European citizens have woken up, and they expect Europe to become stronger and more independent. They do not like having to kiss Trumps ring, making concessions to Putin or seeing the tail lights of China. But the political leadership in Europe, and NATO’s SecGen have so far spent much of their time doing exactly that. Grovelling, appeasing and weakening Europe’s unity with bilateral deals. While Europe’s citizens watch this with horror, the political leaders say it is necessary to buy time. That Europe is not yet sufficiently strong and autonomous.

So if that is the case, then exactly how have they used that time to turbo boost Europe’s autonomy? Many fine words have been spoken, solemn pledges made, urgent warnings uttered, but what concrete, tangible, measurable actions have been taken? And by whom: the EU or the national governments?

Europe’s autonomy will not be achieved by twenty-seven governments going it alone. It is great if one country takes steps to, for example, disconnect from American big tech of defence industry, but that will only be a drop in the ocean. And the flip side is it dilutes Europe’s unity.

It has been 22 months since Draghi presented his plan for economic reforms, with the warning that it was either “this or slow agony”. It would seem national leaders have chosen slow agony, as very little progress has been made in two years. The jubilant report by the Commission https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/one-europe-one-market-roadmap_en#tab-61356 cannot hide the truth: the progress needed most - integration of the internal market - has hardly advanced, contrary to “de-regulation” and throwing money at problems. Which is mostly window dressing. The lobbies of industry and agro-industry managed successfully to hold Europe back, giving an advantage to the Chinese. The Single Market is still as stagnated as it has been for twenty years. Plagued by the disease of “me-first” nationalism.

So what about digital autonomy then? First of all, no meaningful progress will be achieved without further integration of the Single Market, so the national blockades against integration are also preventing real digital autonomy. While true that many public authorities in Europe have announced their shift towards European alternatives, that shift is too fragmented to really hurt the American tech giants. The emergence of real European giants doesn’t seem to be around the corner either. Meanwhile the European Commission and the national authorities have certainly cracked down on Chinese tech giants, but the US tech giants are treated with velvet gloves.

When it comes to trade, the EU Commission has been actively seeking new partners. But it did not have the guts to stand up to Trump’s ridiculous and illegal tariff’s. It meekly accepted his terms and publicly knelt before him at his royal court in the summer of humiliation. Becoming more independent from the US economy may be prudent, as the Trump’s disastrous policies are likely to drag down the American economy in the longer term. Europe has to make sure to limit the fall out.

Defence spending got a huge boost since 2022. But it is mainly national spending, and a huge part of that spending still ends up in the pockets of the American defence industry. There is clearly more awareness of the need for autonomy, but NATO’s Rutte and many defence ministers still prefer American domination over European strength. As to defence integration: very little has been done. National governments have no appetite for it.

Finally the key innovation needed for a strong and autonomous Europe: reform the archaic governance system and make it fit for the world of today. Zero progress has been made. Worse: Europe actually got more intergovernmental, more ungovernable and weaker.

The truth is that the time bought by grovelling and appeasement has hardly made Europe more autonomous. That is not surprising. National leaders don’t want Europe to be autonomous. They cling to intergovernmentalism, thinking they can hold on to their own power. But intergovernmentalism and autonomy are wholly irreconcilable, mutually exclusive. National leaders need intergovernmental Europe, European citizens need autonomous Europe.

It is time we hold political leaders to account and judge them by their actions, not their words. For that we need to have a clear picture of what they have actually done. We need to be able to actually measure the shift from full dependency to full autonomy. What we need is an “EU Autonomy Tracker”, an independent tool, pooling all relevant data and showing the actual concrete, tangible progress towards the goal of European autonomy.

Maybe a nice project to chew on during the holiday break?

For decades Europe was quietly bobbing along on the geopolitical waves, feeling safe and protected by our American friends, so we could focus on economic integration. The single market is the European flagship project, and it made us an economic giant. But the EU always remained a political midget.

Those quiet times are over. Europe got a rude awakening and it realises it is on its own in a dangerous and turbulent world. It has triggered much debate about the need for a stronger Europe, and politicians are tumbling over one another with calls for European sovereignty and autonomy. A raft of ideas has been put forward for change and reform to make Europe stronger and more resilient.

Europe does need reform. But before anything it needs a new mindset, a new self-image of Europe as a superpower. Europeans still see the world and geopolitics with the “national gaze”. It makes us feel small and vulnerable and we behave accordingly. We are punching below our weight in geopolitics, and we follow rather than lead. Our distorted self-image even leads us to grovel to Trump, when Europe would easily have the power to defy him. Europe is always talking itself down, unable to see its own power.

Transatlantic relations are seen through the prism of bilateral relations, in which the US are always the bigger partner. In reality the EU is bigger than the US with a population of 451 million, against 343 million in the US. Europe is set to grow further with the next rounds of enlargement. America’s GDP is higher than Europe’s, but look closer and America isn’t actually much richer. The long term economic fall out of the Trump era may further tip the scale. Sure, America is a military super power, but Europe is catching up. As it happens candidate EU member state Ukraine is rapidly becoming a military superpower of its own. The US may be a superpower, but it is in decline. If Europe manages to unlock its full potential, it will overtake the US in every area.

Nation states were the superpowers of the nineteenth and large parts of the twentieth centuries. Our minds have been shaped by that era. Our self image has not yet adjusted to the world of today. Europe is an unwitting Great Power. It has to become the political centre of gravity, and our mental image of power needs to make the shift.

Europe needs to start thinking of itself as a global super power. We need to think big. Not as an accidental alliance of national powers. As Draghi aptly puts it: “Grouping together small countries does not automatically produce a powerful bloc”.

We cannot be what we cannot see. That is why we need the power of imagination. We need leadership that shows us Europe’s real strength. Leadership that makes us drop the Lilliput mindset and that shows us that we are much stronger than we realise. We can learn to feel strong and confident, instead of fearful and insecure.

Look in the mirror and see the power.

We know the “return hubs” will in reality be death camps, with poverty, dirt, disease, violence, rape, slavery, torture. The camps will be far removed from Europe, so scrutiny will be virtually impossible. But the EU-facilitated death camps in Libya will probably give you a flavour of what “return hubs” will look like. No matter how many times the words “human rights” are mentioned in the law, everyone knows reality will be entirely different. The very purpose of placing camps outside the EU is to escape strict human rights standards and public scrutiny.

Nobody should ever claim they did not know. Anyone supporting this law is responsible. Everyone should answer for their choices.

Of course people should leave Europe when their asylum application has been rejected, provided the application has been processed in a thorough and correct manner, while respecting the rights of applicants and the rule of law. However, it is crystal clear that will not be the case. The new border procedure that will soon enter into force will be a total disaster. EU member states are not remotely prepared nor do they have the - legally required - capacity to ensure proper implementation.

The Migration Pact does contain safeguards and rights for asylum seekers and obligations for national authorities, but they will simply be ignored by national governments and the European Commission will refuse to enforce. So in practice asylum seekers will be systematically put in detention, including children, their applications will not be processed within the legal deadlines, and they will be shipped off as soon as possible. There will be plenty of legal challenges that will be successful in the vast majority of cases, but litigation will take years and in the meantime the suffering will be immense.

