PANEL 1 | 2004 Enlargement and EU membership of Hungary: expectations and missed opportunities, lights and shadows [Hungarian]

Listen here the recording in UEF Audio Podcast Channel.

PANEL 2 | Lessons learned, current challenges and the way forward after the European elections [English]

Listen here the recording in UEF Audio Podcast Channel.

FOCUS EUROPA is a political debate in italian hosted by La Miniera di Ivan Grieco organized with Movimento Federalista Europeo (UEF Italy), which in the year of the European elections was focused on the debate that the various political factions are conducting on the theme of the future of Europe and the will to continue with the reform path undertaken by the European Parliament in this legislature.

In autumn the program is focused on the Draghi Report and development to the EU economy.

The guests are Domenec Ruiz Devesa, President of the UEF, and Sandro Gozi, Board member of the Spinelli Group and the staff of La Miniera on the topic "La formazione della nuova Commissione europea. Tra presidenzialismo di Uersula von Der Leyen e debolezza dei governi'".

You can follow the live broadcast in italian here on 11 November 2024 at 13:00 https://www.twitch.tv/la_miniera

Brussels, November 6, 2024 

Donald Trump's clear victory in the United States of America is a tsunami for the European Union that the governments of the 27 Member States would do well to take note of as soon as possible.  

Beyond the weakening of democracy in America and worldwide that this election may bring, Europeans should quickly recognize the significance of the aggressive and irresponsible nationalism of the incoming President. They must prepare for the reality that Trump will likely seek to weaken, divide, and manipulate them. 

It is time for our 27 national governments to realize that maintaining a fictitious sovereignty is futile. This approach keeps them powerless, unable to ensure their own security, and condemns them to industrial and economic decline. Will they recognize that, as during the COVID era, the situation is critical and that a shake-up is essential to protect one another, collectively, as a community of destiny? Or will each country attempt to save itself alone? Will they continue finding excuses to resist the greater political integration that is clearly needed in this context and well explained in the Draghi and Niinistö reports of the European Commission? This Union cannot withstand global competition or protect itself effectively. Standing still now is equivalent to paralysis and condemning itself to an inevitable agony, one that will be swifter—and no less painful—with Trump. 

A strong signal must now come from the EU states. It is clear that the EU needs autonomy in defense and security; however, this is not a swift process. It can only be credible and successfully initiated if national governments clearly demonstrate their determination to strengthen their unity and work cohesively to build a shared future. In this regard, much could be achieved quickly if political will is engaged. For instance, the European Commission has the authority to address the anticipated trade war on tariffs. However, it lacks the authority to complete the Single Capital Market needed to channel private savings into essential European investments, and it cannot initiate a European public investment plan through debt issuance. These actions are urgent, as the EU can no longer delay launching a project to support technological innovation and industrial development, especially in defense. Therefore, it is crucial to complete monetary union with essential tools, authorize EU fiscal autonomy, and establish majority voting in foreign policy. This can and must be accomplished now.  

‘There will be time to analyse the causes of Trump's return to the US presidency, but what is clear is that Europe needs to wake up,’ said Domenec Ruiz Devesa, president of the UEF ‘There is no alternative for Europeans to become a federal union and thus to put in place a European defence’. 

As Draghi himself warns, governments that understand this must take the lead and act. They must take the first steps to give Europe the credibility it needs to oppose Trump's desire for dominance and to stop Putin's hegemonic ambitions. It is essential to think about a real and decisive common response to protect Ukraine, the EU's eastern countries, and all European citizens. If they can grasp the mortal danger they face, perhaps Europeans will finally find the strength to build a shared sovereignty, to become a united state community. This is a call to action for the governments of the larger states: France, Germany, Poland, Spain and Italy must find the political will to lead the process. 

FOCUS EUROPA is a political debate in italian hosted by La Miniera di Ivan Grieco organized with Movimento Federalista Europeo (UEF Italy), which in the year of the European elections was focused on the debate that the various political factions are conducting on the theme of the future of Europe and the will to continue with the reform path undertaken by the European Parliament in this legislature.

In autumn the program is focused on the Draghi Report and development to the EU economy.

The guests are Tommaso Nannicini, former MP of Partito Democratico (Italy) and the PC1 Chair Luca Lionello and the staff of La Miniera on the topic "'Come rilanciare l'economia europea? La sfida del Rapporto Draghi".

You can follow the live broadcast in italian here on 4 November 2024 at 13:00 https://www.twitch.tv/la_miniera

Or you can see here in YouTube: 

For all other episodes: LINK HERE

Yesterday, the confirmation hearings of the European Commissioners-designate began.

Significant was the hearing of the designated commissioner Maros Sefcovic in the AFCO committee because if confirmed he will be the future Commissioner responsible for relations with the Parliament as well as Vice-President of the Commission.

