On November 22, 2023, the European Parliament adopted a resolution introducing significant changes to the European Union Treaties, sparking a wide-ranging debate[1]. The proposal includes as many as 245 modifications, 244 of which concern the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Treaty on European Union (TEU), with one relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. These changes, divided into 16 thematic areas, theoretically aim to improve the functioning of the European Union. However, as with any far-reaching reforms, they raise both hopes for better governance and greater efficiency, as well as concerns about potential negative consequences.

            Proponents of these changes argue that the introduction of new regulations will contribute to greater democratization and transparency in the EU decision-making processes. They emphasize that strengthening the role of the European Parliament and increasing the areas where decisions are made by qualified majority voting can streamline the functioning of the Union and better address the challenges of the modern world. The proposed changes aim to enhance cooperation among member states and increase the efficiency of actions taken, which is particularly important in the face of global crises and growing international competition. One of the main arguments of the reform advocates is the need to adapt the structures of the European Union to a dynamically changing reality. They claim that only through institutional reforms can the EU effectively respond to new challenges such as climate change, migration, or the digitization of the economy. In their view, a greater role for the European Parliament and simplified decision-making procedures can contribute to faster and more flexible responses to the needs of EU citizens.

            On the other hand, critics fear that the proposed reforms could lead to excessive centralization of power, weakening the sovereignty of member states, and increasing bureaucracy. They point out that too much concentration of power in EU institutions could marginalize smaller member states and limit their influence on key decisions. There is also concern that introducing numerous changes to the treaties could lead to legal turmoil and difficulties in implementation.

            One of the key institutional changes proposed by the European Parliament is the reform of the decision-making process, aimed at strengthening the position of the European Parliament and more accurately reflecting a bicameral system. Currently, the European Parliament plays an important but limited role in EU legislation, and the proposed changes aim to balance the influences of the Parliament and the Council of the European Union. This reform could result in a more democratic and representative decision-making process, with the Parliament acting as a lower house elected by citizens and the Council representing member states as an upper house. Strengthening the role of the European Parliament could lead to more balanced decisions but also brings challenges. Critics fear that excessive strengthening of the Parliament could marginalize the Council and smaller member states, potentially disrupting the balance of power in the EU. Additionally, changes in the structure and procedures of the Parliament would be necessary to effectively meet new responsibilities, which could be complicated and time-consuming, given the political and cultural diversity of the member states.

            Another element of the proposed institutional changes is increasing the European Union’s capacity to act by expanding the number of areas where decisions are made by qualified majority voting and through the ordinary legislative procedure. Currently, many key decisions require unanimity, which often leads to decision-making paralysis. This proposal aims to overcome these difficulties, increasing the efficiency and speed of decision-making processes. Expanding the use of the ordinary legislative procedure, which involves cooperation between the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, is intended to enhance the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the legislative process. These changes could contribute to more effective functioning of the EU, allowing for quicker responses to challenges such as economic crises, climate change, and migration. However, this may lead to a reduction in the role of member states and less thorough analysis and consultation, potentially resulting in suboptimal decisions.

            Another proposed reform is the call to grant the European Parliament the right of legislative initiative. This would mean that the Parliament would have the authority to introduce, amend, or repeal EU laws and would play a co-legislative role in the adoption of the multiannual financial framework. Currently, the right of legislative initiative in the European Union primarily belongs to the European Commission. This change aims to increase the influence of the European Parliament, which is directly elected by EU citizens, on the shaping of EU law. Such a step would strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU, making the legislative process more transparent and representative. However, there is concern that increasing the competencies of the European Parliament could lead to conflicts with other EU institutions, especially the European Commission, and some marginalization of Member States.

            An important proposal for institutional reform is the alteration of the roles of the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament in the appointment and approval of the President of the European Commission to better reflect the results of European elections. It is also proposed to allow the President of the Commission to choose its members based on political preferences while maintaining geographical and demographic balance. Additionally, the plan includes renaming the European Commission to the European Executive Body. Currently, the Council of the EU proposes a candidate for the President of the Commission, and the European Parliament approves this candidacy. The change would entail the European Parliament nominating the President, with the Council of the EU approving the nomination. A stronger position for the Commission President, elected by the European Parliament, could lead to more effective management of the Union. The ability to select Commission members based on political preferences, while maintaining geographical and demographic balance, would enhance the representativeness and diversity within the EU’s executive bodies. Nevertheless, reversing the roles in appointing the Commission President may face resistance from member states, concerned about losing influence over the decision-making process and losing part of sovereignty. Additionally, ensuring geographical and demographic balance when selecting Commission members could be challenging, given the diverse political interests.

