The Party Program for Europe’s Role in the World

1. We are the Europeans for the Planet

We have committed ourselves to three mandates:

• To ensure the survival of humanity in a sustainable and intact environment.
• To preserve our distinctly European liberal civil liberties.
• To establish a constitutionally anchored Europe as a state with unified foreign, defence, financial, and economic policies.

2. We Are Europeans for the Planet

We have given ourselves three mandates:

• A long-term task,
• A secondary condition, and
• A short-term goal.

Our long-term task is to enable the survival of humanity in a sustainable and intact environment.

The secondary condition is to preserve our distinctly European liberal civil liberties.

Our short-term goal is to establish a constitutionally anchored Europe as a state with unified foreign, defence, financial, and economic policies, endowed with sufficient influence to fulfil our long-term task and adhere to the secondary condition.

The name “Europeans for the Planet” is intended to reflect our long-term task, the secondary condition, and our short-term goal.

3. Why Is a New Party Necessary?

This question is valid. Germany already has a broad spectrum of political parties, each with comprehensive party platforms.

These parties claim to offer solutions to nearly every issue. Whether it’s “protecting the climate” (The Greens) or achieving “political participation for migrants” (Volt), whether we value “good work for a good life” (The Left) or, more specifically, the “principle of net neutrality” (The Pirates). In this abundant selection, there’s ostensibly something for everyone—and some of it doesn’t even sound bad. On the other hand, you may feel drawn to more ambiguous or ideologically charged slogans like the “Christian-Jewish-humanistic traditions” (CDU) or the “recognition of the nation-state over post-national borderlessness” (AfD). Few people would disagree with strengthening a “modern public transport system” (FDP), and “affordable housing for all” (SPD) is undeniably commendable.

All these parties aim to capture the centre of society—even those founded in protest against the “establishment” or with explicitly radical left- or right-wing origins. As a result, there is significant overlap and contradiction in their election promises. It often takes a “Wahl-O-Mat” (voter decision-making tool) to decide who to vote for.

So, is everything fine? You might think so—or not.

Why then, in this seemingly well-functioning political landscape, do we observe growing disillusionment with politics? How did an extra-parliamentary opposition movement like Fridays for Future manage to make itself so powerfully heard? Why is political Europe crumbling at a time when it should be demonstrating its effectiveness?

Clearly, we need to strive for different politics, and we need to conduct politics differently.

Our political goals must address the major challenges facing Germany, Europe, and the world. These challenges are serious and cannot be subordinated to electoral strategies. Furthermore, they are interconnected, mutually dependent, or even contradictory. They cannot simply be added to or removed from a menu of options. The actions derived from them must be guided by a few core principles—if possible, even automated.

Because the weakest link in the chain is the human element. Not only do politicians of individual nation-states carry exclusively national mandates—they never carry a European one. Moreover, the career trajectory of a professional politician depends less on their adherence to principles or the value of their decisions and more on their electoral successes. Consequently, their primary concern is often, “What will happen to me?” They are unlikely to feel inclined to “rationalize themselves out of existence.” If entrusted with far-reaching decision-making power, they often see it as personal authority and feel entitled to make decisions based on their own whims.

Therefore, the focus must shift to the party program rather than the party politician—more program, less personality.

Such a party has not existed until now. It had to be created. Since genuine European parties are not yet possible, a separate party of Europeans for the Planet must first be founded in each European country—including here in Germany.

4. How Are Our Missions Reflected in Our Name?

Our mission—to ensure the survival of humanity in a habitable environment—is so self-evident that, aside from a few fundamentalist religious end-time believers, almost every political group would likely affirm that they, too, aspire to achieve this—at least in principle.

Our home planet, Earth, represents the conceptual framework that binds all decisions and measures together. This mission is abstract, overarching, and requires a phased translation into the actions of daily politics. In the political day-to-day, these long-term missions are often overshadowed by pressing current issues and their quick, sometimes superficial, solutions, such as labor shortages, commuter allowances, or scrappage bonuses. Frequently, the realization of “we really should act differently” is followed by the resigned conclusion, “but that’s impossible to communicate to the public.”

