. The real challenge will be convincing governments that investing in European priorities will bring advantages to all. This is President von der Leyen’s toughest mission. Raising public awareness and mobilizing opinion on these issues will be crucial in shaping intergovernmental negotiations and ensuring greater security, competitiveness, and independence for Member States, for Europe, and above all for future generations.

The outcome of this examination therefore remains uncertain: only if the Commission can translate promises into concrete actions and convince Member States to back the proposed course of action can von der Leyen claim success. Otherwise, it will be the credibility of the institutions that pays the highest price — with the future of the European Union itself at risk.

EU-China Summit: A New Start is Needed

Posted on by Adama Faye

By Gerhard Stahl

 

In 2025, the European Union and the People’s Republic of China mark the 50th anniversary of their diplomatic relations. This milestone will be marked by a summit on 24th July in Beijing. It comes at a moment of profound global transformation: geopolitical conflicts are escalating into wars, global institutions are losing effectiveness, economic interdependence is under pressure and international norms are being challenged.

EU-China relations, once largely shaped by pragmatic cooperation, are increasingly defined by rivalry and mistrust. The EU’s 2019 ‘Strategic Outlook’ captured this shift, describing China as a partner, competitor, and systemic rival – a formulation now echoed in national governments and public debate.
Yet the term ‘systemic rival’ has contributed more to misunderstanding than to constructive dialogue.
The prevailing framing of global politics as a contest between democracies and autocracies has further strained relations. Tensions peaked when the European Parliament suspended ratification of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI), a deal that had taken seven years to negotiate and was finalised in the final days of Germany’s Council presidency in December 2020. The CAI promised meaningful concessions on market access and investment conditions for European companies.
However, ratification stalled in response to EU sanctions on human rights grounds, China’s countersanctions and US opposition. Ironically, the Trump administration had signed a bilateral trade deal with China in early 2020 – without consulting the EU – to secure purchases of American goods.

Today, European democracy and integration are threatened not only externally, but also internally, by populist movements on both sides of the Atlantic. The MAGA movement, which propelled Donald Trump’s political return, is now actively supporting far-right, Eurosceptic forces in Europe. Against this
backdrop, the EU-China summit must help reset relations under new international conditions. The meeting offers an opportunity to realign expectations, restore trust and recommit to engagement based on clearly defined interests and responsibilities. It is not just about bilateral cooperation – it is about the future of the global order.

Trump’s return: a structural threat to a multilateral order

Donald Trump’s return to the White House is not merely a domestic shift – it marks a rupture in the post-war international order. His administration embraces a protectionist, transactional, unilateral worldview – undermining an international system that has underpinned European peace and prosperity for over seven decades. Trump’s resurgence reflects deeper structural challenges. The United States has failed to distribute the gains of globalisation fairly. Deindustrialisation, stagnant middle-class wages and rising inequality have led large parts of the American electorate toward populism, nationalism and protectionism. Global Markets are no longer seen as sources of wealth but
as threats to identity and security.

The consequences are far-reaching:
• Withdrawal from global institutions: The US has previously pulled out of the World Health Organisation, the Paris climate agreement and continues to block the WTO’s dispute settlement system;
• Weaponisation of economic policy: Tariffs, sanctions, and export controls are used as tools of pressure, without regard for long-term partnerships or shared norms;
• Confrontation with China, which is now widely seen in Washington as the central long-term challenge to US dominance.

At the core of this confrontation lies a fear of a multipolar world shaped by China’s rise. A successful China – capable of establishing alternative financial, trade and development institutions – could undermine the US dollar’s role as the global reserve currency. This, in turn, would weaken America’s economic and financial power and global influence.

Europe’s dilemma: between US unilateralism and Chinese ambivalence

Europe has no fundamental problem with a multipolar world. The age of European global empires is over. EU member states, relatively small on a global scale, have learned with European integration and the establishment of the single market to adapt their national economic and political structures to changes. But current developments present specific challenges.

The US, Europe’s closest ally and security guarantor, is now pursuing a foreign and trade policy that is increasingly self-interested and, at times, harmful. Meanwhile, China – one of Europe’s most important trading partners – offers more long-term predictability, but also acts as a strategic competitor with an ambivalent approach. China’s model of a socialist market economy – with stateowned enterprises, special economic zones and subsidies from national and provincial governments – raises serious competition concerns. Its industrial policies with high investment rates, low
consumption levels and slow pace of market liberalisation distort global competition and threaten jobs in Europe. Yet, at the same time, a growing middle class of over 400 million people and a potential consumer market of 1.4 billion continue to present great opportunities for European businesses.

Europe must chart its own path. Aligning with Washington’s confrontational stance would undermine European economic and political autonomy and accelerate global fragmentation – especially damaging for an export-oriented economy. At the same time, engaging China without clear conditions would be short-sighted and risk one-sided dependency. The EU stands for an order based on law, cooperation and shared institutions – an essential lesson from Europe’s wars and painful history. This
model can serve as a global alternative to destabilising national power politics. To develop a rulesbased order, however, partners are needed. If the US cannot – or does not want to – uphold the multilateral system, the EU must seek new alliances. That includes offering China, despite all contradictions, a path to constructive engagement.

Trust deficits: economic and political tensions on both sides

For any renewed engagement between the EU and China to be credible, both sides must confront the deep-rooted structural grievances that continue to erode trust. On the European side, key concerns include persistent market access restrictions in China, industrial overcapacities driven by state subsidies and a lack of reciprocity in areas such as investment and public procurement. European firms also face challenges related to forced technology transfers, insufficient protection of intellectual
property and an opaque regulatory environment that restrains e.g. access to rare raw materials. Compounding these issues is a growing trade deficit, which many in Europe attribute to China’s continued reliance on an export-driven economic model.