            Attention should also be given to the reform that includes setting the size of the European Executive Body at no more than 15 members, chosen from citizens of member states through a system of strictly equal rotation. Additionally, it is proposed to appoint undersecretaries from citizens of those member states that do not have a representative in the college. According to the authors, this reform aims to increase the efficiency and representativeness of this key EU body. However, implementing a rotational system also requires precisely establishing rules and procedures to ensure its fair and effective functioning also to keep equality between Member States.

            As part of the proposed institutional reforms, there are plans to increase the transparency of the Council of the European Union by publishing positions that are part of the ordinary legislative process and organizing public debates on these positions. Additionally, a legal basis is proposed to enable co-legislators to enhance the transparency and integrity of the decision-making process. Currently, many decisions of the Council of the EU are made behind closed doors, making it difficult for citizens to follow the legislative process. The reform envisages that the Council will publish its positions, allowing citizens to better understand the stances of individual member states. Organizing public debates on these positions will increase transparency and enable citizens and non-governmental organizations to participate in discussions, which can lead to greater public engagement and trust in EU institutions.

It is also proposed to introduce a legal basis that authorizes the European Parliament and the Council of the EU to increase the transparency and integrity of their decision-making process. Such a legal basis will provide clearly defined and enforceable rules regarding transparency, contributing to a more open and fair legislative process. While this reform brings numerous benefits, it may also face challenges. Some member states might fear that increased transparency could weaken their ability to negotiate and reach compromises. Organizing public debates might also require additional resources and time, potentially lengthening the legislative process.

            Another significant element of the proposed institutional reforms is the call for discussion the division of topics between the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to overcome difficulties related to changing EU law. It is also tasked with examining which policy areas could enhance the effectiveness of the European Union within its structures. Currently, EU law is governed by two main treaties: the TEU and the TFEU. Each covers different policy areas and defines the principles of the Union’s functioning. Often, difficulties arise related to their interpretation and implementation, leading to inefficiencies and delays in the legislative process. The reform proposes discussing and potentially reorganizing the division of topics between these treaties to simplify the legislative process and make it more transparent. The division of topics between the TEU and TFEU can be complex and requires extensive consultations to ensure equal opportunities for influence on the legislative process for all member states. Additionally, increasing the effectiveness of the Union within its structures may require significant organizational and procedural changes, which can be time-consuming and costly.

            The reform also targets the procedure for determining the composition of the European Parliament. It is proposed that setting the composition of the Parliament should become the responsibility of the European Parliament itself, while still requiring the approval of the Council of the European Union. This change aims to increase the Parliament’s autonomy and strengthen cooperation between the main EU institutions. Currently, determining the composition of the European Parliament is a complex process involving many institutions. The reform aims to simplify this process, granting the Parliament greater autonomy in deciding its own composition. This means that the Parliament would have a direct influence on its structure, which could contribute to more efficient functioning of this institution. To ensure balance and fairness, any change in the composition of the Parliament would require the approval of the Council of the European Union. The Council, representing the member states, would serve a supervisory role, ensuring that the interests of all countries are considered and protected. This cooperation mechanism could lead to more balanced and representative decisions regarding the Parliament’s structure. The proposed reform may face challenges and controversies. Increasing the Parliament’s autonomy in determining its composition might be seen as a step toward greater centralization of power, which could raise concerns among some member states. Additionally, the requirement for Council approval could lead to conflicts and delays in the decision-making process, especially when there are divergent interests among individual countries.

            One of the final proposed institutional reforms is to strengthen the role of social partners in preparing initiatives in the areas of social, employment, and economic policy. This reform aims to increase the involvement of various stakeholders in the European Union’s decision-making processes, potentially leading to a more inclusive and representative governance system. Social partners, including trade unions, employer organizations, and other groups representing different sectors of society, play a crucial role in shaping policies that directly impact the lives of citizens. The proposal suggests that these partners should be more actively involved in preparing initiatives in their areas of experties. This step is intended to ensure that decisions made at the EU level are more balanced and responsive to the needs of all social groups. Social, employment, and economic policies are key areas that have a direct impact on the well-being of EU citizens. Strengthening the role of social partners in these fields could contribute to more effective policymaking that takes into account a wide range of interests and needs. Social partners can bring valuable perspectives and experiences that are essential for creating effective and fair policies. However, increasing the role of social partners in decision-making processes could lead to more complex and time-consuming negotiations. There is also a risk that certain interest groups might dominate discussions, leading to an imbalance in the representation of various social interests.

