EU and its challenges

 European Union

• The EU faces major challenges due to instability in its two largest member states, France and Germany. This comes at a time when the EU must deal with external threats (Russia, China, US trade tensions), support Ukraine, manage debt, and strengthen its own defence.
• The rise of far-right and populist parties across Europe is reshaping the political landscape, threatening the unity and stability of the EU.

A crítica do meu texto de hoje no DN (12/09/2025) feita por ChapGPT

 Trata-se de uma coluna de opinião publicada hoje no Diário de Notícias (Lisboa, 12/09/2025). Que crítica faz deste meu texto? Victor ângelo

Dito pelo ChatGPT:

Perfeito, Victor — obrigado pela clareza. Sabendo que és o autor do texto e que pedes uma crítica construtiva, aqui vai uma análise equilibrada e focada na eficácia do texto como coluna de opinião, com destaque para: clareza, argumentação, estrutura, estilo e impacto discursivo.

---

📌 1. Clareza e estrutura

O texto está bem estruturado e tem um fio condutor lógico. Inicias com um episódio atual e impactante — o ataque com drones à Polónia — e desenvolves a análise a partir daí, ligando:

• O papel da Comissão Europeia;

• As limitações e potencialidades da UE;

• As pressões externas (EUA);

• As implicações geoestratégicas;

• O caso palestiniano e o papel das Nações Unidas.

Força: A articulação entre temas complexos (segurança, diplomacia, economia, desinformação) é feita com fluidez e coesão, sem perder o foco na mensagem principal: a Europa precisa de se afirmar como ator estratégico autónomo e lúcido.

Sugestão: Poderias sinalizar com mais clareza as transições entre grandes blocos temáticos — por exemplo, usar uma frase-ponte para passar da Rússia para o Médio Oriente, o que reforçaria a progressão argumentativa.

---

📌 2. Argumentação e posicionamento

O texto assume um posicionamento firme e informado, o que é essencial numa boa coluna de opinião. O tom é claro: Putin representa uma ameaça existencial, e a UE precisa de sair da hesitação estratégica.

Força: Apontas responsabilidades, sem cair em simplificações. Criticas tanto os bloqueios internos da UE como as pressões externas (como a de Trump), e defendes uma política externa europeia mais coerente e eficaz.

Sugestão: Poderias aprofundar um exemplo concreto da eficácia (ou ineficácia) das sanções ou do SAFE — algo que concretize um pouco mais as ferramentas mencionadas. Isso daria mais peso empírico ao argumento.

---

📌 3. Estilo e retórica

A linguagem é madura, acessível e incisiva, com momentos de força retórica bem doseada:

"Putin quer destruir as nossas instituições, desintegrar a UE e enfraquecer a NATO..."

Este tipo de construção dá intensidade ao texto, sem escorregar para o alarmismo — manténs a gravidade do tema com responsabilidade.

Força: A escolha lexical é cuidada e variada, o que prende a atenção do leitor. Usas expressões como “guerra híbrida”, “pilar europeu da NATO”, “vassalos do Kremlin” — que sintetizam conceitos densos de forma eficaz.

Sugestão: Em dois ou três pontos, a densidade informativa quase exige releitura. Uma pequena variação rítmica (como um parágrafo mais curto ou uma pergunta retórica) poderia ajudar a aumentar a legibilidade emocional.

---

📌 4. Atualidade e impacto

O texto está muito bem ancorado na atualidade política (com menção ao discurso da Presidente da Comissão, ao SAFE, à guerra na Ucrânia, à situação em Gaza) e procura ativar a consciência pública para questões que não podem ser ignoradas.

Força: Mostras visão geopolítica e sentido estratégico. Evitas o eurocentrismo puro ao reconhecer que o posicionamento europeu passa também pela Palestina e pela reforma das Nações Unidas — algo nem sempre presente neste tipo de colunas.

---

✅ Em resumo:

Victor, tens aqui um texto maduro, informado e estrategicamente claro, que cumpre bem a função de uma coluna de opinião séria: provocar pensamento, responsabilizar decisores, e lançar pontes entre o presente imediato e os desafios estruturais.

