We need a european empire

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#1
For too long europe has been divided and instead of uniting european countries has fought each other in senseless wars. We can do far better than that. We can built a strong European union that is stronger than all other countries on earth combined.

Europe should be more like the roman empire and yes that does include gladiator games.



The union shall be far bigger than this, we shall eventually rule over the entire planet. Right now adding ukraine to the union is very important (including Crimea obviously).
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#2
How to fix the European Union
The issue with the EU right now is that it is far to weak, we need to give EU far more power to overrule individual nation states so we can fix any issues there. We might want to remove the ability of nation-states to make their own laws and only have EU legislation. These changes can theoretically be made while remaining members of the European Union but there is the last resort option to simply have most people leave the EU and then join EU 2.0

Solution0: pure elite rule
We give an elite (7 to 99 individuals) unlimited power, no separations of power. They themselves will select their own successors.

https://vintologi.com/threads/elite-rule.24

Solution1: Create a European senate that can be replaced via super-majority
The individual senators will pick their own successors. In order to forcefully replace individual senators (or all senators) a vote will be held in the senate and also by the the EU parliament or individual member states, then we look at the combined results from these votes.

The senators will have a ranking where A0 (if he/she voted) will decide the outcome in the case of a draw, if A0 didn't vote then the A1 vote will instead be deciding and so on. This vote will have to be initiated by a senator.

For example you can have a EU parliament with 705 seats and 15 senators with 47 votes each, the senate will decide the outcome in the case of a draw.

Solution2: Europe-wide senate elections
Every 2 years an election is held where Europeans vote to elect a member of the senate. The senate will have 7 to 15 seats and each senator elected will only get 1 term.

Each senator will of course be provided a hefty budget for staff.

Solution3: Have the EU parliament appoint a government
It will be like solution1 except ordinary majority will be enough to replace senators.

Solution4: Replace the Eu parliament with national parliaments
Ideally the size of the national parliaments shall be changed such that we can just count the votes for and against (instead of having some votes count for more than others). These national parliaments will appoint a board of 7 to 34 individual that will governed the European Union.

Solution5: Marge the parliament and the commission
This will be similar to solution 1 but instead of a undemocratic senate we have something like the current EU comission, where each members of that commission has more than 1 vote, they can be given more votes in total than the parliament so if they are unanimous a vote in the EU parliament will not be needed.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#4
Is there even any need for nation-specific legislation?
The reason why we have it today is for the sake of democracy but we should be allow individual states to appease the mob rather than doing what's actually good for Europe.

Once you give up on democracy it becomes a lot harder to justify having all these nation-specific laws. Why not just have the same laws for all of Europe? Is there even a single law that has to differ between different European nations?
Laws need to be different to reflect differences in opinion
No they do not, we do not need to legislate based on regional (or even national) popularity, we need to legislate based on what's actually good for society.
Having national laws allows some countries to have better policies
If individual countries cannot veto EU legislation then you will still risk having to face bad legislation due to bad EU decisions. We see than in the United states.
Laws need to be different since different nations are in different circumstances
While there can be a need for area-specific legislation in the cases where its needed it will not actually be with respect to national borders. Example of this is sars-cov-2 and wildlife protections which both often need to be tailored for different areas even within one nation.
Decentralized administration is more effective
Of course it is correct that often when governing something you need to let different individuals/groups specialize since one individual/board cannot make all decisions that does not mean legislation has to be different.

For example we can let national parliaments finance things like police, healthcare, infrastructure, schools, etc specifically for their nations.

Overspecialization will however bring a lot of problems which is why we need a strong central government that can always over-rule any regional 'government'. We need a strong central government looking out for Europe as a whole, not just special interests of individual nations.

https://vintologi.com/threads/the-overspecialization-problem.898/
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#5
Local administrative regions
This will allow us to better tailor policy to the local situation if needed.


One advantage with breaking up european nations like this is that it would weaken the members making it far easier for the european government to exercise its control.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#6
Europe can conquer the entire planet
There is nothing saying we cannot get strong enough to conquer the rest of the planet. The reason why we have not managed to do so in the past is because other powers has managed to keep us divided fighting each other.

