How to transform the European Union to avoid disintegration


In Bulgaria, there has never been a MEP elected off a party ticket. Bulgarians are not particularly interested in MEP elections for two main reasons:
1. They know that the European Parliament is the job destination for people who lack the vocation to contribute to the EU development, defend the Bulgarian interests; instead they are obedient, willing to meet the will of their mentors. Not to mention the absence of leaders and visionaries full of energy and insight how to change the European Union and the world.
2.People (not only in Bulgaria) consider the European Parliament as a place too distant, having no care for them and unbound to their will. This alienation strongly reduces the legitimacy of EU authorities.

In Bulgaria, the MEP elections are seen as a test for parliamentary elections. This should change because, despite our attitude to bureaucracy in the European Union, it has a significant impact on any of us. I have something to say, I have something to offer and I have something to defend before MEPs so that both the EU and Bulgaria are better governed and more successful.

Standing on the rostrum of the European Parliament, I will make sure to expose politicians’ outrageous crimes and betrayal to Bulgarian interests and any tolerance to them on the part of Europe. It will happen even against the will of the media, which is usually doing their best to cover up such affairs, since it is in their own interest or in line with their owners’ policy.

 I have proven over the years that I am no one’s man and I do not work for any behind-the-curtain interests. I have established my name for almost two decades in the capacity of representing Atomic Energy of Canada while competing for Belene NPP project and as head of the Bulgarian division of the world’s largest consultancy AECOM, which was engaged by the Bulgarian government to prepare the necessary documents for the country’s accession to the EU.

Since more than half of Bulgarians believe that the MEP elections will not be fair, one third does not go to the voting booths simply because there is no one to vote for, about 2.4 million (according to official data by the Foreign Ministry dated January 2019) have migrated to various parts of the world and are nearly completely hindered to cast their vote, while “dead souls” on the election lists are nearly 1 million, it seems no hope is left! But it is in the deepest hopelessness that hope sparks up for a change to good, and all the mechanisms of manipulation (immoral laws, corrupt higher administrative court, failure to use the actual data of the National Statistical Institute, false ballots, pre-purchased votes, controlled vote, forged and counterfeit protocols, replaced ballot bags, dependent central electoral commission) are powerless before the people’s will.

It’s time to make things right, to our benefit.

People are disillusioned, but I am not! I believe and I am able to change things because faith and hope have never left me.

Truth is in the first place. It has been persecuted in our country and it is about time to give it a chance to stand up.

Thank you for your confidence!


Europeans can proudly look back on half of a century of peaceful integration. But this success does not guarantee future viability in a rapidly changing world. A Europe of Expert Circles, constructed by Founding Fathers, is something of the past – citizens are raising their voices loudly and want to actively participate in governance, i.e. to determine their own destiny.

The European Union must dynamically develop its unity in diversity. In particular, in the face of the worst economic crisis in recent times. Whether it is about energy or the euro, climate protection or all-new conflicts – Europe’s international self-assurance always depends on its internal strength and unity. The European Union’s social structure design and, above all, its future development is essential, because it is only in this way that the economic and monetary union can continue to function and improve. Only a Europe of solidarity can compete with both old and new forces and defend its core values and interests. Whether today the EU is the model of peaceful and free communication between national states and citizens – this is a question that is increasingly demanding a response.


Let me start with some remarks on the EU history, not to recall all the facts, but to point out that a number of less known or distorted facts. Because if unless we know the exact facts, there is no way we can do a thorough analysis, and unless we have a fair analysis, we cannot formulate the patterns of development and evaluate trends.

In Europe (and not only there), people are convinced that France and Germany are the drives of the EU. They are at the core of the current European structure and will strongly depend on the EU’s future development.

But is this so indeed?

In 1940, France reached the bottom. It was occupied by Germany, and its entire elite has been seduced by the winners. Charles de Gaulle is the only man who dared taking responsibility for France. On June 18, 1940, in a radio broadcast on BBC, he called for the Resistance, but only a few months later in a private conversation he said there were only a few Jews, a few poets, and fishermen from the island of Saint, where he was residing at the time. All of France’s elites have been bound to the government of Gen. Pétain, who is known as a collaborationist, i.e. leads a cooperative policy with the German conquerors. At the same time, the whole of Europe recognizes this government as legitimate (i.e. the occupation of France), except for Winston Churchill. It means that at the end of 1940 – early 1941, the only country capable of war with Nazi Germany was England.

