Social Europe

  • EU Forward Project
  • YouTube
  • Podcast
  • Books
  • Newsletter
  • Membership

EU enlargement, reform and the missing citizens

Alberto Alemanno 8th January 2024

EU institutional reform should be about the citizenry. So what happened to the Conference on the Future of Europe?

Five years have passed since European Union leaders began contemplating, in the aftermath of the 2019 European Parliament election, institutional reforms. It was the first time since the signature of the Lisbon treaty in 2007 that they acknowledged the need for the union to reform itself. Originally pitched by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, through the synchronised publication of an opinion-editorial piece in newspapers across Europe, the idea was to offer citizens the chance to express what they expected from the union.

Rather than opening a formal process of treaty reform, the main EU institutions—the European Commission, the Council of the EU and the parliament—convened an unprecedented, yet little-noticed, transnational democratic exercise, the Conference on the Future of Europe. The CoFoE was populated by randomly selected citizens, as well as local, national and EU politicians.

The new conference was not tasked to prepare treaty changes but to be a preparatory process, creating bottom-up momentum for institutional reform driven for the first time by citizen demand, rather than representing a closeted, top-down exercise. Notwithstanding the challenges posed by the pandemic and endless inter-institutional skirmishes, the conference concluded its work on Europe Day (May 9th) 2022 by approving 326 proposals for EU reform.

Little credibility

Where do we stand on those efforts today?

Despite the promise to ‘listen’ to citizens’ desiderata, neither the commission nor the council took seriously their demands. If the commission promptly claimed to have acted on close to 95 per cent (!) of those conference proposals within its competence, the council took 18 months to make a similar assertion. Neither claim carried much credibility.

The commission repackaged its prior political priorities as if novel where they were somehow related to CoFoE recommendations. And both institutions sidestepped the question as to whether, when and how they would follow up on those citizens’ recommendations—from majority voting across all EU policy areas to a harmonised school curriculum—requiring revision of the treaties. The parliament though focused almost exclusively on the latter recommendations, calling (twice, in 2022 and again in 2023) on the council to ‘immediately and without deliberation submit the proposals … to the European Council’ for treaty reform.

Although the council eventually did so, the EU heads of state and government, gathering in mid-December, deliberately avoided considering such a request. Yet, confronted by the new geopolitical realities posed by the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, they found it inescapable not only to open accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova—as well as with Bosnia-Herzegovina—and to grant candidate status to Georgia but also to recognise ‘the necessary internal groundwork and reforms’ further enlargement would entail.

Taboo-breaking developments

After being put on the back burner for over a decade—with little or no initiative on either front—both institutional reform and enlargement took centre stage, with EU leaders ready to embark upon and unprecedentedly couple these taboo-breaking developments. This sudden urge to reform stems from the experience of the last 15 years, during which the EU had to act and transform itself without formally undergoing treaty reform. If the union has shown resilience when confronted with big crises—including the pandemic and the war on Ukraine—issues such as new EU-wide taxes to fund recovery, joint procurement of vaccines and weapons and an emergency system to welcome Ukraine’s war refugees have revealed the limitations of a system and structures created for another age.

As it stands, the EU institutional framework would prove incapable of accommodating further members without imploding. Given its size and population alone, were Ukraine to join the EU under current rules this would not only further destabilise day-to-day decision-making in Brussels; it would inter alia derail the biggest common policy areas, such as agriculture.

Yet there is still little substantive discussion of constitutional change in the political and public arenas and few ideas are circulating. Two parallel initiatives monopolise this embryonic debate: a report in September from the ‘Group of 12’—a Franco-German expert initiative—advocating structural reforms and another from the Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) of the European Parliament, adopted in November in plenary, detailing proposals to amend the treaties. The key themes are accession, the budget, unanimity and institutional reform, EU values and the rule of law, and treaty change itself.

Different logics

On accession, the two initiatives appear complementary, responding to different logics. In the parliament’s vision, all member states must be pressed to integrate more closely or leave the union. The Group of 12 flips that perspective: it envisages four distinct tiers of membership, the last two falling outside the EU altogether. These ‘concentric circles’ would include an innermost loop whose members could have even closer ties than those that bind the EU, moving outwards through the EU itself and associate membership (internal market only) to finally the looser, less demanding tier of the new European Political Community. 