Our population is larger than the US population so there is no reason for not also having a stronger military. With superior leadership we will be able to build weapons (uncluding hydrogen bombs) enough to be stronger than the rest of the world combined.

 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#7
Bringing back gladiator games
Most gladiator games in the roman empire did not result in participants dying. Instead of using criminals for this (potentially glorifying them in the process) we could maybe make these games even safer and instead have people fight for glory.

We could maybe allow some wrong-doers to potentially redeem themselves in a gladiator tournament lifting them up as example of people changing for the better (1/2 to 1/16 will survive and be set free, the rest would die).

Maybe we should repair the Colosseum?

 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#8
Our focus now should be to build a strong union, not conquest
Obviously talking openly about conquering other countries in the future while you are still weak is not a great strategy since that would incentivize other countries to invade us.

We shall also spur conflict between other countries (such as USA vs China) and ideally these should fight each other while we are preparing to world domination.
 

Duglasvka

New member
Messages
2
#9
Why a Unitary Europe is better than a federal European Union
The issue with federalism is that it allow individual states to create laws that would be bad for what should be our great empire, there is no good reason to allow that.

With a unitary Europe we only need to worry about the EU making a law that is bad, otherwise we will have to worry about 2 governments potentially screwing up.

Even with a unitary Europe we can still have legislation that only apply to some area of Europe but that does not necessarily have to follow the will of the people of that area, for example we might need to do a very strict lockdown in Sweden to prevent the spread of a dangerous decease and this might go against the will of the Swedish people.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#10
Regarding the 'collapse' of the roman empire
First of all it only west Rome 'collapsed' 478 and this was because of an invasion and the fact that people were fed up with the rulers and often sided with the invaders, the society also didn't collapse, it was reformed and the new ruler was approved by the roman senate.


People like to blame the collapse on things they dislike "this was why Rome collapsed" but it really came down to very bad internal division and people not liking the ones who were governing the society, there is no big mystery here and it's not really surprising either.

The byzantine empire (earlier called East Rome) lasted until 1453 since people there at large supported their government.

Compared to other smaller countries the roman empire lasted way longer and was a lot more functional.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#11
Is Europe too unwilling to do unpleasant things? (war, etc)
For a long time rather than having our own proper military we have relied far too much on other countries like the US for our security, that's obviously a bad idea.

France is now the only EU country with nuclear weapons.

Europe in general is very unwilling to go to war even when we have the advantage (such as a war against Turkey to take back Cyprus) and we have also failed to set up a proper professional military (relying on conscription is ineffective in addition to violating basic rights).

Furthermore our humanist morality make it difficult to justify using nuclear weapons to win wars, this (and our humanist morality in general) put us at a severe disadvantage in conflicts against other countries who do not care about these things (russia, china, etc).

We also saw Europe generally failing at dealing with sars-cov-2 due to governments being to unwilling to use the Chinese approach and we also lacked a strong and effective central government.

healthdata.org/special-analysis/estimation-excess-mortality-due-covid-19-and-scalars-reported-covid-19-deaths
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#12
The west has gone very extreme in the "avoid harm" direction but since we live with that now most of us view that as normal even though historically it very much isn't.


Eventually we will have change or ways or our society will fall to something stronger.

 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#13
Europe is waking up to the reality that we cannot rely on the US for our defense
People have pushed for an european army for years (for very good reasons) but finally this is getting some traction thanks to the afghanistan fiasco.

theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/15/von-der-leyen-eu-state-of-union-speech-political-will-build-own-military

Having a decentralized military (one for each nation) does have both advantages and disadvantages compared to one single army controlled by a european empire. In the case of nuclear weapons it's a lot safer to have it controlled by a single central government than to give all 27 governments nukes since it only takes one government to screw up by using nukes when they shouldn't be used for very bad things to happen. Right now only france has nuclear weapons leaving the rest of Europe near defenceless against aggression (unclear if NATO will be there for them when they need it the most).