During the three key conferences, the fate of the post-war world (Tehran – 1943, Yalta – 1944, and Potsdam – 1945), to which US Presidents Franklin Roosevelt (at the first two) and Harry Truman (at the third) together with Joseph Stalin draw up the future configuration of Europe, but France was the great absent. It was also absent from the Washington Conversations on the International Peace and Security Organization from August 21 to October 7, 1944, which discussed the world’s post-war organization and the establishment of an international peace and security organization (the future UN).

In fact, Churchill played an ancillary role. The big players are the USSR and the US that shared Europe. Either shared the same ambition: to establish their domination over Europe – political and military domination. The political and economic domination on the West is called the Common Market (transformed into the EU), and that on the East – the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, which collapsed in 1991. Military domination is also known as NATO in the West and the Warsaw Treaty in the East.

So, distinguishing the European structure from the United States is something quite artificial and inconsistent with reality because, ultimately, the US domination over Europe is something like a medal for vassal contributions, in two aspects: the civilian – called the EU; the military – called NATO. If we consider the history this way, it is immediately clear why the United States support so much Turkey’s bid to join the EU, unlike other European countries. It would ensure NATO’s military perimeter to coincide with the EU’s civilian perimeter. Similarly, some EU countries that are not yet NATO members such as Austria, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden are also under being pressure to join the Alliance.

If you go back to a number of statements by French Gaullists and Communists from the 1950s and 1960s, you will see that the European structure is called German-American. Which is actually nothing new, because it simply reproduces in a slightly different way the European structure from Bel Époque, i.e. of the period between the two world wars. Because, after a series of in-depth publications lately, it is no secret to anyone that Hitler did not come to power just like that, but has received a steady support from U.S. industrial and financial elites. Just remember the role of such iconic figures such as Henry Ford (a sworn supporter of Nazism who received the highest Nazi order ever given to foreigners) and Prescott Bush, the father and grandfather of two US presidents with the Bush family, who is the main acting person in the financial transactions for the Hitler regime.

After the War, close ties between Germany and the United States continued with even more intensity. In Nuremberg, only a few of the guiltiest Nazi criminals were condemned, seen as useless in the new environment. Thousands and thousands of top Third Reich administrative, military, scientists and financiers, after a brief “washout” stay in specialized structures (Sunflower and Paperclip operations), were exported to the United States to contribute to the country’s development. Just to mention Werner von Braun, designer of Fau-1 and Fau-2 rockets, which attacked the great British cities at the end of the Second World War, chief designer of the first American space rockets and his top achievement Saturn -5, which carried the U.S. expeditions to the Moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Let us mention another notorious person – Walter Hallstein. He is charged with implementing the strategic partnership between Germany and Italy after the Hitler and Mussolini meeting in 1938 called “New Europe”. Arrested after the War, and “washed out” by the relevant services, he was appointed German Foreign Minister in Konrad Adenauer’s government and is one of the key authors of the Treaty of Rome (25 March 1957) economic community, the EU’s forerunner. He was also the first president of the European Commission.

So, from the point of view of the United States, Germany is the unquestionable prima inter pares (first among equals) on the European continent. From Germany’s point of view, it is the United States, not France, the most important partner in the world. This is the sheer truth available to, but yet unrealised by the Europeans, namely that the EU is a pyramidal, undemocratic structure with Germany on the top. For 70 years, it has been a country under occupation, with 179 U.S. military bases, more than 40,000 U.S. military staff, and a significant amount of U.S.-controlled nuclear warheads on its territory.

Recently, the Western geopolitical thought shared the view that Germany has become too strong and seems to be a real competitor to the world hegemon. German scientific, technical and organizational genius is at the heart of its power, its overwhelming superiority not only on European land in the field of industry and technology. Adding to its growing political power each year, owing to its once and already absorbed European territories and peoples in the EU, it becomes a real geopolitical rival of today’s great world powers.

