The E.U.: A Political Union

As if having elected representatives and political parties in the European Parliament were not enough evidence that the E.U. has been a political union all along, the distinctly political role of the E.U. with regard to Ukraine amid the Russian invasion renders the E.U. political not merely institutionally in regard to representative democracy, which is a political rather than an economic system. Also, that the European Commission has exclusive competency on trade does not eclipse the union’s distinctly political activity. That the E.U. agreed to move forward informally with Ukraine’s accession request even though the state of Hungary was formally vetoing the accession demonstrates a political function or role of the European Union.

In December, 2025, the E.U. announced that it had “drawn up an action plan” for Ukraine to meet accession standards “despite official talks being blocked by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.”[1] To be sure, for one state to wield its veto at the federal level when all of the other states are opposed is arguably a case of an abuse of the informal consensus model; after all, it was not as though Ukraine’s accession would threaten the vital interests of the state of Hungary. That veto-power of the states in the European Council and the Council of Ministers on E.U. competencies (i.e., enumerated powers) is itself a misplaced harbinger of a confederal system of government, wherein the states retain all governmental sovereignty, rather than modern federalism, wherein competencies, or governmental sovereignty, are divided between federal and state governmental institutions. So the Commission was entirely justified in working informally to find a political means by which the government of Ukraine could get itself up to the anti-corruption, pro-democratic standards of the E.U. (even though Bulgaria’s government collapsed that December due to mass protests against corruption in that government/administration).

The E.U.’s ten-point plan for Ukraine to follow in order to be assessed at a later date, perhaps after Orbán’s upcoming election, is inherently political (rather than economic) because the Commission framed the accession as “essential” to providing Ukraine “with future security guarantees.”[2] The Union’s Enlargement Commissioner, Marta Kos, said at the time of the announcement that Ukraine’s accession is “the political arm of the European security guarantee for Ukraine” and would be “central to make any peace settlement sustainable.”[3] The E.U.’s executive branch was thus acting in a political capacity. Thus the E.U. is a political union even at its distinctly federal level (i.e., apart from any institutional involvement of the state governments at the federal level).

Put another way, because the E.U. executive branch used it 10-point plan to “bypass Hungary’s political veto on the official opening of accession negotiations,” the E.U. itself was carrying out a distinctly political function. It is difficult to argue that the E.U. was not a political union at the time, yet operated politically even apart from any formal involvement of the state governments at the federal level. Yet ideological denial was still strong enough for many E.U. citizens to deny not only that the E.U. is a political union, but that also that it has a federal system even though having states is sufficient for the E.U. to have a federal system. Underneath the antiquated state-veto lies the Euroskeptic and anti-American political ideologies that have been holding the E.U. back not only from being able to enlarge, but also to adequately aid Ukraine militarily through years of it being invaded by Russia.

1. Mared G. Jones, “EU and Ukraine Agree 10-Point Plan to Speed Up Kyiv’s Accession Bid Despite Hungary’s Veto,” 11 December, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid. Italics added.

E.U. President Von der Leyen Survives A No-Confidence Vote

Falling short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass on July 10, 2025, the no-confidence vote on President Von der Leyen of the Commission in the E.U.’s parliament mustered only 175 representatives in favor while 360 voted against the motion and 18 abstained. Although commentators discussed whether the president was weakened anyway, a more important matter relates to the politics of the vote as distinct from the Parliament’s institutional interests as they relate to the Commission and the European Council. I contend that the Parliament, which represents E.U. citizens, has a vital interest that is vital to the E.U. itself in maintaining a balance between the collective power of the representatives of the citizenry and the power the state governments at the federal level. Parties making deals with Von der Leyen on policy positions undercut the vote as a means of holding the Commission to maintaining that balance.

For example, the Socialists and Democrats Party “extracted a pledge on the next long term budget in exchange for their support.”[1] The right-wing Patriots for Europe Party and Europe of Sovereign Nations Party both voted in favor of removing Von der Leyen, but certainly not because she left made a deal with the states to sidestep the Parliament on certain matters of policy, for those parties favor more power for the state governments at the federal level. In fact, those parties even deny that there is a federal level! Therefore, we cannot assume that the vote of no-confidence was on the matter of the Commission siding with the state governments to marginalize the Parliament.

