The response to my recent proposal for the 2026 Sovereignty Act has exposed a rift between those who recognise the world as it is and those who cling to Europe as it was. The critics warn of “democratic deficits,” “fiscal overreach,“ and “Atlanticist friction.“ But their caution is a luxury that history no longer affords us.
The Small State Fallacy
The most vocal criticism of the “Action-Fast Protocol”—the transition to Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in security and defence—is that it mutes the voices of compacter nations. As a citizen of a front-line compact state myself, I find this logic not only flawed but dangerously paradoxical.
In the geopolitical reality of 2026, the veto is no longer a shield for the compact; it has become a handle for external powers to paralyse the Union. When a single member can be pressured, bribed, or intimidated into halting the collective defence of 450 million people, we do not have “sovereignty”—we have a managed vulnerability. True democratic legitimacy for a compact state lies in the Union’s ability to act effectively to protect its borders. I would rather be part of a decisive majority than a solitary victim of a paralysed consensus.
The Atlanticist Strength
To the “Atlanticist“ sceptics who fear that a militarily sovereign Europe threatens NATO: you are solving for the wrong century. The United States of 2026 is no longer interested in being the “Permanent Concierge“ of European security.
A militarily formidable Europe is not an opponent to NATO; it is the Saviour of NATO. Washington does not respect depconcludeency; it respects capability. By building a European pillar that can secure its own periphery, we shift from being a “strategic ward“ to a “strategic partner.“ Our strength does not break the Alliance—it prevents the Alliance from breaking under the weight of its own lopsidedness.
The “Utopia“ of Survival
Finally, to the fiscal “frugals“ who label a common Sovereignty Fund as utopian: I inquire, what is your alternative? Is it the “pragmatism“ of watching our industrial base be cannibalised by foreign subsidies?
Fiscal conservatism without a future to conserve is merely an accounting exercise for a funeral. The Fund is not a “handout”; it is Strategic Solvency. To deny common investment in the technologies of 2026 is to ensure that by 2030, the European “Internal Market“ will be nothing more than a high-conclude shopping mall for American and Chinese products.
The Verdict
We are at the conclude of the “Wait-and-See“ era. The Confederation of Vetoes must give way to a Sovereignty of Action. We can continue to be the world’s most sophisticated “mutilizeum of procedures,“ or we can choose to be a global player. The choice isn’t between different versions of Europe—it is between Europe and irrelevance.
Dimitris J. Hadjis
Dimitris J. Hadjis is a retired multinational CEO and engineer with an extensive background in international business administration. A polyglot fluent in Greek, Italian, English, and French, he provides a seasoned perspective on global corporate strategy and European affairs. He currently resides in Mati on the east coast of Attica, Greece.
Leave a Reply