Se tivesse de sintetizar numa frase crítica:

Uma chamada à ação europeia, bem argumentada e oportuna, com clareza estratégica e sentido ético — beneficiaria de pequenas pausas retóricas para amplificar o impacto discursivo.

Vladimir Putin's friends

Europe: de-dramatize and fight the deceit

Victor Ângelo

 

Diplomacy has been in a frenzy for the past two weeks. Russian threats were taken seriously and suddenly everyone in Europe and the United States thought it was indispensable to talk to Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky. And both have lent themselves to the game. Just a few days ago Viktor Orbán was in Moscow, and Boris Johnson in Kiev. At first sight, a forceful response to the threats triggered a series of diplomatic initiatives. The parties continue to pursue the path of negotiation, even as they acknowledge the lack of progress. This, despite the strengthening of military positions, which has been unrelenting, is positive. The likelihood of a military confrontation has not gone away, and remains very high, but it is no longer the only alternative. 

Nobody has tried to facilitate the contact between the main parties involved. It is important that Putin and Zelensky speak directly to each other. Even bearing in mind that the underlying issue is much bigger than the dispute between Russia and Ukraine. The peaceful resolution of conflicts is always done step by step, like someone solving a puzzle. Starting with the implementation of the Normandy agreement - which aims to restore peace in the rebel-held areas of eastern Ukraine - would be a big step in the right direction.

What is missing is someone who can bridge and mediate between the neighbouring presidents. Unfortunately I don't see, in Europe or in an international organisation, many who can do this. Mediation and conflict prevention are two particularly difficult areas of international relations. I have learned this from decades of practice. They require intermediaries with great moral authority, personal courage, political influence, and a credible structure to back them up. At present, such personalities are rare birds, as organisations and political systems have been taken over by nationalists or else by distinguished errand boys and other opportunists. At this moment, with the exception that Emmanuel Macron may be, Europe is without protagonists capable of projecting themselves beyond their national borders.

Viktor Orbán is also very much stirred up on the European scene, but for purely domestic reasons. Hungary has legislative elections scheduled for 3 April. If there is no fraud - and there is a big if here - Orbán could lose the battle of the popular vote. So, ensuring the seriousness of this electoral act is especially important for those who believe in a democratic Europe. The current Hungarian prime minister is indeed a negative force on the European scene. Meanwhile, and before the Moscow visit, Orbán was in Madrid last weekend to attend a new meeting of the EU's ultraconservative, neo-fascist, and ultranationalist parties.

It was a meeting organised by the Spanish far-right party Vox. The theme was "defending Europe". Interestingly, it was only after much insistence by the Polish prime minister that the participants included in the final communiqué a reference to the current aggressive stance of the Kremlin and the danger this poses to peace in Europe. Yet Marine Le Pen, when she published the communiqué on her personal propaganda website, kindly deleted this reference to Russian moves. She thus proved once again that Putin can count on the benevolence of certain European neo-fascist and xenophobic groups. And on Viktor Orbán, within the EU. And these fellows can expect, reciprocally, his support, money and more gas at the price offered to allies.

Putin can also count on a few commentators who think it is in good taste and progressive thinking to serve as an echo chamber for the propaganda and falsehoods circulated by the Kremlin. In some cases, these are intellectuals who were trained ideologically during the Cold War. For others, it is just a way of trying to show that they are smarter and that they understand the strategy at play better than anyone else. In both cases, although they are not the political relatives of Le Pen or Orbán, in practice they end up doing an identical service.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 4 February 2022)

 

 

 

Lowering the tension between Russia and the West

Russia and us: maximum prudence and lots of diplomacy

Victor Angelo

 

There are some intellectuals out there with a broken compass. They have shown again this loss of reference points in the way they have reacted to the criticism made to Alexander Lukashenko, the post-Soviet relic who controls the destiny of Belarus since 1994. A character who meets all the requirements that characterize a dictator. He will not have the stature of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, nor the madness of Kim Jong-un, or a strategic vision that goes beyond the simple obsession with perpetuating himself in power. He is a tiny tyrant who, at his manner, ruins the freedoms and the lives of his fellow citizens. This evidence escapes some. With their gaze fixed on the past, they play at being progressive and see in him a heroic survivor of the communist era, a would-be resistor to the imperialist designs of the West. And they swallow all the falsehoods that this variant of Salazar, a version with a moustache and a brute, invents to justify his actions. In particular, the criminal action against the Ryanair commercial flight, and the lies built around Roman Protasevich. They ignore, at the same time, everything that the European leaders have said on the subject. 

