EU speeches, particularly major addresses like the Commission President's annual State of the Union (SOTEU), address deep member state tensions on migration, defence, and fiscal policy through a nuanced and consistent communication strategy focused on:

1. Framing the division as an existential challenge to the EU's global relevance, security, and "independence moment."

2. Highlighting recent shared successes and the historical "peace project" ethos to rally support for compromise.

3. Proposing concrete, compromise-oriented legislative frameworks that balance competing national demands (e.g., control vs. solidarity).

4. Emphasizing "unity" and the "political will to compromise" as the necessary response to an increasingly dangerous and power-based world order.

The core strategy is to elevate the debate from internal squabbling to a shared imperative for European sovereignty and security, making continued division appear reckless in the face of external threats like Russia's aggression and geopolitical rivalry with China and the US.

I. Migration: Balancing "Fairness" and "Firmness"

The divisions on migration policy are arguably the most politically explosive, pitting frontline countries and countries demanding "sovereignty" against those demanding "solidarity." Speeches address this tension by framing the challenge as one of effective management and border control, rather than an open door versus closed door debate.

A. The Common Ground: Border Control and Returns

EU leaders consistently emphasize the need for a "firm" external border and effective return systems, which addresses the primary concern of security-focused and anti-immigration member states.

• Securing the External Border: Speeches stress that an open Schengen area requires stronger common borders. They cite tripling funding for migration and border management and fully implementing the Integrated Border Management Fund (IBMF) and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex).

• Cracking Down on Smugglers: A key rhetorical strategy is to focus on criminalizing and destroying the business model of human smugglers and traffickers. This unifies member states by framing the issue as an organized crime problem, calling for new EU sanctions specifically targeting these criminal networks.

• The Return System: Speeches frequently call for a swift agreement and full implementation of the Common European Return System to increase the current low rate of returns for rejected asylum seekers. This is a core demand from countries seeking to limit irregular migration flows.

B. The Compromise: The New Pact on Migration and Asylum

The speeches use the adoption of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum as proof of the EU's ability to compromise, despite its complexity. They promote the Pact as the mechanism that balances the demands of both groups:

• Mandatory Solidarity: The Pact introduces a system of mandatory solidarity. Speeches present this flexibly, allowing member states to choose to contribute by accepting relocated asylum seekers, providing financial contributions, or offering technical support. This allows countries with strong ideological opposition to relocation (e.g., Hungary, Poland) a financial or material alternative, mitigating the political crisis of compulsory quotas.

• Faster, Fairer Procedures: The rhetoric promotes the new screening process and fast-track border procedures as a way to quickly distinguish between those who qualify for protection and those who do not, addressing the concern of overwhelmed front-line countries.

• Strategic Partnerships: Speeches highlight new "tailor-made, comprehensive partnerships with key non-EU countries" (e.g., in North Africa) to address the root causes of migration and cooperate on returns, shifting the focus of responsibility partly outside the EU's borders.

II. Defence: Forging a "European Defence Union"

Divisions in defence revolve around reluctance to pool national sovereignty, debates over NATO's role versus an autonomous EU capacity, and a deep-seated industrial and procurement fragmentation. EU speeches address this by leveraging the war in Ukraine to create a non-negotiable sense of urgency.

A. Framing as an "Independence Moment"

EU leaders, such as Commission President von der Leyen, have explicitly described the current era as "Europe's Independence Moment." This powerful rhetoric serves to:

• Rally Pro-EU Forces: It presents the need for greater defence integration as a battle for the EU's "liberty and our ability to determine our destiny," making the fragmentation of defence policy appear as a direct threat to national security.

• Address US Unreliability: Speeches subtly acknowledge the waning trust in the US security umbrella and the shift from a rules-based to a power-based global order. The message is clear: the EU must "take care of our own defence and security" to shield its economy from the side effects of military vulnerability.

• Shift from "Peace Project" to "Geopolitical Power": While the EU is historically a peace project, current rhetoric asserts that in the modern world, peace requires "credible deterrence."

B. The Path to Integration: Industrial and Financial Union

The concrete proposals in speeches focus on bypassing contentious political integration by focusing on industrial and financial coordination.

• Building a European Defence Union: This is the core vision, achieved by focusing on joint procurement, enhancing interoperability, and building a single market for defence products and services. The goal is not a European army (a political non-starter) but rather to rebuild, replenish, and transform national armed forces through EU-level coordination.

• The Defence Readiness Omnibus: Speeches introduce legislative instruments like the Defence Readiness Omnibus to speed up and coordinate defence investments across member states, addressing the industrial fragmentation that makes European defence manufacturing less efficient than its US counterpart.

• Financial Innovation for Ukraine: The willingness to use immobilized Russian assets to fund a "Reparations Loan" for Ukraine's war effort is framed as a creative, unified, and necessary financial step that underscores collective resolve.

III. Fiscal Policy: The Competition and Investment Imperative

Fiscal tensions pit the "frugal" Northern member states who demand strict adherence to rules (low debt, low deficits) against the Southern member states who advocate for more shared borrowing and significant EU-level investment to boost competitiveness. Speeches attempt to bridge this divide by arguing that massive, coordinated investment is an economic necessity, not a luxury.

A. The Call for Investment and Competitiveness

The argument for greater fiscal flexibility is rooted in the external challenge of competing with the vast state support and subsidies offered by the US (e.g., Inflation Reduction Act) and China.

• The Competitiveness Imperative: Speeches elevate the need for "economic prosperity" and "competitiveness" to the top priority, arguing that Europe must "fight" to maintain its economic standing.

• Targeted EU-Level Funding: Leaders advocate for large-scale, EU-level funding instruments—such as the proposed Competitiveness Fund to fill the gap left by the expiring Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). This allows for investment in strategic areas (like AI, green technology, and defence) without requiring individual member states to immediately breach the core 3% GDP deficit or 60% debt-to-GDP thresholds.

• The New Fiscal Rules: The communication surrounding the new European fiscal rules emphasizes a dual approach: maintaining the stability sought by the North while promoting sustainable, national investment plans for the green and digital transitions, as demanded by the South. The focus is on quality of debt and long-term structural reform.

B. Unity for Economic Cohesion

The rhetoric frames fiscal unity as essential for cohesion and the integrity of the Single Market. President von der Leyen's calls for the "political will and the political skill to compromise" directly target the internal divisions that prevent the EU from acting as a unified economic power. The underlying message is that division is a luxury the EU can no longer afford in a world of rival economic blocs.

In summary, EU speeches consistently employ the strategy of external threat mobilization to address internal divisions. By repeatedly stressing that the failure to unify on migration, defence, and fiscal matters means a failure to protect European values and interests against hostile or indifferent external powers, leaders seek to compel member states to accept compromise as the highest form of national interest.

The former Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker gives his perspective on European unity, discussing the political climate that leads to the need for a "Pitch for Unity between Member States on key European issues" against a backdrop of global challenges.

State of the European Union 2025: Prioritising security and competitiveness in uncertain times - YouTube

European Commission · 36K views