Another source of concern is China’s increasingly close relationship with Russia. Beijing’s economic support for Moscow – particularly through energy purchases and dual-use exports – is widely perceived in Europe as indirect assistance for Russia’s war in Ukraine. From China’s perspective, however, the EU also bears responsibility for the current trust deficit. Chinese officials point to what they see as discriminatory treatment of Chinese companies, including restrictive investment screening, tariffs and procurement rules. They view export controls and sanctions – often justified on the grounds of national security or human rights – as part of a broader effort to contain China. This is seen as an indication that the EU joins the US’s confrontational policy. There is also growing frustration with EU member states aligning more closely with expansive US military strategy, such as NATO’s interest in the Indo-Pacific. On Taiwan, Beijing worries that the EU’s ambiguous stance could undermine the long-standing ‘One China’ policy. Altogether, China sees the EU as lacking strategic autonomy and acting more as a junior partner to Washington than as an independent global actor.

Priorities for the summit: rebuilding trust, enabling cooperation

The EU-China summit represents an opportunity to reset the tone of the relationship and lay the groundwork for a more stable and constructive phase of engagement. Both sides need to reframe their relationship. The EU must go beyond the simplistic label of ‘systemic rival’ and offer China the opportunity to become a partner for a stable, rule -based international order. China faces a strategic choice: whether to pursue a ‘China first’ course or to act in line with its stated vision of a multipolar world offering win-win cooperation.

First, the summit should be able to solve some of the urgent trade problems like access to rare earth resources, a common understanding of WTO compatible use of customs duties, and a consensus that neither the EU nor China will agree to trade deals with the US at the expense of third parties.
Furthermore, the summit should go beyond day-to-day questions and emphasise a shared
commitment to sustainable development and a rules-based global economy within a multipolar world guided by international law and effective multilateral institutions.

A key priority should be the relaunch of constructive economic dialogue. Talks on market access, reciprocity, and industrial subsidies must resume in earnest. The EU should make clear that it will take safeguard measures to protect its economic interests if meaningful progress is not achieved. At the same time, both sides could explore an updated framework for investment cooperation, potentially reviving core elements of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) under revised terms. Strategic tensions must also be addressed through regular dialogue. This includes discussions on major
geopolitical flashpoints – such as the war in Ukraine, and the growing militarisation of the Indo-Pacific – to avoid miscalculations and clarify red lines.

In parallel, the EU and China should launch joint initiatives in key areas of mutual interest, particularly climate action, green finance, artificial intelligence governance and digital standards. These domains can serve as flagship areas of cooperation and shared global responsibility. To succeed, the EU must signal its strategic autonomy by engaging China based on its own interests and principles, rather than as a proxy for broader US containment strategies. Lastly, both parties should commit to the reform of international institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank and the United Nations) to strengthen multilateralism, allow countries of the global south to be better represented and resist the drift toward unilateralism and national power politics.

This year’s summit should be a moment for open dialogue among political leaders, with the goal of charting a new course for EU-China cooperation in a world looking for a new international order.

 

Article first published on: https://makronom.de/was-beim-eu-china-gipfel-auf-dem-spiel-steht-49407

Author: Gerhard Stahl, Peking University HSBC Business School, member of FEPS’ Scientific Council, former Secretary General of the EU-Committee of the Regions.

Reflections on 9 May – Europe Day From the European College of Parma Community

Posted on by claudia

What does Europe mean to me?  Marco

Europe, to me, is the fertile value of diversity, the vital yearning for freedom, the deep roots of history.
Europe is the intoxicating magic of art, the primordial beauty of nature, the solid and peaceful strength of culture.
It is the place of sacred respect for the individual and, at the same time, of the individual’s responsibility toward the community.
Where the pluralism of ideas, the protection of rights, and the promotion of talents—free to compete and cooperate—create the conditions to generate widespread prosperity and well-being.
Europe, for all of this, is my home. Europe is my home.
And I hope—and wholeheartedly wish—that it will always remain so, even stronger and more open to the world, for my children and for my grandchildren.

 

What does Europe mean to me?                 

To me Europe is a space where community, security, opportunity, and freedom come together. Yet, for many, today Europe is distant, uncertain, even irrelevant. That’s why I believe education on European issues is essential to bridge these gaps, understand our shared challenges, and strengthen our sense of belonging.

Only through knowledge can we become aware citizens and active participants in shaping the Union’s future.

 

What does Europe mean to me?                   Francesca Pallucchini

To me, Europe represents both a lived reality and a shared aspiration, a project rooted in peace, unity, and the belief that cooperation can transcend conflict. As we commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, I reflect not only on Europe’s historical achievements but on what the European Union continues to mean for my generation and for the future we are shaping together.

Europe is, first and foremost, a space of peace. The Schuman Declaration envisioned a continent where war would no longer be “merely unthinkable, but materially impossible”. This vision laid the foundations for unprecedented stability, replacing centuries of rivalry with dialogue and interdependence. For me, the EU is a daily reminder that diplomacy, compromise, and shared institutions can overcome even the most deeply rooted divisions.

Europe is also a community of values. Democracy, the rule of law, human dignity, and solidarity are not abstract principles. They are guiding lights that shape policies, protect citizens, and strengthen our societies.

As someone deeply interested in European law and public policy, I admire the EU’s commitment to upholding these values in an increasingly complex and challenging global landscape. They are not always  easy to defend, but they remain essential.

