Seems like Trump will push Europe to finally stop buying US weapons and ramp up our own productions, something that we should've done years ago.

He remains the most effective EU Federalist.

Hi, Lucia from EUobserver here 👋 Sharing our own reporting, but this immediately made me think of this community.

Spain wants Frontex to expand its presence in Ceuta and make the deployment permanent. The Commission, however, says there are still important questions about what that role should actually look like.

It raises a bigger question: if Ceuta is part of the EU’s external border, should protecting it really remain primarily Spain’s responsibility?

Could cases like this be an argument for turning Frontex into a genuinely European border force?

The economic classifications of the factions in the EU-Parliament are simplified. Most of these factions also have differing views within their own ranks. One example would be the social-liberal wing of Renew, whose economic policies are more similar to those of Volt.

Since Volt is central to European federalism, I have listed the party separately, despite it not actually being a separate faction within the EU-Parliament.

Personal Opinion: European eonomic independence requires innovation and competitiveness. At the same time maintaining a welfare state is central to preserving a high quality of life.

Europe (throughout its history) has implemented systems (and still uses them) that can achieve these goals: the social market economy and social liberalism. Systems that are undoubtedly responsible for Europes high quality of life and our (still good) economic standing. Yes, these systems are far from perfect but compared to socialism and laissez-faire capitalism they offer a functioning framework for future reform.

Edit: grammer

The Hungarian government will only be able to approve the European Union’s new seven-year budget if it serves the interests of Hungarian people and businesses, Prime Minister Péter Magyar told European Council President António Costa during a meeting in Budapest on Wednesday.

In a Facebook post following the meeting, Magyar said he had also told Costa that Hungary expected an early solution to the issue of the EUR 1 million-a-day fine imposed under the previous Hungarian government to be suspended.

Continue reading at https://dailynewshungary.com/magyar-meets-costa-eu-7-year-budget/ | DailyNewsHungary

2026/09/02

In the last 16 years I have become used to seeing Hungary in international news. After Orbán’s fall in April it has become a much rarer event. Something that millions of Hungarians and tens of millions of Europeans waited increasingly restlessly in the past years.

Last week however a small piece of news came out from Budapest. On Tuesday, the government published its policy guidelines where it calls Russia a treat to Europe, Hungary, and the world order, condemns its military aggression, and supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

The shift is not surprising, but what happened just a day before is more interesting. One of the Hungarian Air Force’s fully loaded Gripen fighter jet crashed during an exercise. Then on the same week a 24-year-old drunk man stole a Cessna, and began flying towards Paks, where the country’s nuclear power plant is located. The Air Force had to call up its (remaining) Gripens to go after him, who then landed on a field and attempted to steal a car.

As of today, the first incident was deemed an accident, while the second as a lone drunk person’s mischiefs (perhaps a gamer who just couldn’t wait three more months for GTA VI). It might very well be the truth, but I couldn’t help but wonder, can there be something more to it?

Strangely similar cases across Europe

On the 13th of August a munitions' factory blew up near Rome. It was producing different types of ammunitions, including artillery shells for Ukraine. The official statement claimed it was an accident.

Nine days earlier, Leipzig Airport. A drone containing explosives was discovered near a Ukrainian Antonov cargo plane used to transport military supplies. According to the investigation, it was supposed to blow up the aircraft, but failed to detonate. About 20 minutes after the discovery of the explosives, a second drone collided with a DHL cargo plane. Days later, a third drone was found in a field close to the airport.

Friedrich Merz’s government took its time, but finally decided to publicly blame Russia for these attacks on the 1st of September. On the same day a drone was found in Romania, drones entered Estonian airspace alerting NATO jets, and in Germany homemade rockets targeted a major power plant.

These things happening in Europe are not new, but their frequency and severity seems to suggest an ongoing escalation. Russian drones and missiles are now repeatedly flying into Romania and Poland. In Romania even an apartment building was hit not long ago. 