Asylum seekers whose application has been rejected may in many cases not be able to return to their country of origin, for a variety of reasons, even if they are willing. That problem will not be solved by locking people up in death camps. They will just be stuck there forever, left to rot. Including children.

(_{Picture MSF.org})

A large part of the problem could be solved by avenues for legal labour migration. Europe needs workers, and many people who want to come to Europe to work have no alternative but to apply for asylum. The same governments that have pushed for the shameful Deportation Act, have quietly handed out lots of work visa, in some countries as many as hundreds of thousands. They remain silent about it, because they want to keep migration as a campaign issue, because it is so much easier to mobilise people with fear and anger.

Even the most ardent fans of the EU Deportations Act will be bitterly disappointed. Firstly it will only succeed if enough third countries can be bribed into hosting EU detention centres, and if it can be done in a way that will not be immediately struck down by the courts. The examples of the UK-Ruanda and Italy-Albania schemes show that is quite a challenge. So (a small consoltation for those of us who still believe in decency and human rights) it is not likely the envisaged “return hubs” will pop up like mushrooms.

The fact that the Commission and some national governments are even willing to have talks with the Taliban shows how desperate they are and how low we have sunk.

The only ones happy with the Deportation Act will be governments keen on the money and goodies they will get from the EU, and people traffickers whose business will boom. The flow of migrants entering the EU while circumventing the official procedure will go up. The chaos to be expected from the botched implementation of the Migration Pact and the fob of the Deportation Act, will only boost the far right. They will love it.

Immigration is a challenge like any other. We can tackle it in a rational and reasonable manner as any other policy issue. There are perfectly good solutions that would be effective as well as humane. Moreover, migration flows may fluctuate a bit, but on average they are fairly steady. The current toxic, hysterical debate has nothing to do with reality, and it has made undiluted racism mainstream to the point where it is not even recognised as racism anymore. The hysteria has been fanned by far right parties and external forces seeking to sow discord, division and distrust in society, and centrist parties did not have the backbone to stand up to it. They thought it would bring them electoral benefits to embrace the anti-migration narrative, or that it would make the discussion go away.

But the EU Deportation Act will not appease the far right. On the contrary. They have tasted blood, they will go for more. Centrist parties should snap out of their illusion that the toxic debate on migration will die down by giving in to the extremists. It will not. If you feed the monster it will not be satisfied, it will just grow stronger. Next it will call for remigration.

Where do parties draw the red line?

Press freedom in the EU should be a top priority. Politicians pay lip service to media freedom, but in many cases they are the actual threat. That includes several, if not most, governments of EU member states, while they should be the guarantors of media freedom. It is not enough to adopt EU policies in support of media freedom, if at the same time the EU turns a blind eye to member state governments harassing, intimidating and threatening journalists and media outlets.

Ensure full truth and justice for the murdered journalists Daphne Caruana Galizia, Jan Kuciak and Giorgos Karaivaz. This must happend in 2026. It is intolerable that so many years after the murders the murderers and/or the masterminds behind the murders still walk free. But justice for the killing is not enough: there must be an end to the impunity for the crimes and corruption they were investigating. Political parties in Europe have to stop shielding their members who obstruct justice.

There must be zero tolerance for threats and attacks on journalists and media outlets by politicians. SLAPPs and spyware attacks on journalists by (members of) government parties have to be considered grave violations of the rule of law, and must be met immediately with EU sanctions and freezing of EU funds.

The EU Commission should remember its task of custodian of the Treaties, and crack down on political capture of public media as well as on corrupted ties between oligarchs, media and political parties. National legislation restricting media freedom or access to information, or funding cuts targeting government-critical media, must be considered a violation of Article 2 TEU as it seeks to undermine democracy.

The EU has to massively boost financial support for quality journalism in the coming multi-annual financial framework. A “democracy shield” against fake news will be meaningless without simultaneous support for fact based reporting. The EU and member states should also discuss the imbalance between (American) big tech companies that make zillions of near-tax-free euros by spreading fake news seeking to destroy our democracy, while quality journalism is struggling to survive.

Finally: each of us can help support independent journalism by taking out a subscription, in particular to one or more of the small independent outlets. They are doing an amazing job, but they are often struggling to survive, and they may face strong pressure from government and politics. For as little as the price of a frappuccino a month you can fund a watchdog of democracy.

Today we have woken up in a new Europe, now the work starts. Because Orbàn’s exit may be a relief, but it does not fix the structural issues.

For starters, the other government leaders in Europe, who have been complaining about Orbàn for many years, have lost their scapegoat. It was easy to blame him for the paralysis in the European Council. But Orbàn was not the only one using his veto right in the European Council to get his way. The only way to avoid a repetition of the Orbàn obstruction, is to eliminate all vetoes. Now all government leaders have the opportunity to show how committed they really are to a strong EU: are they ready to give up their veto rights and make sure Europe cannot be held hostage anymore by a single leader? Vetoes do not protect national interests, they are only ever used as a bargaining chip or a tool for obstruction, blackmail and extortion by government leaders.

The European Union has been saved by the Hungarian voters. But all the cheering this evening cannot hide the fact that for sixteen years the EU tolerated him. The EPP family protected him for over a decade, until he became too toxic even for them. Despite the Article 7 procedure launched by the European Parliament, the European Council refused to impose any sanctions. And although EU funds for Hungary had been frozen under the rule of law conditionality, the Commission decided to release 10 billion euro to get Orbàn to drop his veto against support for Ukraine in 2023.

These structural weaknesses have not disappeared with Orbàn’s departure. Europe urgently needs democratic reform and much more robust mechanisms to protect the rule of law throughout the territory of the EU.

All over Europe and beyond people are celebrating the defeat of a corrupted, nationalist autocrat. Magyar will undoubtedly undertake to restore the damage done to the rule of law in Hungary. And he will likely be more constructive in the European Council. But the next weeks and months will tell where he will take the country. Although he became Orbàn’s Nemesis, for many years he was part of the inner circle of the Fidesz leadership. He is conservative and stated he will first and foremost defend Hungarian interests in Europe.

Magyar has secured the two thirds majority he needs to undo the constitutional changes of Orbàn. That is a good thing. But any leader holding an absolute majority, without meaningful opposition, has a great responsibility. Who can resist the temptation to abuse that power? Will he use his power to restore checks and balances, to enable strong democratic scrutiny and accountability, even if that is a nuisance?

Three years ago Donald Tusk won the Polish elections, ending eight years of autocratic rule by the PiS party. The European Commission immediately decided to release the EU funds for Poland that had been frozen under the rule of law conditionality. That was a stupid mistake. The Commission seemed to signal that the freezing or unfreezing of EU money was done on the basis of election promises or on the basis of which political party was in power. It became even worse when a year later a President was elected who vetoes most of the rule of law reforms.

That mistake should not be repeated. Funds should be released on the basis of actual results and after a thorough assessment by the Commission. The justification of any decision has to be made public. Magyar’s announcement that Hungary will join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is a very important step in the process.

Moreover, many centrist, progressive and left-wing Hungarians have voted for Magyar, as he was the only candidate who was able to beat Orbàn. But their voice is not represented in the Parliament. Magyar needs to ensure his government represents all those who voted for him. His victory was a victory of the people, not just one party.

There are many challenges ahead. But for the first time since 2010 Europe and Hungary have a chance to restore and strengthen the democratic rule of law, to eradicate corruption and to build a better future. Let us grab that opportunity with both hands!

