In an exceedingly rare moment of candor from within Europe’s own political establishment, former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has stated that the European Union is quickly losing relevance on the geopolitical stage.
Speaking in a recent interview, Borrell warned that the bloc’s current structure is simply not equipped to handle the pace and complexity of modern geopolitics.
“This European Union… was not designed for the world in which we live today,” he said, highlighting a growing gap between institutional design and geopolitical reality.
At the heart of the problem, according to Borrell, is the EU’s cumbersome decision-making process. The requirement for unanimity among 27 member states—something some inside the EU are working on doing away with—has repeatedly paralyzed the bloc in moments of crisis.
“The decision-making rules are not compatible with the acceleration of history,” he said, noting that major global events unfold faster than the EU can respond.
The result, he admitted, is a bloc that is “not very relevant to international politics.”
Borrell’s remarks, for critics of EU’s current trajectory, confirm that Brussels has become more reactive than strategic, more divided than decisive.
From Ukraine to the Middle East, and from energy policy to dealing with mass migration and cultural integration, the EU has often struggled to present a unified front. Internal disagreements have frequently overshadowed external challenges.
Borrell pointed directly to these divisions, arguing that the inability to reach consensus has weakened Europe’s voice on the world stage.
While some EU leaders, including Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, have pushed for majority voting to bypass national vetoes, Borrell offered a more radical alternative.
He proposed the creation of a “union within the union”—a smaller, more tightly integrated core group of countries capable of acting quickly and decisively.
“With 27, we won’t accomplish much,” Borrell said. “We need to find another core group… a few who truly want to move forward.”
The suggestion, unsurprisingly, has ignited lively discussion across Europe, raising fundamental questions about sovereignty, democratic legitimacy, and the future direction of the bloc.
The idea of a smaller decision-making core, for some, risks creating a two-tier Europe, where some nations, namely larger Western European states, drive policy while others, generally smaller Central and Eastern European states are totally sidelined.
For others, however, it reflects a growing frustration with a system that appears increasingly unable to act in moments that demand clarity and strength.
Germany has already signaled support for reforms. Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has backed the idea of shifting toward qualified majority voting, arguing it would allow the EU to act where it currently stalls.
As of now, a least a dozen member states say they’re open to such changes, suggesting that momentum for reform is building, even as pockets of resistance remains.
Still, critics warn that these proposals may not address the deeper issue: a lack of political cohesion and shared strategic vision within the EU.
The bloc’s struggles are not limited to procedure. They reflect broader tensions over identity, priorities, and the balance between national interests and collective action.
In foreign policy, these tensions are particularly visible. Member states often pursue divergent approaches, complicating efforts to present a unified European stance.
Borrell’s own tenure was marked by such challenges. From disagreements over sanctions to differing views on military engagement, the limits of consensus politics were repeatedly exposed.
His latest remarks suggest that those limitations have only become more pronounced. The question, for many across Europe, is no longer whether the system needs reform, but whether it can be reformed in such a way that it does not fundamentally alter the nature of the union.
The idea of deeper integration among a select group may appeal to some policymakers and liberal cosmopolitan voters, but it also risks further alienating countries like Hungary, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, and others that already feel marginalized within the EU framework.
At the same time, the alternative—continued paralysis—carries its own risks, particularly in a world where geopolitical competition is intensifying.
As global powers move quickly to assert influence, Europe’s slow and fragmented response risks leaving it increasingly sidelined.
Borrell’s warning is therefore both a diagnosis and a challenge. The EU, as it stands, may no longer be fit for purpose in a rapidly changing world. Whether or not those who are presently at the helm the EU are willing—or able—to confront that reality that is a rapidly changing world order remains entirely to be seen.
The post Former EU Foreign Policy Chief Admits Bloc “Not Very Relevant” on World Stage appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.