Nonetheless, such behavior remains a path to ruin. What is far more important is ensuring that every decision we, as a community, make and every action we subsequently take demonstrably adheres to this principle of sustainability.

Thus, the mission to preserve a livable planet is always embedded in our name.

5. Why Only Three Missions?

Far more than in traditional party programs, our decisions must not contradict this single core principle. Instead, we claim that our specific courses of action should emerge as logically and transparently as possible from this single core principle through a potentially multi-tiered hierarchy of political principles.

While we assert that the core principle of sustainability has universal validity, we confine the scope of the secondary condition—preserving our distinctively European liberal civil liberties—to the sphere of civilization in Europe itself. We believe that it is particularly we Europeans who would find a life without these liberal civil liberties, which we now take for granted, unendurable. This secondary condition is essential to us. Many signs indicate that humanity has already severely exploited the planet and destroyed many ecosystems. Therefore, we anticipate that a course correction aligned with the core principle will require drastic measures. Societal taboos will need to be addressed and re-evaluated. Liberal civil liberties could easily become casualties of such radical transformation. That is why we have prominently positioned them as a secondary condition and as our second mission.

Fulfilling this mission will not be easy. We also believe that we can only effectively defend our liberal civil liberties within Europe—and only through Europe itself. This Europe needs legitimacy from its citizens, an independent political stance, a clear mission, and, above all, sufficient weight to ensure its voice is heard in the “concert of world powers.”

We are driven by the conviction that an effectively capable Europe can only emerge as a constitutionally anchored state with unified foreign, defense, financial, and security policies—organized as centrally as necessary and as regionally as possible. Externally, Europe must be perceived as a capable entity. Internally, we wish to preserve the diversity of its peoples and cultures. Such a Europe does not yet exist. We must create it first. That is our third mission.

6. Ensuring Humanity’s Survival in a Sustainable Environment

This ongoing mission, to which we are dedicated, seems so self-evident that we hesitate to elevate it so prominently above all other considerations. Yet, it is violated every day as if it were an inconsequential matter—whether knowingly or unknowingly.

The harsh truth is that, even today, there are already too many people consuming too many resources. This means we must aim to reduce both population numbers and resource consumption. No political organisation currently includes this demand in its agenda—except us.

After a very brief transition period, we must act in a climate-neutral manner across all aspects of our economy.
All resources must be perpetually reused within a circular economy. Renewable resources can rely on their natural regeneration cycle, while finite resources necessitate the establishment of a technically supported economic loop.

We must halt the devastation of our planet caused by deforestation, pollution, and the destruction of entire ecosystems. Significant portions of the Earth’s surface must be withdrawn from humanity’s destructive reach to allow for ecological regeneration.

Considering how we currently exploit finite and slow-renewing resources, while continuing to damage our environment, there are already too many people on this planet to sustain long-term economic activity. Although population numbers are declining in some highly developed countries, this offers no real hope for a substantial global population reduction. Consequently, reverting to traditional methods of economic activity is no longer an option.

To escape this predicament, we will need not only political measures but also increasingly technological solutions that enable a more sustainable interaction with our environment. A return to the supposedly “good old days” is simply not feasible. In this context, a strong focus on education, research, and the development of high technology becomes essential.

However, we do not want to place blind trust in technological fundamentalism, which would make our survival dependent on potential future innovations. Technological progress is, after all, unpredictable and cannot be planned.

7. Preserving Our Distinctively European Liberal Civil Liberties

These self-evident demands, for which there are no alternatives, touch upon topics that have often been considered taboo.

Reaching a societal consensus on these matters—even, ultimately, on a global scale—and implementing the necessary measures swiftly will require us to act far more collectively than has been customary, at least in the Western world.

We aim to maintain the civil liberties we have achieved over the past 300 years since the Enlightenment—at least to the extent that this remains possible. This great European achievement is not culturally embedded in large parts of the world. Even within Europe, it is constantly under threat and must be continuously defended.

For this reason, we have placed the preservation of our distinctively European liberal civil liberties—considered the foundation of all constitutional, liberal, and democratic orders—second only to our primary mission as an essential secondary condition.

8. Recreating Europe as a State

To act in accordance with our enduring mission while striving to uphold the vital condition so cherished by Europeans, we require the support of a broad social movement that finds direct expression in state action.

