“Away with the veto”. End of unanimity, stronger parliament, European senate: The Conference on the Future of Europe puts forward far-reaching proposals for reforming the EU
“Away with the veto”. End of unanimity, stronger parliament, European senate: The Conference on the Future of Europe puts forward far-reaching proposals for reforming the EU
18 comments
It was a complicated process, as is typical of the European Union: for a year, European citizens were allowed to discuss with experts and MEPs at conferences, in plenary sessions and working groups what they expect from the EU politically and what reforms they think are necessary.
The result of this “Conference on the Future of Europe” is a nearly 50-page paper with recommendations on how the EU could be made more democratic, closer to its citizens and more efficient. It is to be adopted this weekend in Strasbourg.
Fears that the conference would mainly produce a collection of generalities and minimal demands have not been realised. The bundled recommendations – if they are implemented – amount to a far-reaching transformation of the EU.
In the future, there would no longer be any veto rights for individual Member States. In the areas of foreign, social, fiscal or budgetary policy, where decisions have so far had to be taken unanimously, a qualified majority will suffice in future. In the future, unanimity will also no longer be required for sanctions against individual EU members for violations of the rule of law.
The role of the European Parliament is to be significantly strengthened. In future, MEPs are to be given the right to initiate legislation. In addition, a budgetary right of the Parliament is demanded.
The EU should also be able to take on more debt and tap new sources of finance of its own. And the conferees want to reopen the debate on a European constitution.
Some of the proposals seem strange. For example, the Council of the EU should in future be called the Senate of the EU, and instead of the EU Commission there should be talk of the “Executive Commission of the EU”.
Some innovations are planned anyway, such as EU-wide lists in the elections to the European Parliament, which are to supplement the national lists.
The collected proposals are to be handed over to the leadership of the European institutions – French President Emmanuel Macron for the Council, Commission head Ursula von der Leyen and Parliament President Roberta Metsola – on 9 May.
How things would then proceed in concrete terms is open. Many recommendations would require an amendment of the European treaties. That means they would have to be adopted unanimously – as would the abolition of unanimity.
The European Parliament wants to push for the reforms to be adopted as quickly as possible. “These reform proposals are not for the drawer, but must be implemented now,” says Green MEP Daniel Freund. “We now have a unique opportunity to make Europe more democratic and more capable of acting. It would be absolutely irresponsible of the Member States if they continue to slow down here now.”
Whether states like Poland and Hungary, but also the Scandinavian EU members will agree to abolish their veto rights is very uncertain. The German government’s position on this issue is open.
To ensure that the proposals are not simply shelved, the leaders of the largest groups in the European Parliament – conservatives, social democrats, greens and liberals – are negotiating a resolution. It provides for the convening of a reform assembly to discuss and prepare the necessary changes. The resolution is expected to be adopted in parliament as early as next week.
“The pandemic and the Russian war have created a new reality for Europe,” Manfred Weber, leader of the EPP group, told SPIEGEL. “It’s time for a new fundamental reflection on Europe’s role in the 21st century and what the EU must deliver for the people of Europe.” This debate should take the form of a convention, Weber said.
The Member States would have to approve such a convention by a simple majority. According to the wish of the parliamentarians, this convention should still be decided under the French Council Presidency.
The chances of this are not bad. After all, the idea for the conference on the future of Europe came from the newly re-elected French President Macron.
What a time to be alive, hope the proposed thing get approved.
As Confucius said, never let a good crisis go to waste. They’ve already rammed through internet filtering using war as cover, so why stop there.
Perfect! EU is not a cow you milk and damage her reputation with primitive and backward laws. If somebody do not like they should leave.
It’s what is needed to make the european, political process more democratic
Got to be honest, I 100% expected this to be another shitshow of minimal change with even less effect, but it’s good to see that many ambitious proposal, most of them made or echoed in the citizens panels, have made their way to this stage.
Now to hope the member states don’t decide to override the public will to satisfy their national egos.
This is great if you re from countries starting with “Ger”
This needs to be passed without veto to come to pass no?
This sounds like trying to turn EU from organization into a country without admitting it. Transitioning isn’t a bad thing, hiding it is.
That’s really bad for eastern countries
The veto is ridiculously dumb. The Union needs to stop curtailing to everybody wants and needs.
If x country doesn’t like it, when the rest of the EU does, they are very welcome to leave/compromise.
The whole point of QMV is the fact that its the best way, democratically. Its hardly democracy that a country for example (Hungary) 9 million people could veto the wants of the other 435 million in the EU.
Hold up, whenever Ive said on here that the EU will have to get rid of the veto, Ive always been shouted down by others saying that it will never happen etc. Whats happening here?
Getting rid of the veto and increasing federalisation simultaneously become quite difficult in some areas. I wonder how many countries would simultaneously sign up to the concept of a European Army if qualified majorities are all that is required to send their armies in harms way.
How about also building a death star to come along with it? Because that’s about as realistic as these proposals.
The only way for this to work is to pass it without a majority but have EU wide opt out’s that way those countries that don’t want whatever has been passed can opt out otherwise it will be a mess I cant see many being happy if laws subject affect them more adversely than others
The veto and requiring every member state to agree is the main things that’s kept the EU together and successful, without it I’m sure the EU would’ve failed
Start with renaming the instunitutions. Now we have Council of Europe, Council of the European Union and the European Council. I’d guess 95% of the EU citizens couldn’t tell you which is which.
Good luck getting it past the EU council leaders. Empowering the EU parliament and ending unanimity means less power to the member states. The ideal for the politicians is having a slow moving, ineffectual EU which they can use as punching bag while simultaneously complaining it doesn’t do enough.