Europe is currently falling victim to a fatal misunderstanding. Because there is consensus that the EU is noticeably losing economic competitiveness, many believe there is also agreement on how it can become more growth-oriented, innovative, and thus competitive again. This, however, is a misconception. Agreement on the diagnosis does not necessarily mean consensus on the right treatment. In this context, the often-heard phrase that Europe does not have a problem with understanding, but only with implementation, seems like an attempt to stifle an important debate. Moreover, it is not very helpful that the discussion often ends up with general solutions. More sharply put: The mere call for „bureaucracy reduction“, „investment offensives“, or „innovation-friendly environments“ remains clumsy, unless it is clarified what is meant by these terms.

Take the example of bureaucracy reduction: Those who insist on proportionality in legislation, on taking into account the specifics of the German three-pillar model, on exemptions for development banks or institutional protection schemes, can hardly lament the fact that some financial market directives run to several hundred pages. If Europe’s lawmakers did not have to consider numerous national peculiarities, their legal acts would not be half as lengthy. Even if it points in the right direction, the call for less detailed and more principle-oriented regulations from Brussels is not as trivial as it seems. The same critics are quick to accuse lawmakers of lacking legal certainty when they leave room for interpretation instead of precisely regulating matters.

Or the instance of an investment offensive: Yes, there are certainly very good reasons to be skeptical about the demand for joint debt issuance. But those who agree that there is a gigantic financing need for joint infrastructure and networks as a basis for innovation and growth must also have extremely good arguments for why any form of EU level borrowing is vehemently tabooed. The outcry in this country, provoked by Mario Draghi with his plea for a „European Safe Asset“, is, at least in the strictness with which joint debt instruments are demonised, not very productive.

Or consider the case of an innovation-friendly environment: Draghi’s idea to take the innovation potential contribution of emerging entities more into account in merger control or state aid supervision have been viewed by some as a dangerous interference in competition law. The fact that EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has combined the topics of competition control and the green transformation under Teresa Ribera in the new commission structure is viewed with some skepticism by others. These reflexes are partly justified, in that great care is needed when considering additional criteria in competition law. But those who completely refuse to consider new categories in competition law, despite the radically changing environment of a digital economy, should not complain about why Europe’s champions rank only as second-class globally.

But at least Europe is finally starting to debate its shortcomings in the competition with other economic areas. Competitiveness is the new European overarching goal, and this is important and good. Draghi, Enrico Letta, and von der Leyen have now provided the necessary material to move „from rhetoric to specifics“.

In the coming weeks and months, the EU Commission, national governments, and the EU Parliament will explore where their common ground lies, in order to halt the gradual global decline in the importance of the European economy, by making Europe’s economy more productive and creative again. And then, but only then, can and must this common strategic line be implemented.