Yes, he is correct, at least regarding the average situation. This average is driven primarily by large economies like Germany. However, there is significant heterogeneity across the EU. For instance, Denmark is performing very well, as is Sweden, and Ireland is a special case. Even the Netherlands, and perhaps surprisingly Belgium, are resisting the trend, according to the IMD Ranking 2024.

The EU is indeed simultaneously both a problem and a solution. The same applies to Germany. Many of the issues are self-inflicted, and need to be resolved at both the EU level and that of the member states. However, there is one factor that strongly favours the EU in current times: size matters! In times of geopolitical rivalry, the region with the larger internal market prevails. It allows for quicker scaling of new technologies, more viable innovations, and greater negotiating power in political disputes. The EU's internal market is our key geo-economic advantage, yet it is still very incomplete.

We need legal adjustments, for example, to advance Capital Markets Union, as well as investments in pan-European infrastructure. The railway, electricity, and data networks are not sufficiently integrated. This requires hundreds of billions of euros at the EU level. This way, national investment budgets could potentially decrease. At the same time, the EU should withdraw from areas where it adds little European value, such as agricultural promotion.

Europe is not adhering to the principles laid out in its own treaties. For instance, the principle of subsidiarity states that agricultural support should be the responsibility of member states within the frameworks set by the EU and WTO, while pan-European networks and protection of the EU's external borders should be handled at the community level. The Bologna Process itself isn’t fundamentally flawed. It's important for the common labour market that academic degrees are compatible and comparable. However, the accompanying desire to increase the number of graduates has likely led to a decline in the quality of university education.

That was pure wishful thinking without a realistically implementable strategy. This tendency is common in Brussels, often with enthusiastic support from the member states. The situation has become much more serious since Lisbon. The rose-coloured glasses need to be taken off, and I think the Draghi Report has prompted that.

Yes, that’s another fundamental principle: the EU constitution aims for a „highly competitive social market economy“. This objective inherently excludes detailed bureaucratic regulation. What is written in Article 3 of the EU Treaty makes economic sense. Within a reliable, well-defined framework, the market should find solutions as freely as possible. The role of politics is not to micromanage but to create a regulatory framework.

Numerous studies convincingly show that the EU internal market has created economic prosperity. But there is still much room for improvement. Cross-border transactions among EU member states are much less frequent than, for example, between the different states in the USA.

This effect cannot just be explained by language or culture. A decisive expansion of the internal market could indeed become Europe’s new growth engine. In addition to the long-sought Capital Markets Union, an energy market union would be essential. Genuine collaboration in defence could also help save significant costs while increasing productivity in the sector.

Brussels struggles to move forward because member states do not genuinely want it. Unfortunately, there is insufficient consensus on what should happen. When a bureaucracy isn’t allowed to tackle big issues, it pours its energy into smaller matters that, when consumed in large quantities, lead to health issues. Member states need to clearly define what they want and set the framework accordingly, which would require them to relinquish some of their own national powers. They find this very challenging, ultimately to the detriment of their own populations.

First, Brussels should stop micromanaging, and instead utilise European businesses for this purpose, for instance supply chain regulation. Second, there should be a much clearer focus on fewer but better regulations, that ultimately allow for more market freedom. Third, cross-border investments in infrastructure, particularly in electricity and rail, should be prioritised above all else. The EU should be allowed to incur debt for these purposes, and only for these.