Hayer and Pro-Europeanism : An Ideological Capture Disconnected from the People ? Pro-Eliticrats or Gravedigger of the Europe of the People ?

Valérie Hayer, Renaissance's (french presidential party) superficial muse and pope of the Renew group, brandishes the "pro-European“ label as a moral standard, but is her federalist dogma, where Brussels reigns supreme over nations relegated to the background, really the alpha and omega of love for Europe? For her, being pro-European means dreaming of a superstate where the Commission dictates its law, relegating sovereignties to the closet. 

But, Valérie, honestly? What is this scam? “Pro-Eliticrats” like Hayer boast about the “pro-European” label, but their contempt for the 2005 referendum and the 60% of French people preferring a Europe of nations (MIS Group poll, France-Soir, May 2025) shows that they prefer their Brussels ivory tower to the voice of the people. By monopolizing this term, these pro-Brusselocrats advocates caricature the Europe of nations—that of founding fathers like Schuman and de Gaulle—as a populist heresy.

Isn't this binary polarization, worthy of a “pro-vax” versus “anti-vax” argument, aimed at discrediting any criticism of their supranational dogma? And above all, aren't these pro-Brussels advocates out-of-touch ideologues, deaf to the aspirations of the European people?

Contempt for the people: 2005 and the snubbed polls

Pro-Brussels advocates like Hayer claim to embody Europe, but they have forgotten what the French voted for in 2005 and are still calling for in 2025: a Europe of nations, not a bureaucratic Leviathan. In 2005, 54.7% of French people slammed the door on the draft European Constitution, deemed too centralizing. 

Twenty years later, nothing has changed: 64% support a Europe of nations, compared to 14% for a federal Europe ( Alain Houpert poll, April 2025 ), and 60% want a Europe of commercial cooperation rather than a supranational monster (MIS Group poll, May 2025). The icing on the cake is that 71% perceive endemic corruption in European institutions, a finding that torpedoes Hayer's technocratic ideal. Yet Hayer and her acolytes persist in selling their federalist utopia, deaf to popular aspirations. 

By persisting in promoting a disconnected federalism, Hayer and ilks pose as dogmatic ideologues, deaf to the aspirations of the people they claim to represent.

Europe of Nations: European, but not Pro-Elitist ("eliticrats" combination of elitists and burocrats)

The founding fathers were not all fans of federalism. While Monnet fantasized about a supranational Europe, Schuman, Adenauer, and de Gaulle saw the EU as an alliance of sovereign nations, united without dissolving . Is this Europe of nations, championed by the European Council, less legitimate? Nothing suggests so. Yet pro-Elitist advocates accuse its defenders of Euroscepticism, as if loving Europe without wanting a superstate were a crime. In 2019, Philippe Juvin already denounced this " false debate “ between federalism and a Europe of nations, with the EU being a hybrid of the two.

A semantic capture to muzzle the people

A striking example of semantic capture, comparable to that of “pro-European,” is the appropriation of the term “progressive” by certain movements. Historically, "progressive“ referred to those who pushed for social or economic progress for all. Today, it is often hijacked by left-wing ideologies, associated with identity or cultural politics, which present themselves as the sole embodiments of progress. Any criticism, even from a defender of economic or technological progress, is branded "retrograde” locking the debate into a sterile dichotomy. 

In France, the Socialist Party has often played this game, stigmatizing opposition to migration policies or same-sex marriage as regressive, even when they stemmed from pragmatic concerns. Similarly, pro-Elitist groups like Hayer dismiss any criticism of their federalism as anti-European, stifling the pluralism they claim to represent. Jürgen Habermas, a champion of transnational democracy, emphasizes that federalism implies shared sovereignty. But this idea, attractive on paper, clashes with the cultural and historical realities of European nations, which are attached to their autonomy. 

By ignoring this, federalists fuel resentment that ironically benefits the populists they denounce.

A narrow vision that weakens Europe

By reducing Europe to a Brussels mechanism, this federalism, inspired by Altiero Spinelli, makes Europe an entity that transcends nations, and Hayer ignores its cultural and historical richness. Her dogmatic federalism, which snubs the popular rejection of 2005 and the perception of corruption in Brussels, widens a gap between elites and citizens. By claiming that Europe will only survive by becoming a quasi-state, the pro-Eliticrats betray the legacy of the founders, who saw the diversity of nations as a strength, not an obstacle. This rhetoric, which caricatures any dissent as anti-European, recalls the excesses of the vaccine debate, where all nuance was crushed to impose an official truth.

Rehabilitating a pluralist pro-Europeanism

Being pro-European does not mean adhering to the federalist dogma of Hayer and her ilks. It means believing in a Europe that unites without standardizing, that respects nations while building a common destiny. By appropriating the term " pro-European ,” federalists, disconnected from the people, are betraying the legacy of the founders and weakening the EU. 

The French said it in 2005 in the polls and will repeat it in 2025: they want a Europe of nations, not a Brussels Leviathan. It's up to Hayer & co. to come down from their ideological clouds and finally listen to the voice of the citizens. A real referendum topic.