Reforming (and Replacing) the European Union for Nationalist Purposes (Part 2)

Earlier: Reforming (and Replacing) the European Union for Nationalist Purposes (Part 1)

In Part One, I addressed the developments surrounding America’s relationship with the EU and by extension the entire edifice of post-war international institutions that currently govern the West. However, it is not only the European Union that faces irrelevance, but also NATO, and institutions like the European Court (and Convention) on Human Rights (ECHR) embedded within the Council of Europe that have enshrined progressive “human rights” doctrine into law so thoroughly that Britain is unable to deport child rapists. The United Nations is also facing increased scrutiny from nationalist Western political parties and governments, for example, the United States is pulling out of the World Health Organization, an agency of the UN, and refusing to pay dues. In other cases, Western countries remain in groups that no longer benefit them. For example, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand gain little from their membership in the Commonwealth, and the United States garners little benefit from the Organization of American States. These organizations are not much more than post-colonial holdovers that link Western nations to the numerous non-Western states with whom we no longer have any real political ties.

Since Western nations like the U.S. are evaluating their relationship with these institutions, let’s take a look at one of the most egregious examples of institutional overreach: immigration. In the 2024 case of CR, GF, TY v Landeshauptmann von Wien the European Union’s Court of Justice ruled that EU member states were obligated to ensure that irregular migrants under the age of 18 had a right to family reunification even if this violated member state legal practices and even if the migrant in question become an adult during the application period. In effect, the European Union’s high court ruled that so long as an illegal immigrant is a child, he may bring in to the EU as many of his family members as he wishes. In another ruling in 2025, the European Court of Justice found that Italy was unable to deport, hold, and process asylum seekers in Albania as this violated rights of protection and judicial review for migrants. In short, Italy is obligated to let illegal third world immigrants run riot in their country while processing their inevitably fake asylum claims.

In another recent case, the European Court of Justice ruled against Sweden for its treatment of refugee applications for those already under temporary protection. Sweden had extended temporary protections to Ukrainians fleeing the war in their country, and upon arrival many Ukrainians began to apply for more permanent asylum seeker status. Because this path can lead to permanent residency, the Swedish state automatically denied asylum status to Ukrainians and insisted their temporary protection was sufficient. The European Court of Justice ruled that Sweden is obligated to process these asylum claims on their individual merits regardless of the temporary protection already afforded to these refugees. This ruling will affect all European states; and it means that all refugees, no matter where they come from, and even if already granted temporary protection, have a right to permanent asylum status. In other words: all refugees in the EU have a right to a path to permanent residency and, eventually, citizenship.

The European Union is far from the only problem actor in this regard, though. The Council of Europe’s European Court of Human Rights regularly makes rulings that restrict the ability of European countries to deport and expel immigrants, including violent criminal immigrants.

In 2023, for example, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Denmark in Noorzae v Denmark & Sharifi v Denmark. In both cases, non-Danish, non-citizens had been ordered deported by Danish courts after committing offenses of theft, vandalism, and intent to distribute drugs. The European Court acknowledged that Danish courts had ruled in accordance with Danish law but found this insufficient. The European Court found that Mr. Noorzae and Mr. Sharifi were only minor criminals with short criminal records and light sentences and that both men lacked close ties to their homelands. As such, the European Court found that Denmark was in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR (right to a family life) and ordered that these violent drug dealing criminals remain in Denmark.

In the 2012 case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights found that Italy was in violation of Article 3 (prohibiting torture and inhumane torture) because Italy had been intercepting migrant boats at sea and returning them to Libya. The court ruled that Italy had an obligation to pick up migrants at sea and assess each of their asylum claims individually. Therefore Italy could not simply return them to Libya from whence they came. In another 2023 case of J.A. and Others v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights found that Italy was in violation of Article 3 for holding illegal migrants on the island of Lampedusa rather than releasing them and assessing their individual refugee cases. The court ruled that Italy pay restitution to the migrants involved, and many of them were subsequently released onto mainland Europe where they undoubtedly headed for Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

So, European states cannot return migrants at sea, they cannot deport foreign criminals who have strong “familial ties,” and they cannot hold migrants separately from vulnerable European civilian populations.

