“National sovereignty is simply a Pothimkin village” – Weber exposes the fresh line of the European People's Party

In the Wednesday debate on the state of the European Union, Manfred Weber, president of the European People's organization (EPP), clearly signaled that his group had moved entirely to the globalist task side.

His words left no area for interpretation:

“The thought of national sovereignty is simply a Potemkin village; it no longer exists.”

This message became a manifestation of the fresh EPP political line – more Europe, little national states.

Weber wasn't trying to soften the transmission. He advocated the "irreversible" European Union for abroad and defence policy. According to him, only a centralised structure can warrant Europe a place at a global table. It is not the peoples and their governments that are to be about the future of the continent, but the EU institutions that are out of the direct control of citizens. alternatively of strengthening the competences of the associate States, Weber calls for them to be further weakened – for the benefit of a larger whole, the centre of which is no longer in the national capitals but in Brussels.

The words of the president of the EPP were not fundamentally different from that of Ursula von der Leyen. The president of the European Commission, as always, included her demands in a more balanced language – she talked about "European independence", supported competitiveness, agriculture, media resilience. However, behind these phrases are mechanisms that consistently dismantle the sovereignty of associate States. Von der Leyen uses soft rhetoric, Weber simply says: it is about creating a full centralised Europe in which nations will be only administrative units.

It is worth noting the way Weber referred to the opposition to this vision. He did not halt to advance centralization – he utilized his speech to hit those who defend national identity:

"They are friends of Musk, Washington, and even Moscow. They want to turn Europe into a technological colony of Silicon Valley and Kremlin."

It is rhetoric that is to discredit any effort to argue the federalist project, any uncertainty about the direction taking Brussels.

In this way, the EPP ceases to be a centre-right organization in the classical sense. It departs from conservative concern for national communities, self-determination and tradition. It is becoming the manager of the systemic transformation of Europe, 1 which is implemented step by step by step by the European Commission. Weber and von der Leyen present present as a duo – openly or behind the scenes – implementing the same agenda: more integration, more global treaties, more power outside associate States.

An example of specified cooperation is besides the defence of the Mercosur agreement, a controversial trade agreement with the countries of South America, which raises immense concerns among European farmers. Weber considered it to be ‘responsible’, arguing that the region would otherwise be turned over to China. However, he did not say anything about protecting European agriculture, production standards or local economies. For the leader of the EPP, it is more crucial to prosecute global interests than to perceive to the voices of citizens from their own countries.

What has late been the domain of the left and liberals is now becoming the central point of the European centre-right programme. Weber and his organization abandoned the language of national interest, attachment to culture and history. Instead, they present the Union task as an alternate to the ‘anarchy of national states’ as a essential structure for managing the ‘post-national’ continent. In this imagination of the future there is no place for cultural, political or identity diversity – everything is to be subject to a uniform governance model based on EU institutions.

From a political and ideological perspective, it is worth asking: can Europe last as a centralised project? Is national sovereignty just a "potemkinian village"?