![\"\"](\"https:\/\/emmanouilreview.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03b2\u03af\u03c4\u03b1-861x1024.jpg\"){kind=spacer}
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The debate on Europe’s future today returns to the fundamental question that has accompanied European integration from its very beginnings: can Europe evolve from a union of states into a genuine political union capable of guaranteeing democracy, security and prosperity for its citizens?<\/p>\n
This question lies at the heart of Chapter Six of Giorgos Antoniou Emmanouil’s book, entitled \u201cThe Historical Evolution and Impact of European Federalism,\u201d which was the subject of my contribution during the book presentation.<\/p>\n
The author approaches European federalism not as an abstract political theory, but as a historically developed proposal for overcoming national rivalries and building a new political order on the European continent.<\/p>\n
Tracing the earliest ideas of European unity, from Dante Alighieri and Victor Hugo to Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan-European Movement, he highlights the gradual emergence of a European political consciousness, which gained particular momentum through the tragic experiences\u00a0 and wars of the twentieth century.<\/p>\n
A pivotal place in this historical journey belongs to the 1941 Ventotene Manifesto by Altiero Spinelli and Ernesto Rossi. Amid the turmoil of the Second World War, it articulated a position that was radical for its time: lasting peace could not be secured solely through cooperation among sovereign nation-states but required the creation of a European federation.<\/p>\n
This is also one of the chapter’s most important conclusions: European federalism emerged primarily as a political response to war, nationalism and authoritarianism.<\/p>\n
The author then follows the development from the European Coal and Steel Community to today’s European Union, highlighting both the significant institutional achievements and the contradictions of European integration. He also discusses the historical and political roles of the Union of European Federalists, the European Movement, the Young European Federalists and the Spinelli Group in the European Parliament.<\/p>\n
Of particular interest is the connection between federalism and social justice, drawing on the thinking of Lucio Levi and Guido Montani. This dimension reminds us that the prospect of a European federation is not limited to the institutional organisation of power but is also linked to social cohesion, solidarity and democratic participation.<\/p>\n
Particular attention should be given to the author’s classification of European Union policies and competences, which offers a substantive account of the federal dimension of European integration.<\/p>\n
The distinction between exclusive, shared and supporting competences, as well as policy areas that remain the responsibility of the Member States, is not merely a technical or legal classification. It reveals how the exercise of power is distributed between the European and national levels.<\/p>\n
In exclusive competences, we recognise clear federal characteristics. In shared competences, we see the logic of multilevel governance, while supporting and national competences reflect the limits of integration as it stands today.<\/p>\n
Here lies one of the most significant contradictions of Europe’s institutional architecture: although the Union has achieved a high degree of economic, monetary and regulatory integration, it continues to face substantial limitations in political union, common foreign policy and defence.<\/p>\n
Monetary union without sufficient fiscal and political integration creates structural weaknesses. Similarly, effective protection of fundamental rights requires strong, democratically legitimate institutions and reliable mechanisms of accountability.<\/p>\n
In this context, the principle of Rule of Law Conditionality is particularly important, linking access to European funds with respect for the fundamental principles of the rule of law. This represents a meaningful expression of European solidarity, which cannot be separated from institutional responsibility and democratic accountability.<\/p>\n
In my view, one of the chapter’s most important contributions is precisely this: it presents European federalism as a political project that connects institutional deepening with democracy, social cohesion and strategic autonomy.<\/p>\n
The historical approach to European federalism becomes even more significant in light of today’s European political realities.<\/p>\n
European integration has contributed decisively to transforming a continent marked by successive wars into an area of institutionalised cooperation and peaceful coexistence. However, it has not succeeded in eliminating nationalism or ensuring that social and political conflicts will not re-emerge in new forms.<\/p>\n
The strengthening of far-right and Eurosceptic forces, deep social and political divisions, the difficulty of establishing stable political consensus, and the pressures facing democratic institutions create an exceptionally complex environment for the European Union.<\/p>\n
Developments in Europe’s largest countries are particularly significant.<\/p>\n
In France, the political and social crisis, together with the prospect of the 2027 presidential election, raises serious questions about the country’s direction and, consequently, the future of European integration. The strengthening of the National Rally represents a challenge extending well beyond France’s borders.<\/p>\n
In Germany, the rise of Alternative for Germany (AfD) intensifies concerns about shifting political balances. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni’s government illustrates the complex relationship between national sovereignty and European cooperation, while in Poland, the confrontation between a European orientation and nationalist policies remains decisive.<\/p>\n
At the same time, Spain is entering a critical electoral period, with the elections of 29 November 2026 attracting particular interest regarding European political alignments.<\/p>\n
