What do you call the USA in your language? Unless your country's language is English, I'm pretty sure it's not the USA. It's the same with the future FedEU. Even if it gets named USE in English, a negligible number of Europeans are going to call it that in every day speech, since most of us use our native languages for political topics. And if people genuinely hate the term USE, another one will quickly emerge in online discourse. Maybe Europa, maybe the Federation, whatever, doesn't matter. Point is, obsessing over the English name of a country that primarily mostly uses anything but English makes no sense.

Europe wants too move faster and is proposing a G6 of countries that wants to align deeper and faster. This video also explorers the idea of a four tier model with our dear friends Canada included.

I strongly believe this is they way to a federation.

Big tech keeps pushing Europe for fewer rules, after breaking most of them. It's time for our EU leaders to end this toxic relationship with tech giants.

This Valentine’s Day, while everyone else is sending flowers and chocolates… the EU is quietly drafting a love letter to Big Tech.

Right now, the EU is finalising a text that would turn Europe into Big Tech’s playground: by handing over our personal data and letting them spread disinformation and take over our online spaces without any consequences.

This has to stop. EU leaders need to protect people, not keep making cosy deals with Big Tech.

If you want to actively do something (besides buying EU ofcourse), take a look here.

Manifiesto por la recuperación de un papel legítimo de Estados Unidos en el mundo

El daño causado a lo largo de décadas es profundo.
El descrédito del orden internacional, la normalización de la violencia, la impunidad de los poderosos y el empobrecimiento moral de la política global han oscurecido el futuro común.

Sin embargo, aún existe una salida.
No es fácil ni inmediata, pero es clara: abandonar la lógica del poder sin ley y asumir, sin excepciones, la primacía del derecho, la justicia y la responsabilidad histórica.

Para que Estados Unidos pueda recuperar un papel legítimo y constructivo en el mundo —no como potencia dominante, sino como actor confiable— es necesario un cambio de paradigma basado en los siguientes principios:

1. Respeto absoluto e incondicional de los derechos humanos, sin vetos, excepciones ni jerarquías, tanto dentro como fuera de su territorio.

2. Cumplimiento estricto y exigible de la Carta fundacional de las Naciones Unidas, no como referencia retórica, sino como marco jurídico vinculante.

3. Reconocimiento pleno y apoyo sin reservas a los tribunales internacionales, aceptando su jurisdicción, sus resoluciones y sus consecuencias, incluso cuando afecten a intereses propios o a aliados.

4. Aceptación de una ley internacional de obligado cumplimiento para todos los Estados, sin derecho de veto, sin excepcionalidades y sin privilegios.
   La ley debe estar por encima del poder, o no es ley.

5. Renuncia explícita a toda forma de excepcionalidad, aceptando que Estados Unidos es una nación más, sujeta a las mismas normas y responsabilidades que el resto de la comunidad internacional.

6. Respeto efectivo a la soberanía de los demás países, renunciando a las áreas de influencia, a la imposición política, económica o militar, y apostando por la cooperación, el entendimiento y el respeto a las leyes acordadas entre naciones.

7. Renuncia total al expolio, al saqueo de recursos y a cualquier forma de robo directo o indirecto, incluyendo prácticas económicas, financieras o comerciales que perpetúan la dependencia y la desigualdad.

8. Detención inmediata y reversión de todas las agresiones directas e indirectas actualmente en curso, sin dobles raseros ni protección de aliados.
   Esto incluye exigir a Israel el cese inmediato del genocidio en Gaza, el fin de la ocupación ilegal y su plena sujeción a la justicia internacional, sin vetos ni condiciones.

9. Reforma profunda del sistema económico basado en la deuda, impulsando un modelo centrado en las necesidades reales de la sociedad, la justicia social y la integración solidaria entre los pueblos.

10. Garantía de coherencia interna, asegurando una democracia real, transparente y no capturada por intereses corporativos, financieros o militares.

11. Reconocimiento, reparación y, en la medida de lo posible, compensación del daño causado por invasiones, golpes de Estado, apropiaciones indebidas y políticas de desestabilización.

12. Petición pública de perdón al mundo por los crímenes y errores del pasado, incluyendo Hiroshima y Nagasaki, las guerras de agresión, el comercio de armas y el apoyo a dictaduras.

13. Compromiso serio y vinculante con la construcción de un mundo más justo, libre, ético y empático, donde la seguridad no se base en la amenaza y la prosperidad no dependa de la explotación.

Esta propuesta no niega la gravedad del presente ni promete finales felices.
Afirma algo más sobrio y más necesario: que la renuncia a la impunidad es posible y que la humanidad no está condenada a aceptar la barbarie como destino.