A list of some of the gravest recent incidents:

• April 2025, Norway: cyberattack on a dam. Norwegian intelligence attributed it to pro-Russian hackers.
• April 2025, France: cyber campaign against French public and private organisations. Paris formally attributed it to GRU (Russian Military Intelligence).
• Spring 2025, Sweden: attack on a thermal power plant. Swedish government later linked it to a pro-Russian group.
• August 2025, Poland: attempted cyberattack on a major undisclosed city's water supply. The attacker has not been publicly identified.
• September 2025, Poland: More than 20 Russian military drones entered Polish airspace.
• September 2025, Estonia: three Russian military aircraft violated Estonian airspace.
• September - October 2025, multiple European countries: large wave of mysterious drones around airports and military sites. Suspected Russian hybrid activity.
• November 2025, Poland: attempted derailment of a train with nearly 500 passengers. The Polish government claims the perpetrators worked for Russian intelligence.
• December 2025, Poland: major attack on electricity infrastructure. Warsaw attributed it to Russian-linked actors; ESET linked it to GRU.
• August 2026, Norway: major pro-Russian DDoS attack on government digital services. A pro-Russian group claimed responsibility.

These are just some of the most serious actions that are publicly known. European security services and governments likely have many more incidents that didn’t (yet) become public.

What is Russia’s strategy?

While not all similar instances are necessarily Russian sabotage, they fit perfectly into Moscow’s strategy of waging a deniable “hybrid war” against Europe to sow discord and pressure governments to stop aiding Ukraine.

In 2024, American voters gave an enormous gift to Vladimir Putin and inflicted a massive blow on European security. Donald Trump not only stopped support for Kyiv but began pressuring it to surrender to Moscow’s demands, then went on to weaken NATO’s Article 5 to the point where each passing day fewer people believe that the US is willing to step in if Russia attacked one of its members.

Europe had no other choice but to quickly took over all military and economic support. It helped Kyiv absorb and withstand every pressure from Washington, while Ukraine still managing to halt Russia’s advances on the frontline.

With US backing successfully removed and still not being able to show results, Putin have concluded that the Europeans are the only ones standing between him and victory, and once they are also neutralized, Ukraine will have no choice but to surrender.

The aim of these attacks is to knock Europe out of its supporting role. They meant to stir panic, cause fear, divide publics and create an atmosphere of vulnerability which undermines trust in governments. Trust that they are capable of protecting their country, which gives ammunition to radical parties opposing Ukrainian support.

The coming escalation

Unfortunately I suspect that these actions will continue to intensify to the point where they might lead to a mass-casualty event. Something that will be deniable, and Russia might try to blame it on Ukraine, or at least create enough confusion that no coordinated response can be politically possible. If we add the growing concerns that Putin is preparing for another mobilization, it paints a grim picture.

Despite the frontline itself being largely stalled, Moscow is not forced to conduct a new mobilization. The current scheme of paying people to sign up is still sufficient to replenish losses, while the Kremlin can still hope that Ukraine will crumble this coming winter. The country’s infrastructure is in a much worse situation than the previous year, and lacking of meaningful air defence, it is quite likely to face a dark long cold winter with lots of hardships and a potential drastic slowing of economic and production output.

Putin, so far, has been avoiding another mobilization at all cost, fearing societal backlash. And yet, it seems like this autumn he will indeed go for it, even without being forced to. Thus, there is a possibility that his goal might go further than just to replenish losses. It could be the opening of a new front somewhere in Ukraine, or perhaps to use them for a provocation in the Baltic states, or even a limited incursion.

He might conclude that this is the perfect opportunity with a friendly President in Washington, and the US being busy with the midterm elections turning inwards, with a potential added inertia if Trump ends up contesting or straight up cheating the results. All in all, he can hope for a United States unwilling to meaningfully deal with foreign policy issues, and especially not ones considering a Europe they increasingly see with contempt and hostility.

But Putin might be heading towards his most fatal miscalculation, and the beginning of his demise. Open military pressure on Europe would produce the exact opposite effect.

He seemingly locked himself into an escalation spiral he is not willing to abandon. If he faces resistance or stagnation in one place, he tends to put pressure on another where he senses weakness. He is risking an escalation that Europe can no longer afford to ignore, and might push the continent into an active war.

I made the case multiple times before that this would cause the military and the geopolitical awakening of the EU, and all but guarantee that Russia would lose the war in Ukraine.

