We have received a number of questions and objections—often expressed with great passion, mostly on X—regarding our proposal for a federal Europe. The following text is not meant as a final word, but rather as a clarification of our positions and a contribution to a debate we believe to be of vital importance.
1. Criticism: “The EU as it exists today is dysfunctional—why would we want more of it?”
This is one of the most frequent criticisms we hear. Many opponents of a federal Europe argue that since the current European Union is opaque, bureaucratic, and unaccountable, a stronger or more centralized Europe can only make things worse.
We agree fully that the EU, in its current form, has reached its limits. The intergovernmental model has created a dense web of bureaucracy that shields policymakers from democratic accountability. It has made genuine political opposition to EU policies almost impossible, and it has contributed to Europe’s decline in global relevance over the past two decades.
But this is not an argument against federalism. It is an argument for it. A federal Europe—structured with a bicameral legislature, a clear division of competences, and a degree of state autonomy comparable to that enjoyed by U.S. states—would be more democratic than the current arrangement. It would provide clarity where there is now obfuscation and restore the possibility of meaningful political contestation at the European level.
2. Criticism: “Federalism undermines national sovereignty.”
Much of the debate revolves around the question of sovereignty. According to Merriam-Webster, sovereignty in the sense we are discussing means “freedom from external control.” In a democratic society, sovereignty ultimately belongs to the people. Yet no state is ever fully sovereign: all are constrained by economic pressures, military alliances, and the asymmetries of power that characterize the international system. Sovereignty, then, should be seen as a spectrum—from outright subjugation to meaningful self-determination.
Our critics are right to observe that sovereignty in Europe today is fragile. The EU is vulnerable to the influence of external powers, and it is often unclear which institution—or indeed which body politic—truly holds decision-making authority. But the conclusion we draw from this is different.
Those who call for a return to national sovereignty believe that European states would be more autonomous outside a common framework. We argue that this is an illusion. In the 21st century, small- and medium-sized European states acting alone are even less capable of protecting their autonomy. Faced with the economic and geopolitical weight of the United States, China, and other global powers, even France and Germany would be coerced into hard compromises. To preserve sovereignty today, one must pool it—building a collective framework that gives Europeans the power to act together.
3. Criticism: “A federation would only replicate the EU’s flaws.”
Here we must emphasize the key difference between intergovernmentalism and federalism. The current model removes sovereignty from the peoples of Europe by insulating decisions within elite bargaining processes. A federal structure would return sovereignty to citizens by creating a genuinely contested political space.
Such a space would allow European voters to hold leaders accountable, to debate pan-European policies openly, and to draw a sharper line between what belongs to federal competence and what remains with the member states. The result would be a clearer, more transparent, and more democratic Europe than the system we now endure.
4. Criticism: “Membership in such a federation would be forced.”
On this point we wish to be absolutely emphatic: coercion has no place in our vision. Participation in a federal Europe should be decided by the voters of each country. Should only a subset of states—whether inside or outside the current EU—choose to federate, they should be free to do so. Others should be equally free to remain outside. The federation would, of course, remain open to new members should they later decide to join.
5. An Invitation to Dialogue
We hope this clarifies what we stand for, and what we do not. We are not defending the EU as it is. We are not advocating the erosion of democracy in the name of efficiency. We are not proposing coercion or exclusion.
What we are arguing for is that Europe’s current trajectory is untenable—and that federalism offers a democratic and realistic alternative.
We welcome criticisms, counter-arguments, and suggestions. The debate is not only necessary; it is urgent. We invite all who care about Europe’s future to join us in shaping it.