The united states voters do not really care that much about other countries and this creates a strong political incentives to throw other countries under the bus when they need NATO help. Them abandoning the Afghan government is just the beginning.

In the WWII the US helped Europe against nazism (after sitting out the war for years) but in the future it might be Europe having to intervene to save the US, they do not seem to be doing too well right now and it's probably not going to get any better.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#14
Why you shouldn't support Volt (European Party)
They are socially progressive and wants to make EU stronger and more democratic

https://assets.volteuropa.org/2021-08/Volt Mapping of Policy 8th Edition August 2021.pdf

Besides for them promoting democracy and federalism (instead of a unified Europe) there are many issues with their party program
Make abortion available and affordable for all women {88} and ensure that women have access to contraception
{89}. Approach sexual and reproductive health and rights holistically, as a key issue of gender equality and health.
It's not in the interest of society to let all females abstain from reproduction or abort healthy children.

They mentioned nothing in their program regarding support for teen mothers, looks like they only support females if they want to kill their babies in the womb.
Ending tax avoidance & evasion, increasing tax collection efficiency
Maybe the issue is taxes being too high?
EUdecline.jpg

It does not seem like the socialist policies implemented by most EU countries has worked particularly well.
Anchor income tax to the level of inequality in the country so that its progressivity would increase when the GINIcoefficient (level of inequality) increases in the country.
That's not a good idea, there is no good reason to have the tax-rate depend on income inequality. It seems like Volt wants to tax people just to reduce inequality rather than doing what's actually good for society.

Having some people be more successful than others can be valuable in motivating people to do a better job instead of being complacent. Of course this will also trigger envy but as long as you keep the masses under control that shouldn't be a major issue.
Women are still treated unfairly, face more barriers than their male counterparts, are subject to specific types of violence, and are discriminated against in their private, public and professional lives. An example of this is the fact that women are heavily discriminated against in the workplace: they tend to have lower salaries, are underrepresented in senior management positions, and experience
workplace bullying and harassment
The link provided doesn't exactly show a wage-gap for females doing the same job

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/08/01/are-women-paid-less-than-men-for-the-same-work

The difference was so small (0.8 to 3 percent) that it's unclear if there really is any discrimination going on. If females were paid less doing an equally good job than you as a company would benefit from mostly hiring females since then you get more for your money which would result in female wages increasing, a gender/sex/race wage-cap would thus be a self-correcting problem.

btw: most murder victims are male.
Set a 40% quota for women on the boards of all publicly traded enterprises
That's idiotic and insulting to females that do not need quotas to get a seat on a board.

It's in the interest of society (and shareholders) that the most suitable board members are selected and this should not be based on things like biological sex, ethnicity or gender identity.

A potential redeeming quality is them supporting gender-identity ideology potentially allowing cis males to identity as female to get a seat on these boards, this would actually be a good thing but we shouldn't have to resort to that on the first place (and could result in animosity towards trans people), in addition a lot of males would probably be unwilling to go that route just to get a seat on some board.

If you would randomly assign gender to 10 people you would get less than 4 of 10 of one gender 10.9375% of the time illustrating how gender quotas forced discrimination based on gender even in fields where males and females are equally as likely to be ideal for these positions. Should we also have gender quotas for prisons enforcing 40% of the inmates to be female for the sake of gender equality?

Incentivize girls and women to enter careers in which they are often underrepresented
why?

Why does the gender composition matter?
Challenge legislation that requires transgender individuals to do the following to change their gender legally: undergo medical procedures
You are not transsexual in the first place if you are not taking any steps to transition medically.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transmaxxing/comments/oosr45/the_case_for_woman_adult_human_female/

Prohibit medically unnecessary “sex-normalising” surgery, sterilisation and other treatments practised on intersex babies and children
Why only protect intersex people?