Europe has witnessed a multitude of crises in the past two decades. Indeed we are living in very rocky times right now. But many, if not most, of those crises have not led to integration. In some cases it even led to re-nationalisation and to deepening of intergovernmentalism. Crises have made national governments stronger, and the EU weaker.

Without however yielding better solutions. Solutions crafted by the European Council (EUCO) were often inadequate, slow, too-little-too-late or simply not implemented. By now Europeans have come to associate the EUCO summits with horse-trading, bickering and paralysis. The optics of Europe in a permanent crisis mode, weakness and failure undermine the confidence of the public.

The “advancing-by-crisis” method will only work for as long as a European solution does not require any transfer of powers from government leaders to the EU. Today we have come to the point - probably impossible to imagine back in the fifties - where the general interest and the interest of national politicians diverge. Instead of doing what is necessary for Europe, national leaders prefer to keep stumbling from one crisis to the next, merely reacting to events while others set the agenda. National leaders and a long term vision for Europe are irreconcilable entities.

It is time we get out of the crisis mode. Crisis management is not a very inspiring narrative. It does not offer hope or prospects, no dot on the horizon. We cannot leave it to chance, we need a vision, a plan for Europe.

Just imagine how strong Europe could be, how well it could protect our security, prosperity and wellbeing, if we take the necessary steps.

Let’s start with a topical issue: energy prices. Now is the time to accelerate the energy transition, not slow it down. Instead of paying hundreds of billions into Trump’s coffers, let’s invest that money in the European grid. Let us make Europe autonomous and immune to external shocks. People and companies alike will be benefiting from stable and low energy prices. Not to mention the benefits for the climate!

While we’re at it, let’s also eliminate all national barriers within the single market, estimated to make Europe’s economy grow by an additional 5-8%. Rapid EU enlargement will benefit us in many ways, also economic: history shows that each round of enlargement gives a further boost to our economy. Enlarging the EU and completing the Single Market will be a double whammy. An enlarged EU with the worlds most prosperous single market can trade with other nations on the best possible terms.

In this insecure world, an integrated common European defence, which will include the capacity, knowledge and experience of Ukraine, would be too mighty for anyone to want to attack us.

If we trade in the shrill anti-migration rhetoric, the myths of closed borders and zero migration, and the increasingly barbaric policies, Europe can embrace a realistic vision on migration, including legal avenues for labour migrants, and shelter for those in need. We can better manage migration with confidence than with fear. We can create a society where all people can feel comfortable.

If we are willing to accept a bit of hassle in the short term, we can take a giant leap for the long term by moving away from American tech giants and boosting our own European tech sector. We can run our public administration, make our payments, use social media, communicate, do our business, without fear of espionage, kill switches or attacks on fundamental rights. The beauty of it will be that the profits will remain in Europe, benefiting European citizens instead of American (or Chinese) broligarchs.

It is all within reach. If we also solve the biggest crisis: political paralysis. There is growing momentum for further European political integration. The reluctance of national politicians may be understandable, but reforming the EU is a pre-condition for progress.

While Trump’s boasting is merely the death rattle of an empire in decline, Europeans have a golden opportunity to enter a new era, the era of Europe. Of freedom, security and prosperity. Of equality, opportunity and sustainability. Europe as a global leader. Now many will say “Great dream, but it will never happen. Things will never change”. But look back over your shoulder, and see how many things that were once thought impossible, unattainable, are reality today. We have done it before, we can do it again. Let’s stand on Monnet’s shoulders and build our European dream.

The current accession procedure, that requires a candidate to meet all the criteria before being allowed in, was designed in the mid-nineties, for a world long gone, for EU that is a fundamentally different one and for an “acquis communautaire” (the existing body of EU law) that has since grown exponentially. Commissioner Kos rightfully points out the procedure was “designed for a stable, rules-based world that no longer exists”.

The attitude of the national governments is shortsighted and hypocritical, and a priceless gift to Putin and Trump.

No-one disputes that candidate countries have to comply with the criteria and meet EU standards. But criteria designed to allow for a smooth accession process, are now being used as a bar to prevent countries from entering. Enlargement of the EU always was a decision of political strategic importance, not a technocratic box-ticking exercise. It requires leadership, not accountancy. Leaders of the past understood, and they were proven right.

They understood the strategic importance of swiftly bringing Greece, Spain and Portugal on board, after the fall of the respective military dictatorships in those countries in the mid-seventies. The political leaders of the time also understood the importance of reuniting the European continent and bringing on board countries that had been under communist dictatorship for decades. It was never an easy, uncontroversial or uncontested decision, but leaders threw their weight behind it.

Enlargement of the European Union has been a resounding success. Despite occasional hiccups in one member state or another, EU membership has lifted countries out of poverty and anchored democratic standards throughout the territory. Some countries were poor and their democracy weak when they joined, but today they are European and even global front runners, like Spain, Poland or Estonia.

But todays leaders seem lack that vision. National leaders for two decades have been stoking up negative sentiments against enlargement, not eschewing xenophobia and caricatures. Today they privately realise the vital importance of EU enlargement, but they are afraid to defend the idea faced with a very negative public opinion. They fell into their own trap, and now they lack the courage to stand up and champion enlargement. They are just playing for time and hope for some miracle solution. (That is illustrated perfectly by (then) notoriously Eurosceptic Prime Minister Rutte, who endorsed Ukraine’s EU candidacy in 2022. He did this in the knowledge that he would be long gone by the time the process would enter the difficult phase).

Some candidate countries have been in the waiting room for so long, it seems to have become an “oubliette”. Unsurprisingly enthusiasm for EU membership and for the required painful reforms is waning, and Russian or Chinese friendship offers become more tempting. While fighting corruption is a key requirement for EU membership, the usual EU method of just flooding the zone with money, has actually boosted corruption in those countries.

National leaders may try to duck difficult decisions, but that is futile. Reality is like a sticky bandage on a finger: it will not go away. Iceland has announced it will vote on the resumption of EU membership talks in August, automatically bringing the enlargement issue right back in. In the UK the mood is changing, and while a Brejoin is not on the cards yet, it is no longer a taboo and the UK seeks closer ties with the EU. In Norway too public support for full EU membership is on the rise. Countries like Greenland and Switzerland may not necessarily opt for full EU membership, but after their respective rough encounters with Trump’s US, they will certainly step up their proximity to the EU.

Commissioner Kos is right to attempt to revive the enlargement process and to find ways for swift Ukraine accession. National leaders were wrong to reject it out of hand. The proposed method of “reversed accession” would have the merit of ensuring both speedy accession and compliance with the criteria. Europe most urgently needs a revised accession procedure. Experts have already elaborated various models of “reverse accession”, letting candidates join quickly, whilst granting voting rights progressively as they are meeting the required standards. The safeguards against backsliding proposed by the Commission should equally apply to countries that are already inside the EU. (Little reminder that much of the talk of the “merit based approach” is a clear case of “Do-as-I-say-don’t-do-as-I-do”, given the rampant corruption in many current member states).

Quick accession of Ukraine is of vital strategic importance for the European Union in the new world order. Instead of just saying “No”, national leaders should come up with a credible new procedure so as to allow the speedy accession of Ukraine, as well as Moldova and the countries in the Western Balkans as quickly as possible.

