Next May 25, European citizens from the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (EUSSR) -officially known as the EU- are called to participate in the elections to the so-called “European Parliament” -such a Central Executive Comitee.

That election is on the spot of a rising Eurosceptic rise. Brussels bureaucrats efforts to promote multiculturalism -increasing the risk of islamization in the continent- are the main reason why many Europeans are tired of the progressive and social democratic establishment.

We are seeing how parties that call either for leaving the EUSSR or a reform are on the rise. Alternative for Germany, National Reaggrupation, Brexit Party -after obstacles put by the incompetent Theresa May and a kidnapper parliament, FIDESZ -Orban represents a key challenge to EUSSR politicians, North League, VOX, True Finns…

EUSSR is undergoing a progressive centralizing trend. By a wide range of measures -financial, military, economical, commercial, etc.- they are trying to vanish the political sovereignty of the State-members as in any other kind of self-determination.

At the same time, what we are witnessing is not strange when we look at anti-decentralization projects. Whereas Lincoln and Hamilton endorsed an expensive and bigger federal government, people like Juncker and Tusk is making serious efforts to diminish liberties.

They come up with proposals based on new subsidies, fiscal harmonizations, complex regulations -as those related with data protection and copyright-, control of “fake news”, new tariffs and bilateral trade agreements, petitions to promote gender ideology and legalize abortion.

What’s more is they are isolated from the reality. They completely ignore critics and challenges against Brussels sovietization. By claiming steadily “More Europe” or that an “European identity is necessary” they think that the problem is being tackled in a correct way.

But is a “Europe of Nations” the best alternative?

First of all, we may see the aforementioned concept is such a headline of the campaigns of identitarian right-wing and alt-right parties. “National sovereignty” and “own identity” are common terms in their political programs and speeches.

However some of them advocate for protectionism -in defence of national products and businesses- and have any other nationalist views -praising for a conceptual vaquity, even based on paganism. Besides we may find some collectivist parties that attract former left-wing voters.

Although they reject Brussels centralism they may instill fear to foreign companies, investments and products, promote political expansions and/or oppose to local and regional decentralization in their own countries.

We cannot struggle against one kind of centralism to promote other of a different extent. Besides it should be noted that ideals based on nationalism, socialism, and political centralism are part of the damned French Revolution.

An ideal model, on the other hand, is based on a third system: a “Europe of Liechtensteins” with the moral background of Polish sociology. Right to self-determination and individual secession, reaffirmation on Christian values, defend of the culture of life from fecundation to natural life, opposition to “democracy”, stronger families, and promotion of freer markets.

Once said that, it must be said that the only important advantage of the “Europe of Nation” is the fact that it exerts a counterweight against Brussels bureaucrats. Political fragmentation limits the expansion of power. But we should not forget God, tradition and natural law.