The Eurispes Europe Laboratory, report of the 6th Meeting

The Eurispes Europe Laboratory, report of the 6th Meeting

The 6th meeting of the Eurispes Europe Laboratory, coordinated by Prof. Umberto Triulzi, took place on 19 July 2024 in Rome. The meeting, rich in participation and ideas, was attended by, among others, Amb. Antonio Armellini, Diplomatic Counsellor Marianne Cohen, Prof. Carlo Curti Gialdino, Giuseppe Davicino, a member of Eurispes’ BRICS Laboratory, former CNEL Counsellor Tommaso De Fazio, Prof. Rosella Di Bacco, Prof. Maurizio Franzini, and Prof. Sandro Guerrieri. Prof. Triulzi opened the meeting by introducing the main topic of the event on the institutional reforms needed by the EU and commenting on the latest political events in the Union, including the parliamentary elections of 9 June 2024 and the appointment of Roberta Metsola and Ursula von derLeyen as President of the European Parliament and the European Commission respectively.

The following are some of the points that emerged: Prof. Curti Gialdino called for waiting for the states’ requests for the composition of the new Commission, in which the European People’s Party will certainly be able to boast greater decision-making power as it is the leading party in terms of the number of seats in the European Parliament. As far as the governability of the new presidency is concerned, Curti Gialdino believes that variable majorities will form due to the heterogeneity of the majority that elected Ursula von der Leyen and the scope of the measures to be taken on even divisive issues. However, the European law expert said he was pessimistic about strengthening cooperation between EU countries, not least because of the political instability in leading countries such as France and Germany. Harsh criticism was levelled at Orban, who as President-in-Office of the European Council should not have met Vladimir Putin in a personal capacity. In conclusion, with France and Germany entering a critical situation and Italy out of the picture after the appointment of von der Leyen, the political future of the EU does not look very promising.

Prof. Rosella Di Bacco, on the other hand, said she was less pessimistic about the future of the Union, but also called for an in-depth look at the reasons for the growth of right-wingers in Europe, the lack of a concrete vision, and the poor incision of European policies, which are often driven more by ideology than concreteness, with negative impacts on people’s lives. With regard to the Green Deal strategy, there is an invitation to reflect on the effects of individual measures on the most fragile fringes of society, which must be supported in this shift towards climate neutrality. On the subject of defence, the appointment of a European Commissioner is certainly considered positive in view of the increase in military expenditure required of NATO countries. Prof. Sandro Guerrieri highlighted the importance of issues such as the defence of the rule of law, also in view of the Union’s enlargement to the East. As far as foreign policy is concerned, Guerrieri is critical of the EU representatives’ decision not to comment on recent statements by some members of the Israeli government, who are firmly opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. Yet the two-state solution seems to be the only possible solution and the EU should promote it and start being an actor for peace in other contexts as well. Afterwards, Prof. Maurizio Franzini spoke about the risk one can run when talking too much about competitiveness. Reducing everything to economic issues or to the EU’s ability to compete on a purely commercial level weakens the EU’s social agenda and its ability to impact on issues much closer to citizens and families such as free access to basic services, a high level of education and the creation of tools against poverty.

Tommaso Di Fazio, on the other hand, was critical of the absence of a real and concrete EU industrial policy. The focus on environmental problems, which in any case will see a downsizing of the Green Deal strategy despite the Greens’ support for the new Commission, has in a way criminalised industrial policies. But without these, the ecological transition risks being a detriment to those companies least willing to convert and, consequently, to the economic spin-off they produce and to whole swathes of workers. Moreover, in the near future the EU will have to regain a more decisive role in geopolitical relations. Amb. Armellini warned against the Trump danger, whose election could put NATO in crisis, but also the system of international trade relations, to the point of requiring greater economic and industrial independence from the United States.

Concluding the meeting, Prof. Umberto Triulzi made two important points. The first is that, during the debate in relation to European policies, needs emerged that require a financial availability that basically does not exist at the moment. It is not possible to imagine a new Next Generation EU, and thus a new major investment programme, solely through recourse to national expenditure. In essence, work must be done to facilitate access to the European capital market. The second point concerns the system of governance: a more flexible approach to the implementation of European policies is needed, especially for those countries that need more time to implement them. Imagining a two-speed Europe should no longer be a taboo. Even in the area of defence, smaller groups of member countries can be considered. The main issue is that there are currently no prerequisites for amending the Treaties, but the resources must still be found to meet the challenges that loom dramatically over the future of the European Union.