_Viewed 67 times | words: 2983
Published on 2025-01-04 23:20:00 | words: 2983
Yes, the title of this episode refers to "Halloween"- when I was supposed to publish it.
Anyway, as you probably know, across the previous 15+1 episodes, I kept modifying the initial schedule that I had set following the "standard" elections and post-elections schedule.
Ubi maior, minor cessat: therefore, as things did evolve in Brussels both before and after the elections, simply rescheduled.
Nonetheless, decided to keep the title "Halloween"- as it is quite representative of the current situation, as will discuss later in this article.
I wrote within the "preamble" of this series: "Except this article, I plan to keep each one of the following one at around 2,000 words: as it will be one every two weeks, any additional material on context, society, business, technology will be shuttled there.".
In reality, this is the tally so far:
_ ep2024_00: 4417
_ ep2024_01: 2117
_ ep2024_02: 2221
_ ep2024_03: 3233
_ ep2024_04: 2008
_ ep2024_05: 1904
_ ep2024_06: 2560
_ ep2024_07: 1913
_ ep2024_08: 1813
_ ep2024_09: 1510
_ ep2024_10: 2606
_ ep2024_11: 24
_ ep2024_12: 2459
_ ep2024_13: 2592
_ ep2024_14: 1444
_ ep2024_15: 2367
Over 35,000 words- plus whatever will be in this article and the "grand finale" of the next article (that will publish later this year).
So, willing or not, eventually it became another book such as the "guide" about Berlin that composed during my visit there in Nomember 2012, and then released as a book (that you can read for free online).
As I wrote in the preamble, it is not the first time that write online about an election.
Actually, while in Brussels even set up a website, called back then "dirittodivoto.com".
It all started as Italian resident in Brussels when we received the right to vote by mail for a specially selected number of Member of the Italian Parliament.
Reason: lack of information and transparency for voters- as apparently those elected remembered about us only right before elections, as otherwise they liked more to settle in Rome.
I completed the "preamble" on March 17th, the anniversary of the unification of Italy- and also the Constitution, flag, and anthem.
At the same time, as an experiment, completed also the "preamble" section of a number of articles, while added the "commentary"
We Italians love "temporary" settlements that then keep extended, and become permanent.
Trouble is: those "temporary" settlements are often not created with a long-term perspective, a strategy, but as a "tinkering" measure following the path of least resistance, short-term measures done with a short-term perspective.
Akin to the "temporary" tax set up in Germany decades ago for the unification of Germany (at the time was engaged in Germany, and I remember my girlfriend telling me about it (it was "temporarily" set in 1991, the "Solidarity Surcharge (Solidaritätszuschlag)").
When you design something on the spur of the moment, you do not necessarily have the time and resources to evaluate potential impacts and even its organizational sustainability (see here).
What I called within the preamble to this series the "tumbleweed of EU decision-making" (too many and too overlapping) just even more entangled since the confirmation of the new European Commission and the continued advise from Ukraine about what the European Union should and should not do.
It was just an extension of the Monnet approach: whenever there is a crisis, jump forward, and nobody will dare standout for being against- this way, step by step, we ended up as the boiled frog.
We committed so many resources without any say on the strategy of their allocation, that now, even if President Trump were really to carry out a phase-out and stabilization, it will take a while to sort it out, provision for it, and, probably, find a backpedaling rationale from the piling up of promises and commitments.
While, at the same time, rebuilding (or renovating) our stocks, as European Union Member States (as well as the USA and UK) actually transferred assets and materiel to Ukraine.
I still consider that Russia invaded Ukraine: that Crimea was "bestowed" long ago but did not belong is not a reason to take it back- on that rationale, most of Europe will see (as we did for centuries) continuous conflicts to fix this or that.
Go back long enough, and you will find a reason to alter borders.
Go back long enough, and you will find a treaty or an agreement to pay something to somebody- just look at the mess made at Versailles (in 1919, or also the 1814 Treaty of Paris, but even all the treaties resulting from Napoleonic wars- 46 different articles on Wikipedia).
Yes, we Europeans are fond of our treaties and breaking them- or work around them.
