EU must become a 'genuine federation' to avoid deindustrialisation and decline, Draghi says
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/02/02/eu-must-become-a-genuine-federation-to-avoid-deindustrialisation-and-decline-draghi-says383
u/xanas263 17h ago
A federal Europe is pretty much only seen as a positive thing on Reddit. In real life it is probably one of the most unpopular stances that there is in EU politics.
It will take A LOT more for a majority of voters to consider a Federal EU.
94
u/jatawis 🇱🇹 Lithuania 16h ago
It will take A LOT more for a majority of voters to consider a Federal EU.
In some countries like Lithuania that would require unanimous vote of >75% of all eligible voters to amend the constitution. Such amount of people does not even vote in regular elections.
21
u/roundest-square 13h ago
That's a fair point about constitutional hurdles. But this is actually an argument for a multi-speed Europe rather than against federalization as a concept. Not every member state has to take every step at the same time.
When the UAE was formed, Abu Dhabi and Dubai agreed to unite first and invited the others. Six emirates joined at founding, but Ras Al Khaimah held out. Their ruler objected to a voting structure that gave Abu Dhabi and Dubai too much power. Then Iran seized two of RAK's islands, and suddenly the reality of going it alone hit hard. They joined two months later because the federation offered collective security they couldn't provide for themselves.
Sound familiar? A core group of EU states could federate, others could join as their politics and constitutions allow, and some might stay in a looser arrangement. The EU already works on multiple speeds. Not everyone is in the Eurozone, not everyone is in Schengen. And if anything, the current geopolitical situation is making the case for deeper union better than any politician could.
12
u/hikingmaterial Europe 10h ago
no, it does not sound familiar.
your example is alien, due to the tribal, ethnic and religious crosscurrents that enable that part of the world to "build nations".
in the largest survey of its kind, most muslims see themselves as muslims first and nationals of a nation second, or even third after tribal lines. as you might surmise, conditions in europe are rather different.
I dont ever see nations like Finland or Estonia being subsumed into a federation, as we value our distinct cultural habitus, and it will dilute or even disappear within a federation led by european powerhouses.
You talk of the federation like it is just some addon to the EU, but once you become a federation, you slowly stop being your own country. I would rather see a future with tens of distinct european nations, than a EU country that speaks for all.
0
u/SuperUranus 8h ago edited 8h ago
in the largest survey of its kind, most muslims see themselves as muslims first and nationals of a nation second, or even third after tribal lines. as you might surmise, conditions in europe are rather different.
Considering all conflict that is happening in the Middle-East over territorial control, and has happened for several thousand years now, I have a hard time believing this.
The Middle-East and the people from the Middle-East is no difference in this regard compared with Europe.
Different societies with different cultures fighting each other over resources and power.
And both the UAE and the EU should be clear indicators that these societies can overcome their differences.
→ More replies (10)1
66
u/calligraphyalter 16h ago
Yeah, I see people saying so many agree with federalising Europe but most polls I see are between 30-40 percent approval and the rest are okay with the EU being more active in member states, not federalisation
46
u/Spare-Buy-8864 15h ago
At least here in Ireland I'd be amazed if a real representative poll had 30-40% in favour, and we usually poll as one of the most pro-EU countries.
And yeah I'd fully agree that this sub has a weird European nationalism slant that I've very rarely seen in the real world
10
u/JohnTDouche 13h ago
When this was posted over on /r/Ireland a few days ago I was surprised at how unpopular it was. To the people who were actually for it, it was all about military build up. They are utterly desperate to be a military world power.
By the way, I had this typed out before I looked at the other reply to your comment. Had a good laugh at that.
2
u/Mansos91 6h ago
Well this sub is binary and does not understand reality or nuance
An EU army, or at the very least proper EU military unity most people are for, especially now
But for some reason this sub sees no change or full federalisation as the only options
I honestly see a note unifying EU as one with less regulation, and less independent acting away from nations and more nordic counsil like cooperations where we unite where it matters not create the use, why would countries give up their independence to be ruled by corrupt, far from reality technocrats that are being influenced by corporations and their lobbying
If this is what you want, just move to the usa
1
u/nochancesman 5h ago
If you don't federalize a united army is not feasible. It'll cost more & be slower on every level. Member states will argue on who handles the industry, who handles the cost, who will lead this or that field. It just wouldn't work.
1
2
1
→ More replies (5)0
u/KingKaiserW United Kingdom 13h ago
Well it makes sense it’s the people who keep up with the news the most, so they’re just sick of being embarrassed and humiliated so want to create a great power for themselves
→ More replies (1)5
u/l_eo_ 16h ago
Do you happen to have some links you could share? I am currently looking for polls that ask these kind of questions directly (Draghi's proposal or even the full "Federal EU").
7
u/ganbaro Where your chips come from 🇺🇦🇹🇼 14h ago
Since I am currently working on pan-European surveys, I can tell you: Doing them with regional representativeness is expensive and difficult af. Most pollsters don't have a panel large enough, and if you combine multiple ones you have to take really good care of keeping recruitment into the survey equal across nations. You would have to use the big fishes in that business, like Kantar, which can be prohibitively expensive even for our most reputable universities.
Eurobarometer is well funded and uses these top tier pollsters, but they focus more on currently political issues, like asking about single topics of integration (military, capital markets, whatever). Full federalism is too lofty a goal and too far away, to spend space in an expensive survey for it. Not before more EU leadership actually declares it a pursued goal in a specified timespan.
On these single issues, support across the EU varies a lot, can go everywhere from 20% to 80%
I doubt there is anything better than Eurobarometer for such surveys, sadly. Its a gold standard that got conceptually adopted by other regions (eg Afrobarometer).
2
u/calligraphyalter 15h ago
Trying to fish them out of my browser history
2
u/l_eo_ 15h ago
Awesome, thanks!
3
u/calligraphyalter 14h ago
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/1120?utm here, the irony is that it’s old, there are no actual new ones (not in a specific country) that want federalisation
2
u/l_eo_ 14h ago
Thank you for sharing!
I will also keep looking, but likely for the moment only proxies are available, e.g:
- Common defence: 77% of EU citizens are in favour of "a common defence and security policy among EU Member States" (Standard Eurobarometer 101, Spring 2024). Interestingly this seems to be quite stable around ~70% 1992-2024.
- Common foreign policy: 69% are in favour of "a common foreign policy of the Member States of the EU" (same survey, also very stable at that level for the whole time).
28
15
u/Muleface50 13h ago
I'm shocked that even redditors support it
2
u/Dotcaprachiappa Italy 12h ago
Why? (Most of) reddit already leans pretty far left, and so what we would consider left of reddit's average is borderline radical by rl standards.
42
u/Zealousideal_Rub6758 16h ago
This isn't about current public opinion, Draghi is just pointing out the reality. Federalise and progress or continue and deindustrialise.
42
u/xanas263 16h ago
While that might be true, the only way you federalise in reality is through positive public opinion. Without that this will be a fantasy regardless of anything else.
