For twenty-four years we have been using banknotes depicting buildings that never existed.
Windows without a building. Gateways that lead nowhere. Abstractions. Ideas. Archetypes. In short, the perfect reflection of the European Union.
Admittedly, at the time it may well have been the most prudent solution. But prudence does not create identity. And in twenty-four years, it still hasn’t.
On 23 July 2026, however, the ECB unveiled ten proposals for the future of euro banknotes. This time they feature great thinkers and natural elements that actually exist. All very nice, but who chose them? And why weren’t we the ones?
Once again, the EU believes it is making a decision about money. In reality, what is at stake is our identity.
Let’s talk about it.
Twenty-four years of neutrality
Who remembers what is on the five-euro banknote?
Nobody. Because they don’t exist. They aren’t iconic.
The Eiffel Tower is iconic. The Colosseum is iconic. An idealised drawing is not.
The idea was to symbolise cooperation through bridges and gateways, representing architectural styles of our culture.
A design crafted not to exclude anyone, while not truly including anyone either.
Predetermined neutrality, which reduced risk without creating any memory.
Today the ECB is finally changing course and opening up to a currency that (subjective aesthetic taste aside) draws on contemporary visual culture, from pop art to modern graphic design and recognisability. After twenty-four years of absolute neutrality, a breath of fresh air. Which, however, does not solve the problem: who chose what to represent?
Two ways of telling Europe’s story
Specifically, the subject of these banknotes is split into two broad themes: “European culture” and “Rivers and birds”. Two possible answers to the question: what unites us?
And so, on one side we have figures such as Callas, Cervantes and Leonardo da Vinci: great thinkers who transcend national borders. On the other, rivers and birds from our geography, which by nature tend to originate in one country and move on to another.
In both cases, Europe abandons imaginary buildings and agrees to show something real. This is also a significant shift in terms of Brand Identity, because an identity becomes more concrete when its values take on forms, faces and images that make them legible across touchpoints (and what touchpoint matters more to an institution than its own banknotes?).
All very beautiful, but who chose what to represent?
To the vote, too late
Exactly: who decided that Maria Callas was the ideal candidate? Who determined that Cervantes was worth more than Dante, or that a stork represented Europe better than an eagle?
A company, selected through a public tender.
If Europe were truly as democratic as it claims, it would not have stopped at the survey shared in recent days to ask for our opinion.
European citizens are the owners of the currency, so why weren’t we all the ones to say who we wanted to see represented?
This is not merely a procedural detail. The way an identity is built communicates something, just as much as the identity itself. A process in which experts choose and citizens validate is a process in which the real decision has already been made before the public is involved.
Opening the selection to citizens would have generated debate, discussion and disagreement. It would have forced Europe to do what it finds hardest: decide together who it is, instead of delegating the choice to someone else.
Perhaps that conversation (however difficult, however chaotic) would have produced a sense of belonging. Which is, after all, meant to be the point of what appears on them…
Europe must decide what to show
The problem is not the outcome but the path that led to it.
An identity built without involving those who will have to live in it may well be excellent, beautiful and modern. But whom does it represent? The institutions, or the people who elect them?
The September vote is still open. Taking part is the only way to turn a validation into something closer to a choice. At that point, the final choice will show which Europe we are ready to recognise as our own. Even if the process by which it was built already says something.
New connections (FAQ)
Why does the ECB want to change the design of the banknotes?
The ECB periodically develops new series to keep banknotes secure, durable and easy to recognise. Counterfeiting techniques evolve and require updated security features. A redesign also makes it possible to improve accessibility, including for people with visual impairments, and to reduce environmental impact through more sustainable materials and production processes. This time the ECB also wants to strengthen the bond between citizens and the common currency, choosing images considered closer to European identity and values.
Who decided which figures should appear on the banknotes?
The selection took place in two stages. In the first, a design firm chosen through a competition developed the graphic proposals. In the second, an independent jury of twenty-one experts narrowed the candidates down to ten finalists. European citizens were involved only in the final stage: choosing between options already defined by others. Who decided that Maria Callas was a possible option, or that Leonardo was worth more than Dante, or that a stork represented Europe better than any other symbol? Not European citizens. The public was able to validate. It was not able to propose.
What can brands learn from the redesign of banknotes?
The project shows how difficult it is to update an identity recognised by millions of people without losing continuity. Every evolution must protect the elements that generate trust while introducing symbols capable of bringing the system closer to its audience. But the euro case also shows something more specific: when an identity is built without involving those who will have to live in it, the result can be graphically excellent yet emotionally distant. Involving the public in identity processes is not a populist concession. It is the most effective way to create genuine belonging.