Earlier waves of enlargement were never without worries or doubts. But in the long term they have been a resounding success. Leaders at the time dared to take big leaps ahead, and they created prosperity, freedom and security for millions of Europeans. The enlargement process, and the fresh energy of the new entrants, each time gave the necessary impetus to European integration and reform. The steps we take today, will determine whether future generations will enjoy the same prosperity, freedom and security.

The European Union could grow to some 600 million inhabitants. With further economic and political integration it has the potential to be the most powerful global actor, offering its people the best quality of life in the world. It is within reach. All it takes is true leadership.

The history of this venue is full of symbolism. Once a centre of power and wealth, it became a symbol of times gone by, unable to adapt to modern times. It fell into disrepair, to the point where only the façade was still standing. Today it is a museum. If Europe is unable or unwilling to adjust to a changing world order, it will undergo the same fate.

The signs are not promising. National leaders know full well the only viable way forward is deeper political integration and integration of the single market. But they cling to their perceived national sovereignty and squabble over every possible step forward. Instead of reforms, they promise “Deregulation”. “Deregulation” has become the buzz word. But it resembles more the medieval practice of bloodletting than modern medicine: it will not cure the patient, but weaken him and in the worse case lead to his death. Europe needs doctors, not quacks.

Regulation is portrayed as a nuisance, an unnecessary obstacle. That interpretation ignores the fact that regulation has been put in place for a reason. Like the protection of consumers, children, or workers’ rights. Or for a level playing field in the market. The safety of our food and products we buy. Rules that protect us from predatory practices of tech giants and their attempts to undermine our democracy. Rules to protect the environment that we live in, and that seek to mitigate climate change. In short: regulation reflects the kind of society we want to live in. So how are those rules unnecessary? Which protections are excessive? Which rights should be abolished?

Of course we should always aim to make the implementation of the rules effective and less cumbersome. But without touching the original objectives. However, the current wave of “deregulation” does precisely that: it is a pretext for altering and dismantling the very objectives. It will not make Europe more competitive or prosperous, it will merely shift the balance of costs and benefits. It will furthermore deprive Europe of its strongest geopolitical tool, and speed up the ongoing disintegration and re-nationalisation.

Not by chance the deregulation agenda corresponds entirely to the agenda of Trump, Musk and Co. They do not call on Europe politely to deregulate, they actually blackmail, intimidate and coerce us to deregulate, flatly denying Europe its own democratic decision making. Deregulation will primarily benefit US companies, not European companies. Rather than embracing the measures Trump is trying to impose on us, national leaders should resist, and focus all efforts on the speedy implementation of the reforms called for by Draghi and Letta.

The lack of progress is not for want of good ideas. The diagnosis is clear and the remedy well known. The European Union could achieve an estimated additional growth of 5-8% if all remaining national barriers would be eliminated from the internal market. But for twenty years now Europe’s flagship project, the single market, has been stagnating as it is facing national blockades at every turn of the road. (Well illustrated in this blog of La Matinée). National barriers makes us poorer, not richer, but national leaders are rewarded by their electorate for resisting Europe, not for building it.

The outcome of Alden Biesen must be an agreement to turbo change the completion of the internal market and eliminate all remaining national barriers, the rapid completion of the capital markets union and the introduction of the 28th regime. This week national politicians can be quacks and let the patient die, or they can show true leadership and give Europe the right medicine.

Merging the two jobs into one would effectively create a Presidential system for the EU. Presidential systems are alien to most EU member states, with the exception of France. In Europe the norm is parliamentary democracy, with a government led by a Prime Minister, accountable to parliament. A parliament has the power to make a government resign. In a presidential system, accountability is much weaker. A President does not derive his mandate from a parliament, but from direct elections. That makes it nearly impossible to make him or her resign, so a parliament has little leverage in a presidential system.

The current method for selecting and electing the Commission President is already a rather opaque system, and since the defenestration of the Spitzenkandidat, the European Parliament’s role is limited to signing on the dotted line for whichever candidate the government leaders have chosen. In Weber’s proposal of the Superpresident, the European Parliament will lose its last bit of influence.

Currently the Commission is formally accountable to the European Parliament, but in reality Parliament has no leverage. Theoretically it can make the Commission resign, but it cannot sack individual Commissioners, so any motion of censure is seen as the “nuclear option” and it will rarely be used in practice. The President of EUCO is not accountable to the European Parliament, he/she only has to report after each EUCO meeting. Incidentally, the President of EUCO is not accountable to national parliaments either. So a double-hatted Superpresident would be under two sets of accountability rules. How would that work? Would the Superpresident literally have to change hats mid-way question hour in Parliament? What if Parliament would adopt a motion of censure against the Commission, would EUCO refrain from interfering?

The fact that currently the Commission President is also a member of EUCO is contrary to the principles of transparency and separation of powers. The European Commission has the sole right of legislative initiative. But how can a Superpresident do so in the required full independence, if at the same time he/she is presiding over the leaders of national governments?

The other core task of the Commission is enforcement of EU laws. As Europe is becoming more intergovernmental each day, the Commission has become very reluctant to bother the governments with unpleasant infringement proceedings. Enforcement has nosedived in the past two decades. That will become much worse in the scenario of a Superpresident.

Merging the two jobs into a single Superpresident will make the EU even more intergovernmental. It will further weaken the position of the other EU Commissioners, already shackled by the current Commission President.

Europe does not need a Superpresident, it needs a fully fledged parliamentary democracy, with a Prime Minister at the head of a government accountable to parliament, mirroring the system in most member states. If Weber wants reform without Treaty change, he could also invoke Article 17,5 that foresees a smaller EU Commission, making it more independent and less intergovernmental. In view of the expected enlargement of the Union, that would be a much better solution.

In either scenario, accountability must urgently be strengthened. A Superpresident that is virtually unimpeachable is worse than a Trumpian nightmare. Europe needs a proper government, and a parliament that has the power to sack individual ministers and the Prime Minister. Europe needs more democracy, more checks and balances, more accountability. Not a Superpresident.

Sorry Mark, but we will indeed keep on dreaming! Like the visionary and courageous leaders eighty years ago, who dreamt of lasting peace on the European continent, and then they built it. Like the people in fourteen of today’s EU member states, who had a dream of freedom and democracy and freed their countries of military and communist dictatorship. Like the people of Georgia are empowered by their dream of democracy, and the people of Belarus cherish the dream of freedom. Their fight is not an easy one, but they will come out victorious. We Europeans did what was once thought impossible: after centuries of war, violence and oppression, we chose to build a common future. We tend to forget the enormity of that decision. For all its shortcomings, the European Union is a major achievement. And even if things look grim today, we still have that same power to do the impossible.

In rocky times like these we need dreams more than ever. A dream gives superhuman powers. It is called the power of imagination: if we can imagine a different and better world, we can build it. Dreams are the fuel for our action. The European Dream is infinitely more powerful than any external threat. We can build our dream of a Union of nearly 600 million Europeans, living on the safest, freest, most prosperous continent in the world. Living the European way of life that values well being, health, sustainability and solidarity and that puts right over might. A Union that makes us proud to be European.

