_Viewed 89 times | words: 2458
Published on 2024-09-07 14:15:00 | words: 2458
Rationale
The title of this article says it all: it was originally planned according to the original schedule for the selection of the President of the European Commission, following the European Parliament elections.
Anyway, we had a couple of "democratic deficit glitches"- the incumbent basically positioning as the candidate for a confirmation, potential candidates (e.g. the Italian former Presidents of the Council Ministers Letta and Draghi) assigned to "white paper errands" that were not to make friends, and, of course, the elections results themselves.
There wasn't the paradigm shift that many expected: the right formerly quite appropriately described as "between Eurosceptic and Euroleave" increased its consensus, but not enough to become a "us or else nothing".
As the FAZ reported today, between an article praising the newly appointed Prime Minister of France and another one discussing a potential role as vice-president of the European Commission for the Italian Minister Fitto, in the end we will have the typical curious mix: a President of the Commission that de facto reconfirmed herself, with vice Presidents probably a.k.a. Spitzenkandidaten for the European political families that did not lead at the polls, but were anyway pivotal in reconfirming the existing President of the European Commission.
Imagine in any European Member State an executive branch composed by both winners and losers of the elections, and you would start wondering why voting at all.
Incidentally: it is an Italian approach quite frequent since the 1990s, whenever we are in a corner, to escape from it by creating that mythical son-of-Hobbes-Leviathan that we call "governo tecnico": everybody in, led by a non-politician (usually, in Italy, often this means a university professor or, more common, somebody from the Bank of Italy).
When it was time to release the previous article on 2024-08-25, I prepared an article, but in the end saw that was too focused on few subjects, due to the lack of political transparency on the ongoing bartering.
So, decided that for the article EP2024_011: Settling, the best choice would be to leave it empty: neither a rationale nor a commentary.
Fascinating how, despite being clearly labelled as having a mere 24 words, anyway 25 people read it.
Well, will add few more words to point to this rationale section.
Usually the rational section is focused on something that could be considered and applied also in other contexts, and indirectly will do so in this article.
If you follow my stream on Facebook (I post 99.9999% with "public" as audience, so you do not need to contect), you probably saw that recently shared a post containing an AI-generated short story about a potential future of Turin.
Today a connection released on Linkedin a link to an adv for Adidas fully generated by AI.
As in the case of that post about the future of Turin, it is not the tool (in my case, GPT4All with the Mistral model), or even just the "augmented domain knowledge" (technically called "local documents") that I provided, but the design of the prompt and additional contextual information provided, that produced that result- including the selection and order of the words, plus other parameters (what is called "prompt engineering"- yes, beside AI product and project management courses, followed also courses and workshops in prompt engineering, useful to generate both text and multimedia).
In this case, one of the "white papers errands" was the one assigned to Mario Draghi (formerly at the ECB, formerly Italian President of the Council of Minister, formerly at the Bank of Italy) on... industrial policy.
Already the President of the European Commission said that she was going to include in her proposal roadmap for the forthcoming mandate part of that report, but the official presentation of the report will be the next week.
While the "commentary" section of this article references current affairs and potential issues that could affect any further initiative to promote change, as a closing section of this "rationale" would like to share the results of a bit of my previous EP2024 articles, some "signposts" about potential future scenarios, some further "prompt engineering" and additional material... as generated again as a short history.
?Title: The United States of Europe - A Journey to 2050
In the year 2050, the world had undergone significant changes. The European Union (EU) had evolved into a united federation known as the "United States of Europe" (USE). This transformation was fueled by the completion of the NextGenerationEU and RePowerEU programs in response to global crises, the emergence of the African Union, and the merger between Russia and China. Additionally, the United States had undergone its own changes with the absorption of Canada and Mexico.
The USE was a thriving economic powerhouse, boasting advanced technology and sustainable energy sources. The RePowerEU program had successfully transitioned Europe to renewable energy, making it a global leader in green technologies. This shift not only reduced carbon emissions but also created new industries and jobs within the region.
To accommodate this growth, the USE had invested heavily in education and research, fostering innovation and collaboration between its member states. The European Space Agency (ESA) had become a pioneer in space exploration, working closely with international partners to advance human knowledge of the universe.
The NextGenerationEU program had addressed the socio-economic imbalances within the EU by implementing nationwide infrastructure projects and social welfare programs. These initiatives focused on reducing poverty, improving healthcare, and investing in education for all citizens. The European Central Bank (ECB) had also played a crucial role in stabilizing economies across the region through monetary policy and fiscal coordination.
The United States of Europe had established itself as a global leader in human rights and social justice. It had taken an active role in promoting democracy, combating climate change, and addressing global health crises such as pandemics. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) had become the highest court within the USE, ensuring that all member states adhered to the same legal framework and human rights standards.
The African Union, now a strong regional bloc, had formed strategic partnerships with the USE in areas such as trade, technology transfer, and climate change mitigation. These collaborations had led to increased investment in Africa's infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems, fostering economic growth and social development across the continent.
The merger between Russia and China had created a new global power known as the "Eurasian Federation." While initially seen as a threat by some USE member states, this superpower eventually became an important partner in addressing global challenges such as climate change, nuclear disarmament, and space exploration. The USE-Eurasian Federation relationship was built on mutual respect and cooperation, with both entities recognizing the importance of working together for the greater good of humanity.
