On September 16, the President of the European Commission presented what was meant to be a roadmap for the European Union in the upcoming year. Among the most prominent topics mentioned by Ursula von der Leyen were the growing threat ofclimate change and the need to build climate resilience, as well as defence and security of the Union, matters related to cybersecurity and new technologies, and the European economy.
The speech, which lasted 73 minutes, contained moments filled with hope for the future, appreciation of what is currently being done, and sorrow for those we have lost. Some moments received more enthusiasm than others, although, judging by the frequency of the applause, the Parliament was certainly not shy about making its feelings known. Nevertheless, following von der Leyen’s speech, a debate ensued.
While the speech itself focused largely on what Europe could and should become, the debate that followed offered a rather different picture. Reactions from across the political spectrum showed that, while some of von der Leyen’s proposals were welcomed, there was considerable disagreement over whether the speech provided enough concrete answers to the challenges facing the Union.
From the representatives of the Parliamentary Committees, it may seem that only the European People’s Party is satisfied with the proposed action. Its president, Manfred Weber, showed his appreciation for, among others, the Kids Act, meant to protect European youth from the dangers of the virtual world, while raising concerns regarding “over-regulation”.
This contrast between support for individual initiatives and criticism of the broader direction of the Commission became one of the most visible features of the debate. While several groups welcomed particular proposals, especially those concerning children’s online safety, others argued that the speech lacked the concrete measures and resources needed to turn its ambitions into action.
The rest of the political groups have not tempered themselves with being vocal about the most important of issues. The general consensus has been that although the State of the Union drew a beautiful picture of the future, it failed to provide concrete steps towards achieving it.
Terry Reintke, representing the Greens, stated that following von der Leyen’sreference to heatwaves and droughts as the “summer of truth”, Europe must strive for an “autumn of action”. Manon Aubry, speaking in the name of The Left, said that “this SOTEU is completely absurd and totally disconnected from reality”. The press release of the group has also considered the speech “long and largely contentless”.
The group has also pointed out the lack of any measures aiming to tackle the spiraling cost of living, a claim that could be supported by the European Anti-Poverty Network, which has published rather disturbing data, showing that out of the entire speech, 67 seconds were allocated to social rights. In a 73-minute speech, that is not exactly a generous portion of the spotlight. The Left has also raised an alarm in the context of climate action. They worry that with such an approach to the ever-growing crisis, ambitious climate action may have been discarded.
“With ambition, we need plans, resources, and consultations.”
Climate policy was, in particular, one of the areas where the difference between the Commission’s ambitions and the reactions from MEPs became most apparent. Von der Leyen presented climate resilience as one of the Union’s priorities, pointing to heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and other consequences of a changing climate. Yet several political groups questioned whether the initiatives announced in the speech would be sufficient to address these challenges in practice.
Renew Europe’s Valérie Hayer has also said that the top priority must be “European law on climate resilience and risk management”, which overall received little to no concrete plans during the SOTEU.
Also, Iratxe Garcia Perez, representing S&D, has mentioned the adaptation and mitigation plans, which need to be backed by real investment. “Simplification cannot become deregulation through the back door, because there can be no competitiveness without clean, secure and affordable energy,” she said. S&D has also supported von der Leyen’s proposal on the Children’s Law, calling it “truly essential”.
The question of implementation was not limited to climate policy. Across the debate, several MEPs returned to the same concern: whether the Commission’s proposals would be followed by sufficient funding, legislation and practical measures. In this sense, the reactions to the speech focused not only on what von der Leyen promised, but also on how those promises could be delivered.
Paolo Borchia from PfE has described the speech as a “complete detachment from reality” as well as a “series of broken promises”, particularly in the industrial sector. “Titanic sinking while the passengers continue to dance, or, in this case, to applaud.” (Dramatic? Absolutely. But, considering the amount of applause in the chamber, perhaps not entirely inaccurate.)
Some of the voices sceptical towards the speech have doubled down on the failure to deliver the Green Deal and the lack of concrete proposals. “Today, Ursula von der Leyen seemed to be on the Moon rather than in the European Parliament”, claimed MEP from the Five Star Movement, Pasquale Tridico. “She described a functioning economy, whereas in reality we are witnessing deindustrialisation across all European countries, with 500 jobs lost every day in industry, rising poverty, growing inequality and a lack of access to healthcare in many countries,” he said.
“The vision has been set. Now comes the harder question: what will Europe actually do with it?”
Industry and economic competitiveness therefore formed another important part of the post-SOTEU debate. While von der Leyen presented the acceleration of the European economy as a central priority, some political groups and business representatives questioned whether the speech contained enough concrete measures to address the pressures facing European industries.
