{"id":473641,"date":"2025-10-04T13:33:11","date_gmt":"2025-10-04T13:33:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/473641\/"},"modified":"2025-10-04T13:33:11","modified_gmt":"2025-10-04T13:33:11","slug":"the-language-of-euconomics-euractiv","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/473641\/","title":{"rendered":"The language of EUconomics | Euractiv"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cPoliticians,\u201d George Carlin<\/a> once observed, \u201cspeak with great caution \u2013 because they must be careful not to actually say anything.\u201d Still, the late American comedian admitted: \u201cIt\u2019s kind of funny to hear them talk.\u201d<\/p>\n

His remarks are doubly true on this side of the Atlantic \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe must simplify companies\u2019 regulatory burden to boost our competitiveness and strengthen our economic resilience,\u201d is a sentence that some EU Commissioner has probably said \u2013 or, if not, will inevitably soon say.<\/p>\n

Like some kind of fractal Joycean nightmare<\/a>, the inane terminology \u2013 especially on economic matters \u2013 repeats itself not just within individual speeches or across days or even months, but over multiple decades.<\/p>\n

For instance, calls to improve the EU\u2019s \u201ccompetitiveness<\/a>\u201d \u2013 a term drawn from business \u201cscience\u201d that has been the subject of numerous<\/a> declarations<\/a>, a \u20ac400 billion proposal<\/a>, a 400-page report<\/a>, and a \u201ccompass<\/a>\u201d (which was, in truth, just a 20-page report) over the past year \u2013 were made more than thirty years ago by former European Commission chief Jacques Delors<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The notion was as geopolitically and economically irrelevant then as it is now. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman<\/a> pointed out back in 1994, countries, unlike companies, don\u2019t cease to exist when they run out of money; what\u2019s more, they almost invariably engage in mutually beneficial trade with their alleged \u201ccompetitors\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo 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,\u201d Krugman noted.<\/p>\n

Eurocrats, however, are a lexically obstinate bunch. And besides, wouldn\u2019t disavowing their treasured terminology because of an American\u2019s criticism threaten their open strategic autonomy?<\/p>\n

Delors\u2019 Disciple<\/strong><\/p>\n

Simplification, meanwhile, is Brussels\u2019 second-most-popular term: a fact which is both fitting \u2013 competitiveness should, naturally, always prevail in the EU\u2019s contest for rhetorical supremacy \u2013 and deeply ironic, given that it\u2019s a euphemism for deregulation<\/a>, which is a far more straightforward description of the EU\u2019s fundamental economic project (and, what\u2019s more, is a slightly shorter word).<\/p>\n

The term is also intimately related to competitiveness in two ways.<\/p>\n

The first is historical. One of simplification\u2019s main proponents, Enrico Letta<\/a>, is a former Italian prime minister who currently serves as president of (who would have guessed it?) the Jacques Delors Institute<\/a>. Letta\u2019s influential report on the single market last year was also dedicated to the EU\u2019s economic and linguistic visionary.<\/p>\n

\u201cA pivotal proposition emerges: to reaffirm and embrace the Delors method of maximum harmonisation coupled with mutual recognition,\u201d reads a typically compelling sentence from Letta\u2019s 147-page study<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cA pivotal proposition emerges: to reaffirm and embrace the Delors method of maximum harmonisation coupled with mutual recognition,\u201d reads another. (No, this isn\u2019t a typo \u2013 the sentence was apparently so good that Letta actually wrote it twice, on pages 10 and 121.)<\/p>\n

Arguably, there is a sense in which Letta has already got his wish: EU officials have already embraced \u201cthe Delors method\u201d \u2013 of maximum inanity. (Still, most dedicated Delors aficionados would probably admit that Letta\u2019s embrace may have gone a bit too far.)<\/p>\n

Simplify this!<\/strong><\/p>\n

The second, and more important, link between competitiveness and simplification is conceptual.<\/p>\n

In particular, \u201csimplifying\u201d EU rules is, we\u2019re told, the main way to enhance the EU\u2019s competitiveness. Ironically, this is itself a gross over-simplification: it elides the fact that Europe\u2019s economic problems (e.g. high energy prices<\/a>, slowing Chinese demand<\/a>, chronically weak domestic consumption<\/a>) are far more complicated than mere regulatory complexity.<\/p>\n

Still, one can only admire Eurocrats\u2019 verbal discipline: they have invariably refrained from describing their actions as \u201cderegulation\u201d, despite the fact that other EU leaders (e.g. Poland\u2019s Donald Tusk<\/a>) are unabashed fans of the \u201cD-word\u201d.<\/p>\n

