Rule 2 — We Empower
Power without resources is an illusion. In the previous chapter, Europe’s inhabitants finally chose who would lead the shared building. The president was elected. Representatives were chosen. For the first time, the building had a clear chain of command that flowed directly from its inhabitants. But as anyone who has ever managed a building knows, choosing a property contractor is only half the work. If that contractor has no independent budget, no keys to the bank account, and no authority to pay for repairs, the cracks will remain. This chapter explains why Europe, as it exists today, cannot function without its own resources, and how Rule 2 gives real substance to the choice made under Rule 1.
Situation As-Is
Today, the shared European building looks impressive from the outside, but its financial wiring runs through every apartment. The exterior subcontractor – the EU government as it exists now – does not have its own wallet. Instead, it must ask the interior contractors, the national governments, for money every time something needs to be done.
Imagine a leaking roof. Rainwater seeps into several apartments. The inhabitants complain. The exterior subcontractor agrees that repairs are necessary, but cannot act. It must first ask each interior contractor how much they are willing to contribute. Some agree quickly. Others hesitate, arguing that the leak is worse above other apartments. A few threaten to block the repair entirely unless they receive something in return for their own apartment. While negotiations drag on, the leak grows. The damage spreads.
This is not a hypothetical situation. It is the daily reality of European decision-making. The EU budget is largely funded by contributions from member states. These contributions are negotiated, conditional, and politically sensitive. As a result, European institutions are structurally dependent on national governments for their most basic functioning.
This dependency has three consequences. First, it slows everything down. Decisions are shaped not by urgency or common interest, but by bargaining power. Second, it distorts priorities. Funds are allocated based on what national governments are willing to pay for, not on what the shared building actually needs. Third, it undermines responsibility. When something goes wrong, interior contractors blame the exterior subcontractor for incompetence, while quietly reminding everyone that they never gave it sufficient resources in the first place.
Most importantly, the inhabitants are entirely disconnected from this financial process. Citizens may vote in European elections, but they do not directly fund the institution they vote for. Their financial contribution remains filtered through national systems, bundled into national budgets, and repackaged as national generosity or national sacrifice. The result is predictable: Europe is accused of being expensive, even though no one can clearly say what they personally pay for it or what they receive in return.
A building funded this way cannot be well maintained. It survives, but it never thrives.
The Rule
Rule 2 addresses this structural weakness directly. It does not add complexity. It removes a layer.
Europeans directly fund the power they choose: one shared contribution finances European power, without an extra layer of taxation, giving it the independence it needs to function.
This rule is simple, but its implications are profound. It means that once Europeans have chosen their leaders under Rule 1, they also give those leaders the means to act. Not by inventing new taxes, not by piling another bill on top of national systems, but by redirecting part of what already exists into a shared European contribution.
In the building metaphor, this is the moment when the inhabitants collectively agree to pay a monthly fee directly to the property contractor. The fee is visible. Everyone knows how much it is. Everyone knows what it is for. The contractor no longer has to beg individual interior contractors every time the elevator breaks.
This shared contribution creates a direct financial relationship between the inhabitants and the European institutions. Power and money are aligned. Choice and responsibility are linked. If the inhabitants are unhappy with how the building is managed, they know exactly whom to blame and what they are paying for.
Crucially, this rule does not increase the overall burden on citizens. It replaces fragmented national contributions with a transparent, shared one. The total cost may remain similar, but the structure changes entirely. The European level gains independence. National governments lose the ability to quietly starve European institutions while publicly blaming them for poor results.
Situation To-Be
Once Rule 2 is implemented, the shared building begins to function like a real collective project. The property contractor has a stable budget. Maintenance is planned, not improvised. Investments are made with a long-term view, because funding is no longer hostage to short-term national politics.
When a problem arises, the response changes fundamentally. The property contractor no longer asks all interior contractors for permission. It acts within a budget that has already been democratically approved by the inhabitants. Accountability becomes clear. If money is wasted, it is visible. If results are delivered, they are measurable.
The psychological shift is just as important as the financial one. Inhabitants no longer experience Europe as an abstract cost hidden in national accounts. They experience it as a shared service they consciously fund. The question changes from “Why does Europe cost so much?” to “Is Europe delivering value for what we collectively invest?”
Interior contractors also benefit, even if they resist at first. Freed from constant budgetary negotiations at European level, they can focus on their core task: managing their own apartments. They can no longer use Europe as a convenient scapegoat for domestic failures, nor can they quietly claim credit for European successes they did not fund.
Most importantly, the combination of Rule 1 and Rule 2 completes a democratic circuit. Citizens choose European power. Citizens fund European power. Power becomes real, but also limited and exposed. There is no longer an excuse for paralysis, and no hiding place for incompetence.
A building with a chosen contractor and a guaranteed maintenance budget can finally be more than a collection of patched repairs. It can be improved. It can be prepared for future challenges. It can be trusted.
Rule 2 is where Europe stops pretending and starts functioning. Choice without funding is theatre. Funding without choice is coercion. By directly empowering the institutions they choose, Europeans turn their shared building into a common project rather than a permanent negotiation.
This rule does not demand more Europe. It demands clearer Europe. A Europe that knows what it is responsible for, what it costs, and what it must deliver. In the next chapter, we will see how this empowered system is kept in check, ensuring that the power and resources Europeans grant are never allowed to drift away from the inhabitants themselves.