In 2050, the United States of Europe had become a beacon of hope and progress in an ever-changing world. Its evolution from the European Union to the USE demonstrated that through unity, collaboration, and commitment to shared values, even the most complex challenges could be overcome. The journey to this future was not without its trials and tribulations, but it ultimately led to a more prosperous, sustainable, and equitable society for all citizens of Europe and beyond.
And now, the commentary about current and forthcoming affairs.
Commentary
This article was about getting ready for the next step, after definition of the Members of the European Commission suggested / appointed by Member States.
And, of course, the portfolio assigned to each one of them.
In reality, some Member States (including Italy and Belgium) waited until the last minute to firmly nominate their own proposed Member of the Commission.
Main reason? Bartering for portfolios.
Therefore, this article will have a different structure from previous ones in this series, and focus just on the European Union side.
I will skip my commentary on the recent (2024-08-22) statement reported by Euronews by Borrell, except by sharing what I shared online: Guns of August is worth re-reading now.
Just a day before that statement above, I received on my Linkedin stream an announce that the strategic reserve of gas is at 90% capacity.
Or Commissioner Gentiloni stating that Minister Giorgetti of the Italian Government was probably joking when comparing all the frenzy about multi-year planning at the EU level to Soviet Union.
Frankly, I too shared in the past how a bit of Gosplan-esque attitude is gradually evolving, in the style of "we know better".
Anyway, I will stay positive and ignore the "sabre-rattling" on both sides.
As I shared on Facebook earlier this week, it seems the right time to re-read "The Guns of August".
Meanwhile: whatever the reason, the side-effect of the series of crises since 2020 is that somehow within the European Union we expanded a level of conscience on shared resources.
Pity that the communication from the European Commission that I see on Linkedin reduces all that to a kind of Wunderkammer of minutiae, focused mainly on the regulatory side of achievements: from the USB-C standardization, to the new AI regulation.
it is the usual case of cognitive dissonance: presenting as successes what is a projection of the concept of "success" for a bureacracy (paperwork), instead of the overall impact that would be more meaningful to the intended audience after the implementation.
Following this trend, I look forward to more KPIs published that relate to productivity instead of implementation and "benefits realization".
Considering the challenges and the significant reforms that will be needed, including moving forward with the next phase of the NextGenerationEU and other initiatives funded with shared resources, the usual "we know better what is good for you" attitude is at best short-sighted.
Also without the "sabre-rattling", consensus-building is becoming more critical than overwork what a Polish in Brussels over a dozen years ago called "the paper mill"- which was the nickname of the Parliament pre-Lisbon Treaty, but increasingly is becoming eerily familiar with the European Commission.
If you keep selling as successes paper edicts that have to be implemented by others, without considering the implementation impacts and feasibility with existing resources at the point of implemenation, you are indeed getting into a Gosplan-mindset, and turning an executive power into a "paper tiger" (and I would suggest watching that 1975 movie with LINK https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073511/ Paper Tiger, with David Niven) that constantly tries to redeem itself with instantaneous peaks of decision-taking, followed by a continuous stream of bureaucratic paper mill.
It requires a more systemic approach.
A Japanese classmate in Summer 1994 at LSE told me that the Japanese "ringisho" approach to decision-making (look online) is slow, as requires buy-in by all the structure, so that when the decision is taken it is potentially immediately applicable.
True- but on some specific issues, where structural (i.e. organic, i.e. sustainable) consensus is needed, would be better than the recent routine of occasional bold announces followed by months of back-and-forth, before anything is implemented at all.
On more contingent choices, the usual prior delegation of authority from Member States should be enough- if it is not distorted into a series of "Monnet Moments" that push decision after decision through with just ex-post consensus.
Anyway, since 2020 the latter seems to be a quite common approach in Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals and the Black Sea.
Beside my initial political activities first on European integration (in Italy and abroad), and then for national elections in the early 1980s, I was lucky enough to start my official business activities with two projects of a systemic perspective.
First in 1986 in automotive procurement for a recommendation system to score suppliers for automated payment, then in 1987 in banking general ledger to release a new system for a major Italian bank, had chances to see first hand a continuation of what I had seen in the Army in 1985-1986 as part of my various roles: the importance of capacity planning and logistics in any decision-making.
Like it or not, we live in a complex society, and this implies that there are countless details that have to work either through precise synchronization, or "buffering" to give some slack.
It will be interested to see how the current Gosplan inclination increasingly shown under the previous mandate of the European Commission will blend with Mario Draghi's proposals: you cannot dictate from above sustainable development, you need to create an environment that opens up opportunities while avoiding the creation of a "the winner takes it all" that would stifle any further innovation.
Because the "low hanging fruits" or "quick wins" mindset that expanded in Europe over the last few decades could be detrimental to anything that is not true and tried.
So, beside the above mentioned "Guns of August", another book worth re-reading (and doing it now) is "The Utopia of Rules".
My penchant for political science implies that my libraries contains a long list of books about "what ifs", "utopias", etc (and also movies: from Charlie Chaplin, of course, to Laurel&Hardy "Utopia", to many more recent ones).
Is the European Union at a pivotal time? Yes.
Is its leadership ready to understand that is not anymore enough to do what its own internal bureaucratic, conservative instincts suggest? Doubtful.
So, I will do a further change in this series- and publish this article today, while deciding, after reading the Draghi report and first reactions, it if worth waiting the routine two weeks, of interesting to share some "first impressions".
For now, have a nice week-end, and stay tuned!