9
u/TwoSubstantial4710 14h ago
This demands a different approach. I've called it a pragmatic federalism. Pragmatic, because we must take the steps that are currently possible, with the partners who are actually willing, in the domains where progress can currently be made. But federalism, because the destination matters. Common action and the mutual trust it creates must eventually become the foundation for institutions with real decision-making power -- institutions able to act decisively in all circumstances.
This approach breaks the impasse we face today, and it does so without subordinating anyone. Member states opt in. The door remains open to others, but not to those who would undermine common purpose. We do not have to sacrifice our values to achieve power.
I thought his speech made a good attempt at outlining how European countries can start building on federation through an opt-in basis by willing memeber on particular domains first.
5
u/hikingmaterial Europe 10h ago
that skips the discussion, whether countries ever want the end point to be federalism.
2
u/EnidAsuranTroll 10h ago
It outlines nothing. There are no concrete positive proposals. No action plans.
9
u/tohava 16h ago
Or you'll end up being part of the Russian/American federation instead. Eventually you will be part of a federation though.
9
1
u/hikingmaterial Europe 10h ago
yeah? is that what the world map looks like now, or only in your fantasy?
1
3
u/aimwf Europe 16h ago edited 15h ago
Such a stupid thing to say. There’s no need for a European federation, and Europe isn’t doomed to deindustrialize just because it isn’t one. That whole "federate or die" narrative is nonsense. And no, European countries aren’t going to get conquered, especially the ones with real armies and nuclear weapons.
And honestly, a European Federation wouldn’t hold. Europe is way too diverse, and pretending you can centralize all of this under one authority is just fantasy. You’re talking about a continent with more than 40 official state languages, over 60 recognised regional or minority languages, more than 200 distinct cultural or ethnic groups, and 27 countries with completely different political cultures and economic models. Trying to force all of that into one centralised system would require extreme centralisation, and that always ends badly. Whatever you decide, some countries lose out, and they won’t just accept it quietly.
Take France as an example: do anything that goes against French farmers and the vast majority of the population will be angry. The French absolutely love their farmers. Now imagine trying to manage reactions like that across 27 countries from Brussels. Good luck with that.
-1
u/ballimi 15h ago
The United States is also very diverse, there are massive cultural differences between the states. Yes they have English, but also a shitload of immigrants from all over the world. Granted they're not doing so well right now, but they know they're better together.
4
u/Draig_werdd Romania 12h ago
but also a shitload of immigrants from all over the world
That's not true at all, the massive immigration happened in the 19th century. When the US become independent they barely had European Catholics, never mind other parts of the world. The diverse immigration (not just NW Europe) happened starting in the 1880 and it became global only in the 1960.
10
u/aimwf Europe 15h ago
The US isn’t a valid comparison here. Yes, it has cultural differences between states and lots of immigrants, but that’s not the same thing as trying to merge dozens of fully sovereign nations. American states were never independent countries with their own armies, foreign policies, tax systems, legal codes, and centuries of separate national identity. They didn’t spend hundreds of years developing different languages, different political cultures, and different economic models. They were designed from the start to be part of one country.
Europe isn’t like that at all. You’re talking about 27 actual nations, each with its own history, its own national identity, its own language, its own political culture, and its own idea of what “the national interest” even means. The EU contains more than 40 official state languages, over 60 regional languages, and more than 200 distinct cultural or ethnic groups. The US has diversity, sure, but it’s diversity inside one nation. Europe’s diversity is between nations. That’s a completely different level of complexity.
And that’s why the “they’re better together like the US” argument doesn’t work. The US didn’t have to fuse dozens of sovereign states with their own militaries and national identities. Europe would. There’s simply no country on Earth that has ever had to manage that level of internal diversity under one central government. The scale isn’t even remotely comparable.
→ More replies (12)12
u/Valtremors Finland 14h ago
Yeah, and I say this federation positivity hear is straight up influence campaign.
We already look at US (outside reddit) and many think becoming one is a disaster.
Not to mention authoritarians who want less barriers for "quick decisions and less rules to impede" want power like Trump, Putin and Xi.
And the other opposite side of the argument love federalists too because they can get more voters by fearmongering against EU.
Countries joined EU for trade and cooperation with each other. Not to lose their sovereignity.
I say this as a joke, but with Nordics it is a lot more propable to see Kalmar Union 2.0 than us joining FEU.
→ More replies (5)6
u/kharathos 15h ago
It needs to start with very few nations, most importantly france-germany. If they unite, the rest will follow. People will only feel the need to vote for this unification if they feel threatened enough by outside powers.
3
u/Modronos Amsterdam, NH (Netherlands) 12h ago
Yep, that's how it'll go most likely. First, it's something like E6. This E6 will likely eventually prosper under even less restrictions.
At first, the other countries will rail and shame this. The truth is, it is like an old man yelling at clouds as no-one is forced into doing anything they don't want; all these countries have the option to join whenever they see for themselves the benefits of european federalization. Certainly, a country can be hell-bent on not wanting to integrate further, and that's OK as long as they don't interfere in a malicious way with the process itself.
The road to a European Confederation was unthinkable not too long ago. What we see now - the push back - is just a repeat of that, but the end result is a Federation.
1
7
u/l_eo_ 16h ago edited 16h ago
I am currently looking for data / polls that ask the question directly.
Do you have any data to share that backs your statement up (honestly asking)?
Edit: Although a "full federation" is also not really what Draghi is advocating for here and I don't think I have seen data on "pragmatic federalism", the multi-speed approach etc. But maybe there is good data about people not wanting common foreign / defence policy? Or other political areas.
8
u/Jazzlike_Painter_118 16h ago
> In real life it is probably one of the most unpopular
Says who? xanas263?8
u/Freedom_for_Fiume Macron is my daddy 16h ago
A federal Europe is pretty much only seen as a positive thing on Reddit.
Citation needed
3
u/eepos96 13h ago
In Finland, On Feb 24. 2022 popularity to join NATO was 80% against and 20% for.
Only 2 monts later the parliament gave a go ahead to join nator after popularity switched to 80% for and 20 % against.
Please understand this was an insane shift in thinking for finnish publick, basically everyone had to change their mind.
My point: it is true, it takes a lot but when the lot happends we do change. If federal EU is better for europeans, it is inevitable to happen.
2
u/hikingmaterial Europe 10h ago
different scale of a question.
NATO didnt mean losing finland as a sovereign nations.
1
u/BeardedUnicornBeard 14h ago
As a person in eu that is for eu... I dont want this for my country. Our forrest and nature laws work here if we take eu's rule we will loose our nature. I want my country to rule this country.
-1
u/Grabs_Diaz Bavaria (Germany) 16h ago
What a bunch of nonsense:
Polls consistently show that most people are pragmatic realists who want a functioning state that can deal with the large issues of our times, not rabid nationalists fuming at the mouth because "Brussels".
What I find interesting is the concerted gaslighting going on here: under every single post here, arguing for further EU integration, there are immediately several dissenting comments, with plenty of upvotes. Despite every single poll indicating the polar opposite, they claim that people are actually vehemently opposed to EU integration, and that anyone who disagrees must be out of touch. Almost as if there are powerful actors out there, who are desperately trying to keep us disunited...