Some voices were also heard regarding the new water initiative, wary of the new proposal destroying the existing Water Framework Directive. Here, the real problem may a lack of implementation and enforcement of the existing Water Framework Directive. In other words, perhaps Europe does not necessarily need another initiative. It may simply need to make the ones it already has work.
The criticism of the water initiative reflects a broader concern expressed by environmental stakeholders: that introducing new European initiatives may have limited impact if existing legislation is not fully implemented. This was particularly relevant following a summer marked by extreme weather events, which made climate adaptation one of the more visible issues surrounding this year’s speech.
Some of the lobbies have also issued their statements regarding the State of the Union speech. For example, the German car lobby VDA stated that von der Leyen “presented little to no new, concrete solutions or courses of action” to help make the bloc’s industries more competitive.
Taken together, these reactions suggest that the response to the speech was not simply divided along the lines of support and opposition. Different groups focused on different parts of the programme: climate groups questioned implementation, social actors focused on the cost of living, while industry representatives called for more concrete measures to strengthen competitiveness.
One of the most surprising elements of von der Leyen’s speech was the announcement of closer European and Canadian collaboration, with the possibility of Canada becoming the first ever “associate member of the Union”. In response, the U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to impose “very heavy tariffs” if the deal is secured, warning that this offer to Ottawa can be seen as a “hostile act”.
“The result is not competing legal standards but the absence of any reliable one.”
The proposed relationship with Canada, however, stood out from much of the criticism surrounding the speech. (Besides MEP Damian Boeselager’s comment that Canada offers “Heated Rivarly” to keep us entertained, which I personally appreciated). Rather than focusing solely on internal EU challenges, von der Leyen presented closer cooperation with Canada as a possible way of strengthening Europe’s position in an increasingly uncertain international environment.
Nonetheless, the day after the SOTEU took place, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney took the podium in Strasbourg to address the European Parliament. In his statement, he paid special attention to the dangerous world we are living in, describing societies as being “battled by new storms”, such as climate change, weaponization of trade, erosion of democratic values, tariffs used to put pressure, and technology transforming the nature of warfare.
In a manner similar to von der Leyen, he addressed the threat that BigTech poses, while trying to “steal our children’s childhood”. (Graphic, but apparently effective, espescially on the Millenial demographic).
“Where our strengths differ, they complement; where they overlap, they scale up”, he said while talking of a potential alliance. He proposed many ways in which the European Union can gain from this partnership, most notably, through critical mineral reserves, Canada’s position in space, deep collaboration in defence, AI and computing. He has also mentioned the potential inclusion of Canada in the Erasmus+ programme!
Carney’s appearance in Parliament the following day gave the Canadian proposal an additional dimension. His speech presented the possible EU–Canada relationship not only as an economic partnership, but also as cooperation between democracies facing similar pressures. Defence, technology, critical minerals, space and education were among the areas identified as possible fields for closer cooperation.
Particularly, he insisted that this alliance “does not seek power to dominate others”, but is meant to be a “beacon for other democracies, not against what we oppose, but what we both stand for”.
The contrast between the two days was therefore notable. The SOTEU presented the Commission’s vision for the year ahead, while the debate that followed tested that vision against the concerns of political groups, environmental organisations and industry. Carney’s intervention then added an international dimension, placing the EU’s internal challenges within a wider discussion about security, trade, technology and democratic cooperation.
In the upcoming days, weeks and months, we are likely to see growing responses to the SOTEU and the instruments it is meant to implement. While a positive approach towards the future is always welcomed, the need to stand firmly on the ground and face the reality we live in has never been greater. With ambition, we need plans, resources, and consultations. We need to demand concrete action not just for us, Europeans, but for all those who will eventually be impacted by them too.
For now, the day after the speech leaves Europe with two different pictures. On one side, there is a Commission attempting to present a clear direction for the Union, with new initiatives covering defence, the economy, climate, digitalisation and social policy. On the other, there is a Parliament asking how these ambitions will actually be translated into legislation, funding and action. The coming months will show which of these two perspectives becomes more visible in European policy.
“We need to win back the hearts of Europeans, create the feeling of belonging to something bigger than ourselves, belonging to a common home,” said Ursula von der Leyen right before her speech ended. “As a society, we need to rediscover the ability to feel European.”
The vision has been set. Now comes the harder question: what will Europe actually do with it?
This article was written by Maja Winsche, a student currently enrolled in the LLM programme ‘International Human Rights’ at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway.