Luckily male genital mutilation isn't common in Europe but nothing in their program specifically bans it. The fact that something is uncommon does not mean it should be legal. We need to protect children from harmful treatments in general, be stricter with evidence based medicine.

https://vintologi.com/threads/studies-on-psychiatric-drugs.591/

A living space for everyone
Nothing is mentioned about expanding the European borders. Anything less than the entire planet is cucked and idiotic.
Legalize sex work, while heavily regulating the profession.
It's not clear that heavy regulation would be beneficial.
Volt believes that every person has the right to determine how to end their life with dignity, as long as no other person’s life is harmed. A wide range of support should be available and accessible for those people seeking help, in addition to medical attention, e.g. palliative medicine to alleviate pain, hospices to offer psychological or spiritual support, or flexible work-time to allow family members to care for dying relatives. In particularly grave situations of "constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, {359}" a person may seek assistance to terminate their life and deserves to be supported to do so with dignity.
It's often not in the interest of society to just let people die (even if they themselves want to die) they are not the only one who will be affected by that decision.

People who are at high risk for killing themselves may need to be monitored in order to make sure they do not seriously harm themselves.

They even think that assisted suicide should be allowed in the case of people in severe pain/suffering, it's often not in the interest of society to just allow that.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#15
The role of national parliaments/boards in unified Europe
National parliaments (such as the Swedish Riksdag) will no longer be allowed to make any laws by themselves. Instead all laws will be made in a European level and this will include legislation regarding taxation.

There will be a single flat tax for all of Europe, some of that money will go to national parliaments and some will go to the European empire.

Members of national courts will be appointed by central European court, national parliaments can be allowed to suggest candidates but the European court does not have to go along with that at all.

Example of areas national parliaments can focus on are

0.
Education
1. Healthcare
2. national policing.
3. Rehabilitation of criminals.

There will be a strong common European defence, in addition to that national parliaments can spend money on their national armies but that is optional.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#16
Why we shouldn't allow national parliaments to make laws
Allowing 27+ different parliaments to make laws will result in a very fragmented legal environment making it harder for business to operate among other issues. What's legal in one state/nation will be illegal in another and this will be problematic for the citizens of the empire to deal with.

Full legal unification will make it a lot easier for companies to operate in multiple European nations.

One big problem with a federation is that then you end up with legal tension between the federal government and state/local governments. It's unclear where the authority of the state government ends and where the authority of local/state/national governments begin. We have enough trouble putting trying to limit the power of just one government over the citizens (very likely an exercise in futility).

1635069362381.png
 

Sergyoq

New member
Messages
3
#17
Bitter lessons from the American civil war
The danger of having both a federal government and states under said government is that you might end up with a situation where countries want to break away from the Union. The southern states wanted to do exactly that and this resulted in a very destructive war.

This wouldn't have happened if there was just one central government with proper control over the people. This also wouldn't have happened if states were allowed to leave without the consent of other states (like for the EU).

One issue with allowing states to leave however is that then you might invest into some area (such as by building infrastructure, defending it against invasion, etc) only to see it break away from the Union and become hostile to you. You do not want to let parts of your territory fall to the enemy or become neutral if it can be avoided.
 

Claire_Lovely

Active member
Messages
88
#18
Is there even any need for nation-specific legislation?
The reason why we have it today is for the sake of democracy but we should be allow individual states to appease the mob rather than doing what's actually good for Europe.

Once you give up on democracy it becomes a lot harder to justify having all these nation-specific laws. Why not just have the same laws for all of Europe? Is there even a single law that has to differ between different European nations?
I definitely agree with this statement. Laws should be based on what is truly right and wrong and there shouldn't be a reason that it varies between locations. However, at the same time if larger governments are oppressive than secession could be seen as an ability to gain more freedoms. Usually though I feel that most unions or secession are not done for this kind of thinking but merely benefiting specific interests.

An empire would be necessary but one that operates in benevolency of its citizens.
 

adolf512

Staff member
Moderator
Messages
370
#19
An empire would be necessary but one that operates in benevolency of its citizens.
The issue with that idea is that societal survival of the fittest is likely to enforce inhumane policies since if you do not do these things your society will be put at a disadvantage.