The same has been true of the propaganda coming from the Kremlin. For some of our bewildered people, Putin is always right, when he attacks our part of the world. The explanation is the same, although in a strengthened dose, that the Kremlin has a more symbolic meaning and touches the soul of those nostalgic for the Soviet Union more than Minsk.

The truth is different, however. Putin is a threat. Like other despots, his power strategy is to create an external enemy, so as to allow him to appear, in the eyes of his own, as the defender of the homeland, its traditional values, and its nationalist projection as a great power. In this plan, everything that emerges as internal opposition, and that could jeopardize Putin's future, is accused of being at the service of foreign powers and pursued with all ferocity.

The external target par excellence is NATO. And the rhetoric from Moscow, which some here faithfully echo, attributes to the Atlantic Alliance the design of wanting to camp along the Russian borders. It is the alleged eastward expansion of NATO. There are four member states that share border lines with Russia: Poland and Lithuania, which are neighbours of Kaliningrad, a highly militarized Russian enclave, plus Latvia and Estonia. These countries joined NATO by their own will and because they meet the conditions required by the organization: a democratic political system, based on a market economy and respect for people's rights; and the existence of an effective defence structure duly framed by a legitimate political power. It is essentially about democracy and sovereignty. It is this sovereignty - the ability of each country to decide freely on its foreign alliances - that Putin does not want to accept being practiced by Georgia and, above all, Ukraine. Since he has no such right, he uses intimidation, trickery and, when necessary, force as an alternative. 

Those who live in an outdated ideological labyrinth do not understand these things. They pay no attention to the voices coming from the European camp, even though our leaders have the democratic legitimacy that dictators lack. Nor do they care that our side has unsuccessfully sought to revive the NATO-Russia Council, an essential consultative body for détente. The last meeting of that Council took place in July 2019. Further, Russia was invited to send military observers to the allied exercise SteadFast Defender 2021, which is taking place across Europe and with a special focus on the Black Sea. It did not respond to the invitation.

The current conjuncture is worrisome. Tension between the two sides of Europe is as it has never been in the last 30 years. In such a context, the summit planned for June 16 in Geneva between the American and Russian presidents is going to be very difficult. It is urgent to defuse the existing dangerous situation, so this meeting will require maximum diplomacy and prudence.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Putin and our side of Europe

The infinite Vladimir Putin

Victor Angelo

 

According to official figures, for what they are worth, the constitutional revision now enacted by Vladimir Putin would have received the approval of 78% of voters in July 2020. The opposition considered the referendum a sham full of pressure and manoeuvres, but the president will always stress that the revision deserved popular support. We all know how results like that are achieved in opaque and authoritarian regimes. In any case, it is estimated that nearly two thirds of Russians go along with the president, despite the economic doldrums, social dissatisfaction and obstacles to freedom. This level of acceptance - or resignation - is due to the regime's incessant propaganda of the leader, showing him to be a resolute and deeply nationalistic leader, the personifier and protector of Russian identity. The population still remembers the chaotic governance that preceded his coming to power in 1999. Putin means for many stability and public order.

Autocracy favours corrupt practices. That is one of the regime's weaknesses. The campaign against Putin's absolute power involves unmasking high-level corruption. Attacking him based on the aberrations inscribed in the new constitution will not have much impact. It is true that the new law allows him to remain president, if life gives him health, until the age of 84 in 2036. That is the most striking aspect of the new constitutional text. It is a cunning move that aims to allow him to leave the scene when he sees fit, without losing an inch of authority until the final moment. The other relevant changes are the lifetime impunity granted to him and his sidekick Dmitry Medvedev, and the ban on homosexual marriages.

