by Pier Virgilio Dastoli, European Movement Italy
In recent days, the European Union, its institutions and its members have moved, but imperceptibly, because – beyond declarations of principle such as the speeches by Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron in Munich – fragmentation has reigned supreme, as appeared in the scattered order of Europeans around Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, created not to bring peace to Gaza but for financial interests, to further demolish the United Nations on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of Security Council Resolution 2803 (2025) (LINK) and to apply the grotesque principle that it is the Board of Peace that must control the UN and not the other way around.
Of the twenty-seven Member States of the European Union invited by Donald Trump to join his personal Board of Peace,
- thirteen (Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Sweden, Malta, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, France, Denmark) have officially rejected the US “offer”,
- two (Bulgaria and Hungary) have so far agreed to sit around the host’s table with a view to using European Union money to pay for part of the expensive menu if the upcoming national elections leave Bulgarian Rosen Dimitrov Zeliazkov (resigning on 11 December 2025) and Hungary’s Viktor Orban, who is currently trailing in the polls ahead of the 12 April legislative elections,
- and twelve with much reluctance and some decisions taken on the eve of the Washington meeting (Cyprus, Croatia, Greece, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Finland and the Netherlands) participated as “observers” without appearing in the “family photo”, and among them only Italy decided to guarantee a government presence (Antonio Tajani) with the favourable vote of the Chamber of Deputies, despite the reservations of the Quirinale and the perplexities of the Holy See.
They were joined by a surprise guest, European Commissioner for the Mediterranean Dubravka Suica, sent by President Ursula von der Leyen without consulting either the President of the European Council or the Member States whose defence ministers had met in Brussels on 11 February, or the European Parliament, which was in plenary session in Strasbourg from 9 to 12 February, and – it is said within the Berlaymont Building, with much concern on the part of High Representative Kaja Kallas.
The conclusions summarised by Antonio Costa (LINK) reached by European leaders during their retreat at Alden Biesen Castle together with Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta the European Union’s inaction and, in some important cases, the concern that there is a risk that the movement may be heading in the wrong direction.
We draw your attention to two examples concerning the same issue, namely the implementation of the Pillar of Social Rights, which were listed in Gothenburg more than eight years ago and reiterated in Porto in May 2023.
Firstly, the European Commission had promised to “implement” these rights as early as July 2024 with an “action plan” based on the “mission letter” from President Ursula von der Leyen to her Vice-President Roxana Minzatu (LINK). This plan was supposed to see the light of day by 2025, then between the end of 2025 and the beginning of 2026, also on the basis of the results of the consultation launched in June 2025 and concluded on 10 September 2025 (LINK), but there is still no trace of that plan.
Secondly, there is no mention of social rights or the social dimension in general among the priorities – diligently listed at the conclusion of the European leaders’ retreat by European Council President Antonio Costa ahead of the upcoming summit meetings – which include
- the simplifications provided for in ten “omnibus” bills, knowing that if the storm can be seen from the morning, it appears from the revision of the environmental directives,
- the reduction of powers delegated to the European Commission,
- the sunset clause (sunset clause), which provides for the automatic expiry of European regulations,
- the risks associated with the 28th regime denounced by European trade unions,
- the objective of the Industrial Acceleration Act,
- the energy market detached from environmental sustainability,
- the revision of the ETS system,
- and the prospects for the development of digital businesses in the absence of guidance on respect for fundamental rights and the role of the labour market.
What the European political groups positions are in view of the prospects opened up in terms of simplification, competitiveness, the market, energy and the digital dimension in the European Council after the meeting of European leaders, the European Commission’s delays in presenting proposals on social issues and the lack of commitments on environmental sustainability? Have the European political groups carefully considered the idea put forward in the statements by Antonio Costa, Ursula von der Leyen and some European leaders to use the instrument of enhanced cooperation, which cannot, however, prejudice the single market, economic, social and territorial cohesion, and cannot be applied to the common defence dimension?
With regard to enhanced cooperation (and, of course, permanent structured cooperation), the Treaty of Lisbon stipulates that the European Parliament is excluded from any legislative decision-making power, is informed (Articles 82, 83, 86, 87, 328 TFEU) or consulted (Articles 323 and 333 TFEU), except for the approval of the launch of enhanced cooperation, which is not required in the case of the CFSP (Article 329(2) TFEU).
Finally, we wonder whether a concrete analysis has been made of cases in which legislative paralysis could be overcome by enhanced cooperation where it applies to decisions requiring a qualified majority in the Council, with the exception of the CFSP, which requires unanimity among Member States (Articles 329, 330, 332 and 333 TFEU).
And if so, where is it heading?
Rome, 23 February 2026