UEF - Union of European Federalists

The Conference of the Parties (COP) on climate change met in Belém (Brazil) for its 30th session — ten years after the Paris Agreement, which opened a global path to limiting and adapting to climate change, and at a moment when 2024 has been confirmed as the warmest year ever recorded, exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

This COP took place at a time when climate-mitigation efforts are being scaled back in many countries and regions — beginning with the European Union after the 2024 parliamentary elections, and followed by the United States.
The Union of European Federalists (UEF) wishes to thank President Lula and the Brazilian government for hosting this COP and for maintaining high expectations with the launch of the Tropical Forest Forever fund, the guiding principle of muritão (shared effort), and the roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels.

Together with many other NGOs, we observe increasing fatigue with a COP system that relies on unanimity. In the early years — and this was key to achieving the Paris Agreement ten years ago — all parties were eager to participate and build consensus. Today, some countries disengage while others openly block discussions. As a result, reaching agreements within this UN framework has become extremely difficult, and the level of ambition remains insufficient to meet the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

In Europe, the notion of a “coalition of the willing” is gaining traction. Perhaps it is time to rethink the negotiation format to allow groups of states to agree on more impactful and binding climate-mitigation policies.

Domenec Devesa, President of UEF, recalls that “we need a more democratic decision-making system at the global level. The fight against climate change is a clear example. We participated in the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, along with the rest of civil society, and even then the questions of decision-making and binding rules were already on the table. In a few years, it will be too late to establish effective global cooperation.”

Environmental protection: a clear example of the need for a federal Europe

• Lack of unified representation to speak with one voice.
The European Union agreed on its nationally determined contribution only the day before the start of the Conference in Belém — preserving appearances while reducing ambition. Unlike in the World Trade Organization, both the EU and its Member States are individually represented at COP negotiations, creating institutional confusion over who decides and who is accountable.

• Dependence on foreign imports and lack of energy security.
While the Commission, Parliament and Council debate simplification, deregulation or postponement of climate decisions, China continues its decarbonisation and leads the renewable-energy sector. The EU remains dependent on external energy sources (including LNG from Russia and the US, and still oil), raw materials, and key technologies.

• Lack of diplomatic capacity to build alternative partnerships.
Without an autonomous EU diplomacy, Europe struggles to forge new alliances based on win-win cooperation, integrating development, trade, innovation and climate policies into a coherent strategic approach.

• Lack of own resources to ensure social justice.
The ecological transition requires massive investment to support people throughout this transformation. Without genuine own resources, the EU lacks the capacity to act as an investment power. As discussions on the next Multiannual Financial Framework take place, this issue must be addressed.

All these factors prevent the EU from being a true leader on environmental issues — despite its ambitious European Green Deal. A federal approach is still needed for a sovereign, capable European Union with a global vision for this cross-sector policy area: the protection of the environment.

We would like to share here the interview by the greek journalist Yiannis Papageorgiou to the President of the Union of European Federalists Domenec Ruiz Devesa and published in the newspaper Insider with the title: "Be ready for a veto": Devesa's message for the new European budget

To read in Greek here

The debate on any Community budget usually lasts until the last minute before it is implemented. And it is one of the debates that all European institutions, including the European Parliament, play a decisive role in shaping it.

With the Commission's proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-34 on the table, the controversies are already intense. The main objections raised by the "traditional" Eurogroups, including that of the European People's Party, mainly concern the proposed merger of cohesion and CAP funds as well as the proposed amount of the budget based on the increased needs and additional objectives of the Union.

A few hours after his statement to Politico about the need for determination in the possibility of the use of the veto by the European Parliament, the President of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) and former Spanish MEP of the Social Democrats (SnD) Domenec Devesa was in Athens and spoke to insider.

An opportunity for a political deepening of the Union

He argued that the European Parliament must be prepared to use its "veto" on the one hand to strengthen the amount of the budget and the support of Regions and farmers and on the other hand to achieve further political deepening beyond the expectations for a common defense approach.

