There Is No Veto Against Reality

This article is an edited version of remarks delivered by Sylvie Goulard at the event “L’Europa in cammino. Dialogo, democrazia, libertà”, held at Bocconi University on 27 February 2026. The discussion brought together Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, Andrea Sironi, Francesco Billari and Sylvie Goulard to reflect on the future of the European project in a time of geopolitical tensions, growing polarization and declining trust in democratic institutions. 

The struggle of law against force is not abstract or theoretical. For a vast part of humanity—especially for many women—it is a daily reality. We cannot accept as a starting point the idea that law is now over, and violence is history’s only language. The first way to combat violence is to say clearly that it leads nowhere. 

Identity 

What Europeans share today is more important than what divides them. Parties and governments obsessed with “identity” miss the most important point: the challenge, for Europe and for all human groups, is less about who we are—where we come from—than about what we do—our contribution to the community, as Italian President Sergio Mattarella stressed in his 2024 New Year’s Eve speech. 

Belonging cannot be reduced to a passport or one’s origin. Europe is precisely the space where law should confer belonging, not where belonging should determine the law. 

This is visible in concrete issues such as the death penalty. In Europe, its absence feels natural—but in many countries it exists, even in advanced democracies. We have too often taken our achievements for granted. Europe must become conscious again of what it has achieved and represents. 

What is Europe? Its roots are multiple: Christianity, Greek philosophy, Roman law, Jewish tradition—and also the Enlightenment, which must be more explicitly acknowledged, as it has been in the social doctrine of the Church since the 20th century and in all European treaties. 

Europe’s strength lies in its ability to renew itself, to absorb diverse inheritances, and transform them into a common principle of freedom and dignity. But there is no Europe without strong shared values. 

Coalition of the willing? 

Today we face a war of aggression in Europe (in Ukraine)—an event of this magnitude unseen since the postwar period. Dialogue remains necessary at the diplomatic level but cannot ignore who is the aggressor and which war crimes were perpetrated. 

The real question is not only whether there is a group of willing countries, but also what they provide and whether they are genuinely prepared to move forward. 

European integration has often begun with small vanguards—Schengen, the monetary union. Proceeding with a smaller group is not scandalous, especially if the process remains inclusive. What is scandalous is when some countries block others from advancing. 

We are likely on the eve of a new phase in which some countries will move ahead—on an inclusive basis, with an open door and a positive objective for all. 

In this context, we need to respect the rules without being obsessed by procedures. The historical context is changing dramatically. Europeans must adapt and move ahead. 

We also need to respect cultural diversity. Turning Europe into a linguistically homogeneous area ruled by simple, functional “Globish,” would diminish cultural richness and fuel nationalism. 

The debate over vetoes must also be reframed. On issues such as climate change or pandemics, there is no veto right, because reality cannot be vetoed. In foreign affairs as well, we need to be able to decide collectively, and that obviously requires majority voting. Also, we could relax: being from time to time in the minority is not a drama. 

Europe and the world 

If only a minority of the world lives in liberal democracies, the response should not be pessimism but awareness of our own fortune. Freedom remains universally desired, as seen in protest movements worldwide. Those who deny the universality of human rights are autocrats or those in positions of domination—men, religious authorities, and other entrenched powers. 

Europe has something extraordinary to defend and propose. It must stop being intimidated by nationalist propaganda and Realpolitik rhetoric. Historically, Realpolitik was the language of powers preparing for war. And nationalism fuels conflicts. Europe’s merit since 1945 has been to seek another path. 

The market was a means, not the end. The founders never lost sight of the project’s moral dimension: reconciliation, peace, and solidarity. 

Looking ahead requires avoiding self-reference or remaining trapped in the dream of the “West”. Beyond the US lie China and Africa, alongside cross-cutting issues such as climate transition and demographic change.

Europe must engage seriously with a young African continent and confront climate change and environmental degradation even when public debate sidelines it. 

Ultimately, responsibility lies with national governments that put the emphasis on “national interest” without ever clearly defining what those interests are, usually from a very short-term perspective. Sometimes national agendas are highjacked by private interests, in particular when future oriented, young start-ups struggle against established companies. They must decide to face reality and move forward. Universities can play a role, because Europe has never advanced without the drive of its youth. Their future is at stake.