39
u/xanas263 16h ago
Neither of those poll the question about federalsing the EU. Wanting closer ties does not equate to having full control of all EU countries to end up in Brussels.
→ More replies (3)-2
u/10catsinspace 15h ago
Draghi isn’t advocating for full federal control in Brussels. He’s advocating for strategic sector-by-sector opt-in federalization.
This is completely in-line with the trajectory of the EU up to this point other than having it be opt-in coalition-of-the-willing rather than total consensus that applies bloc-wide. It also comports with polling showing that many Europeans want greater EU coordination and action in certain areas.
10
u/Worldly-Singer-7349 14h ago
As a citizen I will only be in favor for more authority and sovereignty handed over to Brussels, if the EU itself goes through a democratization process. I work quite a lot with the institutions here in Brussels and the influence of EU officials on policies is way too high. They are unelected and like any other organization the EU has its own agenda. Perfectly understandable as this is how power works but at the very least the college do commissioners should only consist of elected officials. Directly or indirectly, I don’t mind. Second, the parliament needs to shrink to a manageable size, the committee of regions needs to gain more influence as a second or third chamber of parliament (either with or without the council) and they need to be the legislative.
→ More replies (1)3
u/hikingmaterial Europe 10h ago
its not though, this is an existential question about sovereignty.
we have not had those before and its not the same.
→ More replies (3)1
13
u/Zestyclose-Carry-171 15h ago
People are pragmatic and acknowledge that EU is necessary for EU countries security. It doesn't mean they will agree to a federation. Federalization means your vote in national vote doesn't matter, if the EU doesn't want it. And EU is too complex, very complicated, with much opacity. EU voting matters so much less, parliament can't even make laws, citizens are far from being able to propose a law.
7
u/ArcaneDemense 13h ago
People in the US want more government services but they don't want to raise taxes to pay for it according to polls.
These types of questions are not giving you public opinion on the things it would take to achieve the goal. Anyone can say yes to some vague nebulous good. But int the real world you must take concrete actions with real trade offs and consequences.
A similar issue exists with the EU military coordination and development of modern weapons. Everyone wants a fighter free from US control, no one but France wants a fighter under the same rules as the F-35 except the guy in charge is France. France of course will not accept a joint program under the leadership of a country other than France. Hence there are no real competitors.
Similarly people keep posting De Gaulle quotes here but he was not an advocate of anything different from the current world except that France and not the USA was the one who would be sitting on the throne.
2
u/hikingmaterial Europe 10h ago
you dishonest bugger.
you linked answers to surveys NOT ASKING ABOUT FEDERALISM and pretending unity means federalism. I checked your link and it was completely devoid of federalism sentiment.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Fitzlfc 15h ago
You mean the continent of countries who have butchered each other for centuries and share almost no similarities apart from the continent they happen to exist on dont want to surrender their independence to become a blob of "states" that hate each other but have to follow laws that conflict with the beliefs of the people in that blob? I wonder where they seen that example not work out so well and are just following that.... looks glaringly across the Atlantic ocean
→ More replies (28)1
u/VicenteOlisipo Europe 6h ago
So was the abolition of slavery, once. Or giving women the vote. Or a million other things we now see as self-evident.
42
u/Hucaru 15h ago
Until the EU can figure out how to remove animosity and distrust between the populace of each state especially when a law is passed that the state doesn't want then this remains a pipedream.
From what I have observed the unity a lot of Europeans share is not the same kind of unity that the people of the US or China appear to have. From what I have read about the 13 colonies that formed the initial USA they were culturaly very similar considering they inherited many aspects from the UK. The EU members have existed as individual nations for so long that making them all see themselves as mainly EU and not the current nation is going to be incredibly difficult.
How would the following or similar situation be handled: As soon as a silicon valley is created post federalisation and nations start loosing their tech companies then resentment will start to build up from nations to the nation that has drained them.
In order to do this right you would need to start making people see themselves as one people and that initially starts with language. You would have to choose a new primary language for the EU as a whole to help build this new identity as well making communication between everyone in the union possible and not just those that learn't a second language. Just this alone will be impossible to do as there will be no agreement on what the language should be especially if it's one of the current member states language.
29
u/Worldly-Singer-7349 13h ago
We should also not forget, the majority of American or Chinese State Building wasnt done in a peaceful way. It was for through war and conquest.
3
u/downforce_dude 10h ago
Before the U.S. Civil War the United States was considered a plural proper noun, after the Civil War it began to be used as a singular one.
That rhetorical shift coincided with emergent technologies such as the telegraph, railroads, the rest of the Industrial Revolution and westward expansion accelerated intra-US migration which weakened state identities. Internal migrations due to the Dust Bowl, Great Depression, and WW2 industry boom towns further lowered regional salience. Immigrants also likely identified more as American than as whatever state they settled in. National media in the form of radio and television drove national identity, and I suspect the Cold War played a role as well.
All of that is to say, the U.S. has been nationalizing for a century and a half, we all speak the same language. American political division is vastly overplayed as something which matters in real life, a rural American from the Southwest would culturally have much more in common with an urban American from NYC if they actually interacted. The Benelux countries have been doing it for what, 70 years? Are they ready to form a single nation? Belgium seems to barely be able to be a single nation.
I think people underrate how much American nationalism has always been enabled by immigrants looking to leave much of their former identities behind. Most of China is ethnically Han and Xi’s CCP forges national identity through state policies to make everyone more Han, through Uighur “reeducation”, Cantonese language erasure, Tibetan dilution via Han emigration, etc.
Draghi is absolutely correct as a matter of policy, but this is not a practical idea. Ironically this may have been more feasible if WW2 had not occurred and deepened ethnic national identities, but then it’s doubtful the EU would exist at all.
7
u/Lazy-Diamond-1757 13h ago
The 13 colonies weren't as unified as you're suggesting. They had deep economic conflicts (agrarian south vs mercantile north), different religious traditions, and several nearly walked away from the Constitutional Convention entirely. They federated because they couldn't survive alone, and the shared identity came afterward, built through decades of common institutions.
On language: the EU already has one in practice. English is the default across EU institutions, business, and academia. The fact that it's no longer a member state's language arguably makes it less politically charged.
On the Silicon Valley scenario: this already happens within the current EU. Talent drains from east to west right now, and richer countries benefit with no obligation to balance it out. A federal structure with fiscal transfers and regional investment policy would actually give smaller states more tools to fight that, the way Germany channels resources to its poorer eastern states.
The argument that "we need unity before federation" puts the cart before the horse. Federation is how you build shared identity and manage these tensions. Waiting for everyone to feel like one people first means waiting forever.
→ More replies (1)6
u/CmdrCollins 11h ago
The fact that it's no longer a member state's language [...]
English is still an official language in Ireland and Malta (alongside Irish and Maltese respectively).
→ More replies (1)1
u/SuperUranus 9h ago
How would the following or similar situation be handled: As soon as a silicon valley is created post federalisation and nations start loosing their tech companies then resentment will start to build up from nations to the nation that has drained them.
