The EU election may have shifted the balance of power in Parliament, signaling the inevitable collapse of the establishment’s “centrist” coalition. But the biggest battle for Europe’s future will be fought not between rival blocks of MEPS, but between the European Council—made up of the heads of government of member states—and the EU Commission. That is, the battle between democratically-elected, sovereigntist national governments and Brussels’ unelected, globalist bureaucracy.
In this sense too, last year proved a turning point. European governments have learned their lesson from the EU election and begun veering to the right. This primarily manifests in dropping overzealous climate policies and promising a tougher stance on migration—the two transnational issues that seemed to have the most profound effect on the election outcome. Subsequently, they began to push the Commission toward a course correction at the EU level as well.
It’s telling that despite adopting the Migration Pact just a few weeks before the election—a flagship policy package that was in the works for a decade and was supposed to be the ultimate solution to all of Europe’s migration problems—the autumn began with a European Council summit demanding a wholly different approach. The same member states that helped push the Pact through against sovereigntist opposition in May suddenly began calling for strengthening the external borders, streamlining deportations, and even establishing third-country deportation centers (following Italy’s Albania model)—all the things conservatives had insisted were missing from the Pact.
President Ursula Von der Leyen’s Commission seems eager to answer the call, even suspiciously so. She promised that her new ‘Returns Directive,’ a complementary piece of legislation to the Pact, would be a top priority of the new Commission. The Council would have a draft on its table as early as February, including a proposal on third-country “return hubs,” which is somewhat ironic as leftist judges took the Meloni government to the EU court over the Italian pilot version.
One can’t help but question the sincerity of these overnight efforts by both the establishment-led member states and von der Leyen’s Commission. Why should those whose long-term open door policies created Europe’s migration crisis suddenly be trusted to fix the problem? Can you even patch up a fundamentally-flawed package such as the Migration Pact to meet voters’ expectations? The Patriots for Europe group of MEPs don’t believe so and instead called for scrapping the Pact entirely and starting anew, creating an EU migration policy that does reflect the changing political reality on the continent.
At the very least, they argue, Brussels should allow member states to secure opt-outs to pursue what’s best for them (as the Netherlands and Hungary already requested). Being able to control your own borders should be the bare minimum in a democratic Europe, but opt-outs are still considered taboo among the Brussels elite who are not used to taking ‘no’ for an answer.
The problem is that true conservatives still control too few seats in the Council to achieve meaningful change soon. However, this will likely change in the coming years. Between the rise of the National Rally in France, the AfD in Germany, the FPÖ in Austria, and a dozen others who have grown to be among the most popular parties in their countries, it’s only a matter of time before we see more sovereigntist governments elected—the establishment can keep them under a cordon sanitaire only for so long. Therefore, we can expect the Council to continue shifting toward the right—both through the election of more conservative leaders and by center-right parties trying to appear more right-wing in order to preserve their domestic relevance—and keep pressing the Commission for more concessions on key legislative issues.
‘Queen Ursula’s’ personal leadership style increasingly has come to test the patience of the Council.
There is her persistent struggle with transparency, with Pfizergate being the most glaring but by no means the only example. The case of von der Leyen’s “missing” text messages to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla—described as the largest corruption scandal in EU history—does, however, seem to be the issue she’s most terrified of facing. Von der Leyen had the Parliament cover for her, likely pressured courts to delay her hearing ahead of her reelection, appealed the European Court of Justice ruling that ordered her to release the documents, and simply ignored the countless calls from outgoing EU Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly to come clean. Perhaps O’Reilly’s enthusiasm for holding the executive to democratic standards contributed to the Ursula coalition’s decision to select a former justice minister linked to von der Leyen’s European People’s Party as her replacement—the first politician to take on the role in over twenty years.
But the main thing increasingly bothering leaders in the Council is that von der Leyen seems to forget that she’s not the supreme ruler of the EU but the head of an EU institution that should be subordinate to member states—and not vice versa.
The Commission chief’s modus operandi of making decisions by herself and presenting them as faits accomplis in order to retroactively foster consensus might go unchallenged when only smaller member states are expected to oppose them. But as soon as there’s any meaningful disagreement between the larger ones, such as France or Germany, it immediately becomes apparent that she overstepped the line again. Notable examples from last year include unilaterally imposing duties on Chinese electric vehicle imports, which angered Berlin, and rubberstamping the Mercosur free trade agreement with Latin America while snubbing Paris.
These are just symptoms of a larger issue that’s becoming increasingly prevalent. Humiliating a lame-duck French president once is one thing; trying to boss around 27 nations is quite another. This is why the main topic of discussion on the sidelines of the last EU Council summit was, according to diplomats, how to put an end to these soft abuses of power and put von der Leyen back in her place.
That’s not going to be easy, however, and member states must be prepared for further attacks on their sovereignty from von der Leyen and the Commission. For one, a major debate of this mandate will be about treaty changes and reforms, including abolishing member states’ veto power in the Council—presented by EU elites as absolutely necessary to accommodate Ukraine and other candidate countries—that seek to fundamentally alter the balance of power in favor of Brussels and the big states. This ‘silent coup,’ as some have called it, envisions a quasi-federalist structure in which member states would have no more power than, say, a Swiss canton, with an unaccountable oligarchy ruling without much democratic oversight.
And if you take a look at how Brussels has been operating under von der Leyen in the past five years, it’s clear that standing against these changes will prove more difficult than it seems, however outrageous they may sound. Throughout the last mandate, von der Leyen demonstrated her exceptional ability to hijack crises—such as COVID-19 or the war in Ukraine—and use them to unilaterally expand her own power at the expense of member states, who either stood confused on the sidelines or cheered as their sovereignty was gradually eroded. No doubt, she’ll double down on this approach given the chance, which is only a matter of time in this geopolitically volatile age.
When they say ‘the EU will not survive unless it reforms itself by 2030,’ what they are truly worried about is the 2029 election stopping their imperial project for good unless they implement their plans before it’s too late. In reality, the EU can only survive as a worthwhile entity if we restore democratic control, manifested through member state sovereignty. The seeds of this revolution have been planted across the continent and could mature by the end of the decade—that’s why the Brussels elite will do everything they can to cement their power during this mandate.
Our mission for 2025 and beyond is to stand firmly against these centralizing efforts and keep fighting for member state sovereignty and true democratic representation. Sovereigntist member states must hold out until they surpass a critical threshold in the Council, while citizens must continue to demand genuine change from their “center-right” governments and not just symbolic concessions meant to hold populist challengers at bay. Brussels anti-democratic “center” may have delayed its collapse for now, but the real battle for Europe’s future has just begun.