Such a multi-speed construct would for the first time allow some member states to integrate more deeply in certain areas and prevent others from stopping them. For this, the group proposes to get rid of the requirements for unanimous voting, even if scrapping vetoes entails accepting different levels of commitment to integration. While this might appear anathema to the most orthodox integrationists, it appears a brave and pragmatic response to the different levels of commitment to EU integration among candidate countries and member states.

Today’s tiny EU budget is doubly constrained. The own-resources system caps sources of revenue such as value-added tax or EU-wide taxes at 1.4 per cent of aggregate gross national income, and both this and the multiannual financial framework of expenditure are subject to agreement by unanimity in the council. For the EU to acquire any budgetary autonomy from the member states, a move to majority voting on both is essential. Yet the Group of 12 proposes such a shift only for the MFF, while the AFCO report is surprisingly silent on the issue.

Institutional reforms

As to institutional reforms, the Group of 12 proposes to abandon unanimity but it resurrects the ‘Luxembourg compromise’ of 1966, under which a French boycott of council was ended by an informal arrangement allowing member states to stall decisions by declaring ‘a very important national interest’. But would not this risk perpetuating—as opposed to mitigating—dissent, notably in the most divisive policy areas such as the common foreign and security policy?

The AFCO report proposes instead that the council’s default voting system should be a simple majority (council members representing at least 50 per cent of the EU population). In addition, it would give a majority in the parliament the power to demand an EU-wide referendum, agreed upon by the European Council by a simple majority and organised by the commission. This is one of the most innovative proposals around in terms of democratic renewal, yet possibly a minefield from a constitutional-law perspective.

The procedure to enforce the rule of law on a recalcitrant member state, under article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, requires unanimity and—largely as a result—it has never been put to the test via a final vote. Both reports propose to render it workable by moving to qualified-majority voting and simplifying the mechanism to apply rule-of-law conditionality to the uptake of EU funds.

Finally, the real bottleneck in any attempt to reform the treaties is the requirement for double unanimity—signature and ratification by each member state. AFCO proposes a four-fifths majority in the future, whereas the Group of 12 proposes that the next reform of the EU could be formally linked to the accession treaties which modify the existing versions. While this would not overcome the unanimity requirement, it would pragmatically save member states from a double signature and ratification, thus simplifying the reform journey.

Overall, the proposals on the table appear excessively ambitious (in the case of AFCO) or so pragmatic in nature and scope as to risk failing (Group of 12). The likelihood of a formal treaty revision appears modest today, even (or especially) if it will be coupled with enlargement. Only an incremental, possibly phased accession of new members may over time lead to some reform of the EU’s ‘rules of the game’.

Regardless of the actual reforms that will come to the fore, the original commitment towards citizens’ involvement in EU reform has got lost along the way. Which is a dangerous message to convey to the European public ahead of the elections to the parliament in June.

Alberto Alemanno
Alberto Alemanno

Alberto Alemanno is Jean Monnet professor of European Union law at HEC Paris, visiting professor at the College of Europe, Bruges and Europe’s Futures fellow at IWM in Vienna. He is the founder of the non-profit organisation and movement The Good Lobby committed to equalise access to power.

Harvard University Press Advertisement

Social Europe Ad - Promoting European social policies

We need your help.

Support Social Europe for less than €5 per month and help keep our content freely accessible to everyone. Your support empowers independent publishing and drives the conversations that matter. Thank you very much!

Social Europe Membership

Click here to become a member

Most Recent Articles

u421983467e58be8 81f2 4326 80f2 d452cfe9031e 1 “The Universities Are the Enemy”: Why Europe Must Act NowBartosz Rydliński
u42198345f5300d0e 2 Britain’s COVID Generation: Why Social Democracy Must Seize the MomentJatinder Hayre
u42198346761805ea24 2 Trump’s ‘Golden Era’ Fades as European Allies Face Harsh New RealityFerenc Németh and Peter Kreko
u4219834664e04a 8a1e 4ee0 a6f9 bbc30a79d0b1 2 Closing the Chasm: Central and Eastern Europe’s Continued Minimum Wage ClimbCarlos Vacas-Soriano and Christine Aumayr-Pintar
u421983467f bb39 37d5862ca0d5 0 Ending Britain’s “Brief Encounter” with BrexitStefan Stern

