French economist Thomas Piketty wants Europe to reinforce his ideology, but he is misguided because this move would undermine the principles of national sovereignty and democratic consensus among EU member states.
The only way out of the impasse is for a strong core of countries, led by France and Germany, to finally put concrete proposals on the table enabling progress to be made on both budgetary and institutional fronts, without waiting for unanimous agreement from the other countries. - Le Monde
In a recent column for Le Monde, Thomas Piketty argues that Europe needs a proactive approach to counteract the influence of Trumpism. He points to the European Union's unanimity requirement for major decisions as a roadblock to meaningful progress. His solution? A “core” group, spearheaded by France and Germany, should push forward on socio-economic, climate, and geopolitical fronts without waiting for consensus across all 27 EU states. Piketty envisions a stronger Franco-German Parliamentary Assembly (FGPA) that could evolve into a democratic institution with genuine decision-making authority, even suggesting it be expanded to include other EU countries as a powerful voting bloc.
There’s no question that Piketty is an intelligent man. I’ve read his work, and I respect his contributions to economic debate. But here, Piketty seems to forget a critical truth: politics is not an arena where you can control every factor. This idea that a handful of EU powerhouses could dictate sweeping changes reflects a troubling disregard for political realities, especially from a center-right viewpoint. In business, unless you control all the cards, you can't run the table. And politics is even messier; it’s a game of negotiation, compromise, and, most importantly, respecting diverse interests.
Piketty’s plan for a Franco-German-led shake-up of EU governance sidesteps foundational principles of national sovereignty and democratic consensus. Undermining the EU’s unanimity requirement is not just impractical—it’s a recipe for resentment. Smaller nations in the EU would undoubtedly see such an approach as a power grab, reducing them to bystanders while a select few steer the Union’s future. The result? A two-tier system where a powerful bloc decides the course for all, alienating member states and possibly tearing at the very fabric of the EU. Such an approach doesn’t just risk eroding trust; it practically invites division and discontent within an institution that’s already balancing precariously between cohesion and fragmentation.
Piketty may frame his argument as essential for tackling Europe’s pressing challenges, but it’s hard to ignore the ideological undertone. Known for his critiques of capitalism and advocacy for wealth redistribution, Piketty appears to see this as a chance to permanently embed his economic theories into Europe’s governance. By amplifying the power of the Franco-German alliance, he positions himself as the architect of a more centralized Europe aligned with his left-leaning economic vision. One can’t help but wonder if Piketty’s real goal is less about ensuring Europe’s success and more about cementing his own ideological legacy. With these proposals, he aims to establish himself as a transformative force in EU politics—a legacy-builder first, perhaps, and a unifier second.
If he truly cared about fostering a cohesive European future, Piketty might consider paths that respect the voices of all member states, not just those with economic clout. Strengthening Europe shouldn’t come at the expense of the smaller nations whose buy-in is essential to lasting unity. Instead, he champions a top-down model that bulldozes over the democratic processes Europe has spent decades trying to uphold. It’s an all-too-familiar irony: in his rush to “protect” Europe, Piketty advocates for a system that could very well fracture it.
Ultimately, Piketty’s vision runs the risk of turning the EU into a vessel for a narrow political agenda, discarding the democratic values that the Union was founded upon. He seems willing to gamble on alienating smaller nations and dissenting voices, all for a stronger Franco-German axis that he believes can “save” Europe. The problem is, Piketty’s version of Europe seems far more reflective of his own intellectual ambitions than of the continent’s complex political reality. Perhaps if Piketty stepped outside of academia and into the real political fray, he’d realize that wielding influence is not the same as fostering unity. There’s a reason the EU relies on unanimity—without it, all you have is a power struggle in a fragile Union.