“Politicians,” George Carlin once observed, “speak with great caution – because they must be careful not to actually say anything.” Still, the late American comedian admitted: “It’s kind of funny to hear them talk.”
His remarks are doubly true on this side of the Atlantic – and perhaps quadruply so in Brussels. Indeed, EU bureaucrats appear almost constitutionally incapable of speaking on (or often even off) camera without cycling through an interminable carousel of hilariously vacuous Eurospeak.
“We must simplify companies’ regulatory burden to boost our competitiveness and strengthen our economic resilience,” is a sentence that some EU Commissioner has probably said – or, if not, will inevitably soon say.
Like some kind of fractal Joycean nightmare, the inane terminology – especially on economic matters – repeats itself not just within individual speeches or across days or even months, but over multiple decades.
For instance, calls to improve the EU’s “competitiveness” – a term drawn from business “science” that has been the subject of numerous declarations, a €400 billion proposal, a 400-page report, and a “compass” (which was, in truth, just a 20-page report) over the past year – were made more than thirty years ago by former European Commission chief Jacques Delors.
The notion was as geopolitically and economically irrelevant then as it is now. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman pointed out back in 1994, countries, unlike companies, don’t cease to exist when they run out of money; what’s more, they almost invariably engage in mutually beneficial trade with their alleged “competitors”.
“To make a harsh but not entirely unjustified analogy, a government wedded to the ideology of competitiveness is as unlikely to make good economic policy as a government committed to creationism is to make good science policy,” Krugman noted.
Eurocrats, however, are a lexically obstinate bunch. And besides, wouldn’t disavowing their treasured terminology because of an American’s criticism threaten their open strategic autonomy?
Delors’ Disciple
Simplification, meanwhile, is Brussels’ second-most-popular term: a fact which is both fitting – competitiveness should, naturally, always prevail in the EU’s contest for rhetorical supremacy – and deeply ironic, given that it’s a euphemism for deregulation, which is a far more straightforward description of the EU’s fundamental economic project (and, what’s more, is a slightly shorter word).
The term is also intimately related to competitiveness in two ways.
The first is historical. One of simplification’s main proponents, Enrico Letta, is a former Italian prime minister who currently serves as president of (who would have guessed it?) the Jacques Delors Institute. Letta’s influential report on the single market last year was also dedicated to the EU’s economic and linguistic visionary.
“A pivotal proposition emerges: to reaffirm and embrace the Delors method of maximum harmonisation coupled with mutual recognition,” reads a typically compelling sentence from Letta’s 147-page study.
“A pivotal proposition emerges: to reaffirm and embrace the Delors method of maximum harmonisation coupled with mutual recognition,” reads another. (No, this isn’t a typo – the sentence was apparently so good that Letta actually wrote it twice, on pages 10 and 121.)
Arguably, there is a sense in which Letta has already got his wish: EU officials have already embraced “the Delors method” – of maximum inanity. (Still, most dedicated Delors aficionados would probably admit that Letta’s embrace may have gone a bit too far.)
Simplify this!
The second, and more important, link between competitiveness and simplification is conceptual.
In particular, “simplifying” EU rules is, we’re told, the main way to enhance the EU’s competitiveness. Ironically, this is itself a gross over-simplification: it elides the fact that Europe’s economic problems (e.g. high energy prices, slowing Chinese demand, chronically weak domestic consumption) are far more complicated than mere regulatory complexity.
Still, one can only admire Eurocrats’ verbal discipline: they have invariably refrained from describing their actions as “deregulation”, despite the fact that other EU leaders (e.g. Poland’s Donald Tusk) are unabashed fans of the “D-word”.
The term is also conspicuously absent in Letta’s report, despite the Disciple of Delors’ explicit denunciation of “over-regulation” and repeated exhortations for EU leaders to cut “red tape”.
EU leaders’ linguistic caution is, however, also perfectly understandable: deregulation has become politically non-kosher in Brussels because of its links to the 2008 financial crisis and (likely justified) labour unions’ fears that it is a smokescreen to weaken workers’ rights.