Most Popular Articles

startupsgovernment e1744799195663 Governments Are Not StartupsMariana Mazzucato
u421986cbef 2549 4e0c b6c4 b5bb01362b52 0 American SuicideJoschka Fischer
u42198346769d6584 1580 41fe 8c7d 3b9398aa5ec5 1 Why Trump Keeps Winning: The Truth No One AdmitsBo Rothstein
u421983467 a350a084 b098 4970 9834 739dc11b73a5 1 America Is About to Become the Next BrexitJ Bradford DeLong
u4219834676ba1b3a2 b4e1 4c79 960b 6770c60533fa 1 The End of the ‘West’ and Europe’s FutureGuillaume Duval
u421983462e c2ec 4dd2 90a4 b9cfb6856465 1 The Transatlantic Alliance Is Dying—What Comes Next for Europe?Frank Hoffer
u421983467 2a24 4c75 9482 03c99ea44770 3 Trump’s Trade War Tears North America Apart – Could Canada and Mexico Turn to Europe?Malcolm Fairbrother
u4219834676e2a479 85e9 435a bf3f 59c90bfe6225 3 Why Good Business Leaders Tune Out the Trump Noise and Stay FocusedStefan Stern
u42198346 4ba7 b898 27a9d72779f7 1 Confronting the Pandemic’s Toxic Political LegacyJan-Werner Müller
u4219834676574c9 df78 4d38 939b 929d7aea0c20 2 The End of Progess? The Dire Consequences of Trump’s ReturnJoseph Stiglitz

ETUI advertisement

HESA Magazine Cover

What kind of impact is artificial intelligence (AI) having, or likely to have, on the way we work and the conditions we work under? Discover the latest issue of HesaMag, the ETUI’s health and safety magazine, which considers this question from many angles.

DOWNLOAD HERE

Eurofound advertisement

Ageing workforce
How are minimum wage levels changing in Europe?

In a new Eurofound Talks podcast episode, host Mary McCaughey speaks with Eurofound expert Carlos Vacas Soriano about recent changes to minimum wages in Europe and their implications.

Listeners can delve into the intricacies of Europe's minimum wage dynamics and the driving factors behind these shifts. The conversation also highlights the broader effects of minimum wage changes on income inequality and gender equality.

Listen to the episode for free. Also make sure to subscribe to Eurofound Talks so you don’t miss an episode!

LISTEN NOW

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

Spring Issues

The Spring issue of The Progressive Post is out!


Since President Trump’s inauguration, the US – hitherto the cornerstone of Western security – is destabilising the world order it helped to build. The US security umbrella is apparently closing on Europe, Ukraine finds itself less and less protected, and the traditional defender of free trade is now shutting the door to foreign goods, sending stock markets on a rollercoaster. How will the European Union respond to this dramatic landscape change? .


Among this issue’s highlights, we discuss European defence strategies, assess how the US president's recent announcements will impact international trade and explore the risks  and opportunities that algorithms pose for workers.


READ THE MAGAZINE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

WSI Report

WSI Minimum Wage Report 2025

The trend towards significant nominal minimum wage increases is continuing this year. In view of falling inflation rates, this translates into a sizeable increase in purchasing power for minimum wage earners in most European countries. The background to this is the implementation of the European Minimum Wage Directive, which has led to a reorientation of minimum wage policy in many countries and is thus boosting the dynamics of minimum wages. Most EU countries are now following the reference values for adequate minimum wages enshrined in the directive, which are 60% of the median wage or 50 % of the average wage. However, for Germany, a structural increase is still necessary to make progress towards an adequate minimum wage.

DOWNLOAD HERE

S&D Group in the European Parliament advertisement

Cohesion Policy

S&D Position Paper on Cohesion Policy post-2027: a resilient future for European territorial equity”,

Cohesion Policy aims to promote harmonious development and reduce economic, social and territorial disparities between the regions of the Union, and the backwardness of the least favoured regions with a particular focus on rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition and regions suffering from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, such as outermost regions, regions with very low population density, islands, cross-border and mountain regions.

READ THE FULL POSITION PAPER HERE

Social Europe

Our Mission

Team

Article Submission

Advertisements

Membership

Social Europe Archives

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Miscellaneous

RSS Feed

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641