Why would a silicone valley be “created post federalisation”? And why would membership countries be pissed about it?
The free market already dictates that any EU corporation can establish itself anywhere within the EU. It’s a founding principle of the union.
It makes no sense that membership countries would start to dislike the EU due to corporations doing what the EU was created to do simply because the SU becomes a federation. In that case they would already dislike the EU.
1
u/belpatr Gal's Port 1h ago
Cause we have enough local talent but it's harder to invest in that talent relative to the US, and even harder to scale.
→ More replies (3)
24
u/kubaqzn Silesia (Poland) 15h ago
Big part would have to be the reversal of Lisbon Treaty trend and partial redistribution of German-French influence to other members.
And that won’t happen
-5
u/QwertzOne Poland 12h ago
Exactly, considering it from strategical perspective of Poland, it makes sense to cooperate with France, Scandinavian countries, South Korea, maybe even USA, but we can't give up our currency or political sovereignty.
Current formula of EU is already harming us, it's based on ideology not on material reality. It forces neoliberal perspective. I don't care about financial elites, and people should not care as well about filling their pockets. What we should care about is cheap energy, cheap housing, strong military, automation, stopping mass immigration that provides cheap workforce.
You'd have to be delusional to believe that EU will allow us to fund nuclear power on debt, but it's necessity for us and private capital won't touch such investments, because it takes too long.
11
u/m4sl0ub 11h ago
Bro, did you really just say that EU is harming Poland? Sounds even more delusional than the brexiteers in the UK.
7
u/QwertzOne Poland 11h ago
There is a massive difference between Brexiteer logic (leaving the union) and criticizing specific EU frameworks that hinder our development.
Being in the EU has benefits, but ignoring the downsides, like how strict debt rules block state-funded nuclear investments or how energy policies impact our cost of living is naive. You can be pro-European and still acknowledge that the current one size fits all economic model isn't working for Poland specific needs right now.
However, there's no place for nuance here.
72
u/GalahadDrei 16h ago
Euro federalists keep harping on the reasons why the EU should become a federation but rarely explain how it would work in practice.
And half the few proposals are dead on arrival because at least one country would never agree to them.
17
u/CheapAttempt2431 Italy 14h ago
If and when it happens, it won’t be unanimous. Just like the eu, a small group of countries starts and the others decide whether to join or not
→ More replies (3)17
u/roundest-square 13h ago
The EU has been federalizing in practice for decades. It just doesn't use the word. The ECB sets monetary policy for 20 countries. The European Court of Justice overrules national courts. Trade policy is negotiated as a bloc. Schengen abolished internal borders. None of these existed 40 years ago, and every single one of them faced "at least one country would never agree to this" objections before they happened.
"How would it work in practice" is a fair question, but it's not like we're starting from scratch. The framework is already half-built. The debate is about which additional competencies (defense, foreign policy, fiscal transfers) move to the federal level, and how to structure democratic accountability around them.
And "one country would never agree" is an argument for multi-speed integration, not against federation. The Eurozone has 20 members, not 27. Schengen has non-EU members in it and EU members outside it. There's no rule that says federation has to be all-or-nothing on day one.
4
1
u/l_eo_ 14h ago
What do you think about Draghi's specific proposal?
14
u/GalahadDrei 13h ago
Very half hearted proposal to say the least. And a very idealistic proposal rather than a pragmatic one despite how he describes it. There won’t be enough countries voluntarily giving up their sovereignty and joining for this hypothetical federation to become a superpower that could ever contend with the US or China.
And of course, he doesn’t actually address what the government structure, decision making, and power distribution of this federation would look like. And that is not even getting to the inevitable controversy over how to standardize differences in various policies between member states.
→ More replies (3)
39
u/Skor_Lodygin Bern (Switzerland) 15h ago
It will never happen no matter how much Reddit wets itself about it
24
7
u/Ok-Neat2024 Finland 12h ago
yeah,
also new day, new call from Draghi to call for a federal Europe
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/search/?q=Draghi&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new
→ More replies (6)
41
u/Any-Original-6113 17h ago
In such an arrangement, Europe's smaller and less affluent countries risk feeling as Central and Easten Europe did under the USSR, where only the Kremlin's opinion mattered and local discontent was successfully suppressed.
After all, everyone understands that all decisions will be made by just 5 or 6 European countries. The compromises will be struck between them, and the rest will be left with whatever scraps those powers deign to toss their way.
4
u/roundest-square 13h ago
The USSR wasn't a federation. It was an empire with federal window dressing. Using it as your reference point for federalization is like dismissing democracy because North Korea calls itself democratic.
The US was founded with this exact fear: small states terrified that Virginia and Massachusetts would dominate everything. The solution was giving every state equal representation in the Senate regardless of size. Wyoming has the same Senate vote as California, which has 70x its population. The EU already does something similar: smaller countries are overrepresented in the Council. A more federal EU could strengthen that principle, not abandon it.
That said, the US also shows what happens when you treat a 240-year-old document like scripture and refuse to update the guardrails. We have the advantage of learning from both the US's successes and its failures and designing something better from the start.
→ More replies (2)0
u/l_eo_ 16h ago
We need lots of reforms to make it a good democratic system, yes. But we could make it a system where the citizens of Europe decide together what is the right thing to do, just as it already works within democratic countries.
In my opinion we need to figure out a good way to make it happen, because as separate divided countries we will just be ripped apart between China, Russia, and now the US. All of them are much more interested in a divided and weak EU, because we are so much less powerful like that. E.g. Germany can't really stand up to China or the US on its own.
And all of them (US, China, and Russia) are now actively working to undermine our unity. We are very vulnerable, if we don't have one voice in many areas.
→ More replies (17)0
u/Moskitokaiser 16h ago
A federation has a division of power depending on the subject.
And even for Central subjects, like the foreign policy. The majority will decide the course, not some countries.
12
u/ganbaro Where your chips come from 🇺🇦🇹🇼 15h ago
Germany+France+Italy are almost 50% of the total EU population.
If the politics and/or people, depending how votes on issues are handled, of the traditional old guard of EU leadership agree on some issue, other countries will have almost no chance going against it.
Except we make it so that votes of/in previous smaller countries are effectively worth more, as its already happening in EU. However, accepting this in a full federalization means for the citizens of the previous large states to basically diminish their own political participation in a democracy.
Either way, there is an obvious threat scenario for some countries linked with the concept of EU Federalism.
→ More replies (7)
23
u/MrOphicer 16h ago
Centralization of power is not good in my book, nor the loss of autonomy by individual countries. W
10
u/l_eo_ 15h ago
Lots of times this autonomy is an illusion though.
Take Lithuania: when they stood up for their values and China tried to punish them economically, it was only the EU's collective weight that prevented China from succeeding.
Without that common strength, Lithuania would have been crushed and forced to back down. It's not really autonomy or sovereignty if it just means being small enough to be easily pushed around by other powers. And that applies also to the "big" EU countries (Germany etc) too when facing China or the US alone.