Of course, the struggle with them is still at the starting point and not much visible. But it is something that we have to keep in mind and keep an eye on in the coming years.

It is not by chance that I have paid so much attention to the role of France in the creation and functioning of the EU, because it is part of a remarkable political myth. After the Second World War, France, by any criteria, should not be called “Great Power” – neither for any contribution to the victory over Nazism, nor as a military, political and economic power. It is rather co-opted to the winners, and even gains a place among the permanent members of the United Nations at Stalin and Churchill’s insistence to counterbalance the emerging American-German hegemony over Western Europe.

Nowadays, in view of what has been said about Germany-US strategic relations, here comes a question: how will France’s relations with Germany – the real hegemony within the EU – develop. France is in a long period of creeping deindustrialization and production and brain drainage abroad. There are a few prophets in it, predicting there will be a day to perish.

In fact, the question to France is not whether it will cease to exist. It will continue to exist and be one of the most beautiful countries in the world with its natural and historical diversity, its own language and culture. The problem is what kind of transformation it will experience. Whether it will become the backyard of a space domineered by Germany. And whether it will become a subordinate country, such as Italy in the EU system. So far, Germany is doing very wisely, allowing France to do things economically, politically, financially, budgetary, such as Italy or Spain, are not allowed. Not to mention Greece or Bulgaria.

But nations are now awakening. For example, Italians see they have a popular government, elected by 70% of voters who have made their own budget, as it is done in any democratic state. But some gentlemen, headed by Mr. Juncker – EC apparatchiks who are not Italians and who have not been elected – allow themselves saying, “No, it will not happen! You have to change your budget!” Such behaviour could hardly be called democratic and based on the principles of equality. Europeans will increasingly oppose such recurrences of bureaucratic inequality.

So, it is precisely these two key processes – the US-Germany relationship and the France-Germany relationship – that depends on the future of all of us who are part of Europe. We see there is a boiling process in France, of social and inter-ethnic discontent. Along with it, there is a rising wave of politicians, economists, scientists and journalists who loudly say that France has a future only if it exits the Eurozone and eventually the EU. For now, the power elites have managed to counteract such ideas. But the future is extremely unclear.

What will happen if the nations realize they live under the orders of an oligarchy with elements of democracy?



SecurityThe EU has brought to Europeans unprecedented security, and especially in their first decades – prosperity. Member States have learned to resolve their controversy by way of talks and not allow even the slightest clash between them.

Common values – freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law and respect for human rights, free market, peace and prosperity, deepening of solidarity among peoples.

Stability and predictability – unlike the years before the EU foundation, there have been no world crises in Europe for more than 6 decades, but its existence has been prudent, aided for the countries in distress and a striving for a world order.

Free movement of people, goods, money and ideas.

Individual freedoms and high social protection – in fact, after the Second World War, the “right spectrum” surrendered and, along with the “left spectrum”, formulated the hybrid “social state under the conditions of liberal democracy”. The right has accepted the social function of the state and respects it consistently, because otherwise, the society that is already accustomed to these benefits objects it.


Structure of the European Union

The current structure of the European Union is transient, i.e. inefficient, both economically, socially and ethnically.

In recognition of the senior EU officials themselves, the EU is a cumbersome and highly bureaucratic structure making its own decisions, which are often incomplete and lacking vision.

The loss of time is particularly painful considering the speed, the planned character and the purposefulness with which its main rival China implements its projects. In this way, the EU is strategically losing its economic competition to China.

Communities of leaders and experts

The EU, since its inception, is built from top to bottom, from elites to citizens. Therefore, his whole scheme is designed to serve mainly the elites, to provide them with the necessary comfort and, above all, to enable the elites to select and manage European officials. The overall construction is built so that the executive bodies are not electable, but selected after unknown principles by unknown circles, and then – approved by the representative structures. The choice of the most important body – the European Commission – is preceded by powerful lobbying and backstage arrangements between the elites, having nothing to do with the nations’ will. That’s the reason these elites also work in the interest of their employer, and not, as it should be, for the voter’s benefit. Over the last few years, this dependence has been increasingly exposed, and it has lost the confidence of EU citizens to government officials and institutions.

