The treaty between France and Germany, which wants to be a means to strengthen Europe, seems to arrive with considerable delay in the face of the many manifestations of unease that the policies of the European Union have aroused. It is not clear if the intentions represent an organic program to allow European growth within new rules or if it is, rather, an attempt, however late, to try to correct the perception of a Europe too tied to the strict policies of budget, which produced austerity and aversion to the Brussels institutions. Meanwhile, we are faced with only two states, probably the most important of those remaining in the Union, who assume, appointed by themselves, the role of trying to save the European institutions, after that, especially Germany, have practiced financial harassment of other members, looking only at national economic results. This consideration alone would suffice to look suspiciously at an operation that takes place outside the common institutions and which highlights the hegemonic role of Berlin, while Paris tries to stay to look for its role, still undefined, in an attempt to save ‘Europe. The two leaders have put the agreement of both the exit of the United Kingdom and the threat of nationalism, now more than a threat, as factors of weakness in the European crisis. But putting these two problems on the same level is a mistake of perspective, because these are two very different cases within the dialectic between European institutions, local governments and the social fabric of individual states where discomfort is manifested. The English question can be summarized as the lack of availability of most of the country, albeit with little numerical difference between those who want to leave and those who want to remain in Europe, to submit to the common rules in the name of a distorted sovereignty that threatens to bring the United Kingdom towards an apparently irreversible crisis. The malaise of populations that once strongly shared their belonging to Europe was very different, and they saw their expectations disappointed by myopic tax policies only capable of worsening their economic and social conditions. But the official intentions go in these directions: the agreement serves to give a signal for the particular moment that Europe is going through, a sign of unity against the populisms and nationalisms and perspectives triggered by the English decision. The agreement should also underline the foundations of European reconciliation through new ways of dealing with the major changes imposed by international scenarios, such as terrorism, climate change and migration. As can be seen, there is nothing quite new rhetoric, which hopes that a substantially bilateral agreement can raise Europe’s perception to counteract what are defined as internal threats. The points on which the treaty is focused are security, economic cooperation, research and technology and will also include issues of foreign policy, education, culture, climate change, environment and civil society. It is not clear, however, how an agreement between two states, even if the most important members of Europe, can then be extended to the whole Union. If the aim is to convince the validity of the arguments, there seems to be no doubt about the importance of the topics discussed, it is different to see how they will be applied and, above all, in the interests of those. This way of acting, if, on the one hand, can represent the engine to try to give new impetus to the Union, on the other it can only arouse suspicions in those who have not been directly involved; the feeling of the construction of an alliance for the preservation of European hegemony is clearly in contrast with what is said to be waged. A choice that is not inclusive can not be the foundation of conciliation, dialogue and common growth that should be sure and sure factors, to fight nationalism and populism. The hope is that this agreement will not serve as a pretext, if we want to insist on this path, when there will be yet another European failure in the face of the demands of the European peoples.