The Commission under Von der Leyen had “invoked Article 122 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to set up SAFE which allows member states to directly approve a Commission proposal ‘if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products’ or if a member state is ‘seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control.’”[2] Because the Commission and the state governments were able to set up a federal defense-loan program without the approval of the European Parliament, and thus the citizens of the E.U., Roberta Metsola, the head of the Parliament, wrote to Von der Leyen of the “deep concern” in among the representatives that excluding the Parliament meant “putting at risk democratic legitimacy by undermining Parliament’s legislative and scrutiny functions.”[3] The democratic legitimacy of the federal level depends on the involvement of the Parliament, as it is the only institution representing E.U. citizens directly, rather than state governments, which have their own institutional interests even apart from state residents.

It is highly significant that Metsola “stressed that ‘the European Parliament is not questioning the merits of this proposal for a regulation’.”[4] The objection was not one of policy; rather, the concern was based on the democratic viability and overall balance of the E.U. itself as a federal system. By involving policy in the deal-making leading up to the censure vote, certain political parties in the Parliament undercut that institution’s interest in protecting itself against the Commission giving too much power to the state governments at the federal level. The Socialists should not have extracted a political gain from Von der Leyen, and the Green Party members should not have voted on the basis of how much Von der Leyen had prioritized environmental policy. Instead, the parties apprehensive about the Parliament having been circumvented by the state governments and the Commission should have voted to offset the state-rights ideology of the far-right parties in the Parliament. Had this been done, the next Commission would have been very cautious about circumventing the voice of the people by making deals with the governors of the several states. 

Generally speaking, protecting the viability of the federal system itself, including the checks and balances at the federal level, does not get done by prioritizing political deals and even particular policies, as if the pushing for certain policies in the aggregate were tantamount to protecting the system of governance itself.

1. Jeremy Fleming-Jones, et al, “Von der Leyen’s EU Commission Survives Parliament Confidence Vote,” Euronews.com, July 10, 2025.
2. Alice Tidey, “MEPs Vote for Parliament to Sue Commission over €150 bn Defense Loan Programme,” Euronews.com, June 25, 2025.

3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

Strengthening the E.U.’s Border Competency: Implications for Federalism

In politics, it’s not a bad idea to consider the impact on the system of government in formulating, voting on, and enacting laws and regulations. It is not enough to make sure that relationships with political donors are not impaired. Nor, in a federal system, is it enough to look at the implications regarding either the state or the federal level. I contend that the implications for the federal system itself should be formally and informally considered.

In the context of the E.U.’s difficulty with securing its borders even after facing unprecedented migrants entering by boat or even walking in the early 2020s, it is understandable that representatives elected by E.U. citizens and sitting in the European Parliament would try to shore up a federal response, given that in the last quarter of 2024, some state officials took action at state borders in violation of E.U. law. Undercutting federal rule-of-law is a good way to trigger a collapse of a federal system, especially one that had only existed for decades rather than centuries.

On October 23, 2024, the European People’s Party joined the Patriots for Europe, the European Conservatives and Reformists, and the ESN parties in voting in favor of an amendment that goes as follows: “The European Parliament demands appropriate funding for external physical barriers at the Union border.”[1] In other words, the far-right parties wanted a wall at the border. Although the amendment passed with 329 of the elected representatives voting for it, the resolution to which the amendment was attached was later voted down. Victor Negrescu of the S&D party told reporters that a resolution is not necessary for the Parliament to be able to negotiation with the Council on what projects to fund. Tomas Tobé, vice chair of the European People’s Party, countered that because “it is our long-standing policy to advocate for E.U. funding for external border infrastructure,” it is “also in line with the position of the European Council: physical barriers are essential for securing the E.U.’s external borders and managing migration policy.”[2] At the very least, formally letting the Council know the will of the Parliament wouldn’t hurt.

It did hurt the coalition of parties that supported President Von der Leyen’s reelection as President of the E.U.’s executive branch, the Commission, for members of the Renew Europe party could have seen the European People’s Party as betraying the centrist governing coalition in the Parliament by joining the far-right parties there in support of building a wall. But such grumblings may have been overdone, as it was still very unlikely that the EPP would join with the parties on the right on much else, given the daylight between them and the EPP.