I shared in the past that my UK colleagues former military reminded me that Italy since the unification did not end a war on the same side that it started.
True, but we were not the only ones to have across time fluid relationships with our neighbors.
Also if we Italians, used since the fall of the Western Roman Empire to be a transit territory for imperial and royal hopefuls all around Europe, got used to adapt faster than most, and therefore also faster in "switching context".
In Italian a saying from history is "con la Francia o con la Spagna purché se magna" (Does not matter if our allegiance is with France or Spain, what matters is that we fill our belly).
Frankly, you can re-read all the previous articles in this series, but already the March 2024 preamble had enough "signs" that were just subject to one or more "encore" later on.
My perception of this second mandate of the European Commission is that, while should be busy reforming the European Union, will instead be focused on fixing the almost impromptu choices made during the first.
Yes, there were crises- multiple ones.
Anyway, it is just differentiating between "fixing" and "tinkering" that qualifies converting a crisis into an opportunity.
Our irrelevance, as Europeans, in both settling the crisis in Ukraine and the one in Gaza plus Israel, and the potential side-effects of the change in Syria, is a confirmation of the past.
A past where routinely in Palestine we paid for rebuilding, and then our American allies provided the weaponry to level to the ground.
Incidentally: as I shared in the past multiple times, personally I am for a two-states solution, as it has been long lost the window to have a single country.
At the same time, whatever the way Israel was set up, anyway as any other state has a right to exist.
Which implies also that should follow the same approach to war that most other states agreed to follow.
Albeit, admittedly, almost none in the XX century actually followed 100% of the time: from using chemical weapons on civilians, to dropping incendiary bombs on civilians, to the two nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to destroying civilian infrastructure and removing means of subsistence, there are really few "civilized" countries that were not neutral who can claim a XX century "clean bill of health": most European Union Member States included.
We pretend to follow rules that go back to choreographic battles where civilians almost went on a picnic to watch the armies fight each other, to total war where anything goes... provided that you do not lose the war.
As for Syria, I am between those skeptical about the "moderation" of the new regime.
Frankly, the way that diplomatic niceties were set aside while greeting the German foreign minister is not a good sign, and a sign to the population in Syria that things will do change.
I think that we European should still wait a bit before declaring that now the Syrian civil war is ended, and start repatriating refugee from Syria.
In our current situation, we Europeans would need more than piling up tinkering.
We would need EU-wide orchestration of the countless initiatives and streams.
Something that probably can take some time, before it is a standard, and not on a case-by-case.
It takes synchronized swimming- which I can visualize with a small "cameo" from my past.
When I was in the Army at the training centre, in May 1985, we were told that there was going to be a march for the final ceremony.
So, I said to my parents that I would probably not be there, as would have tried to get on duty- did twice the kitchen tour in two rows in a row, as the first day, after most went away using smoking as an excuse, I convinced the few remaining ones to stay, and organized processes: cleaning dishes for hundreds of people is no small joke.
Anyway, after the first tests marching, we were to get through the canteen and do a choreography as the one at the end of "The Emperor of Paris" movie (the return of Vidoq, with Vincent Cassel in the lead role).
Albeit our pivot was not at the top of the first line, it was at the middle of the first line, and all on the side and behind had to keep the distance and move according to the movement of the pivot.
And instead of hiding between piles of dishes... I was selected to be that pivot.
Even funnier, if you consider that I was the only one with an out-of-regulation long beard (I wrote in the past why- say got a doctors' authorization).
Was funny to be at the centre of the first line acting as a pivot for few dozen young men with guns and marching in a roundabout fashion to get in front of the podium, without making a mess.
It made me appreciate how something apparently as simple as keeping the distance, turning left and right, moving forward, becomes so complex when dozens of components are there and you have to keep moving, recovering and mishandling without stopping.
It went relatively well, and my family was happy because then I could go out.
Whenever, years later, in business I was called to help recover or (re)organize an activity, I remembered those few days turning a mob clashing into each other into a kind of organized group, starting first with priorities, and then adding details.
