Fernand Kartheiser is a Luxembourgish politician who was elected to the European Parliament in 2024, the first time a member of the Alternative Democratic Reform Party won a seat. In 2025, Kartheiser was expelled from the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, because he visted Russia.
Guillaume de Sardes: You’ve long warned against what you call the “federalist drift” of the European Union, a process you argue is eroding national sovereignty and democratic accountability. Considering current developments,such as increased defense integration, centralised fiscal policies, and coordinated foreign policy stances,do you believe the EU is still reconcilable with the principle of sovereign nation-states? What, in your opinion, would a truly cooperative, rather than federalised, European architecture look like in today’s multipolar world?
The federalist drift gained momentum after Brexit. Since then, every crisis has been used to increase the Commission’s power. COVID has served to increase its influence in the health sector; the war in Ukraine is intentionally fuelled and prolonged to allow for the transfer of further competences in the defence, security and foreign policy areas to the EU. The infringement on national competences is ever more blatant. A good example is the Commission’s increasing grip on housing policies, which were, until recently, an exclusively national policy area. Today, the role of the Member States is reduced to some fiscal and taxation questions, social policy, culture and education, to a little bit of foreign policy and, most importantly, to Treaty change. In order to reduce those competences even further, the Commission and the European Parliament had tried to invent modalities, such as the Conference for the Future of Europe, to put Member States under pressure to hand over additional competences, with—or even without—Treaty change. This continuous and intentional top-down pressure seeking to centralise power in Europe have been largely successful. The idea of a “Europe of Nations” that many political parties—and a large part of the people —believe in so strongly, is seriously weakened. So, how to react? Realistically, the reaction to that federalist momentum has to take into account that, in order to be relevant on a global scale, a certain degree of European federalisation is necessary. A Europe of Nations in, for instance, economic, trade or monetary matters does not make much sense in today’s global context. On the other hand, one has to realise that a federalised Europe can represent a danger for Member States and their people. For instance, the EU’s centralised foreign policy on Ukraine and on Russia rejects diplomacy in favour of confrontation and war; the EU Digital Services Act imposes censorship and limits freedom of speech. Therefore, a more federal EU can result in less security and less freedom. In my view, Brussels must now consider Treaty changes that better protect the interests of Member States and EU citizens. First, one has to abolish the general presumption of the primacy of EU law over national law. Such prioritisation makes sense for the internal market, but is not necessary in other fields. We should also reject a militarisation of the EU and discuss defence issues in other fora. We should give to the EU Council the general right to take legislative initiatives and limit the Commission’s initiative rights to matters strictly related to the internal market, trade etc., excluding explicitly transnational aspects of family benefits and other matters related to national competences. I also believe that members of the European Parliament should no longer all be elected on the same date; that the co-legislative rights of the European Parliament must be limited and that the Parliament may not pass resolutions concerning an EU Member State. The Digital Services Act must also be abolished; the threat it poses to freedom of speech in Europe is simply too grave. We also need a general opt-out clause, enabling Member States to freely opt-out from any EU policies they deem incompatible with their national interest. The European Court of Justice should protect the sovereign rights of Nations as a basic principle in its judgments rather than pursue a federalist agenda. The EU budget must be solely dependent on contributions from Member States, while EU “own resources” should be abolished. We should also abandon the Union-wide automatic recognition of civil judgments from other Member States. These are but a few suggestions on how we can strengthen again the Member States without sacrificing European unity to the extent that it is useful.
As a strong advocate for national and European neutrality, you’ve frequently challenged the mainstream alignment with NATO and U.S.-led military agendas. How do you interpret Europe’s current militarisation in response to the Ukraine conflict, and what consequences do you foresee if Europe continues subordinating its strategic interests to those of transatlantic alliances? Do you believe neutrality, once considered a pillar of moral authority for small states, has been politically delegitimised in contemporary Europe?
You are right to mention the de-legitimisation of neutrality in recent years. Worse, countries such as Austria and Switzerland have been progressively pressured into an alignment with NATO. I also fear that the inexplicably fast and probably counterproductive accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO – without referenda – might have been due to excessive pressure from larger States. History has shown neutrality cannot always protect from armed conflict. Nevertheless, it has a number of advantages. States that live a credible and authentic neutrality can offer their good services in crisis situations. They can also avoid entanglement in the hysteria that precedes conflict, and finally, they do not have to participate in any arms race. Until the Ukraine war, I was in favour of my country’s NATO membership. But it is with great dismay that I now believe this war is mainly being fought to enlarge NATO into Eastern Europe, and hence I have become more distrustful and apprehensive of such policies. I have the impression that within NATO, we are no longer simply Allies, but are increasingly treated as vassals of the United States. The latest NATO Summit in The Hague was a dramatic demonstration of this. The current militarisation of the EU is also a serious problem. Led by some openly Russo-phobic States such as the Baltic States and Poland, all others are pressured into adopting an offensive posture. Very few in Europe today wish to discuss arms control mechanisms, confidence-building measures or a European Security architecture. Unfortunately, I see very few European leaders capable today to define European interests and to stand up for those on the international stage. Let me sum up by saying that if NATO cannot once again become a defensive Alliance of equal and sovereign countries, I would then rather see Luxembourg switch to a policy of neutrality. To that end, I would like to explore ways to update the concept of neutrality. I could imagine, for instance, an “intra-alliance neutrality” in which a country would be part of a politico-military alliance but would clearly state in which cases it would stay neutral. It could then participate in common activities, integration and decision-taking but also clearly define the limits of its engagement. This kind of arrangement might, for the time being, be more readily accepted in the Euro-Atlantic community, than complete and outright neutrality outside a larger group of States. One could also imagine a membership limited to political cooperation, but excluding explicit military collaboration. Basically, we should allow for different levels of solidarity, leaving room for a broader interpretation of neutrality.