Moreover, the resolution served an overriding positive role in fortifying the E.U. itself in regard to its federal system. For it had been a failing policy at the federal level that had prompted more than one state government to exploit the “national emergency” loophole in the Schengen Agreement by patrolling state land-border crossings. In other words, showing signs that the federal government might finally competently secure the E.U.’s borders might get the state violators of Schengen to back off and follow rather than violate the Agreement. The E.U. had only existed for just over thirty years; its federal system was still fluid and thus vulnerable to punctures by state officials heeding popular pressure at home. From abroad, that looks like self-inflicted wounds within the European Union. To some officials of some of the states, most notably Hungary and Slovenia, the Commission may seem to be foreign, but this is not so in state-federal relations within a federal system. For such a system to be viable beyond the short term, the two systems of government—that at the union level and those at the state level—cannot be working against each other without even respecting each other’s laws.

Especially in a new federal system, government officials at both levels would be wise, if they want to continue to get the benefits from the combined power on the world stage, to consider the implications on the federal system itself from any policy proposal or vote. Even as of 2024, European integration politically and economically was not a foregone conclusion. Even though the E.U. had managed by fits and starts rather than in a linear line toward a more perfect union, the threat to the viability of E.U. law, including directives and regulations, was increasing in 2024.

State governments ignoring federal law is an existential threat to any union of states, which is politically distinct from a mere military alliance or trade “bloc,” such as BRICS. Willfully violating federal law could represent more than just a temporary slippage back before bouncing forward again, especially if a few such occurrences gain traction and thus become a de facto norm. Then the de jure federal system is really in trouble, with collapse being even imminent. The category mistake of viewing a federal system in which governmental sovereignty has been divided (i.e., “dual sovereignty”) as an alliance or even worse as a trading association, or “bloc,” can give rise to such destructive opportunistic violations of federal rules, directives, and regulations (i.e., federal law) because they are not viewed as real law. Similarly, the Euroskeptic ideological "word-game" wherein political parties at the federal level are merely "groups" subtly undermines the legitimacy of E.U. law and democracy at the federal level. 

Voting for stronger federal action at the federal borders may have had the effect of reassuring nervous state officials enough that they might return to supporting rather than violating the strictures that hold the Union together. At the time, it could hardly be said with confidence that the E.U. itself would continue as a going concern, so much long-term benefit could be gained by governmental officals at both levels asking themselves how their proposals and actions could impact the federal system itself. 

---

1. Vincenzo Genovese and Paula Soler, “EPP and Far Right MEPs Call to Build a Wall at the E.U. Border, Stoking Controversy,” Euronews.com, October 23, 2024.
2. Ibid.

Hungary and Texas: Busing Immigrants

Two years after the government of Texas in the U.S. began transferring migrants to other states and to Washington D.C., the government of Hungary announced that it too would bus migrants, but rather than transporting them to other states, the destination would be Brussels exclusively. Although the respective political strategies differ, the two policies both represent the same pressure point in federal systems. The cost of united action at the federal level on public policy is that the states are not as free as otherwise to manifest their respective ideological and cultural views in public policy at the state level. That federal policy or law is often a compromise between the preferences of the states means that political pressure exists not only between states, but between a given state and federal law. This is inherent to federalism because it provides benefits from united action and some ability of states to enact legislation reflecting their respective distinct dominant ideology. Enabling both is one of federalism’s best features, yet it comes with a cost in terms of political tension that is endemic rather than merely episodic. Simply put, no system of government is without drawbacks or downsides. The trick is perhaps in how to manage them so they don’t get so out of control that the federal system itself collapses. In 2024, Viktor Orbán, governor of the E.U. state of Hungary, was testing the limits much more than was Greg Abbott, governor of the U.S. state of Texas, even as Orbán was using Abbott’s playbook.

In June, 2024, the E.U.’s supreme court, the European Court of Justice, handed down a ruling ordering the E.U. state of Hungary to pay a fine of €200 million for breaking federal laws on asylum plus an additional €1 million per day until the state government passes a law conforming with the federal law.[1] Hungary’s requirement that people seeking asylum must first apply for and be granted travel permits violated the federal law requiring that all of the states have the same procedures for granting asylum. Setting up a confrontation with the high court, essentially challenging its very legitimacy, the Hungarian government “missed the first September deadline for paying the €200 million fine.[2] In fact, the state “also demanded compensation for the billions it says it has spent on border protection, including constructing fences protected by razor wire on its southern borders with Serbia and Croatia.”[3] In other word, the state government wanted to be reimbursed by the E.U. for costs incurred by the state to protect the E.U. border that runs along an edge of the state. Thus situated, Hungary is like Texas. Ideologically too, Hungary’s governor was quite similar to the governor of Texas at the time, Greg Abbott.