Subordination to the United States

This issue is the topic discussed in Chapter I (EU History), where the history of this status quo was recalled.

If Europe wants to have a bright future and be a super-political and economic player, peering China and the United States, it should shake off its political and military dependence on the United States.

However, it should pass a review of the status quo established after the Second World War and especially the status of defeated states, especially Germany.

Emancipation requires the adoption of new principles on which the foreign policy of the European Union will be formulated, and above all the termination of NATO and the creation of its own European army. No state or alliance of states without a powerful army can be a superpower and a decisive player in any field.

Emancipation also requires a long-term strategy for the establishment of powerful banking institutions as it is through finances and borrowed capital that the most powerful pressure and dependence on the United States is happening.

However, let me point out in particular: everything said here does not mean to propagate anti-Americanism! On the contrary. I am convinced that the United States will continue to be the main and most important partner to the EU. But in another environment – on equal footing.

Military weakness

Although they spend a lot of money for military purposes, today Europeans are unable neither to protect their territory from the strong of the day nor to conduct a self-sustaining peacekeeping action in a crisis region. Their weapons are obsolete and ineffective, not to mention that a large number of them, in their own statements, are brought into physical disability. Europe’s military industry does not match the top specimens of the three leaders (US, Russia, China), and is unable to provide all the necessary nomenclature weapons. In this respect, its dependence on the US is quite obvious.

With regard to foreign, security and defence policy, the EU remains a reactive player whose actions are mostly limited to the Old Continent. Europe’s gazing into its own navel and the lack of any global political vision form up the EU’s international image.

Lack of homogeneity, clear core and periphery

Currently, the poorest countries in the EU are lagging behind by income from the wealthiest nations about 10 times in nominal terms, and about 5-6 times in real terms.

This status quo has a devastating effect on poor countries as it sucks from the most capable, trained and motivated population, almost all qualified professionals in all fields (teachers and university lecturers, doctors and nurses, engineers, artists, entrepreneurs and business people). It gives ground to considerable grievances both among the poor and the incumbent elites who feel the pressure from their voters. Such disproportions also lead to the strengthening of nationalism in individual countries and anti-European sentiment. The EU can not only be content with the pre-accession and accession programs but has a strategy to eliminate these differences – with secure funding, a legislative basis and the adoption of pan-European income standards.

The problem is that it costs too much that no one of the rich states is willing to pay. In this way, however, the common European structure is undermined.

Constitution of red-tape and chaos

The European Constitution is a written organizational scheme of chaos in competences and responsibilities and does not meet the expectations expressed in the great European debate at the beginning of the 21st century.

The EU scheme leads to a lethargy policy in all respects – both in the economy, in the social domain, in security, in infrastructure and in finances.

It is evidence of the inability of the European elite to put the interests of individual countries under a common denominator, to show the principle of decision-making, to build a methodology for rapidly achieving effective compromises – we have seen it in the Greek crisis, the migrant invasion and the attitude towards conflict areas such as Libya, Iraq, Syria. Unity was achieved quickly only in relation to Brexit, because everyone felt threatened and the fear of rapid disintegration of the overall construction prevailed over anything else.

Manifestations of impartiality

Despite the claims of following sustainable principles and clear messages, over the last few years the European Union has shown its citizens and the world utterly unprincipled solutions:

  • Two of the largest and most important member states (France and Italy) were initiators of the war against Libya, culminating in many human casualties and a complete catastrophe;
  • Since the early 1990s, the EU has been preparing the break-up of Yugoslavia, which Western Europe created after the end of the First World War. This completely illegal and interfering with the principles of international law ended with the collapse of Yugoslavia, with tens of thousands of victims, with the unlawful annexation of Kosovo’s historic province and the imposition of a governance of drug traffickers and traders of human organs and the apotheosis of the U.S. bombing over Serbia approved by the EU;
  • The EU did nothing to stop the war in Iraq, resulting in more than 1 million people losing their lives;
  • The EU has interfered in Syria in an unlawful manner, fuelling the civil war in Syria, and often supporting some terrorists;
  • The EU has been actively involved in the preparation and implementation of the coup d’état in Ukraine, resulting in a pro-fascist junta, the Crimea being annexed by Russia, a civil war in the Donbass that claimed more than 15,000 casualties to date, GDP over the past 5 years has dropped by almost half, and now Ukraine is the poorest of all countries in Europe, and its population of 46 million in early 2014 is now estimated to be less than 30 million;
  • The EU pursued an extremely unprincipled policy on the migration waves to Europe. With its policy in the Middle East and North Africa, it has largely provoked the flow of migrants to its territory, did not take the necessary measures to stop it, did not support the border states that suffered the most (Greece and Italy), allowed the decisions on this issue to be dictated by the German Chancellor and not by the authorities authorised by the European Constitution. Given that there are more than 70 million internally and externally displaced people in Africa and the Middle East, the EU will again face the same issue in the near future, but instead of working hard to tackle it, it has discussed for years so-called Migration Pact, which is nothing more than the legalization of permanent migrant traffic in the world and above all to Europe;
  • The EU has pursued an unprincipled policy towards Turkey, which was an associated member since 1963, and since 1999 it has been recognized as a candidate for EU membership;
  • The EU has been unprincipled in the T-TIP negotiations when it allowed the invasion of GMOs into the EU, but fortunately it was all over when Trump came to power.



We cannot judge the present and the future of the EU, without saying a few words about globalization and its development.

When talking about globalization, we must clearly formulate this concept. Globalization is a process of internationalization taking place in all areas of life – economics, culture, technology, finance, communications, population migration, etc. Its main leverage is rapid growth of international trade.

Globalization is an ideology. It implies a substantial denial of national sovereignty and the transfer of a number of national powers to the hands of non-elective supranational structures, mostly related to bank capital and transnational corporations (TNCs). Globalization is not a new phenomenon – similar processes have taken place in the past, of course, at regional level, in the world known to civilizations, which the ancient people called with the ancient Greek word “oikumene” (the human-inhabited world).

Globalization should not be confused with the drastically increased opportunity for mankind to move in space and communicate in real time, which seems to diminish the planet and unite it. We could call this phenomenon “natural globalization,” or “planetary interconnectivity.” But we must distinguish between globalization, ideologically, as a new, post-industrial structure of the world, a new political and economic order, and natural globalization, the planetary interconnectivity as ever-increasing possibilities for movement, communication and interaction.

Globalization is by no means something new – it has existed in other epochs, including Antiquity. History tells about periods of globalization, as well as defining its areas of action. It is obvious that often in the same region there are consistently several periods of globalization. It is the conclusion that globalization is a cyclical phenomenon.

For example, in the Mediterranean during the Antiquity we can distinguish the obvious three stages of globalization:

– Minoa Thalassocracy (2nd millennium BC)

– Carthage-Greek Supremacy (VI-2 c. BC)

– Roman Mediterranean domination (2 c. BC – III c. AD)

The same is seen in East Asia, related to the boom and decline of China.

As far as Western Europe is concerned, there are five cycles of globalization since the 12th century, the penultimate one (1840-1920) covering the whole world, and the end of the cycle is related to the World War I and the Great Depression (1929-1939), during which high protectionist barriers were introduced. The latter began in the late 1960s and continues today. The current globalization trend is to achieve a highly controlled global market for large transnational corporations, which is more monopoly than free market trading. This is the most convincing evidence of the recent end of the current globalization.

There is an obvious relationship between the creation and development of the EU in the ups and downs of modern globalization. With its entry into a period of decline, there are emerging tendencies of disintegration within the EU. A clear sign of this is Brexit, as well as a series of disputes between Member States on a number of issues.


More recently, there has been a talk about the future of the EU and, in particular, of the future break-up of the EU. There are plenty of reasons for this – and the upcoming Brexit, and the bumps between a number of countries over the immigration crisis and cross-border disputes between neighbouring countries, and sanctions against some “non-obedient” states, such as Poland and Hungary. For a few months, Donald Trump’s former ideologist Steve Bannon has also added to the intra-Union controversy about the formation of a “European super-group” in national parliaments with a nationalist slogan called the right-wing populist. Bannon’s goal and the likely forces behind him are after the MEP elections in May to have at least one-third of the seats in the European Parliament belonging to this super-group, i.e. in the EU to begin the passage to an ideology different than liberalism and globalization – the ideology of national sovereignty. According to a number of observers, Bannon’s ultimate goal is the dissolution of the EU.