European citizens do not share your pessimism (or is it cynicism or opportunism?). Europeans want to (and have to be) able to ensure their own security. The Transatlantic relations are not jeopardised by a strong, independent and self-confident Europe, on the contrary. It will be a much healthier, more equal relationship. Europeans do not want to be vassals, they want to be allies.

No Mr Rutte, Europeans are not dreaming too much, we actually need to dream more and dream bigger.

But what exactly does “Unity” mean, and who are the calls addressed to? Can we deduct it from the actions of the leaders? French President Macron calls for unity, but seeks to tank the Mercosur trade agreement so as to please the French farmers. Belgian Prime Minister De Wever calls for unity, while blocking the use of Russian assets, turning himself into a national hero for resisting Brussels. Chancellor Merz calling for unity while he is busy crushing the ban on combustions engines in order to protect the German car industry. The EPP leader in the European Parliament says unity is needed more than ever, while burning his bridges with his centrist allies. The list of examples is endless.

So “Unity” clearly does not mean “Unison” or consensus. It rather sounds like an admonition to the others. The others should not obstruct and to put European unity before their national or partisan interest.

The European Union has twenty seven member states (with more to join in the near future), several institutions, various political families and a myriad of constituencies. Chances of finding full “Unity” on any issue, let alone the thorny ones, are zero, no matter how often the leaders repeat the incantation of “Unity”. It is magical thinking, like closing your eyes tight, blowing out a candle and making a wish for Unity.

“Division” on the other hand, is considered to be something bad. That is strange. One would think a plurality of views makes for a healthy democracy. Pluralism only becomes a headache if the decision making system does not allow for it.

Instead of hollow and futile calls for unity, government leaders should launch a radical reform of European governance. The strength of the European Union must lie in its ability to act swiftly and speak with one voice, and at the same time accommodate differences in a democratic manner. Time for a federal Europe.

All this is very welcome and encouraging. But exactly whom are the calls addressed to? As per the famous but apocryphal quote of Henry Kissinger: “Who do I call when I want to call Europe?” That is the point: there is no phone number. Still not.

Most political action of the past days and weeks was taken by varying small ad hoc coalitions of countries, both EU member states and others. That flurry of activity cannot hide from sight the absence of the European Council (EUCO), the official EU body of government leaders, due to its inability to formulate answers to the crisis.

EUCO members like to blame Obstructionist in Chief Orbàn, but the paralysis is actually built in by design. Each government leader will from time to time block decision making, using formal or informal vetoes. Whether it is about Russia sanctions, trade agreements, the European budget, Schengen enlargement, accession of new countries, the use of Russian assets or a myriad of other topics. It is not relevant if they are right or not. The point is Europe has become ungovernable. It is an illusion this can be fixed without reforms of EU governance. Government leaders will never ever put Europe first, because they will not be rewarded for it by their voters. On the contrary, they are rewarded for their resistance against “Brussels”. Even the weakest, most unpopular leaders become a national hero by standing up to the hostile “foreign” powers.

The EU Treaty tasks the European Council with coming up with a strategic long term vision for Europe, or as Article 15 TEU says: “..provide the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political directions and priorities thereof”. But EUCO unable by design to come up with a long term vision. Twenty-seven (or more in the near future) government leaders will not voluntarily and unanimously make plans for a stronger Europe. How could they ever explain that to their citizens, when for decades they have framed the EU as a giant power grab that needs to be resisted?

In today’s EU government leaders are tumbling from one crisis into the next, cobbling together improvised ad hoc solutions when they are with their backs against the wall. Thus Europe is always on the back-foot, three steps behind Trump, Putin or Xi. While the Chinese think decades ahead, Putin thinks years ahead, Trump thinks ahead to his next tweet, Europe has no vision at all. No strategy, no direction, no plan.

This situation is not sustainable. But today, thanks to Trump’s shenanigans, there is unprecedented popular support for a strong Europe that speaks with one voice. An EU that is no longer just reactive, but pro-active. It is time for a proper European government, with a long term strategic vision. It is time for the political primacy to shift from 27 national capitals to the EU. It is time for a phone number for Kissinger.

Events of the past four years have exposed intergovernmental Europe as a military midget, unable to even defend itself. “An economic superpower with a population of 450 million people is asking a country of 340 million people to defend it from a country of 144 people with a GDP the size of Spain’s” as Dave Keating pointedly sums up out.

Admittedly, there has been a lot of activity, and defence spending has surged, but in the absence of a common European vision it has been fairly chaotic and ineffective. Much of the new spending was used to buy American material, increasing, not reducing Europe’s dependency of the US. Spending increased mainly on national armies, doing little to nothing to reduce the fragmentation (and waste) of European defence efforts.

European citizens understand. They are largely in favour of more European integration in the area of defence, even of a European army. So public opinion is favourable. Many experts have also pointed out that simply boosting arms production is not enough. Further integration is needed, for harmonisation of standards and common command structures. Even the first ever EU Commissioner for defence, Lithuanian Christan-Democrat Andrius Kubilius, is passionately advocating a European army. Momentum is growing

.

But despite a favourable public opinion and expert views, national leaders are still reluctant to take further steps towards common European defence. They seem to cling to futile hope that at some point the US will go back to “normal” and there is no need for EU reforms. They seem to think Europe can just wait it out, and bridge the gap with improvised ad hoc measures. That is a mistake. The old world order is dead. Proclaiming NATO dead may be premature, but it is certainly in critical condition and at this point only a miracle can save it. But even if it does, Europe has to stand on its own two feet and be able to defend itself.

In recent days there was a rapid succession of events. Trump’s blunt claims have prompted several countries to deploy troops to Greenland. A very modest number, largely symbolical and under the guise of exercise, but it is unprecedented. Moreover, today the European Commission confirmed that the EU mutual defence clause (Article 42,7 TEU) applies to Greenland. The Commission has also announced it will soon present a security strategy. Some initiatives are purely national, some are in ad hoc coalitions, and the EU has a few instruments as well. But a solid, integral institutional and democratic framework is missing. In the long run, actual integration is indispensable.

A full blown standing EU army will not materialise overnight. Nor does it have to. But Europe now has to embark on the path towards a comprehensive defence union.

Maybe this is a good time to dust off the 1952 Treaty creating the European Defence Community. In the immediate aftermath of WWII the six founding countries foresaw a fully fledged European army. However, ratification was suspended when a majority in the French parliament was not achieved. Formally the process was never closed.

Those who say a European army is simply unimaginable may wish to take a closer look at Frontex. Frontex is not an army, nor is it fully independent, but by 2027 it will have a standing corps of 10.000 uniformed officers, including officers carrying arms.

As to funding: the circumstances necessitate strategic spending of the the pledged 5% of GDP for NATO. Defence spending should be directed towards strengthening of Europe’s own defence capabilities as well as facilitate the development of a separate EU component within NATO, which can be independent when necessary.

Practical obstacles are entirely surmountable. All it takes now is political will and courage. Some say “it is not realistic, it will not happen, not ever”. But one month ago we would have said the same about much of what happened in the past three weeks. Indeed eighty years ago, who could have imagined the EU as we know it today? Let’s use the power of imagination: if we can imagine it, we can build it. We are living in a new reality. Let’s imagine a new, powerful Europe!

Many say Europe has no choice but to grovel. It is fully dependent on the US and it cannot afford to cross The Don. Fair enough. But if grovelling is meant to buy us time to eliminate that dependency, you’d expect feverish activity in Europe to use that time to rapidly become autonomous. So has Europe made good use of the time it has bought with self-humiliation?