"We need to strengthen the role of the Regions and the European Parliament in the multiannual budget. At the same time, however, it is an excellent tool for institutional innovations. That is why we must encourage Parliament to be smart and to tell the governments of the member states... look, if you want us to vote on your MFF — which must be approved — then you must also move forward with both defense and political union," he stressed.

He added: "The European Parliament is on our side. Now, we have to do the work with the member states."

The interview in detail

You recently openly called on the European Parliament to be ready to veto the proposal for the next budget. Because; And how would this help create the consensus needed for the next Multiannual Financial Framework or for the European Commission's omnibus packages?

From our point of view, the federalist point of view, it is very clear that we need a defensive union. A defence alliance cannot only be about the purchase or joint production of weapons. It must include a European chain of command, a European staff, a system of territorial defence. And that means that we also need a political union. We cannot have a defence union without democratic control, without democratic legitimacy. I believe that public opinion is in favour — if you look at the Eurobarometer, a large majority wants a European army and a veto-free system. A federal political union also means this.

We have the European Parliament in favour. However, the governments of the member states are not moving in this direction. So, either we can convince them — we have not been very successful in this so far — or the European Parliament can make use of an important tool: a possible veto on the European Union's multiannual budget. The Multiannual Financial Framework is not an end in itself. It is very important to increase its size because 1% of European GDP is not enough. And we must not "kill" the funding of the Regions and farmers in order to give more money to defense. So we need to increase the budget as a whole.

We need to strengthen the role of the Regions and the European Parliament in the multiannual budget. At the same time, however, it is an excellent tool for institutional innovations. That is why we must encourage Parliament to be smart and to tell the governments of the member states... look, if you want us to vote on your MFF — which must be adopted — then you too must move on to defence and to political union.

On the one hand, I understand that when you are in crisis or under pressure, you need to make more difficult decisions. On the other hand, do you think that the federalists, or your political group, need some repositioning to deal with the current geopolitical reality?

These geopolitical shifts strengthen the argument in favor of federal union. We are 27 nation-states. We cannot survive alone against Russia. Trump is not an ally, it's very clear. And the Chinese too. So we need to be more united. And what does this mean? It's easy to say — almost like a slogan — "a more united Europe". But what does it mean in practice?

It is the federalist proposal: to have a European defense that we can activate if NATO is not available or if the Americans are not available. And to have a more efficient and democratic decision-making process. That is, a system without a veto and a Parliament that can also decide on revenue and taxation.

You have already referred to the new MFF. To build consensus, you need to persuade the so-called "frugal" to invest more in the EU. Under geopolitical shifts and current pressure, how is this possible? Do you think there is a way to convince them?

The "thrifty" are also in favor of funding new priorities: research and defense — and we can all agree on that. But to get there, they need a new MFF with the support of the European Parliament. Otherwise, we keep the current MFF, which will be extended. They therefore do not receive funding for the new priorities. This is an incentive for compromise, for them to understand that we need a bigger budget so that we do not sacrifice important policies for the non-"thrifty" - let's call them so, Greece, Spain, Italy, France... For us, cohesion and agricultural policy are important. Therefore, we need a compromise.

Under this pressure and these current shifting developments, how optimistic can a federalist be?

Jean Monnet had said "I am not optimistic, I am determined". And I agree with that. The point is not to make assumptions about what will potentially happen. It is to be determined, to defend our positions with logic, with facts and with conviction, in order to convince. The European Parliament is on our side. Now, we have to do the work with the member states.

We would like to share here the opinion signed by UEF President Domenec Ruiz Devesa and published in the Spanish newspaper Informacion with the title: An unacceptable ultimatum for Ukraine and for Europe

To read in Spanish here

Informacion ESP 26 nov 2025 Download

On Monday, 24 November 2025, the Spinelli Group and the Union of European Federalists co-hosted the “Bring a European Federalist” Reception at the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The initiative aimed to revitalise the federalist spirit within and around the European Parliament, at a time marked by geopolitical instability, democratic fatigue, and the resurgence of nationalist narratives. Bringing together policymakers, activists, and members of civil society, the event provided a space to reconnect, exchange ideas, and strengthen the network of pro-European and federalist forces.