For example we are seing Europe being significantly behind USA, russia and china when it comes to military power. The US also has the most prisoners and prisoners/capita.
 

Claire_Lovely

Active member
Messages
88
#20
For example we are seing Europe being significantly behing USA, russia and china when it comes to military power. The US also has the most prisoners and prisoners/capita.
Military expansionism is actually a large weakness and why so many people in the United States live in poverty and why many nations have instability. Europe has taken a much better approach through peace but the problem is that they are attempting to force the United States to defend them through NATO when NATO should be abolished. The United States having the most prisoners is also likely related to its focus on the wrong things like militarism instead of rehabiliatating society like countries like Norway and Sweden do.
 

Claire_Lovely

Active member
Messages
88
#22
The US hasn't expanded their borders since 1959 and in terms of economics even their poorest 20% are doing pretty well

https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than_europe
Expansionism I mean by military bases overseas and endless military expenditures. Also in terms of GDP the United States may rank better than Europe, but poverty in the United States promotes unique issue like obesity and unhealthy lifestyle. The same can be true in Europe to a degree but America suffers from a great degree of suburban sprawl that needs to be addressed. We would benefit here by having public transportation systems similar to Europe.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#23
Expansionism I mean by military bases overseas and endless military expenditures.
That's mostly just benefitting the military industrial complex, their military isn't used for the benefit of the citizens.
Also in terms of GDP the United States may rank better than Europe, but poverty in the United States promotes unique issue like obesity and unhealthy lifestyle.
It might be that people in the US feel subjugated (because they are) and lose motivation to take care of themselves. For example in many US states you cannot legally fuck a 17 year old female, where is the freedom?

1636117166088.png


The US also has the higher incarceration rate in the world.

The same can be true in Europe to a degree but America suffers from a great degree of suburban sprawl that needs to be addressed. We would benefit here by having public transportation systems similar to Europe.
For various reasons there is never really money for these infrastructure projects in the US, instead loads of money are poured into healthcare for the least important members of society (old/poor) while the young and healthy are forced into paying high obamacare rates.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#24
The case for territorial expansion
In modern European societies there is basically zero appetite for territorial gains, you can just travel to some other European country without being subjected to any check at the border, you might not even notice any border.

When you have full democracy you cannot expand your borders without also adding people allowed to vote in elections unless you resort to genocide or forced relocation.

With elite rule or autocracy you do however have the option to expand your political control without having to reorientate your politics to please all the new voters you got.

Area you annex can be used as a buffer against hostile states. Controlling area can also have other significant military utilities such as allowing for military bases (without needing approval from some other country) and creating a larger area to choose from when someone tries to nuke you. You also get more room to retreat in the case the war is currently going badly.

Gaining control over more people potentially allow for more government revenue via taxation and more/better soldiers.

Gaining control over more agricultural land gives you more potential control over food production in the case of an emergency. A hostile countries may stop the export of food in an attempt to starve your population.

Gaining control over territory gives potentially gives you control over more natural resources such as oil and rare-earth minerals.

The more areas you take control over the less potentially hostile areas will remain. By conquering the entire planet you can secure a lasting peace eliminating the need for significant military spending and dangerous conflicts. You will no longer have to worry about billions of people dying in a nuclear war, you will not have to be powerless as civilians are bombed to death.

There are dangers with societal competition, societies will be pushed towards recklessness in order to be able to compete. It can be recklessness with weapons (such as arming nazis to fight in some war) but it can also be recklessness with regard to things like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#25
The case for military interventions in Belarus and Ukraine
We very much want to limit the area Russia can use to launch nuclear weapons while me maximize the area we control.

Being able to launch nukes into Russia from Ukraine is of significant strategic value. There is also value in having control of a country bordering Russia in the case a land-invasion is needed.

This is not something we should accept:

france24.com/en/europe/20220228-belarus-approves-hosting-nuclear-weapons-russian-forces-permanently
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#26
The French nukes
One big current issue with trying to achieve European strategic autonomy is france only controlling 300 nuclear weapons. This might be enough for France as a single country but it's not enough for a unified Europe, especially if we have to go to war in many places to expand our borders.

