The reaction came promptly and unequivocally.

No sooner had EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen presented her proposal on Wednesday to urge member states to reduce their gas consumption by 15 percent when the Spanish government said no.

You don't think much of the plan, said Environment Minister Teresa Ribera.

Your country will not make “disproportionate sacrifices”;

no Spanish family need fear cuts in the gas supply in winter, European solidarity or not.

Because Spain did its homework and did not live beyond its means.

In the gas crisis caused by Vladimir Putin, “solidarity” meant something halfway concrete: EU states usually agree bilaterally to help each other in the event of supply gaps – i.e. insufficient supply.

Germany has already concluded such agreements with several countries.

Spain, which has diversified its gas suppliers and is not dependent on Russia, also wants to help out elsewhere as far as it can - but does not want to be committed to collective EU solidarity.

This is what von der Leyen's austerity plan, which aims to reduce gas demand, amounts to.

All countries should save the same amount regardless of their dependence on Russian gas and their previous efforts.

The head of the commission didn't have to say what she really meant: the EU should make sacrifices for Germany.

In solidarity.

Berlin always knew best anyway

What reason should there be?

The Spanish minister's pointed remarks about "homework" and the fact that people did not live beyond their means are reminiscent of the euro crisis, when German politicians liked to lecture the Mediterranean countries about their wrong economic and financial policies.

Ribera now states soberly that her country has no responsibility for German energy policy and therefore does not want to be held responsible for it.

Elsewhere the willingness is similarly low.

The collateral damage left behind by a number of federal governments in the EU is too great.

Already with the construction of Nord Stream 1, they ignored the energy and security policy interests of Poland and other Central and Eastern European countries.

And they always knew everything best when it came to energy policy – ​​most recently in the taxonomy dispute about nuclear power.

In line with the financial and banking crisis, the nasty question is now circulating in Brussels as to whether von der Leyen wants to push through her gas plan with the argument that her home country must be helped because it is "too big to fail".

In fact, there is no reason for gas solidarity understood in this way, regardless of the current German needs.

The national energy mix is ​​fundamentally a matter for the member states.

That's why there is basically nothing to be said for an energy bailout.

If every country is to make its own decisions about its energy sources, it must bear the consequences.

It's only symbolic

Of course, times of crisis have always been ideally suited to shifting the boundaries of competence.

It is not the first time that von der Leyen invokes European solidarity as a remedy for crises.

It has already been successful: The Corona Development Fund is a new "solidarity" instrument that has given the Commission an increase in competence.

If von der Leyen wanted to use the energy crisis for such "successes", she would have to rely on other instruments, such as joint purchasing.

Saving gas in solidarity does not promise such success.

It is quite possible that the EU energy ministers will adopt the Commission's proposal this Tuesday with the necessary qualified majority - but precisely because it will only have a symbolic effect.

The 15 percent target should initially only be pursued voluntarily.

This means that no country has an incentive to meet the savings target, no matter how persistently von der Leyen claims the opposite.

According to the proposal, the savings targets could become mandatory if an alarm were triggered due to excessive gas consumption or acute undersupply.

The Commission wants to be able to trigger the alarm itself.

However, the member states are unanimously claiming this competence for themselves.

Von der Leyen cannot win this dispute.

In the end, she won't be sad about it.

If it should one day have to initiate infringement proceedings against a "wasteful state", this would not only come far too late on the merits.

Above all, it would result in political conflicts, which Putin could be happy about first and foremost.

By then at the latest, European solidarity would have been reduced to absurdity.