The European Union was founded on the dream of cooperation between sovereign nations. Today, that dream is in danger of becoming a bureaucratic nightmare.
At the heart of the problem lies a European Commission with too much power, a parliament with too little, a court that oversteps, and migration policies that ignore national sovereignty. These unaccountable institutions in the European Union must return power to the people and the nations that make it up.
In a recent conversation with Amb. Ed McMullen, who served in Switzerland during President Trump’s first term, he observed that EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and her close-knit circle of ideological allies, are waging a calculated campaign to discredit President Trump.
Their objective is to preserve the centralized authority of Brussels by casting Trump as a destabilizing force to European unity. The truth is that the European Commission now poses the greatest threat to the sovereign rights of its member states.
The European Union needs a federal system like the United States, with three co-equal branches of government — executive, legislative, and judicial — each accountable to the people.
The European Union’s Executive Branch
The European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, has exclusive right to initiate legislation in most areas, though the European Parliament and Council of the European Union can formally request proposals under EU treaties.
The members of the European Commission are not directly elected by EU citizens. Each member state should directly elect its own European commissioner.
The presidency of the European Commission should rotate every six months among the 27 members. That would prevent any single country from wielding disproportionate influence.
To bring more powers back to the member states, the European Commission should work as a co-equal executive partner with the European Council, which represents the heads of state or government of member countries. While the European Commission is responsible for administering and enforcing EU legislation, the European Council should provide strategic direction for the European Union.
The European Union’s Legislative Branch
The European Parliament is elected by the people, yet it cannot propose laws. That job belongs solely to the unelected European Commission.
A democratic Parliament must have legislative initiative.
Meanwhile, the Council of the European Union, which represents national ministers, should be composed of directly elected representatives.
While seats in the European Parliament are apportioned by population, each member state should be represented in the Council of the European Union by two directly elected officials. In essence, the Council could serve a similar role in the EU as the Senate does in the United States.
The European Union’s Judicial Branch
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has expanded beyond its original purpose of interpreting EU treaties. According to Dr. Nicole Brooke Scicluna of Hong Kong Baptist University:
“Unlike ordinary international organizations, the Treaty of Rome created a scheme of supranational integration. The ECJ took that supranational foundation and attempted to constitutionalize it, in large part through its interpretation of the principles of direct effect and EU legal supremacy. That is really what sets the EU apart.”
The doctrines of direct effect and supremacy — developed in cases like Van Gend en Loos (1963) and Costa v ENEL (1964) — established the primacy of EU law over national law.
In other words, the ECJ transformed treaty law into constitutional supremacy. The ECJ’s role should be limited to offering legal advice.
National courts should have the final say on constitutional questions.
An Opt-In System
The Lisbon Treaty preserved and clarified existing opt-outs from previous treaties. As with the euro, opt-outs can preserve unity while respecting national differences.
Of the EU's 27 member states, 20 use the euro. Denmark has exercised its opt-out and retained the krone.
This flexible approach should be applied further. Migration is a prime example where an opt-in model is necessary.
In 2018, Sir Niall Ferguson, a British-American historian, argued that the 2015 migrant crisis revealed the flaws in EU border policies, particularly when Germany accepted over a million refugees.
Under Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, EU citizenship — granted through national citizenship — confers the right to move and reside freely across all member states
The free movement of goods, services, and capital makes sense in a common market. But unlike trade, every country must retain control over its borders and immigration policy.
A common vetting system can help, but final approval should rest with national governments — not Brussels.
The Choice Is Clear
The EU doesn’t need to be broken apart. It needs to be rebuilt — with democracy at its core. The future of the EU must be shaped by its citizens, not imposed by bureaucrats in Brussels.
Robert Zapesochny is a researcher and writer whose work focuses on foreign affairs, national security and presidential history. He has been published in numerous outlets, including The American Spectator, the Washington Times, and The American Conservative. When he's not writing, Robert works for a medical research company in New York. Read Robert Zapesochny's Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.