Unification, not Federalisation

The idea of a federal Europe with a centralised government in Brussels has long been floating around in the minds of German liberal politicians. However, common sense suggests (to virtually everyone who is not playing for Germany) that real power would be concentrated in a different capital. This would be a continuation of the interrupted policy of Hjalmar Schacht and Walther Funk. Another attempt to implement it, this time with Erhard’s white gloves.

Going even further back in history, we can clearly see that great empires do not last long. This is especially true in areas as culturally, geographically and ethnically diverse as Europe. The Romans, Mongols, Turks, Danes, Swedes, Poles, Austrians and Germans have all learned this lesson. However, these same nations have also learned that it is easier to govern a country at the central level if local governments are given a great deal of autonomy in decision-making, as long as these decisions are consistent with the country’s overall policy, e.g. in the areas of security, housing, healthcare or education. This is also how corporations are managed. Each division pursues common strategic goals, but division directors have freedom in making business decisions. And these decisions, although consulted with management, are made autonomously and cascaded downwards. It is simply more effective this way. Above a certain level, it is impossible to manage a large organisation centrally, by one person (or even a larger group). And I am talking about a much smaller entity than an international organisation.

So what should be done with the European Union?

Those who want a united Europe, but one that remains a Europe of nation states, are right. You cannot expect Spaniards to worry about the problems of Poles on the border with Belarus, or that the Dutch will lose sleep over the minimum wage in Bulgaria. But there are things that can (and should) be done. We do not have to solve the theory of great unification right away. We can start with a series of small unifications.

I recently heard a wonderful thought from Daniel Sisson:

The EU’s motto is ‘Unity in diversity’, which is nonsense. We are not united by diversity, we are united by what connects us despite our differences.

But how can this be achieved? I propose a method of small steps. I will not talk about everything, only about what I know.

Let national governments standardise interfaces and systems to a single standard

There are several countries in the EU that are leading the way in e-government solutions for citizens. Estonia is a global leader in such solutions. At the moment, every country, every local government and every public institution has its own systems, databases and interfaces maintained to different standards. This is obviously a nuisance for people who live, travel or work in different countries. But it is also a nuisance for entrepreneurs who do business outside their own country. However, although this is indeed a nuisance, the real reasons for standardising administration lie elsewhere and are much more prosaic. Firstly, it multiplies the costs of maintaining such systems many times over. Instead of ordering separate systems for each institution, each costing millions, let’s opt for common open-source solutions. Not only will this reduce implementation costs, but it will also improve system security and increase trust in public services by eliminating the black box effect. The use of common components will also improve interoperability between member states’ institutions, which is often mentioned in the military context but overlooked in other areas.

Let’s not send Europeans’ data to the US and China

Let’s build our own data centres and cloud computing capabilities, such as Polska Chmura. Entrusting our data exclusively to big tech companies is walking a tightrope, and not just with China. It makes your hair stand on end when you read a report by Gartner, which says that AWS, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud control 70% of the European cloud market. In turn, IDC indicates that Nordic countries have the highest cloud adoption rate in Europe, with over 60% of enterprises and public organisations using public cloud services. In Poland, on the other hand, approximately 40% of enterprises and public organisations used public cloud services in 2022.

What if these private companies change their policy and stop providing services in Europe or change the way they provide them in a way that is very unfavourable to us? And with the current resident of the White House, I do not consider such a scenario unlikely.

I have no illusions that we will be able to replace all Google, Amazon or Microsoft services in this way. But we must have our own data centres, at least for critical services, healthcare and state management systems.

Let’s build joint competences in cyber defence and cyber security

Cooperation between Poland and the Baltic states is a great example here. These countries are world leaders in this field. This is confirmed by reports from MIT for 2022-2023 and ITU for 2024 (with the small exception of Latvia). However, other European countries also perform very well in these rankings. Current regional cooperation is very valuable and worthwhile. Let us develop it further and build competences in this area. We need them now, and they will only become more important over time.

Better written law, not deregulation

Laws should be written in such a way that there are no gaps between national implementations. However, the principle of the primacy of EU law is well established in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. This principle stems from the fact that, when joining the EU, Member States agreed to transfer some of their powers to EU bodies and undertook to comply with EU law. This means that, in the event of a conflict between EU law and national law, EU law generally takes precedence. But with great power comes great responsibility. In my daily work, I deal with adapting the company’s operations to new safety regulations. And it is a pain. In this article, I wrote about how much work and resources it takes to implement poorly written legislation in an organisation. Specialists should therefore be invited to draft legislation instead of leaving it to civil servants. The distinction between regulations and directives on key issues should also be abandoned. The latter cause huge differences in the implementation of rules in Member States and hinder international cooperation.

I am a realist and do not have high expectations. My suggestions are entirely feasible in the short term. Let this article be a contribution to a broader discussion. Who knows, perhaps it will reach people who are in a position to make such decisions and give them food for thought?