Your position on the war in Ukraine, particularly your critiques of Western narratives, has attracted both support and controversy. How would you assess the European Union’s strategy in this conflict? What alternative diplomatic or geopolitical approach should Europe pursue to rebuild dialogue, while safeguarding its long-term security and sovereignty?
The European Union is pursuing a suicidal policy. Abandoning its Russian energy supplies, excluding itself from the Russian market, pursuing an expensive arms race and cutting nearly all political relations with Russia has three main consequences. First, the political and economic dependency on the United States has become almost total. Second, the European economy loses its competitivity and attractiveness. Thirdly, the EU is no longer a relevant interlocutor on the international scene. Instead of isolating Russia, it has isolated itself. There is no need to speak to the Europeans any more. Third states bypass diplomacy with Brussels, preferring to speak directly to our masters in Washington or to Moscow. The reasons for this development are partly political, caused by the dominance of the Russo-phobic lobby in the EU; partly personnel-related, due to the nominations of Mrs Kallas or Mr. Kubilius to key posts in the European Commission; partly structural, due to the marginalisation of Member States in a more and more militarised, radicalised and federalised EU. If the EU wants to move off the path to insignificance, it must rebuild a diplomatic, political and economic relationship with Russia and emancipate itself from Washington’s dominance.
You were expelled from the ECR and became non-attached Member of the European Parliament, reportedly due to irreconcilable differences over fundamental policy issues and principles. What does this episode reveal about the space for ideological dissent and pluralism within European political parties today? Do you believe that parties have become increasingly intolerant of voices that challenge dominant geopolitical or cultural narratives?
I have been expelled from the ECR political group in the European Parliament. The reason was—put in my own words—that I did not adhere to the ECR’s Russo-phobic attitude. They were uncompromising when I gave an interview to a Russian media outlet and were increasingly angered that I did not support their one-sided view on the war in Ukraine. My attempt to restore some diplomatic engagement between the European Parliament and the State Duma when I visited Moscow in May of this year was in their eyes a “red line” that I had overstepped. I believe this reveals how the ECR has undergone a substantial transformation in recent years. I have been in the ECR for sixteen years and always appreciated that ECR was a political party that defended common values, such as national sovereignty, protection of the family, free trade, etc., all while allowing member parties the political freedom to pursue policies according to their national programmes and priorities. Today, the ECR is sovietising itself; dictating an authorised viewpoint, and threatening those who dare contest. I agree with you that there is a growth of intolerance. Freedom has to be defended at all times to stop authoritarianism taking root in our Western countries, and this includes political parties and international organisations. It is deeply regrettable that many mainstream political parties and media outlets opt today to support such totalitarian tendencies, rather than fight for political pluralism and freedom of speech.
You’ve raised concerns that uncontrolled migration, coupled with ideological multiculturalism, is leading to a loss of cultural cohesion and national identity in Europe. Critics label such views as xenophobic or reactionary, while supporters argue they are rooted in legitimate civilisational concerns. How do you respond to this tension? What kind of migration policy would you advocate that respects human dignity, but also preserves Europe’s cultural and political continuity?
Any migration policy must be in conformity with the law, in particular immigration laws. If this were not the case, the State would be in breach of its own laws, which is incompatible in a State of Law. Illegal immigration can therefore not be tolerated. This has nothing to do with xenophobia, since the fight against illegal immigration is perfectly compatible with a simultaneous policy of legal immigration. To ensure fairness and prevent hardship, immigration policies must meet several critical standards, reflected in key questions such as: Are individuals always treated with dignity? Do our measures against illegal immigration prevent people from taking dangerous risks? Do we mitigate brain drain in countries of origin? How do we combat organised crime, particularly human trafficking and criminal infiltration, within the context of migration? To foster societal acceptance of immigration, policies must avoid the perception that mass immigration is a solution to demographic challenges. Immigration should also be paired with robust integration programs. Immigrants who violate laws or refuse to integrate must return to their countries of origin.
How would you evaluate the health of democracy in Europe today? Not in formal terms, but in terms of the capacity of citizens to express alternative views without fear of professional, legal, or reputational consequences?
This question highlights a troubling phenomenon: the Orwellian transformation of our societies. As many rightly observe, George Orwell’s “1984” was intended as fiction, yet it increasingly resembles a guidebook. Our societies are losing their democratic essence, likely due to a diminishing respect for the individual. The sanctity of human life is eroded through practices like abortion and euthanasia. Religions are marginalised in ever-more materialistic and secularised societies. Freedom of speech is curtailed by vague concepts such as “hate speech,” “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “manipulation.” Political pluralism is supplanted by a superficial “diversity” that prioritises external characteristics or behaviour over intellectual excellence. Biological identity is undermined by an unscientific gender ideology. Artistic and academic freedoms are threatened by intolerance. Political dissent is progressively suppressed. Artificial intelligence may further exacerbate this homogenisation of our societies. In my view, we live in an era where the primary threat to our freedom comes not from an external enemy, but from within. This requires exceptional courage, as confronting friends, colleagues, family, elected officials, academics, or acquaintances who seek to restrict our liberties is far more challenging than facing a foreign adversary. In this struggle, true democrats must unite and coordinate their efforts. It is a battle for the foundational principles of our free and democratic societies—human dignity and liberty. Reflecting on the challenges ahead, I am reminded of the U.S. Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
