Europe’s energy reality check: We cannot solve every crisis with fiscal escape clauses

Not because the ideas themselves are revolutionary, but because Europe desperately needs more examples of what works in practice.

For years, EU energy policy has often focused on targets, strategies and long-term visions. Important, yes. But in moments of crisis, member states also need operational examples. They need to see what another country implemented, how it worked, whether it reduced consumption, whether it protected households and whether it helped industry remain competitive.

That is perhaps the most valuable aspect of this initiative. By pointing out what each country is doing right, the Commission is effectively creating a shared toolbox for the rest of Europe. Some member states may look at a successful demand response scheme, efficiency programme or clean heating rollout elsewhere and realise: perhaps we should follow this model too.

And frankly, that is how Europe should function more often.

As EU Commissioner for Energy and Housing Dan Jørgensen said: “Europe is facing difficult times due to the energy repercussions of the conflict in the Middle East. The Commission is here to support the member states in addressing effectively and timely high energy prices. The measures we have outlined in this catalogue can be easily replicated across our countries and are meant to reduce the impact of the current situation on both households and businesses while accelerating the clean transition.”

I think that approach makes sense. Before asking for extraordinary interventions, Europe should first examine what can already be done better with the tools available.

At the same time, Giorgia Meloni is not entirely wrong either.

Her argument - that energy security should be treated with the same strategic seriousness as defence - touches a real political issue. Citizens do not experience security only in military terms. They experience it through affordability, economic stability and whether businesses and industries can continue operating.

And yes, some countries have already implemented many of the measures Brussels is now recommending. For them, the room for quick additional savings may be smaller than for member states that still have a long way to go on efficiency, electrification or flexibility.

But this is also where I part ways with Rome.

We cannot activate the National Escape Clause every single time Europe faces a major difficulty. Otherwise, exceptional measures stop being exceptional. Fiscal flexibility has its place, especially during genuine emergencies, but it cannot become the automatic first response to every crisis the continent encounters.

Europe must first figure out what it can do on its own. That is exactly what the AccelerateEU catalogue is trying to encourage.

Can countries reduce waste faster? Accelerate efficiency upgrades? Deploy cleaner technologies more quickly? Improve demand response? Learn from successful policies elsewhere in Europe? These are reasonable questions Brussels is right to ask before opening another large fiscal flexibility debate.

The uncomfortable reality is that Europe’s energy transition is uneven. Some countries are further ahead than others. Some still have substantial untapped potential. Others are already operating closer to their limits. But that does not mean the answer is always more borrowing or more emergency exemptions.

What Europe needs now is not panic policymaking. It needs realism, cooperation and the political maturity to admit that resilience also means learning from each other before reaching for another emergency mechanism.

Don't you agree?