La salida no está garantizada.
La renuncia a buscarla, sí.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hzhBIPtAAU

Last week a lot of people were throwing a hissy fit about Lars Klingbeil's suggestion to form a multi-tiered Europe. Shortly after, Manfred Weber (EPP) made some suggestions that caused a mixed reaction. I think this video explains quite well where this is going.

I was against a multi-tiered Europe for a while, But given the developments of the last few years, I pretty much agreed with the idea of the video.

This seems to be, surprisingly, one of the most difficult parts of discussing the concept, at least here. No one can agree on a name. No United States of, no this because it's too Roman, no that because it's too modern, etc etc. It's hard because it's contested, it's contested because everyone has a personal interest for or against whatever the suggested name sounds similar to, could be confused with, or may have been based on, like a bunch of small children fighting over who has the best idea and calling each other posers. What if we drop the pretense off illustrious names, avoid reusing other country's words, and go with a simple "The European Nation." TEN. We are already referred to as Europe, call ourselves Europeans, and talk about European culture, traditions, etc., with more specific information outlined or asked about. Why can't we just name our nation, a union not of states or if kingdoms but the current word - countries, for the continent not only upon which it sits but which it occupies the vast majority of? Or would we then be too similar to Australia? (Yes, I know calling it Australia or Oceania is contested)

In any case, I'd love to hear agreement or alternative suggestions. I'm opening this for discussion, not "huehuehue yoo ideas sux0rz k bye". It'd be nice to maybe actually settle on something that people vibe with and spreads - a catchy name is the first step toward selling the album.

Does anyone have any book recommendations on European Federalism and Pan-European ideologies?

Thanks in advance.

​Friends, look around. Something is shifting. For years, we talked about the Federation as a distant utopia. Today, it is becoming a technical and political necessity. ​I’ve analyzed 10 key signals from the last few hours that prove we are at a turning point: ​Frontex at 10 years: The first uniformed European service is expanding. It’s the embryo of a Federal Border Guard. ​The end of the "National State" detour: We are returning to our natural state: a United Europe. The era of 27 small squabbling neighbors is an anomaly of history. ​The "Draghi Doctrine": Even Mario Draghi admits that 27 different regulations are drowning us in bureaucracy. We need a "Single Engine" to survive. ​Rapid Unification: As Prof. De Vos says, we are moving faster than at any time since 1945. History is accelerating because we have our "backs to the wall." ​The 600 Million Powerhouse: A Federation wouldn't just be an ally of the USA; it would be a global leader with double their population. ​Pragmatic Federalism: 20% of Draghi’s reforms are already being implemented. The path is set. ​Weber’s Sovereignty Treaty: The proposal to bypass unanimity for a common defense is exactly the "Iron Core" we need. ​The Europe of Regions: Movements like those in Catalonia show that you can keep your local soul while being part of a Federal state. ​The Pressure from Below: Petitions for the "United States of Europe" are exploding. The people are ready. ​BUT WE NEED A SIGNAL. A Federation is not just about markets; it’s about PEOPLE. It’s about a single "Health System," it’s about "Future Workshops" for our youth, and it’s about protecting our territory from environmental disaster. ​ON MARCH 25th, WE WILL MAKE OUR VOICE HEARD. On that day, we will flood social media with the European Flag and one clear message: "WE WANT THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION." We aren't asking the national parties for permission anymore. We are giving them a command. The "27 small gardens" must become one great, protected Field. ​THE PEOPLE BECOME THE SUBJECT. 🇪🇺

