The European Parliament adopted by a narrow majority (305 votes in favour, 276 against, 29 abstentions for the report – 291 votes in favour, 274 against, 44 abstentions for the resolution), on Wednesday 22 November, its position on a revision of the European Union’s institutional architecture to enable a European Union of more than thirty Member States to function more democratically and face up to the major challenges of the future. Opposition from the EPP group led to the rejection of certain proposals submitted by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO).
This position does not change the treaties from one day to the next, insisted Guy Verhofstadt (Renew Europe, Belgian) and Sven Simon (EPP, German), two of the five co-rapporteurs of the report, during the plenary debate the day before. They were reacting to accusations from sovereignists, such as Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (ECR, Poland), and Europhobes, such as Gerolf Annemans (ID, Belgian), who denounced an institutional stunt aimed at creating a supranational “superstate” behind the back of Europe’s citizens.
In accordance with the EU Treaty (Article 48), the adoption of the report initiates a process whereby the European Parliament calls for a Convention on the reform of the European Treaties to be convened after the European elections in June 2024. This request, which has already been made twice, is now more detailed (see EUROPE 12968/17).
On Tuesday, the Spanish Secretary of State for European Affairs, Pascual Ignacio Navarro Ríos, reiterated the “firm intention” of the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the EU to ask the Member States whether they agree to transfer the Parliament's request to the European Council, if the MEPs’ request is received in time for the EU ‘General Affairs’ Council of Tuesday 12 December (see EUROPE 13275/32).
During the plenary debate, the co-rapporteurs set out the reasons why they felt the European treaties should be reformed. The main target of the five co-rapporteurs, who all belong to the European federalist current, is the “unanimity” of the Member States, which is necessary for decisions to be taken in the EU Council.
In the event of a crisis, the EU reacts “too late” because of the “unanimity trap”, according to Mr Verhofstadt. For Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA, German), the possibility of using the veto allows leaders such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to “blackmail” the EU by making his support for European measures, such as EU military aid to Ukraine, conditional on decisions favourable to Hungarian special interests.
“Internal reform of the EU and enlargement are two sides of the same coin. You can’t do one without the other. Imagine 35 possible vetoes, 35 European Commissioners!”, said Gaby Bischoff (S&D, German).
The report adopted by the European Parliament therefore advocates a “considerable” increase in the number of policy areas where the Council of the EU decides by a qualified majority of Member States, as well as recourse to the ordinary legislative procedure (European Parliament/EU Council co-decision). Thus, unanimity in the EU Council would no longer be required to adopt European sanctions on foreign policy issues or to close a chapter in EU accession negotiations, but it would remain necessary for defence matters.
On the other hand, MEPs did not endorse the position of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs advocating that tax issues should be agreed under the rules of an enhanced qualified majority (4/5ths of Member States representing at least 50% of the population) (see EUROPE 13279/30).
And under the ordinary legislative procedure, MEPs struck out the provisions relating to the creation of a simple majority decision-making procedure in the EU Council (a majority of countries representing at least 50% of the population).
Parliament is calling for greater powers at European level, particularly in the fight against climate change, health, defence and energy. It wants to strengthen the so-called ‘Article 7’ procedure for ensuring respect for the rule of law in the Member States, including the possibility of imposing sanctions on a country that fails to do so by a qualified majority in the EU Council.
On the institutional front, in order to reflect more accurately the results of the European elections, MEPs claim that it would be more appropriate for the European Parliament to designate the person to chair the European Commission, who would then be approved by the Member States. They approve the idea of a College reduced to fifteen European Commissioners. To rationalise the EU’s external representation, they suggest merging the functions of President of the European Council and President of the Commission.
Finally, the European Parliament requires the unanimous approval of the Member States for the results of the future Convention, and the institutional reform can only enter into force once it has been ratified by all the Member States.
It should also be noted that a majority of left and centre-right MEPs adopted an amendment calling for sexual and reproductive rights, as well as related healthcare, to be enshrined in the EU’s Fundamental Charter.
On behalf of the Commission, its Vice-President, Maroš Šefčovič, reiterated the EU institution’s support for those in favour of a better functioning EU. The Commission is ready to give its opinion on the reform of the EU’s institutional architecture in response to a consultation addressed to it by the European Council, he added. And pointing out that the Commission is already working on the development of the common policies most affected by an enlargement of the EU to include the countries of the Western Balkans and Ukraine.
To see the report approved by the European Parliament: https://aeur.eu/f/9o5 (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)