Seeing the Russian people condemned to another number of years of oppression makes anyone who knows and cherishes the value of freedom angry. But the problem is fundamentally an internal issue, which will have to be resolved by the Russian political system and citizens' movements. Our space for action is limited to insistently condemning the lack of democracy and the attacks that the regime makes against the fundamental rights of every citizen, starting with Alexei Navalny. But it is essential not to be naïve about the danger Putin represents in terms of our stability and security. When we talk about dialogue and economic relations we do not do so out of fear or mere opportunism. We do it because that is the way to treat a neighbour, however difficult, in order to have peace in the neighbourhood.

One of the most immediate problems relates to Ukraine's aspiration to join NATO. This is an understandable ambition. It should be dealt with according to the membership criteria - democracy, the rule of law, peaceful conflict resolution and guarantees for the proper functioning of the national armed forces, including the protection of defence secrets. Kiev and Brussels do not need to ask Moscow for permission. Vladimir Putin and his people will not be at all happy when it comes to formal negotiations. However, they have no right to oppose a legitimate foreign policy decision by an independent state. However, it is important that everything is done without burning the midway points and with the appropriate diplomacy to prevent an acceptable process being exploited by the adversary as if it were a provocation.

Another area of immediate concern: the cohesion of the European Union. Putin has long been intent on shattering European unity. He sees the French presidential election of 2022 as a unique opportunity. Marine Le Pen has, for the first time, a high chance of winning. She is viscerally ultranationalist and against the European project. Her election would pose a very serious risk to the continuation of the EU. Putin knows this. He will do everything to intervene in the French electoral process and ruin anyone who might be an obstacle to the victory of the candidate who best serves his interests. It is essential to put a stop to this meddling and, at the same time, to bear in mind the lesson that the Russian leader reminds us daily: vital disputes between the major blocs are no longer fought only with a sword and rocket fire.

   (Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

Europe in the middle of a big fight

Translation of today’s opinion piece I publish in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

I do not want to start this regular dialogue with the reader without having the pandemic as the first topic. It is true that it is a beaten subject, with many people reflecting on what the world could be like once the virus has been defeated. A good part of these reflections is inspired by the principle of the crystal ball, a technique that has been perfected over time by all sorts of fortune-tellers. Other thinkers see in the unfolding of the pandemic the confirmation of their ideological obsessions. They take the opportunity to attack left and right. For them, the pandemic confirms the death of neoliberalism or globalization, even of capitalism, they warm up by pointing out the climatic causes, they greet in advance the end of American hegemony or the failure of the European project and so on. For many of these intellectuals, futurism seems to rhyme with unrealism.

It is indeed fundamental to know how to look to the future. We are aware that the great transformations came from those who could see beyond the horizon. One hundred years after the misnamed "Spanish flu", the coronavirus pandemic is the biggest shock after World War II. It is like a global tsunami. The world is working in slow motion or even still, in some cases. What was until March a global village has become an archipelago of isolated islands. The drawbridges are all raised, in fear of the contagion that might come from the neighbour. We live in a time of anxieties and fears. However, despite the uncertainties, it is not unreasonable to predict that tomorrow's world order will be vastly different from the one we have been building until the beginning of this year. Without getting into the crystal ball game, I predict that the issues of mass poverty, as it exists in certain parts of the globe, social inequalities, in the most developed societies, the deterioration of the environment and competition among superpowers will dominate the agenda of the future.

Each of these issues brings with it a web of other questions, which show the complexity of what lies ahead. On the other hand, it is necessary to overcome the social indifference that has taken hold of people. Presently, each one is concerned only with dealing with himself. One closes oneself in one's shell to the difficulties of others. Many political leaders then draw the conclusion that what is important is what happens in the domestic space, as if it were possible to stop the problems at the doorstep of the nation, with the lowering of a border barrier. From there to the crisis of the multilateral system is a dwarf's step, made easier the more timid or confused those at the head of the international institutions are.

