The Union of European Federalists (UEF) has launched a petition to the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions (PETI) to demand that the reform process of the European treaties—already initiated by the Parliament itself—finally moves forward.
Europe today faces an unstable and dangerous world: Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the conflicts in the Middle East, the rise of authoritarian powers, and the prospect of a new Trump presidency aligned with Putin. In this context, a stronger and more united European Union is not only desirable, but necessary for survival.
The reports of Enrico Letta, Mario Draghi, and Sauli Niinistö clearly show that the EU, in its current intergovernmental form, is unable to ensure security, strategic autonomy, and competitiveness. The unanimity rule and the national vetoes block decision-making and weaken Europe’s capacity to act, threatening the European model of democracy, social justice, education, environmental protection, and fundamental rights.
The European Parliament, representing the citizens, has already taken a historic step with its Resolution of 22 November 2023 calling for a Treaty reform through Article 48 TEU. But the European Council has so far ignored its legal obligation to act. This is unacceptable: democracy requires that the voice of citizens and their Parliament be respected.
With this petition, the UEF and its members across Europe call on the European Parliament to:
- reaffirm its demand for a Convention on Treaty reform;
- use all its powers, including budgetary leverage, to oblige the Council to respect Article 48 TEU;
- forward its draft Treaty reform to national parliaments;
- and, if necessary, bring the Council before the Court of Justice of the EU.
This is a battle for democracy, for security, and for the future of Europe. We invite all citizens, associations, and institutions that believe in a federal, democratic, and sovereign Europe to support this petition and help us make sure that Europe finally becomes capable of acting and protecting its citizens.
Read here the Petition and the first signatories
The European Letter is back.
For Europe, the long season of illusions is over: the belief that it could count indefinitely on American protection, that the globalised world could guarantee peace and stability thanks to trade liberalisation and economic interdependence, that the democratic model would inevitably spread throughout the world. Europe thus finds itself exposed to very serious threats to its security, while experiencing a sharp economic decline and weakened by a political crisis that is seeing a growing consensus of nationalist, anti-European and anti-democratic forces. If these multiple crises are not used as an opportunity to strengthen political integration, there is a real risk that the European Union will break up. Only a politically united Europe will be able to survive and prosper again in the new context.
To confront the threats posed by the US and Russia, European democratic governments must demonstrate the political will to take concrete steps towards building an effective autonomous defense. This defense will enable Europeans to ensure their own security and that of Ukraine.
The European Letter is published in 7 languages - from the edition 77 - under the auspices of the Luciano Bolis European Foundation in cooperation with the Union of European Federalists.
The European Letter is a periodical publication started in 1997 with the aim of stimulating political debate in national parliaments and governments, and in the European Parliament.
The European Letter 84 entitled "Making Europe truly great", is sent to parliamentarians in the following legislative bodies:
- European Parliament
- Bundestag
- Parliament of the French Republic
- Parliament of the Italian Republic
- Cortes generales (Spanish Parliament)
- Nationalrat (Austrian Parliament)
- Belgian Federal Parliament
- Hellenic Parliament
- Parlamentul României
- Eduskunta (Parliament of Finland)
Here the version avaiable:
SPANISH
ROMANIAN
Read the new UEF Federalist Paper 1/2025 about the meaning of the so-called Report Draghi in the federalist perspective.
From the Preface
Never in the history of the integration process have Europeans stood on the brink of the abyss as they do today.
In a global context in which geopolitical powers of continental dimensions compete fiercely with each other for resources, markets and spheres of political influence, and which is characterized by instability and wars, the European Union, if disunited and weak, risks being like a sheep among wolves, and having to choose, unable to determine its own destiny, which master it will obey.
In this context, Donald Trump's election as President of the United States constitutes a disruption of the transatlantic relation and therefore should be a wake-up call for the European Union. While the U.S. supported and encouraged European integration in the aftermath of World War II and ensured the continent's defense, the Trump administration has the clear objective of advancing a national-populistic agenda, and to this effect, dividing the Europeans and weakening them.
Elon Musk's immense economic power, coupled with his attempts to influence election outcomes in European countries by encouraging support for far-right movements, the allure for some nations to rely on his satellites for their security, and the lack of a cohesive political vision among European states—some of which, out of fear of a Russian advance under Putin, would dream of keeping a close alignment with the Trump administration—are all factors creating the perfect storm. A storm that Europeans can weather only if they decisively demonstrate the will to unite politically and take concrete steps in this direction.
