OLD-NEW FINANCIAL APPROACHES FOR EUROPE

Walther Rathenau, the author of “The New Economy”

When people say that, after Coronavirus, nothing will remain the same, they refer first of all to economy.According to us, this must go much further, first of all inb the financial sector.

Indeed, we seealready now, in many directions, some signs of change, though balanced by the eternal conservatism of our establishments. From one side, digital currencies are altering already now several aspects of traditional economies, especially as concerns digital payments in China, where digital has become, within the framework of the new web economy of the “BATX”, the prevailing means of payment. Their role has been powerfully enhanced by Coronavirus, because the digital network of Alipay has become the key instrument of virus tracking, and digital payments, not involving the physical handling of money, have been a powerful means of prevention, so to become mandatory in high risk situations like the one of Wuhan.

From another point of view, the whole structure of the economic philosophy underpinning the Euro has been eroded, first of all by Quantitative Easing, then by the ongoing generalized economic crisis, already present before Coronavirus, but worsened by the same. This has brought about the need to find out new thinking modes, which we will outline here, and on which we will revert in the forthcoming publications of Associazione Culturale Diàlexis.

The new Chinese Central Banl Digital Currency: a model worldwide

1.Central Banks Digital Currencies

On May 23, Partha Ray and  Santanu Paul have written, in the Indian newspaper “The Hindu”, a detailed article highlighting the crucial, and revolutionary, features of the new Chinese digital currency.

It is worth wile going through this report, for picking up information and ideas which would be useful also, and especially, for Europe:“While the world is grappling with the fallout of COVID-19 and speculating on how far China can be blamed for the pandemic, a silent digital revolution is taking place in China. On April 29, 2020, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), the country’s central bank, issued a cryptic press release to the general effect: ‘In order to implement the FinTech Development Plan (2019-2021), the People’s Bank of China has explored approaches to designing an inclusive, prudent and flexible trial-and-error mechanism. In December 2019, a pilot programme was launched in Beijing. To intensively advance the trial work of fintech innovation regulation, the PBoC supports the expansion of the pilot program to cover the cities of Shanghai, Chongqing, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Suzhou, as well as Xiong’an New Area of Hebei, by guiding licensed financial institutions and tech companies to apply for an innovation test.’ “

In media reports, in the recent past, China has emerged as the capital of the crypto ecosystem, accounting for nearly 90% of trading volumes and hosting two-thirds of bitcoin mining operations. The People’s Bank of China tried hard to curtail this exuberance but achieved limited success.

The benefits of Central Banks Digital Currencies (CBDC) are:

-paper money comes with high handling charges and eats up 1% to 2% of GDP, which can be spared;

-by acting as an antidote for tax evasion, money laundering and terror financing, CBDCs can boost tax revenues while improving financial compliance and national security;

-as a tool of financial inclusion, direct benefit transfers can be instantly delivered by state authorities deep into rural areas, directly into the mobile wallets of citizens who need them

-CBDCs can provide central banks an uncluttered view and powerful insights into purchasing patterns at the citizen scale

A digital currency would be beneficial especially for Europe, which has a dramatical need to increase is own cash creation power without borrowing on international markets. The expertise of the PBoC could be transferred through cooperation within the framework of the new Investment Treaty, whose scope should be enlarged to various aspects of economic cooperation, alongside the path of the Italian Silk Road MOU.

An investigation carried out by the Bank for International Settlements shows that most Central Banks are working out hypotheses of digital currencies, but China is the pioneer, as in all other social innovations and technologies..

Rudolf Hilferding, the theorist of the State-monopoly capital

2.An inversion of attitudes between Europe and USA about strong and weak currrencies

The stress since the start of the Euro had been on the idea of “stability”, -whilst, on the contrary, the monetary policies of the FED and of the Bank of China were stigmatized as politicized and volatile-. Such stress has been reversed by the most recent attitudes of European Institutions.

The ECB had already had recourse, against its natural inclination, to Quantitative Easing, after that Abe and Obama had already made massive use of this instrument following to the Subprime crisis, so rendering it “politically correct”. At the occasion of the Coronavirus crisis, the ECB has made recourse again, more than before, to this instrument, so resulting to be the major source of emergency liquidity in favor of Member States. Now we have a further panoply of emergency and recovery funds, which do not comply any more with the preceding monetary orthodoxy, and that could, and should, open the way to the total reversal of past policies .

Now, it is US president Trump, that, for the sake of preserving the role of the dollar as the reserve currency by excellence, is extolling the virtues of stability, as compared with the weakness of Euro and of Yuan .

This necessitated abrupt change of the European financial policy, though maintained, uo to now, within a strict political and ideological control, cannot avoid to shadeimportant doubts on the traditional metapolitical grand narrative of Euro.

According such narrative, this currency was a cornerstone of the European integration because it embodied to the utmost extent the stability goal attainable by the preeminence of economy over politics, which purportedly was the civilizational achievement of the European Union, rendering it superior to any other political form in history (including the United States). This hegemony of economics corresponded to the ideal of “Douce Commerce” expressed by Benjamin Constant as the landmark of representative constitutionalism, which, by this way, was supposed to set the concrete bases for the “Eternal Peace”, which, according to Kant, would have been grounded on the preeminence of merchant values on the ones of glory a and honour, typical of old monarchies.

Europe could have achieved such goal of “Douce Commerce” because, as stated eventually by Juenger and Schuman, WWII would have shown to Europeans the necessity of avoiding wars, and, therefore, to find a peaceful organization of Europe. Such peaceful Europe would have required giving up strong national identities, and the related cultural atmosphere oriented towards war. This was even the characteristic which distinguished Europe from U.S. (for Kagan, “Europe coming from Venus, US from Mars”). According to this narrative, US hegemony constituted even a blessing, avoiding to Europe the burdens of war and allowing to it to carry out that historical experiment.

Following to a mix of marxist determinism and Rostow’s Development Theory, mainstream Euro ideology maintained that wars are a by-product of economic contradictions. In particular WWII would have been the outcome of Weimar inflation and Great Depression, which, by disenfranchising the German middle-classes, had created the psychological background for Nazi revisionism. By contrast, the new stability policies of the Federal Republic would have been the main instrument for preventing the falling back of Europe, and especially of Germany, into the “cultural atmosphere” of the Thirties (the “Destruction of Reason” described by Lukàcs), which had rendered the Axis possible.

The problem for these theorists is now that the present fall of the economic background set up with the Euro could make possible a disenfranchisement of middle classes parallel to the one of the Thirties and their orientation towards populism, which, at its turn, could make possible the rebirth of violent forms of empowerment (“Selbstbehauptung”).

Albeit the ideological Byzantinism of the above narrative is self-evident, there is something true in its reasoning. The end of the illusion of an unprecedented richness of Europeans, which has been so well cultivated in post-WWII Europe – by the ERP, by the mythologies of neo-realism and of dolce-vita, of welfare State and Occidentalism, had been seriously set in doubt by the 1973 Oil Crisis, by the crises of the Twin Towers and of Subprimes and by the comparative reduction of Europe’s GNP as compared with China and developing countries. The higher growth rate of such countries not having given up to their sovereignty and to a realistic orientation of their ruling classes have shown that Rostow’s Development Theory is not apt to explain the real economic trends of the world.

The need, by European Institutions, to follow , for salvaging European economy, paths alternative to monetarist orthodoxy, such as Quantitative Easing, monetization of debt, deficit spending, State aids, shows that there is no unavoidable trend in world economy, and that Europeans are free again to choose their economic destiny.

According to me, the case of Italy is the most perspicuous. Italy’s economy had grown at a very fast pace before and during the two world wars because the ambitions of the unified State had led it automatically towards expansionism and militarism. Eventually, the huge industrial structures and widespread industrial culture created for the needs of war had purposefully not been destroyed by the Allies because they would have resulted to be too useful after the war. The conversion of Europe from a war economy to a consumption society had brought about the so-called “Italian Miracle”. Unfortunately, since it was just an epiphenomenon of wars, such “Economic Miracle” finished less than 30 years after the war (in 1973, with the Oil Crisis), even if this abrupt end was masked by the increased salaries,inflation , the extension to middle classes of social benefits already accrued to blue collars, and a large dose of propaganda, by State, media, enterprises and trade unions.

Michal Kalecki, the inventor of “Military Keynesism”

3.A further step forward

Presently, the need for a realistic approach to the management of economy is felt more than ever.

At knowledge level, it must result clear that economy is a human science, and, as such, it is not an exact science. As a consequence, all of its theories, stories, approaches, solutions, are always very subjective.

Second, at meta-political level, the fact that war has not appeared, at least in Europe since WWII, in the traditional forms of direct and massive violence, does not impede that a “war without limits” is carried out every day under our eyes, with propaganda,mafia, excellent murders, military expenses, ethnic wars, terrorism, espionage, extraordinary renditions, humanitarian wars. A State which gives up to counter this kinds of violence carried out by other States or organizations against itself, its territory, its citizens, its economy, is damned to disappear within a short period of time.

At political level, this situation is opening up the possibility to discuss concretely each specific issue on a solid basis, showing which have been the mystifications and the mistakes of the past, the political distortions influencing still now a correct strategical approach, and in any case proposing alternative paths, apt to reverse the structural weaknesses of European economies.

It is loughly is that, when thinking of the “necessary reforms” of our economies, everybody thinks of the reduction of employment and social benefits, as well as a further minimization of the role of States.

Unfortunately, these processes, which have been the most evident causes of acceleration of Europe’s decline, are not the ones apt to reverse it. On the contrary, a serious “reform” should start from a thorough study (now possible thanks to Big Data), of what Europeans are really doing and of what the market really need.

There will be many great surprises.

Such study would bring us to ascertain that, today, the largest part of Europeans is not present on the labor market (because many women work at home, the number of pensioners is growing exponentially, young people do not start working before 20 years, there is a lot of unemployed and under-employed workers, sick persons and prisoners. Secondly, most people who are employed are producing things which are relatively not useful for European societies (such as the huge amount of commercial businesses, which now are almost bankrupt, or the production of luxury cars, which have no market, or military bureaucracy, deriving from the existence of 40 different armies), whilst, on the contrary, products and services which are badly needed, either for homeconsumption (such as education, research, industrial restructuring services, maintenance of territories), are not produced by anybody.

Today, the European market, left to itself, is not able to match society’s needs with workforce availability. Europe must set up, first of all, the Big Data which will be able to map this situation and provide for a general plan for the next 7 years, during which people will be trained, financing will be provided, enterprises will be restructured, employees will be hired, in such way that all necessary activities will be carried out by somebody, and that everybody finds an occupation corresponding to his skills.

All this has not very much to do with Keynesianism, which is just one of the options within the prevailing American- type liberalism. We cannot call it “corporatism”, nor “State command economy”, both having resulted, in the government practices of the XX century, to be just two alternatives compatible with Western globalization, all of them falling within the Aristotelian definition of “Chrematistiké”.

That “good government”should be an application, in practice, of the ideas of Aristoteles about “oikonomìa” as alternative to “chrematistiké”, or, in a more recent application, of the ones of Hilfereding, about “Staatsmonopolistischer Kapitalismus” or of Kalecki, about “military Keynesism”.

The overall scheme of tEuropean recovery interventions

4. A European NATO-like Emergency Service

The problem of the European post-Coronavirus interventions is that the very complex structure of the European Union renders its intervention slow, ineffective and not transparent.

In fact:

1)each action has to go through:

-a proposal phase (through Member States, and Commission);

-a decision-making phase (ECB, Council, Parliament)

-an implementing phase (Financial markets, Governments and Parliaments)

-an administrative phase (Ministries, Regions, banks);

-a jurisdictional control.

b)Each phase imply lengthy negotiations with egoistic interests, which hinder emergency interventions (Member States, Central Banks, political parties, Ministers, enterprises, professions, regions, cities):

-disputes about the nature of the aids;

-US interferences;

-instrumental polemics;

-media manipulations;

-personal ambitions;

-organised crime;

-unconscionable citizens’attitudes;

c)it is impossible to understand really what happens (Byzantinism of European regulations; uncomplete nature of compromise regulations; need of national implementing activities;fraudulent implementation):

-the swinging attitudes of financial markets;

-the upredictable impact of the financial compact;

-the ever changing decisions of parliaments, goverments, regions and mayors.

The EU authorities would have liked to be able (as Josep Borrell dreamed), to send armored convoys with European flags to bring first aid to victim popuilations. On the contrary, whilst Chinese, Russian, Cuban and Albanian aid arrrived physically and officially within a few days from the requests of the relevant governments, European aid has nort yet arrived, and will never arrived with military medica and with European flags.

Under these conditions,how to be surprised that most Italians consider China as the most friendly country?

This constitutes an objactive drawback of the European system. Ursula von der Leyen, David Sassoli,Josep Borrell, Paolo Gentiloni and Dubravka Suica must work harder on that, creating a complete system of European enìmergency intervention, if necessary as a joint intergovermment project, like NATO, with own dotations, own personnel, equipment, stock, commandment, without being bound to discuss everything with everybody.

LETTERS TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION

During this period, when every important decision is suspended in the expectation that the pandemic will decrease earlier or later, further time cannot be lost for deciding which future we want for Europe.

Europe’s decision-making processes have been paralyzed since two years: first, because of the European Elections; afterwards, for the cumbersome procedure of forming the new Commission, and, finally, by the exception state during the Coronavirus Pandemic.

But already before, a hurdle of unsolved problems was cumulating: the uncertainty in the relationships with the rest of the world and the ongoing demographic, cultural, political, economic and technological decadence as compared with the other Continents.

Conscious of these dangers, Associazione Culturale Diàlexis is going on soliciting all responsible entities to take care of this urgency, inserting it into Europe’s priorities.We report systematically, via the Alpina-Diàlexis website, about our steps with the different Institutions. Only a few ones have given a response.

When we were urging, several decades ago, not to cede to irrealistic ideologies, nobody wanted to listen; when we tried to address the interest of Italian scholars towards the study the Central European social system, for deriving teachings from it, nobody was interested;when we travelled throughout the world for promoting a form of globalization which could be fruitful for Italy, Europe and third parties, we were boycotted by everybody; when we warned against complacency on the lack of a European Identity, people even denied that the problem existed; when we warned that, without an annual theoretical growth of 4.5%, Europe and Italy would have been in a pernìmanent de-facto recession, this seamed to be unbeleavable, but now data about Europe’s positioning in the world economy in the last forty years are available and undeniable.

Now, we are warning about the technologhical gap between Europe, from one part, and China, US, South Korea and Israel, from the other.

Also now, most people try to misinterpret this warning, as if new technologies would mean just Industry 4.0, electrical car, solar plants and G5, whilst the world is driving towards Total Surveillance, concentration of Big Data, Quantic computing, Space rush. So, Europe will remain still more backward than before and will be obliged to accept, de-facto, the ideological and business solutions chosen by technological hyper-powers.