The issue does not stop at immigration, though. The European Union and European Council have been busily eroding nation-state decision making around cultural concerns. Some of them were not founded as deliberately progressive institutions, but they all function as de facto and even de jure progressive institutions now. Take the European Court of Human Rights and its upholding of the European Council’s Convention on Human Rights. When the ECHR and its court came into being in 1959, not a single Western or other White country had legalized same-sex marriage. In fact, same-sex marriage was not legal in any Western nation until the Netherlands passed legislation in 2001. It is abundantly clear that the ECHR was not created to enshrine a right to same-sex marriage into the laws of its member states and yet that is now what the European Court of Human Rights does. In 2023, the court ruled that Romania has a legal duty to provide a framework for the recognition of same-sex couples despite the country’s constitution very clearly defining the family as starting with one man and one woman.

The court has also issued similar rulings against the currently embattled Ukraine, whose constitution also protects the union of one man and one woman as the basis of family and of marriage.

For its part, the European Court of Justice ruled in November of 2025 that member states are obligated to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other European countries even if a nation’s constitution recognizes only the union of one man and one woman. European states are obligated to recognize these marriages – marriages that violate their constitutions – and to treat them identically to the traditional marriages their societies have wished to protect.

These issues also extend into other parts of Western international infrastructure such as NATO. This alliance, originally established to defend the West against communism, now spends much of its time promoting social progressivism and anti-White diversity initiatives.

Despite near-constant issues of non-Western minorities undermining national security, NATO is deeply invested in “diversity and inclusion.” NATO looks to radically diversify its staff. Countries such as the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have already suffered greatly due to their policies of allowing first and second generation immigrants into their militaries, intelligence agencies, and legislatures, thereby exposing state secrets to adversaries such as China. Now both military and civilian employees of NATO will be recruited from migrant populations that are likely to have far more loyalty to their ethnic homelands than to Germany, The United Kingdom, or the United States. This is not merely a dedication to having some beige employees but rather part of a broad and institutionalized dislike for nationalism within NATO.

Since the 1990s NATO, has been publishing reports blaming many modern ills upon nationalists and warning against nationalist influence in the West. In NATO held a high level staff conference (below) about race where leaders pledged to fight a “homogeneous mindset” and to use “collective intelligence” to do so.

Of course, all of this is mirrored in the European Union. The European University Institute, a university funded by the EU and member states, established a program to mandate racial diversity among its PhD researchers and student body. At the European Central Bank – the organization that manages the Eurozone’s monetary policy – the current DEI policy was deemed insufficient after a recent internal report found that it was unacceptable that 24 of the ECB’s governors were White men from major Western economies. Never mind that White men are the natives of all these economies and of Europe. That is irrelevant to the ECB’s new goal, which is not to manage monetary policy, but to racially and sexually diversify its governing council. Lastly, though certainly not the last example I could list, there is the European Commission itself which has a sweeping diversity and inclusion program. Its Diversity and Inclusion Office (DIO) recruits everyone except White men (again, the natives of the European continent) to work in its offices. The Commission seeks to hire many more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ etc. persons, and people with various religious beliefs (read: Muslims).

These priorities do not serve Western Civilization or the European people. Rather, they push a progressive globalist agenda upon the West. This agenda will eventually result in the destruction of Western Civilization and its eventual erasure as observed by the Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy. It is not a surprise that the Trump administration wants to attempt to pull nations away from the European Union, but this vision is severely lacking. Pulling Italy, Poland, Hungary and Austria away from the EU will do little good if the alternative is some weak forum structure where countries gather to speak once a year. Instead, the Trump administration and the nationalists of Europe and the West need to begin examining a wholesale restructure of our intergovernmental organizations.

Nationalists seeking reform must keep three key things at the front of our minds:

1. We all face the same demographic threats and require similar solutions.

2. We all face the same cultural threats from progressivism and globalization.

3. We share one civilization among competing global civilizations. If one Western nation fails, all countries weaken.

From this starting point, we can formulate a strategy for reforming and replacing the institutions that currently govern relations among Western states. This also means that Western governments in favor of reform cannot simply retreat from institutions like the European Union but must remain inside them and push against counterproductive policies. Meanwhile, other Western countries should work towards cooperative nationalist governance, thus making the coalition stronger over time.

In the next piece, I will outline a set of policy priorities for a reformed Western and European architecture.