            The final proposed institutional change is the call to strengthen citizen participation instruments in the European Union’s decision-making process within the framework of representative democracy. This initiative aims to increase active engagement of EU citizens in shaping policies and decisions that directly affect them, potentially leading to a more democratic and transparent decision-making process. Representative democracy relies on elected representatives making decisions on behalf of citizens. For it to be complete and effective, citizens must also have the opportunity to directly influence decision-making processes. The proposal suggests that EU citizens should have more tools and opportunities to express their opinions and influence EU decisions. Currently, EU citizens have participation instruments such as the European Citizens’ Initiative, petitions to the European Parliament, and public consultations. Strengthening these instruments could involve improving their efficiency, increasing accessibility, and promoting them among citizens. It could also mean introducing new tools that enable more direct and effective citizen engagement in the decision-making process. Enhancing citizen participation requires effective mechanisms and tools to ensure that citizens’ voices are genuinely considered in the decision-making process. Additionally, greater citizen engagement can sometimes lead to polarization of public opinion, which might complicate reaching consensus on key issues.

The proposed treaty changes in the European Union can be evaluated in various and non-uniform ways. Some changes or improvements seem to be good. For instance, when the proposals involve increasing public participation in the EU. This appears to be a good idea, although it poses a challenge. A challenge that the EU can or should undertake. On the other hand, the briefly presented resolution concerning changes to the EU’s primary law is filled with changes that do not necessarily have such a positive connotation. This includes all the changes that concern the scope of competencies between the EU and its Member States. Changes of this kind lead to further limitation of national sovereignty, indirectly affecting the exercise of jurisdiction over the nation and territory. These are strictly national issues that the EU, based on the idea of economic integration or even limited political integration, should not interfere with. However, it seems that the resolution being discussed here, including the proposed changes, does not align with this kind of integration. It aligns with a different kind of idea, namely the theory of federalizing the EU, or perhaps even creating a superstate with its own court, parliament, and executive power, where national states only and maximally function as regions or states, like in Germany or the United States of America.

All of this boils down to a simple question: what kind of EU do we want? Do we want a strong economically EU consisting of strong sovereign nation-states deciding individually on the most important matters, or do we want the EU in its current form, or do we want the EU as a superstate? Only in the case of the last option can the resolution be fully accepted as a good solution. In the first case, it would be necessary to draft a new proposal for treaty changes. In the middle option, everything remains unchanged.

[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0427_PL.html#title2

Bartłomiej Oręziak – Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Center for Strategic Analyzes of Institute of Justice in Warsaw, PhD in legal sciences, Council of Europe expert, former researcher in the Central European Professors’ Network 2021 (Ferenc Mádl Institute of Comparative Law in Budapest; Research group „The Impact of Digital Platforms and Social Media on Freedom of Expression and Pluralism”), former researcher in the Central European Professors’ Network 2022 (Central European Academy; Research group „Right to Privacy”), researcher at Central European Professors’ Network 2023 (Central European Academy; Research group “Migration Challenges – Legal Responses”), associate at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw,laureate of the Minister of Science and Higher Education Scholarship for outstanding achievements in science for the academic year 2017/2018, winner of the DOCUP 2020 competition, representative of the Institute of Justice in the Artificial Intelligence Working Group at the Chancellery of the President Council of Ministers, reviewer of project proposal in Maynooth University (Innovation Value Institute) author of over 50 scientific texts (including indexing in Web of Science and Scopus). He is or was a head and member of international and national research projects (more than 10, including Norway Grant), as well as a speaker and organizer of international and national scientific conferences (more than 80, including NATO seminar in Warsaw). He won 3rd place (Poland team) in the Hackathon “Pioneering Digital Solutions for Human Rights in Justice” (as part of the TJENI Project) organized by the Council of Europe in Paris. He is also a member of international advisory scientific boards and scientific committees. Main interests: new technologies law, human rights protection, intellectual property law, public international law, EU law, and criminal law and trial.