Introduction: In Europe, national governments increasingly find themselves constrained by the overarching policies of the European Union (EU), leaving them unable to fully address the concerns of their citizens. This disconnect is sparking widespread protests as people seek changes that their governments seem unable to implement. This article explores the evolving dynamics of political discourse in Europe and the implications for national sovereignty.
National governments across Europe are struggling to tackle domestic issues effectively. Regardless of their political ideologies, once in power, these governments are bound by the regulations established by the European Union. Citizens are expressing their frustration through protests, demanding alterations that their leaders cannot fulfill.
In a speech on September 18, 2026, Gabriel Attal, a protégé of President Macron and former Prime Minister of France, advocated for a shift towards a “United States of Europe.” This bold proposal aims to set him apart in the political arena and is not merely a spontaneous idea.
Attal’s vision aligns closely with the framework put forth by French President Emmanuel Macron. In his influential Sorbonne address in April 2024, Macron cautioned that “our Europe is mortal, it can die” unless it attains genuine strategic autonomy. He has been a proponent of a “two-speed Europe,” allowing member states willing to deepen integration in areas like defense and industrial policy to do so without being hindered by unanimous decision-making or vetoes from others.
Following this, Mario Draghi’s report on European competitiveness argued that the EU faces an imminent economic crisis that demands federal-level coordination. He warned that, without collective action, Europe risks suffering a “slow agony” due to competition with the U.S. and China. Draghi called for unified financing, a comprehensive capital markets union, and collaborative defense and technology procurement.
Just three days before Attal’s speech, Ursula von der Leyen highlighted the necessity for a unified approach in her State of the Union address, citing external threats and economic vulnerabilities that nation-states cannot tackle alone. She proposed steps towards establishing a Defense Union, creating a position for an EU Defense Commissioner, and advancing a “One Europe, One Market” initiative alongside potential treaty modifications for more efficient decision-making.
Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, has consistently championed a federalist approach to the EU, claiming that the traditional nation-state model falls short in addressing global financial crises and geopolitical risks. Even those previously opposed to federalism are beginning to soften their stances.
For instance, Giorgia Meloni, who campaigned on a eurosceptic platform advocating for Italy’s exit from the Eurozone, has since transitioned to a position that promotes Italy’s influential role within the EU, envisioning it as an “alliance of homelands.” Marine Le Pen, known for her calls for “Frexit,” has similarly shifted her focus towards internal EU reform rather than withdrawal.
Approximately a year ago, I argued that one major factor fueling Europe’s involvement in the Ukraine conflict against Russia arises from the EU’s lack of statehood and its consequent problems related to the euro. The euro, supported by the European Central Bank (ECB), is not governed by a sovereign nation, but rather by a coalition of member states, leading to inherent complexities.
I posited that a fundamental reason for the creation of a state is the need for protection against outside threats, with Russia currently serving as such a threat. This scenario might justify the EU’s existence, given that without a cohesive EU, the future of the euro remains precarious.
The ramifications of dismantling the euro are so intricate that it seems European central planners—the European Commission—have determined that the only viable route is greater integration of member states into a federal framework. This goal has arguably been in motion since the Treaty of Rome in 1957, yet it presents significant challenges in garnering public support. Nonetheless, the EC’s policies over the past quarter-century suggest a shift is occurring, whether formally recognized or not.
National governments have ceded control over monetary policy to the ECB, relinquishing their rights to manage their own currencies. They have also transferred border and immigration oversight to EU entities, enforced by national authorities—a consequence of the Schengen Agreement. Foreign policy and trade decisions are increasingly centralized, as noted in agreements like Mercosur and discussions with the U.S. on tariffs with China. Additionally, environmental and energy policies are increasingly subjected to EU regulations, especially in response to sanctions against Russia.
I am not here to debate the merits or drawbacks of these policies or further integration into a federal entity. Rather, my focus is on the growing political discourse advocating for this integration and the corresponding policy agenda. A significant driving force behind this momentum appears to be the preservation of the euro by fostering a European federal state—a strategy with profound implications at the national level.
For example, an open immigration policy could effectively bolster the workforce amid Europe’s declining birthrate (projected at 1.34 in 2024). A robust workforce becomes crucial, particularly if some are willing to accept lower wages, contributing positively to the economy. With such low fertility rates, it seems logical for central planners to endorse more liberal immigration policies. Furthermore, fostering a diversified population may dilute nationalist sentiments in individual states, facilitating support for a more unified Europe—making it a rational decision. However, this raises questions about public reception and the consequent impact on national politics.
This example serves not as a criticism or endorsement of specific immigration policies but illustrates how policies advocating for centralization can lead to diverse and far-reaching consequences. Similar reasoning can be applied to trade, foreign policy, and defense strategies.
Is it prudent for Europe to continue supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia? If the aim is to further centralize defense strategies and military procurement, thereby enhancing economic metrics and establishing a united front against external threats, then the answer may be affirmative. However, for the average citizen facing soaring energy costs and inflation, these higher-level strategies can be hard to comprehend.
This rationale could extend to numerous areas, including housing, education, and healthcare, revealing that EU-level policies often align with the goal of increased centralization. Consequently, national governments, regardless of their political affiliations, often lack the means to effectively respond to the challenges posed by these policies.
Take, for instance, the protection of agricultural production within the EU. Treaties like the one with Mercosur compel European producers to compete with external entities—a daunting challenge. Similarly, the EU’s insistence on raising military expenditures affects national budgets and priorities. Such policies are typically handed down from the top rather than initiated from the grassroots level.
Whether these policies are intentionally crafted to undermine national sovereignty or merely result from a strengthening of central governance remains an open question. A related inquiry might be whether the protests across Europe are instrumentalized to justify increased centralization or are simply a reaction to it. While the implications of the former scenario may be more concerning, the practical outcomes may converge in both cases.
Citizens are protesting because their social contexts are changing rapidly, often for the worse. They desire to reclaim lifestyles reminiscent of those enjoyed by previous generations and seek governments that can deliver on those aspirations. Rather than advocating for a revolutionary overhaul of the system, these protestors are striving to preserve the familiar status quo. Ironically, this desire is bolstering the support for right-wing parties that promise to restore the past.
However, given the current landscape, achieving such a restoration appears improbable. On one hand, the centralizing tendencies highlighted earlier severely limit national governments’ capacity to address various local challenges. On the other, global geopolitical shifts—including the realignment of U.S. power and the cessation of affordable energy from the East—impose their own intertwined demands. Lastly, a significant portion of Western welfare has relied on resource extraction from other regions.
If any political movement sought to address these interconnected challenges, it would be revolutionary. However, in the prevailing political climate, such a shift seems exceedingly unlikely.
Conclusion: As Europe grapples with the dual challenges of national demands and overarching EU policies, the dynamics of governance are distinctly shifting. Citizens’ protests highlight the growing discontent with the status quo, emphasizing the need for governmental accountability. The future of national sovereignty and EU integration remains uncertain, and the quest for effective solutions continues.
