Openness and reciprocity: the true balance of competitiveness

Mario Draghi’s speech sounded like a wake-up call. Without scale, without investment, and without access to global markets, Europe will not be able to strengthen either its growth or its strategic autonomy. Competitiveness and openness are not alternative concepts: they are two sides of the same coin.

This line of thinking is echoed in the words of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who reiterated that Italy and Europe remain open to free trade, provided that there is reciprocity. This is a legitimate and commendable principle, if understood in a clear, measurable way that is consistent with European economic and strategic interests.

Agreements that open markets

It is precisely in light of this principle that the Mercosur case takes on symbolic significance. A comparison with other trade dossiers is instructive. The European Union has recently made significant progress on the free trade agreement with India, one of the markets with the highest growth potential in the coming decades. At the same time, negotiations with Australia have resumed on a comprehensive trade agreement aimed at strengthening the integration of value chains and market access.

Added to this is the EU-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IEU-CEPA), which is now nearing completion and is strategic for access to raw materials such as nickel and palm oil, industrial supply chains, and markets in Southeast Asia. In all these cases, trade is recognized as a lever for competitiveness, growth, and strategic autonomy, not as a threat to be contained.

Mercosur, the stalemate that weighs heavily

The Mercosur case, on the other hand, tells a different story. After more than twenty years of negotiations, the agreement with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay has been postponed, formally for procedural reasons. Essentially, however, Mercosur has become the arena for political vetoes and vested interests. It is not a question of standards or safeguards, which the agreement already provides for, but a decision to block competition, growth, and industrial integration.

Strategic autonomy and European contradictions

The paradox is clear: while Europe discusses strategic autonomy, energy, and critical raw materials, it struggles to use one of the most effective tools for reducing dependencies and strengthening its supply chains, namely regulated trade agreements. Meanwhile, other powers, from China to the United States, are advancing with increasingly aggressive trade and industrial strategies.

The message emerging from the European debate is clear: if Europe really wants to strengthen its competitiveness, it must align its words with its choices. Openness and reciprocity are not alternatives. But without concrete decisions, there is a risk that reciprocity will become an elegant name for immobility. And immobility, today, is the highest cost Europe can afford.