Personally, Europe has given me opportunities that would not have existed without integration. The ability to study in different languages, to collaborate with peers across borders, to travel freely and feel at home in  multiple countries, these experiences have shaped who I am. They have made me more open, more  curious, and more conscious of the responsibility that comes with being a European citizen.

Europe is more than institutions and freedoms. It is a union of diversity. What inspires me most is how the  EU turns difference into strength, how 27 nations, each with its own language, history, and identity, come  together to legislate, to negotiate, and to imagine a common future. It is not always smooth, but the very  act of coming together is what gives Europe its unique character and resilience.

At the same time, Europe is a project still in progress. New challenges like climate change, migration, democratic backsliding, and geopolitical instability, demand renewed commitment. The Schuman Declaration was bold in its time, but its spirit of innovation and cooperation is just as necessary today. Being European means engaging actively in this evolving story, contributing ideas, holding institutions accountable, and never taking unity for granted.

To me, Europe is hope, not naïve optimism, but the belief that we are stronger when we work together, even across our differences. It is both a privilege and a responsibility to be part of this Union, and I am committed to helping shape its future.

Seventy-five years after Robert Schuman’s vision, I see Europe not just as a political structure, but as a promise of peace, progress, and belonging.

 

What does Europe mean to me?                   Augusto Crestani

Europe is a promise of peace and prosperity. After 75 years from the Schuman declaration, which prompted the creation of the first European Community, European Union can rightly celebrate having kept the promise. Certainly, it is not perfect and many people complain about the Union, but latest generations never fought a war in Europe and average Europeans enjoy a good lifestyle, in democratic and economically advanced states.

Europe is a guarantee for all our rights and freedoms. European Union represents an area of freedom that is exceptional in the world. A great part of the world under authoritarian regimes and affected by economic underdevelopment does not recognize at all rights and freedoms considered normal, if not taken for granted, by an average European.

Europe is a method. Europe is the importance of all the voices involved that through difficult processes try to achieve a good or at least acceptable decisions for all. A supranational democratic organization which is unique in its genre. It is sufficient to understand the uniqueness of the European Union considering the difficulty to reach agreements between 27 member states or even to achieve a qualified majority, without mentioning the difficulties of the work of a multinational Parliament with all the different languages spoken which need to reach a majority too when involved in the legislative process.

Europe is diverse and notwithstanding the diversities, member states found a way to coexist peacefully in a continent in which war was the standard mean to solve disputes between states.

Europe is a comforting hope. The possibility to achieve a better level of prosperity joining the forces of the different European economies. The possibility to enrich every country with the experience of the others. The possibility of economic or political synergies. The possibility of free movement, to find a job everywhere in the Union or to decide to stay in your home country.

Europe is a complex legal structure which implies the integration of many different national laws under the primacy of the European law. Europe is the stability represented by the European Central Bank and the single currency.

Europe is the Single Market. A great occasion for all our enterprises to be able to compete in a larger market than the national one, a possibility for a richer growth. It implies the four freedoms that in a certain way changed lives of Europeans.

Europe is the Erasmus project. The possibility for European students to experience life in another country during the university years and to understand how wide is our Union and how diverse Europeans are although part of the same story of integration.

Europe is the possibility for all member states to be part of an entity capable to play a role on the

world stage. European Union together could compete with all the great powers in all fields.

In conclusion, for me Europe is the only path toward a peaceful and prosperous future.

 

What does Europe mean to me?                      Matteo Sartorio

The European Union represents one of the greatest achievements of human civilization, a lasting example of what people can accomplish through peace, cooperation, and common values.

Established in the aftermath of devastating wars, the EU reflects the profound realization that war not only blocks economic progress but also harms the moral and personal growth of individuals and societies.

It represents a major change in how the region sees itself, built on a strong commitment to universal human rights and values as its core foundation and guiding principle.

Yet, the EU is not merely a product of history; it is also a new and developing project, a living engine of integration that continues to promote, protect, and practice its values of democracy, human rights and rule of law daily across its 27 Member States.

In doing so, the EU can only be viewed as both a symbol and a mechanism of ongoing progress, showing that unity in diversity is not only possible, but essential for a better future, not just in Europe, but potentially everywhere.

 

What does mean Europe for me?                      Laura Gigliotti

Europe means a common space made of geographical references but mainly, a reality where common values are shared.

At the core, there is a historical heritage made by references and events that are part of the common traditional background of European countries. The idea of political Europe is not just a result of the last seventy years, however we can affirm that it becomes effective through the creation of a stable institutional system in 1957, with the signature of the Treaty of Rome. The definition of European Union is due instead to the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

The transition from the concept of “Community” to the strongest concept of “European Union” was significant, because at a certain point, the Member States become mature enough to recognize that they were connected one to each other by something that was not only economic advantages. Today the EU is neither a state, nor a classical international organization because institutional decisions have a strong impact on the life of European citizens as well as the national ones.

Europe is a unique creature, based on the dream of unity and peace in the continent that had been struggled by conflicts for centuries. Furthermore, it did not remain a general aspiration written on some dusty declarations, but it becomes concrete, economically, politically and socially speaking. Therefore, awareness about EU structure and activities is fundamental to fully exercising the European citizenship. I am strongly convinced that the path must be oriented to an important and fundamental step to make Europe a true federal entity, thus the project of a common Constitution.

We have already the basis in the European Fundamental Rights Charter and in the “common constitutional traditions of Member States”.

It would be illusory to consider at the state of facts, European Union the “best of all possible words”. There are many improvements that should be made on track to deepen integration. Europe means complexity and fragmentation and frequently Member States tend to emphasize their internal

sovereignty on relevant issues like migration, environment and social protection. Present and future challenges must be managed together because European countries are not longer competitive compared to giants as US or China.

