A pragmatic approach for the twenty-first century of Europe.

A micro-paper by Vision, Sarah Scully.

Is there a way to find some common ground that brings the five (or six) major European political families together and so they can follow the same program moving forward? Or is there a method so that a large enough number of the 27 EU countries can find common agendas and work together?. Perhaps there is another method we can use other than pathetically waiting (this is the favourite sport of most analysts of European affairs) for an unlikely astral alignment of political majorities in these different countries? Possibly without chasing agreements and exhausting compromises, whilst avoiding having to negotiate with those clever countries who leverage their use of veto to gain advantage. These are the questions that occupy the thoughts of Ursula von der Leyen's constant search for an improbable squaring of the circle (the latest on commissioners) and with the very survival of the European Union. The method which exists currently and is made up of the precise identification of the choices (trade-offs) that the future entails. The confrontation between different positions often opposed to each other rather than at working together and finding concrete solutions which can be activated quickly. Overcoming ideological divisions that are out of this time and the idea (anti-historical) that the interests of different countries have remained the same over time. This is a method that someone is Europe in parts is already experimenting with.

The online newspaper POLITICO EUROPE has reconstructed what kind of (in)stability the last European elections handed us. Each of the twenty-six Commissioners (they are currently only nominations for commissioners) will need to get approval (within the committees related to his or her portfolio) of two-thirds of the MEPs in the European Parliament. In all committees (except for the one on “legal affairs” and “internal market”) the appointees will need the approval of all five major European political families (including the conservative group chaired by Giorgia Meloni), for example not approving Raffaele Fitto's appointment (as the Socialists have speculated) would mean complicating the approval process for all the others. Fitto's appointment to a senior executive VP post and his position as a close ally of Giorgia Meloni, has proven extremly controversal due to his membership of the ECR. With this paralysis comes a further delay in the hearings of the commissioners appointed to parliament, which is now scheduled for the second week of November. This happens in a period of time, where a six weeks can change the course of history forever (in this case it will happen for sure, because there will be U.S. elections right before the confirmationation hearings are set to take place).

It is these slowness’s that are totally inconsistent with the urgencies that demand technological developments that have overtaken us. We need to come up with solutions fast and involve all sides of the political spectrum in the dialogue. This pragmatic collaborative solutions and oreintated approach was on display last week in Siena,Italy. At the fifth edition of the Siena conference on the Europe of the Future, which was held between last Thursday and Saturday(12-14). It brought together all the political foundations of all five European political parties that are forced to govern together. Participants worked together to help set the agenda for the future of europe and imagine a brighter future for all europeans.

New innovative proposals emerged from Siena, on the rules and investment for digital; the new stability pact; common defence; and more realistic and effective green policies. Each of these proposals can be a development of things to be done immediately of that Draghi Report that calls for extraordinary investment from Europe. But above all, a new idea emerged that overcame the old pattern of the “federalists” (who made Europe) and the “sovereigntists” who opposed that pattern. The idea is for the European Union to multiply into a series of alliances (policy based) to which groups of countries that are willing to share expertise join and cooperate in a closer way, for example a  mediterranean university alliance and the creation of a mediterranean specific erasmus program which would involve EU and non-EU countries.This type of cooperation will allow the EU to become flexible and agile when dealing with the varied views of it's member states and encourage countries and EU political parties to work together.

Vote share per EU Parliament committee that MEPs from the S&D, Greens, Renew and EPP could secure with, and without, the ECR. Subcommittees are marked with an asterisk.

This applies to immigration policies and to the free movement in the EU itself, rather than waiting forever to keep everyone inside, we can immediately launch an area of ​​common borders between the European countries of the Mediterranean.This would deal with migratory processes right from the places of origin of the flows (transforming the problem of invasion into an opportunity to recruit valuable manpower). A positive would be giving member states more devolution and control of the issues that impact them on a local level, eg: migration is a bigger issue in Greece and Italy than in Latvia and Ireland. This applies to the same common defense where the countries of the eastern front can begin to put together armies, information (and contracts) to counter the Russian threat, it makes sense for neighbours to work together and pool their limited resources. It is, however, a device that can be opened to countries outside the EU (Norway, United Kingdom) that share the same urgency and who would benefit joining a specific alliance.

It is a type of approach to the Europe of the Future that not everyone in the various Parties shares, but that everyone is starting to consider as a realistic possibility. Joining these alliances - which are more practical than the half-formed ones that groups of states are already joining - eg: EURO, Schengen, The Common Market . The expansion to countries outside the Union - would happen - almost always - by consulting national public opinion to increase its legitimacy through national referenda (this would help address the democratic deficit in Europe). And by providing - always - divorce clauses that make separations (or estrangements) less traumatic, so we can avoid the collective trauma of a Brexit 2.0.

Flexibility is the main characteristic that a hyper-fast century requires of us to have, it will allow the survival and growth of values ​​that remain the strong point of a continent that invented democracy and must start designing the future again. Europe absolutely needs a new method to transform its fragility, the diversity it contains into a strength that others (the United States, China) can start studying again. Perhaps Europe can use the it's ability to be neither fish nor meat as an advantage going forward.

References:

Politico Europe (2024). The Fitto effect—and why all the political groups need each other. Link.

European Commission (2024). The future of European competitiveness. Link.

European Council on Foreign Relations (2023). Road to nowhere: Why Europe’s border externalisation is a dead end. Link.

European Commission (2024). Cluster policy. Link.