Conclusion

One of Putin’s great weaknesses is his lack of strategic patience. He could have coerced Kyiv to stay in Moscow’s orbit if he didn’t start the war in 2014. He still had a much better shot at undermining Europe and the West if he hadn’t invaded Ukraine in 2022. The far-right was already on the rise, and very few viewed Russia as a threat.

Instead, he created an unbreakable and extremely hostile Ukraine with the largest, most advanced, and most capable military on the continent, and a Europe that is rearming on a scale that seemed unimaginable just a few years ago. No matter how the war ends, Ukrainian hostility and European rearmament cannot be reversed.

Similarly, even today, he could still try building a more advantageous geopolitical position for Russia if he decided to pause the war, normalize relations with the West, and rebuild his military while undermining European democracies, unity, and support for Ukraine. He could wait for more and more countries to be overtaken by Trump and Orbán-like figures.

After Anchorage, he proved again that he is incapable of this sort of patient long-term strategic planning. He wants it all, and wants to get it by brute force that continues on backfiring for Russia on the long term.

It remains to be seen if he will finally take a misstep that will push him towards the grave. I am not convinced that he made that decision yet, but from what I can perceive, he is thinking about it. Europeans today are not psychologically ready for war. But Putin might force them into becoming ready.

The good news

With Germany openly blaming Russia for the attempted terror attacks and European leaders showing firm solidarity, the continent has begun to prepare for this eventuality. This is a necessary first step. It demonstrates the resolve needed to deter Moscow.

But as we enter a new much more dangerous phase of the war, we still have a lot to do.

CONSTITUTION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PREAMBLE

The peoples of Europe, constituted into a Federal Union in the exercise of their sovereignty and inspired by the principles of direct democracy, subsidiarity, transparency, and absolute equality before the law, hereby enact and promulgate this Constitution.

TITLE I: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES

Article 1. Individual and Procedural Rights

- Human life is inviolable. Torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment are absolutely prohibited.

- Freedom of worship, expression, the press, assembly, association, and the free movement of persons, goods, and capital throughout the territory of the Union are guaranteed.

- All inhabitants are equal before the law. Parliamentary, judicial, or executive immunity or special privilege is prohibited for any public official; all individuals are subject to arrest and prosecution under the rules of ordinary law.

- Access to Legal Representation: All defendants in criminal proceedings hold an absolute right to legal advice and counsel.

- Private property is guaranteed; it may only be expropriated for reasons of public utility by formal law and subject to prior, fair compensation.

Article 2. Federal Secularity and Nobility

1. Religious Neutrality: Absolute religious neutrality applies to all levels of government (Federal, Member State, and Municipal). The use of public funds, assets, or resources for the promotion, censorship, or persecution of any religion is strictly prohibited. No level of government shall grant public property, funds, or subsidies to private organizations dedicated to religious activities or purposes.

2. Titles of Nobility: The Federal Government shall neither grant nor recognize any titles of nobility. The granting and recognition of titles of nobility shall be exclusive to the individual Member States according to their respective constitutional traditions.

Article 3. Right to Suffrage

All citizens of the Union who are at least 18 years of age and have resided within a given jurisdiction for a minimum of 2 years hold an absolute right to vote in that jurisdiction. No citizen meeting these requirements shall be denied suffrage unless they are actively serving a criminal sentence under a final judicial conviction.

TITLE II: DIRECT DEMOCRACY, REFERENDUMS, AND POPULAR INITIATIVES

Article 4. Definition and Requirements of Binding Popular Instruments

Sovereignty resides in the citizens of the Union, who exercise it directly through binding popular instruments across all levels of government (Federal, Member State, or Municipal):

- Derogatory Referendum (Veto of Existing Laws): A direct democratic mechanism allowing citizens to vote to reject, void, or repeal a law, statute, or ordinance passed by a legislature. Requires signatures from 1% of the registered electorate of the respective jurisdiction. Approved by a simple majority of votes cast.

- Popular Initiative (Proposal of New Laws): A direct democratic mechanism allowing citizens to draft and submit a new law, statute, or ordinance directly to a binding public vote, bypassing the legislature. Requires signatures from 5% of the registered electorate of the respective jurisdiction. Approved by a simple majority of votes cast.

