SOTEU fallout: incremental ambition, familiar limits

Ursula von der Leyen’s 2026 State of the European Union address, delivered on 16 September in Strasbourg with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney as guest of honour, framed Europe as choosing “independence” amid an “openly hostile world.” The speech mixed familiar themes – climate resilience after a summer of wildfires, support for Ukraine, competitiveness, and tighter rules on social media for children under 13 – with institutional innovations: a European Security Council, an “Emergency Security Protocol” modelled on NATO’s Article 4, a “Congress of Europe,” and the surprise offer of “associate membership” for Canada.

Von der Leyen courts Canada as first associate member in State of the Union speech

The address drew applause in the hemicycle but quickly attracted criticism from political groups in the European Parliament and from EU specialists outside it. Many argued the speech recycled existing tools, avoided hard choices on financing, and failed to match the scale of the challenges it described.

Jordan Bardella, leader of the Patriots group and president of France’s National Rally, delivered one of the sharpest parliamentary replies. He described “two Europes”: one of bureaucrats who write the rules and enjoy rising salaries and private jets, and another of citizens who pay higher fuel and heating bills. Bardella warned that the forthcoming ETS2 carbon-pricing system would push French petrol towards €2.50 a litre and said von der Leyen’s Europe “doesn’t just cost us more, it also protects us less and less,” citing recent pressure on the Spanish exclave of Ceuta. He called for less red tape, protection for farmers, and an end to what he termed an “aggressive ideology of de-growth.”

Other groups echoed parts of that critique from different angles. Green MEPs accused the Commission of weakening existing climate rules while offering no immediate action plan after the “summer of truth.” Left MEPs attacked the emphasis on competitiveness and deregulation and demanded taxes on the rich and an end to certain free-trade deals. An EPP lawmaker privately described the speech, without the Canadian guest, as a “long technocratic list of announcements” many of which would never materialise.

Outside the Parliament, specialists who follow EU affairs closely were equally unconvinced that the proposals amounted to a strategic leap.

Alberto Alemanno, Jean Monnet Professor of EU Law, called the speech “another déjà vu: well-intentioned and naïve, as only we Europeans can be.” He said it offered incremental progress “where the moment demands a quantum leap.”

On security and political integration Europe still hesitated “to cross the Rubicon,” he said. On the economy it “too often echoed industries fighting decline rather than remaining in existence and purpose.”

According to Alemanno the speech followed public sentiment on social media and Israeli government actions rather than a settled strategy: its ambition to escape “toxic dependencies” was welcome but the means remained modest. Most importantly, Alemanno noted, it was “silent on how the Union will pay for its ambitions: no new own resources, no common borrowing, only hope that private capital will follow.” The proposed “Congress of Europe” recalled the earlier Conference on the Future of Europe – another exercise in “continental introspection.” Once again, he wrote, a president unwilling to take political risks distilled collective wisdom into “technocratic fixes: sensible, earnest, but not up to the times.”

Marta Prochwicz, policy fellow and deputy head of the European Council on Foreign Relations’ Warsaw office, focused on security. Europe’s response to Russia’s grey-zone attacks had so far been “largely defensive and reactive.” The “European Article 4” appeared to be “a repackaging of existing policies and an additional consultation mechanism.” Europe already had “plenty of places to talk”; what it lacked was “a way to make Russia pay.” The gap was “not in convening but in willingness to act.” A European Security Council that brought in non-EU partners such as Britain, Norway and Canada was “a step in the right direction,” she said, but would remain a “talking shop” unless it produced deeper defence-industrial cooperation, joint ventures, interoperable equipment and joint training.

Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek wo gained notoriety as Greece’s finance minister in 2015 during the debt crisis, was characteristically blunt about the Canada proposal: “Has she lost the very last of her remaining marbles? Ms von der Leyen offered Canada associate membership of the EU. That would have been fine if it were not for a tiny little snag: there is no such thing as associate membership of the EU!”

Member-state diplomats later confirmed they had been caught off-guard; any formal new status some said would likely require treaty change that currently lacks support.

Carl Bildt, former Swedish prime minister and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, expressed disappointment on a different front: “I had hoped that @vonderleyen would have been more forward leaning on the Draghi agenda. That’s where the true challenge for 🇪🇺 is. Security policy is certainly hugely important these days, but lies more with the member states.”

Taken together, the reactions portray a speech that diagnosed Europe’s predicament with some accuracy but offered institutional packaging and new talking forums rather than the financing, legal innovation or political risk that critics believe the moment requires. Whether the “associate membership,” Security Council and Article 4 protocol evolve into something more than announcements will now depend on member states – the very actors several of the critics say remain the real constraint on European action.

Caption: Jordan Bardella, leader of the Patriots group and president of France’s National Rally, delivered one of the sharpest parliamentary replies to von der Leyen. [European Parliament Multimedia Centre]