It has not.

When it comes to defence: national defence spending got a massive boost, but no meaningful steps have been taken towards a real common European defence. Moreover, much of the spending is used to buy from American providers, actually deepening our dependency.

So what about the European economy? Surely the Commission and national governments have put the turbo booster on the completion of the single market, following the recommendations of Draghi and Letta? Erm…nope. Zero progress, nor any serious plans in the pipeline.

But..but..at least Europe will have used all the big bazookas from its digital rules toolkit to reign in the American tech-giants, stop their poisoning of our societies and stop Musk and Thiel from executing their far-right political agendas in Europe? Surely Europe has taken measures to boost its own digital autonomy? Alas, no. On the contrary, the likes of X and FB are treated with Velvet gloves, and the Commission even seeks to water down the EU digital rules book, benefiting the American Techbros and makes it even harder for our own companies to compete. Europe remains tied hands and feet to the US for all its digital needs, including (military) communication and payments. Meanwhile national governments are quietly handing over the keys to our critical police, intel and health services to Palantir.

But let’s not be too negative. Maybe the self-proclaimed European leaders demonstrate their ambition for a powerful and autonomous Europe in the proposals for the seven year budget then? Nope. The budget will remain at the puny 1% of GDP, not remotely reflecting the needs of the EU in a radically different world order.

There are a few bright sparks. After a quarter of a century Europe may finally get its trade agreement with Mercosur. But it is telling that it could only be achieved by promising 45 billion in EU funding to Italy. Evil minds might call that a bribe. The decision to issue Eurobonds for support to Ukraine is definitely a positive as well, but eurobonds without a political union underpinning them is a liability.

Finally, an autonomous European Union requires radical political integration. However, not only has there been no progress, the topic has not even been discussed. Europe is stumbling from one crisis to the next, hampered and paralysed by national vetoes and resolving problems with political horse-trading and bribes. Not even on the US threats to Greenland a common statement was possible. This is not a serious, nor a sustainable way to run the European Union in today’s hostile world.

National leaders talk about European autonomy, but they have done nothing about it. The reason? They don’t want a strong, autonomous Europe. They think they can just sit it out with Trump, if they swallow their pride and do sufficient grovelling to keep him on board, and they hope and pray he will lose the elections. It is doubtful the strategy will pay off. Trump is not a reliable partner, any agreement or commitment can be ditched at any given moment, leaving Europe empty-handed. Trump has explicitly stated his aim of undermining the European Union. We’ll underestimate him at our peril.

Grovelling is not a strategy. Denial is not a strategy. Procrastination is not a strategy. We need change. We cannot afford the charades any longer.

Courage, ambition and vision for rapid and deep integration of the European Union. Playtime is over.

Europe needs an emergency plan to get out of this mess. A road map to an integrated, common European defence. Rapid removal of national barriers in the internal market, in particular the energy market. Quick decoupling from US tech giants, notably for payments, communications and critical IT infrastructure. No public administration in Europe should be using products or services connected Elon Musk or Peter Thiel. The launch of a new wave of political integration, to be concluded with a European Constitution, replacing the Treaties. It can be done, but we have to move now. No time to waste

.

Last week the Council decided to freeze the Russian assets held in Europe indefinitely. Thus far the freeze had to be reconfirmed every six months with a unanimous vote of the twenty-seven member states. The two pro-Russian governments in Hungary and Slovakia would obstruct such decisions each time. So the Commission found a trick: activating Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union. This article, meant for economic emergency situations, requires only a qualified majority.

The decision was met with much jubilation around Europe, as a sign that the European Union is alive and kicking, and willing to act with determination when necessary. But the use of Article 122 may be opening a can of worms that will be hard to close.

Don’t get me wrong, I too am happy with the decision. Europe has to do whatever it takes to assist Ukraine, and so far it has not done nearly enough. The dithering and dallying since February 2022 has been an absolute disgrace, so this step is a welcome political signal. Moreover, as Trump had in mind to grab part of them as part of his “peace deal” for Ukraine, it was necessary to keep it out of reach of his greedy little hands. So all in all there were very good reasons to decide to secure the long-term freezing of the Russian assets.

But we should be careful what we wish for, frivolous use of Article 122 comes at a price. When the clock strikes midnight, Cinderella’s carriage will turn into a pumpkin again.

Article 122 is meant for exceptional circumstances. However, in recent years it has been used a number of times, with a view to speedy decision making. It escapes democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament as well as national parliaments. Judicial scrutiny is hardly effective, as court cases may drag out for many years. Article 122 gives more power to national governments, while reducing checks and balances. It is the EU equivalent of governing by decree. Europe is on a slippery slope, quietly but steadily departing from regular democratic and transparent decision making procedures. Excessive and improper use of Article 122, fast-tracking legislation via Omnibus packages, ignoring ECJ and ECHR rulings, and gutting the transparency rules is rapidly eroding democracy.

Article 122 is not a general emergency clause, a multi-purpose tool to be randomly applied in difficult situations. Europe’s invocation of the article is very similar to Trump’s invocation of the US International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for his trade tariffs, which is widely considered unconstitutional and facing several legal challenges. There is a considerable risk last week’s decision will be struck down by the European Court of Justice. True, that may take a number of years, just the time needed to help Ukraine survive. But it is not a lasting solution.

The real problem is structural: intergovernmental Europe, ruled increasingly by an unaccountable European Council, bogged down by unanimity. Everyone likes to blame Viktor Orbàn for obstructing, but he is merely the canary in the coal mine. The system built on unanimity is the real problem. Article 122 is no magic wand to bypass that obstacle. But while Commission and national governments feverishly seek ad hoc solutions, they are ominously silent about the need for structural change. So we keep trying to fix a broken leg by sticking bandages on it. The EU has become ungovernable and it will get worse with EU enlargement. (to be clear: no, the solution does not lie in endlessly delaying enlargement, but in - finally - fixing EU governance). Article 122 cannot become an escape clause, the new normal in EU decision making.

The first step must be to abolish all vetoes. If government leaders are serious about their commitment to Europe, this is their chance to prove it. If Orbàn and Fico are really the only problem, there is nothing preventing the other twenty-five to jointly declare they will work to abolish all vetoes as soon as Orbàn and Fico have been voted out of office. As the next step they can start preparing Treaty change as well, for a full democratisation of the European Union. Initiating the process would be a sign that they want a functional and democratic Union. Time for our political leaders to show their colours.

Europe is “Complex”, “Remote”, “Boring”. These are the most heard pretexts for not informing European citizens about EU matters. But why would people be perfectly able to understand American politics, but not our own European politics? Why are US politics depicted as something familiar, even part of our own world, but European politics as “foreign”?

Media reporting on European Politics tends to omit references to institutions, political parties or key political actors. It is usually all lumped in under the label “Brussels” (I even once saw an article about the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg being referred to as “Brussels”). Elections in EU member states are covered infrequently, even if they determine the composition of the Council and the overall political balance in the EU. Only juicy scandals get ample coverage. Rightfully so, but it remains one-dimensional.

