Recent years have witnessed an upsurge in our understanding of how the human brain works. Brain imaging techniques have long helped understanding many brain processes, revealing individuals' attitudes and preferences, and responses to stimuli. Yet, the convergence between neurotechnology, big data and artificial intelligence creates a disruptive scenario whose consequences we only begin to fathom. Smart Neural Implants offer custom-tailored solutions for persons suffering from incapacitating conditions (such as lockdown syndrome or epilepsy), thereby contributing to a more inclusive society.

At the same time, the technologies of smart neural implants are being explored for cognitive enhancement. We assist to the mushrooming of companies aimed at developing or distributing devices enabling the acquisition of new sense by those who can afford it: an inner compass, infrared sight, solving complex calculations using the mind, or accessing online databases. On top of that, successful animal testing has proved the feasibility of surgically implanting artificial memories in mice or removing memories in snails, a human application being not so distant.

Society is thus slowly morphing into a public space shared by normal humans, enhanced humans (aka. cyborgs) and artificially nudgeable humans (robot-like). Whereas ethics and philosophy scholars have long cautioned against the communalization of these devices, legal perspectives have blatantly ignored the gigantic legal implications of mental enhancement, brain reading and brain writing in the era of artificial intelligence.

The paper introduces the main regulatory efforts to affirm core neurorights facing smart neural implants, which remain largely sparse (Chile, the Netherlands, Spain) and ineffective to date. National regulators seem ill-equipped to enforce limitations and constrains on foreign companies. The EU emerges as the right level to foster supranational regulation protective of citizens' (fundamental) rights in this field, due to its broad competences under the Treaties; likewise, its claimed role as a global power has earned the EU leverate go broke new international treaties, acting as a pole of attraction for others to follow suit. Through literature review and mapping the legal/political risks of a generalized use of smart neural implants, the paper raises awareness and proposes reseach agendas involving the EU and the role(s) it could play in the regulation and enforcement of fundamental rights considering these devices.

This communication focuses on changes in European social governance and its impact on inclusion.

An initial comparison between the reaction to the financial crisis and crisis Covid-19 can give light to deficits and recommendations for the future. After the breakout of the financial crisis, the Stability, Coordination and Governance Treaty introduced in the economic governance an explicit social conditionality as Member States ceased to receive European funds in case of non-compliance with fiscal criteria. This mechanism had an evident negative impact on inclusive growth due to the austerity effort that severely penalized social aid and cohesion policies.

On its side, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RFF) brings a new approach to face the Covid-19 crisis introducing a new mode of social governance. According to the RRF Regulation (EU/2021/241), no financial contribution should be granted to the Member State if the Recovery and Resilience Plan does not satisfactorily meet the evaluation criteria. If the Commission determines that the objectives set have not been satisfactorily achieved, payment of all or part of the financial contribution shall be suspended. In this new tool, it is particularly significant that the issues to be evaluated in compliance with the RRF include social aims. Looking specifically at this area, we can see how it is evaluated whether the National Recovery and Resilience Plans represent a comprehensive and adequately balanced response to the situation not only economic but also social. Similarly, within the measured aspects to which it has to contribute, and among issues of the classical approach to social policy such as job creation, the social resilience of the Member State (together with economic and institutional) is included. It is also specified in the following mentions: the contribution to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, the promotion of policies aimed at children and young people and to mitigate the economic and social impact of the Covid-19 crisis, thus strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion and convergence in the Union.

We question to which extent these and other new elements are sufficient to meet the cohesion objectives and an inclusive growth. In this study, special attention will be given to the insertion of social inclusion aims in the European Semester procedure and the relevance of eventual reforms of economic governance.

The creation of bitcoin in 2009, the first cryptocurrency, was heralded as revolutionary by some, but widely criticised by many, especially in the financial services sector, as a ‘fad’ or gimmick. Its ability to operate without the need for third party oversight or Government intervention was an attractive prospect, especially post the Global Financial Crises where trust in Governments and banks had been damaged. Yet its connection with scandals and use for illegal purposes (Silk Road, Mt Gox, Terra, FTX) placed it firmly on many regulators radar. Its use of consensus, although not new, was novel in conjunction with protocols, algorithmic authority and the blockchain, and emphasised the creator’s desire to remain outside of any state regulatory framework. This caused a conundrum for central banks whose main focus is financial stability and prudential supervision, and many adopted a wait and see approach. Initially the EU responded with guidance notes and policy documents, but the recent introduction of the MiCA (EU Markets in Crypto-Assets) regulation shows not only a desire to close regulatory gaps but also an acknowledgement that crypto-assets have an ability to deliver on ‘inclusive growth’ by enabling those without bank accounts transact financially – more economically and cheaply.

This paper explores how cryptocurrencies can make a financial system more accessible to more citizens and how the use of democratic processes like consensus, voting and community can be beneficial to those operating in less developed regions of Europe. Cryptocurrencies and the use of blockchain can create efficiencies and transparency for people as well as the institutions of Member States. The culture clash between crypto enthusiasts and crypto sceptics is beginning to wane as the merits of cryptocurrencies become clearer.

In the aftermath of the GameStop short-squeeze, many financial market observers and commentators enthusiastically proclaimed the ‘democratisation’ of finance. FinTech tools accelerate the financial disintermediation, and average consumers can easily diversify their asset portfolios beyond a traditional combination of cash, pension fund, and real estate. In April 2021, the European Commission published a roadmap for ‘A Retail Investment Strategy for the EU’ and placed consumer participation in capital markets as a part of the post-COVID economic recovery plan. Previously, the 2020 Action Plan for the Capital Markets Union called for legislative actions to facilitate retail investment, emphasising the role of financial advisors in increasing financial literacy. At the same time, the GameStop incident also highlighted our ability, aided by social media, to move and even manipulate markets. Where is participatory ethics? As the European Union promotes ‘inclusive growth’, all participants of financial markets must share responsibilities and are collectively accountable for the whole. Against this background, this paper aims to open a discussion for the ethical standard required for retail investors and their advisors, in the context of the planned EU Capital Markets Union.