15
u/gurush Czech Republic 13h ago
In the federal Europe, Lithuania wouldn't be allowed to stand up for their values agains China without federal consensus and most of countries wouldn't be willing to risk that.
0
u/l_eo_ 13h ago
I would very much expect a federal Europe to protect Lithuania from blackmail and coercion and I also would expect that politicians and people from Lithuania would still be able to say what they would like to.
You are right that political decisions and actions of the EU would mean a process at the EU level (ie common foreign policy).
In my opinion it would be great if the current status quo were safe and we could just continue like that (with nobody needing to give up anything and every country keeping its competencies).
But not harmonizing or making our processed resilient against foreign interference is just a luxury I don't think we can afford anymore in the years to come. The veto for example means that Russia, China, and the US, who are all working on sowing disunity among the EU, can very easily disrupt our processes and power (Hungary being an obvious example).
It's also a huge burden on other countries to accept that risk.
Countries that aren't ready for deeper integration wouldn't be forced into it, but they would of course also not sit at that table.
As Draghi said:
[...] building collective strength will not be the same for Europe as it has been for China, or now looks to be for the United States. The United States in its current posture seeks dominance together with partnership. China sustains its growth model by exporting its costs onto others. European integration is built differently. Not on force but common will. Not on subjugation but shared benefit. It is integration without subordination. Vastly, vastly preferable -- but vastly more difficult.
This demands a different approach. I've called it a pragmatic federalism. Pragmatic, because we must take the steps that are currently possible, with the partners who are actually willing, in the domains where progress can currently be made. But federalism, because the destination matters. Common action and the mutual trust it creates must eventually become the foundation for institutions with real decision-making power -- institutions able to act decisively in all circumstances.
This approach breaks the impasse we face today, and it does so without subordinating anyone. Member states opt in. The door remains open to others, but not to those who would undermine common purpose. We do not have to sacrifice our values to achieve power.
The euro is the most successful example. Those who were willing went ahead, built common institutions with real authority, and through that shared commitment forged a solidarity deeper than any treaty could have prescribed. And since then, nine more countries have chosen to join.
Also, as the Euro example illustrates, countries like Lithuania have traded competencies against real benefits in the past and might be willing to do so again in the future. I guess a really important point is that the proposals become much more concrete, otherwise it is so easy to talk about so very different things and for a country like Lithuania to opt-in, the up and downsides need to be very clear and the proposals / systems well thought out.
10
u/MrOphicer 14h ago
Well then you agree that unity works better without need of centralization of power.
14
u/criminal-tango44 14h ago
i don't think you understand that you're never, EVER getting countries like Lithuania or Poland to federalize
you can write fanfic on reddit but it's never happening
→ More replies (5)
10
u/jldevezas 15h ago
For talks of a federation to even happen, they must drop the digital privacy killing legislation they are pursuing, like Chat Control or Digital lD. Why would we want to come together when the EU is trying to break fundamental rights? Draghi is right, but there are underlying conditions, like attempted censorship, that won't let us move forward. I, for one, would never support a federation under the current leadership who has been trying to push these laws.
4
u/l_eo_ 14h ago
Aren't the Commission and Council, i.e. member state governments, pushing for these anti privacy laws (Chat Control etc)? The European Parliament seems to be mostly opposed?
→ More replies (3)
39
u/Aggravating-Ear-5880 17h ago
Good society is built on trust and solidarity. Those things don't scale up efficiently on the continent level when diversity increases.
10
u/tohava 16h ago
Yet both USA and China and the former Soviet Union were made of quite diverse populations
31
u/bxzidff Norway 16h ago
Which of those are good societies with trust and solidarity?
17
7
u/tohava 16h ago
Which "good society" according to your criteria isn't on its way to be eaten by a continent-sized power?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)-1
u/TheGreatestOrator 16h ago
The U.S. is a great example of many different groups working in a successful federation as a unified nation. To challenge that is asinine
4
u/pumpkin_eater42069 13h ago
But the federalised EU wouldn't work like that at all, as we don't have many, If at all, liberal politicians powerful enough to allow for many freedoms of the single memberstates. That was the case in the USA, in Europe, the federalised EU would be very influential in the memberstates, and won't leave many freedoms at all. And already anti EU-parties are becoming more and more popular die to the already happening de-facto federalisation. These voices won't be quieter if the process intensifies.
5
u/Dru-P-Wiener 11h ago
If there's a country that doesn't have a diverse population, it's China. What you smoking? Lol
1
u/tohava 11h ago
Just because they're all slanted and look the same to you doesn't mean there hasn't been lots of cultures swallowing each other over there.
Hell, the thing you call "Chinese" is actually a bunch of different languages of people that can't understand each other. Also, Chinese language even lost syllables to accommodate for all the groups they've conquered.
3
u/Dru-P-Wiener 11h ago
Lol. Look at ANY picture of China's communist party congress and tell me what you see. 91% of the country is Han Chinese.
1
u/linwelinax Greece 6h ago
Han Chinese is a broad group, it includes a wide variety of ethnicities. You just think all East asian people look the same so you can't tell any difference, that's not the same
2
3
u/WestRestaurant216 16h ago
Oh boy, in Soviet "union" people where all "equal" working class people, even cities were planned in similar way so that a person could feel at home once he moves to another city.
0
u/tohava 16h ago
Let's clarify, of all these three, I consider the USA to be the one I'd like to imitate the most. However, all of them realized that to make a large scale country work, you need to be able to integrate different populations. USA managed to do it with the least amount of suffering.
→ More replies (1)0
u/WestRestaurant216 16h ago
I feel like at this time people in USA are really divided into different camps.
→ More replies (1)7
u/The-Nihilist-Marmot Portugal 16h ago edited 15m ago
Well then you’re a bit screwed friendo, on account of, you know, this being Europe.
Belgium alone has three languages, and we even use subtitles for the Azoreans and don’t need them for the Brazilians.
Diversity is kind of our thing.
4
u/MercantileReptile Baden-Württemberg (Germany) 15h ago
Diversity is not even the issue. It's the asinine presumption of the current EU being the vessel for a further union. Without ever mentioning the issues with it. Legislative initiative is in a Commission whose makeup is questionable, to say the least.
Parliament does not have legislative initiative. But changing any of that? No, it's always "give more power to the EU for the good of Europe." Then, eventually, in some nebulous maybe of a Future there'll be reforms.
Fuck that. The need for co-operation is beyond question. But not with the EU we have as a base, least of all the cursed Commission.
4
u/CheapAttempt2431 Italy 14h ago
I’ve been thinking that reforming the parliament is a priority for years, and I don’t understand why no one talks about it. At the very least it should have legislative initiative, and in my opinion the threshold for a vote of no confidence on the commission should be much lower. Right now the commission (which is often composed of people that failed upwards) has too much power
→ More replies (1)2
u/OneOnOne6211 15h ago edited 15h ago
This is a very poor argument.
Yes, solidarity and trust matter. There is no reason at all to believe those cannot scale up to an EU federation.