Mario Draghi's report on the future of European competitiveness underscores this urgency. The report highlights the weaknesses and lack of competitiveness that plague Europe when it remains divided, as well as the immense potential it could unlock through political unity, including a proper European Defence System that is not dependent on US.
It is no longer enough to advance through small, incremental steps under the current treaties, especially in an unstable international environment. Europe's reliance on external powers for energy, technology, and defense is unsustainable.
All the proposals put forward in the Draghi Report require that Europe endows itself with a political head, a budget worthy of the name financed through a European taxation system, and decision-making mechanisms that are democratic and no longer based on unanimous agreement between governments.
This is the core message that we, as the Union of European Federalists, through this paper, want to emphasize, with the aim to contribute to the process of reflection started by the Report.
But these goals can only be achieved if a discussion is opened on a thorough overhaul of the Union's decision-making mechanisms and institutional set-up, and thus on a comprehensive, federal reform of the existing Treaties, as called for by the European Parliament in its November 2023 reform proposal for the convening of a Convention, which the European Council has so far chose to ignore, in breach of its legal obligations under article 48 of the Treaty of the European Union.
Europeans must take their destiny in their own hands. If they do not, decisions on Europe’s future will be taken by others, and its achievements in terms of democracy, freedom, the welfare state, and the protection of rights will be in danger. In fact, they are already at risk.
Brussels and Pavia, 3 February 2025
- Domènec Ruiz Devesa, President of the Union of European Federalists and former Member of the European Parliament
- Giulia Rossolillo, Vice-President of the Union of European Federalists and Professor of European Union Law of University of Pavia
The Executive Bureau of the UEF decided to join the initiative proposed by the Italian section of the UEF Movimento Federalista Europeo to try to identify the symbolic date of February 24 as the European day of resistance, 3 years after the beginning of the war of Russian aggression in Ukraine.
You can support this appeal signing here
24 FEBRUARY | EUROPEAN RESISTANCE DAY
APPEAL TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
On 24 February 2022, with the invasion of Ukraine, Russia declared war on the whole of Europe.
The project of European unity was born during the Resistance against Nazi-fascism, in order to ensure peace, democracy and freedom for the peoples of Europe, with shared sovereignty in various areas, through the creation of common institutions and policies.
Ukraine has chosen to be part of this process. Their resistance to Putin’s war, which is also a war to divide Europe, is therefore that of all Europeans who reject nationalism and imperialism, believe in freedom and democracy, and share the battle for a free and united Europe.
The European Federalist Movement therefore calls for the proclamation of 24 February as ‘European Resistance Day’, symbolising the struggle for freedom, democracy and peace.
Long live the Ukrainian Resistance! Long live European Unity!
24 ЛЮТОГО | ЄВРОПЕЙСЬКИЙ ДЕНЬ ОПОРУ
ЗВЕРНЕННЯ ДО ЄВРОПЕЙСЬКОГО СОЮЗУ
Вторгненням в Україну 24 лютого 2022 року Росія оголосила війну всій Європі.
Проект європейської єдності народився за часів руху опору наци-фашизму з метою забезпечення миру, демократії та свободи для народів Європи завдяки об’єднанню суверенітету в різних сферах, створенню спільних інституцій та запровадженню спільної політики.
Україна вже давно вирішила стати частиною цього процесу. Тому її спротив путінській війні, яка націлена не лише на захоплення України, а й на розподіл Європи, є спротивом усіх європейців, які відмовляються від націоналізму та імперіалізму, вірять у свободу та демократію і прагнуть боротися за вільну та об’єднану Європу.
Тому Європейський федералістичний рух пропонує проголосити день 24 лютого “Європейським днем спротиву”, як символ боротьби за свободу, демократію і мир.
Хай живе український Опір! Хай живе Європейська Єдність!
24 FEBBRAIO | GIORNATA DELLA RESISTENZA EUROPEA
APPELLO ALL’UNIONE EUROPEA
Il 24 febbraio 2022, con l’invasione dell’Ucraina, la Russia ha dichiarato guerra a tutta l’Europa.
Il progetto dell’unità europea è nato durante la Resistenza al nazifascismo, al fine di assicurare la pace, la democrazia e la libertà per i popoli europei, con la condivisione della sovranità in diversi settori, grazie alla creazione di istituzioni e politiche comuni.
L’Ucraina ha scelto da anni di essere parte di questo processo. La sua Resistenza alla guerra di Putin, che è guerra anche per dividere l’Europa, è perciò quella di tutti gli Europei che rifiutano il nazionalismo e l’imperialismo e credono nella libertà e nella democrazia, e condividono insieme la battaglia per un’Europa libera e unita.
