The European Commission’s Savings and Investments Union (SIU) may seem to have a positive goal at first glance: strengthening the savings and investments of EU citizens. However, from the moment it was announced, significant questions have arisen about its real intentions and its long-term consequences. The idea of funding the economy through investments in capital markets is not new, but its implementation through this strategy suggests a dangerous direction, as it puts citizens’ money at risk, often without fully informing them of the potential hazards.
Let’s take a closer look at the Commission’s plan to understand the issues that emerge from its implementation.
Summary and purpose of the strategy
The Commission’s strategy aims to increase citizens’ participation in capital markets, providing them with more investment opportunities and enhancing their financial literacy. Around 70% of household savings in the EU, amounting to about €10 trillion, are currently held in safe bank deposits with low returns. As the EU advances its SIU agenda, citizens will gain easy access to capital markets in the hope of boosting their wealth.
However, this plan seems to depart radically from the reality faced by citizens and the economic conditions in the EU. While investments in capital markets can indeed be a dynamic source of wealth for those with the right tools and knowledge, most of these “opportunities” are fraught with risks. And these risks will, once again, be borne by working people who are compelled to invest their savings.
Bank deposits vs. capital markets: Stability or speculation?
In the Commission’s narrative, the reallocation of household savings into capital markets is framed as a rational step toward job creation and economic growth. But this shift glosses over a foundational truth: bank deposits are not merely a low-yield financial product—they are a cornerstone of household security across the EU.
With approximately €10 trillion currently held in EU bank accounts, these funds represent not excess capital, but the accumulated labor and life savings of millions — from employees and pensioners to freelancers and small business owners. Their choice to deposit, rather than invest, is not due to ignorance, but to a rational preference for security, liquidity, and predictability.
What the Commission fails to address is the qualitative difference between deposits and market-based investments. Bank deposits in the EU are guaranteed up to €100,000 per account holder, backed by deposit guarantee schemes designed to protect citizens in the event of bank failures. Capital markets, in contrast, offer no such safety net.
Even with financial education campaigns and broader access to investment products, the core problem remains unchanged: capital markets are structurally exposed to volatility, speculation, and systemic risk—all of which can amplify economic inequality, especially in times of crisis.
Recent history offers sobering examples. The 2008 financial crisis, the 2011 sovereign debt turmoil, and even the post-pandemic inflation shocks have shown how rapidly market-linked assets can lose value, wiping out retirement savings or investment portfolios in a matter of days.
Encouraging households to redirect their deposits into instruments subject to these forces is not just risky—it reshapes the fundamental relationship between citizens and the financial system. It transfers risk from the state and institutions onto individuals, often without their informed consent.
When the average European worker is invited to “participate in the markets,” what’s rarely said is that they are also asked to shoulder market risks, while corporations enjoy the capital inflows—and the profits.
Markets without moral filters: A silent entry into the arms sector
What should concern EU citizens is not only the potential reallocation of their savings into volatile financial markets, but also the specific allocation targets these markets may favor—including the European military and defense sector.
The Commission’s strategy, as framed under the SIU, does not explicitly exclude investments in defense-related industries. On the contrary, in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, several legislative and financial initiatives at the EU level—such as the European Defence Fund (EDF) and the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP)—have already paved the way for public and private financing to support defense capabilities. What is now being proposed is to deepen market integration in a way that would implicitly attract household capital into such sectors.
It is critical to understand how this works: European investment funds, often packaged as low-risk vehicles for retail savers, are increasingly allowed to include stocks and bonds of defense contractors. With looser definitions of “sustainable” and “strategic” investment under new EU taxonomy discussions, arms manufacturers—provided they meet certain criteria—may even be marketed as contributing to European security and resilience, rather than simply as military enterprises.
In practice, this means that an ordinary worker who entrusts their pension fund or savings plan to a “European diversified growth fund” may unknowingly become a shareholder in companies producing tanks, drones, or ammunition. The integration of capital markets, without strict sectoral exclusions or binding ethical filters, creates an opaque investment environment where citizen control over the use of their own capital is fundamentally weakened.
From economic strategy to strategic militarization
There is a deeper political dimension. The drive to channel private capital into the military-industrial complex reflects not only an economic rationale but also a geostrategic realignment of the EU. With pressure to increase “strategic autonomy,” defense is being rebranded as a pillar of economic competitiveness — a trend that risks eroding the traditional civilian, peace-centered orientation of the European project.
And herein lies the true danger: when military spending becomes a normalized component of market growth, peace becomes a market externality — something not valued because it does not generate returns. This logic not only distorts investment priorities but also diverts resources away from pressing social needs: healthcare, education, climate resilience, affordable housing.
It is neither alarmist nor ideological to raise this concern. It is, in fact, a democratic imperative. If European citizens are to be stakeholders in the financial future of the Union, they must also have a say in what kind of future they are funding. The current framework lacks both the transparency mechanisms and the democratic oversight necessary to ensure that their savings do not end up underwriting industries that operate in contradiction to their values.
This is not about opposing a common European defense per se. It is about opposing a financial architecture that makes militarization an investment opportunity — driven not by collective will, but by market incentives and institutional inertia.
Undermining democratic values and citizen autonomy
The SIU does not merely represent an economic shift; it reflects an existential challenge to the core values of democracy and social responsibility. By focusing on market-driven growth at the expense of democratic principles, the EU risks alienating its citizens and potentially creating an economic system that primarily serves financial elites and industries that thrive on conflict and instability.
This strategy, if left unchecked, may lead to a deepening of inequality, a loss of citizens’ control over their financial futures, and an overall undermining of democratic processes. To preserve the EU’s democratic integrity, the SIU must be reassessed. Policies that directly impact citizens’ savings should be transparent, inclusive, and aligned with the social values of peace, stability, and democracy that the EU stands for.
* Maria Zacharia is a Member of the European Parliament for the Greek political party Course of Freedom (Plefsi Eleftherias). She is a member of the Committee on Petitions and the Delegation for Relations with the United States.