In fact, Vicktor Orbán likely got his idea to send illegal immigrants from his state to Brussels from Greg Abbott, who had spent more than $148 as of February 21, 2024 in putting more than 102,000 illegal immigrants on buses bound for other states and Washington, D.C.[4] Texas also spent $10 billion on law enforcement and constructing physical barriers at the U.S. border that runs along the edge of Texas, though reimbursement by the U.S. was not demanded.[5] At a news conference at the state capital Budapest, Hungary’s State Secretary Bence Rétvári accused the E.U. in 2024 of wanting to force the state to allow illegal immigrants into the state, and announced that the state government would “offer these illegal migrants, voluntarily, free of charge, one-way travel to Brussels.”[6] He made the announcement in front of a row of passenger buses that would be bound for the E.U. “headquarters in Belgium.”[7] He said, “If Brussels wants illegal migrants, Brussels can have them.”[8] Interestingly, Texas could have had the same strategy: instead of sending buses to lax states as well as to Washington, D.C., all of the buses could have dropped off their passengers at the Washington Mall—at the U.S. headquarters—as Abbott had been so critical of U.S. immigration policy.

Both cases—that of Hungary and Texas—demonstrate what can happen when state governments in a union differ on a matter of public policy not only with each other, but also from a federal policy or law. The degree of unity that is necessary for a union to continue to exist and function viably comes at the expense of ideological differences between states. This tension is endemic to federalism, as that system of government allows for cultural or ideological diversity between states and benefits to the whole that the combined forces of an empire-scale union can provide. In the E.U., the Hungarian government was quite critical in 2024 of Germany’s more lenient practice in allowing migrants to enter the state, yet at the same time the united force of the E.U. was able to give Europeans more power in resisting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  In the U.S., the Texan government was critical of California’s “sanctuary cities” in which illegal aliens were not arrested by state police, yet at the same time the united force of the U.S. was also able to stand up to Russia’s president’s militaristic foray into Ukraine. Both cases demonstrate federal systems that are “living and breathing,” allowing for differences between states, such as on abortion in the U.S. and social policy in the E.U., while enabling both unions to have a significant impact internationally.

---

1. Angela Skujins, “’We Never Let Them In’: Hungary’s PM Viktor Orbán Demands New Laws Tackling Migration,” Euronews.com, September 6, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Sergio Martinez-Beltran, “Texas Has Spent More than $148 Million Busing Migrants to Other Parts of the Country,” The Texas Tribune, February 21, 2024.
5. Ibid.
6. Angela Skujins, “’We Never Let Them In’: Hungary’s PM Viktor Orbán Demands New Laws Tackling Migration,” Euronews.com, September 6, 2024.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.

Resolved: Flanders and Wallonia as E.U. States

On August 22, 2024, Bart De Wever of the New Flemish Alliance group in Belgium resigned as his efforts to form a government had stalled. His group had won the most votes in the E.U. state’s most recent election back in June, at which time King Philippe appointed De Wever to find consensus among five groups on policies such as taxation on capital gains. Belgium’s longest period without an elected government is an incredible 592 days, which was set after the previous record of 541 days that had been set after the 2010 elections.[1] With two culturally-different regions, Belgium has been difficult to govern. Being a state in a union could conceivably help Belgium in this regard.

A day after De Wever resigned, a media report insisted that “Belgium must form a government to file a federal budget to the European Commission by September 20, 2024.”[2] Yet it seems easy enough to miss such a deadline. Rather than look for administrative means by which being in the Union could pressure the state to get its act together on governing, the possible impact may be more basic. Put another way, thinking bureaucratically is not sufficiently “outside of the box.”

Theoretically, there being some governmental sovereignty at the federal (i.e., E.U.) level takes the pressure off a state to form a government because not all governmental responsibilities are handled any longer at the state level. In other words, there is less riding on which groups govern the member state. But the amount of sovereignty that had been delegated by the states to the Union by 2024 was not sufficient to relieve enough pressure, given that the 592 and 541 days had occurred when Belgium was in the European Union. Furthermore, the heady game of politics can make virtually anything seem important to political antagonists, even if major decisions of public policy are taken elsewhere.