Furthermore, I firmly believe that in Europe it is fundamental to choose “what do we want to do when we grow up”. The international context is in front of a crossroads concerning, on one side, wars and on the other side A.I. (ontological) revolution and the EU should move from adolescence to adulthood, shaping its own identity and becoming capable of maintaining a firm and common stance.

This is possible only going back to the genesis of the Union to recover the original purpose, then adapting it to contemporaneity. To be more concrete, original guidelines like the principles of democracy, equality and peace should be integrated with environmental protection and human oriented technology.

 

What does Europe mean to me?                  Matteo Pintore

In my teens, as most teenagers do, I started having questions, wondering about all sorts of things. I felt my understanding of the world was limited, and I needed to delve further, read what other more intelligent and experienced people had written in the times past on the most fundamental questions of human experience.

I, of course, had already been doing some of that work because of school, reading Italian authors such as Dante, Montale, D’Annunzio etc. but they were not nearly enough. I found a strong foundation in Kierkegaard, then Žižek, Chesterton, Camus, Ionesco, Pastakas, and many others. Entering (young) adulthood, my conscience, belief system, my reasoning were shaped by a multitude of authors from different nations, and while I did of course feel my identity as an Italian, I also felt a strong kinship with my fellow Europeans, with whom I sometimes and paradoxically felt I shared more than with my own fellow countrymen. It was nice to know that thanks to the efforts of great statesmen such as Schumann, De Gasperi, Delors and many others, that feeling needed not be simply a feature of my character, but had already been translated into a common political entity that allowed us to have a shared identity not just in mind but in practice.

I began to see how the interconnectedness of European nations could foster not just economic prosperity, but also cultural exchange and intellectual growth. The European Union, with its open borders and collaborative frameworks, has become a symbol of hope and progress, a beacon of freedom based on the fundamental values that were developed in this continent and are, now, under threat. The original idea of Europe, one in which nationalism and isolationism could be overcome by cooperation and mutual understanding, has been overshadowed by the material failings of the economy in recent years, giving rise across the globe to movements that seek to return to a world of palisades,

bombs and horror.

We have grown accustomed to our state of (relative) prosperity and freedom. While some may advocate for turning our backs to all the progress we have made, I firmly believe that we should strive for greater openness, rather than entrenchment; exchange rather than isolation. The idea of a united Europe still holds immense potential waiting to be realized, and it is up to us to do so.

 

What does Europe mean to me?                   Veronica Dreassi

To me, Europe is not merely a continent or a group of countries – it is, first and foremost, a space of exchange, communication, and safety. It is a place where ideas, languages, history, cultures, traditions, and above all people flow across borders, thus creating a unique model of integration.

I have never truly felt I belonged to just one state. Indeed, my sense of belonging has always been broader, especially considering that I come from a cross-border region. That is why, from my perspective, being European is much more than a simple consideration – it is a privilege to be protected and defended.

Being part of Europe means belonging to a community of people who, despite their differences, have chosen to share a common path. Together, we agreed to build our future on communication and peace, rather than division and conflict.

To conclude, Europe can be compared to a safe harbour where to seek protection during uncertain times. An extraordinary example of cooperation. It is our past, our present and our future.

 

What does Europe mean to me?                 Valentina Giombetti

“United in diversity”, there is no better way to begin explaining what Europe means to me. We are 27 countries with different cultures, languages, traditions, political thoughts, and yet, we were able to create a new and unique entity, the European Union, which even experts find it hard to define, since it is a completely innovative organization. I do not want to focus on what the European Union technically is, but rather on what it represents to me. The EU means opportunity, freedom, multiculturalism, multilingualism, and strength, but also challenge, negotiation, and compromise. This is to say that thanks to the EU we enjoy a lot of rights and benefits, but they were not easily achieved. The European Union that we know today is the result of a long and complex process, in which the member states had to learn to establish a dialogue, to reach compromises, and to work together.

When people ask me why I care so much about the EU and why it is important to me, the first thing that comes to mind is: free movement. I belong to the “Schengen and Euro generation”, I have never used the old Italian currency, and I have never experienced border controls inside the EU. Only when I travelled outside the EU/Schengen Area and faced all the bureaucracy of getting a visa, I truly realised how lucky we are as Europeans to be able to enjoy the ease of movement.

My high school teacher once told me: “When you travel outside Europe, you will understand what being European means”. Well, I have understood that being part of the EU is a privilege, but we cannot take it for granted. The EU is an evolving project, and each of us can help shape its future.

May 9: Europe 75 Years After the Schuman Declaration

Posted on by claudia

Alfredo De Feo

 

May 9 is an important date for Europe: the declaration launched by Robert Schuman in 1950 marked the beginning of the European project and opened an unprecedented period of peace in the history of our countries.

The idea of building peace in Europe through cooperation between states originated with the Ventotene Manifesto by Spinelli, Rossi, and Colorni, and with Winston Churchill’s exhortations in his famous speeches in Zurich and The Hague. But it was Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, who concretely rose to the challenge by appealing to other states, translating the idealistic drive of Spinelli and others into political action.

On May 8, Schuman presented his plan—prepared in the utmost secrecy together with Jean Monnet—to the Economy Ministers of the United Kingdom, Italy, and the three Benelux countries. That evening, all preparatory documents were destroyed. After securing the agreement of the five countries’ ministers, Schuman sent a personal emissary to Bonn to inform Konrad Adenauer of the French proposal. The following morning, upon receiving news of Chancellor Adenauer’s enthusiastic reaction, Schuman informed the French government and called the press conference to be held at the Quai d’Orsay on May 9 at 6 p.m.

