Benoît Willemaers, Belgian Jesuit and Secretary for European Affairs at the Jesuit European Social Center, wrote recently an article about Ursula Von Der Leyen's "Estate of the Union speech".

On Wednesday, 10th September, Ursula von der Leyen delivered her annual State of the Union speech, the first of her second term as President of the European Commission. She styled it as a call to unity for a Union embattled, fighting for an independent place in a hostile world. If her previous exercise, in September 2023, appeared to us a bit too self-congratulatory and falling short of taking Europeans’ worries seriously, this speech was definitely an attempt to address head-on the challenges facing Europe: geopolitical, social, and ecological.

Her opening on continued support for Ukraine was not unexpected. While forceful, it was also fairly consensual thinking, stressing the need for more sanctions as well as more European help for Ukraine’s institutions and defense industry. Her obvious frustration with European divisions on Gaza was perhaps less expected, announcing reduced cooperation with Israel where the Commission has the authority to do so, along with propositions to the Council to suspend part of the Association Agreement or to sanction violent settlers and nationalist ministers. Finally, confronted with a shifting world order, courtesy of Trump, Putin, and Xi, von der Leyen defended her policy of pushing for more trade alliances (Mercosur), all while minimizing the impact of US vagaries and attempting to make the EU less reliant on China. 

In the line of listening more to citizens, social concerns took a front seat. Actions on a quality jobs act, on a strategy against poverty or on various living costs aspects (energy, housing, food, cars) were announced. In a broader societal context, her intervention also focused on the traditional press and social media, defending the role of the former as democracy’s backbone and promising to protect children from the dangers of the latter. 

Ecological concerns also popped up here and there in the speech. A mention of farmers as “custodians of our lands and oceans, our biodiversity.” A development on the circular economy. A defense of electric cars. A recognition of the impact of climate change on forest fires. A reminder of the goals on emission reduction, those already agreed for 2050 as well as those proposed by the Commission for 2040.

This said, while there is much we can agree with, we must point out underlying concerns on how these various challenges are tackled and what is missing in the speech. 

It is obvious when it comes to ecology: policies apparently must be sold for their tangible economic (opening new markets) or geopolitical (independence) benefits they bring. They also favor, as often, a very technological approach, with a focus on “green” energy. If a circular economy is mentioned, it is in a narrow perspective of having the materials to produce ever more. If that is what it takes to save elements of the Green Deal (thankfully mentioned), so be it. But one cannot help but wonder if this technological mindset is at the level of cultural change required to confront the roots of the ecological crisis.

On social aspects, the main worry is evidently the lack of strong competences of the EU, which could lead to disappointing results. Time will tell. Von der Leyen also calls for “all of society, all lawmakers and all stakeholders to come together” in tackling the housing problem. This presupposes a healthy society, in which civil society is vibrant and local initiatives are supported. The approach of the Commission with civil society will be under test in the coming months and years. Funding for civil society initiatives will probably be reduced under the upcoming financial framework. Even more fundamentally, a delicate balance will have to be found by the soon-to-come Democracy Shield aiming to fight disinformation without smothering free speech and association.

On geopolitics and trade, the silent part is what constitutes just trade. As for now, it is mostly considered through the lens of Europe’s interests and competitiveness. How political, social, and environmental concerns will survive this focus is anyone’s guess. The recent undermining of the due diligence directive is not inspiring a lot of confidence. Neither is the treatment of the migration question. Considered only under the perspectives of increasing returns of denied asylum seekers and of the fight against human trafficking, the approach is purely defensive, with little thought given to the root causes of migration. Sadly, nothing new here in the last two years.

But all this might be missing the point. Von der Leyen evidently attempted to offer bridges to the various partners of her coalition in the Parliament: keeping competitiveness at the front while defending some social and climate goals, defending her deal with Trump while playing up her red lines on digital regulations, pushing for a rearmament of Europe while saving humanitarian principles for Gaza, … If indeed the goal was to find unity, this was in vain and the debate that followed was a sad demonstration of it. 

If automatic criticism from the extremes in the assembly was to be expected, the desire to find a new common ground was mostly absent. The leader of the EPP used the moment to taunt the other centrist parties under the tune of “we won the elections, now apply our program.” The answer of the S&D was a strong denunciation of von der Leyen’s agreement with Trump. Only Renew seized on von der Leyen’s speech, running with her calls for institutional changes (right of initiative for the Parliament, generalization of qualified majority voting) and pushing it further. But while there might be merit in the idea that part of the paralysis of the EU is due to its functioning, it is only a small part. The reality is that divisions run deep among countries and political families. Those divisions were sadly on show yesterday.

Benoit Willemaers SJ
JESC Secretary for European Affairs