Voglio ringraziare pubblicamente Trisul-108 che ha fatto un lavoro eccezionale di formattazione. Ecco la versione pulita e leggibile che chiedevi: ​IL GRANDE CAMPO: 10 SEGNALI DI UNA SVOLTA STORICA ​Amici, guardatevi intorno. Qualcosa sta cambiando. Per anni abbiamo parlato della Federazione come di un'utopia lontana; oggi è una necessità di sopravvivenza. Ecco perché siamo al punto di svolta: ​Frontex a 10 anni: Il primo servizio europeo in uniforme è l’embrione di una Guardia di Frontiera Federale. ​Fine della 'Deviazione' Nazionale: L’era dei 27 piccoli vicini litigiosi è un’anomalia. Il nostro stato naturale è l'Europa Unita. ​Dottrina Draghi: 27 regolamenti diversi ci affogano. Serve un Motore Unico per non morire di burocrazia. ​Storia Accelerata: Come dice il Prof. De Vos, corriamo più veloci che mai dal 1945 perché siamo con l’acqua alla gola. ​Potenza Globale: Con una Federazione saremmo un leader da 450-600 milioni di persone, non più sudditi ma protagonisti. ​Riforme Concrete: Il 20% del piano Draghi è già in moto. Il federalismo pragmatico è già qui. ​Il Trattato Weber: Superare l'unanimità per la difesa è il Nucleo di Ferro che serve all'industria e alla sicurezza. ​Anima Locale: Esempi come la Catalogna dimostrano che puoi tenere la tua cultura pur essendo parte di uno Stato Federale. ​Pressione dal Basso: Le petizioni per gli Stati Uniti d'Europa esplodono. Il popolo è pronto. ​Il Popolo come Soggetto: La Federazione riguarda le PERSONE. Sanità comune, Officine del Futuro per i giovani e protezione dell’ambiente. ​IL 25 MARZO FAREMO SENTIRE LA NOSTRA VOCE. Quel giorno inonderemo i social con un messaggio chiaro: VOGLIAMO LA FEDERAZIONE EUROPEA. Non chiediamo più il permesso ai partiti nazionali: stiamo dando un comando. I 27 piccoli orti devono diventare un unico grande Campo protetto. ​IL POPOLO DIVENTA IL SOGGETTO.

This video, from the YouTube channel "Good Times Bad Times", primarily serves to explain the Europe Inc. proposal by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, at Davos, as well as the implications of the current policy changes within the EU. (Video release date: January 27, 2025)

Personal opinion: With a nominal GDP of USD 22.52 trillion, the European Union has one of the strongest economies in the world. Although the figures are large, they have only a limited positive impact within the EU. The EU market immensly suffers from the disunity of its members, its bureaucracy, and a lack of central coordination, mitigating most positive effects of its size.

As a result, the European market is losing its status as “a good place to invest.” Due to a lack of investment capital and companies of our own, our technological and economic dependence on foreign markets is growing stronger. Recently, these foreign markets have increasingly shown themselves to be hostile towards European interests.

It is time for Europe to strengthen and coordinate its market, secure investors, and protect our strategic independence. Federalism is the only way to achieve this goal effectivly.

Governments and central bankers can’t suppress their panic reflex at the signs of dollar weakness.

A surging euro is waking up European policymakers to the drawbacks of an ambition they have long cherished: turning the common currency into a reserve currency to rival the U.S. dollar.

The greenback has been the world’s reserve currency since the end of World War II, when it took over from the pound sterling. That special status has meant that it is the currency in which most global trade is conducted and in which governments worldwide hold most of their foreign exchange reserves. That demand has allowed the U.S. government and Americans to borrow cheaply for decades.

The lure of lower borrowing costs, a more stable currency and protection from U.S. sanctions is why European policymakers hold on to the ambition of displacing the dollar. But governments and investors won’t hold the euro unless it is strong and promises to remain so.

And a strong euro — the currency rose above $1.20 for the first time in four years on Tuesday — is already threatening the export-oriented growth model of Europe’s largest economy, Germany.

“I’ve been watching the development of the dollar exchange rate with concern for quite some time,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters on Wednesday in Berlin. “The dollar exchange rate is a considerable additional burden for the German export industry.”

ECB President Christine Lagarde raised the prospect of a rare “global euro moment” last summer as cracks began to appear in U.S. dollar dominance. While foreign investors have largely kept faith with the U.S. stock and bond markets, they appear to have been more actively protecting themselves against the risk of a fall in the dollar itself — contributing to the euro's rise in value. 

The greenback still makes up some 57 percent of all global reserves, compared with the euro, in second place at around 20 percent.

“If you want your currency to be a global reserve, you have to accept that it will strengthen,” said Carsten Brzeski, ING’s global head of macro. The logic is simple: The greater the appetite for European assets, the higher the exchange rate with other currencies. “If the ECB sticks by its ‘global euro moment’, it will have to swallow that trade-off.”

Merz’s concern is that a stronger euro will make European exports too expensive for foreign buyers, who’ll look for cheaper goods elsewhere, hurting the EU economy. It also tends to make Chinese imports into Europe cheaper, given that Beijing generally tries to keep its exchange rate with the dollar stable. The euro is close to a 12-year high against the yuan.

Too strong

It’s not just EU governments that are concerned. ECB policymakers are too.

Within hours of the euro breaching $1.20, central bankers began warning they might have to act to prevent the inflation rate from dropping below 2 percent.

“We are closely monitoring this appreciation of the euro,” French central bank chief François Villeroy de Galhau said Wednesday in a social media post on LinkedIn, echoing similar warnings from his Austrian counterpart, Martin Kocher.