Il Movimento Federalista Europeo propone pertanto di proclamare il 24 febbraio “Giornata della Resistenza Europea”, simbolo della lotta per la libertà, la democrazia e la pace.
Viva la Resistenza Ucraina! Viva l’Unità Europea!
24 FÉVRIER | JOURNÉE EUROPÉENNE DE LA RÉSISTANCE
APPEL À L'UNION EUROPÉENNE
Le 24 février 2022, avec l'invasion de l'Ukraine, la Russie a déclaré la guerre à l'ensemble de l'Europe.
Le projet d'unité européenne est né pendant la Résistance contre le nazisme et le fascisme, afin d'assurer la paix, la démocratie et la liberté pour les peuples d'Europe, avec une souveraineté partagée dans divers domaines, par la création d'institutions et de politiques communes.
L'Ukraine a choisi de faire partie de ce processus.
Leur résistance à la guerre de Poutine, qui est aussi une guerre visant à diviser l'Europe, est donc celle de tous les Européens qui rejettent le nationalisme et l'impérialisme, croient en la liberté et la démocratie, et partagent le combat pour une Europe libre et unie.
Le Mouvement Fédéraliste Européen appelle donc à la proclamation du 24 février comme « Journée Européenne de la Résistance », symbolisant la lutte pour la liberté, la démocratie et la paix.
Vive la Résistance Ukrainienne ! Vive l'Unité Européenne !
24 DE FEBRERO | DÍA EUROPEO DE LA RESISTENCIA
LLAMAMIENTO A LA UNIÓN EUROPEA
El 24 de febrero de 2022, con la invasión de Ucrania, Rusia declaró la guerra a toda Europa.
El proyecto de unidad europea nació durante la Resistencia contra el nazismo y el fascismo, con el objetivo de asegurar la paz, la democracia y la libertad para los pueblos de Europa, con soberanía compartida en diversas áreas, mediante la creación de instituciones y políticas comunes.
Ucrania ha elegido formar parte de este proceso.
Su resistencia a la guerra de Putin, que también es una guerra para dividir Europa, es, por lo tanto, la resistencia de todos los europeos que rechazan el nacionalismo y el imperialismo, creen en la libertad y la democracia, y comparten la lucha por una Europa libre y unida.
El Movimiento Federalista Europeo, por lo tanto, hace un llamamiento para la proclamación del 24 de febrero como «Día Europeo de la Resistencia», simbolizando la lucha por la libertad, la democracia y la paz.
¡Viva la Resistencia Ucraniana! ¡Viva la Unidad Europea!
24. FEBRUAR | EUROPÄISCHEN WIDERSTANDSTAG
AUFRUF AN DIE EUROPÄISCHE UNION
Am 24. Februar 2022 erklärte Russland mit der Invasion in der Ukraine dem gesamten Europa den Krieg.
Das Projekt der europäischen Einheit entstand während des Widerstands gegen den Nationalsozialismus und Faschismus, um Frieden, Demokratie und Freiheit für die Völker Europas zu gewährleisten, mit geteilter Souveränität in verschiedenen Bereichen durch die Schaffung gemeinsamer Institutionen und Politiken.
Die Ukraine hat sich entschieden, Teil dieses Prozesses zu sein.
Ihr Widerstand gegen Putins Krieg, der auch ein Krieg ist, um Europa zu spalten, ist daher der Widerstand aller Europäer, die Nationalismus und Imperialismus ablehnen, an Freiheit und Demokratie glauben und den Kampf für ein freies und vereintes Europa teilen.
Die Europäische Föderalistische Bewegung ruft daher zur Proklamation des 24. Februar als „Europäischer Widerstandstag“ auf, der den Kampf für Freiheit, Demokratie und Frieden symbolisiert.
Es lebe der ukrainische Widerstand! Es lebe die europäische Einheit!
Guy Verhofstadt, former MEP and president of European Movement International and Domènec Ruiz Devesa, former MEP and president of the Union of European Federalists have published this article in Politico on the urgent topic of the future of Europe's security in view of the Trump administration's increasing disengagement from protecting Europe and supporting Ukraine.
Read here the article on Politico
Every very cloud has a silver lining. And as Europe is finally faced with the opportunity to build a real European Defence Union amid U.S. President Donald Trump’s disruptive return, this could not be more true.
Despite several achievements in the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy throughout the years — including the deployment of no less than 40 missions and operations for crisis management and peacekeeping around the world — the bloc has continued to rely on the security umbrella provided by NATO and the U.S. for its territorial defense.