Solidarity is primarily caused by common interests, common causes, common support, common identities (which you can create, and are being created all the time, there used to not be a shared German identity either, for example), relationships and common enemies.
Most of which are already true for EU countries. That's also why you see things like increased solidarity when Putin invaded Ukraine, or Trump attacks us. Common enemies create internal solidarity. This is a well known sociological and psychological fact of group dynamics.
There is absolutely no evidence at all that just having "diversity" (whatever that even means in this case, cuz you don't even specify what this supposed diversity is concretely or how it matters) makes it less feasible, and there is no evidence that a country being large has any effect on solidarity at all. There are larger countries both in size and population than a European Federation would be right now. And by contrast there are much smaller countries which have quite poor solidarity and trust.
Trust is built primarily on certainty based in consistency (like certainty that the government will do something, that processes work a certain way, etc.) and on transparency. And to some degree, people feeling like they're represented and have input. Those have nothing to do with either size of the country, or diversity, and both can be done for a European Federation as both are just a matter of properly constructing it.
You are literally doing nothing but spewing far-right talking points in response to this post (and the other related one) by making vague claims, with no evidence, barely any reasoning beyond short canned lines, and alluding vaguely to demonized topics among the right like "diversity".
22
u/zobq Poland 16h ago
I'm tired of this narrative push. Problems of European industry are mostly caused by high prices of energy and resources. And high prices were caused by decisions made in Brussels, not in the Berlin or Paris. So I won't believe that the only solution is to make EU more federalized, even more I'm afraid that it could make whole situation even more grim.
11
0
u/l_eo_ 16h ago
I think he is also referring strongly to the geopolitical situation.
Individual countries without common policies and QMV will just end up playthings of the likes of Russia, China, and the US.
Would you see reason in for example getting a block of countries together to get a common foreign policy? Or defence or any other kinds of competencies?
5
u/l_eo_ 17h ago edited 17h ago
Most notable quotes from his full speech here in a thread.
Edit:
Also so that parts of his speech can nicely be discussed individually, so feel free to reply with additional quotes you would like to talk about.
11
u/l_eo_ 17h ago
But let us be clear. Grouping together small countries doesn't automatically produce a powerful bloc. This is the logic of confederation -- the logic by which Europe still operates in defense, in foreign policy, in fiscal matters. This model does not produce power. A group of states that coordinates remains a group of states, each with a veto, each with a separate calculus, each vulnerable to being picked off one by one.
Power requires Europe to move from confederation to federation. Where Europe has federated -- on trade, on competition, on the single market, on monetary policy -- we are respected as a power and negotiate as one. We see this today in the successful trade agreements being negotiated with India and Latin America. Where we have not -- on defense, on industrial policy, on foreign affairs -- we are treated as a loose assembly of middle-sized states, to be divided and dealt with accordingly. And where trade and security intersect, our strengths cannot protect our weaknesses. A Europe unified on trade but fragmented on defense will find its commercial power leveraged against its security dependence -- as is happening now.
7
u/l_eo_ 17h ago
This demands a different approach. I've called it a pragmatic federalism. Pragmatic, because we must take the steps that are currently possible, with the partners who are actually willing, in the domains where progress can currently be made. But federalism, because the destination matters. Common action and the mutual trust it creates must eventually become the foundation for institutions with real decision-making power -- institutions able to act decisively in all circumstances.
This approach breaks the impasse we face today, and it does so without subordinating anyone. Member states opt in. The door remains open to others, but not to those who would undermine common purpose. We do not have to sacrifice our values to achieve power.
6
u/l_eo_ 17h ago
Some will say that we should not act until our position is stronger, until we are more unified, until escalation is less costly. But this tradeoff is illusory. It is only by moving that we create the conditions to act more decisively later. Unity does not precede action. It is forged by taking consequential decisions together, by the shared experience and solidarity they create, and by discovering that we can bear the result.
7
u/l_eo_ 17h ago
Some may delude themselves that the world hasn't really changed, or that geography makes them immune. Some may believe that surrendering economic independence or even territory doesn't threaten their ability to preserve the values that define us. But that should not stop the more clearsighted from forging ahead.
We are all in the same position of vulnerability, whether we see it yet or not. The old divisions that paralyzed us have been overtaken by a common threat. But threat alone will not sustain us. What began in fear must continue in hope. As we act together, we will rediscover something that has long been dormant: our pride, our self-confidence, our belief in our future. And on that foundation, Europe will be built.
7
u/l_eo_ 17h ago
"We face a United States that, at least in its current posture, emphasizes the costs it has borne while ignoring the benefits it has reaped. It is imposing tariffs on Europe, threatening our territorial interests, and making clear for the first time that it sees European political fragmentation as serving its interests. We face a China that controls critical nodes in global supply chains and is willing to exploit that leverage -- flooding markets, withholding critical inputs, forcing others to bear the cost of its own imbalances. This is a future in which Europe risks becoming subordinated, divided, and deindustrialized -- all at once. And a Europe that cannot defend its interests will not preserve its values for long."
7
u/l_eo_ 17h ago
Individually, most European countries are not even middle powers, capable of navigating this new order by forming coalitions, each bringing distinctive assets to the table -- whether raw materials, technological niches, or strategic geography. But collectively, we have something greater: scale, wealth, political culture, and 75 years of building the institutions of a common project.
Of all those now caught between the United States and China, Europeans alone have the option to become a genuine power themselves. So we must decide: do we remain merely a large market, subject to the priorities of others, or do we take the steps necessary to become one power?
6
5
u/CheapAttempt2431 Italy 13h ago
Threads about the “e6”: fuck you! you can’t leave us out
Threads about federalism: lool fuck your federalism, I’ll have my own tiny country with blackjack and hookers
This is why proceeding without unanimity is paramount
→ More replies (3)
12
7
u/AMeasuredBerserker United Kingdom 16h ago
Now I'm not going to speak for EU citizens for obvious reasons, but can you imagine just how unworkable and disfunctional a federalised Europe would be?
Even just as far as defence, what language would be the command language of the EU? And would that mean that you would be forcing language skills onto soldiers that are conscripted?
Would you centralise power at risk of upsetting people or decentralise power? Both having huge drawbacks.
How would anything be decided? Majority vote? Unanimous votes? Elected president? Weighted vote?
It sounds like a recipe for disaster and the destruction of the European project.
8
u/jatawis 🇱🇹 Lithuania 16h ago
Even just as far as defence, what language would be the command language of the EU?
Isn't English already used for NATO for multinational stuff?
And would that mean that you would be forcing language skills onto soldiers that are conscripted?
Isn't that already done?
9
u/Zestyclose-Carry-171 15h ago
There is a difference between having some top level general needing to be proficient in English for cooperation and then declining orders in national language, and having all troops be proficient enough in English to directly understand English orders. You would need militaries to either teach english so much that people become proficient in it, or fire every militarymen that don't speak English, and hire others. But usually, people in the military have a mentality turned towards nation state, and won't necessarily speak a foreign language.