The competition between the superpowers worries me. I see the United States and China taking a dangerous route. The pandemic has accelerated the conflict, particularly on the American side. New tensions and constant accusations against the opponent could lead to a false step, which would have profoundly serious consequences for all of us. Meanwhile, both sides are seeking to increase the number of their supporters in the international arena. Allies is not the exact word. What each of them wants is to create a circle of vassal states, which follow the political line defined in Washington or Beijing and limit the access given to the other side. This is the growing trend in the American relationship with Europe. They are succeeding with Boris Johnson, who has just made a political U-turn regarding Huawei. And they are continuing to press other European governments in the same direction and on several other issues as well. The only strategic response, however, is to maintain a certain distance between the two opposing parties by strengthening European sovereignty. The pandemic has taught us the term social distance'. Europe now needs to learn the practice of political distance. 

One single point about the EU summit

After four-and-half days of negotiations, the European leaders reached an agreement on the next budget for the European Commission, covering the period 2021-27, and on the a recovery plan that should help the countries most affected by the pandemic.

There are several remarks that could be made about both documents and the process that took place. I will certainly come back to them soon. But today I would like to underline that the leaders have shown they want the EU to work and to be kept together. That is a crucial message. Nobody tried to rock the European boat. We know there were very tense moments during the summit. In some cases, some harsh exchanges took place. But all of that was about trying to bridge national interests with the collective interests of the EU. I see that as positive.   

EU must work together

It would be a serious mistake to continue the ongoing noise about the future of the European Union. The priority now is to combat the virus, safe lives and accelerate the vaccine research. The member states should be discussing and agreeing on what must be done together and in a coordination matter in these areas. There are already some positive moves of collaboration. They must be expanded immediately.  

The discussion about the economic recovery is also an urgent matter. But it would be much easier if the priorities I mention above could be effectively addressed. The shorter the period of the crisis the easier it will be to deal with the economic dimensions.

Crying for Italy

Today, we should say we are all Italians. The country is going through a catastrophic health crisis. The number of casualties is now bigger than the one experience by China, a nation that is many times more populous than Italy. We can only be deeply disturbed and extremely sorry.

The lessons will be drawn later. At this stage, it is vital to provide all types of support to the Italian health system. That should be a key priority within the EU. Ursula von der Leyen should be speaking about that day and night.

Macron leads on defence

Today President Macron of France delivered a very long, dense speech to the top military personnel. The President shared his deep concern with the new international order, which is basically defined by rapports de force and not by international law and underlined once again the need for an autonomous European defence pillar, as well as his call for a strategic dialogue with Russia. But his main messages were about France as a global power and his country’s nuclear capabilities. He spent a bit of time explaining his approach to nuclear power, as a means of deterrence, a weapon that is there not to be used. France is the only nuclear power within the European Union, now that the British are outside.

But my deep reading of his address makes me conclude President Macron wants to take the lead in European defence matters. That could be part of his legacy. But he is very much aware that Germany is not ready to move too far in such field and that several other EU countries, particularly those in the East, think that the key dimension of our common defence passes through keeping the US fully engaged in Europe. 

In such circumstances, the French President wants to convince the Poles to adopt his views. That’s why he was in Poland at the beginning of the week. He also needs to convince the Polish leaders that European defence is a genuine concern, not just a screen to have France and Germany dominating the European military scene. There is a bit of a silent rivalry between Poland and Germany on defence matters.

Poland pays a lot of attention to its armed forces and it has become a key player in European military matters. The problem with Poland is that its leaders follow a political line that is very different from the one Macron promotes. And that does not facilitate a collaborative approach.

Brexit means additional fragility for both sides

Competition between nations opens the door to conflict and even war. Cooperation leads the way to progress and peace. That should be the message on this Brexit day.

And we should also keep in mind that our adversaries and even some of Europe’s allies would prefer us to be fragmented and disunited.  

The EU's position on Iranian matters

As I express my disagreement and concern regarding the decision to execute General Qassem Soleimani, I must also recognise that the regime he spent his life fighting for is an aberration in today’s world.