So, like the efficacy of any administrative means by which the E.U. might attempt to chide a stalled state into forming a government, taking the heat off is also unlikely to succeed. Being in a union presents Belgium instead with the non-ideological alternative of splitting into two E.U. states without them being foreign. In other words, being in a political union effectively relativizes the fallout from splitting up because both Flanders and Wallonia would still be in the Union; neither, after all, would be the smallest state in the Union. The intractability in governing should be a wake-up call, or indication, that maybe the two regions would be better off as separate states; governing together just hasn’t worked out very well.

Of course, opposing such a change, which seems drastic, is the ideology of nationalism and the related difficulty, especially in Europe, of letting go of some history. The same ideology has manifested in the E.U.’s Euroskeptic parties in the European Parliament to the potential detriment of the Union itself. Even conflating the union with a “bloc” is harmful in that Belgians would not realize the extent to which Flanders and Wallonia would still together by virtue of being states in the same union, which is substantially different than a trading bloc or military alliance. Citizens of Flanders and Wallonia would all be E.U. citizens, for example. They could live and work in the other state, and they wouldn’t have to go through customs in traveling back to visit old friends. Additionally, the currency wouldn’t change. They would all still be represented in the European Parliament.

Ironically, Belgians might even have a greater Flemish and Walloon cultural identity due to greater cohesion at the state level. Identifying more at the federal level—leveraging this—could thus make enhanced regional identity stronger rather than weaker. Il faut séparer être ensemble. It is a pity that thinking outside the box is perceived generally as radical, and thus as easily dismissable, and that making substantial rather than merely incremental change is often an up-hill battle, given the intractability of political will and the related momentum of stasis in the status quo, whether it is working or not.

---

1. Angela Skujins, “Belgian Government Talks at a Standstill after Resignation of Key Negotiator,” Euronews, August 23, 2024.
2. Ibid.

Federalizing Fiscally: E.U. looks to Early U.S.

I suspect many Europeans would bristle at the suggestion that Europe could learn a thing or two from American history. If the E.U. corresponds to the U.S. and has a federal balance-of-power roughly the same as that which existed in the U.S. at, say, 1820, then the Europeans could do worse than look at American history for lessons both in what to emulate and what not to do.

The complete essay is at "Essays on Two Federal Empires."

Angela Merkel: Leading Germany in the E.U.

In the E.U. state of Germany, Angela Merkel had her work cut out for her in getting her coalition to carry the German House, or Bundestag. In vesting the debt bailout fund with powers had been at the state level. Conservatives feared the deal would “open to the door to relinquishing more sovereignty to the European Union.”[1] Also, the legislators in her Free/Christian Democrat coalition were having trouble justifying the increased cost to their constituents of the expanded fund even though it is geared to keeping the E.U. debt-loads at the state level from spinning out of control—meaning at the expense of the German economy. Economically, it can be argued that expanding the E.U.’s bailout fun is in the economic interest of the state of Germany and its residents.

The full essay is at "Essays on the E.U. Political Economy," available at Amazon.

1. Vanessa Fuhrmans, “Merkel Faces Test OverBailout Fund,” The Wall Street Journal, August 30, 2011.

Are the EU and the US Commensurate?

Are the E.U. and U.S. commensurate? The conventional "wisdom" says no, but are most people, including most European leaders, missing something that in retrospect may be considered rather obvious? 

The full essay is at Essays on Two Federal Empires.

On the Politics of Hate Speech: Wilders in the Netherlands

Geert Wilders, head of the Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Netherlands, went on trial on October 4, 2010, in the Netherlands on charges of inciting hatred, less than a week after entering parliament as a linchpin in the coalition government. The far right political leader faced five charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims and people of non-Western immigrant origin, particularly Moroccans. “He divides, he creates hate, he creates conflicts between people,” said Mohammed Rabbae of the National Council for Moroccans. Wilders told the court he was being persecuted for “stating my opinion in the context of public debate,” adding: “I can assure you, I will continue proclaiming it.” In an opinion piece in a Dutch daily, he compared Islam to fascism and the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf.”[1] Wilders also made the film “Fitna” in 2008 which portrayed the Koran as inciting violence and mixed images of terrorist attacks with quotations from the Islamic holy book.