The attitude of national politicians to informing and involving citizens in EU political matters has been utterly patronizing: “We shouldn’t worry the little heads of Europeans with matters that are too difficult for them to digest”. In intergovernmental Europe, citizens are kept out of the loop.

Children in the US learn about their Constitution in school. In Europe only very few kids learn about the EU. Knowledge about the EU is uncool, it makes you a nerd. Governments make little effort to change this.

The lack of knowledge makes the European Union incredibly vulnerable. As Europeans get hardly any information from reliable sources, they are very susceptible to disinformation and manipulation. Not just by far-right nationalist anti-EU parties, but also by Russian and American campaigns aiming to break up the EU. If pro-European forces shy away from Europe in the public debate, the void will be filled by Trump, Musk, Putin, and their useful idiots in Europe. Not a thousand Democracy Shields can protect us if we ourselves remain silent.

Political leaders seem to be out of touch with public opinion. All opinion polls show sustained and growing support for the European Union, for enlargement and for a common European defence. Young people are even more pro-European than the average European. So they should not fear discussing European matters in public. In these times of tectonic geopolitical shifts, there is an urgent need for public debate about the role and future of the European Union, and the reforms needed to make it resilient in today’s turbulent world

The European Union is under threat. Breaking up the EU has now become official US policy. It is more important than ever that we pull together as Europeans, rally around the flag as it were. We urgently need a single European political space. Well-informed citizens are not a threat to a strong European Union, but a pre-condition for it. The EU can not remain the exclusive domain of national politicians any longer, it has to become a vibrant political arena. We have to do this together. Every single one of us

.

The political leadership of the European Union is frantically trying to preserve the status quo, while it is collapsing. The old world order is gone. The old adage of Darwin applies: not the strongest will survive, but those that manage to adapt best to new circumstances.

The nation state was a good model for tackling the challenges of the nineteenth and twentieth century. Intergovernmental Europe was a good model for the world of the fifties of the previous century. Incremental progress worked well for decades. But the world has changed beyond recognition and at breathtaking speed. What on earth makes us believe we can simply carry on with the old structures, when everything else has changed? It is not just naive, at this stage it is irresponsible and dangerous. By clinging to an outdated model, political leaders are jeopardising our security and our freedom. They claim they need to protect national sovereignty against a mythical all powerful Brussels. That is literally Trump’s narrative. European politicians opposing a strong federal Europe are Trump’s useful idiots. They help him subjugate and colonise Europe.

If Trump’s plan for world domination does not wake us up, I don’t know what will. Europe should not copy Trump’s America. It should always aim for a world based on peaceful multilateral cooperation. But Europe should not be naive. When one country is threatening Europe with war, and another explicitly announces it seeks to dominate Europe, we should put our own interests first. Whoever pretends Trump, Putin or Xi will act in the best interest of Europe is an utter fool at best, a traitor at worst.

So let’s unleash a new power: the power of imagination. If we are able to imagine a different, better world, we will be able to build it. We can imagine a strong, self-confident European Union, a powerful geopolitical actor with over half a billion citizens. With a European government that speaks with one voice in the world, a voice that carries weight and authority. Imagine a Europe that is so big and strong, that Russia will not dream of attacking. A Europe that has fully unleashed its economic potential and is the single biggest economy in the world. A Europe that commands respect, and that all big nations want to have friendly and constructive relations with. A Europe that can safeguard our way of life, our prosperity, our values.

You think this is an impossible dream? It is not. All its takes is political will and courage. And the imagination to make it happen. The same imagination that led us, Europeans, to build a united Europe on the ruins of two world wars. The same imagination that led us to unite the continent after half a century of dictatorship. The same power of imagination that is driving the Ukrainians, or the protestors in Serbia or Georgia. Europe can take a leap into the future, if we have the imagination to make enlargement happen, to completely open up the Single Market, and to transform the old intergovernmental Europe into a federal Union. It can be done. If we want it.

Even if Europeans are not able to imagine it, Trump is. He is acutely aware he will not be able to subjugate a big and strong federal Europe. He knows he can only pursue his plan if Europe remains weak and divided, a giant with feet of clay. He fears the moment Europeans will realise their own strength and believe in a different Europe. Our best security strategy is the power of imagination.

Let’s stop dreaming of a return to the past, and start imagining the future!

In 2026 it will be exactly 250 years since British colonies in America declared independence from Great Britain. There is some irony in the reversal of roles 250 years later: the USA ruled by a would-be king, and Europe under American domination.

We Europeans are fascinated, to the point of obsession, by the United States. But if Europe wants to copy anything from the US, let it be the creation of the United States of Europe. We need our Hamiltonian moment, after Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers. We need a Constitution for a federal Europe, a United States of Europe.

For decades national politicians dismissed a federal Europe as a pipe dream for naive “dreamers”. They claim only intergovernmental Europe is “realism”. We see how that works out in practice: a European Union weak, eternally paralyzed by national vetoes and totally lost for direction. These self-proclaimed Realpolitiker have led us into a situation where we are completely at the mercy of Trump, Putin, Xi, Musk, Thiel, who at best don’t care about Europe’s interest, and at worse will actively undermine it. The national politicians who have in recent times stressed the need for a strong NATO, consistently reject calls for a stronger European Union. It is often said that European integration advances in times of crisis. That is not true. European integration has stalled for twenty years, despite the financial crisis, the pandemic, war, Brexit and much more. Each one was labelled the ultimate wake up call, but no crisis seems to be big enough to jolt national politicians out of their sovereignist fixation.

But we cannot wait anymore. Last week’s “Peace deal” between Trump and Putin shows us Europe is a spectator, watching the US and Russia deciding our future and dividing the spoils. Europe cannot do much more than damage limitation. This is where “realism” got us.

It is a matter of Realpolitik to create a federal Europe, a geopolitical, economic and cultural superpower. The European Union has 455 inhabitants, with another 50 million in the waiting room for EU membership. A federal Europe speaking with one, mighty voice.

Does any national leader have the courage to say it out loud: national governments must transfer powers to a federal EU. As Europeans we have the choice between European rule or being ruled by the US, Russia and China. The glory days of the nation state are over. Many national leaders claim they are pro-European. But what they really mean is: keeping the status quo. We should not be held back by those who cling to the status quo, those who will sacrifice the security, prosperity and wealth of Europeans to an anachronistic sovereignist ideology.

European citizens have to take their fate into their own hands. We need a European Constitution, a European political space, a European government. Not realistic you say? But how realistic is it to continue with the same strategy and expect a different outcome? Eighty years ago most people would have thought the idea of a European Union totally unrealistic. But the power of imagination gave us wings. Let’s do it again. Time for the European Revolution!

PS: some ideas for a European government Dream Team: Zuzana Čaputová (former President of Slovakia), Laura Kövesi (European Public Prosecutor), Mario Draghi (Former Italian PM, former ECB President), Femke Halsema (Mayor of Amsterdam), Emily O’Reilly (former EU Ombudsman), Toomas Hendrik Ilves (Former President of Estonia), Maia Sandu (President of Moldova). Who else?

The soon-to-be Dutch Prime Minister stated in an interview that Europe should be given “the power and the resources to do what citizens all across Europe are asking it to do”. “Europe must transform itself into a serious “democratic global power”.

Meanwhile in the neighboring country, Euro-tepid Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever seems to have fallen into the cauldron with magic pro-Europe potion. He gave a passionate plea for a strong Europe on several occasions in recent months. “The next months and years will be of vital importance to Europe….the sacred cows must be tipped, we need to change course”.