There were good reasons for this. After all, NATO’s mission is the collective security of the Euro-Atlantic area and most of the bloc’s member countries are also part of the alliance. Therefore, many considered the EU becoming a major security provider to be an unnecessary duplication, if not a possible cause of dangerous confusion in the line of command in the event of an attack.
However, it’s also true that the Treaty of the EU provides for the establishment of common defense (however undefined) and for mutual assistance among member countries in the event of aggression. Moreover, for Europe, NATO has, to a large extent, meant a political and defense-industrial dependence on Washington.
Be that as it may, it’s clear that current circumstances — including what happened in the run-up to and during the Munich Security Conference — are forcing Europe to “grow up” when it comes to its own security and defense. But what should the EU be doing to build its own defense union?
The U.S. had already shifted its focus away from Europe and toward the Indo-Pacific under former U.S. President Barack Obama. The Washington establishment, both Democrat and Republican, is united in seeing China, not Russia, as its direct strategic rival — even after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression toward Ukraine. Arguably, even Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden’s support for the country could have been stronger, faster and more consistent.
Now add to that a president who is possibly willing to force a bad cease-fire, which would have terrible consequences for Europe’s security, and is also a NATO-skeptic, going so far as to threaten abandoning allies who “do not pay” — not to mention his expansionist aims over other NATO members like Canada and Denmark.
For Europe’s part, there is, of course, the temptation to only focus on things like joint weapons production or on exempting defense expenditures from the Stability and Growth Pact — as was the case with the latest informal EUCO. This makes sense. Surely, the EU must get its capabilities and defense-industrial base right, and as defense expenditures rise to unprecedented levels, we need to be spending better, together and European.
As it stands, EU member countries spend about one-third of what the U.S. does on defense, but Europe has about 10 percent of America’s capabilities. Moreover, the bloc’s defense capabilities planning and products are still largely fragmented along national lines, which means gaps in some capacities, duplication of others, interoperability problems, foreign dependencies and inefficient spending. According to the European Defence Agency, this lack of cooperation constitutes an annual loss of no less than €25 billion.
We need a pooling-and-sharing approach across the board, including for joint research, development and the procurement of weapons systems. For this to happen, the European Defence Industry Programme must be rapidly approved by its co-legislators. The coordinated investment could be catalyzed by the EU budget, along with joint borrowing and the creation of a defense bank. And an exemption to the fiscal rules should be limited to joint EU investments only.
Having said that, this is only one part of the equation — the supply side. Equally important — if not more so, in view of Trump’s disruption of the transatlantic bond — is defining and building up our common defense as foreseen in the Treaty of the EU.
The EU’s Rapid Deployment Capacity of 5,000 soldiers is a step in the right direction here, but it’s not enough. This capacity was conceived as an entry force for crisis management operations — not territorial defense. Thus, we must go further. We must develop EU common defense planning and command-and-control structures, thereby including the 27 national armies in a “European Security System” in coordination with NATO, acting as its “European Pillar.”
This is necessary due to Trump’s unpredictability, as well as the EU mutual assistance clause’s lack of operationalization. Currently, in the event of a withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Europe, a paralyzed NATO and a Russian attack on, say, the Baltics, EU member countries would have to rush to improvise an ad hoc military structure to deal with the aggression — a very unappealing prospect, to say the least.
German poet Friedrich Hölderlin wrote: “Wherein lies the danger, grows also the saving power.” It’s high time Europe got its armies together in a true European Defence Union.
Brussels, February 18, 2025
The week of the 10th of February 2025 will go down in history as one of infamy. The Trump administration started a bilateral dialogue with Putin on Ukraine, setting up a negotiation process that excludes both the attacked country but also Europe; hinted at the end of US security guarantee to the continent; and disparaged European democracy at the Munich Security Conference. In a meeting of selected EU leaders in Paris on 17 February, they struggled to show a united approach to position our Union in view of this new geopolitical situation. They also failed to put forward concrete institutional plans to achieve more political unity and a Defence Union, beyond agreeing on increasing defence expenditures.
The aggression and humiliation that Europeans are suffering at the hands of the Trump Administration leave no room for doubt or speculation. A dual attack is underway: on European security—now seen as nothing more than a burden by Washington, which seeks to abandon Ukraine in the hands of Putin in a logic of “spheres of influence”; and on liberal democracy—also regarded as an obstacle to the project of a new autocratic and populist international order.
