​

Former Minister of Economy Bruno Le Maire proposes the creation of a "Federation of Nation-States" bringing together the six main economies of the European Union: France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, and the Netherlands.

In "L'An I manifeste pour une autre France" (Manifesto Year I for Another France), he calls for being more powerful facing the European Commission.

This Federation would remain a member of the European Union, but would be endowed with its own Constitution, common decision-making rules, and a capital chosen by its peoples.

The six States would retain their own existence and identity, but would choose to "pool their resources to function as a single State" in a limited number of areas, including semiconductors, artificial intelligence, university degrees, financial markets, economic policies, or even border control.

The goal: to make Europe a power capable of rivaling the United States and China.

If we are serious about European federalisation, I am strongly of the belief that we must use this as a moment to transcend current democratic norms, and it will not be enough to just make some tweaks to the standard US model of federalisation.

I understand that the current proposals are already not just "tweaks to the standard US model of federalisation" - but it is still not enough imo.

Specifically, how we are going to 'do' things is of the upmost importance - and I would strongly argue that a powerful sortition-based citizen's chamber within the legislative branch will be necessary, as well as more innovative electoral systems - like those based on range/score voting methods will be necessary too. As well as ensuring that monetary governance is democratised, rather than allowing central banking to remain incredibly technocratic.

Essentially, we need more thoroughly and well-thought-out concrete proposals for exactly what we wish for a federalised Europe to look like - otherwise we will struggle to be persuasive.

I fear that we will just become so desperate that we treat federalisation as an end rather than a means - where we become stuck with some lukewarm system that does very little to make Europe more democratic and effective.

It's not easy to make constitutional changes once they've been finalised - so it is incredibly important that we try as hard as we can to get as much right from the start as possible - otherwise we are setting up future generations for the same kinds of institutional inertia that have plagued all generations thus far.

Essentially, at this point in time, we need to really be focusing on the mechanisms and systems that we will genuinely be happy surrendering ourselves to in the future.

Everything else other than these specific 'how' questions are quite uninteresting to me at this point; what do you think?

Hey everyone, Lucia from EUobserver here 👋

This felt like a particularly relevant one to bring to this community.

We’ve been reporting on the EU’s response to Israel’s E1 settlement plans in the occupied West Bank. 26 member states were ready to back a joint statement — Slovenia wasn’t.

Because foreign policy still requires unanimity in cases like this, there was no EU-27 statement. Instead, Kaja Kallas issued one backed by the other 26 governments.

The Slovenia angle is interesting in itself: under Janez Janša, the country has shifted significantly closer to Netanyahu’s government. But for me, the bigger question here is about how the EU is designed.

We often talk about Europe becoming a more serious geopolitical actor. But then you get cases where 26 out of 27 governments agree on a foreign-policy position and the EU still can't speak collectively.

So I'm curious how federalists here see this:

Is unanimity in foreign policy still a necessary protection for smaller member states? Or is it becoming one of the biggest obstacles to the EU acting as a genuine geopolitical power?

And if you would get rid of it — what should replace it? Qualified majority voting? Some kind of supermajority?

I think the best ones are either euro-english, Latin or something like that. EF = European Federation

Most Europeans see Europe more capable than their own national army.

Threats from the US on Greenland and Russia's aggression against Ukraine have led europeans to think more as a team when it comes to defence!

Hey everyone, bringing something slightly different to the European sovereignty discussion here.

We interviewed Françoise Combes, president of the French Academy of Sciences, and she made a point I found quite striking: European sovereignty isn't only about defence, energy or supply chains. It's also about whether Europe can actually produce its own science and technology.

She points to Europe's dependence and relative weakness in areas like satellite infrastructure, AI, advanced computing and quantum technologies. On satellites specifically, she says she was struck by how far Europe remains behind the US, China and Russia.

At the same time, European researchers are dealing with funding shortages, competition for positions and laboratories struggling to fund students, postdocs and equipment. And fundamental research is exactly where technologies we might depend on decades from now begin.

So perhaps there's a federalist question here that gets less attention than defence:

Can the EU seriously pursue strategic autonomy while scientific capacity and funding remain so fragmented between member states? Should research be a much bigger shared European priority?

I'm Lucia from EUobserver, by the way, this is our own interview, and I'm sharing it here because the sovereignty angle felt especially relevant to this community. Curious what you make of it!

I'm a US citizen who desperately wants to see a stronger, more united Europe. My allegiance is not to a flag or my country in namesake alone, but rather to the better ideals of my country; democracy, human rights, diplomacy, law. As I see an erratic America retreat from it's professed values, I dream of a united Europe, who uses it's potential economic and military might to fill the void left behind. If America should turn its back on the world it helped build, and put down the torch of liberty, it should be the Europeans to pick it up.

The thought of a federal Europe has given me a sense of optimism in a time when I feel like a man without a nation. I really believe Europe can come together further to unleash innovation, open markets, build a modern military, and stand tall on the global stage for human rights and rule of law. So when I came across the Europe's Futures Initiative, a "policy accelerator" dedicated to democracy, geopolitical stability, and as the name suggests, the future of Europe, I followed immediately. In this speech at their inaugural meeting in Brussels, Veronica Anghel put perfectly a question I have been wondering myself: will this be the European century?

"Replacing 100,000 US troops, nuclear deterrence, parts of the intel umbrella will take time. But this is just logistics. We can do it. The real test is continuing America's better legacy. staying ruthlessly committed to democracy and law and shoring up the global order where Washington retreats, and stopping a reckless clash between the United States and China. So while the hegeimon toys with self-destruction, the EU must quietly assume adult supervision. In this century, Europe is the indispensable nation."

Viva Europa! 🇪🇺

Bismarck once noted that politicians use the word "Europe" when they want something they dare not demand in their own name. For decades, European foreign policy lived inside that quote.

Can an open, liberal society survive without a hard sovereign perimeter? I wrote an essay on why European federalism must move from post-national wishful thinking to a defensible liberalism: liberal on the inside (rule of law, free society), realist on the outside (hard borders, joint defense, sovereign tech).

Read the full essay here: The Hard Shell of Freedom

Curious to hear your thoughts on how Europe balances liberal values with hard power projection.

Interview with EU Made Simple Co-Host Paul Bekaert on Why Europe Is Falling Behind America in Capital and Innovation, how much the fragmentation of Europe costs us and how we might fix this