Many government leaders these days have pledged allegiance to a strong Europe, as our best protection in a dangerous and turbulent world. This all sounds very promising. It is reminiscent of the rousing Sorbonne speech of the newly elected French President Macron in 2017. “The only way to guarantee our future is to re-establish a sovereign, united and democratic Europe” Macron said. Europe was euphoric.

A positive narrative on Europe definitely has merit of its own, even without ensuing action. It influences public opinion in a positive way and serves as an antidote against the daily toxic anti-European rhetoric and disinformation.

But in terms of concrete action, exactly what does pro-European mean these days? Pro which Europe? The status quo or change? For decades it was clear what that meant: strengthening the European Union and further integration. However, today that is not so obvious anymore.

Government leaders are very keen on “Europe”, but not on “the European Union”. The European Union as a constitutional framework means dreary checks and balances, and annoying features like transparency and accountability. “Europe” on the other hand offers them a brilliant podium for national politics, where they can shine for their national audience by either being a visionary leader bringing world peace, or by heroically opposing perfidious Brussel. They use Europe for national politics, but they are very careful to not create a pan-European political space. They claim the monopoly on democracy. European democracy meanwhile is orphaned.

Europe seems to be a topic in election campaigns only as a punch bag. No major parties are campaigning on a reform agenda for Europe. From the four parties that will likely make up the next Dutch government, two (D66, Socialists/Greens) are positive but silent on Europe, two self-proclaimed pro-European parties (VVD, CDA) want to keep the status quo or even curtail the EU. Even if the turmoil in the world has mercilessly exposed the weakness and inadequacy of the current intergovernmental European Union, there was zero appetite to campaign for reform. Moreover, even the most ardent European federalist government in the Netherlands will be facing a big Euro-hostile parliamentary majority. In Belgium too, Prime Minister Bart “Reform” De Wever never campaigned on European reform.

In the excitement over the Dutch election results, there was little attention for developments in Czechia meanwhile, that are going in exactly the opposite direction. Babis is cobbling together a Trump-style government of extremist parties. As Orban is on his way out, Babis will take the relay as European troublemaker. The solution of bribing national government leaders into dropping their vetoes is expensive and unsustainable in the long run. Europe should not be a bazar but a democratic political union.

Pro-European these days tends to be interpreted mostly - and minimally - as not vetoing policy decisions, in particular on Ukraine. It no longer seems to mean pro-democratic reform of the EU. National leaders, including the pro-European ones, are quite happy to keep the intergovernmental status quo. Even if it is obvious that that is a dead end street, even if the failure of the system has been painfully exposed in the past year. Pro-European does not even seem to mean respecting the constitutional order laid down in the EU Treaties. Pro-European on policies, not on politics.

Last week results mean one more constructive voice in the European Council. That is very welcome. But one swallow does not make summer. The European Union desperately needs reform. Let’s hope pro-European forces will band together now for an ambitious and visionary overhaul of the European Union, so pro-European will actually mean pro a powerful, democratic European Union.

But it is a false good idea.

The idea of a multi-speed Europe is based on the assumption that there is agreement on the direction to take, but not on the pace of the process. In reality it is the inverse: the disagreement is about the direction, not about the speed. Member states are all heading in different directions. Draghi’s pragmatic federalism might apply for example to a group of countries agreeing to advance with more ambitious climate policies, but it could also be, say, Orbàn, Fico and Meloni advancing proposals for a pan-European ban on same sex marriage.

It will take us right back to the pre-Lisbon Treaty era of the infamous Democratic Deficit: policies to be decided at European level, but not subject to scrutiny at European level, while scrutiny by national parliaments is effectively impossible. In other words: pragmatic federalism sidelines the European Parliament and neuters national parliaments.

Draghi literally advocates to act outside the EU Treaties, arguing they slow down the decision making process. However, the paralysis in the decision making process is not caused by the Treaties, but mainly by national government leaders. Whereas nearly all vetoes were abolished by the Lisbon Treaty, they have been re-instated via a back door by the European Council. The European Council (EUCO) decides with unanimity. The Treaties explicitly ban EUCO from interfering in the legislative process, but it does so anyway, thereby effectively re-introducing the unanimity requirement.

Going outside the EU Treaties for “pragmatic” reasons carries big risks. The EU Treaties constitute a constitutional framework for EU decision making, including vital checks and balances. The national governments are only too happy to escape the hassle of accountability, transparency and scrutiny. They will choose a legal basis that allows them to circumvent the European Parliament or other kinds of scrutiny. It is not by accident that new financial instruments - for example the post-Covid recovery fund, or defense-related funds- were created outside the EU budget, and thus not subject to meaningful scrutiny. More and more they even opt for procedures that fall outside the EU Treaties and thus outside all forms of oversight.

The question is which areas could benefit from the multi-speed approach. Assuming Draghi is not advocating to simply ditch the Treaties, Member States cannot act in areas of exclusive EU competence. They can only act on their own where the EU does not exercise, or has decided not to exercise, its own competence. That leaves areas of exclusive national competence, but it is doubtful if enhanced cooperation in those areas will bring significant progress for Europe as a whole.

Multi-speed Europe already exists: not all member states participate in the Schengen Area, the Prüm Treaty, the Eurozone and the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (and several non-EU countries do). The Treaties offer the option of “enhanced cooperation” for a coalition of countries willing to advance on a certain topic. This was used for example in the setting up of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Several countries opted in after it was created, except for Hungary, Ireland and Denmark. Even in the area of migration policies, some countries retain an opt-out. The new formula of 26+Orbàn was applied in the past, when the UK vetoed the Fiscal Compact, and the other 26 member states instead concluded an intergovernmental Treaty outside the EU Treaties. Schengen and Prüm too were not initially concluded by the EU, but by a group of member states, and integrated into the EU Treaties at a later stage.

Inversely, if currently national governments are annoyed at the EU being paralysed by the obstruction of one member state, they should ask themselves why for years they have refused to apply the Article 7 procedure that would have stripped Orbàn of his veto. Or why they don’t just decide to abolish unanimity. They can do that, but they won’t.

And here we get to the heart of the problem: it is not the EU Treaties that are holding Europe back. It is the national government leaders who are fighting tooth and nail against a strong European Union. They see a strong European Union as a threat to their own status and power. Their opposition to a strong EU cannot be just made to disappear with a magic formula. They will probably even embrace Draghi’s proposal, as it would give them what they want: Europe as a stage for their national campaigns, while at the same time stripping the EU of its powers. Government leaders may disagree of a wide range of issues, but they are firmly united in their resolve to keep the EU weak.

While we are all busy talking policies, government leaders are talking politics. The former is about ideas and solutions for problems. The latter is about power. Unless we fail to recognize the power battle that is going on, we cannot solve the problem. Unfortunately we cannot wish away existing majorities and power relations.

But we can campaign for a powerful European Union, for a Union that is capable to decide and act and to protect us in today’s world. We can inform and convince people of the need for a democratic, transparent and accountable Union. We can bring confidence, make Europeans trust each other and feel we share a common destiny.

We are in the situation we are in today because we failed to speak out for decades. So let’s start now. Not pragmatic but passionate federalism.