On attending The Future of Europe Conference @ Bocconi (Part I)

​On March 10, Bocconi University in partnership with the BLEST Lab and the Institute for European PolicyMaking hosted The Future of Europe Conference. This very special event brought together high-level representatives of European institutions, member states, and think tanks for a discussion of what Europe’s governance, macroeconomic, and sustainable future looked like. As a student of European politics and institutions, and an American, I wanted to reflect on some of the biggest takeaways and areas of agreement (which were fewer in number than the disagreements :) ) from the panels. Since each of the panels involved lengthy speeches, debates, and (at times) combative Q&A’s with the audience, I have decided to devote separate blog posts to the Governance and Macroeconomics panels. This one focuses on the outcomes from the Governance panel, which was presented by Jean Pierre Vidal (Chief Economic Advisor to European Council Pres. Michel), Brigid Laffan (Emeritus Professor of the European University Institute in Florence), and Sylvie Goulard (Member of France’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and moderated by Prof. Catherine DeVries of Bocconi. These reflections do not represent my own opinions, but those of the speakers and panelists I quote, and is an effort to share and communicate the current mood and thinking of expert Europeans in the present moment.
 
Reflection #1: Treaty reforms inspired the most enthusiasm, and the biggest ideas.
In many ways, the EU’s collective response to Brexit and to the Covid-19 pandemic was seen by the panel as paving the way for serious discussions about treaty reforms to the EU’s institutions. Central to this discussion was how and whether treaty reforms would secure popular support across the EU, how the EU could be made more accountable to European citizens, and the usual ‘unanimity’ versus ‘intergovernmentalism’ debate about EU decision-making. Goulard felt very strongly that the EU would need to end decision-making by unanimity if the EU were to take the hard decisions necessary to avert the climate crisis and stand up to dangerous external threats. She used examples like the hamstringing of the UN Security Council by unanimity rules, and the fact that even university boards are not run by unanimity. Vidal was much more diplomatic, defending how unanimity allows for a representation of all member state interests and states are unlikely to give up their veto power. But questions about how treaty reforms could improve EU accountability were at the heart of these talks.
 
Laffan also turned this topic on its head in some ways, as she brought up how member state governments need to take responsibility for “bringing Europe home” to their citizens and explaining the necessity for reforms to them. As someone experienced in consulting on campaigns for passing EU treaties (in Ireland), she stressed that it becomes the role of national MPs to explain to their constituents what the changes to Europe will offer them. The biggest obstacle, in her view, to MPs' ability to do this was that they often do not understand themselves what the treaties are or mean. These national-level actors therefore need to be trained in the treaties and reforms so that they can “sell” it in their respective member states and communities.
 
Mario Monti, Italy’s Prime Minister (Pres. of the Chamber of Deputies) from 2011-2013, attended the event as a former head of government and former President of Bocconi, and threw in his own ideas for reform of the European Council. PM Monti suggested the European Council adopt a code of conduct to combat the “reprehensive” behavior the member state leaders have towards each other at the table, and even worse behavior in their national press conferences. Interestingly, he also suggested the European Council is the EU institution in most need of urgent reforms. Prof. Laffan suggested in her reply that this might be a good idea. She reasoned that, as a soft instrument, a code of conduct would be a small change that could maybe be snuck in without an outcry from many members of the European Council, but it “becomes a benchmark to at least call out bad behavior.” Monti and Laffan both stressed that the Council should not be “beyond accountability,” and that the appointment of a permanent president has been a good thing for the institution. Vidal thanked both Goulard and Laffan for answering Monti’s suggestion at length so that he could dodge it as current advisor to Pres. Michel!
 
On the topic of EU budgets, strategic action was front-and-center, but not some of the more extreme reforms like the full creation of a federal EU budget. Prof. Laffan thought a larger EU budget will be required to address present risks to the single market. But again, this conversation was quickly brought back to how to make a “European Union of citizens” who must feel fully represented in the decision-making of EU bodies, particularly if they are to take on more power and responsibility, potentially through treaty reforms.
 
Reflection #2: More Europe, but also smarter/“strategic” Europe.
This idea of “more Europe,” or even more investments of power and resources in EU institutions, is a serious policy idea, but one that is often discussed with a bit of humor these days because of how often it is brought up. While I would assume all the panelists favor “more Europe,” what was interesting was how there was an even greater focus and commonality in their responses that suggested Europe should hone in on smart and strategic decisions. Prof. Laffan decried how the word “strategic” is increasingly being used in tandem with “Europe,” but without clarity about what exactly this means in mind. In her view, strategic means having EU policy that works, has the capacity to respond to challenges, and some agility since governments are operating in a time of high risk and complexity.  
 
From Goulard’s perspective, a smart Europe would have to address the climate change and biodiversity crises first and foremost, as these are the most pressing issues. And while there are serious clashes of preferences between the member states over energy policy and the way forward in the green transition, Goulard emphasized that the EU should not become complacent on national interests.
 
Reflection #3: America was front and center, in good and bad ways.
Since geopolitical and security threats were front and center in many of this panel’s talking points, I was surprised that the US was brought up more than Russia or China (although of course both were talked about at length, and the US was framed as a perplexing ally while China and Russia were framed as rising or imminent threats). The chief negative complaint from this panel and the others about the US involved Pres. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) which, in heavily subsidizing green investments in the US, has weakened Europe’s competitive position in the green transition. The IRA was described by Prof. Laffan as a policy “lobbed onto the European table” and risks subsidy competition between the US and EU, which she warned against. In a good way for the EU (but not as great for the US), Vidal also reminded attendees that prices are lower in the EU than the US because of the European single market and competition policy.
         On the technology side, the US came out as a “winner” from the panel’s discussion. Goulard emphasized how twenty years ago, Europe was ahead of the US on technology, but since then the US made much more investments in tech, and now the EU lags behind the US in technology competition. Vidal went further than Goulard, stating that the EU needed to invest in tech as much as the US and China to remain competitive and maintain innovation. However, this panel happened before the SVB collapse, and I wonder if some of these positions would be more nuanced and also focus on prudential policy health if the discussions were instead held today. In any case, Prof. Laffan felt the EU-US Trade and Technology Council is a dynamic entity that allows for dialogue on technology and other investment decisions and disputes between the two unions, which is important while the European Council tries to address the future of technology in the EU.
 
These are just some of the many highlights of the masterful panel that was chaired by Prof. DeVries. Other topics included the COVID-19 response and health policy, defense policy, “strategic autonomy”, and NATO; and the energy transition, to name a few.
 
Acknowledgements
Thanks Bocconi and BLEST for hosting events like this and allowing students of all backgrounds to attend!