Thus, Robert Schuman presented the declaration that would pave the way for the gradual integration process of the six founding countries of the European Community.

The Schuman Declaration clearly outlined a series of objectives that were shared by statesmen like Konrad Adenauer, Alcide De Gasperi, and the Benelux countries. A small detail: discussions between these post-war leaders were conducted in German.

The language of the declaration is simple, and while it states the ambitious goal of building European unity, it does so realistically: “Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.”

The deeper motivation of the declaration is found in its opening lines: “Europe has not been made: we had war… World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.”

Therefore, May 9, 1950, sets the goal of building and preserving peace.

However, remembering such an important anniversary should not only be about looking back—it must also be an occasion to reflect on the present and the future. Europe has been built step by step. Jean Monnet believed that Europe would be forged in crises and would be the result of the solutions adopted in response. When everything seemed lost, everything started again. That is what gives us hope.

In the Europe of Delors, European idealism prevailed: the realization of the Single Market, the fall of the Berlin Wall, enthusiasm for the emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, and last but not least, the creation of the single currency.

The dawn of the new millennium saw growing skepticism toward the integration process. The challenges faced by countries joining the EU, financial and Eurozone crises, Brexit, the pandemic, Russian expansionism, and the shift in the U.S. administration have all subjected today’s Europe to a tough test whose outcome remains uncertain.

On the other hand, these very crises have helped rebuild a renewed European unity, allowing for united negotiations with the United Kingdom, support for Ukraine, the launch of joint debt through the Recovery and Resilience Plan—measures which, despite challenges in implementation, have restored hope and a sense of European belonging among a majority of EU citizens.

That said, we cannot ignore worrying signs: the rise of nationalist and pro-Russian parties in many European countries, the divisive rhetoric of the new American administration. The geopolitical landscape is shifting, but a new balance has not yet been reached. Statements from President Trump, President von der Leyen, Prime Minister Meloni, and other world leaders are part of a strategic game that must eventually settle.

Europe undoubtedly has weaknesses, especially in technology and innovation capacity—many of which are due to a non-Europe, that is, all that Europe could have done but has not yet accomplished. The conclusions of the Letta Report on completing the single market, the upcoming report by Mario Draghi on revitalizing European competitiveness, and the recommendations of ECB President Christine Lagarde, who urges swift reform, all give reason to hope that there is still room for a European relaunch.

In conclusion, Europe possesses many tools to defend its sovereignty and development model. Let us hope that states, under the guidance and coordination of the EU institutions, make courageous decisions—as they have in the past—because that is how Europe works today. We must not hide behind the excuse of unanimity. In the past, many key decisions were taken by the states that believed in them, leaving the door open to others. This was the case with the creation of the Euro and the Schengen Agreement, which abolished internal borders within the Union. The “Europe of the willing” can again allow us to make a leap forward in this time of crisis.

Edited by Edward Lynch

 

https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/ninth_and_final_draft_of_the_schuman_declaration_6_may_1950-en-4909847d-df12-4c67-83d2-8e0978da025b.html 

Europe on the Move

Posted on by claudia

By Alfredo De Feo

When you live a normal life, made up of daily worries, children, health, the need to solve the inevitable problems, small and large, it is difficult to focus, on what is happening in the world, the geopolitical strategies, the risks for our economy and therefore for our lifestyle and our well-being, for the future of our children. It’s difficult to focus but we must.

For many decades, coexistence among countries has been based on a series of basic principles: respect for democracy and the autonomy of the various countries, respect for international rules, the non-use of force to resolve tensions, the promotion of an increasingly free world trade without customs barriers that would increase the well-being of citizens in a generalized way. All guaranteed by a series of international organizations

Like it or not, the war unleashed by Russia against Ukraine in February 2022 triggered a turning point in the balance of the world. Tensions in the Middle East, on Europe’s southern border, have aggravated the situation.

The inauguration of Donald Trump to the White House in January 2025 has brought a further shake up to the world balance, with a strong impact on Europe and its states. I do not need to enumerate the proclamations and counter-proclamations of President Trump and his inner circle. European governments must face challenges and make difficult decisions, knowing how to look at the medium to long term, rather than immediate polls and have the ability to explain to citizens the meaning of choices that may appear unpopular in the short term.

The unanimous mandate given by the states and the majority of the European Parliament is a first sign that Europe is ready to stand together and start creating synergies in the field of defence. The other positive aspect, which transpires from the White Paper, is that Member States will start to build something, with the aim of better coordinating the production and purchasing war material, developing and sharing information of national intelligence services. The same goes for technology, communications and so on.

A large part of these initiatives, which will only become clearer when the proposals are presented, will probably be financed with common debt guaranteed by all states. Following the example of what has been done with the Next Generation EU. This plan, favored by the relaxation of the rules of the Stability Pact, should eventually allow European states to be more autonomous in the defense of their territory and their values, a first response to the American disengagement from the defense of Europe.

I addition, it is worth mentioning the turning point taking place in Germany where, under the leadership of the future chancellor, Friederich Merz, a constitutional reform has been voted to abolish the spending limit to finance expenses related to infrastructure, the environment and defense: a real revolution.

The second emergency is international trade. President Trump has begun to introduce tariffs on many imported goods, giving rise to retaliation by the affected countries, creating a strong impoverishment of their economy (European and non-European). It is difficult to say at this stage whether these tariffs are the final goal of the American President or just a negotiating strategy, but in either case these attitudes require equally strong positions on the European side. On the other hand, strong and decisive positions will facilitate negotiatiations.

