The EU’s sui generis status, a status desired by France which must evolve

The APROFED association is getting back to you this week following the French government’s desire to extend the status of New Caledonia to a so-called sui generis status through the Bougival Agreement, which has caused discontent among a section of the local population.

However, it should be remembered that the EU is also under this type of regime, with France doing everything to keep it there and avoid its transformation into a federal status, like in Germany, while the French population is in favour of it (cf. 71% of French people in favour of France becoming federal – APROFED ).

It turns out that France is a brake on the development of the EU as indicated in one of our articles (see When France is a brake on the federal transformation of the EU – APROFED ) and this since the beginning of its creation, although it knows that it is time to evolve. The various economic, health and military crises even serve as pretexts for the State to maintain and strengthen a centralizing power in order to present itself to the population as the only one able to provide solutions, which is unfortunately not the case in reality.

It is time for France to realize that its particularism and its “greatness” are only permitted by the goodwill of the other EU member states who, not wishing to antagonize the French leaders and for fear of a hypothetical “Frexit” which would risk undermining the European project, tolerate the whims of this state which, for its part, cares little for others.

The association thus turned to AI to ask it, like others before it (see UEtopie 2036: What will Europe look like in 15 years? – Le Taurillon ), what the future of the EU would be in 10 years, around 2035.

3 scenarios are thus plausible:

1. Towards a federal Europe

• • Favorable context : geopolitical pressures (China, United States, Russia), need for common defense, increased economic integration (euro, digital single market, energy).

• • Elements in favour : strengthening the role of the European Parliament, extension of decisions to qualified majority, more ambitious European budget, European defence.

• • Consequence : a “light federation” where the States would retain a strong national identity, but with federal institutions capable of speaking with one voice on major issues (climate, army, trade, diplomacy).

2. A strengthened EU “sui generis status”

• • Continuity scenario : the EU remains a unique entity in the world, neither federal nor a simple international organization.

• • Characteristics : enlargement (Ukraine, Balkans, perhaps Georgia), strengthened cooperation in certain areas but with strong divergences in others (taxation, foreign policy, migration).

• • Consequence : a larger but more heterogeneous EU, moving forward at two speeds (highly integrated hard core + more flexible periphery).

3. A break-up or dilution of the EU

• • Triggering factors : serious economic crises, rise of nationalism, social tensions, new exits like “Brexit”.

• • Possible form : return to a simple free trade area, or existence of several regional blocs (e.g. a “Mediterranean league”, a “Nordic bloc”).

• • Consequence : weakening of Europe’s global weight, loss of influence in the face of the major powers.

Current Trends (2025)

• • The EU is already preparing for enlargement (up to 35+ members).

• • European defense and digital sovereignty are becoming priorities.

• • But political differences (Hungary, rise of the extremes) are holding back rapid federalization.

The most likely scenario in 2035 is an enlarged sui generis EU, with a more integrated core (eurozone + defence + common industrial policies), but without completely switching to a federal model.

We asked AI what it meant by a “light federation” for the EU . Here’s its answer:

A lightweight federation for the European Union would be a form of federalism less integrated than a classic federal state (like the United States or Germany), but more structured than the current simple intergovernmental cooperation.

Here are the traits that are generally attributed to him:

1. Shared but limited sovereignty

• • Member States would retain a large degree of autonomy in most areas (education, taxation, culture, health, territorial security ).

• • The EU would have real federal power, but restricted to essential competences such as:

• • • monetary policy (already the case for the eurozone),

• • • foreign trade policy,

• • • minimal common diplomacy,

• • • collective defense,

• • • regulation of major global issues (climate, digital, migration).

2. Simplified and more readable institutions

• • A light federal executive (e.g. a president or a reduced federal government) responsible to the European Parliament.

• • The European Council could become a kind of Senate representing the states, with limited blocking power.

• • The European Parliament would have clear budgetary powers but over a modest federal budget (e.g. 2 to 3% of European GDP, compared to around 1% currently and 20% in the United States).

3. Reinforced principle of subsidiarity

• • Anything that can be better managed at the national or regional level would remain within their competence.

• • The federal level would only intervene where joint action is essential (single market, climate, external defence).

4. Political identity respectful of nations

• • Unlike a “heavy” federation, this structure would avoid identity fusion.

• • The States would remain very visible, would keep their constitution, their basic army (a sort of national guard) , their bilateral diplomacy (outside of common foreign policy), and their taxation.

• • The EU would be a federation of nation states , not a supernation.

