Emmanuel Macron’s recent visit to Berlin was supposed to be one of those grand moments when the European Union’s two powerhouses would reaffirm their joint commitment to saving the continent.
And save it, they must—at least according to Macron, who delivered a dramatic speech calling for the EU to step up, simplify regulations, and secure its place in a multipolar world. He laid out an ambitious vision, packed with urgency, declaring that Europe is in danger of being left behind by the U.S. and China.
The only hitch?
Germany – the biggest among Europe’s fiscal prude – just doesn’t seem to be getting into this whole “debt-is-the-answer” vibe.
Macron’s speech was filled with rhetoric about Europe’s need to reinvent itself, invest in its future, and shake off the chains of overregulation.
And he’s not wrong. The EU does need reform.
If anything, the EU’s bureaucratic machine has morphed into an unholy force—so powerful and unmovable that it could easily qualify as the Union’s unofficial 28th member state. And, let’s be honest, this new “member” is far from being the champion of deregulation and innovation that Macron was cheering for.
It might be that it’s no longer about the uniform size of cucumbers, but the focus on market (and everything else) rules is still strong. In the last few years, the U.S. invested heavily in AI, China’s “Made in China 2025” program has significantly boosted its R&D and innovation outputs – in the meantime the EU managed to regulate tethered bottle caps. (By the way, it might save the planet, but renders bottles basically unusable.)
Yet there Macron was, bravely charging ahead, warning that Europe only has two to three years to avoid irrelevance. A refreshing message? Certainly. But given Macron’s track record back home in France, it’s a bit like a fox offering to guard the henhouse.
After all, under Macron’s leadership, France’s national debt ballooned from €2.2 trillion to over €3.2 trillion.
And what do the French have to show for this? A more innovative economy? A dazzling array of cutting-edge investments? Well, no.
Instead, France has been left with about a million more public administration jobs. Bureaucratic expansion? Check. Groundbreaking economic dynamism? Not so much.
Which is why hearing Macron’s wax poetic about the need for more EU investments—especially considering Draghi’s report that suggests joint borrowing is the solution to the EU’s woes—feels like an exercise in selective amnesia. After all, nothing says “credibility” like preaching fiscal responsibility when your own national debt has grown by a trillion euros in just a few years.
But let’s not forget about Germany.
The other half of this European power couple is less than thrilled by Macron’s financial freewheeling.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz, ever the stoic fiscal conservative, seems far more interested in Germany’s time-honored tradition of balanced budgets than in embracing Macron’s visions of an EU built on common debt and borrowing.
Scholz’s reluctance makes sense. If you were leading the economic engine of Europe, would you be excited about footing the bill for a debt-fueled spending spree aimed at saving the very Union that seems to enjoy endless rounds of Brussels-based meetings more than actual deregulation?
Germany’s skepticism isn’t just about Macron’s ideas. It’s about a fundamental difference in economic philosophy. While Macron would love to borrow and spend to kickstart Europe’s future, Germany is stuck on the notion that countries should be responsible for their own debts. Imagine the awkwardness in the room when Macron pitches more debt (again), while Scholz is busy calculating how long it will take France to get its own finances under control.
Of course, one can’t ignore the elephant in the room—the EU’s bureaucracy itself.
Macron speaks about reforming and simplifying the Union’s regulations with the conviction of a man who hasn’t spent too much time in Brussels.
The European bureaucracy has become an entity in its own right, happily issuing edicts and creating labyrinthine regulations that even its creators probably can’t fully decipher.
Draghi’s report, which Macron enthusiastically supports, calls for an EU that’s leaner, quicker, and more competitive.
But here’s the catch: who exactly is going to convince the Brussels behemoth to voluntarily put itself on a diet? Asking EU bureaucrats to streamline their own processes is like asking a chocolate cake to bake itself healthier. A noble idea, but completely disconnected from reality.
Yes, von der Leyen promised to cut red tape, having finally realized that in spite of all the good intentions, long and complicated regulations like the Digital Services Act might have done more harm than help.
But details are scarce and knowing Brussel’s penchant for regulating and using the famous spill-over effect to venture into sectors and areas not originally envisioned by the “founding fathers” as those were deemed exclusively domestic issues; not to mention bureaucratic inertia, it is unlikely that significant change will happen soon.
On the other hand, while the meeting’s headlines were dominated by Macron’s call for more debt and Germany’s hesitation, the real friction between France and Germany lays elsewhere.
The debate over restricting Chinese car imports took center stage.
France, ever protective of its domestic industries, is pushing hard for tighter measures against Chinese electric vehicles, which are flooding European markets with competitively low prices. Macron sees these restrictions as necessary to safeguard European manufacturers. Germany, however, is understandably less enthusiastic. With its own car industry heavily reliant on the Chinese market, Berlin has been more cautious, fearing a trade war that could backfire on its economy.
So where does this leave us?
On the one hand, Macron’s intentions are clear and, in many ways, commendable. He sees the need for Europe to step up in a world where geopolitical and economic power is shifting fast. The continent needs to innovate, deregulate, and invest—or else face the uncomfortable prospect of irrelevance.
On the other hand, his approach—more debt, more investments, more speeches—feels oddly disconnected from both his domestic reality and Germany’s reservations. His recent call for more common debt, paired with his push for tougher stances on Chinese imports, only highlights the widening gap between France and Germany on the EU’s future.
Germany, the responsible adult in this relationship, isn’t about to start running up a tab it can’t pay, even if it means letting Macron’s dream of a turbo-charged EU economy slide. Scholz, after all, has his own challenges, and adding more common EU debt isn’t exactly what Berlin wants to prioritize right now.
And therein lies the problem: you have two leaders with broadly similar goals but fundamentally different ways of getting there. The chances of the EU moving forward on reforms and deregulation when its most powerful members can’t even agree on the basics are slim, at best.
The truth is, Macron’s heart is in the right place, and he’s absolutely correct in diagnosing the EU’s problems. But without Germany’s buy-in and a clear strategy for tackling the EU’s bureaucratic behemoth, his grand plans may be little more than well-meaning rhetoric. After all, if there’s one thing Europe has never been short of, it’s ambitious speeches about change—just ask the 28th member state.