Project 2025 authors are providing a closed-door workshop of discussion for right-wing groups in Europe to shape their united stand against the EU. We don't know the invitation-list, but as Yorkshirebylines reports on this:
"It is known to have featured contributions from two prominent right-wing organisations: Hungary’s largest private educational institution with a Brussels-based thinktank, Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), and the Polish Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture.
All three groups present are highly connected to the political leadership of their respective countries, and they all have something in common: a firm belief in reducing the role of government, controlling the judiciary and installing a conservative religious approach in terms of access to reproductive healthcare for women, divorce and same-sex marriage."
Obtained invitation that goes over the proposals talked about:
VSquare mainly focus on preventing a rise in populism in Europe and report a lot on Turkey and Hungary, about Russian influence, and as we can see here, about American right's attempt at influence. According to themselves, they are Polish, and operate as a collaborative non-profit investigative journalist center.
"the two Central European organizations reported connections to Russian influence add another layer of scrutiny. While Ordo Iuris leaders have denied pro-Russian affiliations, the organization has long engaged with networks that promote Kremlin-aligned narratives, including Agenda Europe and the World Congress of Families – a group linked to Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeyev. (VSquare has published multiple investigations into the international network-building of Ordo Iuris," VSquare adds with links on the page leading to their investigations)
Are the suggestions bad on their own, or only because they are a tool to achieve other goals?
Personally I think that the EU should not become a unified country. The proposal is halting the process and setting boundaries so that the countries continue to exist.
What are the problematic parts?
I think that's a pretty fair question, especially as I am kinda globalist (or at least see majority EU cooperation and correcting itself as a net-good)
if we take aside potential hoping-to-weaken-EU Russian involvement, and a lot of its de-legitimizing language, my very first concern would be making it harder to enforce common standards for instance to prevent democratic backsliding, as I see European democracy as being the best tool currently for results that both allow experts to weigh in and for the nuance of public concerns that spontaneously emerge, even if we all can argue that it will always need improvement to a lot of people.
Heightened unanimity requirements hold a lot of the union hostage, when it in general would be nice to be on the same page, but I understand it also shouldn't be so low as 60%, I would argue that current standard or maybe a tinge less is fair in that it tells you that most everyone is on-board with a decision (simplifying a lot of how the people making the final decision got in power of course, where there are maybe half of their citizens who could still oppose whatever they voted for)
So far this has helped a lot in human rights protection within the EU, collective bargaining power with the outside, enforcing a climate policy which pretty much requires everybody to step up, and like, other things that in the short-term can make for instance authoritarians be very popular at the cost of the long-term.