In light of the opening of negotiations between the U.S. and Russia for the partition of Ukraine, what alternatives remain? The future of Ukraine is at stake, and with it, the future of Europe itself. If Europeans cannot provide Ukraine with support and certainty, the European Union itself will be overwhelmed. In this emerging world of great autocratic imperial powers, the only way to save democracy and freedom is to counterbalance them with the political weight of a great democratic and federal state, able to secure its own defence, since the US is not anymore a reliable partner, and more likely, and it has become an adversary.
Right now, citizens want a common defense, as confirmed by surveys with overwhelmingly high percentages; and many European states are already directly threatened by Russia. The only current alternative proposed by EU leaders seems to be the individual rearmament of countries, aiming to increase integration and interoperability but only on a voluntary basis. However, the industrial dimension alone will not produce a Defence Union able to guarantee the territorial defence of Europe. Moreover, under these conditions, the rush to rearm will inevitably result in a significant portion of new defense investments being spent on purchasing arms and technology from third countries, primarily the US. That will be folly.
Building an autonomous security and defense requires strong political will for integration, which is essential to address two crucial issues: developing a collective strategy based on a shared analysis of priority threats and interests to be protected; and mobilizing significant financial resources. Whatever model is chosen to build a European armed, it must be acknowledged that, in parallel, the formation of a unified political leadership is necessary—one capable of representing the common interest and making political decisions accordingly.
Therefore the UEF calls for:
- Continued and stronger support to Ukraine, particularly in terms of delivery of weapons and its range of use, filling if needed the potential gap left by the US.
- The rejection of any deal between the US and Russia that is not accepted by Ukraine and that does not provide long-term security for our continent.
- An urgent an extraordinary meeting of the European Council to address concrete steps for the political unification of Europe, in line with the European Parliament´s 2023 constitutional proposal, and the available possibilities for setting-up a European Defence Union, including among others, those offered by the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO).
We call on the European Parliament to support the said objectives in its plenary meeting of 10th-13th March 2025, and on the most responsible and active Member States to mobilize within the European Council accordingly.
Europe is in its darkest hour since 1945. But now, there are no saviors across the Atlantic, while we face an imminent danger in our Eastern border. Europe can only count on itself and must decide whether to remain passive and allow itself to be dominated by the emerging Trump-Putin Axis, or to react with unity and decisiveness.
RELATED LINKS
- Resolution | A European foreign and security policy in a Changing World
- Resolution on Building Consensus for Treaty Change
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.
On Tuesday, January 21, 2025, the Spinelli Group, represented by its President Lukas Mandl (EPP) and board members Gabriele Bischoff (S&D), Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA), Nikolaos Farantouris (Left), and Sandro Gozi (Renew Europe), held a press conference to present their ambitious initiative, Project 27.
This project underscores the Spinelli Group’s commitment, as the European Federalist Movement within the European Parliament, to reshape the European Union through treaty reform across all 27 Member States by 2027. The reform process is rooted in the establishment of a European Convention, as outlined in Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union, aiming to address citizens' demands for a more efficient and responsive Union.
As Lukas Mandl declared: “If we want to respond to the call of the citizens for the reform of the EU, if we want to contribute to a prosper and proper future of the European Union and our very continent, we have to thrive for a treaty reform.”
Gabriele Bischoff warned: "If Europe cannot act fast, bold, and as united as possible, it will face very difficult times."
Key Objectives of Project 27
As Daniel Freund stressed “We don't want to waste too much time on missed opportunities but say we really need to take the opportunity now.” During the press conference, the board highlighted several ambitious priorities, including:
- Reshaping Decision-Making: Reducing the unanimity principle to allow for faster, stronger, and more consistent decision-making.
- Strengthening Security: Elevating European security capabilities in a manner complementary to NATO.
- Economic Resilience: Enhancing regulation, fostering strategic investments, promoting education, nurturing innovation, and tackling demographic challenges to build a robust workforce.
- Support for Ukraine: Ensuring sustained military and financial support for Ukraine and involving EU actors in reconstruction efforts.
- Democratic Advancement: Developing and reinforcing European democratic structures.
- Readiness for Enlargement: Preparing the European Union for the accession of new Member States.
Moving Forward
This week, on Wednesday, January 22, 2025, the Spinelli Group board members convened in Strasbourg to further refine the guidelines of this transformative project and discuss the group's next steps and initiatives.
Sandro Gozi expressed hope: "Representatives from five political groups, who may disagree on many issues, are united in pushing for European Union reform."
Nikolas Farantouris urged "The Council and the Commission to take steps now and fast towards treaty reform, common policies, and at the end of the day, a common foreign policy.”