We need to at least match the nuclear capacity of USA and Russia, around 13000 nuclear weapons might be an acceptable compromise for now.

We should probably build giant nuclear bombs like 2x the Tsar bomba for the sake of intimidation even if more but smaller nukes are more effective militarily.

Of course we also need to use these fun weapons to demonstrate that we are crazy enough to pull the trigger, a 200 MT bomb on Moscow is a nice start, actually we should send more.

And of course we should also invest in the defese against nulcear weapons so they cannot effectively strike us back. This includes good shelters and missile defence systems.

https://vintologi.com/threads/societal-survival-of-the-fittest.979/#post-5994
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#27
Why we should annex parts of Africa
The African continent will likely become crucian for good production in the case of a severe nuclear winter. Therefore it's important that we have enough control there to make sure we can keep providing the Europeans with the food they need.

Most people there obviously would not accept an occupation so we will have to just expel them from the areas we gain control over. We can use chemical weapons against people refusing to leave.

Once we have the area under control we can start accepting migration from Africa and Europe among other areas, we will make sure that these people actually want to integrate into our expanding empire.

1648550969821.png
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#28
Why relying on USA for europen security is a very bad idea
The political situation in the united states does seem to be very unstable and difficult to predict. It's not clear what's going to happen or what the winners will be.

Looking at the current political situation in the US we the more radical left and the radical right going increasingly far to exercise their control. One big problem with the American Right is them pushing for fundamentalist Christianity.

https://vintologi.com/threads/countries-to-flee-to.318/#post-5985

There is a strong pressure on US political leaders to prioritize their growing domestic issues instead of taking on the role of trying to be some world-police.

It's obvious that Europe needs to start relying on ourselves and this should include strong nuclear capabilities.

0. Spreading out your population and important material/infrastructure over a large area
1. Having people and important infrastructure hidden under ground safe or mostly safe from nuclear weapons.
2. interception of nuclear missiles
3. Have great food stockpiles (ideally lasting years).
4. Doing a first strike to severely damage the nuclear capability of the country you are invading.
5. Deterring a retaliation by having a lot of nukes yourself so a leader might be afraid to hit back even if you nuke them and not escalate to a nuclear conflict if you start with a conventional invasion.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#29
EU is too weak, Democratic and bureaucratic.
It's unclear whether this can fix by reform or if more radical steps will be needed to achieve proper European governance.

Weakness
EU doesn't have any proper military, instead the defense of individual member-states has to be relied upon. It would be better to focus on a single strong nuclear army than to rely on alliances like NATO (which has never really been tested).

A stronger EU (with thousands of nukes, etc) would be a much better deterrence against russian aggression and allow for territorial expansion.

Democracy
Democracy produces mediocre governance, you can never reach the heights possible with elite rule.

https://vintologi.com/threads/elite-rule.24/

Europe will probably have to transition to elite rule at some point in order to compete against other powers, that however is rather risky.

A compromise is to have EU election every 2 years to a senate of 7 to 15 people where one of the senators is replaced for each election. That would create stability while also providing people with the ability to choose their own leaders, this has less potential than pure elite rule but should be better than the current system.

Bureaucracy
There isn't a single clear EU authority, instead power is separated into different bodies making effective governance a lot more difficult.
The most effective form of governance is a single unitary government at the top in full control over society (such as a senate with 9 seats).

 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,032
#30
Verhofstadt: EU unfit for emerging 'new Age of Empires', time to act
Maybe a bit surprisingly it turns out that some european politicians does understand what the age of many independent nation states is coming to an and and that imperialism is the future.

https://euobserver.com/opinion/156350

It has been eight months since the war started and a new period in human history was born on our live TV screens. After the Cold War that started in Yalta, and after the victory of liberal democracy that culminated in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new era has begun: a 'new Age of Empires'.

This new world order will not be based on the sovereignty of 199 individual countries, but on a brutal competition between big continental blocs — militarily as well as politically, economically and technologically. A competition not only on earth, but also in space, and not only physically, but also virtually on the internet.

