The European Parliament reiterated its call, on Thursday 9 June by a comfortable majority (355 votes in favour, 154 against, 48 abstentions), for the European Council to convene a Convention to reform the functioning of the European Union (see EUROPE 12966/21).
In order to convince the EPP group, which was not a signatory to the joint draft resolution tabled by the S&D, Renew Europe, Greens/EFA and The Left groups (see EUROPE 12966/21), two amendments were adopted.
The first amendment deletes the text of the draft detailing which articles of the EU treaties could be changed, notably in the areas of health, energy and social affairs. This debate on the content of a possible institutional revision will take place in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which will produce a specific report after the summer.
Cosmetically, the second amendment specifies the policies that may be subject to treaty change. For example, in the field of health, the issue of cross-border health threats is addressed. For energy, energy efficiency and renewable energies are highlighted.
It should be noted that the request to include social progress in Article 9 remains, in conjunction with the development of a specific protocol. This was one of the reasons why the EPP group had not supported the joint draft resolution.
During the plenary debate, Sven Simon (EPP, Germany) criticised MEPs for making “maximum demands” to turn an EU institutional review into “a socialist project”.
Several MEPs such as Gabriele Bischoff (S&D, Germany), Guy Verhofstadt (Renew Europe, Belgium) and Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA, Germany) called for an end to national vetoes that block EU action, as demonstrated by Hungary’s blocking of the adoption of the sixth package of sanctions against Russia. The veto, created to protect minority rights, has become “an instrument of extortion” of funds and is also used to flout the Rule of law, Mr Freund said.
For The Left group, French MEP Manon Aubry called for institutional reform to bring about “a clear break with the current neoliberal logic of Europe”. Failing that, states must be able to “act as guides”, including “by occasionally disobeying to get things moving”.
On the contrary, Gerolf Annemans (Identity and Democracy, Belgium) denounced this Union which, after Brexit, has paradoxically embarked on “an accelerated race towards more centralisation”.
See the European Parliament resolution (https://aeur.eu/f/20l ) and the two amendments adopted (https://aeur.eu/f/218 ).
The ball is in the court of the EU Council and the Commission
Arriving late to the debate, the French Minister Delegate for Europe, Clément Beaune, supported the ambition of the European Parliament and reiterated France’s support for the convening of a Convention, with treaty changes as an option to be considered. A first debate will take place at the ‘General Affairs’ Council of the EU on Tuesday 21 June, he said, and French President Emmanuel Macron wants the follow-up to the Conference on the Future of Europe to be discussed at the European Council later on.
Mr Beaune also mentioned discussions with the forthcoming Czech Presidency of the EU Council in order for the latter to “express a position on the substance” of the Conference’s proposals. Recalling the reluctance of thirteen Member States to revise the Treaties (see EUROPE 12948/1), he also felt that important initiatives could be taken under a constant Treaty. “Both paths must be opened at the same time”, he concluded.
On behalf of the European Commission, Dubravka Šuica confirmed that the EU institution will present a communication on Wednesday 15 June setting out how the Commission will follow up on the recommendations of the Conference within the limits of its competences. “The first proposals will be announced in September during President von der Leyen’s State of the Union address”, she added. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)