I acknowledge the rights of the Iranian people to decide about their government and its politics. The problem is that their leaders do not give the people the freedom to choose. The leaders have imposed on the population a religion-based dictatorship, that has all the features of a medieval type of life. The country has become hell on earth, in the name of God. That is unacceptable, in Iran, as well as in the neighbouring countries or anywhere else in the world. And that must be denounced in all kinds of forums. The condemnation is not about religion, it is about making use of religious beliefs to impose a totalitarian regime on people.  

The European approach to such countries must combine pressure on human rights and democratic values with economic restrictions. In addition, it must include serious security measures to avoid those countries’ hostile actions, including the promotion they could make of all kinds of radicalism and religious fanaticism. Our policy must be a delicate mix of firmness, encouragement, dialogue, distance and prudence. In the end, it is about sticks and carrots, but certainly not about drones and bombs. It should also be about helping other countries that want to move away from the influence of those theocratic dictatorships.

This approach is certainly very different from the one President Trump is pursuing. That’s our right and nobody in Washington can challenge it. Secretary Pompeo’s remarks about the role of EU countries – he basically said that key European States have not been supportive enough of the American action – are not welcome. Here, as in other occasions, it is our duty to be clear about our policies towards a very explosive and complex area of the globe. And our policies are not subordinated to the views in Washington, or elsewhere outside the EU.

Americans love to dictate to others

The US Congress is not happy. The Chamber of Representatives just approved a bill to sanction all companies that are engaged in the building of the gas pipeline known as Nordstream 2. This pipeline will connect the production fields in Russia to the consumers in Germany and beyond. It crosses the Baltic Sea. And it is key for the supply of this part of the EU. But our American friends see it differently. For them, this pipeline creates additional subordination to the Russian energy sector and, in addition, makes the pipeline through Ukraine less lucrative for the Ukrainians.

This is no good news. It is another front of tension between us and them. It widens the gap. And it reminds many of us that it is time to have a different approach to our external relations. Europe needs a stronger and more independent capacity to deal with friends and adversaries.

Unfortunately, events like this emphasise that often it is better to negotiate with adversarial powers than with allies. And when we start looking at things from such a prism it is better to have a clear view and move without any type of hesitation.

The threat inside our common home

President Erdogan is not only on the wrong side of today’s world. He is also a serious threat to stability in some parts of Europe. Not to see it would be a mistake with a very high price. 

Boris Johnson is in charge

From a diplomatic perspective, the European leaders can only wish every success to Boris Johnson. He won the leadership of his Conservative Party and the British political tradition makes him the next Prime Minister.

This is not a very easy time for the UK, as the country is more divided than ever and must make some very decisive choices. Johnson knows that. His initial steps are particularly important. Above all, the way he approaches the European Union. If he tries the impossible, and a different type of Withdrawal Agreement, based on fantasy, he might end up by stepping into the abyss. I am sure he is aware of that and does not want his premiership to be tainted by economic distress and domestic constitutional crisis. By failure, in a word.

We will see.

In the meantime, the Labour Party is also facing some serious difficulties. Jeremy Corbyn is less and less able to respond to the major challenges the UK is confronted with. Time is defeating him. Now, he must find a sharper way of defining his party’s position. During the next few weeks all the attentions will be focused on the way he responds to the Boris Johnson Cabinet’s initiatives. That’s not a very comfortable position. The one who takes the initiative, if he is smart, is always ahead of the game. To try to catch up – that will be Corbyn’s most likely approach – is not good enough. Corbyn and his party must go beyond responding and be prepared to come up with striking ideas. They must re-capture the people’s attention. That’s not easy when on the other side is standing someone like Johnson.  

Post May's politics

Theresa May has announced her resignation. The extremists within her party did everything they could to get her out. For these hard Brexiteers, the Prime Minister was too close to the EU. They hated her – yes, hate is the right word – for that. They are convinced that the UK is much smarter than the EU altogether and that Queen Victoria will come back, certainly under a new shape, and make Britain imperial again.