We have already published the letters sent to the members the ITRE Committee of the European Parliament. By this post, we report now about the letters addressed to the members of the Council and of the Commission.

Up to now, the only one authority which has given a follow-up answer is the President of the European Parliament, Davide Sassoli.

Turin, 22 May 2020

Dear Sirs

We have addressed to the Members of the European Council (including President Ursula von der Leyen), the following letter, which we send also to you for what is of your specific competences.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of this inconsistency both in working out the 7 years budget and in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

Turin, 14/5/2020

To the members of the European Council

Ladies and gentlemen,

We had addressed ourselves to the rapporteurs to the Committee “Industry, Research and Energy” of the European Parliament in the session of April 28 for the discussion (and possible approval in first reading) of two proposals, concerning a revision of the regulation governing the EIT, and its re-financing for the period 2021-2027.

In that letter, we emphasized  that, after the Coronavirus crisis, everything had changed in the world, so that  preceding policies should be in any case modified. As President Ursula von der Leyen had said “…because this crisis is different from any other, so must our next seven-year budget be different from what we know. We will need to frontload it so we can power investment in those crucial first years of recovery”.

We had sent to the rapporteurs  the digital file of the book  “A European Technology Agency”, which we send to each of you, including a proposal of Associazione Culturale Diàlexis for an overall restructuring of European technology policy alongside the Commission’s priorities, and especially its Digital Strategy, thoroughly revised in the light of the recovery needs after the incoming economic crisis and Coronavirus.

We start by noting that the European Coal and Steel Authority, of which the 9th of May has been the anniversary, was at the end of the day a European agency for the management of a European consortium, which, at that time, represented the core of crucial industries. In the same way, we propose now to put, under the common European control, the most sensitive European industries: the ones of new technologies. As the Coal and Steel Industries were pooled because they constituted the basis of military preparedness, such are today Internet, European Champions, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Currencies, Energy control, Biomedical.

The approach followed up to now, where new technological developments in defence, aerospace, digital, biology, transportation, environment, communication, organisation, are so much dispersed as to result ineffective , has to be reconsidered thoroughly, with the idea of a sole planning organisation, common to EIB, Commission, Council, Member States, Regions, Companies and Cities, which may concentrate this huge effort of the next few years, for challenging, from one side, DARPA, and, from the other, “Made in China 2025”and “China Standards 2035”.

Let’s recall also that Jean Monnet, before been appointed the first Chairman of the High Authority, had been the French Commissaire Général au Plan, and before, had worked for a military consortium of the Allied forces.

It is sufficient to say that, as it results from the papers to which the Parliament is confronted now for the discharge of their  accounts, the Agencies and Public-Private Entities of the Commission (mostly with high technological responsibilities) are almost 40, to which important entities such as ESA have to be added. It would be much more reasonable to have a sole big entity like MITI or DARPA, with a global vison of what is going on in all branches of technology, and the capability to react immediately.

We had sent the book and the proposals to members of Parliament and relevant Commissioners, urging them to consider its arguments and the proposals contained in it. Finally, we are also preparing a second book, devoted to a debate among intellectuals, politicians, European Movements  and  civil society, on technological humanism in Europe after coronavirus. We hope we will receive contributions from everybody, in time for influencing the ongoing debates. Of course, we think, in fist instance, of the addressees of this communication.

The basic idea is that, already before the Coronavirus crisis, the authoritative studies carried out by the French Senate (Rapport Longuet) and by the German Government (Nationale Wirtschaftsstrategie) had certified that Europe has no prospect to recover in time its positions in web industries, European Champions, cyber-intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, quantum computing, cyberwar, digital currencies, biotechnologies, before the proposed deadline of 2030, and the joint French-German Manifesto has already been overcome by the events of the last few months.

As a consequence, Europe’s situation is  condemned to deteriorate constantly, from the point of view of overall economic results (see Mazzucato, Morozov and Zuboff), from the one of military security (De Landa, Dinucci, Mini) of environmental crisis (Greta Thunberg, “Laudato Sì, Querida Amazonia) and of the protection of citizen’s rights (Assange, Snowden, Greenwald), unless the European Union undertakes an overall strategy of reflection, of political debate, of institutional reform, culminating in a new era of Digital Humanism, alternative to the one of Superpowers.

For the above reasons, during the discussions about the 2021 seven years budget which are bound to start soon, as well in the ones that must precede the Conference on the Future of Europe, the question of an overall restructuring (philosophical, conceptual, geo-political, institutional, technological and financial) of the orientation of European society cannot be escaped.

For these reasons, a preliminary question is whether the existence of EIT still makes sense, and whether or not should it be merged with ESA and other entities.

Let’s recall just some fundamental and unresolved issues, which have to be addressed before it is too late:

-the lack of a digital-humanistic ruling class;

-the abuses of the digital-military complex in the areas of data storage, tax evasion and antitrust;

-the upgrading of the European society, from an Industrial Society, to a Society of Intelligent Machines;

-Europe as an ideal battlefield among great powers in all possible areas of human life: economic war, battle of narratives, NCBW, political destabilisation…

Our book, and our formal proposal for the Conference, has the ambition to suggest the headlines of a global response to these unanswered questions

President Sassoli has replied to us very kindly, suggesting to address all the members of the ITRE Committee, who are, in last instance, responsible for a decision together with the Council (see below).

We are at your disposal for further illustrating the proposals, as well as for collaborating with your services in arriving at more concrete results. At the same time, we are addressing the same appeal to the Commission, so that this crucial deadline of European history is not missed.

We would be honoured by any reaction on your side, and we remain available for any form of cooperation.

Thanking you for your attention,

Kindest regards,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis

Via Bernardino Galliari 32

10125 Torino

Tel: 00390116690004

00393357761536

Da: SASSOLI David, President <President@europarl.europa.eu>
Inviato: martedì 12 maggio 2020 11:07
A: Riccardo Lala <riccardo.lala@alpinasrl.com>
Oggetto: RE: Sessione straordinaria del 28 aprile della Commissione Industria, Ricerca e Energia D(14934)

Caro Dott. Lala,

Grazie per la Sua cortese lettera, per la pubblicazione “European Technology Agency” e per le proposte dell’Associazione Culturale Diàlexis sui nuovi ecosistemi tecnologici.

Il pacchetto “EIT” sta seguendo la normale procedura legislativa e si trova attualmente in prima lettura ad una fase iniziale. In occasione della riunione della commissione ITRE, lo scorso 28 aprile, si è tenuto un dibattito approfondito che ha messo in luce come la crisi provocata da Covid 19 sia attualmente al centro del confronto e delle decisioni politiche europee. È in questo contesto che gli europarlamentari di ITRE sono ora chiamati a presentare gli emendamenti al pacchetto “EIT”. Relativamente alle implicazioni sul bilancio dell’EIT, il Consiglio Europeo sarà inoltre chiamato a decidere sul prossimo Quadro Finanziario Multilaterale (MFF), relativamente al quale la Commissione europea avanzerà presto una nuova proposta che dovrà riflettere la nuova realtà della crisi Covid 19 e della risposta da dare a quest’ultima.

Ho trasmesso la Sua pubblicazione al Segretariato della commissione ITRE affinché possa essere distribuita ai Relatori del pacchetto “EIT”. La invito inoltre a mettersi direttamente in contatto con i membri della commissione ITRE per assicurarsi che la sua proposta possa giungere ai legislatori che, in ultima istanza, saranno chiamati a decidere sulla questione.

Cordiali saluti,

David Sassoli

DOMANI 9 MAGGIO: WEBINAR 70 ANNI DICHIARAZIONE SCHUMAN; 2500 ANNI TERMOPILI

La storia dell’ integrazione europea comincia nel 480 a.c. (Erodoto, Eschilo, Socrate)
La Commissaria Dubravka Suica, responsabile per la Conferenza sul Futuro d’ Europa

PROGRAMMA

Ore 9,00 Prove tecniche

Ore 9,15 Apertura dei lavori (Modera – e riceve le domande per i relatori-Riccardo Lala, info@alpinasrl.com)

Ore 9,30

Relazione introduttiva

Prof. Pier Virgilio Dastoli:

Lo stato di avanzamento della Conferenza sul Futuro d’ Europa

Ore 10,00

Prof. Marcello Croce

Quale spazio per la cultura nel dibattito sull’ Europa?

Ore 10,15

Ing. Roberto Matteucci

Dove sta l’ Europa  nelle industrie tecnologiche?

Ore 10,30

Dott. Bruno Labate

C’è posto per i lavoratori nell’ Europa del futuro?

Ore 10,45

Avv.to Ennio Galasso

Che fine ha fatto la tradizione giuridica europea?

Ore 11,00

Ing. Ferrante Debenedictis

Europa e nazioni oggi

Ore 11,15

Domande e dibattito

Chi desidera partecipare alla manifestazione, dovrà collegarsi, a partire dalle ore 9,00 del 9 maggio, al seguente link: https://www.alpinasrl.com/dibattito-online/, segnalando eventuali difficoltà a:

info@alpinasrl.com, o ai seguenti numeri di telefono:Lo stesso vale per fare domande ai relatori e comunque per intervenire.

00390116690004 00393357776 1536.

L’Europa è destinata a uscire dalla storia se non si darà, entro il prossimo decennio, un proprio sistema tecnologico completo, autonomo e competitivo con quello degli altri Continenti

ALLEGATI

DOCUMENTO COMMENTATO DEL MOVIMENTO EUROPEO SULLA CONFERENZA SUL FUTURO DELL’ EUROPA

Nostri commenti, in particolare sul  Fondo europeo per la ricostruzione:

– sia affidato alla gestione della stessa Commissione, attraverso l’Agenzia Europea della Tecnologia,  sotto il controllo del Parlamento europeo, secondo criteri privatistici, ma in base a un Piano Settennale di Trasformazione della Società Europea, con una precisa Roadmap temporale, calibrata su quelle dei nostri concorrenti, e coinvolgente:

il sistema educativo europeo;

il web europeo;

l’intelligence europea;

i campioni europei;

l’esercito europeo;

il servizio civile europeo;

la formazione permanente europea.

-sia aperto alla possibilità di:

creazione “greenfield” di nuove imprese, nel settore del web, dell’e.commerce, del software e dell’ industria culturale, sul modello di Arianespace;

un intervento temporaneo europeo nella ricapitalizzazione e nella governance di grandi complessi industriali strategici continentali per realizzare campioni europei nei settori dell’aerospazio, delle reti, dei trasporti e dell’industria biomedica.

MOVIMENTO EUROPEO

CONSIGLIO ITALIANO

_____

______________________________________________________________________________________________

00186 ROMA – VIA ANGELO BRUNETTI, 60 – TEL.: 06-36001705 – FAX: 06-87755731

e-mail: segreteria@movimentoeuropeo.it – sito: www.movimentoeuropeo.it

UN PROGRAMMA PER L’EUROPA

Dichiarazione del Movimento europeo in Italia

L’Europa non è in guerra ma le conseguenze della pandemia saranno egualmente devastanti per l’insieme

della società europea soprattutto sul sistema produttivo, fra le lavoratrici e i lavoratori e sulle categorie più

deboli nelle nostre comunità.

Pensiamo in particolare al vuoto fisico e culturale causato dalla strage di persone anziane e alle difficoltà

pedagogiche ed educative che si stanno creando dove gli studenti non possono seguire i corsi online nelle

scuole di ogni ordine e grado e nelle università, corsi fruibili grazie al diffuso sforzo dei docenti, degli altri

operatori del settore e delle famiglie.

1. IL FONDO EUROPEO PER LA RICOSTRUZIONE

Tenendo conto degli strumenti già adottati o su cui sono stati raggiunti accordi senza precedenti nell’Unione

europea e più specificatamente nel Consiglio europeo del 23 aprile (BCE, BEI, SURE e linea di credito

senza condizionalità del MES), noi riteniamo che la Commissione europea debba proporre al Parlamento

europeo e al Consiglio che il Fondo europeo per la ricostruzione:

– sia dotato di strumenti finanziari adeguati per mettere in moto consistenti risorse pubbliche e private

necessarie per l’opera di ricostruzione, sia attraverso trasferimenti (grants) che prestiti (loans),

– sia operativo già nel 2020,

– sia fondato su debito pubblico europeo e su emissione di titoli irredimibili o a lunga durata con

immediati aiuti per la liquidità di un’economia in grave sofferenza,

– sia affidato alla gestione della stessa Commissione sotto il controllo del Parlamento europeo,

– sia aperto alla possibilità di un intervento temporaneo europeo nella ricapitalizzazione e nella

governance di grandi complessi industriali strategici continentali incoraggiando fusioni laddove

sia utile per la competizione a livello globale.

2. BILANCIO E FISCALITA’ EUROPEA PER UNA PROSPERITA’ CONDIVISA

Il Fondo deve essere garantito da un ambizioso bilancio europeo sempre più finanziato da risorse proprie

che, per essere rapidamente disponibili, devono essere introdotte direttamente nel quadro della capacità

fiscale dell’Unione europea come quelle già suggerite dalla Commissione europea nella proposta di

regolamento MFF del 2 maggio 2018 ma anche e soprattutto una tassa alle frontiere europee sui prodotti a

contenuto di carbonio (border carbon adjustment) o altre risorse i cui tempi di realizzazione tuttavia

sarebbero inevitabilmente più lunghi sia dal punto di vista della politica commerciale che dal punto di vista

giuridico come un’imposta sulle grandi multinazionali del web e il recupero dell’elusione fiscale o ancor

di più l‘armonizzazione delle imposte dirette sulle società affinché una quota di esse sia attribuita al

bilancio europeo come avviene per l’IVA.

Se il bilancio europeo dovesse rimanere incatenato all’1% del PIL europeo, il costo del progetto di un Piano

europeo – che proponiamo di chiamare “per una prosperità condivisa” – rischierà di incidere

negativamente sul Patto Verde Europeo e sulle altre linee di bilancio come la PAC, le spese

finanziariamente più modeste dell’Europa per cittadini, linfa vitale per le attività non-profit e di

volontariato, la coesione economica, sociale e territoriale, la ricerca e lo sviluppo tecnologico, il fondo

sociale europeo, la cultura e l’educazione, le azioni esterne ivi compresa la sicurezza comune anche

attraverso il “Fondo europeo per la difesa”.

Il Piano europeo dovrà dunque essere aggiuntivo e non sostitutivo delle spese attualmente previste,

rappresentando un’occasione unica per indirizzare gli investimenti pubblici e privati verso lo sviluppo

sostenibile e diventando così una nuova parte del Patto Verde europeo.

Per questa ragione noi chiediamo un ammontare complessivo quinquennale 2021-2025 di almeno 2000

miliardi di Euro e cioè di due trilioni di Euro.

In questo quadro è importante che l’azione dell’Unione europea sia coerente con l’Agenda 2030 proprio nel

momento in cui si è deciso di rinviare a data da destinarsi la Conferenza delle Nazioni Unite sul clima

(COP26) con il rischio di rinviare ancora una volta ogni impegno sulla lotta al cambiamento climatico.