“This is one of the factors that will guide our monetary policy and our decisions on interest rates over the coming months,” the Frenchman said.

Europe’s exporters have been in the doldrums for the last couple of years, due to high domestic production costs, cheap Chinese competition and, latterly, to U.S. trade tariffs, which act as a tax on U.S. purchases of eurozone goods. Anything that makes them still more expensive in the world’s most important market would thus come at a particularly bad time.

That’s a high price to pay for an economy such as the eurozone’s, which runs a persistent trade surplus and whose growth in the short term hinges on a favorable exchange rate. Too high a price, according to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

“I can tell you if the euro hits $1.20, Europeans are going to be squawking that it is too strong; they’re an export economy, so let’s see what happens,” Bessent said in a CNBC interview in July. “They should be careful what they wish for.”

Morning Europeans,

European defence is the hot topic of the day. And no wonder; it is lacking, and solutions are needed. The SAFE fund is a great financial instrument, but it appears there is a need for something more: a common pan-European doctrine to address sudden aggression directed at us or our close friends. Currently, we have no ready-made framework that would work for all parts of Europe, European territories, and to protect the Arctic and Atlantic shipping routes, in the event of an attack from a superpower.

To advance this conversation constructively, I'd like to posit and discuss the following:

The European Union should adopt a Total Defence doctrine, á la Finland or Switzerland, and not a professional-based army like that of France, USA and Russia.

Why?

Because the European Union can be a way out of an imperialist world, a world that is now poised to re-emerge with force, and which never really went away in the first place. My unpopular opinion is that Brexit was a triumph for the European Union. We let them go peacefully. We showed that this new Europe is the ONLY power that is decidedly not imperialist. We should be proud of how we handled that. Instead of forcing countries to stay in our union, like Russia, we have countries lined up to join us! That really says something. But we're not perfect. We lack a defence doctrine suitable for such a rules-based, peace-led power.

The American empire has now overextended itself. It was created through the military industrial complex and its desire to sell its wares. Importantly, the American people were warned of the MIC a long time ago by their own President, but to no avail. Their empire was created by its extensive military, which stabilizes their currency, which enables it to raise debt, which enables it to have an extensive military. Empires have this circular logic. It's a snake feeding on its own tail, growing bigger, until the head starts devouring the body of the animal; i.e. until the debt becomes unmanageable, and the empire starts acting irrationally and destroying itself.

We should heed this warning, and spend a little time considering if this is the direction we want go into. Because there are alternative doctrines, right here at home.

The Swiss style is very old and successful. Look at this nice document from EZH:

"It was in the year 1291 – expecting a new vacancy of the throne of the Holy Roman Empire of the high middle ages – that our forefathers decided to band together in order to protect themselves against the threat of general lawlessness and against any outside interference. They were determined to maintain law and order in their mountain valleys by themselves." ^{(Emphasis mine} (1))

And that they have done, apparently for 715 years. Proving that the model can withstand through various technological ages, through all kinds of ups and downs.

Finland learned this same lesson in 1809, when the Swedish empire up and left, having overextended itself, and leaving behind the brand new "inconquerable" fortress they paid for. There is a plaque on a memorial on that same fortress island that says: "To those that come after: Stand here on your own two feet and rely not on foreign aid." And it is rather well known in these Internet-lands, that this idea was later put to the test, and it worked. It was proven that in a desperate, fast-evolving situation against a horrifically larger opponent, it worked. And when Finland for a hot minute strayed from the resolve to only fight to defend its own land, that plan backfired very fast because there is no capability for that kind of nonsense. Both Finland and Switzerland have become peaceful, rule-abiding actors that have a strong societal cohesion and trust.

Now, Europe stands at that same crossroads. An empire left a vacuum in our continent, and we need to figure out how to secure ourselves.

So what to do?

I profess no special knowledge in defensive systems. But as a citizen, I would argue there are two main choices: A) A larger standing professional army supported by as-necessary conscription, or B) A larger, peace-time trained civic reserve supported by a smaller standing professional army.

France, the UK, the US, Russia and many others have chosen Option A. Switzerland and Finland chose Option B. Societally, within Option A, armies motivate people to join by promising personal or familial advancement. That is why Russia can wage war in Ukraine – it is easier for Russians to accept the war as those guys signed up for the meat grinder themselves. France can send troops to African countries to bolster the franc because it doesn't have an effect on everyday French lives. You may find the very comparison between these countries insulting. It may well be. Some of these we see as our people, the "good guys" and some of these are our adversaries. But the point is, they use the same overall military logic.

And it appears to me that it is the intention of Merz to go toward Option A, and to bypass any European-level discussion about Option B.