Sometimes, however, EU officials explicitly deny that simplification is a euphemism (or EUphemism) for deregulation. This is despite the fact that, in the same breath, they often define “simplification” as the cutting of “red tape” – which is precisely what deregulation is.
“Simplification is not about deregulation,” Commissioner for Economy Valdis Dombrovskis thundered earlier this year. “Our economic, social or environmental goals have not changed.”
The argument is almost comically nonsensical. First, it implies that updating one’s goals is, ipso facto, to introduce (or reduce) a regulatory burden. More importantly, however, it ignores the fact that deregulation is not a goal, but a method. (Do children, for instance, slash red tape on Christmas Day for the sake of it – or because they want to open their presents?)
Verbal end-times
Political speech – and especially Eurospeak – has always been absurdly vacuous. However, it is difficult to resist the feeling that we are approaching some kind of lexical apocalypse, with a positive cascade of initiatives, frameworks, plans, strategies, packages, deals, watches, shields, and even walls announced over just the past few weeks.
Many of these “proposals” – if you can call them that – are, in truth, simply an excuse for Brussels’ unwillingness, or inability, to actually do anything. Indeed, such impotence is likely the main reason for the increasingly pugnacious language emanating from EU officials.
In her State of the Union speech last month, for instance, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced three “resilience”-based schemes (i.e. a Media Resilience Programme, a Global Health Resilience Initiative, and a European Centre for Democratic Resilience).
Europe’s very own Warrior Prinzessin also used the word “fight” 18 times, “strength” a dozen times, and a sprinkling of similarly bellicose terminology (e.g. “battlefield” and “battlelines”).
Method in the madness
There are, of course, strategic reasons for the specific choice of language. Indeed, the words themselves are often chosen precisely in order to discourage any criticism. Who, after all, doesn’t want Europe to (fight to) be competitive? And who wants the regulatory (or administrative or bureaucratic) burden to be more complex? Come to think of it, who likes burdens at all?
As Krugman noted more than three decades ago, however, such terms can also have serious practical consequences – and can even be dangerous.
In particular, framing the world as consisting of blocs locked in permanent economic “competition” with one another “greases the rails for those who want confrontational if not frankly protectionist policies” – and could, in a worst-case scenario, “lead to trade conflict, perhaps even to a world trade war”. This, of course, is precisely the world we seem to be in.
Fortunately, politicians – at least in the West – don’t hang around forever. Indeed, there is a non-zero (albeit small) chance that von der Leyen herself could be thrown out of office next week.
Unfortunately, however, the next batch of politicians is likely to be just as bad; and perhaps even worse.
Can the problem be fixed? One potential solution, made only partially in jest by Carlin, would be to embrace not just political term limits, but verbal ones: that is, by limiting some of the terms that politicians are permitted to use (at least when speaking publicly).
Interestingly, such a solution would only partially swim against the current linguistic-political tide. On the one hand, it would pose an additional regulatory burden on EU officials; on the other, it would enormously simplify citizens’, journalists’, and probably even Eurocrats’ lives.
A fittingly ironic punishment for politicians’ failure to comply also naturally suggests itself. Does anyone know if duct tape comes in red?
Economy News Roundup
Russian threats to confiscate EU assets show ‘sanctions are working’, says Brussels. “We have seen indications that Russia indeed plans to nationalise and sell off foreign-owned assets,” European Commission spokesperson Balazs Ujvari said on Thursday. “This shows very clearly one thing…: our sanctions are working very well against Russia.” Ujvari added that the impact of Brussels’ restrictive measures “will be even bigger” once the bloc’s 19th sanctions package on Moscow is adopted, which EU diplomats expect to happen later this month. His comments came a day after Bloomberg reported that Moscow would “swiftly” sell foreign assets in Russia “in retaliation for any European moves to seize Russian holdings abroad”. The report, citing a person close to the Kremlin, comes amid growing efforts by Brussels to use hundreds of billions of euros’ worth of immobilised Russian central bank assets held in the EU to provide a special zero-interest “reparation loan” to Kyiv. Read more.