3. UN PROGETTO PER L’EUROPA

Insieme al Piano europeo, il Parlamento europeo e la Commissione europea devono avere l’ambizione e il

coraggio di elaborare e di adottare un “progetto per l’Europa“ in una prospettiva di medio periodo

secondo una roadmap condivisa fra l’assemblea rappresentativa delle cittadine e dei cittadini europei e

l’esecutivo che solo da essa trae la sua legittimità democratica.

Le conseguenze della pandemia devono sollecitare l’avvio di una nuova fase dell’integrazione europea

centrata sui valori condivisi da tutti gli Europei.

Si deve avviare un dibattito pubblico su una trasformazione delle strutture economiche e sociali nel quadro

di una più ampia condivisione della sovranità a livello europeo attraverso competenze federali con

elementi programmatici legati ad un eco-sistema fondato sull’obiettivo della piena occupazione creando

nuovo lavoro e contrastando la precarietà.

Queste trasformazioni riguardano l’uguaglianza delle opportunità, la lotta alle diseguaglianze e allo stato

di indigenza, la politica di inclusione, la riorganizzazione dello spazio e il ruolo delle città,

l’organizzazione della mobilità, la redistribuzione del tempo, il ricambio generazionale e la parità di

genere, le forme della partecipazione civile, la democrazia economica, una rinnovata strategia per le

PMI e per il sistema cooperativo, la formazione permanente e lo sviluppo della comunicazione e del

pluralismo dell’informazione.

Queste trasformazioni non possono prescindere dal quadro geo-politico internazionale in un mondo

globalizzato dove l’Unione europea deve essere protagonista di un’azione a sostegno del multilateralismo,

della riforma delle Nazioni Unite e delle relazioni speciali con il Mediterraneo e con il continente

africano.

4. DEMOCRAZIA E STATO DI DIRITTO

E’ evidente che un progetto siffatto pone la questione ineludibile delle conseguenze per il sistema

democratico europeo e per le democrazie nazionali all’interno del nostro modello di una comunità europea

di diritto che siamo tutti chiamati a valorizzare e a difendere nella giornata in cui si celebra in Italia la

vittoria contro il fascismo e il nazismo.

Allontanandosi da questo modello oggi ì cardini dello stato di diritto vengono pericolosamente messi in

discussione in alcuni paesi dell’Unione europea come la Polonia e l’Ungheria con gravi violazioni dei

principi della divisione dei poteri e delle libertà dei cittadini e alle nostre frontiere nei confronti dei

richiedenti asilo come sta avvenendo fra Grecia e Turchia.

MOVIMENTO EUROPEO

CONSIGLIO ITALIANO

_____

RIELABORAZIONE DELLA DICHIARAZIONE SCHUMAN

CON AGENZIA TECNOLOGICA EUROPEA

A DECLARATION FOR THE CREATION OF A EUROPEAN FEDERATION VIA AN AUTONOMOUS DIGITAL ECOSYSTEM.

The survival of Humankind is at stake more than in any other moment of history because the development of deployed technique has lead to the control, by machines, of essential processes of human society, and, in particular, intelligence and nuclear warfare. As a consequence, putting under international political control  Artificial Intelligence and nuclear warfare  represents the utmost priority.

The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to this priority is important.

Europe is on the making since 2500 years  according to a plan which has evolved at an imperceptible pace, from the Persian Wars up to now. A unified Europe will be built by European culture, which alone can create a de facto solidarity, because the coming together of our peoples requires the elimination of  the obsolete notion of  nation States.

We propose that all European activities concerning new technologies are put under the control of  a European Technology Agency, an organization open to the participation of  all countries of Europe. The pooling of  high technology activities should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those social coaches whose survival is threatened by technological obsolescence, tax erosion and foreign multinationals.

The solidarity in intelligence, research, teaching, production, finance, work, commerce thus established will make it plain that any war among Europeans, of the West and the East, becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful digital ecosystem, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member with the basic elements of  economic life, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification.

This ecosystem will be offered to the world as a whole without distinction or exception, with the aim of contributing to raising  the stamina of Mankind, so impeding the taking over by machines. With increased resources Europe will be able to pursue the achievement of one of its essential tasks, namely, the re-skilling of the entire society, for avoiding the entropy of a mechanised world. In this way, there will be realised simply and speedily that fusion of interest which is indispensable to the establishment of a common economic system; it may be the leaven from which may grow a wider and deeper community between countries of Western and Eastern Europe.

By pooling the Digital Ecosystem and by instituting a new Agency, whose decisions will bind  the European Union and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of Mankind.

To promote the realization of the objectives defined, the European Union is ready to open negotiations on the following bases.

The task with which this common Agency will be charged will be that of securing in the shortest possible time the creation of a full-fledged European Digital Ecosystem including research, education, Big Data, biotechnologies, web industries, software,  intelligence, communications., cyberwar, transportation, cultural industries, aerospace, the development in common of exports to other countries,  the upskilling of the whole European society.

To achieve these objectives, starting from the very poor conditions in which member countries are at present situated, it is proposed that certain transitional measures should be instituted, such as the application of a production and investment plan, the establishment of military-civil organisations, and the creation of a European sovereign fund to create brand-new branches of industries. The carrying out of digital activities in, to and from member countries will immediately be subject to uniform taxation and antitrust, privacy and cybersecurity rules. Conditions will gradually be created which will spontaneously provide for the level of effectiveness and innovation at the highest level worldwide.

In contrast to the digital multinationals, which are imposing on Europeans  restrictive practices on national and international markets, and to export outside Europe data and profits, the organization will ensure the creation of a European industry and its defence, with the storage of data, the taxation of profits and the localisation of decision-making centres in Europe.

The essential principles and undertakings defined above will be the subject of a treaty signed between the States and submitted for the ratification of their parliaments.

The common Agency entrusted with the management of the scheme will be composed of motivated and competent persons appointed by the governments, giving equal representation. A chairman will be chosen by common agreement between the governments. The  Agency’s decisions will be enforceable in whole Europe.

A representative of the United Nations will be accredited to the Agency , and will be instructed to make a public report to the United Nations twice yearly, giving an account of the working of the new organization, particularly as concerns the safeguarding of its objectives and the possible extension of the same methods  worldwide. The Agency will negotiate on behalf of Europe with foreign States, corporations and international organisation the establishment of treties for the limitations of new technologies and the enhancement of the human element.

In the exercise of its functions, the Agency will restructure rules, ownerships, management and financing of the European technology industries, with the aim to render them the most advanced worldwide and to support a humanistic society, able to counter the pre-eminence pretentions of the machinic world.

Altri webinar oggi e domani

“Plans for transforming our Europe”,

Care amiche e cari amici,

ho il piacere di invitarvi a partecipare ad una iniziativa che si svolgerà venerdì 8 maggio, a partire dalle ore 15:00, dell’alleanza Europe Ambition 2030, composta da una serie di importanti organizzazioni della società civile europea di cui fa parte anche il Movimento Europeo. L’alleanza promuove il Webinar dal titolo “Plans for transforming our Europe”, quale contributo al 70° anniversario della Dichiarazione Schuman.

L’incontro sarà suddiviso in due sessioni: la prima, dalle 15:00 alle 16:00, affronterà il tema “The Future of Europe and a European Social Compact” e la seconda, dalle 16:00 alle 17:00, tratterà di “Economic Recovery plan or Transformation Plans”.

La lingua di lavoro sarà l’inglese.

L’evento si svolgerà online sulla piattaforma Zoom. Di seguito troverete il link utile per l’iscrizione:

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81598189658?pwd=ai9hc1c0RVpRSnB6M0VVU2MrSjZRQT09

Meeting ID: 815 9818 9658

Password: 489524

One tap mobile

+3225884188,,81598189658#,,1#,489524# Belgium

+3227880172,,81598189658#,,1#,489524# Belgium

Dial by your location

+32 2 588 4188 Belgium

+32 2 788 0172 Belgium

+32 2 788 0173 Belgium

+32 1579 5132 Belgium

+32 2 290 9360 Belgium

+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)

+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)

+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)

+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)

+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)

+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)

Meeting ID: 815 9818 9658

Password: 489524

Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kdWUUSOyQS

Vi allego il programma completo e la dichiarazione approvata dall’Assemblea del Movimento Europeo lo scorso 23 aprile che costituirà un’utile base ai fini della nostra discussione.

Nella speranza di poter contare sulla vostra partecipazione, vi ringrazio e saluto cordialmente.

Pier Virgilio Dastoli

PRESIDENTE

———————————

Movimento Europeo Italia

Via Angelo Brunetti, 60

00186 Roma (Italia)

Tel. +39 0636001705

Fax. 0687755731

www.movimentoeuropeo.it

EUROPEANA

Participants who have registered for our webinar via Eventbrite will receive a message via Eventbrite later today with the link of the Zoom webinar. They will need to click on the link in order to attend the webinar. 

I hope this answered your question, but please let me know if you have other questions. 

Best, 

Tamara 

Care amiche e cari amici,

ho il piacere di segnalarvi l’iniziativa che il Movimento europeo Italia, il Movimento Federalista europeo, la Gioventù Federalista europea e l’AICCRE organizzano per la giornata di sabato 9 maggio in occasione della Festa dell’Europa che quest’anno, come sapete, coincide con il 70mo anniversario della Dichiarazione Schuman.

L’iniziativa si svolgerà sabato dalle 14:30 alle 16:30 sulla piattaforma Zoom.

Per partecipare all’evento, sarà necessario compilare un semplice form online: https://forms.gle/MWrqMFzMFFiZEQnq7

Una volta iscritti, si riceveranno le indicazioni e il link per il collegamento Zoom.

N.B.: le iscrizioni verranno accettate fino ad esaurimento posti (max 100).

Per tutti coloro che non riusciranno ad iscriversi, segnaliamo che sarà possibile seguire l’evento live su Facebook direttamente dalla pagina del Movimento Federalista europeo  (https://www.facebook.com/MovimentoFederalistaEuropeo/)   

Parteciperanno al dibattito esponenti politici, parlamentari europei e rappresentanti delle istituzioni, come da programma allegato.

Per vostra memoria, vi accludo la dichiarazione congiunta adottata da Movimento Europeo, MFE, GFE e AICCRE in occasione di questo anniversario.

Nella speranza di poter contare sulla vostra partecipazione, vi ringrazio e saluto cordialmente.

Pier Virgilio Dastoli

PRESIDENTE

———————————

Movimento Europeo Italia

Via Angelo Brunetti, 60

00186 Roma (Italia)

Tel. +39 0636001705

Fax. 0687755731

www.movimentoeuropeo.it  

https://www.touteleurope.eu/actualite/declaration-schuman-le-texte-integral-et-la-video.html

WEBINAR 9 MAGGIO: 70 ANNI DALLA DICHIARAZIONE SCHUMAN, 2500 ANNI DALLE TERMOPILI

Sabato 9 maggio, ore 9,00

Webinar sul tema:

2020,

-2500 ANNI DI EUROPA

-70 ANNI DAL PIANO SCHUMAN

-AVVIO DELLA CONFERENZA SUL FUTURO D’EUROPA

Che quest’anno sia cruciale per il futuro del mondo, e soprattutto dell’ Europa, lo dimostra non soltanto l’incidenza eccezionale della pandemia su modi di pensare, culture, ideologie, organizzazioni, rapporti geopolitici, abitudini ed economie, ma anche la coincidenza fra molte scadenze fondamentali per l’identità europea.

Durante questo lungo periodo che ci separa dal ritorno alla normalità e all’esercizio ordinario dell’attività editoriale (sintetizzata dall’apertura dei saloni del libro di Torino e di Francoforte), Alpina Dialexis sta sviluppando un intenso dialogo con i suoi lettori, con le Istituzioni, con il Movimento Europeo, con il mondo intellettuale, per fare chiarezza sull’ identità europea, sulla sua storia, sulla sfida tecnologica e sulle strategie da seguire per sfuggire all’entropia generalizzata delle società contemporanee, ritornando a quelle posizioni di leadership che, oramai da molti anni, costituiscono solamente più un wishful thinking degli oratori della domenica.

Questo primo webinar ha carattere introduttivo, essendo dedicato alla ricognizione dei temi che sono sul tavolo. Ad esso faranno seguito la presentazione delle novità librarie 2020, la pubblicazione di anteprime delle stesse, la discussione delle proposte per la Conferenza per il Futuro dell’ Europa, e, infine, la commemorazione delle battaglie di Salamina e delle Termopili, con il loro impatto eccezionale sulla memoria collettiva degli Europei.

PROGRAMMA

Ore 9,00 Prove tecniche

Ore 9,15 Apertura dei lavori (Modera Riccardo Lala, info@alpinasrl.com)

Ore 9,30

Relazione introduttiva

Prof. Pier Virgilio Dastoli:

Lo stato di avanzamento della Conferenza sul Futuro d’ Europa

Ore 10,00

Prof. Marcello Croce

Quale spazio per la cultura nel dibattito sull’ Europa?

Ore 10,15

Ing. Roberto Matteucci

Dove sta l’ Europa  nelle industrie tecnologiche?

Ore 10,30

Dott. Bruno Labate

C’è posto per i lavoratori nell’ Europa del futuro?

Ore 10,45

Avv.to Ennio Galasso

Che fine ha fatto la tradizione giuridica europea?

Ore 11,00

Ing. Ferrante Debenedictis

Europa e nazioni oggi

Ore 11,15

Domande e dibattito

Alle 12, sarà possibile collegarsi con il museo digitale europeo Europeana per un dibattito sul ruolo del patrimonio culturale nell’ integrazione europea.

Chi desidera partecipare alla manifestazione, dovrà collegarsi, a partire dalle ore 9,00 del 9 maggio, al seguente link: https://www.alpinasrl.com/dibattito-online/, segnalando eventuali difficoltà a:

info@alpinasrl.com, o ai seguenti numeri di telefono:Lo stesso vale per fare domande ai relatori e comunque per intervenire.

00390116690004 00393357776 1536.

Per rompere il ghiaccio, il Dott. Lala ha già anticipato il suo personale intervento, mediante il post sul sito Alpina Diàlexis https://www.alpinasrl.com/europa-2500-anni-dalle-termopili-70-anni-dalla-dichiarazione-schuman/.

Per facilitare il compito dei relatori, abbiamo raccolto una ventina di domande e risposte che, scelte da ciascuno,  potranno costituire  degli spunti per gl’ interventi dei relatori, orali e/o anticipati per iscritto, e si possono consultare con il seguente link:https://www.alpinasrl.com/dibattito-online.

Abbiamo già iricevuto il contributo della sinologa Giuseppina Merchionne.

Se avremo abbastanza interventi per iscritto, essi potranno fare oggetto di un e.book che metteremo online.

Se questa prima giornata funziona, lo schema potrebbe essere ripreso per la celebrazione delle Termopili all’inizio di Settembre.