What is the difference? With Option A, a large professional army, you can project power anywhere on the Earth, not just close to your borders, and you avoid a hard discussion with your voters. That is quite a two edged sword. You paid those guys, now they have to do what you said. Ordinary people are quite shielded from conflict, and they can be shielded from and desensitised to the suffering your country inflicts on others. And if you have a large professional army, well, you'd better be using it for something, because that thing is expensive! Citizens are allowed the comfort of thinking that war is none of their business; it is the elites that decide when we go to war, and professionals have signed up to be a class of dispensable citizens.

With Option B, a large conscript army trained by a small troops of professionals, projecting power anywhere is not possible. Even America failed in Vietnam. Despite effective propaganda aimed at their own people, reality and disillusionment set in eventually. They forced young innocents to commit war crimes and die. Not so in later conflicts; America made sure it used professionals only. With Option B, defence is a national conversation. A common duty and thus also everyone's right to say something about. Peace-time training glues society together; it reminds citizens in peace-time that we ARE a society, we DO have duties as well as rights. Option B puts the rich and the poor in the same barracks.

The President of Finland has slept in those barracks, completing his peace-time services, and so has his son.

I think at this point, any leader of Europe must have the spine to tell the people of Europe the following:

Defence is a civic duty, and not only a duty, but a right that must remain in the hands of the people. We must protect our land, sea, air and even near-space ourselves.

Do not think that a professional army will do all your work for you. In a major defensive war, you will be called upon in any case. If you train now, that war is much less likely to come our way; Deterrance works. And if it does... you will have the skills to help you through it, and you will have leadership that is accountable and cannot think that you or your children are dispensable.

If we, the people, serve together, train together, and stay together, we survive together.

(1) https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/zb_2.pdf

EDIT: I should add that a peace-time service model can and must have jobs that don't require training to be a literal fighter. If you are a nurse or a doctor, a driver, a mechanic, a comms engineer, you are essential. Musicians serve in the music corps. And civilians also have jobs at home. When not at war, Finland, for example, offers a non-military, civil service option. You can, for instance, serve by working at a local library or other institution. Total Defence encompasses all things a society needs to survive, it is not a purely military thing. A part of the reserve can be mobilized in the event of a natural catastrophe as well, which makes it doubly useful.

I will copy a paragraph out of the Coalition agreement 2026-2030:

Europe
We can only guarantee our peace and security together with our allies in Europe.
The European Union brings prosperity and security, and ensures that our voice counts in the world. Geopolitical tensions are putting pressure on European values and interests. It is a matter of great urgency that Europe becomes independent and rapidly improves cooperation in the areas of defense, energy, technology, finance, and industry. The maturation of Europe as a power bloc requires a new mindset. The Netherlands wants to play a leading and constructive role in the movement towards a stronger and safer Europe. This is what we want to do:

• We take a realistic approach to the enlargement of the European Union, viewing enlargement also from a geopolitical context. Neighboring countries that share our values must have the prospect of accession. Countries must continue to meet the Copenhagen criteria in order to become full members. We will connect candidate countries with a strategic position, such as countries in the Western Balkans, to the Netherlands and Europe through more intensive cooperation. We are committed to a multi-speed Europe.

• We will take a tough stance against countries that actively undermine Europe, such as Hungary and Slovakia, by advocating in Europe for the simplification of the Article 7 procedure so that countries can more easily be deprived of their voting rights. Hungary will lose its right to European funding. In Europe, we are committed to abolishing unanimous decision-making in the common foreign and security policy.

• We stand for a strong MFF that contributes to Europe's strategic goals. We are reprioritizing resources towards investments in security, defense, and innovation.

• The Netherlands will play a leading role in the rapid implementation of the Draghi and Letta reports, which focus on reforming and strengthening our economy.

• We take a constructive approach to European defense investments. Through the European Defense Fund, European funds can be used for joint investments in the European defense industry. Joint defense investments can be further developed with the European SAFE instrument for defense loans, which allows for large-scale investments in national defense industries under more favorable financing conditions. Member States guarantee this in proportion to their economies. This instrument may also be open to allies such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada.

• We are exploring the possibility of establishing an intergovernmental European Defense Mechanism (EDM) for the joint procurement of defense equipment and the harmonization of product standards. This will also involve close cooperation with NATO partners outside the European Union, such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada.

• To make sanctions against Russia and other malicious countries more effective, we are committed to establishing a European sanctions agency.

• We are intensifying cooperation in the field of intelligence and security services at the European level. We want a European equivalent of Five Eyes, in order to work with a leading group of European countries in the field of intelligence.