In short: a lightweight federation for the EU would be a way to have a more efficient and democratic Union, without shifting to a centralized federal state. This would give the EU limited but clear means to act collectively, while leaving the majority of competences to the states.

These skills and decision-making areas would be distributed as follows:

1. Current EU (strengthened intergovernmental model)

• • Defense → mainly national (limited cooperation via NATO and PESCO).

• • Taxation → largely national (partial harmonization of VAT, few own resources).

• • Climate & environment → shared, but implementation depends a lot on states.

• • Foreign trade → exclusive competence of the EU (Commission negotiates).

• • Foreign policy → decisions mostly unanimous in the European Council, therefore slow.

• • Budget → ~1% of EU GDP, financed mainly by national contributions.

2. Light federation (shared, but limited sovereignty)

• • Defense → each State keeps its army, but a common European force manages external projection and collective defense.

• • Taxation → national majority, but with some European taxes (e.g. carbon tax, digital) to finance a real federal budget (~2–3% of GDP).

• • Climate & environment → joint competence: standards and objectives set at federal level, national implementation.

• • Foreign trade → exclusively federal.

• • Foreign policy → common policy with a federal foreign minister, while leaving bilateral diplomacy to the states in their areas of competence.

• • Budget → limited but real, allowing action on energy transition, defense and innovation.

3. Classical federation (USA or Germany type)

• • Defense → single federal army, states without their own army.

• • Taxation → federal taxes (VAT, corporate tax, maybe income tax), massive federal budget (~15–20% of GDP).

• • Climate & environment → strong federal policy, binding standards, coordinated implementation.

• • Foreign trade → exclusively federal.

• • Foreign policy → solely federal, the federated states no longer have bilateral diplomacy.

• • Budget → comparable to that of a nation-state, with social and redistributive policies at the federal level.

In summary:

• • Current EU = cooperation of states with few common resources.

• • Light federation = shared sovereignty over a few major global policies, but very autonomous states remain very powerful.

• • Classic federation = powerful federal state, federated states having mainly a regional role.

The AI ​​even imagines daily life in a slightly European federation:

Taxes and Finance

• • You would still pay your national taxes (income tax, VAT, etc.).

• • But a small part (e.g. a European carbon tax, or a digital tax) would go directly to the federal budget.

• • The federal budget (2–3% of GDP, compared to 1% today) would mainly be used to finance:

• • • common defense,

• • • the ecological and energy transition,

• • • research and innovation.

Defense and security

• • Each country would keep its national army (army, navy, gendarmerie, etc.).

• • But a European federal military force would exist to intervene together in international crises, protect external borders and strengthen collective security.

• • Example: in the event of a threat in the Mediterranean or the Balkans, it is the federal force that would be sent, not each national army separately.

Climate and energy

• • The main rules (CO₂ reduction targets, industrial standards, coal/oil phase-out schedule) would be decided at the federal level.

• • But each state would choose how to apply these standards within its territory.

• • Example: the EU sets a target of -50% CO₂ by 2035, France chooses to focus on nuclear power, Spain on solar power, Sweden on hydrogen.

Foreign policy

• • An EU foreign minister would represent the federation on major issues (China, United States, Russia).

• • States would maintain bilateral diplomacy for regional or cultural issues (France-Africa, Germany-Eastern Europe, etc.).

Trade and mobility

• • As today, complete freedom of movement (work, studies, travel).

• • Trade agreements would be negotiated solely by the federation (no more competition between European states).

• • Example: A free trade agreement with India or Brazil would be signed by the European federal government, not by each state.

Identity and citizenship

• • You would still have your national identity card and passport , but with a federal mention (like today with “European Union”).

• • Right to vote:

• • • local/national elections → in your country,

• • • federal elections → to elect your European deputy and indirectly the federal government and its president.

In summary:
In a light federation , your daily life would change little: you would pay your taxes mainly to your state, you would keep your national passport, and your country would keep its army.
But you would see the emergence of a real federal level that would be more effective and more visible in: defense, foreign policy, climate and trade.

The association shares the essence of this vision like others (see Our European future is national AND federal. ), it is now time, particularly for the States of the “group of the future” (see The “group of the future” maps out a federal future – Voxeurop ) to move up a gear, with or without France.

We therefore urge the leaders of these countries to implement this light federalism for the EU, this federation of nation-states without delay and as soon as possible. Germany, Austria and Belgium, all three of which are already federal states, could serve as a driving force for the creation of this project, which would be joined by other states wishing to develop the EU.

We wish you a good read and remind you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.