Autore: Presidente Comitato Scientifico Laura De Rose

[^(*) The opinions expressed in this text are the sole responsibility of the Author and only reflect her personal views]. 

Abstract:

L’Editoriale per questo numero di Foroeuropa propone ai suoi lettori alcune riflessioni sul futuro dell’Unione Europea, concentrandosi in particolare sui fattori che, per varie ragioni, evidenziano la necessità di rivedere i Trattati fondanti dell’Unione.

L’esigenza di riformare i Trattati scaturisce da almeno tre fattori fondamentali, che sono l’allargamento dell’Unione Europea, influenzato da nuove priorità politiche e strategiche; il bisogno di rafforzare le competenze dell’Unione rispetto a quelle degli Stati Membri in numerosi campi, al fine di rispondere in modo più efficace ai bisogni dei cittadini europei; e infine la necessità di rafforzare l’azione dell’Unione onde prevenire, mitigare e, ove necessario, sanzionare le violazioni dei valori fondamentali comuni.

In questo quadro, riformare i Trattati non significa solo realizzare gli adattamenti necessari da un punto di vista tecnico-giuridico, ma anche, e soprattutto, rafforzare le fondazioni del progetto europeo e dotare l’Unione dei mezzi necessari per affrontare le sfide poste da un contesto geo-politico sempre più difficile, in cui l’Unione stenta a trovare il suo spazio, non solo dal punto di vista economico, ma anche come attore politico.

_________________

Following past Treaty reforms and several enlargement rounds, the crises faced in the 2000s have sparked a large debate among the public about the future of the European Union.

Discussing Europe’s future almost naturally encompasses reflecting upon the European Union Treaties[1], since they are its legal foundations.

Indeed, reviewing the Treaties is not merely a ‘technical’ issue, a formal step to be taken in order to meet requirements of a constitutional nature. Most of all, it represents the opportunity to re-assess the overall mission of the Union and to reform its functioning as appropriate, to keep the path with a rapidly changing world and to meet the new challenges and opportunities arising from it.

The challenges ahead are unprecedented, and require robust future-proof solutions. Will such solutions be effective enough to overcome the traditional dichotomy between a “Europe of Nations” and a “European Superstate”?  Can Jean Monnet’s doctrine of the “small steps” still represent a way forward? Or has the time come to propel the Union by stepping up the European integration?  

Although it is arduous to be certain, there are reasons for optimism, especially in light of the in-depth reflections arising from several expert fora, and of the active reform movement which has been accelerating in recent years.

Firstly, the Conference on the Future of Europe held in June 2022, which called for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties. Then, the proposals of the specialised Committee of the European Parliament (Committee on Constitutional Affairs/AFCO), and the works of the so-called “Group of Twelve”[2], up to the political Manifesto of 3 October 2023, pleading for a progressive and pragmatic federalism.

Several reasons make experts plead for a revision of the Treaties.   

One is the planned further enlargement of the Union.

More than for economic reasons, the pressure towards new accessions appears to originate from the current geo-political context, specifically from the defence and security-related concerns sparked by the war in Ukraine.

Besides the Western Balkan countries standing on the current “waiting list”[3], several other countries, such as Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, ambition to join the Union.

Yet, under the present conditions, the Union enlargement process, actually its very goals, seem on the verge of a profound transformation, as if this process was primarily meant to offer a ‘safe heaven’ to the countries on the front-line, and its accomplishment was mainly dependent on political urgency.

This is how this process, traditionally focused on securing the stability and robustness of the Internal Market, nowadays appears to progressively give way to overwhelming strategic geo-political objectives requiring a fast response.

How in practice will it be possible to adjust the current parameters, shaped to assess the preparedness of the candidate countries through a process taking several years to conclude, to the new geo-political imperatives is an open question.

In any event, it is evident that the entry of new countries into the Union, in a number much larger than initially planned and -most probably- in a more expeditious way than customary, cannot but have a major impact on the functioning of the European Union, as well as, in some way, on its very foundations, hence it requires a revision of the Treaties.

Once again, the European Union faces the “widening” versus “deepening” dilemma and the temporal challenges which arise from this endeavour. In particular, “deepening” the Union implies strengthening and improving the decision-making process, and doing so in a timely manner, i.e. before the actual new accessions, in order to mitigate the risk of fatal deadlocks, which would paralyse the work of the Institutions.

How can the European Union function with more than 30 Member States? What impact will the future enlargements have on the overall Community system?

Abandoning the unanimity rule, hence suppressing or at least significantly limiting Member States’ individual veto rights, is widely considered an indispensable step.

Further, ongoing proposals also point at other aspects, such as, to mention only a few: the improvement of the coordination between the Institutions; the harmonisation of the electoral rules for the European Parliament; or the size of the Commission[4].

