Strong’s The Antifederalist
is a series of essays critical of the American federal system in which
governmental sovereignty is “dual,” meaning that both the Union and the member-states
have at least some such sovereignty that the other cannot abolish or override.
Had more credence been paid to the arguments in that text, perhaps the state governments
would have more power at the federal level to protect their retained
sovereignty from federal encroachment. The drafting of the E.U. paid more heed to
those arguments in terms of safeguarding state sovereignty by considerable
direct involvement of state officials at the federal level. Even so, Euroskeptics
have warned of a centralized state in the process, and the U.S. has furnished
them with an actual instance of a nearly consolidated empire-scale federal
system. The warnings may thus be valid even with the additional safeguards that
the E.U. has but the U.S. lacks, at least as of 2026, but claims that the E.U.
does not have a federal system and is not a political union of states
ring hollow as they are utterly false. So too, but the way, is the mislabeling
of the E.U. as a bloc. The E.U.’s parliament alone knocks out all three
of these ideological claims.
E.U. citizens elect representatives to the parliament, just as U.S. citizens elect representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives. This itself is inherently political, rather than merely economic, in nature.The resolutions and laws passed by the parliament are also not limited to economic measures. As a case in point, the parliament’s resolutions against the government of Azerbaijan furnish us with a case in point.
By May 1, 2026, the E.U.’s
parliament had adopted 14 resolutions critical of Azerbaijan. The latest of
those “called for the right of return of Armenians who [had] fled the region in
2023 after an armed conflict [had broken] out over a disputed region. [The
resolution] described the detention of Armenian prisoners of war by Azerbaijan
as ‘unjust’ and urged their ‘immediate and unconditional release.’”[1]
Both the detention and the parliament’s reaction to it are inherently political,
rather than concerning trade. Put another way, that which is decried as unjust
in the resolution is political; it is not as if the parliament’s resolution opposed
an unjust trading agreement between the E.U. and Azerbaijan.
The E.U.’s parliament was even
viewed by the government of Azerbaijan as a political (legislative) chamber
rather than as a trading organization befitting a bloc. “Hikmet Hajiyev, assistant
to the President of Azerbaijan and head of the Foreign Policy Affairs
Department of the Presidential Administration, called the European Parliament
resolution as ‘a diplomatic disgrace and diplomatic failure,’ and accused
members of the parliament of ‘creating obstacles to a peace process.”[2]
Besides the fact that peace is a political rather than an economic concept,
that the European Parliament was viewed as having engaged in diplomacy, albeit
allegedly very badly according to Hajiyev, implies the more fundamental or
basic understanding that the parliament is a political body. Diplomacy is that
which governments conduct on political matters in international
relations.
Therefore, the European
Parliament has been viewed by government officials of other countries as a
political body engaging in political acts, rather than as a bloc or
international organization oriented to trade. As for how that chamber views
itself, Roberta Metsola, who is the “Speaker” (translated into American terms
for easy comparison) or elected head of the European Parliament, pushed back
against the charge that the representatives in that legislative chamber had
been obsessing on Azerbaijan by making explicit the political nature of the parliament.
Heading to the chamber’s floor to make an impromptu statement, Metsola
insisted, “We will never change the way we work, even if it is uncomfortable,”
meaning not convenient for people in other countries.[3]
Of utmost importance in terms of the parliament’s very legitimacy politically,
she had first said: “The European Parliament is a directly elected democratic
body, with resolutions adopted by a majority.”[4]
The assertion that the E.U. is indeed a political union is satisfied by
this statement alone, for that which Metsola described is inherently political.
Furthermore, that the body’s
representatives are directly elected, rather than appointed by state governments,
means that the E.U.’s federal level is not merely a collection or bloc of
states. Just as E.U. law has direct effect on E.U. citizens (and other
residents and even tourists), so too do E.U. citizens have political access via
elected representatives at the federal level, rather than just through state
officials in the European Council and the Council of Ministers. Also, through
those elected representatives, E.U. citizens can kick out an existing
administration at the Commission without the say of state officials.
In short, whereas the European
Council and the Council of Ministers, like the U.S. Senate, are founded on
international principles, the European Parliament, like the U.S. House of
Representatives, is national and thus governmental, in its constitutive
principles. This hybrid federal system, differing as it does from a
confederation of sovereign states, was invented by political compromise in 1787
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and is detailed in James Madison’s Notes.
To be sure, Euroskeptics would
surely bolt from these arguments in utter fury, but I contend that the promulgated
axis of political comparison is valid even if it is seldom uncovered and made
explicit. The distending nature of ideology finds it easy to engage in denial,
especially in the domains of politics and religion. Indeed, the E.U. itself is
firmly within the political domain, and on this point Hajiyev and Metsola are in
agreement, for it is the very premise on which the statements of both officials
are based. San Francisco doesn’t matter.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