Of course, the EU will not fall apart from action within EU structures. It can only be disintegrated by the conscious will of the nations in the individual countries to defend their national identity and sovereignty. And it does happen within countries. There are too many significant obstacles to such a radical policy:

  • First of all, the position of the EU’s two big founding countries Germany and France is important. As long as they hold the EU, the decline will be very difficult.
  • Secondly, there are a number of smaller countries in the EU which, coming from under the EU’s periphery, will feel weak, neglected and exposed to all the dangers of a hostile and ruthless world. Bulgaria belongs to these countries.
  • Thirdly, there are several large countries, such as Italy and Spain, which are so intra-focused on economic problems that they would quickly fail outside the EU. That is why they are also acting for European unity.
  • Fourthly, people in the EU Member states are still under the influence of the Western Europe magic of the second half of the twentieth century – the most attractive, cultural, free, beautiful, diverse and enjoyable place in the world. Despite its rapid decline, Western Europe, the core of the EU, continues to be magnetically attractive, especially for the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, former members of the so-called socialist countries.
  • Fifthly, many still believe that the EU is in a position to compete with the powerful economic rivals China and the United States in its unified form, and with its collapse it will free up a large economic space that will quickly be absorbed by the big giants.

Along with the above-mentioned centripetal forces, however, the centrifugal forces also grow. There are several:

  • The drastic difference in centre and peripheral development, which does not decrease or even increase.
  • Ideological contradictions between the centre of liberal politics and conservative societies, mainly in the Catholic part of Europe.
  • Comprehensive red-tape, hindering economic development due to its clumsiness, commitment to slow and inefficient procedures, inability to formulate and implement large-scale pan-European projects.
  • Weaker position in the economic competition between the three Great Economic Forces – China, the United States, the EU, leading to relative, and in the future, absolute impoverishment of European peoples.
  • The centre’s inability to solve large-scale migration problems, forcing states to forget about European unity and to seek to solve the problem in their own power.
  • Increasing distrust of the EU structure and doubts about the democratic and the responsibility of its institutions.
  • On-going processes of shrinking globalization and returning to the model of sovereign nations.

In conclusion, we have to say that there will not be a blasting break-up. Moreover, global development shows that some form of inter-state interaction will be preserved. It is mostly about opportunities for easy movement of people, capital and goods, i.e. for multilateral customs and visa agreements. Obviously, there is a downward trend in visa restrictions – an increasing number of countries, even on different continents, are entering into visa-free agreements. The same refers to capital and trade.


There is another scenario that brings us back to the thesis of the EU’s collapse. We saw centripetal and centrifugal forces. Now imagine a scenario that could lead to the break-up of the EU in the longer term.

It is largely the idea of a “multi-speed Europe”. The lack of consensus among the Member States on the future development of the European Union and the feeling that poorer countries are the burden on the rich is causing a group of Member States to work outside the contractual framework and to form a union within the European Union that would enable them to have advantages in economic and political decision-making.

There are processes similar to the division of cells in biology. Within the enlarged cell (EU) one or more nuclei are formed that grow and form as separate structures. Then the big cell breaks out and new cells come out of it. Are there any processes of formation of such nuclei in the large cell? Yes. For example:

  • Core 1: The Visegrad Quadruple, uniting some Catholic Central and Eastern European countries. We start with it because this structure has already been implemented.
  • Core 2: the periodically emerging and violently debated idea of a “multi-speed Europe”. It highlights the core of the “high speeds” – the countries occupying the territory of the former Carolingian Empire that formed with Carl the Great and united much of Western Europe under a united power, joined by Christianity: today’s France, Germany, Northern Italy, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. These are, in general, the founding countries of the European Union, to which we can add the neutral now Switzerland and Austria.
  • Core 3: Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) with centuries-old experience of coexistence: the three states entered the Calmar Union in 1397, with Sweden leaving in 1523 but the other two continued to coexist in the alliance for 434 years – until 1814.