ISTRUZIONI PER I RELATORI

I RELATORI debbono digitare  https://www.alpinasrl.com/dibattito-online-relatori.php

Prima delle 9,00, la pagina comunica solo le informazioni su COME partecipare.

Alle 9,00, permette di accedere alla videoconferenza in sé.

La videoconferenza si farà utilizzando il sistema 8×8 basato su Jitsi Meet.

Il sistema è compatibile con tutti i browser più aggiornati, ma consigliamo di utilizzare Google Chrome.

Per chi si connette tramite computer, non è necessario il download di alcun software.

Per chi si connette tramite smartphone, è disponibile un’app scaricabile dai rispettivi app store di Android ed iOS:

I relatori possono anche provare il sistema in autonomia, prima dell’evento, per assicurarsi che webcam e microfono funzionino correttamente. Per effettuare un test bisogna andare su https://app.8×8.vc/ scegliere l’opzione “Partecipa/avvia un meeting come ospite” e inserire un nome casuale per avviare una videoconferenza di test.

Come per qualsiasi conferenza online, consigliamo di accertarsi già un giorno o due prima di avere una connessione stabile e sufficientemente veloce. Al più tardi, questa verifica va fatta alle 9,00 del 9 maggio. Durante la videoconferenza, è preferibile che sul dispositivo non siano in esecuzione altri programmi che possono utilizzare grandi quantità di dati, come altri programmi di videoconferenza, aggiornamenti di sistema o altro.

Inoltre, consigliamo di disattivare sempre il proprio microfono quando non si deve intervenire, per evitare che rumori di fondo o altri suoni disturbino la teleconferenza

ISTRUZIONI  PER IL PUBBLICO:

Il link per gli spettatori è:

PER FARE DOMANDE AI RELATORI, INVIARE UN’e.mail AL MODERATORE riccardo.lala@alpinasrl.com, o telefonargli al numero 3357761536

Il video YouTube è già attivo.

LETTER TO MEMBER STATES

Torino, 24/4/2020

Al Ministro degli Esteri

Luigi di Maio

Signor  Ministro,

Mi permetto di inviarLe con urgenza questa mia opera (all.1), la quale tratta di un tema attualmente in discussione per il 28 aprile dinanzi alla Commissione Industria, Ricerca ed Energia del  Parlamento Europeo (la nuova  regolamentazione dell’Istituto Europeo d’innovazione e Tecnologia di Budapest) , relativamente al quale mi permetto di trovare poco appropriato il calendario dell’iter approvativo  quale emerge dal sito del Parlamento (cfr. l’ordine del giorno https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-OJ-2020-04-28-1_IT.html). Le ragioni della mia critica sono esposte nel libro allegato sub 1.

In sintesi, trovo prematuro approvare l’agenda e le modifiche al regolamento specifico dell’EIT (su cui le Istituzioni avevano già tanti dubbi) nel bel mezzo della crisi del Coronavirus (e senza sapere come  questa andrà a finire), e, per giunta, stralciando una parte del budget pluriennale 2021-2027, che, secondo la Presidentessa von der Leyen, dovrebbe essere tutto dedicato al  cosiddetto “Piano Marshall”.

Ciò detto, non credo  spetti, in linea di principio, al Governo intromettersi nell’ iter di  lavori così avanzati del Parlamento Europeo, sicché mi sono già rivolto al Presidente Sassoli e al Commissario Gentiloni,  tuttavia penso che  la situazione attuale sia così straordinaria, che qualunque cittadino abbia il diritto e il dovere di sostenere la tesi contenuta nel libro, secondo cui si dovrebbe porre finalmente fine alla dispersione delle attività dedicate alla tecnologia in Europa, mettendo insieme l’ ESA, l’EIT e  l’AED,  per creare un DARPA, un MITI, un Commissariat au Plan o un’ IRI europea,  capace di riunire le scarse forze esistenti nel nostro Continente quanto a intelligenza strategica, finanza, tecnologie innovative, capacità di management e di ricerca, per  condurre finalmente una concorrenza efficace alle grandi potenze (ammesso che la si voglia fare). Tra l’altro, proprio uno studio diffuso recentemente dallo stesso Parlamento Europeo (allegato 2), rivela che fin dal 2013 la Cina ha superato l’Europa quanto a investimenti in Ricerca e Sviluppo. Come pensiamo di superare questo gap sempre crescente? Quindi, a rigore, domani l’EIT potrebbe non esserci neppure più, essendo sostituito da qualcosa di più solido e di più efficace.

Vorrei anche sfatare un mito, quello secondo cui l’Italia non avrebbe nulla da guadagnare dal potenziamento delle alte tecnologie, perché non avrebbe aziende qualificate, come l’Airbus o la SAP. Vorrei ricordare, a questo proposito, che l’Italia, oltre ad avere, come noto, una tradizione eccezionale (anche se purtroppo stroncata sul nascere) nel settore informatico, dispone attualmente di due centri fondamentali dell’industria spaziale europea, l’Avio di Colleferro, che fabbrica il lanciatore Vega e il booster dell’Ariane, e l’Alenia Thales di Torino, che fabbrica lo Space Rider, il Veicolo di Rientro Spaziale lanciato con il Vega.

Credo comunque che il Governo italiano sia perfettamente intitolato, nell’ambito delle discussioni in corso sulle misure per uscire dalla crisi, a chiedere una totale rivisitazione di tutti gli aspetti del bilancio europeo, per approntare, nell’ambito del bilancio pluriennale 2021-2027, una revisione totale delle politiche economiche europee, mirante a rovesciare l’attuale situazione di decadenza del nostro Continente, e dell’Italia in particolare. Un rovesciamento che non sarà certamente conseguito con mezze misure volte esclusivamente a ripristinare lo status quo.

L’Associazione Culturale Diàlexis e il sottoscritto sono comunque a completa disposizione Sua e del Governo per approfondire questi temi.

RingraziandoLa per l’attenzione,

Voglia gradire la nostra più alta considerazione

Per l’ Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

Il Presidente,

Riccardo Lala

Asssociazione Culturale Diálexis Via Bernardino Galliari 32, 10125 Torino  TO (Italy) ++39 011.6690004    +39 335. 7761536   www.alpinasrl.com  

Turin, 25/4/2020

Au Président de la République Française,

Emmanuel Macron

Une proposition pour la Conférence pour l’avenir de l’Europe : une Agence Européenne pour les Technologies.

Monsieur le Président,

nous sommes en train de vous envoyer par courrier exprès l’ouvrage « European Technology Agency , a Sovereign Digital Ecosystem »  que Associazione Culturale Diàlexis vient de publier. Comme, à cause du lockdown, le livre existe seulement en format numérique, et en Italie c’est une fête nationale, si quelque votre collaborateur nous indique un numéro d’e.mail, nos vous enverrons immédiatement une copie numérique.

Cet ouvrage a l’ambition d’aborder, dans un moment si difficile pour l’Europe, la question de la lutte pour la souveraineté technologique. Un objectif que vous avez porté justement à l’attention de toutes les instances, nationales et internationales, mais qui risque à tout moment d’être caché par des thèmes qui s’imposent de temps en temps à l’opinion publique: le terrorisme, les immigrés, la crise économique, les populismes, les guerres commerciales,  le Coronavirus.

A’ l’heure actuelle, le risque majeur est que, une fois résolue la question du sauvetage des économies européennes des conséquences du lockdown, le nouveau budget pluriannuel soit dédié au consolidement de ce qui déjà existe, tandis que, si nous voulons résoudre la question de la souveraineté, il faut nous donner, avant qu’une véritable guerre parmi les grandes puissances et les géants du web débute sur  notre territoire, ce qui encore n’existe pas: une culture stratégique européenne, un web européen, un cloud européen, une intelligence européenne. La crise du Coronavirus devrait constituer un levier qui nous permette di dépasser les dogmes du XXe siècle qui ont paralysé la refonte numérique de l’Europe.

Ce risque est confirmé par le fait que, tandis que les sommets de l’Union et des Etats membres sont occupés è discuter du SURE, du MES, du Recovery Plan, des Eurobonds et des Coronabonds, le Parlement Européen continue à travailler tranquillement de la réorganisation et du refinancement (pur les prochains sept ans) de l’ EIT, un institut minuscule qui devrait s’occuper de technologie en Europe, mais qui, jusqu’à présent, n’a abouti a rien (voir l’Ordre du Jour de la séance du Comité   Industrie, Recherche et Energie du Parlement Européen du 28 Avril, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-OJ-2020-04-28-1_FR.html).

Le problème est que, au cours du prochain septennat du budget Européen 2021-2027, on devrait, au contraire, créer tout ce qui n’existe pas, avec les mèmes critères d’urgence avec lesquels on avait abordé la question de la préparation industrielle militaire lors des deux guerres mondiales et on est en train de récupérer une mobilisation sanitaire lors de la crise du Coronavirus. Afin que cela soit possible, il faut que d’abord il y ait un seul cerveau qui photographie l’état de l’art, qui prévoit les évolutions, qui invente des solutions, qui attribue des tâches, qui assure le suivi, comme c’était en France le cas du Commissariat Général du Plan aux temps de Jean Monnet, le MITI au Japon après la guerre, le DARPA en Amérique et aujourd’hui le Comité pour l’ Union du Civil et du Militaire en Chine..

A’ l’heure actuelle, ce cerveau européen n’existe pas, et l’EIT c’est seulement une parodie de ce qu’une véritable Agence Européenne des Technologies devrait être. Les initiatives partent (si elles partent) des grandes entreprises (s’il y en a), des associations professionnelles, des Ministères, de la Commission, de l’ESA, d’Arianespace, mais sans aucune coordination, ni parmi les secteurs, ni parmi les pays. Surtout, personne ne songe à contraster les privilèges des GAFAs. Au contraire, on les utilise souvent comme des « conseillers du prince ».

L’idée que notre livre propose, et qui devrait représenter le centre de la discussion, soit pour le budget 2021-2027, soit de la Conférence sur l’Avenir de l’ Europe, est celle de créer un tel cerveau, l’Agence Européenne de la Technologie, avec le rôle qui l’ESA a dans le secteur de l’espace, mais élargie à toutes nouvelles technologies : étudier, débattre, proposer, organiser, contrôler, gérer tout ce qui bouge (et surtout ce qui ne bouge pas) en Europe dans le secteur des nouvelles technologiques : réflexion culturelle et futurologique ; recherche de base et appliquée ; formation et compétences ; dual use ; géopolitique et diplomatie ; cryptomonnaies et finance numérique ; web economy et big data ; cyber threat intelligence et cyberguerre ; 4.0, 5.0, 5 G, 6G ; ordinateurs quantiques et fusées hypersoniques ;avions de 6e génération ;  véhicules et armements autonomes, étique et droit des technologies). Aujourd’hui, il n’existe en Europe aucune personne, ni aucune institution, qui soient familières avec l’ensemble de ces disciplines.

Au contraire, Made in China 2025 a défini même quelles seront les entreprises chinoises dominantes sur les différents marchés mondiaux dans les prochaines cinq ans ; M. Trump proclame que l’Amérique doit rester (ou redevenir) la première en tout e M. Kurzweil, le Directeur Technique de Google, a même écrit bien de livres pour expliquer comment et par quelles étapes il va atteindre, dans quelques décennies, le dépassement de l’homme par la machine et ensuite l’indépendance du logiciel des ordinateurs (la « Singularité »).Il est évident que, pour l’agence que nous proposons, le travail ne manquerait pas pour tous les prochains ans.

J’espère que le livre que nous vous proposons puisse constituer une contribution valable pour les discussions au sommet qui ne devraient pas cesser dans les prochains mois sur les thèmes abordés ci-dessus, et tout d’abord à propos des démarches en cours pour la refonde de l’EIT. Nous sommes en train d’élaborer un autre livre, parallèle, sur la nécessité que l’Europe, en abordant sa renaissance numérique, développe un Humanisme Numérique, qui soit l’actualisation de sa civilisation millénaire . Nous ne manquerons pas de vous tenir au courant des évolutions de ce nouvel effort.

En vous remerciant d’abord pour votre attention,

Veuillez agréer, M. le Président, l’expression de ma plus haute considération,

Pour Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

Le Président

Riccardo Lala

Asssociazione Culturale Diálexis Via Bernardino Galliari 32, 10125 Torino  TO (Italy) ++39 011.6690004 
  +39 335. 7761536 
 www.alpinasrl.com

Turin, 24/4/2020

Betr.: “Neuer Marshallplan und Technologie” : Sitzung 28 April des EP um EIT

Herr Minister,

Wir wünschen Sie hierbei über die Sitzung , diejenige schon für April 28 bei dem Ausschuß “Industrie, Forschung und Energie” des Europäischen Parlaments,um das  Europäische Innovations- und Technologieinstitut  und die damit verbundene Strategische Innovationsagenda 2021–2027: Förderung des Innovationstalents und der Innovationskapazität programmiert ist aumerksam machen (sehen Sie  die  Tagesordnung des Ausschusses https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-OJ-2020-04-28-1_DE.html ).

Wir betrachten das betreffende Vorhaben als unlogisch und gefährlich. In der Tat, ist, nach der Koronavirus-Krise, alles verändert, in Europa und überall in der Welt; infolgedessen, müssen alle vorherige Politiken durchgedacht werden.

In der  gleichzeitig mit der Koronawirus Pandemie erschienenen Nationalen Industriestrategie 2030,Strategische Leitlinien für eine deutsche und europäische Industriepolitik, schrieben Sie, unter anderem:

“………Weltweit erfolgreiche Internetunternehmen der Plattformökonomie entstehen derzeit noch fast ausschließlich in den USA und in China. Nicht hingegen in Deutschland und den meisten Ländern der EU. Eine Änderung dieses Zustands ist bislang nicht in Sicht. Hier besteht Handlungsbedarf.…..Jedenfalls durch die vorgehende US-Administration wurde diese Entwicklung umfassend begleitet und unterstützt..………..Ein industriepolitisch besonders erfolgreiches Land ist die Volksrepublik China, die 2015 die Agenda „Made in China 2025“ beschlossen hat. Durch aktive Industriepolitik sollen dort Schlüsseltechnologien in zehn Sektoren gestärkt werden. Dazu gehören u. a. die Informationstechnik, High-End-Robotics, Luft-und Raumfahrt, Maritime Industrie, Elektromobilität, Transport und Eisenbahn, Biopharmazeutika, Medizintechnik. 2017 kündigte China an, im Bereich der Künstlichen Intelligenz bis 2030 zum weltweiten Spitzenreiter werden zu wollen. Der chinesische Staatskonzern CMG beschloss im Juli 2018, einen 15 Milliarden US-Dollar umfassenden Technologiefonds zu gründen (China New Era Technology Fund). …….”

