A call for Treaty Reform by Spinelli Group MEPs in AFCP during the Polish Presidency's debriefing to EP committees on its priorities.

During the AFCO Committee meeting with Polish Minister for European Affairs Adam Szłapka, many MEPs took the floor to stress the urgent need to reform the EU’s institutional framework, particularly in light of the challenges posed by enlargement, geopolitical instability, and democratic legitimacy. While welcoming the Polish Presidency’s openness to institutional reform, numerous MEPs underlined that treaty revision must no longer be postponed.

Read the Press releases "Polish Presidency debriefs EP committees on priorities"

Adam Szłapka, Minister for European Affairs (Polish Presidency)

Adam Szłapka opened the session by outlining the priorities of the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. He emphasized a pragmatic yet ambitious approach to institutional development within the European framework. The Presidency's agenda includes completing legislative work on the reform of European political parties and foundations, modernizing the electoral rights of mobile EU citizens, and advancing transparency in lobbying and interest representation.

Szłapka also reaffirmed Poland's support for the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, underlining the country's commitment to aligning EU standards with broader international legal frameworks. While he acknowledged growing calls for treaty change, Szłapka remained cautious, stressing that although institutional reform is desirable, revising the Treaties poses significant political challenges. He suggested working within the existing legal frameworks as much as possible, without ruling out future revisions, signaling openness to dialogue but a preference for realism over idealism.

He welcomed the European Parliament's initiative and expressed a willingness to cooperate with MEPs and other EU institutions to identify practical steps for institutional improvements. Szłapka emphasized that the Polish Presidency is determined to keep institutional reform high on the political agenda, especially in light of the EU’s future enlargement and strategic challenges.

INTERVENTIONS ON THE AFCO MEETING OF THE SPINELLI GROUP MEMBERS

🔹 Sven Simon (EPP)

Sven Simon took a measured yet forward-looking stance, focusing on how the EU must adapt its institutional structure to respond effectively to the pressures of enlargement and global instability. He underscored that the current treaties provide ample room for cooperation and decision-making, but emphasized that their limitations become apparent in moments of crisis or when dealing with sensitive areas like foreign policy and defence.

Simon argued for a pragmatic approach to reform, recognizing that deep constitutional overhauls may not be politically feasible in the short term. Instead, he suggested prioritizing areas where consensus is easier to achieve, such as improving the efficiency of legislative processes, strengthening rule of law mechanisms, and enhancing democratic oversight. He acknowledged the success of enhanced cooperation and differentiated integration in the past, using the Eurozone and Schengen Area as examples.

Simon also pointed to the importance of political leadership in Member States. He criticized the discrepancy between pro-European rhetoric and the lack of concrete actions, urging national governments to show greater initiative. He concluded by stating that while the Treaties alone won't solve Europe's problems, a renewed commitment to their principles and strategic application could help the Union meet the challenges of the future.

🔹 Fernando López Aguilar (S&D)

Fernando López Aguilar delivered a strong argument in favor of deep institutional reform, emphasizing that the current architecture of the EU lacks the tools needed to effectively uphold the rule of law and democratic values. He pointed to ongoing violations of EU principles in certain Member States, stressing that existing enforcement mechanisms, such as Article 7 TEU, are insufficient and often blocked by the unanimity requirement.

López Aguilar stressed the importance of aligning the EU's constitutional setup with its values. He proposed strengthening the European Commission’s oversight capabilities, granting the Parliament greater powers of inquiry, and establishing more robust sanctions against Member States that breach fundamental rights.

He also connected institutional reform to the EU's global role, arguing that a stronger, more coherent internal governance structure would enhance Europe’s credibility and influence abroad. For López Aguilar, treaty reform is not merely an internal administrative matter—it is a necessary evolution for the EU to act as a cohesive, values-driven global actor.

🔹 Sandro Gozi (Renew Europe)

Sandro Gozi passionately argued for the need to open a Convention to revise the EU Treaties. He warned that the status quo—with its reliance on unanimity and fragmented governance—leaves the Union vulnerable to crises and external manipulation. He pointed out that the EU's inability to act swiftly on sanctions, foreign policy, and taxation undermines its credibility.

