Rewatch here the event in original languages (english and german).

🟦 Report: Sandro Gozi (Renew Europe)

Main theme: Institutional efficiency and the political necessity of treaty reform

Sandro Gozi made a strong case for the urgent need to reform the European Union’s institutional framework. His argument centered on three core issues that, in his view, can no longer be ignored if the EU is to function effectively and remain politically viable.

First, he pointed to the persistent inefficiency of the current governance model. The unanimity rule, he argued, severely limits the EU's ability to respond decisively to global challenges. Using the example of sanctions against Russia, he described how one Member State—notably Hungary—was able to stall the process repeatedly. This, he stressed, is unacceptable in matters of such urgency and importance. Similar delays, he noted, have occurred with Article 7 proceedings and in taxation policy, where unanimity is also required.

Second, Gozi raised the issue of EU enlargement, particularly the planned accession of Ukraine and the Western Balkan countries. Without institutional reform, he warned, the Union will become increasingly paralyzed. "If we are already inefficient with 27 Member States," he asked rhetorically, "how can we possibly expect to function effectively with 34 or more?" He emphasized that reform is not optional, but a prerequisite for a successful and sustainable enlargement.

Third, Gozi invoked historical precedent, noting that every previous enlargement has either been preceded or followed by significant treaty reform. He cited the 1985 Milan Summit as a prime example, where despite initial resistance from Margaret Thatcher, a majority decision to revise the treaties led to the Single European Act and the completion of the single market. This, he argued, demonstrates that bold political leadership and majority-based processes can yield transformative results.

Gozi concluded by calling for a new form of integration based on "a Europe of political will". He proposed allowing willing Member States to proceed with deeper integration without being held back by those who prefer to stand still. According to Gozi, reform is not only possible but necessary, and Europe must act decisively to seize the moment.

🟩 Report: Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA)

Main theme: Structural reform for effective defence and democratic governance

Daniel Freund focused his intervention on the need for profound institutional reform, especially in the realm of European defence and foreign policy. According to Freund, the EU finds itself in a dramatically altered geopolitical landscape, where traditional security guarantees, particularly those provided by the United States, are increasingly unreliable.

This, he argued, demands a paradigm shift. Freund advocated for the creation of a European army, equipped with a unified command structure and joint procurement processes. He acknowledged that such a transformation would require sweeping treaty changes, particularly to eliminate the unanimity rule in foreign policy decisions.

Freund lamented that despite widespread acknowledgment of the need for a united European voice in global affairs, national leaders continue to avoid treaty reform. He noted how each crisis—from the Eurozone and migration crises to Brexit and COVID-19—has been used as an excuse to delay the conversation. "We will never have a 'perfect' moment to reform," he said, "but if we wait, we will simply move from one crisis to the next, always unprepared."

To break the deadlock, Freund outlined a three-part strategy. First, he called for bundling reforms into a comprehensive package to facilitate political trade-offs. Second, he proposed tying treaty reform to the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) discussions, ensuring that financial priorities align with institutional capabilities. Third, he encouraged the use of enhanced cooperation mechanisms to allow a core group of countries to lead the way, creating a "fear of missing out" effect that could motivate others to join.

Finally, Freund passionately defended the role of the European Parliament. He argued that democratic legitimacy and superior policy outcomes can only come from an empowered, elected assembly, rather than backroom deals among heads of state. For Freund, institutional reform is not just about efficiency—it's about democracy.

🟥 Report: Klara Dobrev (S&D)

Main theme: A new European Constitution as a political and democratic act

Klara Dobrev delivered one of the most passionate appeals of the event, framing the current moment as a historic turning point akin to the post-World War II era. Drawing parallels with the Schuman Declaration, she urged fellow leaders to demonstrate the same level of courage and vision shown by the EU’s founders.

Dobrev's central thesis was that Europe needs not just a treaty change, but a new European Constitution. This, she argued, would restore democratic legitimacy, clarify institutional responsibilities, and offer citizens a renewed sense of ownership over the European project. Importantly, she proposed that such a constitution be ratified through a pan-European referendum, thereby directly involving citizens in the future of the Union.

She highlighted three strategic priorities that must be addressed:

1. Establishing a single European voice in global affairs.
2. Enhancing democratic legitimacy, especially by increasing transparency in Council decision-making.
3. Ensuring European security, not only in military terms but also in terms of social cohesion and economic stability.

Dobrev stressed that the debate on the future of Europe will inevitably be politicized, whether leaders like it or not. She pointed to growing disinformation campaigns, external interference from Russia and China, and domestic populism as existential threats to European unity. "If we do not lead this debate," she warned, "our adversaries will."

She concluded by arguing that the window of opportunity is limited. With citizens feeling increasingly insecure and skeptical, now is the time to act boldly and offer a compelling, united vision for Europe's future. For Dobrev, a new constitution is not a luxury—it is a necessity.

🟨 Report: Sven Simon (EPP)

Main theme: Pragmatism, leadership, and flexible integration

Sven Simon took a more cautious yet constructive stance, emphasizing the need for realistic, incremental progress. He opened by identifying a lack of political leadership, even among governments that claim to support a federal Europe. As an example, he criticized the previous German coalition for failing to back up its pro-European rhetoric with tangible proposals.

Simon acknowledged that around 80% of EU legislation is already decided by majority vote, arguing that advocates of reform should avoid focusing too narrowly on politically sensitive areas like foreign policy. He warned that pushing treaty reform in these domains could deepen divisions rather than foster unity.

Instead, he called for a focus on practical, sectoral reforms where consensus is more likely—for example, in innovation, energy policy, and digital infrastructure. He cited the Schengen Area and the Euro as successful models of differentiated integration that could inspire future initiatives.

Simon also drew attention to the fragmentation of European defence efforts, citing inefficiencies in procurement and distrust among Member States. He noted that despite billions spent on defence, much of it still goes to non-European suppliers due to the lack of coordination and strategic trust. While supportive of a stronger European Defence Fund, he cautioned against over-ambitious plans without first solving basic issues of interoperability and industrial alignment.

On the budget, Simon argued for a rebalancing of EU spending priorities, suggesting that the current focus on agriculture and cohesion is outdated. He advocated for greater investment in forward-looking sectors like artificial intelligence, clean technology, and science.

His core message was clear: "Let’s not aim for a grand constitutional leap. Let’s move forward step by step, showing citizens the tangible benefits of European cooperation." For Simon, a more federal Europe is built not in one leap, but in steady, deliberate steps grounded in shared interests.