Ursula von der Leyen’s latest State of the Union addressed a broad scope of topics – from the ‘usual suspects’ like defence and competitiveness to the resurfaced Green Deal, the housing crisis, workers’ rights, and the fight against poverty. It was met with mixed reactions from both her own party members and political opponents. Studio Europa Maastricht discussed the address with Christine Neuhold, Professor of EU Democratic Governance and Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Maastricht University.
The fact that the speech opened with a rather surprising “Europe is in a fight” message shows that von der Leyen is determined to mobilise the Union for the sake of its survival, Neuhold says:
“It was, of course, a very provocative opening because the European project was conceived as a peace union, so she’s putting this paradox front and centre for us to think about. What does Europe stand for, and do we actually see Europe as a ‘fighting power’? Indeed, since the European Community was created, we’ve seen it as a peace project. But as the world has become less peaceful all around us, in all the different domains, I think what she’s also alluding to is that there are rifts and shifts in areas where we didn’t expect or didn’t see them before: society is very much divided, we are coming out of crisis, so there are all these tectonic shifts apart from war. She says that we have to fight for our values, for what we stand for, and in order to do that we need unity.”
According to Neuhold, the European Commission president is looking for allies both inside and outside Europe:
“She’s appealing to unity within the EU itself but also beyond the European Union, because she’s also looking towards making the European family larger. What she’s trying to do is address rifts but position the European Union as an actor that has to be united in order to confront this. She’s purposely, I think, not addressing too much the possible rifts and shifts inside the European Union. She’s really departing from the assumption that there is unity; without this unity we are not going to make it.”
The question is, repeating von der Leyen’s own words: does a united Europe have the stomach to fight? Neuhold argues it’s also about whether Europe has a big enough wallet:
“The proposed drone alliance with Ukraine, AI gigafactories, affordable cars initiative, Choose Europe package, and other proposals such as the European Affordable Housing Plan – this is a very costly program overall. You have to make political choices, and in this speech they were not made, yet. It put forward an entire package of where we have to go, but this costs money. So where will you actually get the money? Von der Leyen is not sitting on a heap of gold coins; she really needs the member states to finance and implement it. The political aspirations are very high and comprehensive, but it’s also about how we will implement all this and when, because timing is important. We can’t do everything at the same time; we have to prioritise. And who will pay for this very costly menu?”
“Von der Leyen is not sitting on a heap of gold coins; she really needs the member states to finance and implement it.”
While her speech was received with both applause and angry shouts in the European Parliament, von der Leyen is determined to show that the Commission will do what it takes, even if not all member states are eager to back her up:
“She’s saying that we, the European Commission, will do things by ourselves. If you, member states, won’t do it, we will do whatever we can, and I will do whatever I can. She’s basically putting herself very much at the centre of this fight. She’s alluding to the fact that if others don’t have the stomach to fight, I will take the lead, I’ll fight for it every day, and you better come along. It’s common knowledge that the Commission is the motor of integration, but if you have the motor of integration without the motor being integrated into the car, the car cannot drive. The member states have to fuel the car, they have to drive it. That’s the worrisome notion here: some member states like what’s coming out of the motor, i.e. the funding, but they are not committed when it comes to the roadmap the Commission sketches. And the Commission sketches more and more Europe, more integration, more unity.”
Yet, despite calls for unity, von der Leyen proposed that the EU move from unanimity to qualified majority on foreign policy, which would leave countries like Hungary and Slovenia without veto power. Neuhold believes this is more than a threat to countries that tend to enjoy the economic benefits of EU membership but are not always willing to play by its rules:
“Von der Leyen is in a strong position. She’s the Commission president for the second time, she’s standing on a rather solid democratic footing. She’s also calling for the right of initiative for the European Parliament and qualified majority in defence. Those are big shifts, and these shifts cannot normally go without Treaty change. Then again, it opens a whole can of worms: how can we do this, because member states have to agree to it. I think she’s really going for a self-fulfilling prophecy: we need this; without this we will not be able to move forward. She’s also calling out member states without naming them. By saying ‘rule of law is paramount, without this, no funding,’ she’s being very clear.”
Some lawmakers from her own party have publicly complained about the content of the speech, but that doesn’t mean von der Leyen lacks the political weight to make it happen:
“She does things her own way; she doesn’t always look at whether she has everyone behind her. What she’s trying to do is be a kind of trailblazer: I go ahead with this and let’s see who follows. That is also a very critical tactic because of all the different majorities and stages of decision-making. It is also a form of putting forward very bold claims and then seeing what actually survives. We now also have to make sure these decisions are, democratically speaking, on solid ground. Von der Leyen is not a novice to this Brussels game, so another Commission president couldn’t have put forward these bold claims.”
“Von der Leyen is not a novice to this Brussels game, so another Commission president couldn’t have put forward these bold claims.”
However, aiming high is not enough. Implementation is key, Neuhold says:
“It’s a very comprehensive speech, but it sometimes reads like a wishlist. This was a broad political statement that will have to be broken down into the nitty-gritty of EU decision-making. Some of it will have to be broken into proposals that will have to be implemented by member states and negotiated with the European Parliament. It will also have to be worked out in the Commission itself how to give all of this shape. There are so many political unknowns in the fine-tuning of these proposals. Some of these things are in very early stages. She’s also making a lot of bold statements that many people will be happy with, like the housing initiatives, but it’s really about the financing and political will to implement them later on.”
Apart from addressing her allies and opponents within the EU, von der Leyen was also sending a message to world leaders, Neuhold concludes:
“She’s trying to position Europe very strongly. The speech has different purposes – strengthening the alliance with the European Parliament, putting the European Commission forward as the political leader, but also positioning Europe in the geopolitical sphere, trying to act like there is unity within Europe in order to tell the US, China, Russia: this is where we stand, and make them listen. The speech positions Europe as a unitary actor in this world where there is no unity. She’s creating this picture of European unity for world leaders, which is a new dynamic.”
Christine Neuhold is full Professor of EU Democratic Governance. She is Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Maastricht University.