Im Licht Ihrer oben erwähnten Betrachtugen, fragen wir uns, welches Sinn eine neue Regelung  für Technologie in Europa (wie diejenige des EITs) machen kann, die noch vor der Entstehung der Koronavirus-Krise ausgedacht wurde, und die in diesem Augenbick diskutiert wird, wenn man noch nicht weißt, wie Dinge am Ende gehen werden, und  welche Strategie Europa für die nächsten 7 Jahre wählen wird.

Zweitens, sollte sich die Konferenz für die Zukunft Europas nach dem technologischen Übergang, und nicht nach dem Status Quo, richten. Wie Sie feststellt haben, waren die bisherigen technologischen Tätigkeiten in Europa offenbar schon vor der Krise nicht zufriedenstellend. Die Rückständigkeit Europas gegenüber Amerika und China (Web Economy, Big Data, Kryptowährungen)  is ständig gewachsen, und wächst noch jetzt. Wie das europäische Parlament selbst festgestellt hat, hat China Europa seit 2013, für was die Investitionen in R&D anbelangt,  überwunden (sieh Anhang1). Was will Europa dagegen tun?

Sogar wenn die Politik dazu nicht zustimmen wollte, wird die wirtschaftliche Lage Europas am Ende der Krise so viel  geändert sein, daß die vorigen Prioritäten automatisch umgewältzt werden, wo die Fähigkeit neue, bedeutsame, Ertragsquellen für Bürger (nicht nur rechnungstechnischer Art) zu erschliessen, eine vorrangige Rolle spielen wird. Die neuen Technologien haben genau diesen Charakter:

-erstens, weil sie heute in Europa nicht bestehen;

-zweitens, weil heute die OTTs aus Europa so viele Ressourcen auspumpen, dass die Nationalen Steuerkapazitäten seit vielen Jahren schwer gemindert wurden.

Die bisherigen Praxen der europäischen Wirtschaft, wobei die neuen Entwicklungen in den Gebieten der Verteidigung, des Raum- und Luftfahrts, des Digitalen, der Biologie, der Transporten, der Umwelt, der Kommunikation, der Organisation, zu zersplittert waren, um eine kritische Masse gegenüber unsere Wettbewerber darzustellen,  müssen durchaus übergedacht und überwunden werden. Ein einziges europäisches Programm muß die Zentralbank, die Europäische Investitionsbank, die Kommission, den Rat, die Staaten, die Laender, die Unternehmen und die Städte einbinden,  um uns zu erlauben, gleichzeitig DARPA und “China 2050” zu widerstehen. Mit all diesem in Sicht, haben wir jetzt das Buch “The European Technology Agency, with a proposal of Associazione Culturale Diàlexis for the Conference on the Future of Europe” (Anhang 2) herausgegeben, das wir hoffen, den europäischen Gesetzgebern von Hilfe sein kann, wenigstens mit dem analytischen Vorschlag, der als Beilage des Buches erscheint. Wir senden das Buch auch den dazu zuständigen Kommissaren und Euroabgeordneten, in der Hoffnung, daß jemand zeitgemäß handelt.

Wir hoffen auch, daß diese Tätigkeit den Anfang einer kulturellen Bewegug darstellen können, diejenige  die heutige Haltung der europäischen Eliten verändern wird. Sie sollen nicht mehr die “planlosen Eliten” bleiben, die schon vor 30 Jahren Glotz, Hirsch und Süßmuth stigmatisiert hatten.

Wir bleiben jedenfalls zu Ihrer Verfügung, diese Themen zu vertiefen, mit dem Zweck einer erfolgreichen Lösung der vielen und dringlichen Fragen, die heute vor Europa stehen.

Ich danke Ihnen im vorab für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit, und verbleibe,

Für Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

Der Vorsitzende

Riccardo Lala

Asssociazione Culturale Diálexis Via Bernardino Galliari 32, 10125 Torino  TO (Italy) ++39 011.6690004 
  +39 335. 7761536 
info@@alpinasrl.com

LETTER TO EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Marisa Matias

Christian Ehler

Magdalena Adamowicz

Maria Carvalho

Vlad Marius Botos

p.c:

David Sassoli

Ursula von der Leyen

Paolo Gentiloni

Thierry Breton

Dubravka Suica

Margrethe Vestager

Vera Jourova

Maros Sefkovic

Turin 24/4/2020

Ladies and gentlemen,

I permit myself to address to you as members of the Committee of the European Parliament “Industry, Research and Energy”. Your commission is scheduled for April 28 for the discussion (and possible approval in first reading) of two proposals, concerning a revision of the regulation governing the EIT, and its re-financing for the period 2021-2027.

Such situation does not seem to me  very logical. In fact, after the Coronavirus crisis, everything has changed in the world, so that  preceding policies should be in any case modified. As President Ursula von der Leyen has said “…because this crisis is different from any other, so must our next seven-year budget be different from what we know. We will need to frontload it so we can power investment in those crucial first years of recovery”

“We have to deliver on a European budget that is able:

– To invest in digital start-ups.

– To explore the potential of artificial intelligence.

– To anchor Europe’s position as the world’s leading research region.

– To offer young people a better future in all parts of Europe.

– To address the root causes of migration.

– To allow us to demonstrate solidarity in cases of humanitarian or natural catastrophes.

– To allow to build the European Union of Security and Defence.”

Against this background, what sense do make a new regulation and of a new agenda for technology which had been initiated, under completely different circumstances,  before  the Coronavirus crisis, and which are discussed during the same, without waiting for the new pluriannual budget of the UE?

The Coronavirus crisis will leave Europe in such difficult situation, that all priorities must be reassessed.

Secondly, the Conference on the Future of Europe should decide first of all about a thorough technological transition of Europe, which up to now is not satisfactory at all, because the gap between Europe, from one side, and the US and China, from the other, is growing and growing. By the way, in a document diffused very recently by the European Parliament (Annex 1) ,it is said that  the investments in R&D in China have bypassed the ones in Europe since 2013. Under these circumstances, it is very unlikely that Europe may be a global player wihin 7 years, if we do not change dramatically our technological policy.

The approach followed up to now, where new technological developments in defence, aerospace, digital, biology, transportation, environment, communication, organisation, are so much dispersed as to result ineffective , has to be reconsidered thoroughly, with the idea of a sole planning organisation, common to EIB, Commission, Council, Member States, Regions, Companies and Cities, which may concentrate this huge effort of the next few years, for challengng, from one side, DARPA, and, from the other, “Made in China 2025”.

For this purpose, we  are publishing just now the book “The European Technology Agency, with a proposal of Associazione Culturale Diàlexis for the Conference on the Future of Europe”(Annex 2), which we hope will be read and considered in time by European legislators, since it includes a coordinated study, comprehensive of an articulated proposal for the Conference. We are sending the book to members of parliament and relevant commissioners, urging them to consider its arguments and the proposals contained in it. Finally, we are also preparing a second book, devoted to a debate among intellectuals, politicians, European Movements  and  civil society, on technological humanism in Europe after coronavirus. We hope we will receive contributions from everybody, in time for influencing the ongoing debates. Of couse, we think, in foist instance, of the addressees of this communication

We will follow up the matter during the next few months, for checking that the political agenda will keep into account the coordination among coronavirus crisis, structural European crisis and the new multiannual budget. This attention will also be at the centre of our commemoration of the 70  Years of the Schuman Declaration and of the 2500 years of the battles of Thermopyles and Salamina, from 9 may up to the first days of September.

We hope that these events will generate a cultural movement transforming the attitude of the European establishment, which will be much more focussed on a coordinated and urgent technological change.

We would be honoured by any reaction on your side, and we remain available for any form of cooperation.

Thanking  you in advance for your attention,

We remain,

Yours Faithfully

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis

The President

Riccardo Lala

Asssociazione Culturale Diálexis Via Bernardino Galliari 32, 10125 Torino  TO (Italy) ++39 011.6690004    +39 335. 7761536   www.alpinasrl.com  

EIT:LETTER TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

24/4/2020

Wir brauchen neue europaeische hochtechnologische Industrien

Ursula Von der Leyen

Paolo Gentiloni

Thierry Breton

Margrethe Vestager

Dubravka Suica

Vera Jourova

Maros Sefcovic

Turin, 24/4/2020

Betr.: Marshallplan und Technologie : Sitzung 28 April des EP um EIT

Frau Präsidentin,

Wir wünschen hierbei Sie über die Sitzung , diejenige schon für April 28 bei dem Ausschuß “Industrie, Forschung und Energie” des Europäischen Parlaments,um das  Europäische Innovations- und Technologieinstitut  und die damit verbundene Strategische Innovationsagenda 2021–2027: Förderung des Innovationstalents und der Innovationskapazität programmiert ist aumerksam machen (sieh die  Tagesordnung des Ausschusses https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ITRE-OJ-2020-04-28-1_DE.html ).

Wir betrachten das betreffende Vorhaben als unlogisch und gefährlich. In der Tat, ist, nach der Koronavirus-Krise, alles verändert, in Europa und überall in der Welt; infolgedessen, müssen alle vorherige Politiken durchgedacht werden. Wie Sie gesagt haben: “Die vielen Milliarden, die heute investiert werden müssen, um eine größere Katastrophe abzuwenden, werden Generationen binden. Deshalb haben wir die Pflicht, das Geld aus unserem nächsten Haushalt besonders klug und nachhaltig zu investieren. Es muss bewahren helfen, was uns lieb und teuer ist und das Gefühl der Gemeinschaft unter den Nationen Europas erneuern. Und es muss eine strategische Investition in unsere Zukunft sein”Damit unser Haushalt den neuen Anforderungen gerecht wird, müssen wir ihn entsprechend zuschneiden”

Im Licht Ihrer oben erwähnten Betrachtugen, fragen wir uns, welches Sinn eine neue Regelung  für Technologie in Europa machen kann, die schon vor der Entstehung der Koronavirus-Krise ausgedacht wurde, und die in diesem Augenbick diskutiert wird, wenn man noch nicht weißt, wie Dinge am Ende gehen werden, und  welche Strategie Europa für die nächsten 7 Jahre wählen wird. Sie haben auch eine erweiterte Debatte darum aufgefordert.

Zweitens, sollte sich die Konferenz für die Zukunft Europas nach dem technologischen Übergang, und nicht nach dem Status Quo,richten. Die bisherigen technologischen Tätigkeiten in Europa waren offenbar schon vor der Krise nicht zufriedenstellend. Die Rückständigkeit Europas gegenüber Amerika und China (Web Economy, Big Data, Kryptowährungen)  is ständig gewachsen, und wächst noch jetzt. Wie das europäische Parlament selbst festgestellt hat, hat China Europa seit 2013, für was die Investitionen in R&D anbelangt,  überwunden (sieh Anhang1). Was will Europa dagegen tun?

Sogar wenn die Politik dazu nicht zustimmen wollte, wird die wirtschaftliche Lage Europas am Ende der Krise so viel  geändert sein, daß die vorigen Prioritäten automatisch umgewältzt werden. Dies gilt auch für die Prioritäten der Kommission, wo die Fähigkeit neue, bedeutsame, Ertragsquellen für Bürger (nicht nur rechnungstechnischer Art) zu erschliessen, eine vorrangige Rolle spielen wird.

Sie auch haben gesagt: “Unsere Welt hat sich verändert”. Die bisherigen Praxen der europäischen Wirtschaft, wobei die neuen Entwicklungen in den Gebieten der Verteidigung, des Raum- und Luftfahrts, des Digitalen, der Biologie, der Transporten, der Umwelt, der Kommunikation, der Organisation, zu zersplittert waren, um eine kritische Masse gegenüber die Wettbewerber darzustellen,  müssen durchaus übergedacht und überwunden werden. Ein einziges europäisches Programm muß die Zentralbank, die Europäische Investitionsbank, die Kommission, den Rat, die Staaten, die Laender, die Unternehmen und die Städte so einbinden,  um uns zu erlauben, gleichzeitig DARPA und “China 2050” zu widerstehen.

Mitgliedstaaten benützen heute die Möglichkeiten, die paradoxerweise von der Krise angeboten weden, in einem selbstzestörerischen Weg. Z.B., haben die Italiener von “Immuni” das europäische Konsortium “PEPP-PT” verlassen, und jetzt werden sie von den italienischen Regionen, von Google und Microsoft boykottiert. Die Union muß diese Verwirrung aufhalten! Sie muß ein europäisches “Immuni”, mit Anwendung vom GDPR, unter der Kontrolle des europäischen Gerichtshofs und von Europol bereitstellen! Europa muß der Garant des GDPRs sein.

Mit all diesem in Sicht, haben wir jetzt das Buch “The European Technology Agency, with a proposal of Associazione Culturale Diàlexis for the Conference on the Future of Europe” (Anhang 2) herausgegeben, das wir hoffen, den europäischen Gesetzgebern von Hilfe sein kann, wenigstens mit dem analytischen Vorschlag, der als Beilage des Buches erscheint. Wir senden das Buch auch den dazu zuständigen Kommissaren und Euroabgeordneten, in der Hoffnung, daß jemand zeitgemäß handelt.

Wir werden diese besondere Aufmerksamkeit auch zum Gedenken des 70.ten Jahrestags der Schuman Deklaration, und des 2500.ten Jahrestags der Kämpfe an den Thermopylen and von Salamina,  zwischen dem 9.ten Mai bis die ersten Tage von September widmen, die wir durch eine Serie von digitalen Veranstaltungen beleben werden, zu denen, hoffen wir, die Institutionen teilnehmen werden.Wir werden Ihrem Staff die link übersenden.

Wir hoffen auch, daß diese Veranstaltungen den Anfang einer kulturellen Bewegug darstellen können, diejenigen  die heutige Haltung der europäischen Eliten verändern wird. Sie sollen nicht die “planlosen Eliten” bleiben, die schon seit 30 Jahren Glotz, Hirsch und Süßmuth stigmatisiert hatten.

Wir bleiben jedenfalls zu Ihrer Verfügung, diese Themen zu vertiefen, mit dem Zweck einer erfolgreichen Lösung der vielen und dringlichen Fragen, die heute vor Europa stehen.

Ich danke Ihnen im vorab für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit, und verbleibe,

Für Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

Der Vorsitzende

Riccardo Lala

Asssociazione Culturale Diálexis Via Bernardino Galliari 32, 10125 Torino  TO (Italy) ++39 011.6690004 
  +39 335. 7761536 
info@@alpinasrl.comm

EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (EIT)

The most recent Alpina Dialexis Book, dealing with Technology in Europe

1.The Commission’s official position

As President Ursula von der Leyen has “…because this crisis is different from any other, so must our next seven-year budget be different from what we know. We will need to frontload it so we can power investment in those crucial first years of recovery”

“We have to deliver on a European budget that is able:

– To invest in digital start-ups.

– To explore the potential of artificial intelligence.

– To anchor Europe’s position as the world’s leading research region.

– To offer young people a better future in all parts of Europe.

– To address the root causes of migration.

– To allow us to demonstrate solidarity in cases of humanitarian or natural catastrophes.

– To allow to build the European Union of Security and Defence.”