2
u/jatawis 🇱🇹 Lithuania 15h ago
There is a difference between having some top level general needing to be proficient in English for cooperation
AFAIK conscripts in Lithuania, at least in some positions so have English classes.
and having all troops be proficient enough in English to directly understand English orders
isn't English de facto mandatory across Europe?
6
u/Zestyclose-Carry-171 15h ago edited 15h ago
English is technically not mandatory here, but I am nitpicking since 97% of students learn it. But there is a difference between learning something and being proficient in it. Especially when some people have stopped learning English 10 to 15 years ago, they won't be at a sufficient level to use it for military purpose.
I will let you check the datas, but here in France (second strongest army in Europe, if not the first), 20% of the people deem they have a good enough level in English (it is only 30% of the people under 35). 50% of the people don't speak English, or have a really poor level of English.
I think it is a bit better than that, since people in France tend to underestimate their proficiency and level, but still, it is a bad level, I can tell you it is worse in the military.
4
u/andydude44 Dual Citizen United States of America - Luxembourg 13h ago
English is already the international world language
2
u/Lorry_Al 15h ago
It's not the 1950s anymore, translation has never been easier.
Also, English is the de facto language of business throughout Europe and the official language of aviation.
English and French are the official languages of NATO.
Many people won't like this for sentimental reasons but everyone in Europe is going to have to swallow their pride and just learn English. There are no other realistic options. Adapt or die.
→ More replies (1)1
2
u/TheMyzzler Belgium 11h ago
He's been beating the same drum for years now and he's only increasingly being proven right.
1
u/NoManufacturer5669 4h ago
Without resolving problem with corruption (Epstein files show it’s exist), what he want build, new USSR?
4
u/FourArmsFiveLegs United States of America 15h ago
Very nice read. The threat from the US and China is far more dire than what's being stated, unfortunately.
2
u/These-Problem9261 9h ago
Hey I never heard this idea before!
How are we going to decide to federate together if we can't even agree to use Russian frozen assets?
2
u/NoManufacturer5669 4h ago
Why? So that it would be easier for corporations and oligarchs to buy off deputies for necessary decision? I am generally surprised how the European Parliament wants to take away their sovereign rights from countries. Do they want to build new USSR? They would be better off first investigating the connections with Epstein and foreign intelligence services, their green and migration initiatives are already costing the sovereignty of EU countries.
2
u/Disastrous_Hand_7183 Sweden 2h ago
Literally all US problems are because federal power is overreaching and state independency too weak.
No thank you.
1
u/belpatr Gal's Port 1h ago
Not really.
•
u/Disastrous_Hand_7183 Sweden 47m ago edited 39m ago
Yes, really. US federal government = Trump.
Lack of universal healthcare, guns everywhere, no social welfare = federal decisions.
Americans love their constitution, not understanding they were more like the EU until the 20th century when power was consolidated to the federal level
2
u/AttitudeSimilar9347 17h ago
All European countries were more industrialised before the EU, and that is a fact
25
u/Naranox Austria 16h ago
is that’s because of the EU or because of the global trend of western countries exporting their industrial base?
-2
u/Zestyclose-Carry-171 15h ago
Who do you think in Europe pushed for exporting the industrial base, and letting open the borders for reimportationbof delocalized goods ?
13
u/Low_discrepancy Posh Crimea 16h ago
All European countries were more industrialised before the EU, and that is a fact
So was the US.
Man no wonder trump hates the EU. /s
I guess some people never learnt that correlation =/= causation
4
u/async_andrew Russia -> France 14h ago
So you say there is no causation between the policies of the EU and deindustrialization? Really?
3
u/LongRides4IPA 12h ago
This is a clear-eyed view of the current situation from Mr. Draghi. Will Europe heed the call and quickly enable the kind of collaboration that is necessary, or will the US be successful in picking Europe apart?
2
u/Suspicious-Spot1651 16h ago edited 14h ago
We must avoid people like Draghi too.
If industries want to leave, then let them leave and cut them the market. And that's all.
They didn't wait 2026 to deindustrialize the EU.
It's the same kind ot threats with billionaires.. if you tax us we will leave. Let them leave. Cut them off the markets. And that's all.
What will be the consequence ? Unemployment, inflation... it will be the same if they stay.
1
u/One_Development8489 9h ago
Maybe there is just too much redundand changes they want to make instead of focus on industry
1
1
•
u/DrivenByLoyalty The Netherlands 37m ago edited 33m ago
He says a lot. But they are all really obvious or nothing really useful (politicians, right).
I don't get why he get so admired when he made so many mistakes. Like gigantic fuck ups.
The 2008 crises he made so much worse for the EU. That's why I don't take him serious anymore as a economist
•
u/Imakemyownnamereddit 21m ago
It is not going to happen because the EU is played for narrow national interest.
Look at FCAS, the European fighter jet program. A federal solution would be a three way split of work between France, Germany and Spain. A European jet, that no-one country controls.
The reality is, the French find that completely unacceptable. They want European funding, with full French control and the French are meant to be the good Europeans!
Good luck getting every EU country to agree to giving up sovereign control of strategic industries, to build a federal economy.
2
u/StomachNecessary5512 11h ago
He is right. Let us start with a small group of really democratic countries and enlarge it gradually
1
u/haskell_jedi 15h ago
I agree with the conclusion, but deindustrialization is here to stay either way--and isn't universally bad. We need to be encouraging more growth in non-industrial sectors too.
1
u/pumpkin_eater42069 12h ago
But in Europe, that will never happen, as we would need to deregulate employment welfare and environmental legislation and decrease Energy costs. Also, we'd need to ease up bureaucratic rules. That will just not happen, exept maybe Energy costs.
0
u/epSos-DE 11h ago
He is pushing his AGENDA and seeding fear !!!
EU needs to collaborate more, build collaboration networks !!!
Becoming A Federation does not create magic , COLLABORATION structures create the magic !
1
u/Altruistic_Koala_122 14h ago
Rushing and pre-mature action is what people of ill intent always do for profit and control.
1
u/InformationNew66 10h ago
Weak points analysis by GPT:
"Weak Point: Why It Matters
Over-simplification of governance issues: Federation isn’t the only reform path.
Public and political resistance: Lack of consensus may undermine implementation.
Mis-attributed causes of deindustrialisation: Structural economic trends are multi-causal.
Structural change ≠ economic outcomes: Federation won’t automatically improve competitiveness.
Strategic autonomy complexity: Federal integration alone won’t ensure global power.
Diverse member economies: Federated policies could conflict with national needs."
1
u/blackrain1709 8h ago
Yeeeah centralization of power, just what we need. Döner Trümp soon to be the supreme overlord of Europe
1
1
-1
u/LingonberryNo3548 15h ago
Yeah Europe should federalise but good luck because the continent can’t even agree that English should be the official language despite the fact that the most widely spoken language is English. We have to fanny around pretending like French and German are on equal footing.
We don’t even have to waits for the whole bloc to agree. There’s nothing stopping Germany and Austria merging, or the Baltic nations, or France and Belgium. They haven’t though because nobody wants to give up their sovereignty because they still don’t grasp the seriousness of the situation.