I am staying out of the debate on Islam. Hence, I am not expressing an opinion on whether I agree or disagree with Wilders’ statements on Islam. I raise the matter of this case for its implications for free speech as it is practiced in political debate. The extreme-antisemitism of the Nazis resulted in some rather severe curbs on free speech in the state of Germany that would shock people in any of the American states.  While the EU is relatively restrictive on free speech, however, even in the US a person can not shout “fire!” in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire. The Wilders case is not being prosecuted as a “fire” case.  Rather, it is being portrayed as akin to hate crimes in the US, only in this case it involves speech in a political debate.  The Europeans may have been conflating a hate crime with an opinion in political debate.  Had Wilders urged people to kiss Muslims, his case would be much closer to a hate crime.  If a position in a political debate is itself to be treated as a hate crime, then politics itself is being criminalized.  This would be like saying that republican leaders who are against gay marriage and say it is sinful and akin to having sex with animals are somehow guilty of a hate crime. To say that something is odious does not in itself cross the line into urging people to kill those who believe in it or practice it. Were “dividing people” in a political speech or an opinion piece a crime, the republican party would find itself continually before a judge as one interest group after another feels marginalized by republican positions on particular issues. Political positions may well offend; that is the nature of politics. It doesn’t make it a crime. A clearer line between politics and crime needs to be drawn in Europe. Otherwise, prosecution will be increasingly used to cut out positions in the political discourse that some do not like. Politics is about conflict—hopefully resolving it. Part of the process may be identifying the conflict, and this may be perceived as dividing people when in fact there is already such a division. Where one side of a division is criminalized, the division itself cannot be known by society, and thus any resolution would be partial.  

Ideally, a division should be clearly and fully enunciated by each side, and then others not invested in either side will be sufficiently informed to be able to suggest viable and realistic solutions to the conflict. To ignore one of the positions would be to risk a solution that is merely partial and thus ultimately unsustainable.

1. Natalia Dannenberg and Gabriel Borrud, "Racial Hatred," DW., October 4, 2010.

Twenty years after the Berlin Wall fell: Vor zwanzige Jahre ist die Mauer gefallen

It was a gray rainy Monday in Berlin, yet the sun was shining for those in Europe who are celebrating the fall of the iron curtain.   Twenty years ago from that day, it would have seemed surreal to the east Germans who could suddenly simply walk across a border without fear of being shot.  People simply walked through.  “I just wanted to set foot on your side,” one man said.  “Can I cross over there and visit my parents?” a woman asked.  The east German police could only say, “go ahead.”  There would be no criminal penalties.  Before long, people climbed the wall and started chiseling away.  “The wall has to go,” they cried, “Sie ist zu Ende.”

A state the size of Montana in the EU, the united Germany is today a positive force in Europe.  The fears that gave rise to the European Coal and Steel Cooperative are no longer extant.  To be sure, the existence of the EU renders Germany less a potential threat to its neighbors.  However, Germany is playing a far more positive role in European politics than simply being contained.  In fact, Germany is among the states that have been most supportive of the EU, both monetarily and in terms of supporting further political integration.

   

The lessons of war are not lost on the descendents of those Germans who lost two wars in the twentieth century. The lesson is: a federal union in Europe is the best chance to obviate future war.  The seventeenth century alone demonstrates just how much strife can occupy a century. The problem is perhaps how to give the European Union enough power to prevent war while not giving the union so much power that it can tyrannize over what is innately a heterogenious empire-scale continent. The United States face the same problem, though that union is much closer to the consolidation end than to dissolution.   As much as Europeans may fear consolidation, justifiably looking at American history as evincing such a trajectory, I believe that the illusion that the EU is simply an alliance (in spite of having a supreme court, parliament, and executive branch) ought to be feared just as much.   The former east Germans ought to know the decadence in propaganda.   To be sure, the denial in the US of the empire-level consolidation is just as dangerous.  Both refusals to come to terms with how each of these unions has changed is like refusing to remove one’s blinders before driving.   

In both federal unions, a realistic assessment is requisite to reforming the governance structures to achieve a balance of power between the respective federal governments and the respective state governments.  Common action, such as to forestall war and regulate interstate commerce, and cultural and ideological distinctiveness can each be accommodated; in fact, each can serve as a check on the other, such that neither one can snuff out the other.   Surely one of the lessons learned by the east Germans was that concentrations of power ought to be suspect, given human nature.