Standfirst: Former European Council President Charles Michel has criticised European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for what he described as slow decision-making and insufficient focus on the European Union’s economic and strategic challenges. His comments came before von der Leyen’s annual address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
Charles Michel has accused Ursula von der Leyen of failing to deliver quickly enough on the European Union’s most urgent priorities, including competitiveness, investment and European strategic independence.
Speaking ahead of the European Commission President’s State of the Union address on 16 September 2026, Michel said the EU was facing a more difficult global environment but had not made enough progress in turning political commitments into practical results.
Michel says EU needs faster decisions and clearer priorities
Michel, who led the European Council from 2019 to 2024, argued that the EU should concentrate on a smaller number of core challenges rather than announcing more initiatives.
He pointed to the war on European soil, growing geopolitical tensions and economic competition from China and the United States as reasons for a stronger sense of urgency. In his view, businesses and entrepreneurs were not seeing sufficient evidence that the EU was responding quickly to changing conditions.
His criticism was directed at the Commission’s record under von der Leyen, although Michel also acknowledged that responsibility for Europe’s difficulties does not rest with the Commission alone.
- Michel said the EU needed to focus on delivery rather than communication.
- He argued that entrepreneurs were still facing uncertainty and excessive regulatory complexity.
- He identified competitiveness as the bloc’s central economic priority.
- He called for more investment and smarter regulation.
Competitiveness and capital markets remain central concerns
A major part of Michel’s criticism concerned whether the EU is becoming a more attractive place to invest and innovate. He argued that regulatory growth had not been matched by enough progress in strengthening the economic foundations of the single market.
Michel specifically referred to the lack of significant movement on the capital markets union. The project aims to make it easier for capital to move across EU member states and to give companies greater access to investment beyond traditional bank lending.
A more integrated capital market is widely seen as important for supporting innovation, scaling businesses and financing the green and digital transitions. Michel’s argument was that delays in this area risk leaving European companies at a disadvantage compared with firms operating in the United States and China.
He also warned that over-regulation could weaken the EU if rules make it harder for companies to invest, expand or develop new products. His proposed response included simpler regulation, stronger investment and a clearer focus on economic development.
Von der Leyen defends the Commission’s approach
In her address to the European Parliament, von der Leyen argued that the EU already had important strengths, including its single market and internationally competitive industries and services. However, she said fragmentation continued to limit Europe’s ability to compete and grow.
Von der Leyen pointed to political agreement on the “One Europe, One Market Roadmap” and said the Commission aimed to complete a major overhaul of the single market by the end of 2027.
The difference between the two positions is partly about pace and delivery. Michel said the EU had launched many initiatives without producing enough visible improvement. Von der Leyen presented the Commission’s roadmap as evidence that work was under way to address fragmentation and improve the functioning of the single market.
The debate is politically significant because the European Commission can propose legislation and coordinate policy, but many major reforms require agreement from the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Implementation also depends on member states and national authorities.
Disagreement over the EU’s relationship with the United States
Michel also criticised von der Leyen’s approach to relations with the United States under President Donald Trump. He said he believed the EU had sometimes followed Washington too closely, even when doing so could conflict with the bloc’s long-term interests.
His comments referred to criticism surrounding the Turnberry Agreement, the EU-US trade deal agreed during the previous summer. Some members of the European Parliament and other critics considered the agreement unbalanced.
Michel said European leaders should have moved earlier to strengthen the EU’s strategic autonomy and reduce excessive dependence on external partners. He argued that the Union needed greater capacity to act independently in economic, security and foreign-policy matters.
Von der Leyen has increasingly used the language of European sovereignty and independence, but Michel’s criticism was that progress had been too slow and that valuable time had been lost.
What happens next for EU policy?
Michel said he remained optimistic because there was no practical alternative to working through the European project. His message was that the EU should now move from declarations to implementation.
The issues raised in the exchange are likely to remain central to European affairs:
- completing the single market and reducing internal barriers;
- advancing the capital markets union;
- improving conditions for European businesses and investors;
- simplifying regulation without weakening public protections;
- strengthening European economic and strategic independence;
- responding to competition from the United States and China.
These priorities will require cooperation between the European Commission, the European Parliament, national governments and the Council of the European Union. Political speeches can set direction, but formal changes to EU law and policy require the appropriate legislative and institutional steps.
Why this matters for Ireland
Although Michel’s remarks concern the EU as a whole, the competitiveness debate also matters for Ireland. Irish companies operate within the European single market, while Irish consumers and businesses are affected by EU rules on investment, digital services, trade and regulation.
Progress on capital markets could influence access to finance for businesses across the Union, although the practical effects would depend on the final measures adopted and how they are implemented. Similarly, any future changes to single-market rules would need to pass through the relevant EU legislative process before they could take effect.
For Ireland, the central question is whether reforms can improve investment and innovation while preserving the protections and common standards associated with the single market.
Conclusion
Charles Michel’s intervention has highlighted a broader argument at the heart of current EU politics: whether the Union is moving quickly enough from ambitious announcements to measurable results. Von der Leyen’s response emphasises the Commission’s plans for a more integrated single market, while Michel is demanding faster delivery, simpler rules and stronger European independence.
The immediate exchange is political rather than a new EU law or formal institutional decision. Its significance lies in the pressure it places on the Commission and member states to turn competitiveness, investment and strategic autonomy into concrete policy outcomes.