The accumulation of these developments creates the risk of a deeper political crisis within the Union, particularly if governing forces seeking to limit the supranational dimension of European integration gain strength simultaneously.<\/p>\n
The stakes are substantial. The European Union must take critical decisions on the 2028\u20132034 Multiannual Financial Framework, energy security, European defence, enlargement and support for Ukraine, at a time when developing common policies is becoming increasingly difficult.<\/p>\n
It is precisely under such circumstances that the institutional limitations of the present Union become apparent.<\/p>\n
One of the most important issues returning to the European debate is the need to limit unanimity in decision-making.<\/p>\n
The right of veto is often regarded as an essential instrument for protecting national interests. However, the experience of European integration shows that it can also lead to institutional paralysis, allowing a single Member State to block decisions affecting the Union as a whole.<\/p>\n
This debate is particularly relevant to Greece, which has repeatedly used the veto, or the threat of exercising it, as a means of negotiating pressure.<\/p>\n
The Greek experience offers significant examples in enlargement policy.<\/p>\n
In 1984, linking enlargement towards the Iberian Peninsula with the promotion of the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes demonstrated how negotiating leverage could be used to pursue specific national objectives.<\/p>\n
Similarly, during the 1990s, Greek interventions in EU\u2013Turkey relations and the enlargement process helped shape the political conditions for the Republic of Cyprus’s European path, with decisive milestones including the decisions of the Helsinki European Council in 1999 and Cyprus’s accession in 2004.<\/p>\n
These examples confirm that protecting national interests requires a coherent strategy and effective negotiation. They do not, however, demonstrate that maintaining the veto as a general rule is the most appropriate choice for Greece.<\/p>\n
On the contrary, for a country that has strategically invested in participating at the core of European integration, strengthening the Union’s effectiveness and political cohesion is itself a fundamental national interest.<\/p>\n
Extending qualified majority voting to more policy areas, particularly the Common Foreign and Security Policy, could represent an important step in this direction, provided that institutional safeguards exist to protect vital national interests.<\/p>\n
The debate over the veto is therefore not a confrontation between European and national interests. It is a debate about how national interests can be served more effectively within a stronger, more democratic and more cohesive European Union.<\/p>\n
European political developments are particularly important for Greece ahead of its Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the second half of 2027.<\/p>\n
The Greek Presidency will take place at a time when the Union may face intensified political and ideological divisions, alongside a particularly demanding institutional and geopolitical agenda.<\/p>\n
Greece will be called upon to contribute to building compromises, maintaining institutional cohesion and advancing critical European priorities.<\/p>\n
However, beyond managing immediate circumstances, the country needs to answer a fundamental strategic question: what kind of Europe does it want, and what position does it aspire to occupy within the future European architecture?<\/p>\n
The confrontation between supporters of deeper supranational integration and those advocating a looser union of nation-states is expected to shape a significant part of Europe’s political agenda.<\/p>\n
Greece has every reason to support a stronger political Union, with a common foreign policy, more effective security and defence structures, stronger democratic legitimacy and genuine European solidarity.<\/p>\n
This choice does not constitute a retreat from national sovereignty. On the contrary, it reflects the recognition that, in today’s international competition, the real capacity to exercise sovereignty increasingly depends on collective strength.<\/p>\n
For this reason, the debate on Europe’s future should become a substantive part of Greek public and political discourse, not only in view of the 2027 Presidency but as a permanent strategic priority of Greek foreign and European policy.<\/p>\n
As a member of the Federal Committee of the Union of European Federalists, I believe that the central challenge of our time is to move from a form of European integration limited to managing successive crises towards a coherent, democratic political project.<\/p>\n
European integration cannot advance exclusively through intergovernmental agreements or technocratic procedures. It requires the active participation of citizens, stronger democratic accountability and the development of a European public sphere in which societies can debate and jointly decide on their common future.<\/p>\n
Building a political Union is essential if Europe is to protect its democratic achievements effectively, guarantee the security of its citizens, strengthen social cohesion and acquire a meaningful geopolitical role.<\/p>\n
In this respect, the historical analysis by Giorgos Antoniou Emmanouil is particularly valuable. It reminds us that European federalism did not emerge as an abstract institutional undertaking, but as a response to specific historical tragedies and political deadlocks.<\/p>\n
Today, in the face of resurgent nationalism, challenges to democracy and growing geopolitical pressures, the question of European political integration is once again being raised with urgency.<\/p>\n
The real dilemma is not whether we need more or less Europe. It is whether we want a Europe capable of making decisions, protecting its citizens and being accountable to them.<\/p>\n
European federalism was born out of the tragedies of European history as a promise of peace and democracy. In the twenty-first century, it returns not only as a historical legacy but as a political proposal for the future of our continent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n