Against this background what sense does make a new regulation and a new agenda for technology which are approved during the Coronavirus crisis and without waiting for the new pluriannual budget?

The Joszef Antall Hall of the European Parliament

2. The Conference on the Future of Europe

The Conference on the Future of Europe shall decide first of all about the technological transition of Europe, which is not satisfactory at all, because the gap between Europe, from one side, and the US and China, from the other, is  growing and growing. Anticipating this discussion with a decision about EIT means trying to hide the real scope of the problem, so giving up for further even years to advance seriously on the path of a real technological recovery of European economy.

The Commission’s proposal goes on in this minimalistic mood, ignoring completely the tremendous need for guidance and for financing of new technologies, essential in this crucial phase of Europe’s history.

In fact, the approach followed up to now, where new technological developments in defence, aerospace, digital, biology, transportation, environment, communication, organisation, are so much dispersed as to result ineffective , has to be reconsidered thoroughly, with the idea of a sole planning organisation, common to EIB, Commission, Council, Member States, Regions, Companies and Cities, which may concentrate this huge effort of the few next years, for confronting, from one side, DARPA, and, from the other, “Made in China 2025” and now

Member States (e.g., Italy), are utilizing the opportunities and the challenges arising out of the Coronavirus crisis in a destructive way. The Italian “Immuni” App, which is in practice a copy of the Ant of Alipay, has left the European consortium and is boycotted by the Regions. The Union must stop all this, and provide for a European “Immuni”, under the control of the European Court of Justice and of  Europol!

3. China’s Standards 2035 and the digital Renminbi

The slow pace of Europe is striking as confronted with the one of China, in all possible areas, but especially in the ones of standardisation and of digital money.

China is set to release a new plan this year called “China Standards 2035” with the aim of influencing how the next-generation of technologies, from telecommunications to artificial intelligence, will work.

Experts describedstandards as something that can “shape the playing field and landscape for the future of these technologies.” China will have challenges dislodging the dominance of Europe and the U.S., experts said. This is the next step, following the “Made In China 2025″ global manufacturing plan — but this time, with a much larger focus on technologies that are seen as defining the next decade.

The telecommunications industry is a good example. New networks such as 5G aren’t just turned on. They take years of planning and development. Technical standards are created through collaboration between industry bodies, experts and companies.

Standards are one of the most powerful means of geopolitical dominance. The US, under the guidance of President Hoover, who was an expert in standardisation, imposed worldwide its standard, anticipating post WWII global dominance. The USSR had rigorously different standard from the US ones.

Major American and European technology companies, such as Qualcomm and Ericsson, have been part of standards setting across various industries. But China has played an increasingly active role in the past few years.

In March, Beijing released a document which translates as “The Main Points of National Standardization Work in 2020.”

In short, the 2020s may see a contest between major powers that see the digital currency space as a means to gain an advantage. China, at the moment, seems to be taking the lead on this front.

China has rolled out a digital currency trial in Xiong’an, an area southwest of Beijing in the Hebei province McDonald’s and Subway are reportedly two American firms among 19 companies participating in the trial.

The announcement of that pilot program, which appeared to focus on retail and catering, follows another recent test in Suzhou where the digital yuan was being used to give subsidies to local workers for transport. Further tests will be done in Shenzhen and Chengdu and ahead of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. 

There was some concern that the coronavirus pandemic had derailed the PBOC’s digital currency plans. But earlier this month, an official at the bank told reporters that it was pushing ahead with its original plan.  Monetary authorities look to innovate in the face of competition from China and Facebook’s digital currency called libra, which since it became public, has run into a number of problems.

In both cases, Europe’s silence is striking.

Our book strives to awaken the Europeans’interest for these matters.

Also China and USA have Coronavirus, but this does not hinder them to think, sometimes, also of other matters. How not to raise the doubt  that we have nobody entrusted with the task of thinking to the future shape of the world. The so vituperated European officials are less numerous than the civil servants of a city like Torino. How could they take care effectively of European Identity and anti-Covid masks, of Euro and of fake news, of SME and PME, of the Green New Deal and of the national budgets, of PESCO and of minority rights,  of Eurocurrencies an of the Rule of Law…?

4.The book “The European Technology Agency”

For the above purposes, we  are publishing just now the book of Riccardo Lala, “The European Technology Agency, with a proposal of Associazione Culturale Diàlexis for the Conference on the Future of Europe”, which we hope will be read and considered in time by European legislators, since it includes a coordinated study, comprehensive of an articulated proposal for the Conference. We have sent the book to the relevant commissioners, members of parliament and national politicians, urging them to consider the arguments and the proposals contained in it. Finally, we are also preparing a second book, devoted to a debate among intellectuals, politicians, European Movements and civil society, on technological humanism in Europe after coronavirus. We hope we will receive contributions from everybody, in time for influencing the ongoing debates.

We will follow up the matter during the next few months, for checking that the political agenda will keep into account the coordination among coronavirus crises, structural European crisis and the new multiannual budget. This attention will also be at the centre of the commemoration of the 70  Years of the Schuman Declaration and of 2500 years of the battles of Thermopyles and Salamina, from 9 may to the first days of September.

We will also publish the letters to European leaders, as well as selected pages of the book, so that European public opinion may shape its own opinion on what is going on.

We hope that these events will generate a cultural movement transforming the attitude of the European establishment, which will be much more focussed on a coordinated and urgent technological change.

We will publish in the following days , in “Tecnologies for Europe”, in “Turandot” an Da Qin, the letters sent to the different authorities on this issue

5. The Commission’s proposal (annexes)

Brussels, 11.7.2019 COM(2019) 330 final ANNEX.

ANNEX to the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of Council on the Strategic Innovation Agenda of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) 2021-2027: Boosting the Innovation Talent and Capacity of Europe {SEC(2019) 275 final} – {SWD(2019) 330 final} – {SWD(2019) 331 final}

ANNEX

Table of contents

1. Introduction

1.1. The EIT: a fundamental EU innovation instrument 

1.2. Key strengths

1.3. Key Challenges

2. Raising the bar: the EIT in 2021-2027

2.1. Objectives

2.2. Positioning in Horizon Europe

3. Boosting the Innovation Talent and Capacity of Europe

3.1. Knowledge and Innovation Communities

3.2. Supporting the innovation capacity of higher education

3.3. EIT cross-cutting activities

3.4. Making it work

3.5. Synergies & complementarities with other programmes

4. Resources

4.1. Budget needs

4.2. Impact (monitoring and evaluation)

5. Annex 1A

6. Annex 1B

1. INTRODUCTION

This Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA) sets out the strategy and priorities for the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) for the period 2021-2027. It represents the main policy document of the EIT over the next programming period and defines its objectives, key actions, expected results and resources needed. The SIA ensures the necessary alignment of the EIT with the [Horizon Europe proposal], which is the Union framework programme supporting research and innovation for the period 2021-2027. It also ensures appropriate synergies and complementarities between the EIT activities and other Union initiatives, policies and instruments.

The SIA 2021-2027 is informed by the impact assessment carried out by the European Commission. It takes into account the draft SIA from the EIT Governing Board submitted to the European Commission on 20 December 2017, in accordance with the EIT Regulation1. It also reflects the new [Horizon Europe proposal] of the European Commission of June 2018 and, in particular, the key role of the EIT as part of the [Open Innovation] Pillar (Pillar III), and its contribution to addressing global challenges, including established targets for climate objectives, and European industrial competitiveness (Pillar II) and to excellent science (Pillar I). The SIA builds on the lessons learnt over the last years of operation of the EIT and the results of a wide consultation process with key stakeholders.

The SIA takes into account the Strategic Planning of Horizon Europe to ensure alignment with the Framework Programme activities, with other relevant Union programmes and consistency with EU priorities and commitments and increase complementarity and synergies with national and regional funding programmes and priorities.

1.1. The EIT: a fundamental EU innovation instrument

The EIT was established in 2008 in order to contribute to sustainable economic growth and competitiveness by reinforcing the innovation capacity of the Member States and the European Union. It pioneered the integration of education, business and research (knowledge triangle) together with a strong emphasis on entrepreneurial talent and innovation skills. The mid-term evaluation of the EIT in 2018 confirmed that the overarching rationale of the EIT remains valid and the model of innovation-driven knowledge triangle integration remains relevant.

A decade after EIT’s establishment, the pace of innovation has accelerated dramatically. Innovation is reshaping economic sectors, disrupting existing businesses and creating unprecedented opportunities. With a shifting global economic order and international competition on the rise, the EU’s dependence on talent and its capacity to innovate is growing. Co-design, collaboration and co-creation across disciplines and between education, business and research have never been as important as today to contribute to address global challenges related to climate change and unsustainable use on natural recources, digital transformation, demographic shifts or the future of healthcare and food.

With the [Horizon Europe proposal] for a new Framework Programme supporting research and innovation for the period 2021-2027, the European Commission made a firm commitment to raise further Europe’s innovation potential in order to be able to respond to the challenges of the future. The EIT’s distinctive role in fostering innovation by bringing together business, education, research, public authorities and civil society is reinforced by its positioning in the [Innovative Europe Pillar] of the [Horizon Europe proposal]. The [Horizon Europe proposal] reflects the growing ambition of the EU on innovation and the necessity to deliver on it.

1.2. Key strengths

Since its set up, the EIT has established itself gradually as a successful instrument addressing societal challenges. The EIT operates mainly through Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs), which are large-scale European partnerships between education and training, business and research organisations. There are currently eight KICs that operate in the following areas: climate change, digital transformation, energy, food, health, raw materials, urban mobility and added-value manufacturing (see Figure 2).

Each KIC is organised around five to ten of co-location centres (CLCs2) which are intended to act as geographical hubs for the practical integration of the knowledge triangle. They are organised and structured according to their respective national and regional innovation context and build on a pan-European network of existing labs, offices or campuses of a KICs’ core partners.

The KICs aim at running portfolios of knowledge triangle activities through:  Education and training activities with strong entrepreneurship components to train the next generation of talents, including the design and implementation of programmes awarded the EIT Label3, in particular at master and doctoral level;  Activities supporting innovation to develop innovative, products, processes and services that address a specific business opportunity;  Business creation and support activities, such as accelerator schemes to help entrepreneurs translate their ideas into successful ventures and speed up the growth process.

3 The EIT Label is a quality seal awarded by the EIT to a KIC’s educational programme which complies with specific quality criteria related inter alia to entrepreneurial education and innovative ‘learning-by-doing’ curricula. The KICs represent dynamic innovation ecosystems that produce a wide range of results (see Figure 1 below). Education and training, talent and skills development are at the core of the EIT model. No other EU action on innovation includes higher education in the innovation value chain to the extent the EIT does. The EIT’s education agenda is key for developing highly entrepreneurial and skilled innovators. By 2017, more than 1700 graduates have successfully completed an EIT-labelled master and/or doctoral programme, and thousands have participated in entrepreneurial and innovative education activities and formats. The focus on global challenges through the integration of the knowledge triangle distinguishes the EIT from other innovation instruments. By providing a grant for up to 15 years to KICs, the EIT is delivering on its long-term objective of tackling global challenges through innovative products and services and bringing concrete benefits to our society and citizens. The EIT also has set the objective to the KICs to become financially sustainable after 15 years, which is a unique feature that leads to a business and result oriented innovation instrument. In this context, KICs have to develop and implement revenue-creating strategies in order to maintain their innovation ecosystem beyond the period covered by the grant agreement. The EIT approach contributes to both incremental and disruptive innovations to happen, to effectively address market failures and help transform industries. It enables the creation of long-term business strategies for addressing global challenges and helps creating the framework conditions that are essential for a well-functioning innovation ecosystem to grow and innovation to thrive.

The EIT offers an efficient and effective platform for launching, scaling up and managing KICs with strong network effects and positive spill-overs (see Figure 2 below). The first wave of KICs (EIT Digital, EIT Climate-KIC and EIT InnoEnergy), launched in 2009, is established and mature and after 2024 their framework partnership agreements will be terminated, in line with the maximum grant duration. A second and third generation of KICs (EIT Health and EIT Raw Materials (2014), EIT Food (2016)) is maturing. EIT Urban Mobility and EIT Manufacturing, the two KICs designated in December 2018, are starting their operations in 2019.

Through its eight KICs with more than 1000 partners from business, research and education, the EIT represents the largest EU-supported innovation ecosystem. The EIT has supported more than 1200 start-ups and innovative ventures, leading to over EUR 890 million in external funding attracted by those companies and more than 6000 jobs created by the supported start-ups. More than 50% of KIC partners are from the business sector (industry, SMEs and start-ups) demonstrating the proximity to the market. The increase in number of partners in each KIC shows the attractiveness and long-term potential of the EIT model. By 2019, there are more than 600 businesses, 250 HEIs, 200 research organisations, and more than 50 civil society organisations and authorities participating in EIT KICs.

In the backdrop of persisting regional disparities in innovation performance, the EIT launched a Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS) in 2014 to widen its regional outreach to modest and moderate innovator countries. Through the RIS, the EIT has expanded its activities across Europe and offers now opportunities for regions with low innovation performance to engage in knowledge triangle activities as part of the a KIC community. This is also reflected in the share of EIT funding allocated to EU-13 partners (8.3% as compared to 4.8% in Horizon 2020 as of 2018).

The EIT has been able to stay agile and to develop the governance principles and rules for the successful management of its KICs under the overall umbrella of Horizon 2020, in accordance with the EIT Regulation. Its operational independence has allowed it to test and effectively implement a number of novelties in the management of its beneficiaries such as a competitive funding mechanism, financial sustainability targets and specific key performance indicators.

1.3. Key Challenges

The EIT is part of the overall Horizon Europe framework that aims, inter alia, to deliver scientific, economic/technological and societal impact so as to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of the Union; deliver on the Union strategic policy priorities, foster its competitiveness in all Member States, including in its industry, and contribute to tackling global challenges, including the Sustainable Development Goals. A core condition for being successful in this endeavor is to respond to the persisting need to increase innovation capacity across the Union. There are in particular three challenges the EU faces that will guide EIT’s actions in 2021-2027 as reflected by its general objectives.

First, today’s economies are increasingly driven by the skills and abilities of people and organisations to turn ideas into products and services. Innovation skills and an entrepreneurial culture make all the difference today, in particular in the technological and scientific domains but increasingly also in other disciplines. There is a strong need to further boost the innovation capacity of higher education institutions in Europe. The EIT is in a unique position to deliver on this in the Horizon Europe framework.

Second, physical proximity is a key enabling factor for innovation. Initiatives aiming at developing innovation networks and providing services that support the creation, sharing and transfer of knowledge, play a key role in fostering the interactions between business, academia, research organisations, governments and individuals. Still, research and innovation performances across the EU, as reflected in the annual European Innovation Scoreboard, vary considerably. It is of crucial importance that innovation is inclusive and rooted in the local territories. EIT activities, thanks to their “place-based” approach, are well suited to contribute to strengthening local innovation ecosystems.