- Constitutional Amendment: Requires signatures from 10% of the total registered European electorate. Approved by a simple majority (over 50%) of all eligible registered voters in the Union. Constitutes the Supreme Law.

Article 5. System of Signature Collection, Certification, and Presentation

1. Municipal Separation: Signatures shall be gathered on official physical sheets or certified digital registries grouped exclusively by municipality. Every signatory must be registered to vote in the municipality where their signature is collected.

2. Municipal Verification: Before final submission to federal authorities, signature sheets must be presented to local municipal electoral offices. Municipal clerks shall verify each signature against the voter registry to confirm age, residence, and voting eligibility.

3. Central Presentation: Once certified by municipal authorities, all validated signature sheets shall be bundled and submitted to the Independent Electoral Authority within a maximum period of 18 months from official registration.

4. Final Validation: The Independent Electoral Authority shall count the certified signatures and officially publish the declaration of success or failure.

Article 6. Parliamentary Counter-Proposals, Ranked-Choice Voting, and Scheduling

1. Parliamentary Counter-Proposals: Parliament holds the explicit authority to draft and submit a direct legislative counter-proposal to any popular initiative or constitutional amendment to be placed alongside it on the ballot.

2. Ranked Choice Voting: Whenever a public referendum presents voters with more than two options on the ballot—such as a popular initiative appearing alongside a parliamentary counter-proposal—the referendum shall utilize Ranked Choice Voting to ensure an absolute majority consensus.

3. Mandatory Scheduling: Once signatures are validated, the corresponding referendum must be held no earlier than 30 days and no later than 90 days from the date of official verification.

4. Federal Referendum Spacing: Federal referendums of any type shall not be held less than 60 days apart.

Article 7. Legal Hierarchy, Supremacy, and Judicial Review

1. Federal Supremacy: Federal law—whether enacted by Parliament or passed by popular referendum or initiative—holds absolute legal supremacy over all Member State and local laws, statutes, ordinances, or acts, regardless of whether those sub-federal measures were passed by local legislatures or local popular referendums.

2. Rank of Popular Laws: Laws passed by popular referendum or initiative occupy a legal rank immediately below this Constitution and superior to acts passed by Parliament, unless they meet the voter approval threshold required for a Constitutional Amendment.

3. Judicial Review: The Supreme Court of Justice retains full authority to strike down any law or provision passed by popular referendum if it conflicts with or violates this Constitution.

4. Modification Restrictions: No law approved by Referendum or Popular Initiative may be modified or repealed by Parliament; only a subsequent popular vote or judicial constitutional strike-down may alter or invalidate it.

TITLE III: DIVISION OF POWERS, ADMISSION OF NEW STATES, AND JURISDICTION

Article 8. Federal Competencies, Expansion, and Taxation

1. Exclusive Competencies: The Federal Government holds exclusive power and jurisdiction over:

   - Monetary Policy: Issuance of currency, central banking, and regulation of the federal monetary system.

   - Military and Defense: Management of the Federal Armed Forces, border defense, and national security.

   - Foreign Relations: Conduct of international diplomacy, negotiation of treaties, and representation in international bodies.

   - Regulation of Commerce: Regulation of trade between Member States and with foreign nations.

1. Expansion of Competencies: Further federal competencies may be granted to the Federal Government exclusively by the People through a successful popular referendum.

2. Taxation Framework: Specific details, structures, and distribution of federal taxation law shall be established by Parliament or directly by popular referendum.

Article 9. Admission of New Member States

New Member States shall be admitted into the European Union upon fulfilling two cumulative conditions:

1. Popular Approval: Simple majority approval of the European citizenry through a federal popular referendum.

2. Neighboring Consent: Simple majority approval of the existing Member States that share a direct land or maritime border with the applicant state.

Article 10. Member State Autonomy and System Replication

1. Member States retain all powers, competencies, and jurisdictions not expressly granted to the Federal Government by this Constitution or added via popular referendum.

2. Member State governments and their municipal entities shall replicate the direct democracy and collegial structure of the Federal Government.