In a parliamentary democracy—still the system best suited to uphold the conditions we have articulated—this requires a political party capable of bridging the gap between societal will and state action, provided it can convince enough citizens. This is the role the “Europeans for the Planet” seeks to fulfill.

But can state action address a challenge that demands global solutions? Can this approach work? We fully recognize the magnitude of the challenge. Ideally, we would act as global citizens within a unified world community. Yet, in reality, we live in Europe, fragmented into comparatively small states, representing less than 10% of the world’s population. Globally, we are witnessing an alarming and dangerous polarization of the major powers. In this dynamic, Europe risks being crushed between competing giants.

To be perceived or to wield influence in this archaic power struggle among great powers, Europe needs the necessary “fighting weight.” This requires size, unity, independence, a distinct geopolitical position, a clear mission focused on the long-term preservation of life’s essential resources on this planet, and, naturally, immediate democratic legitimacy.

We do not claim to be the first to recognize the need for a united Europe. This call has been made by many, including prominent public figures. However, it has now become urgent to embrace this demand, place it at the heart of political action, and implement it swiftly. Failing to do so poses dangers, as former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt warned in his final public address in 2011:

“If, however, the European Union does not achieve—even to a limited extent—a common capacity for action in the coming decades, the self-inflicted marginalization of individual European states and the European civilization cannot be ruled out.”

As a political construct capable of meeting these demands, we envision at the very least a constitutionally established Europe—defined comprehensively—a state with unified policies in foreign affairs, defence, finance, and infrastructure.

At the same time, we align with the German constitutional scholar Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, who argued that the liberal, secularized state relies on preconditions it cannot guarantee itself. The granting of liberal freedoms is feasible only within cultures where the values of the Enlightenment are already deeply rooted. Thus, fulfilling the secondary condition of preserving civil liberties also delineates the boundaries of this European state.

Today, such a constitutionally anchored Europe—a state with unified foreign, defence, and fiscal policies—does not yet exist. Establishing it is our immediate goal, and the clock is ticking.

9. What Should Our “Europe” as a State Look Like?

A Europe with Democratic Legitimacy

To ensure Europe’s capability to act, in alignment with the fundamental principle of democratic legitimacy, we believe the European state must have a robust constitution. This constitution should enshrine the fundamental rights of its citizens and establish its governance structure, grounded in a secular, liberal, and democratic ethos.
Externally, this Europe must present a unified face. Internally, however, it should embrace a federal structure, allowing citizens to directly elect the European Parliament. The concept of European parties already exists and can be adapted, but membership in these parties must be open to individual European citizens, not limited to national political parties as it is today.

Instead of the current EU structures, such as the European Commission and the European Council, we propose a government with dedicated ministries. This government, unsurprisingly, would be determined by the Parliament. Only the ministries essential for cohesive foreign representation and effective external action—such as Foreign Affairs, Defence, Finance, Justice, Economy, and Infrastructure—would operate at the European level.

• Foreign Affairs: Would encompass the responsibilities currently held by the German Federal Foreign Office and the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• Defence: Requires a unified European Defence Ministry with streamlined, well-equipped armed forces capable of eliminating the current “duplication and fragmentation” of European defence (a concern raised by Josep Borrell, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs).
• Finance: A centralised fiscal authority is essential for cohesive financial policy at the European level.
• Justice: A European Ministry of Justice would primarily oversee the preservation of liberal civil liberties.
• Economy: Would also be responsible for climate protection, agriculture, and food security.
• Infrastructure: Would focus on delivering optimal transportation, energy, and digital infrastructure.

Member nations joining this European federation would delegate foreign policy and defence responsibilities entirely to the central government. For finance, justice, and infrastructure, European ministries would hold directive and overriding powers in case of conflict, although national ministries could maintain limited, mirrored roles. Responsibilities not requiring centralised governance would remain at the federal state level.

Existing European bodies such as the European Court of Justice, European Central Bank, and European Court of Auditors may need adjustments but will remain integral to the overall structure.

For Europe to act as a cohesive state, democratic legitimacy is imperative. Citizens must elect their government directly and maintain oversight through parliamentary democracy.