The reception gathered around twenty Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and 15 parliamentary assistants, demonstrating strong engagement across political groups and institutional levels.

The programme opened with remarks by Gabriele Bischoff, Chair of the Spinelli Group, and Domènec Ruiz Devesa, President of the UEF. An interactive session followed, encouraging dialogue between founding members, experienced federalists, current representatives, and newcomers.

We would like to extend our sincere thanks for the presence of Elmar Brok, former President of the UEF, and for the valuable contribution of Guy Verhofstadt, whose intervention enriched the discussion and reaffirmed the importance of a strong and united Europe.

During the event, several participants agreed to act as testimonials for the UEF fundraising campaign “The Federalists Poster Series”. They were portrayed with reproductions of artworks by Italian artist Lorenzo Epis, contributing to an initiative that combines visual culture and political engagement to support the federalist cause.

The evening concluded with a networking reception, offering participants the opportunity to continue discussions in an informal setting and to build new connections across the federalist community.

The Trump’s administration 28 points for peace between Ukraine and Russia, negotiated secretly with Russia without Ukraine and the EU, seem to have been dictated by Putin and resemble more a capitulation project rather than a peace project.

This is the darkest hour for Ukraine and for the EU. Our destinies, our freedom and dignity are intertwined, we will defend them together, or we will lose them together.

President Zelensky recalled his engagement for Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence and that dignity and freedom of the Ukrainians cannot be neglected.

Kaja Kallas, the High Representative of the EU and several heads of States and Governments of the EU asked that any solution shall be taken together with Ukraine and the EU. On November 22^nd, several Heads of State and Government, the president of the European Council and the President of the European Commission issued a statement on Ukraine that welcomes in very diplomatic terms the US plan and restate their support for Ukraine. The time for cowardice is over, and courage and determination are needed to avoid being overwhelmed.

Ukraine and the EU countries must reject the reduction of Ukraine and the EU to puppets. Our governments must react together, to take back control of our destiny and defend our freedom, our democracy, and our values.

The EU should fully support Ukraine and Ukrainians to protect their sovereignty; maintain the sanctions towards Russia and make them more effective, as long as the war of aggression continues; require a ceasefire to start any further negotiation. Especially, the EU should immediately use the frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine, and member states should be jointly liable together with Belgium in case of legal challenges.

With the return of Great Power Politics the EU cannot survive if it remains divided. If we do not overcome it, we cannot bring effective political support to Ukraine either. Only by strengthening European sovereignty and uniting in a true federation we can be free and secure in Europe.

Ukraine’s struggle for freedom constitutes an essential element for the maintenance of security and freedom in Europe. Ukraine and the EU shall come up with an alternative proposal to the 28 points plan of the US administration, based on the respect of International Law, including the recognition of Ukrainian sovereignty and its legitimate borders, its rights to defend itself and to decide on its own army, and a plan to finance its reconstruction. Building peace requires democracy, respect of the Rule of Law and institutions that guarantee peace.

We must face together the powerful enemies who seek to destroy us. In the darkest hour, it is time to relaunch the path towards federation. It is time to create the United States of Europe.

We would like to share here the interview by the greek journalist Yiannis Papageorgiou to the chair of the Spinelli Group Gabriele Bischoff and published in the newspaper Insider with the title: An unacceptable ultimatum for Ukraine and for Europe

To read in Greek here

Gabriele Bischoff, president of the Spinelli Group and MEP belonging to the Socialists and Democrats group, was in Athens on the occasion of the Meeting of the Federal Committee of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) and UEF-Greece.

