Absent such a development, EU energy security policy will be left in the current half-way state of monitoring supply coupled with various voluntary forms of co-operation, but falling short of binding and coherent measures on purchasing, stockpiling, and external engagement
#EU #energy
Addressing supply issues in a more structural way requires, as a necessary (though by no means sufficient) condition Member States agreeing that what we are seeing now is a permanent shift towards a new geopolitical era marked by repeated cycles of supply constraints and higher price volatility.
While the asymmetry is hardwired into the system and will not go away (absent fundamental treaty change), what could change is the sourcing of energy. But apart from the usual reluctance of Member States to delegate competences here to the EU level, some might still hope the crisis will go away.
The system is asymmetric since a lot of remedies (e.g. social compensation for high energy costs) and instruments (money) fall into national competences, while infrastructure decisions at EU level are highly constrained by a relative lack of funds.
What we are seeing in EU energy and energy security policy right now is a classic governance problem (Who does what and how) in an asymmetric system with mixed competences (EU/national).
The IMF is clear: increased defence coordination in the EU leads to higher economic growth and lower debt (blue line) compared to going-it-alone scenarios - provided Member States work together on procurement to achieve economies of scale, and buy European instead of importing all equipment.
“Global role of the Euro”: Today 14:30 CEST @europarl.europa.eu Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs hearing with @shahinvallee.bsky.social @tl-beck.bsky.social Marie-Sophie Lappe.
Details and EGOV background: www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/e...
Quite the chart.
Projection of US debt relative to GDP, by the US Government Accountability Office (assuming unchanged policies ofc)
www.gao.gov/products/gao...
Great to be at this year’s #ecbwatchers conference, and thanks to host Volker Wieland to mention EGOV studies for @europarl.europa.eu in the opening address.
All EGOV studies are on LinkedIN and the website of the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON).
I see a lot of descriptions here of the present situation as a potential “American Suez”.
The current situation may well turn out to be a watershed. But while Suez marked the passing of the baton from one hegemon to another, the systemic level remained stable - which looks increasingly unlikely.
Link to Versailles Declaration: www.consilium.europa.eu/media/54773/...
A Tale of Two Cities: Compare yesterday’s #EUCO conclusions to the March 2022 Versailles Declaration.
While both emphasise renewables and grids, the latter also included a call to reduce energy demand. This then translated into the REPowerEU plan with its energy efficiency measures.
In God we trust, everyone else pays cash? The EGOV team looked into who actually owns US debt and what this means.
Spoiler: it ain’t that simple: www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etud...
I find it very telling this #EUCO European Council was/is first hailed as a summit on competitiveness, then geopolitics, and now energy.
In reality all three form a triangle, and unless agreement is found adressing all three issues, the EU won’t be getting out of the corner it is in.
The European Parliament’s ECON committee endorses the nomination of Boris Vujčić as @ecb.europa.eu Vice-President with 38 votes in favour, 4 against, 7 abstentions. Consultation procedure, next: plenary. #ECB
Now 09:30-11:30 CET: @ecb.europa.eu President Lagarde in @europarl.europa.eu Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON). Livestream: multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/webstream...
Yes could be, data is notoriously fuzzy. But it’s an indication that we are very far away from a seamlessly integrated labour market…
Sobering statistics on labour mobility in the single market, at least from the perspective of matching skills with labour market needs: less than a third of moves to other EU countries are motivated by employment considerations, compared to family reasons with 45%.
Also noteworthy that the Commission Note to the Eurogroup takes up the case of transforming the ESM into a European Monetary Fund pooling EU-level debt issuance, an initiative which came to a halt years ago.
Frank admission by #Eurogroup President Pierrakakis that the international role of the Euro will not be strengthened automatically simply because the US is set on destroying the global political order, but that Europe will need to do its homework esp Re CMU/SIU (quote below frm his official remarks)
5- Credibility. The success of any narrative on the future rests not only on its superficial appeal but also the credibility of actors to get there. Europe’s narrative on huddling together to jointly face an uncertain future only works if real steps are taken - in defence, single market etc.
4- Clarity. At the end of the day no matter how much gloss you put on it in the form of an imagined (and ahistoric) ethno-Christian transatlantic “community”, America First means Europeans Second. Call a spade a spade.
3- Specific. Values such as rule of law, democracy etc are abstract. Shifting the discourse to specific examples of what this means transforms them into sth more tangible. But this also means speaking up, and saying the quiet part loud, in where we differ from this US administration.
2- Communication. Discussing European identity and goals is more cumbersome for the EU given it is not a homogenous entity. But even small steps would help: why not invite more voices from other European countries on national media, to give diversity a face and turn it into a strength?
1- Power. in the age of geopolitics, narratives are a weapon. If Europe does not occupy the narrative space, others will. At home and abroad.
I understand everyone who wants to move on from Rubio’s #MSC2026 speech given that it was an attempt to split Europe in a nicer-than-Vance superficial way.
A few things are worth keeping in mind though:
Still wondering how to best call Rubio’s speech: an exercise in sketching out a (historically selective, to put it mildly) ethno-Christian transatlanticism translating into a neo-seigneurialism for “partners” who align behind the Trump administration policy agenda?
… or embark on the long and winding road of gradually finding painful compromises on where to reduce other expenditure. But if you stumble across the magic money tree first give us a shout across the Channel!