Gozi made a historical comparison to the 1985 Milan Summit, where bold leadership overcame resistance to launch what became the Single European Act. He insisted that today's leaders must show similar courage and vision. According to Gozi, the EU must create a "Europe of political will," where integration is driven by those ready to move forward, rather than held hostage by obstruction.

He also stressed the connection between institutional reform and democratic accountability, noting that citizens increasingly expect the EU to deliver results. Gozi concluded by stating that without institutional reform, especially in light of enlargement, the EU risks losing both effectiveness and legitimacy.

🔹 Reinier van Lanschot (Renew Europe)

Reinier van Lanschot echoed the call for treaty reform, emphasizing the disconnect between citizens' expectations and the EU's current capacity to respond. He warned that institutional inertia breeds frustration and cynicism, which in turn fuels Euroscepticism and nationalist movements. For van Lanschot, reform is essential not only for functionality but also for trust.

He advocated for reforms that would empower the European Parliament, including the right of legislative initiative and a stronger role in setting the EU agenda. He also supported the use of transnational lists to bring European democracy closer to its citizens and create a more genuinely European political space.

Van Lanschot concluded that institutional reform is not a technical exercise but a profoundly political one. It must be guided by democratic values, inclusiveness, and a vision for Europe that is capable of leading in a rapidly changing world.

🔹 Nicolas Farantouris (S&D)

Nicolas Farantouris focused on the interplay between institutional reform and social cohesion. He stressed that reforms must go beyond structural efficiency and also aim to create a more just, inclusive, and resilient Europe. According to Farantouris, the Treaties should be revised to include stronger commitments to social rights and economic solidarity.

He supported increasing the European Parliament’s role, not only in legislation but also in budgetary oversight and strategic direction. Farantouris argued that a more empowered Parliament would be better positioned to reflect the diverse interests of European citizens.

He concluded by emphasizing that institutional reform must serve a broader purpose: to equip the EU with the tools it needs to meet the challenges of the future—from climate change and digitalization to migration and inequality. Treaty change, he insisted, is essential to achieve that goal.

🔹 Klara Dobrev (S&D)

Klara Dobrev offered a bold vision for the future of Europe, advocating for the drafting and adoption of a new European Constitution. She argued that the current Treaties, while functional, lack the emotional and symbolic power to inspire citizens and unify Member States. A constitution adopted through a pan-European referendum would, in her view, renew the EU’s democratic legitimacy.

Dobrev emphasized that Europe is facing a historic moment of transformation—not unlike the post-World War II period. She stressed the need for visionary leadership that goes beyond technical fixes and aims to establish a true European political community. Her message was clear: if the EU wants to survive and thrive, it must embrace deeper political union.

She also warned that anti-European forces are already politicizing the issue of EU reform. If pro-Europeans do not take ownership of the debate and drive it forward with ambition and transparency, they risk losing the narrative to populist and nationalist actors. Reform, she concluded, must be proactive, courageous, and democratic.

🔹 Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA)

Daniel Freund provided a sharp critique of the Council's reluctance to engage seriously with institutional reform. He pointed out that while the European Parliament had already initiated a call for a Convention under Article 48, the Council continues to delay action. This, he argued, sends a dangerous signal to citizens who are increasingly expecting real change.

Freund called for an end to unanimity in areas like foreign policy, defence, and taxation, stating that the current model hampers the EU's ability to respond to crises. He stressed that the EU must be able to act strategically and swiftly, particularly in an era of geopolitical instability and growing external threats.

He concluded by saying that the EU has all the technical knowledge and citizen support it needs to move forward—what is missing is political will. Freund urged the Polish Presidency to take leadership and move from intentions to action.

🔹 Tim Reuten (S&D)

Tim Reuten focused on the risks of institutional stagnation, warning that without meaningful reform, the EU could lose its relevance in the eyes of its citizens. He argued that the Conference on the Future of Europe had laid out a clear roadmap, and that failing to implement its recommendations would damage public trust.

Reuten supported granting the European Parliament more substantial powers, including a stronger role in treaty negotiations, legislative initiation, and budgetary control. He also proposed mechanisms to make the Council more transparent and accountable.