It is difficult to say whether European leaders will be able to show solidarity with each other in the interest of defending national and European sovereignty. It is a great opportunity but it is not certain that everyone knows how to seize it. On the other hand, it should be remembered that the European Treaties provide for the possibility of carrying out actions with the so-called “enhanced cooperation” (with the participation of

at least nine states) or ultimately, through agreements among states, outside the legal framework of the European Union, which France and England are doing to guarantee support for Ukraine (the coalition of the willing).

To conclude, public opinion should be aware that the challenges we face do not concern others but ourselves, our freedom, our values. We do not want to leave our children the choice of whether to live under American, Chinese or Russian rules but to be proud to remain European with our national identities. The Erasmus generation is already a step ahead and this can be seen as a sign of great optimism.

Published in the Gazzetta di Parma 18 March 2025

The Reasons for ReArm Europe

Posted on by claudia

By Marzo Ziliotti

On March 6, twenty-six EU heads of state and the EU government, overcoming (finally!) the unanimity rule, approved the plan called ReArm Europe. Divided in five points, it establishes a common European financial instrument, which will provide 150 billion euros to member states for defense investment; it introduces a derogation (escape clause) to the parameters of the Stability and Growth Pact, which opens fiscal space to individual states for defense spending of an additional 650 billion euros; and it promotes the mobilization of private capital, through the European Investment Bank, in order to stimulate large European savings for the financing of domestic defense firms.

Thus, an 800 billion euro package of public resources alone, in addition to private resources, which, on the one hand, (with the 650 billion euro waiver effectively) sends the constraints of the newly created Stability and Growth Pact into the attic; and on the other hand, (with the 150 billion euro European fund) takes the first step toward the establishment of a true common defense system, necessarily financed by common resources.

The project, by its scale and especially by the nature of its objectives, can clearly be called historic in scope. But it is equally evident that “ReArm,” moreover “at home,” is a word that should arouse no one’s enthusiasm. Well understandable, then, that the initiative has provoked heated debate, not only in the halls of professional politics, but also among the public and in the very consciences of citizens. This is positive, wanting strongly to continue to believe that free dialectical confrontation between ideas is the most precious value of our liberal democracies.

But, at such an objectively complex hairpin turn in History, it is essential to be clear about some crucial contextual elements. The first fact is the very rapid and relevant increase in geopolitical risks for European countries. Mind you: this is not to evoke scenarios with the Cossack cavalry in St. Peter’s Square; but the disturbing crescendo of the use of force against Europe by Putin’s Russia is undeniable: the outright military violence, mobilizing all available human and economic resources, in Ukraine. But also violence in the insidious form of hybrid warfare: continuous cyber-attacks, increasingly aggressive and widespread, on the computer systems mainly of public entities; increasingly pervasive interference in public opinion, especially at election time, with massive and scientific dissemination of fake news and through support – more or less covered – for openly anti-European, when not explicitly pro-Russian, political formations and parties. Restoring historic Russian influence with a perimeter similar to that of the U.S.S.R. days is a stated goal; and it is certainly not comforting that, as Kremlin spokesman Dimitry Peskov stated a few days ago, “the new U.S. administration’s vision regarding foreign policy configurations largely coincides with our vision.”

Second point: the above poses an urgent problem of deterrence. Urgent: it would certainly be better to start first with the establishment of a single European defense system and only then proceed to rearmament. But there is no time. Making the Euro took at least ten years (from the European Monetary System crisis to January 1, 2002, when the single currency began to physically circulate). The European Army needs a long process of construction, which is inextricably linked to the building of a common political house. Deterrence, which does not at all mean a bellicose will, but, exactly the opposite, i.e. the strengthening of negotiating power. This is the only way to make realistic – and not just a vacuous invocation – the prospect of diplomatic solutions on the most lasting and least unfair basis possible.

The third aspect, perhaps the most delicate one: the oft-cited alternative claim of spending on butter instead of guns. Who, a priori, would not prefer government spending to favor schools and hospitals over military purposes? But, put in decontextualized terms, the question once again risks being dangerously – or, worse, guiltily – misleading. First, it should be remembered, because spending on defensive systems nowadays does not so much consist of bombs and guns, but predominantly of research and development of advanced technologies (cybersecurity, intelligence), with proven positive externalities in terms of innovations that can be widely used in the civilian sphere (think, just to cite two possible examples, of drones and cybersecurity systems). Not only that, but the substantial amount (800 billion euros) of resources mobilized can enable massive reconversion operations of industrial sectors in crisis (automotive, for example), generating employment support and multiplicative economic effects (in the past, multipliers of military spending -especially when directed to innovative technologies – have been calculated as high as 1.5: spending 1 euro generates an increase in GDP of 1.5 euros, i.e., it creates an income that exceeds the self-financing of the spending itself by 50 percent).

But even before the claim – unsightly as much as you like, but true – that investment in defense systems can be an effective driver of employment and economic growth, the dreaded conflict between military spending and social welfare starts from a basic misunderstanding. Security – guaranteed precisely by defense systems – is an indispensable prerequisite with respect to every other constituent element of collective welfare. Any right (to education, to health, to work) necessarily rests on the subsistence of the most fundamental right there is: the security of the physical integrity of the person and his property (material and immaterial).

Therefore, just as we are all fully aware that, in order to guarantee this right to security with respect to “internal” dangers, it is indispensable to allocate adequate resources for the funding of the appropriate law enforcement agencies (Police, Carabinieri, etc.), it is necessary to regain an equal awareness – clouded for a long time by the illusion of an eternal and gratuitous American umbrella – that the armed forces (Army, Air Force, Navy) are likewise indispensable to protect exactly the same right with respect to “external” risks.

