Europe as a project of freedom

I really believe in Europe. Not in a superficial way, not just because we are used to it, but as a strong political project.

The idea that a continent decides to unite not to dominate, but to overcome its own divisions, is something quite rare. And also something deeply right.

But exactly because I believe in Europe, I think it is also fair to ask on which foundations it should really be built.

Because “more Europe” is not a neutral slogan. It always depends on what kind of Europe we have in mind, and especially what idea of freedom we want to put inside it.

The Great Intuition of the American Founding Fathers

If one is looking for a serious point of reference on this, it is hard not to look at the US Constitution.
Not so much because it is a model to be copied, but because it is probably the most successful attempt to build a political order around individual freedom.
The American founding fathers had a very clear understanding, almost brutal in its simplicity: power is necessary, but it is also dangerous. And therefore it must be limited.
Not made more efficient. Not made more intelligent. Limited.
This idea comes directly from John Locke, with the principle of natural rights, and from Montesquieu, with the separation of powers.
But in the United States these ideas have not remained theory. They have become concrete structure.
And in my opinion that is what is still striking today: it is not a constitution that promises freedom. It is a constitution that forces power to stop.

Freedom born of the rejection of power

There is also a historical moment that in my opinion explains this mentality very well, and that is the Boston Tea Party, from which the whole process of the American Revolution then started.
What is striking is not just the gesture itself, but the principle behind it: the rejection of a power that is perceived as formally legitimate, but not just because it is unrestricted and unrepresentative.

It is not a revolt against order. It is a revolt against a power that does not recognise limits.
And from there comes a very strong political idea: that freedom is not something to be negotiated, but something to be defended even against constituted authority.
It is a fundamental passage, because it marks the very moment in which the relationship between the individual and power is overturned.

A constitution that puts the individual at the centre

What makes that constitution so fascinating, even centuries later, is that it starts from a very simple premise: the individual comes before the state.
It is not the state that grants rights. It is the state that must recognise them and, above all, not violate them.
It sounds banal, but it is not at all.
Because it completely changes the way a political system is built. If you start with the idea that power must be contained, then everything is designed to prevent it from spreading too far.

And within this space, inevitably, the market also emerges. Not as an ideological dogma, but as a natural consequence of a society in which individuals are free to act, exchange, create.
It is a very coherent vision, and also a very demanding one. Because it requires faith in freedom, not in the ability of power to organise everything.

Europe and its liberal tradition

And here I think there is an interesting point, which is often forgotten.
These ideas are not ‘American’ in the strict sense. They are European.
Locke is English. Montesquieu is French. The whole tradition of liberal constitutionalism originated in Europe.

The United States, in a sense, has done something that we have never been able to do all the way: take these ideas and build a coherent political system on top of them.
Europe, on the other hand, has remained more fragmented. More cautious. More tied to a vision in which power has always played a larger role.
And today, in the European project, this difference can still be felt.

More Europe, but with a clear principle

That is why, when we talk about strengthening the European Union, for me the question is not whether to do it or not.
The answer, for me, is yes.
The real question is: in what direction?
A more united Europe can be many things. It can be more coordinated, more present, more incisive. But it should also, and above all, be clearer in its relationship with individual freedom.
It is not enough to say that freedom is a value. It is necessary to build institutions that truly protect it, even against the ever-present temptation to expand power beyond what is necessary.
And here the lesson of the American founding fathers remains relevant. Not because it offers ready solutions, but because it points to a very precise principle: power must have boundaries.

A Europe that liberates

At the end, the point is quite simple.

I want more Europe. But I want a Europe that trusts freedom.

A Europe that does not start from the idea that everything must be organized, but from the idea that the space of the individual must be preserved.

A Europe that is not afraid to limit power, even its own.

This is not a position against integration. It is, in a way, taking it more seriously.

Because a political union, if it wants to last, cannot be only efficient. It must also be just.

And it is very hard to be truly just, if freedom is not the starting point, but only the final result.