Finally, vibrant innovation ecosystems require a mix of knowledge, infrastructure and talent. Framework conditions for cooperation between European research, education and innovation along with strong synergies need to be in place to ensure proper and efficient investment of scarce resources into research and innovation. Deepening the knowledge triangle integration through existing and new KICs is a proven way to foster an environment conducive to innovation and is a guiding objective for the EIT.

2. RAISING THE BAR: THE EIT IN 2021-2027

The EIT as an integral part of the Horizon Europe programme will contribute delivering on its overarching objectives and priorities. The KICs will be part of the Institutionalised European Partnerships, meaning they will follow a set of principles and life-cycle criteria to ensure a more coherent, open and impact-driven approach. The EIT general objectives therefore reflect the overall role of the EIT in Horizon Europe and its place in the [Innovative Europe Pillar].

2.1. Objectives

The overarching areas of intervention for the EIT are defined in the [Horizon Europe proposal]. The EIT will continue to support its Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) in order to strengthen the innovation ecosystems that help to tackle global challenges. It will do so by fostering the integration of education, research and business, thereby creating environments conducive to innovation, and by promoting and supporting a new generation of entrepreneurs and stimulating the creation of innovative companies in close synergy and complementarity with the EIC. In doing so it will in particular:

(1) Strengthen sustainable innovation ecosystems across Europe;

(2) Foster innovation and entrepreneurship through better education;

(3) Bring new solutions to global challenges to market.

In line with the identified challenges that the EIT is facing (described in chapter 1.3.) and in order to contribute to the above overarching objectives defined for the EIT in the [Horizon Europe proposal], the specific objectives of the EIT for the period of 2021-2027 are to:

(a) Increase the impact of KICs and knowledge triangle integration;

(b) Increase the innovation capacity of the higher education sector by promoting institutional change in higher education institutions (HEIs);

(c) Increase the regional outreach of the EIT in order to address regional disparities in innovation capacity across the EU.

2.2. Positioning in Horizon Europe

By delivering on these objectives, the EIT will contribute to the overall achievement of Horizon Europe scientific, economic/technological and societal impacts. It will continue to strengthen innovation ecosystems that help to tackle global challenges, by fostering the integration of the knowledge triangle in the areas of activity of the KICs. The Horizon Europe Strategic Planning process will ensure closer alignment between the EIT activities and the rest of Horizon Europe. Based on its proven track record, the EIT will play an important role in the Open Innovation Pillar.

Strong synergies between the EIT and the European Innovation Council will be key for the impact of the [Innovative Europe] Pillar. The EIT and the EIC will run complementary activities aiming at streamlining the support provided to innovative ventures. Based on the expertise of its KICs, the EIT will provide business acceleration services and trainings to beneficiaries awarded EIC funding.

The EIT will furthermore facilitate the access of EIC beneficiaries to KICs’ innovation ecosystems and relevant actors of the knowledge triangle. In this way EIC beneficiaries can become actively involved in KICs’ activities and benefit from KICs’ services. In parallel, EIT beneficiaries will be able to apply to the EIC instruments, when EIT KICs support may not be available. The EIC may help start-ups supported by KICs with a high growth potential to rapidly scale-up. In particular, the most innovative KICs’-backed ventures may, if selected under the EIC, benefit from the blended finance support offered by the EIC Accelerator and/or by the financial support offered by InvestEU instruments.

The EIT will ensure stronger synergies also with programmes and initiatives in the [Excellent Science] Pillar, to accelerate the transfer of knowledge resulting from blue sky research into concrete applications benefiting the society. In particular, with regard to the Marie-Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA), the EIT will collaborate on the development of innovation and entrepreneurial skills of MSCA fellows.

The EIT will contribute to the [Global Challenges and Industrial Competitiveness] Pillar and complement relevant activities to tackle global challenges and increase the competitiveness of the EU on a global scale. In particular, through its KICs, the EIT will seek to contribute to relevant missions and thematic clusters and other European Partnerships by notably supporting demand-side measures and providing exploitation services to boost technology transfer and accelerate the commercialisation of results achieved.

The EIT will ensure coherence with the European innovation ecosystems strand of Horizon Europe. In particular, the EIT will take an active part in the activities of the EIC Forum and will establish links between the EIT Community and relevant activities supporting innovation ecosystems in order to avoid duplication and ensure coherence and complementarity of actions.

Opportunities for synergies will be also explored between the Sharing Excellence part of Horizon Europe and the outreach activities supported by the EIT. In particular, target countries of the Horizon Europe Sharing Excellence part will be able to leverage on EIT expertise and support for the development of downstream activities (i.e. close to market), as the target group for for EIT outreach activities.

3. BOOSTING THE INNOVATION TALENT AND CAPACITY OF EUROPE

A reinforced role of the EIT, through a focus on actions where it will add value at the EU level and contribute to achieving the objectives of Horizon Europe, will guide the EIT strategy for 2021-2027. First, the EIT will continue to support the innovation capacity and ecosystems through KICs, their further development and expansion, and through the launch of

new KICs. Secondly, building on its experience with the knowledge triangle integration, the EIT will directly support the development of the entrepreneurial and innovation capacity in the higher education sector. Finally, through more effective cross-cutting measures, the EIT will ensure that its impact at the EU level increases. In addition, the EIT will also improve its operations in a number of areas in order to increase its effectiveness, efficiency and impact.

3.1. Knowledge and Innovation Communities

(1) Support to existing KICs

The integration of the knowledge triangle by the EIT and KICs at EU, Member States, regional and local levels will remain a core task for strengthening innovation ecosystems and making them sustainable, as well as for developing new solutions to global challenges. The EIT will continue support a portfolio of KICs (see Figure 2) and will further strengthen its successful platform for launching, growing and managing them. KICs will continue to operate through co-location centers (CLC). The KICs will continue to pursue financial sustainability in order to achieve financial independence from the EIT grant in the long-term (at the latest, after 15 years) through leveraging public and private investment.

The EIT will dedicate a large share of its budget to support KICs. It will monitor and analyse their performance and ensure they deliver towards the objectives of the EIT and of the Horizon Europe Programme. Beyond financial support, based on lessons learned, the EIT will provide strategic supervision to KICs, as well as guidance on horizontal and specific issues, including on the establishment of synergies within Horizon Europe and with other EU initiatives. In particular, the EIT will support KICs in establishing interfaces and fostering joint activities with relevant European Partnerships and other relevant Union initiatives and programmes.

It will also monitor the award of the EIT Label to KICs’ education and training programmes and explore a more effective quality assurance mechanism, including external recognition and accreditation for the EIT Label.

The EIT will facilitate shared services towards the KICs and exchanges of experiences and good practices between KICs and foster collaboration between them (cross-KIC activities) on both thematic and horizontal topics. Cross-KIC activities have highest potential where several KICs already address common EU policy priorities where no dedicated KICs exist. Bringing together the different KICs communities in dedicated joint actions of mutual benefit has high potential for synergies and The EIT will boost such activities and take an active part in defining the content and structure of the cross-KIC activities. It will monitor the implementation of cross-KIC activities as well as the results achieved, with the aim of making those activities an integral part of the KICs’ strategies.

(2) Increasing the regional impact of KICs

The EIT will further increase its regional impact through an enhanced openness towards potential partners and stakeholders and a better articulated regional strategy of KICs, including links to the relevant Smart Specialisation Strategies.

The EIT Regional Innovation Scheme, steered by the EIT and implemented by KICs, has been so far run on a voluntary basis. From 2021 on, the EIT RIS will become an integral part of the KIC’ multi-annual strategy. The EIT will continue to provide guidance and support to KICs in the preparation of multi-annual EIT RIS strategies and in their implementation. EIT RIS activities will continue with improved support to the innovation capacity of countries and regions that underperform in terms of innovation. The EIT budget devoted to implementing EIT RIS activities will be at least 10% of the overall EIT support funding to KICs, thereby increasing the number of KIC partners from targeted regions. Activities supported through the RIS will aim to:

 improve the innovation capacities of the local ecosystem, via capacity building activities and closer interactions between the local innovation actors (clusters, networks, regional authorities, HEIs, research organisations, VET institutions);

 link local innovation ecosystems to pan-European innovation ecosystems through cooperation with EIT KICs and their co-locations centres.

In addition, in order to ensure KICs’ deeper integration in local innovation ecosystems, each KIC will be required to develop and implement a strategy aiming at strengthening the relationship with regional and local innovation actors, and the EIT will actively monitor the implementation. A “place-based” innovation approach should be integrated within the KIC’s multi-annual strategy and business plan and build on KIC’s CLCs (and RIS), thus leveraging on their role as gateway for accessing a KIC community and interacting with the co-located partners. KICs should demonstrate links with local Smart Specialisation Strategies and with the activities of relevant thematic platforms and interregional initiatives, including the Managing Authorities of ESI Funds. The EIT will also monitor how CLCs operate and how they integrate in the local innovation ecosystems.

(3) Launch of new KICs

In order to contribute to addressing new and emerging global challenges, the EIT will launch new KICs in priority fields selected based on criteria assessing, among other aspects, their relevance to Horizon Europe policy priorities, and their potential and added value to be addressed through the EIT model. The launch of new KICs will take into account the Strategic Planning of Horizon Europe and the budget allocated to the EIT in 2021-2027. The relevant selection criteria for European Partnerships defined in Annex III of the [Horizon Europe Regulation] will be included in the KIC Call for proposals and assessed during the evaluation.

The list of priority fields for future KICs is set out in Annex 1A to this SIA.

Based on a proposal from the EIT Governing Board and an analysis thereof, a first KIC in the field of Cultural and Creative Industries (CCI) is proposed to be launched in 2022 with a call for proposals to be published in 2021. This priority field has the strongest complementarity with the eight KICs that have already been launched by the EIT, as well as with the potential priority areas for other European Partnerships to be launched in the framework of Horizon Europe. CCI are a sector with a high growth potential, many grass-roots initiatives and strong citizen appeal. They are strongly embedded in their local and regional ecosystems. However, CCI are still a very fragmented sector and the innovators and business creators lack the needed entrepreneurial and innovation skills. These bottlenecks would be best tackled by a KIC thanks to its knowledge triangle integration approach, long-term perspective and place-based approach. A factsheet summarizing the challenges of the CCI field and the expected impact of the future KIC is included in Annex 1B to this SIA.

Based on the proposed budget for the EIT, a second new KIC could be launched in 2025 with a call to be published in 2024, after an amendment to Annex 1A to add new priority field(s). The priority area(s) will be selected in light of the proposals of the EIT Governing Board. These proposals will take into account the priority areas to be identified in the Horizon Europe Strategic Research and Innovation Plan and the criteria set for the selection of European Partnerships, in particular openness, transparency, EU added value, coherence and synergies. The criteria for selecting new KICs will be aligned with those in the Horizon Europe. They will also support delivery on EU policy priorities such as missions and Sustainable Development Goals. Other new KIC/KICs could be selected in case additional budget to that of the EIT would become available. The EIT will:  Strengthen innovation ecosystems by continuing to support existing KICs in addressing global challenges through the integration of the knowledge triangle.  Define areas of and promote stronger cross-KIC collaboration on topics of strategic and policy relevance.  Ensure that KICs develop and implement a strategy to create collaboration and synergies with relevant European Partnerships and other relevant Union initiatives and programmes.  Ensure that KICs have an inclusive approach aiming at strengthening their relationship with national, regional and local innovation actors.  Ensure that EIT RIS activities deliver on increased regional impact and are fully integrated in KICs’ multi-annual strategies.  Launch new KICs in selected thematic areas of strategic importance, starting with a KIC in the field of Cultural and Creative Industries in 2022.  

EVERYTHING IS DIGITAL:WELCOME TO THIERRY BRETON

A commentary to the Turin Tecnological Kermesse (Decode Symposium and Festival della Tecnologia).

The approval, by the European Parliament, of Thierry Breton as the candidate of France to the new Commission opens up the necessary debate about a coordinated European policy for digital. I think that this is the key issue of this political phase.

Not everybody is persuaded of that. On the contrary, many tend to deny also now that Europe must start as soon as possible with a new affirmative strategy for catching up the distance accumulated, not only towards America, but also towards China, Russia, India and Israel.

When I have asked, to the panel of the Decode Symposium of 5-6 November, in Nuvola Lavazza, Torino, whether they did not think that Europe needs now a new Institution, and even a “Single Man in Power”, for handling all of the Digital Issues presently at stake, Luca Di Biase answered me in a hurry that, since everything is becoming  digital now, my proposal would mean that such person would become “a Fuehrer”.  But this is precisely the direction into which all areas of the world are going, not because of a specific ideological choice, but because of the technological evolution of the Digital Era obliges nations and societies to follow that path. In the States, if the “Fuehrer” were not Trump, it would be Kurzweil or Zuckerberg.

1.Focus on Europe ‘s lack of sovereignty.

In fact, my provocation was not just a strange personal idea, but rather corresponds to a clearly perceived need, shared by  a relevant segment of European politics, citizens and think tanks. As written by the European Foreign Relation Council (ECFR), “European countries are increasingly vulnerable to external pressure that prevents them from exercising their sovereignty.” By the way, these pressures have been very heavy since a long time, i.e., since the end of  World War II:  for example, as concerns the drafting of the new constitutions, the repression of alternative political movements, the stationing of US and USSR forces and armaments in Europe, the impunity of these armed forces and intelligence. However, notwithstanding the end of the Warsaw Pact, the European weakness has never been so striking as now, since at least the competition between US and USSR opened up some spaces of freedom, such as the ones exploited by national-communist parties, by de Gaulle, by the Ostpolitik and by the dissident movements of Eastern Europe.

Taking into account this present situation, the ECFR has written that ” to prosper and maintain their independence in a world of geopolitical competition, Europeans must address the interlinked security and economic challenges other powerful states present – without withdrawing their support for a rules-based order and the transatlantic alliance. This will involve creating a new idea of ‘strategic sovereignty’, as well as creating institutions and empowering individuals that see strategic sovereignty as part of their identity and in their bureaucratic interest. Most fundamentally, the EU needs to learn to think like a geopolitical power”.

2. AI has worsened Europe’s weakness.

As stated by many people, including Hawking, Rees, Musk and Putin, Artificial Intelligence constitutes a fundamental existential risk, i.e., the risk that mankind will cease to exist because intelligent machines will render it useless or even dangerous. This risk is strictly connected with the one of the extinction of Europeans because of their inability to cope with the digital revolution.