The term is also conspicuously absent in Letta\u2019s report, despite the Disciple of Delors\u2019 explicit denunciation of \u201cover-regulation\u201d and repeated exhortations for EU leaders to cut \u201cred tape\u201d.<\/p>\n

EU leaders\u2019 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\u2019 fears that it is a smokescreen to weaken workers\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n

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 \u201csimplification\u201d as the cutting of \u201cred tape\u201d \u2013 which is precisely what deregulation is.<\/p>\n

\u201cSimplification is not about deregulation,\u201d Commissioner for Economy Valdis Dombrovskis<\/a> thundered earlier this year. \u201cOur economic, social or environmental goals have not changed.\u201d<\/p>\n

The argument is almost comically nonsensical. First, it implies that updating one\u2019s 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 \u2013 or because they want to open their presents?)<\/p>\n

Verbal end-times<\/strong><\/p>\n

Political speech \u2013 and especially Eurospeak \u2013 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<\/a>, frameworks<\/a>, plans<\/a>, strategies<\/a>, packages<\/a>, deals<\/a>, watches<\/a>, shields<\/a>, and even walls<\/a> announced over just the past few weeks.<\/p>\n

Many of these \u201cproposals\u201d \u2013 if you can call them that \u2013 are, in truth, simply an excuse for Brussels\u2019 unwillingness, or inability, to actually do anything. Indeed, such impotence is likely the main reason for the increasingly pugnacious language emanating from EU officials.<\/p>\n

In her State of the Union speech last month, for instance, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced three \u201cresilience\u201d-based schemes (i.e. a Media Resilience Programme, a Global Health Resilience Initiative, and a European Centre for Democratic Resilience).<\/p>\n

Europe\u2019s very own Warrior Prinzessin also used the word \u201cfight\u201d 18 times, \u201cstrength\u201d a dozen times, and a sprinkling of similarly bellicose terminology (e.g. \u201cbattlefield\u201d and \u201cbattlelines\u201d).<\/p>\n

Method in the madness<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u2019t 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?<\/p>\n

As Krugman noted more than three decades ago, however, such terms can also have serious practical consequences \u2013 and can even be dangerous.<\/p>\n

In particular, framing the world as consisting of blocs locked in permanent economic \u201ccompetition\u201d with one another \u201cgreases the rails for those who want confrontational if not frankly protectionist policies\u201d \u2013 and could, in a worst-case scenario, \u201clead to trade conflict, perhaps even to a world trade war\u201d. This, of course, is precisely the world we seem to be in.<\/p>\n

Fortunately, politicians \u2013 at least in the West \u2013 don\u2019t hang around forever. Indeed, there is a non-zero (albeit small) chance that von der Leyen herself could be thrown out<\/a> of office next week.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, however, the next batch of politicians is likely to be just as bad; and perhaps even worse.<\/p>\n

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).<\/p>\n

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\u2019, journalists\u2019, and probably even Eurocrats\u2019 lives.<\/p>\n

A fittingly ironic punishment for politicians\u2019 failure to comply also naturally suggests itself. Does anyone know if duct tape comes in red?<\/p>\n

Economy News Roundup<\/strong><\/p>\n

Russian threats to confiscate EU assets show \u2018sanctions are working\u2019, says Brussels. <\/strong>\u201cWe have seen indications that Russia indeed plans to nationalise and sell off foreign-owned assets,\u201d European Commission spokesperson Balazs Ujvari said on Thursday. \u201cThis shows very clearly one thing\u2026: our sanctions are working very well against Russia.\u201d Ujvari added that the impact of Brussels\u2019 restrictive measures \u201cwill be even bigger\u201d once the bloc\u2019s\u00a019th sanctions package<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0on Moscow is adopted, which EU diplomats expect to happen later this month. His comments came a day after\u00a0Bloomberg<\/strong><\/a> reported that Moscow would \u201cswiftly\u201d sell foreign assets in Russia \u201cin retaliation for any European moves to seize Russian holdings abroad\u201d. The report, citing a person close to the Kremlin, comes amid growing efforts by Brussels to use hundreds of billions of euros\u2019 worth of immobilised Russian central bank assets held in the EU to provide a special zero-interest \u201creparation loan\u201d to Kyiv. Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n

Brussels pledges to \u2018streamline\u2019 EU budget rules. <\/strong>The European Commission on Thursday unveiled measures to simplify how member states comply with the EU\u2019s 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. \u201cBy 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,\u201d said Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis. A senior Commission official stressed that many of the fiscal proposals are \u201ctechnical\u201d, but also form part of Brussels\u2019 broader simplification agenda. \u201cWe are in simplification times, for good reasons,\u201d they said, adding that Denmark\u2019s EU presidency is \u201cvery keen\u201d to push the file forward. Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n