The above having said, a scenario whereby the future EU enlargement policy would succeed in achieving the perfect integration of the new Member States does not seem to be likely under the current geo-political context, where -as said- overwhelming political urgency might ultimately prevail on the countries’ actual preparedness against Union’s standards.

In other terms, the EU enlargement policy might in fact have to concede less advanced forms of integration, to provide the countries which would be not ready or even willing to align with the possibility to join the ‘European political community’ all the same.

From this perspective, an ‘old’ concept underlying the history of what was once called the “European Construction” is coming on the horizon, specifically the idea of a multi-speed Europe, or a Union at “géometrie variable”, or a Union built on “concentric circles”. Accordingly, the new European Union could encompass different categories of countries, hence different types of enlargements, depending on the achieved -or wished- integration levels.

Under the current situation, where the Union faces polarising international tensions, reviving such old idea actually serves new political ambitions.

In some way, looking at the ongoing developments in the Union’s cooperation with Switzerland and the other Schengen Associated Countries, as well as at the ‘creative’ post-Brexit policy being carried out with the United Kingdom, we can say that the process of creating the first ‘outside circle’ has already started.

All such developments will of course make the Treaty revision for the purpose of the Union’s enlargement a particularly complex endeavour, both from a legal and a political standpoint.

Besides this first powerful trigger, another important reason for reform is the increasing need for “more Europe” in a vast array of domains directly impacting the well-being of the Union’s peoples.

This need is compelling because it is tangible, and is grounded on facts.

At stake is not only the Union’s economic and technological competitiveness vis-à-vis the US, China and the other world’s growing economies. It is also, and above all, the Union’s capacity to fulfil its very mission. 

To this end, the Union shall be endowed the means and powers necessary to take daring measures, to respond more effectively to the challenges which shake our continent and its values, and to gain a primary position worldwide, including as a political actor.

It could be argued that the Union has proved its resilience in tackling unprecedented crises, such the COVID pandemic or the war in Ukraine, without the need of a Treaty revision. By using its current means, the Union has reacted fast, for instance by buying vaccines for its Member States, by borrowing funds on the market for the first time ever in order to finance its post-COVID recovery programme, and by adopting sanctions against Russia since the beginning of the “special military operation” in Ukraine.

Moreover, the current legal framework already provides opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of the decision-making process, for example the “passerelle clauses”, or the enhanced cooperation mechanism, allowing the Union to act, in specific areas, in a more agile manner. 

Furthermore, highly qualified experts called to analyse the actual impact of Union’s activities do not systematically advocate the need for a constitutional revision to improve the Union’s efficiency and effectiveness.

For instance, concerning the environmental protection, while some political groups increasingly plead for making this area one falling under the Union exclusive competence, a recent Study commissioned by the European Parliament essentially concludes that the Union already possesses extensive competences on environment and energy, and that further progress mainly depends on the commitment demonstrated by the concerned actors at all levels[5].  

On the other hand, while proposing only an ‘informal’ constitutional path towards the creation of a Climate and Energy Union, the Study also points at the absence of enforceable individual rights to sustainable energy under the existing legal framework, be it EU Law or the European Convention on Human Rights. Whether further legislative developments and the work of European and national courts might be sufficient to fill this void or a Treaty reform, hence a change of a constitutional nature, would be necessary to reinforce those rights, remains to be seen.

No doubt, the measures taken during the referred crises illustrate the Union’s resilience and the potential of its current legal ‘arsenal’.

This notwithstanding, because the status quo is not sufficient to achieve the goal of a new Europe, the number of areas calling for “more Europe” is on the rise. As a matter of fact:

How can the euro ensure financial stability in the absence of a common Union Industrial Policy? How to ensure economic growth and competitiveness without a common Innovation, Research and Technology Policy? How can citizens’ security be fully protected when national barriers still hamper the action of judicial and law enforcement authorities in many crime areas? How can Europe be protected without a common Defence Policy relying on a European military force?

Those and several other questions arise from the current context. They increasingly spread across the public opinion[6] and require a rigorous reflection on the Treaty revision.

In spite of the variety and complexity of the challenges ahead, the guiding principles for a constitutional revision are evident, almost linear.

On the one hand, as mentioned already, abandoning the unanimity rule to make the decision-making process more agile and meaningful from a political standpoint, since unanimity leads to deadlocks and freezes political convergence[7]. On the other hand, extending the competences, shared and exclusive, of the European Union, hence re-visiting the current Treaty catalogue, specifically because, by virtue of the subsidiarity principle[8], the objectives of the actions nowadays required cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can better be achieved at Union level.  

As such, those two guiding principles are certainly not new, since both have in fact been at the heart of the “European Construction”, a history of continued tension between unanimity and majority, European competences and Member States’ sovereignty.