We had the opportunity for a short interview with her, on the sidelines of the opening event of the Conference, in the Senate of the Hellenic Parliament, when she argued that Europe is at a "make it or break it" point.

You mentioned that we are in a 'make it or break it' moment for the EU. Why do you say this?

We have enormous challenges ahead of us; We have a geopolitical situation that is very unstable. The model of globalization we knew now belongs to history. We are seeing growing nationalism in many Member States and we are facing problems related to the competitiveness of our industry, our business model as well... With these global challenges, for example, economies that rely heavily on exports face enormous difficulties. And at this juncture we really need a strong European response. We are also in a period of war in Europe, where we see that Europe no longer plays a role. If you look at Trump's proposals and the so-called 28-point plan... If Europe wants to play a role in the world in the future, if it wants to create a strong economy, if it really wants to become more independent and strengthen its strategic economy, it needs to change course. It must have the resources and policies to be a strong player and ensure prosperity for all in the future.

You point out the geopolitical changes that are taking place at the moment. In what ways do you think the Federalists or the Socialists and Democrats should reposition themselves so that their positions can be more effective?

If the European Union had followed the recommendations of the Federalists earlier, for example with regard to changes in the Treaties, but also with regard to the proposals of the Socialists and Democrats Group, we would not have been in a situation like the one we are in today. If we had taken the next steps in security and foreign policy, for example by reducing the possibilities for vetoes, speaking with a European voice, we could have got there. If we had the courage to take some next steps in integration...

Do you think that this also applies to the deepening and completion of the single market? In fact, if we were to take the Draghi and Letta reports as a compass for the future...

When Jacques Delors created the single market, he had a vision for Europe and also a political vision associated with it. Today, if we perceive it simply as a "technocratic exercise" and focus only on technocratic steps in terms of the direction in which we want to transform Europe, this will not work. If everyone only takes the points of the two reports that they like and we do not discuss again a great European project, a vision for Europe with concrete steps, we will not succeed. Europe can no longer function as a purely technocratic project.

Are you optimistic about the future, considering the serious obstacles you mentioned?

Yes, because I have seen that Europe is capable of acting when it is under enormous pressure. We saw it in COVID-19, we also saw it when the war started. I would like to have a European Union that can be reformed in good times, because when you are under pressure, you have to be very fast and then sometimes you make mistakes. But I know and I am convinced that Europe can change in very difficult situations, and I believe that we are already in quite difficult situations. How many threats and how many bells — for example now with Trump's plan for Ukraine — how many wake-up calls does the EU need to really respond?

We would like to share here the opinion signed by UEF President Domenec Ruiz Devesa and published in Politico with the title: EU Parliament must be willing to use its veto power

To read in English here LINK

Negotiations on the EU’s 2028–2034 Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) have entered a new phase of political significance.

Traditionally, this process follows a familiar pattern: The European Commission proposes a draft budget, the Council bargains behind closed doors, then, at the final stage, the Parliament is called in to give or withhold consent. It’s a sequence of affairs that has long placed the Parliament in a weak position before a nearly finished deal — but not this time.

In a break from previous iterations, this time the Parliament intervened early and managed to secure concessions. This is a feat that should be acknowledged. However, recognizing this success shouldn’t obscure the political stakes that remain.

Following the Commission’s initial proposal, the Parliament was able to assert itself at the very start of the MFF process through a joint letter from the presidents of its main political groups, expressing clear institutional expectations, financial priorities and political conditions. As a result, the Commission offered improvements regarding the role of regional authorities in the implementation of agricultural and cohesion programs, and accepted an enhanced role for the Parliament to monitor the MFF’s execution.

As previously noted by this very publication, the Parliament’s unusually early involvement was able to influence the framework before the Council began its negotiations — a notable break from precedent that should be seen as a strategic gain for parliamentary democracy at the European level.

Continue here

Please find here below the resolutions and the urgent statement approved

Please find here below the documents presented by UEF Secretariat and EB Members