Brussels pledges to ‘streamline’ EU budget rules. The European Commission on Thursday unveiled measures to simplify how member states comply with the EU’s fiscal framework, widening its red tape-cutting push from the private to the public sector. The package, which still needs to be approved by member states and the European Parliament, would also lower the maximum initial fine for fiscal violations from 0.05% to 0.02% of GDP. “By removing outdated requirements and reducing administrative complexity, the EU can support member states in focusing resources where they are most needed: on delivering sound public finances, fostering growth and ensuring financial stability,” said Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis. A senior Commission official stressed that many of the fiscal proposals are “technical”, but also form part of Brussels’ broader simplification agenda. “We are in simplification times, for good reasons,” they said, adding that Denmark’s EU presidency is “very keen” to push the file forward. Read more.
EU has ‘sound’ legal basis for Ukraine reparation loan, says von der Leyen. Speaking ahead of a meeting of EU leaders in Copenhagen, the Commission president said “there is a growing consensus” in EU capitals that Moscow, rather than European taxpayers, should fund Kyiv’s war effort and reconstruction. “Russia is the perpetrator, it has caused the damage, and it has to be held accountable,” she told reporters. “I think we now have a sound legal way to do this.” Her remarks were echoed by Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, who said a “basic principle of international law is that you have to cover the damage you have caused”. Announced by von der Leyen in her flagship annual State of the Union speech in September, the EU executive’s plan would harness up to €170 billion in immobilised Russian central bank assets to support Kyiv’s colossal budget needs and reconstruction. The scheme seeks to “mobilise” Moscow’s funds without affecting their “ownership” – thereby technically falling short of unilateral expropriation, which risks violating the assets’ sovereign immunity guaranteed under international law. Read more.
Macron urges Brussels to protect EU industry from US, China with ‘sector by sector’ tariffs. The French president said the European Commission, which oversees EU trade policy, should go beyond the levies it imposed on Chinese electric vehicles last year and the duties on steel that it is set to introduce later this month. Europe is the only “place where we don’t protect our domestic players,” Macron said, pointing to Chinese and American efforts to boost industrial production through state-led industrial policies and tariffs. “If we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field,” he added. “What we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with steel today, we have to do sector by sector.” The comments come amid growing efforts by EU leaders to reverse the bloc’s industrial decline, which has been compounded by US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs and increasingly fierce competition from Chinese manufacturers. Read more.
EU’s red tape bonfire ignites Brussels blame game. The European Commission’s marquee initiative to cut back legislation has devolved into a political slanging match – with MEPs blamed by diplomats and bureaucrats for quietly sabotaging the effort. Much of the criticism is targeted at the Parliament’s centre-left Socialists and Democrats group, which is resisting a lightning speed haircut of EU legislation. But Aurore Lalucq, a French centre-left lawmaker who chairs the Parliament’s economics committee, rejected the criticism. “We are elected by the European people to do our job, whether it pleases people or not,” she said. “In the trilogues, who is it who takes time, who blocks all the time, who needs to constantly consult its member states? It’s the Council.” Bernd Lange, a Social Democrat who chairs the Parliament’s trade committee, attributed Parliament’s failure to endorse many of the Commission’s ‘Omnibus’ packages to their “complexity” – which, he said, has presented a “serious problem” for MEPs. Read more.
China’s weak economy bigger worry than Trump’s trade war, say EU firms. “Huge overcapacity” in manufactured goods and persistently weak consumer demand have caused the business outlook for EU firms in China to fall to its lowest level since the early 2000s, Adam Dunnett, secretary-general of the EU Chamber of Commerce in China, told Euractiv. “The number one issue for our members is the Chinese economy itself,” said Dunnett, pointing to a chamber survey showing 71% of businesses see Beijing’s slowdown as their biggest challenge. China’s brutal price war has forced numerous industries to slash costs to remain competitive, causing sustained deflation and declining profitability for both domestic and foreign businesses. Domestic demand and consumption have also remained weak, despite Chinese President Xi Jinping’s efforts to “vigorously boost consumption” through monetary and fiscal stimulus. A growing economy once made China’s long-standing regulatory hurdles and “complicated” rules manageable, but they have now become far more “painful,” Dunnett said. Read more.