Within the above framework, Ulrike Franke has written: “AI’s potential can appear almost limitless. It is not only ‘dual-use’, in the sense that it can be used for both civilian and military applications, but ‘omni-use’, potentially able to influence all elements of life”(such as religion, freedom, human structure, sex, family, politics, economy, work, ethic…).The US, China, and Russia grasp this geopolitic impact of AI and  pursue their imperial agendas in recognition of this. The negligence of the Europeans is highly suspect, and connected with the overwhelming nature of American hegemony. As Franke remarks,  “the recently published ‘Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence’ takes a clearly geopolitical approach, and emphasises that: ’continued American leadership in AI is of paramount importance to maintaining the economic and national security of the United States and to shaping the global evolution of AI in a manner consistent with our Nation’s values, policies, and priorities’. In contrast, the European Commission’s ‘AI Factsheet’ only emphasises the importance of AI in sectors such as healthcare, transport, and public services. “

Contrary to the optimism expressed by Thierry Breton during his hearing in front of the European Parliament, Kai-Fu Lee has claimed that Europe is “not even in the running for bronze AI medal”.

3.A criticism to the vision of Evgeny Morozov and of the Decode Project.

Evgeny Morozov, which was the soul of the Decode Symposium, expressed without hesitation a need for a strong European state intervention against digital capitalism. However, according to my mind, as I told him, his proposed strategy is vague,  not drawing all consequences from the “net delusion”. In fact, if “technological sublime” was just the last avatar of the myth of progress, its failure shows also the impossibility to master technology with a “libertarian” approach. The first stumbling block is constituted by the inability of such approach  to cope with the fundamental problem of  labour’s role in the digital society. In fact, the digital capitalism well described by Morozov and Zuboff consists of a step-by-step take-over of the economic system by an alliance of digital industries and finance. Via their control an all production processes, digital capitalists, in the same moment in which they digitalise productive capital (agriculture, manufacture, services), they become the beneficial owners of the same. E.g., in substituting manpower with machines, the  digital industry becomes the main supplier of the manufacturing industry, and, in providing  also the services of Big Data, it substitutes their management staff (which exercised the control over the businesses), and the administrative complex of the State (which exercised the control over economy. At the end, digital giants will remain the only employers of the machines, carrying out the work of all society.

The form of democratic participation favoured by the Decode Project are helpful for maintaining a certain amount of participation at local level, but cannot impede that the giants of the web take over the real infrastructures of society, i.e. the large continental States and the manufacturing complex, nor address the question of power on the big decisions presently taken by States and Corporations.

In a realistic view, decentralisation, as favoured by the Decode Project,  would play a positive role positive in a digital society as in any other society, but will never be integral, because certain fundamental decisions, such as the one about the social model and the one of war and peace have always been centralised, and always will be. We cannot leave them to the digital giants and to Big Data.

So, at the end of the day, if we follow the suggestions of the Decode Project, we will have a concentration of political and economic power in a few digital capitalists, and probably a certain vague and useless decentralisation of municipal life. The main problem, the one to transfer the profits of the digital complex to the unemployed population would  remain unsolved. The idea of “citizenship income”, even if it would be really be implemented, would be unsatisfactory, before all because it would involve the whole population,  but will not solve the problem of power. Citizens have power only if they have a role in the production and management cycle, and this role will not be guaranteed by participation just in municipal life, but, on the contrary, by the one in production processes.  Whilst physical production will be concentrated in machines, immaterial processes (or, better, decision-making processes) should be concentrated in humans.

 

4.Europe’s Digital Sovereignty

Because of the need to assert the people’s sovereignty over the digital-military complex, people’s participation should be guaranteed not just at local level, but also, and above all, Europe.

Unfortunately, because of the omni-pervasive impact of AI, digital subordination of Europe just increases the former general kind of subalternity. As the Brueghel think Tank puts it, “Europeans like to believe the European Union has the collective economic size and capacity to determine its own economic destiny. But the behaviour of others global powers is increasingly calling this ability into question. China and the United States, especially, do not separate economic interests from geopolitical interests in the same way the EU does. They are increasingly using economic connections, from cyberspace to financial links, to gain geopolitical advantage or to serve geopolitical goals. Europe’s economic sovereignty is at stake”.

Tis problem is tightly linked to the one of participation, shown by the debates inside the Decode Symposium. In fact, as, in the West, digital giants are all American, the expropriation of all production structures from their former owners amounts, in the long term,  to the colonisation of Europe’s economy by America, as foreseeen by Lev Trockij already during World War I. This problem is worsened, now,  by the fact that, for being able to maintain a minimum of balance with America, European are favouring the presence,  beside the American multinationals, of Chinese, Arab, Indian and Russian ones. This has led to  a substantial absence of managerial skills in Europe, both in the private and in the public sector. An extreme paradox is constituted by the fact that the Italian State, after having privatised ILVA considering the private sector as more effective than the public one, and after the bankruptcy of the Italian investors, has attracted an Indian group, which, immediately thereafter,  would be happy to flee away, but which the Italian State pretends to “oblige” do hold its investment in Italy.

As I personally recalled during the Festival della Tecnologia at the Politecnico di Torino, Emmanuel Macron has recently declared: “My goal is to recreate a European sovereignty in AI. And, as ECFR has written,  “the EU has the market power, defence spending, and diplomatic heft to end this vulnerability and restore sovereignty to its member states. But, unless it acts soon, Europe may become not a player in the new world order but the chessboard on which great powers compete for power and glory”. “This means fundamentally rethinking the purpose of European integration. In an earlier era, the main tools of EU policymaking served quite different purposes than they do today. Defence and security policy was about demilitarising Europe rather than building capabilities and a capacity for action. Competition policy was about eliminating state aid and unfair competition within the EU rather than defending European consumers and companies from the predatory behaviour of actors outside Europe’s borders. Equally, European technology and research policies were about redistributing resources within the EU rather than matching the best in a global technology race”.

5.AI and Defence

Paradoxically, recovering European sovereignty would be easier in the defence sector than in the civil one, because cyberwar is less expensive than traditional warfare based upon a mix of infantry, marine, air forces, missile nuclear forces and covert operations.

Ulrike Franke writes, for this purpose, that  “ignoring the impact that AI can have on warfare is not a viable long- or even short-term approach. Indeed, there may even be opportunities for European countries that they have not yet acknowledged: the new competitive landscape could, in fact, benefit middle powers, as they will have greater capacity to compete than they did in the creation of the complex – and expensive – military platforms used today, such as precision-guided missiles and nuclear-powered submarines. Political scientist Michael Horowitz argues: ‘As long as the standard for air warfare is a fifth-generation fighter jet, and as long as aircraft carriers remain critical to projecting naval power, there will be a relatively small number of countries able to manufacture cutting-edge weapons platforms. But with AI, the barriers to entry are lower, meaning that middle powers could leverage algorithms to enhance their training, planning, and, eventually, their weapons systems. That means AI could offer more countries the ability to compete in more arenas alongside the heavy hitters.’ Horowitz even goes as far as to say that it is ‘possible, though unlikely, that AI will propel emerging powers and smaller countries to the forefront of defense innovation while leaving old superpowers behind’”.

6.A general survey on the Festival della Tecnologia.

The festival has had the huge advantage of bringing all these problems to the forefront in a region still obsessed by the idea of “factory” and “manufacturing”. Fortunately, the simultaneous news about the German crisis, the creation in Berlin of a Tesla plant, the FCA-PSA agreements which oresee the control by the French (and the Chinese) over the FCA group, the non solution of the crises of Embraco, Mahle, Pernigotti…have shown  to everybody that, either Piedmont choses new types of specialisation , or it will disappear as an economic subject. The Technology kermess constitutes a tentative to go in the right direction.

The number and qualities of the interventions on all matters concerning the connection between technology and society have been exceptional. The historical and philosophical trends of the digital civilisation have been outlined, i.a,,  by Elena Loewenthal, Laura Curino, Massimo Leone, Luca Peyron, Davide Sisto, Dario Voltolini, Derrick de Kerkhove, Gaetano di Tondo, Pier Paolo Peruccio, Vincenzo Giorgio, Denis Maggiorotto, Eleonora Monge, Valerio di Tana, Giancarlo Genta, Paolo Riberi, Claudio Allocchio, Elia Bellussi, Vittorio Bertola, Andrea Casalegno, Arturo di Corinto, Francesco Ruggiero, Marcello Fois, Giuseppe Cambiano, Christian Greco, Cecilia Pennaccini.

The philosophical and political challenges of digital technologies has been outlined by  Pierluigi Fagan, Stefano Quintarelli, Geert Lovink, Steve Graham, Simone Arcagni, Ugo Pagallo, Niculae Sebe, Tommaso Valletti, Enrico Donaggio, Franco Bernabè, Marcello Chiaberge, Viola Schiaffonati, Gianmarco Veruggio, Paolo Benanti, Marina Geymonat, Alessandro Montelero, Carlo Blangino, Francesco Garibaldo, Tatiana Mazali, Nicola Scarlatelli, Juan Carlos De Martin, Cristofer Cepernich, Fabio Chiusi, Paolo Gerbaudo, Valeria Cirillo, Cinzia Minzolini, Giulio de Pietra, Deborah De Angeli, Enzo Mazza, Marco Ricolfi, Peppino Ortoleva, Stefano Geuna, Massimo Inguscio, Giammarco Molinari, Simona Morini.

A so wide range of speakers brings about obviously a wide spectrum of ideas and of positions. Unfortunately, the fact that all these specialists, representing an elite in our society, have been able to acquire their skills and renown having worked, directly or indirectly, for the digital giants, has unfortunately had a negative impact on their capability to be fully objective, and as critical as necessary, towards the obscure prospects of the ongoing trend towards the Society of Total Control.

This situation has been addressed openly by Carlos de Martin, who has recognized that, even in University, research on digital  matters is financed mainly by the US giants. But this is just a part of a general landscape where all research is financed by multinational corporations,  what explains the wide-ranging conformism of today’s culture.

Therefore, criticisms are always very prudent. Especially, nobody wants to arrive at any practical conclusion, from a cultural, historical, political and legislative point of view. Those, who, like we do, raise too many questions, are considered troubleshooters. Their questions are not properly addressed. I recall, among others, the questions concerning the proviso not to try to insert ethics into the programs for machines; European Digital Sovereignty (which, i.a., was supposed to be the object of the Decode Symposium); the need to define the concepts of digital revolution not only with reference to Western cultures, but also to the Eastern ones; technological unemployment; especially, the question of who will take care of all these matters at a European level.

The final mock trial, devoted to a “process to technology”, shows this excessive  prudence. As the new Rector of the Politecnico, Guido Saracco, has stated candidly at the end, he could not, in his position, condemn technology.

  1. A European Sovereignty Strategy

Taking into account the links of European digital sovereignty with the Common External and Defence policy, ECFR has suggested that the new High Representative (Josep Borrell) is charged to work out a comprehensive strategy in this direction, but the mission letter of Ursula von der Leyn is much more prudent in this regard. Personally, I wonder whether the High Commissioner is the most appropriated subject for this coordination task, which, as said before, is multidisciplinary. In fact, as the ECFR writes: “Principally, any such strategy will need to integrate geo-economic and strategic policymaking. Currently, European economic governance purposefully ignores geopolitical considerations. So, for example, EU state aid rules make it difficult to channel support to emerging strategic industries such as AI, thereby allowing other powers to gain an advantage in such areas”.

From a professional point of view, Thierry Breton is more fit for the purpose, but his conflicts of interest might be an obstacle. These are the reasons why I expressed the above provocative suggestion to create a new Institution, instead of the may already existing and of the others which the European think tanks are suggesting. In fact, the solution proposed by ECFR is a network of inter-Commission committees for coordinating the different aspects of this tremendous challenge. First of all, a  Strategic Sovereignty Committee within the European Commission and an EU Task Force on Strategic Industries and Technologies. Moreover, “in the economic realm, the EU needs to create a Financial Sanctions Enforcement Office and to ensure that all member states are represented on the board of the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges. The EU should also adopt asymmetric countermeasures by setting out a formal legal process for enforcing the EU Blocking Regulation through investigations into companies that withdraw from a country in response to non-European sanctions. The EU could mobilise its competition policy instruments to expand state aid control beyond European companies, and bolster the euro’s international role by fostering deep and integrated capital and banking markets, creating a euro area safe asset, and extending currency swap lines to partner central banks. The EU could improve its AI capacity by leveraging its significant regulatory power through shared, anonymised European databases for research, as well as an EU seal for ethical AI.

As it also needs an effective cyber security institution with centralised functions, Europe could transform the EU Agency for Network and Information Security to that end. An investigative service focusing on foreign interference would also be valuable. “

I may agree that, within the present framework, dominated by power struggles between member States and European Parties for the allotment of competences to their national Commissioners, a system of committees coordinated by  somebody (why not, by the President) is probably the best result that may be achieved. However, this Commission should work out at least a new legal framework which puts “under the same umbrella”, among other things, a European Academy, the EFSI, the existing European Strategic Fund, a new European Intelligence, a European Investment Fund for ITC, a Regulator for the Digital industries. This agency should also rethink and coordinate according to a sole design the very numerous actions under way by the most different entities: international treaties for the regulation of digital; the EU regulations concerning data and robotics; antitrust concerning ITC; Internet tax; financing of EU digital industries and academic research.

Earlier this year, the European Council on Foreign Relations had commissioned YouGov to carry out surveys covering more than 60,000 people across Europe. These included finding out their views on the foreign policy challenges the EU faces. As ECFR writes, “The study reveals a fundamental shift in Europeans’ views of the world. Although there is widespread public support for the idea of the EU becoming a cohesive global actor, there is also a growing divergence between the public and the foreign policy community on several key issues – ranging from trade and the transatlantic relationship to EU enlargement. “The most shocking finding of the survey is that, contrary to what all the establishments constantly thought and said, a large majority of the citizens of all member states, in case of a conflict between US and Russia, would opt for neutrality.

Precisely for this reason is it necessary that the European digital system is disconnected, at least potentially, from the American one. The new Russian law follows precisely that path. Without impeding now the utilisation of the “American” World Wide Web by Russian users, it renders possible, in a case of conflict, to disconnect the Russian web from the general Internet, for the same reason that, since ever, in case of war, there has been always a military censorship on mails sent across the national borders.

Paradoxically, this is already the main reason of dispute between the EU and the USA in the digital  sector. After that, in the Schrems Case, the European Court of Justice had condemned the Commission, obliging it to renegotiate with the US, in substitution of the Safe Harbour Agreement (not complying with the DGPR), the Commission had signed with the US a  new agreement, the Privacy Shield, which was again not compliant, as declared by the European Parliament, and is giving rise to a new action in front of the Luxemburg Court. Why is it non compliant? Because, under the signed copy of the agreement, the US in any case the application of the agreement is subject to the US defence laws (which allow the secret services to have access, with a certain procedure, to the files stored in any part of the world, by US multinational). It is always an effect of the US “military censorship law” for the time of war, which has never been suspended because, from Word War I up to now, the US has never ceased to be at war against somebody. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the privacy of European citizens intellectual property  of European Companies and the military secrets of European Armies will never be safe, until their data will be stored in Europe, by companies or public entities integrally subject to European Law. This renders many of the discussion under way about digital unrealistic, and emphasizes the urgency of an implementation of the ideas of Macron about European Digital Sovereignty.