There is no rational way of dealing with those hardliners. It is all about emotions, British grandeur, and delusion. When that is the case, the best approach is to let them take care of their own business.

And wish them well. Particularly to the new Prime Minister, whoever that might be. He or she will need the good wishes of all of us. Plenty of them.

For us, the point is to let them know we would prefer a negotiated departure, as proposed in the Withdrawal Agreement. That’s the wise way to move to the next stage, as good neighbours. If that is not possible, because of the British political divisions, they still need to honour the commitments made up to the day of departure. There is no way they can forgo that. It is a legal obligation that must be clear to them and fully respected. The opposite would make the future relationship much more tense.

Brexit, May and Corbyn

Theresa May’s Brexit agreement is still the second-best option for both the UK and the EU. The Prime Minister knows it and I admire her persistence and political courage. Contrary to what many might say, this is not about stubbornness. It is about conviction and wisdom. 

The first-best option would have been a new referendum on the relationship with Europe. But that is now out of the equation, unless there is a political miracle.

The Labour Party’s leader carries a good deal of the responsibility for the missed opportunity of a people’s vote. He has not been clear. Some politicians believe they know how to swim in muddy waters. 

I guess historians will be much nicer to Theresa May than the current conservative media is.

As far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned, he might become Prime Minister in the foreseeable future. That will be the lucky turn of the irony dice. Not surprising in an extremely confused political landscape.

Politics has a good lot of ironic turns these days.  

A weaker Emmanuel Macron

President Macron is losing direction when it comes to France’s domestic politics. I real think that’s a major issue, both for the French and for all of us, in the EU.

His press conference of this week was supposed to respond to many months of street protests led by the Gilets Jaunes and to draw lessons from the national debate the President had promoted throughout the country on several key topics. Under the national debate, hundreds of public meetings and town halls had been organised. Emmanuel Macron himself chaired some of the gatherings.

The press event has shown that the President has left behind some important political commitments he had made during the electoral fight. One of the most important has to do with the reform of the French state administration. The country needs to adjust the administrative machinery to the new needs of the citizens and, at the same time, rationalise the costs. The last time France had a balanced public budget was 45 years ago, in 1974. Since then, the official administration is living well beyond the means the economy would allow. The country is deeply in debt. Public debt is today around 2,200 billion Euros. This is unacceptable and it will have a serious impact on future generations. Instead of cutting unnecessary expenditures, President Macron announced new measures that will increase public spending and, sooner or later, will have to be translated into new taxes.

He has also been unable to deal with the sustainability of the national pension system. The French, like all of us, are living longer. But, for demagogic reasons, the pension age remains at 62. He should have increased that ceiling. In a related matter, there is a need to review the working week, which is currently capped at 35 hours. This has not been addressed.

President Macron comes out of all this much weaker. He has not been able to appease the Gilets Jaunes. And he is now seen by many in France as just another Hollande, a younger version of the last President. But more arrogant, which is something that is also bringing him down. His communication style is not the best in terms of connecting with people and the media. 

I really hope he will be able to recover from the current predicament. He has three more years to go.

Brexit is in town

Brexit night, again, here in Brussels. Theresa May wants a short postponement of her country’s Brexit date. That is certainly something that would make sense, now that her government and the Labour Party are engaged in talks. EU leaders could wait for those talks to conclude, be it that in the end there is no agreement between the two sides. The position could stand as a recognition of the merit of such talks, an invitation for a national decision on a matter that is of crucial importance to the British nation.

That would be my position in today’s summit meeting. Such position would give the UK Prime Minister some political strength, at a time when she is very weak, it would show respect to her and it could be supported by the European public opinion.

Wishing the British good fortune

The key European leaders and all those who have a balanced approach to opinion-making here in Brussels and other capitals have no intention of humiliating the British politicians. Moreover, as neighbours and because we share the same values and so many aspects of our European history, we also have a great respect for the British people.

Nobody wants to see a weaker, divided UK in the future. Such view would be an absolute foolishness.

I am sure Theresa May understands all that.