The European Parliament last month endorsed proposals for treaty changes which would trump nationalistic vetoes.
The European Union was built on a promise—the promise of peace, stability and prosperity after the experience of the second world war. More than 70 years on from the Schuman declaration proposing an initial European Coal and Steel Community, we can reflect on a success story: in a unique and far-reaching integration process, European countries have joined forces to be stronger together.
The success of that process is evident in both members and competences. The European family has evolved from six founding states to today’s EU of 27. Likewise, the competences shared between the member states and the union have constantly increased, culminating with the Lisbon treaty in 2007.
Lisbon also changed the role of the European Parliament, which has evolved from a merely opinion-giving institution to a co-legislator on a par with the Council of the EU, representing the member states. But since its signature, the wider world has changed too—and the economic, political and social context of today’s Europe pushes the treaties to their limits.
Credibility at risk
In today’s treaty framework, most EU decisions require a ‘qualified majority’—endorsement by at least 55 per cent of member states, representing at least 65 per cent of the EU population. So they are supported by a large number of member states with strong representativeness among European citizens.
Decisions in some key policy areas however, such as the EU budget and the common foreign and security policy, still require unanimity among the member states. Historically this was important, when former enemies came together for what was initially designed as a common economic project, but today it is threatening the EU’s capacity to act.
The success of the integration process now requires a substantial change in the way decisions are taken in the EU. The last decade has shown that some member states do not shy away from exploiting the unanimity principle and their consequent veto power from nationalist motives, thereby putting the credibility of the entire union at risk. We have seen this, for example, when Hungary blocked the sanctions against Russia after the onset of its war of aggression in Ukraine.
Not fit for purpose
The decision-making process of the EU is no longer fit for purpose. The challenges we are facing are increasingly complex and our European responses have far-reaching global implications. Other world players, such as the United States or China, capitalise on the EU’s need for unanimity, requiring each and every member state to agree on any action. If we want to have an impact on the international level, to promote our values and principles and contribute to peace and security, we have to be able to take decisions quickly and to establish common positions.
The archaic construct of unanimity needs be replaced by qualified-majority voting in virtually all policy areas. Abolition of the unanimity principle is one of the key proposals for treaty changes endorsed by the European Parliament in plenary in late November (I was one of the rapporteurs during the prior work in the Constitutional Affairs Committee). Our proposals seek treaty changes which would strengthen the EU’s capacity to act—internally for better policies and externally as a strong global player.
To be able to address adequately the new societal challenges, the EU of today also requires new competences in policy areas which have until now been less prominent and regulated only on the national level. For example, the increasing awareness of the social side-effects of the ambitious energy and climate targets of the European Green Deal requires a treaty basis for European legislation to support a just transition leaving no one behind—our proposals include a legal basis for just transition and an anticipation of change in the workplace. To meet the increasing awareness of gender equality too, we suggest introducing gender equality in the treaties and shared competences for full, universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Enlargement back
Reform of the treaties is often linked with enlargement—back on the political agenda a decade after the last member state joined. This focus on enlargement is due to the war in our neighbourhood and the European aspirations of countries that regard membership as a guarantee of peace and security.
The western Balkans, for example, formally committed to a path towards membership in 1999 with the Stabilisation and Association Process. More than two decades later, only Croatia has however been granted membership while all others remain in limbo.
The current treaty framework is not fit for further enlargement: increasing the number of member states would enhance the risk of vetoes being exercised to block decisions. We propose treaty changes so that in an enlarged EU decisions with regard to the common foreign and security policy and the common security and defence policy would be taken by qualified majority.
Democratic accountability
If only a reformed EU, with adequate competences and an improved decision-making procedure, would be fit for enlargement, that is not however all that is at stake. We need to reform the European institutional architecture and decision-making process today, to increase the efficiency and credibility of an EU of 27 member states.
Our proposals to amend the treaties would thus also strengthen the democratic accountability of EU institutions—including by means of a fully-fledged right of initiative for the European Parliament, now monopolised by the European Commission, as the only directly elected institution. With our proposals to strengthen the parliament’s right of inquiry, we would also contribute to an institutional architecture that works more and more like a parliamentary democracy on the European level.
Political families across the parliament have joined forces to present a comprehensive report with concrete proposals to change the treaties. We delivered what we promised citizens during the Conference on the Future of Europe.
Our position as elected members, representing European citizens in their entirety and diversity, is clear: we ask the European Council to convene a convention to revise the treaties. It is now up to the member states to decide if they want to continue business as usual—or if they are ready to reform the EU so its citizens can enjoy a better future.
This is part of our series on a ‘manifesto’ for 2024
Gaby Bischoff is a member of the European Parliament from Germany, a vice-president of the Socialists and Democrats group and a vice-chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO).