S 3-mesečnim odlogom je bilo danes končno objavljeno poročilo Maria Draghija o evropski konkurenčnosti. Draghijevo poročilo bi prvotno sicer moralo biti objavljeno junija letos. Vendar so ga zaradi brzinskega postopka formiranja vodstva nove Evropske komisije (zaradi presenečenj na evropskih volitvah in morebitne ogroženosti dosedanje in nove predsednice Evropske komisije s strani Maria Draghija) prestavili na jesen. No, zdaj, ko si je stara – nova predsednica EK zagotovila še en mandat in je Draghi potencialno več ne ogroža, se lahko soočimo z resnimi izzivi prihodnosti evropskega gospodarstva in morda celo obstanka same EU. Spodaj je ena hitra splošna ocena s strani enega komentatorja, moja ocena dokumenta (k temu, kar sem pisal že aprila) sledi kasneje. Velikih pozitivnih presenečenj glede na mojo oceno tedanjega Draghijevega povzetka poročila iz aprila sicer ne vidim.

Bodite pa pozorni v spodnjem komentarju na dve stvari. Prvič na Draghijev predlog “varnih sredstev” (beri: evro obveznic), s katerimi bi financirali program re-industrializacije Evrope. Komentator se je obregnil ob to, vendar iz načelnih razlogov (ali je projekt re-industrializacije res tak pomemben skupen projekt in ali res ne obstajajo drugi finančni viri). Jaz večji problem vidim v tem, da bo v EU predvsem zaradi Nemčije težko dobiti soglasje o “mutualizaciji skupnega dolga”, torej da bi posamezne države prevzele breme povečanega skupnega dolga zaradi tega programa.

In drugič, že sam komentator omenja, da bo v sedanji strukturi EU (Sveta EU) težko dobiti soglasje za tak program. Jaz menim, da bo še težje ta program v takšni disfunkcionalni “evropski družini” tudi implementirati. Ampak več o tem kasneje.

Such reports tend to be boring to read: Because the authors are mincing their words, because of too many cooks in the kitchen, because the “outside expert” is not really allowed to say what they want or do not know what they want to say.

The Letta report suffered from several of these ailments. The Draghi report suffers from none thereof. The man obviously knows what he wants to say and doesn’t mince his words. The report is refreshingly low-bullshit, puts fingers in obvious wounds and largely avoids euphemisms.

Its main message seems to be this: Member states need to get their act together if they want to keep the continent on a path of prosperity. They need to agree on what they want and how to do it. They need a plan.

It’s a plea for the EU to actually have an industrial strategy and to mean it this time. The report does not shy away from saying where this has been lacking so far, e.g. in the automotive industry or when it comes to many clean technologies.

It’s a plea for putting together industrial and trade policy and giving both a strategic direction. Spot on. It even uses dirty words like “local content rules” without falling down on the protectionist side of the fence.

It’s also a plea for more Europe in crucial economic policy areas – but not as an end in itself or to reach ever-closer-union, but because it makes economic sense. There are a lot of policy proposals in the report that merit detailed analysis – but none of them seem outlandish.

It is good that the report first makes a clear case for why more investment is needed before it talks about financing. Draghi calls – rightfully – for a substantial reform of the EU budget and for a reorientation along the strategic priorities that need to be agreed.

Where the report becomes less convincing is in two areas: First, it argues that we need a safe asset (i.e. more EU debt) because that’s good for financial market functioning. There, the central banker got carried away a bit. If there is ever to be more EU debt, it will be because there is a good case for the spending to be financed by this debt – and because all other sources of financing are not available.

Second, the governance part is underdeveloped: In econ policy, the problem is not unanimity or lack of processes as the report seems to suggest.

It is lack of mutual trust and of agreement on substance. That is why the first part of the report is so good: It makes a convincing case that now needs to be discussed politically. I am fairly convinced that if we agree what we want, we can get very far in implementing it as is.

So, the eternal West-Wing question is now: What’s next? We need a discussion on whether Draghi is right and whether we collectively buy the argument that we need a real plan and a real strategy. I am sceptical that the dysfunctional EuCo is the right place for this.

I am also sceptical that the competitiveness council has the right level for this. Ideally, Germany and France would now take the lead and take it to the next level, initate the debate and carry it forward. I don’t see that yet either, but it would be worth the effort.

Vir: Lucas Guttenberg, via X