The Young European Federalists Luxembourg have issued a statement calling for discourse from the government on what they claim is what is missing, a concrete vision or strategy for Europe.
"Since the Second World War, Europe has never faced worse.
Whilst in the East, the Russians are besieging Ukraine, to the West, our once great ally has now become a threat, a nation that can no longer be trusted.
Yet, in the midst of these continental scale issues, where is our small Luxembourg when Europe needs it?
Numerous times in the past, Luxembourg, exactly when the situation was dire, stood as a small, persistent and unmovable rock. When Europe was in panic, we used our influence, our position as a place of compromise between the great powers, in order to bring forward a vision, a strategy to fight these crises together, collectively.
From the outset of European integration, Luxembourg made a conscious and consistent choice in favour of Europe. As a founding member of the European Communities, it understood that its interests were best protected not through distance or ambiguity, but through participation and commitment. For Luxembourg, European integration was never abstract. It was a concrete political strategy in favour of stability, cooperation, and shared rules.
The Schengen Agreement did not emerge spontaneously. It required political initiative, trust between states, and a willingness to move forward despite uncertainty. Luxembourg played a central role by hosting and supporting a project that fundamentally changed how Europeans move, work and live. By providing both a physical and political space for negotiation, Luxembourg proved its ability to facilitate progress when ambition alone was not enough.
In 1966, the European Communities faced institutional paralysis. National interests threatened to undermine collective decision making. Luxembourg intervened not as a dominant power, but as a responsible one. The Luxembourg Compromise was a pragmatic solution to an acute crisis. It did not resolve every tension, but it preserved the continuity of the European project at a moment when its survival was uncertain.
Beyond institutions and agreements, Luxembourg has shaped Europe through the individuals it placed at the centre of European decision making. Robert Schuman was not merely a national politician, but one of the intellectual architects of European integration. His vision was rooted in reconciliation, interdependence and the rejection of power politics as the organising principle of Europe. That vision continues to underpin the European project today.
Later figures such as Gaston Thorn, Jacques Santer and Jean-Claude Juncker assumed European responsibilities at moments when the Union faced structural and political strain. Their roles were not symbolic. They required difficult decisions, negotiation under pressure and a willingness to defend European solutions even when they were controversial at home.
Particularly during the euro crisis, Luxembourgish leadership contributed to maintaining unity and advancing integration when fragmentation was a real risk.
However, nowadays, we are confronted with the question, what remains of this Luxembourgish vision or strategy?
We are, in every poll, the most pro European country.
Our politicians are almost exclusively pro European.
Our ministers routinely issue statements in defence of, and calling for further integration of, the European Union.
But what is missing is a concrete vision or strategy for Europe.
The final objective of the government seems to be to maintain Europe as it is, without ambition or strategy for the future of Europe.
By vision, what is missing is a clear and collective discourse from the government.
To come together and decide, what does Luxembourg want from the European Union?
Luxembourg must clearly articulate its European foreign policy objectives. Luxembourg must adopt federalisation as a core political objective, and openly advocate for treaty reform and deeper integration alongside like-minded Member States.
It is not enough for ministers to have individual opinions, there must be a collective objective, shared at least within the government, and even more favourably, shared between the pro European political parties of Luxembourg.
It is not enough for ministers to have individual opinions, there must be a collective strategic objective. This requires leadership from the Luxembourgish government, and from all parties that claim to stand for Europe.
By strategy, what is missing is a hunger for more Europe.
Now, in times of crisis, this is precisely the moment for Luxembourg to take the initiative.
For Luxembourg to organise conferences in Luxembourg and to issue joint statements bringing European leaders together around shared goals.
For Luxembourg to make the voice of Europeans heard by championing the formation of a forum of Member States committed to federalisation, openly articulating a shared end goal of deeper political integration, and coordinating support among heads of government and key ministers willing to advance integration even in the absence of unanimity.
For Luxembourg to actively encourage other Member States and European leaders to align behind this objective and to publicly support federalisation, treaty change, and the strengthening of the Union’s democratic capacity to act.
And it is not for lack of choice.
There is an entire repertoire of potential unifiers that the Luxembourgish government could champion.
In light of both the threats to Greenland and continued invasion of Ukraine, European armed forces.
In light of the issues that the European Union faces in finding a common voice, changes to the EU treaties in order to abolish the veto of the member states. In light of economic challenges, real market and fiscal union at the European level.
Neither Europe nor Luxembourg lack solutions.
They lack strategy and political courage.
“Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
Winston Churchill"
