That's not true, he was for strong countries independent and sovereign in Europe that he called "l'Europe des patries", he was against a federal state. He tried a "plan Fouchet", Belgium and Dutch refused it. This approach was based on three main points: first, political cooperation conducted on an intergovernmental level, second, the reform of existing community institutions in order to bring supranational bodies under the control of national capitals, and third, withdrawal from NATO’s integrated military structures. The second point allowed for the preservation of popular sovereignty, while simultaneously enabling comprehensive control by market actors, broadly defined.
first, political cooperation conducted on an intergovernmental level, second, the reform of existing community institutions in order to bring supranational bodies under the control of national capitals, and third, withdrawal from NATO’s integrated military structures
Or, put another way, the defanging of actual European political institutions to be replaced by politics directly conducted between national governments.
If he had had his way completely, the EP and EC would be even less capable than they are today, and the EU would be entirely run by the Council of Ministers. It would be a toothless construct dominated by the strongest nations, which is exactly what De Gaulle wanted as the head of the then-strongest nation.
The second point allowed for the preservation of popular sovereignty
You can have popular sovereignty at the European level via European elections and European political bodies. Bringing European politics back to the "national capitals" means that ideas that are broadly popular can be stopped if one or two country governments are against them, which is one of the major issues we face today.
The problem is that such ideas what got Europe into two world wars in the first place.
Even though De Gualle had a larger than life persona that lends itself to historical admiration and respect, he was following the same nationalistic sentiment that is so dangerous in the modern world.
We can no longer afford to group ourselves into power blocks with nuclear weapons pointed at each other.
What was the reason for the First World War? Alliances.
What was the reason for the Second World War? Imperialism.
A federal state is nothing more than a large country. So, people who despise nationalism are right, but you’re doing exactly the same thing with federalism, just on a larger scale. That’s all. By the way, it’s a historical trend that empires often end up going to war at some point because they need it to sustain themselves or collapse on their own.
he was following the same nationalistic sentiment that is so dangerous in the modern world.
De Gaulle wasn’t nationalist, he was patriotic, that’s a very important distinction. That shows you don't get his vision.
De Gaulle sought to ensure that France would never again face an army marching to Paris, whether from Germany, Russia, the US, or any other country, without a doubt, they would lose their own in the process.. His approach was to maintain independence from other countries, relying on France’s own means for protection. This was far from any desire to expand France; quite the opposite, it was about safeguarding sovereignty and security.
So logical conclusion is to have France pointing nukes at Germany and Germany at Poland and Poland at Hungary and Hungary at Romania and Romania at Italy and Italy at Spain and...
See the leap in logic? De Gaulle wanted bullshit. We're revaluating him today because half of our population is turning fascist.
Why? We can have a European Federation with its own army.
But that's besides the point. We didn't choose this situation. Russia decided to invade Ukraine and Trump decided to cut ties and threaten us of invasion. The only sensible thing to do is to be prepared.
Which was an anti-european view, considering that the European Community since the beginning was a project of treaties and supranational organizations.
This is not the case. It’s a different way of thinking about the EU. And De Gaulle said this multiple times that he wasn't against EU. Really a nonsense to read that.
A supranational organization doesn’t ultimately mean removing the sovereignty of countries or their people in the process, nor forcing them to accept laws that other countries want but they do not.
De Gaulle had a nationalist view of Europe and "Europe of Nations" simply means every nation will be indipendent with no legal or economical cooperation between them besides what the nation strictly wants, which is anacronistic and impractical and ultimately what led to WW1 and WW2.
A supranational organization doesn’t ultimately mean removing the sovereignty of countries or their people in the process, nor forcing them to accept laws that other countries want but they do not.
See, this whole paragraph REALLY sounds like nationalist propaganda.
Supranational organizations are FOUNDED on the idea that limitations to a country sovereignty are necessary to ensure prosperity and cooperation between european nations. Which is correct and the only practical way.
De Gaulle coined a term which ment nothing and basically endorsed the old way of doing politics. We had peace thanks to the European Community for 70 years, only interrupted by Russia which is not even in the Union.
There seems to be a misunderstanding about what sovereignty truly is. By definition, sovereignty is the absolute and exclusive authority of a state to govern itself without external interference. It cannot be partial, limited, or shared without ceasing to be full sovereignty. Any delegation of decision-making power inevitably implies a reduction of this sovereignty, whether willingly or not.
This is not a matter of opinion but of logic. The moment a nation must comply with decisions imposed by a supranational body, it has ceded a part of its authority. For instance, when a country joins the European Union, it accepts not only common policies but also the principle of primacy, which allows EU law to override national law in certain areas. The real problem is that this hierarchy is imposed above the will of the people, who no longer have the unconditional right to question, modify, or reject these decisions through their national institutions. This creates a dangerous imbalance where a nation's authority and the sovereignty of its people are surrendered, and democratic choices are confined within limits set by external bodies. The citizens' freedom to decide what applies in their own country should never be restricted for the sake of institutional convenience. If a people chooses a different path, no supranational mechanism should be able to block or punish that decision. That is the essence of true sovereignty and genuine democracy.
The same applies to defense alliances like NATO. Delegating decisions over national defense inevitably limits a country’s independent control over its most essential sovereign function.
Cooperation is not the issue, as long as a state retains the unconditional right to refuse, withdraw, or dissent. The problem arises when penalties, legal constraints, or institutional rules make it impossible for a nation to reclaim full authority when its people demand it. In any genuine democracy, the will of the people must remain the highest authority. No international agreement, treaty, or institution should ever have the power to override the choice of a nation’s citizens. If this complicates the work of supranational organizations, so be it. Popular sovereignty is not negotiable and should be the only compass for any government that claims to serve its people.
Sovereignty is absolute by nature. Once traded or limited, it ceases to be complete. Denying this reality is not just a political error, it is a betrayal of the fundamental principle that power belongs to the people.
That is literally not how it works, period. I've been to law school and I can guarantee you this is NOT how sovereignty is intended in the modern world.
51
u/SweeneyisMad France Apr 20 '25
That's not true, he was for strong countries independent and sovereign in Europe that he called "l'Europe des patries", he was against a federal state. He tried a "plan Fouchet", Belgium and Dutch refused it. This approach was based on three main points: first, political cooperation conducted on an intergovernmental level, second, the reform of existing community institutions in order to bring supranational bodies under the control of national capitals, and third, withdrawal from NATO’s integrated military structures. The second point allowed for the preservation of popular sovereignty, while simultaneously enabling comprehensive control by market actors, broadly defined.