By securing a third term, Xi has moved China from an autocracy to a dictatorship, to which India and Russia look jealously. A return of Trump is all too easily thinkable. Ultimately, we will not escape an existential fight between autocracy and democracy.

The inconvenient truth is that the European Union is not ready for this new age and the confrontations that it brings.

Instead of our democracies linking arms, implementing reforms and taking decisive action jointly, we see a lot of hesitation. Compared to the immediate and massive reaction of the Americans, the response of the European Union to the brutal invasion in Ukraine was slow and weak.
Besides the efforts of a few Central European and Baltic member states, the delivery of arms to Ukraine remain modest. And on sanctions the different packages come as fast as they are minimal.

Unlike the US, Europe will have no embargo on Russian oil in place until the beginning of next year. And from the so called 'Navalny list' of 6.000 citizens, who are the backbone of Putin's war machine, only 1,262 people have been sanctioned. Someone like Elvira Nabiullina for example, a key pillar of the regime as head of the Russian Central Bank, is sanctioned in the US, the UK and elsewhere, but not in Europe.

This reluctant European response is caused by the obsolete institutional system of the Union, a system still based on unanimity.

A veto by whoever of the 27 member states — be it a big or a small one — is sufficient to block any decision. Moreover, tensions as we see today, between the governments of France and Germany add to the incapacity to act.

It reminds us of the financial crisis. Also then, the Union settled for too little, too late, as if that's the best we can do. This was far removed from the decisive action taken during Covid , when we crossed boundaries in tackling the pandemic and raised the bar, with the NextGenerationEU fund, financed trough European bonds and new own resources.

Today we get nothing of all this, even when in-depth reforms in two crucial areas stand out.

First in energy. Instead of instantly creating a fully fledged Energy Union (breathing life into a promise made in 2006 at Hampton Court), we are taking reactive measures only. Vague 'roadmaps', 'dynamic price corridors' or 'voluntary common purchases' will not do the job. Even with the recent lowering of gas prices, we pay three times more for our gas than the Americans.

To tackle this, we need a real Energy Union. And that means the establishment of a common purchase platform that uses the EU's combined weight to shift markets (and not for 15% of the purchases). On top of that, a security fund to invest in renewables and common grids is needed. And finally an energy assistance plan to support households and businesses, instead of 27 national plans that fragment the single market. As we did with Covid, European bonds must be issued for that purpose.

Second in defence. The use of the European Peace Facility (EPF) to supply weapons to Ukraine and the common training of Ukrainian soldiers, is certainly useful, but it falls short of the dramatic shift we desperately need.

Today, the member states of the EU combined spend four times Russia's military budget. Together we spend roughly the same amount as China. And we get much, much less defence power in return.

The call for an increase of current budgets is totally useless if we don't end duplication, through the creation of a real European Defence Community (EDC) as the European pillar of NATO. Such a community will contain the establishment of joint armed forces on the level of the EU, as well as the common and mandatory procurement of weapons, an absolute necessity to reduce the inflation of weapons systems in place today.
A European Defence Community is simply a precondition to survive in the new, threatening era that began on the 24th of February.

A geopolitical Europe is only possible if we are ready to redefine our politics and to reform our institutions. By giving up veto rights and by sharing sovereignty in the domains where we need it most. By eliminating autocratic rule within the EU so that they stop undermining our actions and credibility. By creating a sustainable European budget based on EU wide bonds and genuine own resources — in sharp contrast to the current financing based on member states contributions, which only leads to friction and fragmented policies.
It's time to act.

The Commission has to outline and come forward with a global and ambitious vision for the future and at the same time table a numbers of reforms to make it happen. Like Jacques Delors did by tackling the crisis through the launch of the single market and the preparation for a single European currency.

Equally, national governments have to come out of their comfort zone to shape Europe together, including the prospect for change treaties. And if all this is not possible with 27, let's move forward with a coalition of the willing. With authoritarianism on the march, we can no longer be allowed to be held back.
 
Top