

Why would we suddenly follow Germany’s stance and not Spain just because unanimity is gone? We would likely follow a qualified majority or supermajority, just as other aspects of legislation (perhaps even draw out higher thresholds for voting). If the majority elected to take a position against Russia (or for Ukraine, if you will), then it isn’t anything but counterproductive, that we remain in a political quagmire because of one individual exercising veto powers. If the majority elected to take a different approach to foreign policy towards the US, then it would also be frustrating if it was up to an individual head of state (sponsored by the US regime and Heritage Foundation, no less) to veto our collective action. This won’t get us moving at all.
On regards to corruption, the EU already witholds funding from Hungary on account of rule of law and democraric backsliding. We can’t hold a position to be for individual sovereignty when it comes of foreign policy and at the same time demand a supranational organisation to come in and prosecute national leaders, who were still at some point in time elected by their people fairly. As you’ve said, we aren’t a federation yet, if the EU prosecuted another country’s leader, it would be a massive overreach and a tremendous cry for sovereignty in jeopardy.
On a personal note, I would be happy with both scenarios playing out, and personally feel federation might be a way to survive a growing upending of rules-based order in the world.
On desktop, I use the Mullvad Browser and I’m pretty comfortable with it, as it’s at least on par with Librewolf (which is pretty good), privacy-wise, I think. On mobile, I use IronFox through the Accrescent store, and I used to use a hardened version of Fennec, as well.