To those who invoke the ideal of a “neutral Europe,” it would be salutary to remind them that the neutral country par excellence, Switzerland, has based its vocation for neutrality (in addition to a geographic location that has never interested anyone and a banking secrecy that has suited everyone) on an ancient warrior skill – not coincidentally, the popes for more than five hundred years have chosen the Swiss Guards to defend the Vatican – and on a universal conscription obligation in which, after one’s first service under arms, for ten years one is required to return to the barracks for periodic repetition courses.

Adequate defense capability represents the insurance policy placed to guarantee peace, a supremely valuable commodity; and, as is the case with all insurance, one pays the premium precisely with the intention of never having to use it.

Published on Gazzetta di Parma on march, 11th 2025

Automatic translation edited by Edward Lynch

The American Administration and European Sovereignty

Posted on by claudia

Alfredo De Feo

There are dates in history that have an impact on citizens and public opinion. For example, how can we forget March 2020, when almost simultaneously the world stopped due to a pandemic that reminded the whole world of the fragility of human beings especially in a globalized world; or February 22, 2022, when the aggression against Ukraine by Russia broke a balance of peace putting an end to some basic principles of international law such as respect for the sovereignty of a State with the concrete risk not only of extension of the conflict but also the risk of violations of national sovereignty, through military actions or sophisticated cyber interference. Or again October 7, 2023 when the brutal attacks by Hamas against the Israeli people reopened the never-ending Israel-Palestinian conflict, with its burden of massacres and tensions and the risk of destabilizing the entire region with human and economic consequences that are difficult to calculate.

 

January 20, 2025 could become a date that will be remembered in the history of European countries. The entrance into the White House of the newly re-elected President Trump risks in fact to the life of us Europeans. Obviously we do not know if and how the electoral proclamations will translate into concrete actions and policies, but even admitting that much evidence does not make proof, there are enough reasons to be concerned. I will limit myself to pointing out three concrete threats to which European countries must be ready to give effective responses.  These threats are: 1) the introduction of duties on European products, 2) global deregulation from the use/abuse of artificial intelligence, social media and customs clearance of cryptocurrencies and 3) the American military disengagement from Europe.

 

The issue of duties is what could tempt European states to go and negotiate bilaterally with the American administration. A separate negotiation of the individual states would allow them to extract some concessions but the price to pay would be high both in terms of imports and in increasing American influence on national policies in the various countries. European states should defend their sovereignty by trying to prepare a common response to American initiatives, trying to avoid a trade war, harmful for all, and trying to establish a negotiation to reach a global trade agreement, which can only be achieved with the ability to find objectives shared by all states.

In the technology sector, Europe has a large production delay but has been at the forefront in regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI act) to allow responsible use for the benefit of consumers and for the defence of copyright. At the same time, measures have been adopted to regulate Digital services and the Digital Market. These measures are aimed at limiting the excessive power of digital platforms, such as Amazon, Facebook, TikTok, Google and others. To this must be added the probable pressure exerted by Trump’s powerful advisor, Elon Musk, to formalize and liberalize the market of cryptocurrencies (he is also the owner of one of these). European states have every interest in regulating the sectors of services and the digital market and cryptocurrencies, so as not to be caught unprepared and resist the probable deregulation pressures that will likely come from the new American administration. Only with a strong position will European states be able to protect their citizens and maintain their national sovereignty.

Finally, the problem of security and protection of the European territory from external attacks. The protection guaranteed so far by the American shield within NATO risks disappearing. The United States has long been asking for a greater financial commitment for defence within NATO, requests that have only found a distracted ear from most European governments. The new American administration risks not making any concessions and forcing European states to increase defence spending.

This poses three types of problems: financial, productive and military. The public finances of almost all states do not have, individually, the resources to sustain expenses, which would also raise strong criticism and resistance from public opinion. The solution could be found, on the model put in place in the post Covid period, in the issuance of common European debt to finance a greater European presence in its military defence.

The second problem is of a productive nature: if the European states do not want to continue financing the American arms industries, they must agree to direct production and towards a reduced number of weapon models, and renouncing their claim to national excellence. This is not easy but essential to invest in European industry as recommended in Enrico Letta’s report.

Finally, the military aspect: the simple coordination of initiatives is not enough. A qualitative leap is necessary, creating decision-making structures capable of taking measures to guarantee the security of our countries and the sovereignty of our States.

If Europe will positively take up the challenges that will come from the United States, the date of January 20, 2025 could be remembered as that of the qualitative leap of Europe, otherwise … better not think about it!  

English version edited by Edward Lynch

Published by the Gazzetta di Parma 11/01/2025

Towards the digital euro: what is it and what will it be used for?

Posted on by claudia

Marco Ziliotti

Imagine being able to have a virtual purse, embedded in your smartphone – or computer – or in a card, allowing you to make payments accepted anywhere, without commissions or other costs (neither for you nor for the recipient); which would work even offline, in the most remote mountain retreat or when the internet goes down; which would allow, again without cost, to transfer purchasing power in real time to a family member whose wallet has been stolen while travelling abroad; which, unlike credit transfers, credit and debit cards, is not only, as mentioned above, free of charge, but does not even require a bank account; which, however, if you already have one, can allow you (via a so-called reverse waterfall mechanism) to draw on your existing funds; in short, a means of payment as simple and universal as cash, but which, unlike cash, thanks to its immateriality, can be used without physical transfer and held minimising the risks of fraudulent misappropriation.