EU has \u2018sound\u2019 legal basis for Ukraine reparation loan, says von der Leyen. <\/strong>Speaking ahead of a meeting of EU leaders in Copenhagen, the Commission president said \u201cthere is a growing consensus\u201d in EU capitals that Moscow, rather than European taxpayers, should fund Kyiv\u2019s war effort and reconstruction. \u201cRussia is the perpetrator, it has caused the damage, and it has to be held accountable,\u201d she told reporters. \u201cI think we now have a sound legal way to do this.\u201d Her remarks were echoed by Kaja Kallas, the EU\u2019s top diplomat, who said a \u201cbasic principle of international law is that you have to cover the damage you have caused\u201d. Announced by von der Leyen<\/a>\u00a0in her flagship annual State of the Union speech in September, the EU executive\u2019s plan<\/a> would harness up to \u20ac170 billion in immobilised Russian central bank assets to support Kyiv\u2019s colossal budget needs and reconstruction. The scheme seeks to \u201cmobilise<\/a>\u201d Moscow\u2019s funds without affecting their \u201cownership\u201d \u2013 thereby technically falling short of unilateral expropriation, which risks violating the assets\u2019 sovereign immunity guaranteed under international law. Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n

Macron urges Brussels to protect EU industry from US, China with \u2018sector by sector\u2019 tariffs. <\/strong>The French president said the European Commission, which oversees EU trade policy, should go beyond the levies it imposed on\u00a0Chinese electric vehicles<\/a>\u00a0last year and the duties on\u00a0steel<\/a>\u00a0that it is set to introduce later this month. Europe is the only \u201cplace where we don\u2019t protect our domestic players,\u201d Macron said, pointing to Chinese and American efforts to boost industrial production through state-led industrial policies and tariffs. \u201cIf we want to remain sovereign, we have to protect the existing players when they suffer from the absence of a level playing field,\u201d he added. \u201cWhat we started with the Chinese EVs, what we follow with steel today, we have to do sector by sector.\u201d The comments come amid growing efforts by EU leaders to reverse the bloc\u2019s industrial decline, which has been compounded by US President Donald Trump\u2019s\u00a0sweeping tariffs<\/a>\u00a0and increasingly\u00a0fierce competition<\/a>\u00a0from Chinese manufacturers. Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n

EU\u2019s red tape bonfire ignites Brussels blame game. <\/strong>The European Commission\u2019s marquee initiative to cut back legislation has devolved into a political slanging match \u2013 with MEPs blamed by diplomats and bureaucrats for quietly sabotaging the effort. Much of the criticism is targeted at the Parliament\u2019s centre-left Socialists and Democrats group, which\u00a0<\/strong>is resisting a lightning speed haircut of EU legislation. But Aurore Lalucq, a French centre-left lawmaker who chairs the Parliament\u2019s economics committee, rejected the criticism. \u201cWe are elected by the European people to do our job, whether it pleases people or not,\u201d she said. \u201cIn the trilogues, who is it who takes time, who blocks all the time, who needs to constantly consult its member states? It\u2019s the Council.\u201d Bernd Lange, a Social Democrat who chairs the Parliament\u2019s trade committee, attributed Parliament\u2019s failure to endorse many of the Commission\u2019s \u2018Omnibus\u2019 packages to their \u201ccomplexity\u201d \u2013 which, he said, has presented a \u201cserious problem\u201d for MEPs. Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n

China\u2019s weak economy bigger worry than Trump\u2019s trade war, say EU firms. <\/strong>\u201cHuge overcapacity\u201d 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. \u201cThe number one issue for our members is the Chinese economy itself,\u201d said Dunnett, pointing to a chamber survey<\/a> showing 71% of businesses see Beijing\u2019s slowdown as their biggest challenge. China\u2019s\u00a0brutal price war<\/a>\u00a0has 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\u00a0Xi Jinping\u2019s<\/a> efforts to \u201cvigorously boost consumption\u201d through monetary and fiscal stimulus. A growing economy once made China\u2019s long-standing regulatory hurdles and \u201ccomplicated\u201d rules manageable, but they have now become far more \u201cpainful,\u201d Dunnett said. Read more.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u201cPoliticians,\u201d George Carlin once observed, \u201cspeak with great caution \u2013 because they must be careful not to actually…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":473642,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5174],"tags":[2000,299,5187,1699],"class_list":{"0":"post-473641","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-eu","8":"tag-eu","9":"tag-europe","10":"tag-european","11":"tag-european-union"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115316156368175613","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/473641","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=473641"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/473641\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/473642"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=473641"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=473641"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=473641"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}