He concluded by saying that institutional reform is not an academic exercise but a necessity for safeguarding European democracy and sovereignty. It is time, he said, for EU leaders to rise to the occasion and match words with deeds.

🔹 Ľubica Karvašová (Renew Europe)

Ľubica Karvašová highlighted the need to align the EU’s institutional structure with the realities of today’s world. She pointed out that citizens expect fast, coordinated, and effective responses from the EU, especially in times of crisis. However, the current decision-making model, based heavily on unanimity, makes this nearly impossible.

Karvašová expressed support for empowering the European Parliament and rationalizing the role of the Council to make EU governance more balanced and transparent. She also advocated for treaty provisions that better reflect digital transformation, climate challenges, and global interdependence.

She concluded by emphasizing that treaty reform should be a top priority during the Polish Presidency. Only by modernizing its institutional setup can the EU preserve its unity, deliver results, and maintain public support in the years ahead.

🔹 Gabriele Bischoff (S&D)

Gabriele Bischoff reiterated the European Parliament’s call for institutional reform, emphasizing that the body has already adopted a position in favor of convening a Convention. She stressed the urgency of responding to citizens’ demands expressed during the Conference on the Future of Europe, warning that any further delay risks undermining trust in EU institutions.

Bischoff supported reforms to give Parliament a right of legislative initiative, stronger budgetary powers, and a central role in the Union’s strategic agenda. She also called for clear accountability mechanisms to ensure that EU institutions are responsive and democratic.

In her closing remarks, Bischoff appealed to the Polish Presidency to be ambitious and proactive. She argued that institutional reform is both necessary and feasible—but only if political courage and vision prevail.

Other interventions

🔹 Lóránt Vincze (EPP)

Lóránt Vincze emphasized the role of democratic legitimacy and minority rights in the broader debate on EU reform. He stressed that while institutional architecture needs to evolve, reforms should also address the needs of underrepresented groups within the EU, ensuring their voices are included in the decision-making process. Vincze argued that the EU’s legitimacy depends not just on institutional efficiency but also on the inclusiveness of its policies.

He praised the Conference on the Future of Europe for opening a new chapter in EU democracy but called for more concrete follow-up. He noted that if citizens are to remain engaged, the promises made during that process must lead to visible results, including enhanced participatory mechanisms and better representation at the European level.

Vincze also linked institutional reform with the EU’s role in protecting cultural and linguistic diversity. He proposed that treaty changes or other reforms should explicitly recognize minority rights as a core value of the Union. In doing so, he added, the EU would reinforce its internal cohesion and credibility as a global promoter of human rights.

🔹 Sabine Verheyen (EPP)

Sabine Verheyen highlighted the importance of communication and citizen engagement in any process of institutional reform. She warned that without proper public understanding, even well-designed reforms could fail to gain legitimacy. Verheyen called for a strategy to involve citizens more directly and transparently in EU decision-making.

She also addressed the need to reinforce the cultural and educational dimensions of European integration, suggesting that treaty reform could include stronger commitments to youth participation, academic exchange, and the protection of cultural heritage.

Verheyen concluded that institutional reform must not only focus on internal mechanics but also on how the EU presents itself to its citizens. A Union that explains itself clearly, includes its people, and reflects shared values will be stronger and more resilient.

🔹 Markus Ehlers (EPP)

Markus Ehlers underscored the urgent need to rethink the EU's institutional design in light of upcoming enlargements and the evolving geopolitical environment. He emphasized that maintaining decision-making by unanimity is increasingly untenable and risks rendering the Union ineffective at key moments. Ehlers argued that the EU must develop mechanisms to act more swiftly and decisively, particularly in areas like security, energy, and external relations.

He advocated for the strategic use of qualified majority voting in more policy areas and urged Member States to consider this shift not as a loss of sovereignty but as a gain in collective strength. Ehlers also called for clearer lines of accountability within EU institutions to bolster citizen trust.

In closing, he emphasized that institutional reform is not about abstract legal debates but about real-world effectiveness. The Union needs to evolve if it wants to retain its relevance and deliver tangible results to its citizens. In this sense, reforming decision-making rules and streamlining institutional structures is not optional—it is imperative.