It should be expected that these will be loose alliances with the main purpose of facilitating solutions to emerging problems and developing joint policies on certain issues, as is done today in the Visegrad Four, but without strong impact on national sovereignty.

However, there are two categories of countries – those on the Iberian Peninsula and, to a certain extent, Italy (PIGS) on the one hand, and the countries of the Balkan Peninsula – on the other hand, while Greece is in a middle position because, like others, it belongs to the Mediterranean area of Southern Europe.

It can be assumed that the “Carolingian” countries, albeit reluctantly, will join Spain, Portugal and all of Italy, and the Visegrad quadruple will increase to six with countries such as Croatia and Slovenia.

Finally, the countries of the Balkan Peninsula, descendants of the Ottoman Empire, are unable to make any unification. Even between the two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century, when it was obvious that unions under 40-50 million people could not resist the Great Powers in the upcoming devastating war, the Balkan countries have never achieved any progress in this regard. Although there have been efforts by some circles and some rulers of that era to unify Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania into a union bundled with Orthodoxy and the common historical destiny.

Today, this is quite unfeasible because religion is no longer a factor, the economic problems of all countries in the region – enormous, ethnic contradictions – are unsolvable, and the mentality of ruling elites – contraindicative to any forms of unification.


The Europe of Fatherlands would be a radically changed formula of the current EU: it refers to an economic community united around a free market and a unified customs area that remains diverse in other state policies. In a Europe of the Fatherlands, there should be free movement of people, goods, capital and ideas, but without centralized power and common currency. The independence and sovereignty of the Member States should be restored to their former values. It is precisely this, the most attractive in this model, because European nations have a long history, accumulated over the centuries by severe contradictions, distinguished by considerable differences in mentality, economic and social prosperity, traditions, communicative habits, discipline, working habits, etc. A Europe of the Fatherlands would preserve the diversity and colourful palette of European nations, which is a tremendous value. It would also preserve the identity of Europeans, which is increasingly fading and blurring.

In this model, we can expect to preserve some forms of unification from the construction of today’s EU, such as the Common Market of the 60-70s of the last century. But with the removal of pan-European structures such as the Parliament, the EC and all other red-tape, as well as the revocation of much of the European legislation restricting national decision-making.

A Europe of Fatherlands is not a denial of a common Europe of citizens but a return, to some extent, to the original idea of ​​the Founding Fathers, headed by De Gaulle and Adenauer, seeking to build a European community independent of the Anglo-Saxon world. It is a Europe of diversity, natural appeal, interaction and common interest. Today, however, the Europe of Fatherlands has become a great deal of resistance to the “values” that have been shelved over the last 20 years, and whose ultimate goal is the education (like the communist “new person”) of a new European deprived of nation, religion and gender. Instead of the natural love for one’s homeland, the family and the faith being built with pan-European patriotism and respect for the community of all European peoples with their peculiarities and contradictory history, we all embrace an abstract European affiliation, unsupported by any emotional and spiritual value. The national identity was not to be crushed and rejected as a rigid and old-fashioned one, but to cultivate a consistent and intelligent European identity based on the common in history, culture, religion and worldview, making Europeans different from the rest of the world.

From this previous “educational” activity, resembling the activity of agitators from the time of socialism, the real break-up in today’s European Union begins.


The UES formula would allow for much greater homogeneity, unity of power and comprehensive leadership of the European Union with its own domestic and foreign policy, with a unified health and education system with a common budget based on by a common tax system, with common management of public debt, with common external borders, with a rapid deletion of income disparities across the European Union. This, however, would be at the expense of richer countries and in favour of the poorer states – a kind of new macro-levelling. But such a process – obligatory for a lasting and homogenous alliance – would inevitably face great resistance from wealthy countries. In this situation, a variant with a very rich core and impoverished periphery, as is the current one, is possible. And that would not have helped and reduced the tensions within it.

Of course, the biggest trump of the UES is the common army. Because it is clear that without a powerful army, every entity – whether national or supranational – is a very weak player in the international arena.