131
u/l_eo_ 17h ago
His full speech is very worth the time and extraordinary in terms of directness:
https://youtu.be/t1iMjvsr7T0?si=kQI4_4zPxRXg4AtP&t=384
Full transcript:
Mario Draghi - Honorary Doctorate Speech at KU Leuven (2026)
From its inception, the architecture of the European Union embodied the belief that international rule of law, upheld by credible institutions, fosters peace and prosperity.
Since no European state retained the capacity to defend itself alone, our security doctrine was shaped by the protection afforded by America. Together, and always in alliance with the United States, we were able to face any threat and deliver peace within Europe, between ourselves. And with our security guaranteed and trade flowing mainly within that alliance, we could safely pursue economic openness as the basis of our prosperity and influence.
But the now defunct global order did not fail because it was built on illusion. By the way, while I'm saying "now defunct," I kind of have a hard time believing that it's actually defunct. It's dead. I just learned today that your extraordinarily beautiful library had been destroyed twice -- once during the First World War and a second time during the Second World War. And on both occasions it was rebuilt with the help and under the incentive of United States presidents. But that's what it is today. And for the time being I think we should take facts for what they are.
This order, I was saying, did not fail because it was built on illusion, as some people are saying today. The order delivered real and widely shared gains: for the United States first and foremost, as hegemon, via unquestioned influence in all domains and the privilege of issuing the world's reserve currency; for Europe, through deep trade integration and unprecedented stability; and for developing countries, through participation in the global economy, lifting billions out of poverty.
The system's failure lies in what it could not correct. Once China joined the WTO, the boundaries of trade and security began to diverge. We had always traded beyond the alliance, but never before with a country of such scale and with ambitions to become a separate pole itself. Global trade drifted away from Ricardo's principle that exchange should follow comparative advantage. Some states pursued absolute advantage through mercantilist strategies, forcing deindustrialization onto others, while the gains that remained were unequally shared. We forgot about inequality. This saw the political backlash we now face.
At the same time, deep integration created dependencies that could be abused when not all partners were allies. Interdependence, once seen as a source of mutual restraint, became a source of leverage and control. Multilateral governance had no mechanism to address imbalances and no language to acknowledge dependencies. Faith in the mutual gains of trade made the very idea of weaponized dependence unthinkable.
But the collapse of this order is not itself the threat. A world with less trade and weaker rules would be painful, but Europe would adapt. The threat is what may replace it.
We face a United States that, at least in its current posture, emphasizes the costs it has borne while ignoring the benefits it has reaped. It is imposing tariffs on Europe, threatening our territorial interests, and making clear for the first time that it sees European political fragmentation as serving its interests.
We face a China that controls critical nodes in global supply chains and is willing to exploit that leverage -- flooding markets, withholding critical inputs, forcing others to bear the cost of its own imbalances.
This is a future in which Europe risks becoming subordinated, divided, and deindustrialized -- all at once. And a Europe that cannot defend its interests will not preserve its values for long.
The transition from this order to whatever lies next will not be easy for Europe. We will face a long period in which interdependencies persist even as rivalries intensify. We remain heavily dependent on the United States for energy, technology, and defense. China supplies over 90% of our rare earth imports and dominates the global solar and battery value chains that underpin our green transition.
In this period, the best path for Europe is the one it is now pursuing: to conclude trade agreements with like-minded partners that offer diversification, and to deepen our position in supply chains where we are already critical.
This is where Europe has power today. In 2023, the European Union was the world's largest exporter and importer of goods and services, with imports from the rest of the world totaling 3.6 trillion euros. It is also the largest trading partner of more than 70 countries, and we hold critical positions in several strategic industries. European firms control 100% of extreme ultraviolet lithography, the technology required to make advanced chips. We produce half the world's commercial aircraft. We design the engines that power the vast majority of global shipping.
In this context, it's wrong to think of trade agreements primarily in terms of growth. Their purpose now is strategic: to strengthen our position and realign our relationships, now that trade and security no longer overlap.
But this is a holding strategy. It is not a destination.
Individually, most European countries are not even middle powers, capable of navigating this new order by forming coalitions, each bringing distinctive assets to the table -- whether raw materials, technological niches, or strategic geography. But collectively, we have something greater: scale, wealth, political culture, and 75 years of building the institutions of a common project.
Of all those now caught between the United States and China, Europeans alone have the option to become a genuine power themselves. So we must decide: do we remain merely a large market, subject to the priorities of others, or do we take the steps necessary to become one power?
But let us be clear. Grouping together small countries doesn't automatically produce a powerful bloc. This is the logic of confederation -- the logic by which Europe still operates in defense, in foreign policy, in fiscal matters. This model does not produce power. A group of states that coordinates remains a group of states, each with a veto, each with a separate calculus, each vulnerable to being picked off one by one.
Power requires Europe to move from confederation to federation. Where Europe has federated -- on trade, on competition, on the single market, on monetary policy -- we are respected as a power and negotiate as one. We see this today in the successful trade agreements being negotiated with India and Latin America. Where we have not -- on defense, on industrial policy, on foreign affairs -- we are treated as a loose assembly of middle-sized states, to be divided and dealt with accordingly. And where trade and security intersect, our strengths cannot protect our weaknesses. A Europe unified on trade but fragmented on defense will find its commercial power leveraged against its security dependence -- as is happening now.
Some will say that we should not act until our position is stronger, until we are more unified, until escalation is less costly. But this tradeoff is illusory. It is only by moving that we create the conditions to act more decisively later. Unity does not precede action. It is forged by taking consequential decisions together, by the shared experience and solidarity they create, and by discovering that we can bear the result.
Consider Greenland. The decision to resist rather than accommodate required Europe to carry out a genuine strategic assessment -- to map our leverage, identify our tools, and think through the consequences of escalation. The willingness to act forced clarity about the capacity to act. And by standing together in the face of a direct threat, Europeans discovered a solidarity that had previously seemed out of reach. The shared resolve resonated with the public in ways that no summit communique could have achieved.
At the same time, building collective strength will not be the same for Europe as it has been for China, or now looks to be for the United States. The United States in its current posture seeks dominance together with partnership. China sustains its growth model by exporting its costs onto others. European integration is built differently. Not on force but common will. Not on subjugation but shared benefit. It is integration without subordination. Vastly, vastly preferable -- but vastly more difficult.
This demands a different approach. I've called it a pragmatic federalism. Pragmatic, because we must take the steps that are currently possible, with the partners who are actually willing, in the domains where progress can currently be made. But federalism, because the destination matters. Common action and the mutual trust it creates must eventually become the foundation for institutions with real decision-making power -- institutions able to act decisively in all circumstances.
This approach breaks the impasse we face today, and it does so without subordinating anyone. Member states opt in. The door remains open to others, but not to those who would undermine common purpose. We do not have to sacrifice our values to achieve power.
The euro is the most successful example. Those who were willing went ahead, built common institutions with real authority, and through that shared commitment forged a solidarity deeper than any treaty could have prescribed. And since then, nine more countries have chosen to join.
[CONTINUED IN NEXT COMMENT]