While working on this article, did a quick refresh on "The Russian Ark", before watching quickly "Francofonia", both movies about art from Sokurov, the former set at the Hermitage, the latter at the Louvre during WWII occupation.
Which reminded me also of another movie about the same period (WWII) and with the same parties (France and Germany), "Diplomacy"
The movie "Diplomacy", which is now my background while completing this article, starts with the 7th of Beethoven (Furtwängler), and whose dialogue continuously switches between French and German, and is a nice example of creativity in the execution of agreements or orders, when something longer-term gets in the middle.
If you read articles on this website, you know that, while I would prefer that all Member States were to move together, already while living in Brussels wrote that I was not going to be surprised if, eventually, we were to build "circles".
With UK leaving the European Union, the approach of playing on multiple tables, as a UK diplomat said once in Brussels at a book presentation while I was there, did evolve.
The first six months of 2025 will see Poland holding the semester, a Member State whose leadership over the last few years more than once was really more in tune with the other EU Member States part of the Visegrád Group.
And instead last year saw discussions about the French-German proposals for EU reforms, the Letta report, and the Draghi report.
As I wrote before, always looked at the Elysée Treaty between France and Germany for its potential, and was positive when the Quirinale Treaty extended that to the relationship between France and Italy.
The year 2024 closed with two of the three partners having their own political issues, issues that will extend well into 2025.
Moreover, since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine more than once the "Visegrá Group" had tones different from other leading Member States.
Anyway, according to some commentators, Poland probably in this case has a different agenda that could potentially become a shared interest.
In 2025, the European Union potentially will have a risk of decision-making dissonance, as most leading State will be focused on balancing internal issues, while instead consensus would be needed.
I have political preferences, but in my view being bipartisan implies simply that anytime there is a political choice or a new law is presented, it is the underlying shared interest and long-term impact that matters.
Recently at a book presentation about the relationship between France and Italy there was almost a consensus that, as Germany and France have internal bigger fish to fry, the President of the Council of Minister of Italy, Meloni, is the de facto leader between the leading EU Member States able to focus on the bigger picture.
If Germany has elections in February and then will be dragging for months to form a government, while France will walk on thin ice until when new elections will be possible, the European institutions acquire an enhanced visibility.
In June 2012, The WSJ wrote that "Kissinger Still Lacks a Number to Call Europe", quoting the famous quip about "Mr. Europe".
I know that routinely over the last decade it was said "now there is" somebody answering on behalf of Europe.
But, frankly, the risk is that 2025 will show that having multiple presidents can create more issues than having just one or none.
The division within the European Union has a plus side: we can converge on a shared project, as it was for the Recovery and Resilience Facility during the 2020 COVID crisis, or how it was long before, for the Euro.
I think that the technocratic impulses of entrenched bureaucracies, to "know better", within the European Union for now are still tempered by the need to build on each project or initiative a political consensus across multiple Member States, to implement and deliver.
As part of the preparation of this article, went through all the previous articles of this series.
Therefore, I will let you do the same, if you want, or use the "search within articles" on this website, if you are looking for specific concepts- and will not repeat here what I already shared.
The key point of this postponed "Halloween" article is that in less than three weeks there will be in the White House a President who is an ally of the European Union, but an ally that should be actually have a unified position.
Otherwise, "the art of the deal" will turn into the old concept from Ancient Rome, "divide et impera".
Almost two decades ago, when Italian regions started setting up their own foreign direct investment attraction attempts, the perception from Rome and outside Italy was that what they really were doing was getting played one against the other, so that...
... the investors could raise the price for investing in another Member State where they were really interested to invest.
So, within the European Union we can create all the "shared facilities" to deal with each subject that we want, thinking that those are strategic initiative and not just mere tinkering.
Ditto for the obsession in recent years to keep announcing new initiatives that would take a long, long time to produce an organizational culture shift (or even just practical results).
Anyway, if our decision-making time is not reduced, it will be easier, whenever there is a resistance, to sideline and get onto the weakest link, to undermine our negotiating positions, than to actually wait for a unified position to emerge- as already happened in the past under other administrations.
Stay tuned.