What is profoundly new is the ambition, not to say the boldness, of putting this reform back on both the EU and the national agendas, amidst growing Euroscepticism, the experience of Brexit and post-Brexit, and a profound political, economic and social crisis, which threatens not only the well-being of the European citizens, but also the fundamental values of the European Union.  

However, although both principles are well-known and almost constitute historical features, applying them under the current conditions may require a profound overhaul of the whole European ‘architecture’, and calls for some genuine self-criticism from the side of the European Union’s Institutions.

The Draghi Report[9] has offered to decision-makers a pragmatic way forward by proposing concrete measures for progress, including as concerns the European Union governance.  Two elements are key to the proposed reform: increasing the depth of coordination and reducing the current regulatory burden, by means of “a small number of overarching, targeted institutional changes”. To begin with, such changes could be realised without the need for Treaty change, pending the necessary overhaul of the Union’s political and institutional model, which requires a constitutional revision.

One important additional aspect stands out from the Draghi Report: the need to enhance simplification across all areas of Union’s work, with a view to strengthening the decision-making process and to increasing its predictability.

Any change to the Treaty shall be bound by the same logic, namely it shall seek simplification, including by streamlining the Union’s acquis in a systematic way, “[…] with the ultimate objective to make EU and national regulation a consistent single corpus representing a competitive strength for our Union”[10].

Simplification should indeed be the key word. This approach is indispensable: achieving simplification constitutes a priority, overlooking it can be a recipe for failure.   

Besides the upcoming new accessions and the demand for “more Europe”, another major catalyst for Treaty revision is the need to effectively enforce the respect of the Union’s common values:

“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail”(Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union).

Because they are at the heart of Union and represent its very foundations, these values are not ‘negotiable’ and are not compatible with a multi-speed Europe either. In other terms, there is no other alternative for protecting the Union’s values but enforcing the Rule of Law in all Member States against the same standards, and retaliating against  backsliding national governments.

Although numerous tools may be used by the Union to prevent and counteract violations of its values, the Union’s action in this field is widely considered as not sufficient, since the efforts deployed in concrete cases would have proved ineffective[11]. Amongst other reasons, the shortcomings of the mechanism would depend on the unclarity and ambiguity of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, regulating the process through which a serious breach may be determined and, if need be, subsequently tackled by the competent Union’s Institutions. An appropriate revision of this Article, based on the lessons learnt from experience could contribute to improving and strengthening the overall Union’s response to the decline of its values in the Member States.

To conclude, the revision of the European Union’s Treaty constitutes above all a political necessity rather than a mere legal ‘technical’ endeavour. Of course, the extent to which this reform will bring concrete progress remains to be seen. In any event, and at any rate, reflecting upon it is in itself a worthy endeavour, since it is led by the ambition to enable the European Union to make a leap forward, for the benefit of its peoples and of the future generations.    

_______________ 

---

[1] The Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Consolidated version [2008] OJ C115/13.

[2] The proposals made by this Group are of particular interest, since they result from vast consultations and ambition to strike a balance between “Euroscepticism” and “Federalist utopians”. An interesting analysis may be found in “A Roadmap for enlarging and reforming the European Union: Taking the Report of the Group of Twelve seriously”, by Olivier Costa, Gaëlle Marti and Karine Caunes, European Law Journal 2024; 30:466-472.

[3] Only a few days ago, on 16 September, the latest Accession Conference for Albania allowed for concrete  progress (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/09/16/eu-opens-accession-negotiations-with-albania-on-green-and-sustainable-connectivity-policies/).

[4] The excellent Foundation Robert Schuman paper n^o725 “Revision of the Treaties: is Europe ready for a qualitative leap forward?”, November 2023, by Dimitris Triantafyllou outlines the proposals of the referred Group of Twelve on the matter.

[5] Study “Towards a Climate Energy Union”, requested by the AFCO Committee, PE 764.399, September 2024.

[6] The results of the latest EU Barometer Survey (Spring 2025) are eloquent, as outlined on Parlemeter (https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/screen/home): the European Union emerges as a place of stability in the eyes of citizens; the approval of EU membership has reached its highest values in 2025; and there are also strong expectations regarding the future role of the EU, with citizens putting the focus on security, defence, the economy, peace and democracy.

[7] The “paralysing” impact of the unanimity rule has widely been discussed both at political and expert level, practically since the start of the European Union project.

[8] Article 5 paragraph 3 of the Treaty on European Union.

[9] “The future of European competitiveness: Report by Mario Draghi”, 9 September 2024 (https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/draghi-report_en#paragraph_47059)

[10] As pinpointed by the Mario Draghi’s Report.

[11] The issue is widely discussed at political level, as well as within the expert community. See for instance the thorough analysis provided in “Treaty changes for the better protection of EU values in the Member States”, by Petra Bárd, Dimitry V. Kochenov, Laurent Pech and Jan Wouters, European Law Journal, 2024; 30(4):499-514.