TITLE IV: LEGISLATIVE POWER (PARLIAMENT)

Article 11. Structure and Parity of Parliament

The Legislative Power of the Union resides in the Parliament, divided into two chambers of equal hierarchy and equal numerical membership:

- Total Membership Parity: The House of Representatives and the House of Citizens shall have the exact same total number of members.

- Apportionment and Election of Representatives: Member States shall be allocated one Representative per one million inhabitants, with a guaranteed minimum of two Representatives per Member State regardless of population. Representatives shall be elected by the citizens of each Member State through Open Party List Proportional Representation for a 5-year term.

- House of Citizens: Composed of an equal total number of members as the House of Representatives, selected by public, stratified lottery from the Union's voter registry. Members shall serve a 1-year term. Responsible for ethical oversight, the final review of legislative bills, and drafting the questions for federal popular initiatives and referendums.

- Exclusions from the Lottery: Individuals currently serving a criminal sentence, possessing a judicially declared medical impairment, not habitually residing in the Union, or serving in active military service are excluded from the lottery.

Article 12. Powers and Competencies of Parliament

The Parliament, through the coordinated action of both Chambers, holds the power to:

1. Exercise Legislative Functions: Enact, amend, or repeal ordinary laws and federal codes of the Union within federal jurisdiction.

2. Formulate Counter-Proposals: Draft official legislative counter-proposals to popular initiatives or constitutional amendments.

3. Establish Lower Courts: Structure and create lower federal courts across the Union by formal law.

4. Oversee the Executive: Directly elect the 7 Ministers of the Executive Council for a 5-year term.

5. Exercise Absolute Inspection and Investigation: Exercise an unrestricted right of inspection and investigation over all public administration. The Executive Branch may not claim state secrets, military secrecy, or confidentiality before parliamentary investigative committees.

6. Manage Budget and Taxation: Approve or reject the General Budget of the Union, establish federal taxes, and authorize the contracting of public debt.

7. Regulate Salaries: Regulate the unified salaries of high officials of the Union, applying any adjustment exclusively to the subsequent legislative term.

Article 13. Dispute Resolution Between Chambers

If one Chamber of Parliament approves a bill and the other Chamber rejects it, the legislation is not automatically lost. Instead, the bill shall be submitted directly to a binding popular referendum, which must be held no earlier than 30 days and no later than 90 days following the formal rejection. Informal conciliation between the chambers may take place prior to the vote.

Article 14. Approval of International Treaties

All international treaties, agreements, and conventions negotiated by the Executive Council require initial approval by the House of Representatives, followed by mandatory final ratification by the People through a popular referendum before taking legal effect.

Article 15. Emergency Laws

In the event of a natural disaster, severe economic crisis, or external threat against the Union, emergency laws and policies shall be drafted, debated, and approved exclusively by Parliament under an expedited procedure.

TITLE V: FEDERAL EXECUTIVE POWER

Article 16. Collegial Executive Council and Powers

- Composition and Election: The Executive Power of the Union shall consist of an Executive Council of 7 Ministers of equal rank, elected by the House of Representatives for a 5-year term.

- Presidency of the Union: The President of the European Union shall be a primus inter pares (first among equals) within the Council. The Presidency shall rotate annually among the 7 Ministers and shall exercise the protocolary representation of the Union without possessing unilateral executive powers.

- Powers and Competencies of the Executive Council:

  1. General Administration: Direct public administration, execute laws passed by Parliament or via popular vote, and manage the public services of the Union.

  2. Legislative Initiative and Regulation: Submit legislative proposals to Parliament and issue the necessary regulations for the complete execution and enforcement of European laws.

  3. Foreign Relations: Direct the foreign policy of the Union, negotiate, and sign international treaties, subject to approval by the House of Representatives and popular referendum.

  4. Security and Common Defense: Command the Federal Armed Forces and coordinate security forces to safeguard internal order, defend sovereignty, and maintain the territorial integrity of the Union.

  5. Financial Management: Prepare the annual draft of the General Budget of the Union for presentation to Parliament and collect federal taxes established by law.

  6. Mandatory Transparency: Regularly account for actions before both Chambers of Parliament and submit unconditionally to parliamentary inspections without claims of confidentiality.

TITLE VI: FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER, JUDICIAL COUNCIL, AND SALARIES

Article 17. Independent Judicial Council and Qualification

An Independent Judicial Council shall evaluate, examine, and certify all legal professionals who meet the formal qualifications to serve as federal judges. Certification by this Council is a mandatory prerequisite for entry into any judicial lottery pool.

Article 18. Structure of Federal Courts and Selection by Lottery

1. Lower Federal Courts: Created and structured by the House of Representatives. Judgeships in the lower federal courts shall be filled by public lottery exclusively from the pool of candidates who have been formally examined and certified as qualified by the Independent Judicial Council. Selected judges shall serve a term of 10 years.

2. Supreme Court of Justice: Selected by public lottery directly from the pool of active, professional career judges. Supreme Court Justices shall serve a non-renewable term of 2 years, after which they shall return to their original courts.

3. Details regarding lower court organization, qualification standards, and judicial administration shall be established by formal law.

Article 19. Evidence Management and Judicial Bureau

The Judiciary holds exclusive jurisdiction and power to hold, secure, and manage all physical and digital evidence in criminal cases through a dedicated Federal Judicial Evidence Agency. The Judiciary shall be guaranteed all necessary administrative and financial resources to ensure equal, unhindered, and fair access to evidence for all parties involved in legal proceedings.

Article 20. Supreme Court Competencies

The Supreme Court of Justice is the supreme body for judicial interpretation and guarantees within the Union. Its exclusive powers are:

1. Constitutional Review: Declare the unconstitutionality and inapplicability of any legal norm, decree, resolution, or law passed by popular referendum that violates this Constitution.

2. Final Judicial Instance: Hear and resolve final appeals regarding the application of federal law or legal conflicts.

3. Jurisdictional Disputes: Resolve conflicts of jurisdiction between the federal government, Member States, and local entities, as well as between different courts of the Judicial Power.

4. Political and Judicial Prosecution: Try criminal and official misconduct cases involving members of Parliament, the Executive Council, and its own justices.

5. Judicial Administration: Exercise disciplinary authority over magistrates and officials of the Federal Judiciary.

Article 21. Unified Remuneration Regime

Members of the House of Representatives, members of the House of Citizens, the 7 Ministers of the Federal Executive Council, and Justices of the Supreme Court of the Union shall receive the exact same salary. Any modification or salary increase shall only take effect in the subsequent legislative term of the House of Representatives.

What do you think?

They're plenty of film and tv about the US or British or French government or where they play a significate role or character or setting, they can be historical, fictitious, contemporary. Are they're any about the European Union's?

This is a real problem. I would like to hear your opinion.

I’m interested in how countries organize economic development. Some countries concentrate resources and jobs in one major city, while others try to distribute factories, services, and populations more evenly across regions.

For example, centralization can make major cities very dense, while decentralization might reduce congestion and boost regional economies.

In your experience, what approach tends to work better in European countries, and why?

I think Europe needs to become a bit more libertarian if it wants to keep up with the US and China. I’m not saying we should get rid of the welfare state.
But there is definitely too much bureaucracy, regulation and government interference in a lot of areas.

Europe has a lot of smart and talented people, but starting and growing a business here can be unnecessarily difficult. If we made it easier to start companies, invest and innovate, Europe could become much more competitive instead of watching the US and China pull further ahead.

It could also help with the demographic problem Europe is facing. Young people are struggling with expensive housing, high taxes and economic uncertainty. That obviously isn’t the only reason people are having fewer children, but making it easier to earn a good income, afford a home and build a stable life could make having a family more realistic.
But economic freedom alone isn’t enough.

Europe also needs to bite the bullet on pensions. With an ageing population and fewer workers supporting more retirees, the current system simply isn’t going to work forever. Pension ages and benefits will probably have to change, even if those reforms are unpopular.

And finally, Europe needs to actually finish the Single Market. It makes no sense that a European company can still face so many different rules and barriers across 27 countries. If Europe had one genuinely unified market, European companies would have a much better chance of becoming large enough to compete with American and Chinese companies.
Europe doesn’t need to become America. But it does need to become more willing to take risks, reform old systems and give people more freedom. Otherwise, we risk becoming a wealthy continent that slowly loses its ability to compete.