In fact, there have been digital wallet systems on the market for years (including the most popular apps PayPal, Google Pay, Apple Pay, Amazon Pay), but first of all, their functioning depends on internet coverage and, moreover, they are instruments managed by private entities, mainly from across the Atlantic, which, among other things, take possession of all the information relating to the transactions carried out.

The digital euro, on the other hand, in the same way as the physical euro, will be a means of payment managed by an authoritative public institution, the ECB, with all the necessary guarantees (including that of having a ‘domestic’ manager, a non-trivial element in times of great geopolitical uncertainty). The legislative project for the establishment of a European CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) – similar projects in the US and China are, moreover, at an advanced stage – is contained in the ‘Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the digital euro’, which, after a preparatory phase that began in November 2023, envisages that in a year’s time the Governing Council of the ECB will move on to the operational phase, establishing the detailed methods and timing (rulebook).

The diffusion of the virtual European currency will therefore probably begin in 2026, with the obligation to accept it as a means of payment not only in the twenty countries of the Eurozone, but in all twenty-seven of the EU, with the well-founded expectation that in a short time, in the same way as the physical euro, the digital euro will also be accepted in all – or almost all – countries of the world.

The precise aim of the European authorities is that the digital euro should only be a means of payment and not a reserve of value (i.e. an asset in which to invest one’s wealth). To this end, it is envisaged that sums held in digital euros will not bear any interest and will be subject to strict quantitative limits at the individual level (businesses will only be able to receive it in payment). These constraints will also serve to avoid disintermediation effects and thus displacement of the banking system: bank deposits will continue to be the typical form of reserves of liquid assets.

This nature as a mere means of payment, and not as a potential speculative asset, also highlights how the digital euro is in no way comparable to cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tether, Solana, etc.): these in fact, as is well known, have no guarantee of legal control, but rather systems based on distributed technologies, such as blockchain, and are typically used as forms of speculative investment, which are highly volatile.

The digital euro, on the other hand, will be subject to precise controls by the ECB, which, in accordance with its precise institutional mandate, will therefore have to guarantee its security – first and foremost against cybercrime -, the stability of its value and, no less important, the protection of privacy. The latter is a particularly sensitive issue: the frequent use of cryptocurrencies for illicit purposes suggests that digital currencies, like cash, may also be used for illegal purposes. It will be up to the intelligence of the regulator to find the right balance between fighting financial crime and economic freedom.

Translated with deepl edited by Edward Lynch

The future European Commission

Posted on by claudia

Alfredo De Feo

On 20 November 2024, the political groups in the European Parliament concluded a political agreement which, with reasonable certainty, will allow the new European Commission to take office, as last term,  on 1 December. This vote puts an end to many months in which the European institutions’ attitudes has looked more inward than geopolitical. The election of Trump to the Presidency of the United States has given an acceleration to processes that in the past have been more complex.

For many observers, the behaviour of the leaders of the parliamentary groups appeared to be immature, dictated by concerns that are difficult to understand in the face of global urgencies and challenges, challenges that can only be faced with great unity.

The contrasts between the political groups, beyond identity and national positions, concealed a basic malaise: accepting the shift of the majority from the Europeanism we have known in decades to positions of a Europeanism, marked by a more invasive presence of the States, This new tendency is probably more in tune with the sentiments of a part of public opinion,  which translated into the result in the European elections.

Ursula von der Leyen, immediately grasped this change, proposing to involve the conservative group, or at least part of the group, in the top positions of the Commission, being aware that in the next five years it will not always be able to count on the majority of the People’s Party, Socialists, Liberals and probably Greens but that, probably, she will also need the support of the more moderate right European conservatives. In addition, the appointment of a Vice-President of the Commission issue of the Conservatives should guarantee a more stable majority in the Council, where Italy’s weight is not indifferent. In fact, in the bicameral European architecture, the Commission, for any legislative act, will have to find the support not only of the parliamentary majority but also that of the Member States. The attitude of the President of the Commission denotes lucidity and political realism.

The European Parliament has largely demonstrated in recent years its central role in the institutional balance, it will be able to continue to be central provided that it maintains the ability to compromise even in the face of a Council, whose majority of States probably have a more national vision of Europe.

On the other hand, if we look at the last twenty years, the European decision-making process has become progressively more intergovernmental, reducing the influence of the Commission. The Commission that will have to accompany Europe towards 2030 will certainly be influenced by governments, many of the Commissioners are direct expressions of national governments and it is likely that these will condition the Commission’s choices more than in the past.

However, recent years have shown that the process of European integration can also continue through the intergovernmental method, with decisions taken unanimously, as for instance the Recovery and Resilience Plan financed with the guarantee of the national budgets. Although this type of funding is unlikely to be replicated in the short term, Member States may follow the same method to progress in the European integration. The concrete proof appeared at the informal European Council on 8 November 2024, where the Heads of State and Government invited the Commission to present a horizontal strategy on the deepening of the single market, towards a union of savings and investment and to make urgent progress on the capital markets union.

 

In addition, States ask to the High Representative and the Commission to present proposals to increase the efficiency of the European defence capability, in particular by appropriately strengthening the defence technological and industrial base.

To conclude, the new Commission will have to strengthen European credibility with proposals that can garner the consensus of all the States if possible, without forgetting that the Treaties provide that some projects can be shared only by a group of States, through the enhanced cooperation as for the Euro, or the Schengen Treaty, , obviously leaving the doors open to others to participate. 

 

Pubblicato sulla Gazzetta di Parma 23/11/2024

Contact us for more information