This type of alliance would also wipe out national diversity, eradicate national self-confidence and identity of peoples. In fact, this important shortcoming is the main obstacle to the implementation of such a model, following attempts to adopt a pan-European constitution after the signing of the Lisbon Treaty.

In the process of developing integration, Member States will be forced to provide the European Union with comprehensive competences. All central policy areas (internal, external, defence, social and economic policies) should be united throughout the European Union and be a major prerogative of the centre. More and more powers that have so far been within national states are being transferred to the European Union. The European Union gains more problem-solving capacity than it has in the reformed nation states that have become provinces.

The new European Parliament should be expected to be a bicameral with House of Representatives and House of States (consisting of representatives of the Member States) and also to reclaim from the Member States almost all legislative rights.

The Europe of Fatherlands could be an open system capable of accepting new members even in the process of becoming a state. It is possible for countries outside the European continent to wish to become members. At the same time, there could be different levels of association with the countries on the periphery of the European Union.

Certainly, the possible Europe of Fatherlands would be a much more aggressive international player and would claim a seat in the UN Security Council.


The peculiarities of our country’s development over the past 2-3 decades refer to its EU membership, whether it wants it or not. Its fundamental weaknesses in demographics, economics, defence and the fall of the national spirit make it an easy prey outside the EU fortress. That is why its policy cannot but support the existence and unity of the EU. In this regard, the pro-European trends in it are quite normal.

Whether the EU’s decadence will come to its logical end, or European nations will find modus vivendi in a reformed alliance with minimal bureaucracy, our society should be aware that the poor scenario is very possible and ready to meet it. Because in the event of disintegration, our country will most likely fall under Turkish influence (and not under Russian), as some prophets imply). We should not forget for a moment that Bulgaria is part of the post-Ottoman space, which Turkey has never renounced.

What Bulgarian society should do in order not to be swept away by a possible geopolitical storm is a matter of another discussion. In a word, we will only say that the only protection against such severe disturbances is the strong state. Our choice should be for a strong state in a renewed European Union of Fatherlands.



In the event that I am elected MEP, I will act in the following areas:


Building a ‘Europe of Fatherlands’ – a common economic space with harmonized rules and laws, free movement of goods, capital and people, shared values (but not necessarily equal and binding for all), lack of bureaucracy and centralized structures, common safety, policy flexibility in all sectors.


  1. Maintaining the unity of the EU, but not through spells and force on smaller and peripheral countries, but through real democratic procedures, taking into account the interests of everyone and listening to the voice of each Member State.
  2. Enhancing the sovereignty and national autonomy of EU actors.
  3. Strongly limiting European bureaucracy and its impact on national governments.
  4. Adopting measures for an accelerated development of the economy within the EU. The total GDP of the community should grow by no less than 3% per year to maintain at least some competition with China.
  5. Launching large-scale joint projects in the energy sector in the most promising areas of nuclear and fusion energy (ITER), because only in 10-15 years the two main sources of energy will be nuclear power and renewable sources.
  6. Developing strategies and common policies on the most important potential threats to humanity – local wars; Great Powers of the United States, China and Russia; problems with basic preconditions for survival of whole regions – fresh water, food, energy; threats of going out of control of techno-genic processes – GMOs, bacteria and viruses, pollution, artificial intelligence, products of transhumanism, mass unemployment.
  7. Significantly reducing the gap in economic and social development between the centre and the periphery.
  8. Reforming EU governance structures to ensure their rapid and efficient functioning.

I do not intend to join any political group because, at least in their present form, none of them corresponds to my political views on the establishment of Direct Digital Democracy (DDD).

I intend to be a member of the Committees on Industry, Research and Energy and Constitutional Affairs, and to participate in the work of the Budget and Budgetary Control Committees,

I intend to actively promote a fundamental change in the structure and philosophy of the EU, for which I will propose a complex draft for a new Constitution in the first year.

My intentions and my work can be summarised in the two words that stand as motto at the beginning of this paper: to correct what was wrongly done and to prepare the EU for the upcoming trials and future grandeur.

Leave a comment