The EU Escape: Merz’s Flight From Democratic Responsibility

Friedrich Merz’s chancellorship appears to be gaining momentum. His approval ratings have climbed 10 points from their dismal sub-50% starting point, and some analysts attribute this resurgence to his confident performance on the international stage, particularly within the EU. “Merz is celebrating his ‘Germany is back’ tour,” proclaimed Der Spiegel, after last week’s European Council meeting, while a ZDF commentator even suggested he’s becoming “the new sheriff in Brussels.” Merz himself has emphasized his enjoyment of the summits.

This trajectory follows a familiar German playbook. Angela Merkel, dubbed the “EU’s queen with a tarnished crown” by the BBC, similarly sought distinction through European leadership. But German voters should view this strategy with deep alarm. History shows it accompanies a dangerous flight from democratic accountability.

Merz’s post-summit press conference revealed the mindset. Europe, he declared, faces “perhaps the greatest challenge since the beginning of the European project,” adding that “no country in Europe, regardless of its size, can meet these challenges alone. Only if we speak with one voice will we be able to assert ourselves in a harsh geopolitical environment.”

Here it was again—the tired refrain German leaders have repeated for decades until it sounds like common sense: Forget national sovereignty. Germany’s fate is inextricably tied to the EU. In a globalized world, the nation can accomplish little alone.

While geopolitics matters, the uncomfortable truth is that Germany’s current crises are largely home-made—distinctly national in character. It wasn’t geopolitical pressure that forced Germany’s disastrous energy policy, phasing out nuclear power while sending electricity costs soaring. International forces didn’t compel the government’s ruinous selective subsidizing of climate-focused companies, many of which have since collapsed or fled the country.

Even where Merz correctly identifies genuine threats, including military ones, the failures trace back to national decisions. It was Merz’s own CDU, in a 2011 grand coalition with every Bundestag party, that slashed Germany’s army and ended conscription. What followed was a sclerotic, bureaucratic system that made the military a laughingstock, lacking even basic territorial defense equipment.

Merz’s post-summit promise that Germany’s army should become the “strongest conventional army in Europe” rings hollow—much like his predecessor Olaf Scholz’s famous but empty “Zeitenwende” pledge in 2022. Recent damning reports from Germany’s Bundesrechnungshof confirm nothing has improved: the defense minister lacks a clear plan and has failed to meaningfully reduce bureaucracy.

The February elections sent an unmistakable message: Germans wanted an end to political excuse-making. The vote was a clear call to “take back control,” particularly regarding mass migration. Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) responded appropriately, ordering stricter border checks and instructing police to reject asylum seekers, except for the most vulnerable.

But EU regulations, weaponized by local pressure groups, now threaten these measures, which are in Germany’s national interest. In June, a Berlin Administrative Court, responding to a case initiated by the pro-asylum NGO “pro Asyl,” ruled in favor of three Somali refugees prevented from entering at the German-Polish border. The court argued such rejections bypass EU Dublin procedures.

The migration question has long been German politicians’ favorite excuse for EU dependence. In 2018, Angela Merkel called it an “EU-Schicksalsfrage“—a question of fate for the EU. This was rich coming from the chancellor who unilaterally opened the doors to millions of unregistered migrants in 2015. “We are still not where we want to be,” Merkel said in 2018, as if the situation had nothing to do with her decisions.

The Somali case has now been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), effectively removing it from voters’ hands and placing it in those of unelected supranational judges. While some view this as the rule of law in action, the reality is more troubling. As blogger eugyppius correctly explains, Germany’s interior minister is “under siege from asylum advocates on the left and the broader migration industry, who have set and sprung a very telling trap, with the aim of getting courts to overturn even these preliminary and quite meagre interventions.”

The government itself acknowledges the political orchestration by asylum activists. Yet it’s happy to refer it to the ECJ, even though this means abandoning democratic debate at home. Given the ECJ’s history, voters’ wishes to regain border control will likely be thwarted again.

Yet, blaming the EU remains too convenient. The core problem is German politicians’ cowardice and inability to take majority wishes seriously. This is why Dobrindt has said he would “naturally” accept a “possible veto by the European Court of Justice against deportations.”

German politicians have become addicted to the EU because it provides cover for avoiding domestic battles. Rather than fighting hard political fights at home, they hide behind Brussels: Migration decisions? Only if the ECJ agrees. Supporting Israel? Only with European Council consensus (which, predictably, never materializes).

It’s delusional to believe Germany, with its formidable problems, can simultaneously reform itself and the EU, as Merz suggests. Germany and the EU have become mirror images: bureaucracy-riddled, unable to address citizens’ pressing concerns, resorting to ever-greater debt as a desperate solution.

“‘Compromise“ has become Merz’s magic word, borrowed from EU-speak. This compromise addiction characterizes his domestic policy too, leading to coalition decisions that have alienated many of his former supporters—from agreeing to the republic’s largest debt program since its founding to abandoning clear support for Israel both within the European Council and his coalition at home. But hiding behind compromise is worse than pursuing lowest-common-denominator policies—it’s a calculated abandonment of principle to avoid difficult conversations with coalition partners. As Aristotle teaches in his Nicomachean Ethics, courage is the key virtue because without it, we cannot make right decisions, especially when facing difficulties and danger.

Merz’s polling recovery is likely to prove short-lived. German voters delivered a clear message in February: they want leaders who take responsibility for national problems rather than deflecting blame to Brussels. They need politicians who have the courage to make difficult decisions in Germany’s interests, not comfortable compromises that serve everyone except German citizens.

Until Merz begins to truly govern Germany for Germans rather than positioning himself as Brussels’ new sheriff, his promises to solve the country’s economic and security problems will remain as illusory as his European leadership ambitions. For politicians who lack courage, supranational bureaucracies offer the perfect refuge—a place where difficult decisions can be deferred and blame can be shifted. Merz might have truly enjoyed himself in Brussels. We, however, shouldn’t accept that our leaders prefer the comfortable distance of supranational bureaucracies to the demanding accountability to their voters.