A Europe with Global Influence

To avoid becoming a pawn in the geopolitical chessboard or a victim of global developments, Europe must reinvent itself to wield substantial influence on the world stage. This requires Europe to be large, unified, and independent:

• Size: Measured by the population it represents, combined economic power, and military capability, all of which depend on the number of member states.
• Unity: Externally, Europe must present a monolithic stance, unfractured by internal interest groups. This requires essential state functions like foreign affairs and defence to be centralised with the requisite decision-making authority. Internally, however, Europe should celebrate its cultural diversity, allowing regional traditions to flourish within a balanced framework of centralisation and decentralisation.
• Independence: European policies must serve Europe’s interests, free from external hegemony. Alliances can and should be formed but only when they align with Europe’s priorities and not at the expense of its sovereignty.

A united Europe would have the opportunity to act as a balancing force between dominant global powers like China and the USA. From this strong and independent position, it could play a mediatory role on the world stage.

A Europe That Represents Its Own Position

A united Europe would have the opportunity to act as a third power between the dominant rivals, China and Russia, playing a balancing role—an opportunity it should seize. From a strong and independent position, a united Europe could potentially serve as a mediator.
Another foundation for Europe’s political stance arises from European values, as they have evolved through the liberal movement since the Age of Enlightenment and as they are articulated in the fundamental principles of our party’s programme.
Of course, Europe must and should take a clear stance. When it comes to strengthening or defending a secular, liberal-democratic social order, Europe’s distinct perspective on global events should be known to all. However, it must avoid any missionary zeal that could result in violent interventions in other sovereign states.

Therefore, we also unconditionally affirm our commitment to human rights, as declared in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948. Experience has taught us, however, that the instrumentalisation of human rights in the struggle for geopolitical dominance has often failed to help those affected and has, in fact, caused lasting damage to the concept of human rights itself. Implementing these human rights consistently within Europe will require significant effort. Achieving their implementation globally is beyond our capability and should not be our responsibility.

Europe may, of course, enter into alliances, provided they serve Europe’s interests. Under no circumstances, however, should Europe become part of an alliance that is misused by its non-European members for their own dark purposes at Europe’s expense.

A Europe with a Clear Mission

Humanity faces challenges larger than Germany or Europe, and perhaps even larger than what humanity itself can manage. Our guiding imperative must be: “The long-term preservation of the planet’s life-sustaining resources.” There is no alternative to this mission.

This principle requires Europe to act cohesively as a community. Internally, Europe must implement effective measures to achieve this goal. Externally, it must advocate for this principle as its highest priority, superseding all others.

While safeguarding liberal civil liberties, we must also acknowledge that the magnitude of the challenges ahead will demand substantial societal changes. These may include limitations on personal freedoms, and our task will be to minimise these restrictions while adhering to the overarching goal of preserving the planet’s resources.

By uniting around this mission, Europe can lead by example, demonstrating that a balance between collective action and individual liberties is not only possible but essential for the survival of life on Earth.

10. Why don’t we become more specific?

Of course, there is much more to address if we are ever called upon to participate in the practical activities of governance. A strong and capable Europe requires shared infrastructure, encompassing transport and communication as well as technical norms and standards. However, we should refrain from adopting the much-criticized “Brussels overregulation” that delves into the minutiae of details.

Naturally, there will be differing opinions on the details of implementation. Such differences can too easily escalate into larger divisions, with all their ugly consequences—factionalism, tendencies toward fragmentation, and, in any case, a weakening of political credibility and persuasion.

To avoid jeopardizing our three core mandates, we deliberately choose not to predefine the specifics of political implementation at this stage. While our three mandates may occasionally conflict in practice, their hierarchical structure—as an enduring primary mission, a secondary condition, and a short-term goal—provides clear guidance. These principles are designed to steer the more specific decisions that follow. We trust that the compatibility of any decision with the overarching principles can be assessed transparently and comprehensibly at all levels. Ideally, this assessment should even be machine-assisted and accessible to every citizen.

For now, achieving broad impact is more important to us than delving into regulatory depth. We aim to grow quickly, to gain a voice in Europe, and to create a truly united Europe. A few, carefully considered principles should suffice to guide us in this effort.

Let us begin!