Six MEPs, members of the Spinelli Group, in particular Reiner van Lanschot, Sandro Gozi, Lubika Karvasova, Salvatore de Meo, Gabrielle Bischoff, Nikolaus Farantouris, asked questions on the topic of treaty reform as decided by the European Parliament a year ago and asked for a commitment to open a democratic review process in view of enlargement.

Below the Question and Answers before the Hearing and the the trascript of Question and Answer during the Hearing.

Here the written question and answers before the hearing:

QUESTION

The Framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission has been in force for more than 13 years and there is a need for certain provisions to be added or adjusted in view of developments that have taken place after the last revision.

Could you indicate which concrete commitments you are ready to take to implement fully the principle of equal treatment and the Commission's role of honest broker in line with Article 13(2) TEU, notably concerning trilogues, urgent procedures, budget and access to information and expert meetings? How do you intend to strengthen the political responsibility and accountability of the Commission to the European Parliament, specifically the individual responsibility of each Commissioner?

Can you commit that the use of Article 122 TFEU and recourse to Parliament's urgent procedure will be limited to what is strictly necessary and be properly justified explaining the reasons for the choice of the legal basis, the main objectives and lements of the proposal as well as the potential budgetary implications so that Parliament can exercise proper scrutiny?

What steps will be taken to improve access to information for the European Parliament regarding expert meetings and budgetary decisions?

Can you commit to ensure that the Parliament and its relevant committees are immediately and fully informed, on
an equal footing with the Council, on all aspects of international agreements, at all stages, from the earliest
preparatory steps to implementation, especially through full and early access to negotiating texts and documents
and that Parliament’s position is duly taken into consideration when drafting the negotiating mandates?

Moreover, whenever the Commission negotiates a 'non-binding' agreement, including Memoranda of Understanding or “clubs” with third countries, can you commit to provide Parliament with full and immediate information and that Parliament’s views on them are duly taken into account?

Moreover, with its resolutions of 9 June 2022 and of 22 November 2023, the European Parliament voted to invoke Article 48 submitting proposals for amendments to the Treaty. What is your position on the need to update the framework of the Lisbon Treaty?

In light of the Commission President's expressed support for targeted Treaty amendments, to what extent are you prepared to commit your support and what would you practically do to enable treaty change? In light of the Commission President's expressed support for targeted Treaty amendments, to what extent are you prepared to commit your support, specifically also to qualified majority voting in Council, including but not limited to foreign policy?

Which Treaty provisions do you consider as absolutely necessary to modify in the current EU configuration, and which ones should be modified in view of enlargement?

How would you assure that EU accession is a horizontal issue taking on board the possible EU reform process, rather than an issue often seen through the foreign policy angle?

ANSWER

Given my longstanding responsibility for interinstitutional relations, I am very familiar with the 2010 Framework
Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, as I negotiated this file
on behalf of the Commission.

Building on our collective experience over the last 14 years and in line with my Mission Letter, I am committed to lead the work on the revision of the Framework Agreement. The renewed framework for our relations should aim at strengthening our joint responsibility and dialogue, increasing the flow of information and improving transparency. In the negotiation process, I will be open to discussing Parliament’s requests and expect the same from the Parliament when it comes to the Commission’s legitimate expectations. In this exercise, we will build on the joint assessment conducted by the Commission and the Parliament earlier this year.
During the revision process, we should be mindful of the Council’s prerogatives as some of the issues can only be discussed in a trilateral format. Our interinstitutional system can only work if we preserve the balance and respective prerogatives as foreseen in the Treaties.

If confirmed, I will ensure that the Commission will continue acting in full respect of the duty of sincere cooperation in interinstitutional negotiations and will operate wherever necessary to ensure that the Parliament and the Council are treated equally.

In trilogues, the Commission will continue to facilitate agreement between the co-legislators and will continue acting with full respect of the prerogatives of the Parliament and the Council.
I will ensure that the Parliament can attend all relevant meetings of expert groups where delegated acts are being
discussed, and that in such cases, it has access to the same information sent to national authorities.

With regard to political accountability, Article 17(8) TEU provides that the Commission ‘as a body’ shall be responsible to the European Parliament. Thus, the Treaty is clear that the Commission has a collective responsibility towards the Parliament. In line with the Political Guidelines, I will ensure that Commissioners are
regularly present in the parliamentary committees to improve the flow of information in both directions, for
example during the regular structured dialogues that feed into the Commission annual work programme and the
discussions on Parliament’s resolutions on Article 225 TFEU.

The Commission has taken note of Parliament’s concerns regarding the use of Article 122 TFEU. As stated by the
President in the Political guidelines, we will ensure that Article 122 TFEU will only be used in exceptional
circumstances. The President has committed to fully justify its use to the Parliament. I will ensure that the
Members of the College comply with the commitment to provide comprehensive justification and information on
the exceptional cases where the proposals by the Commission are based on Article 122 TFEU.
I have already demonstrated my personal commitment to keep the Parliament regularly informed in the context of negotiations with Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

If confirmed, I will ensure that the Parliament and its committees are immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure for the negotiation of international agreements. This requires that the necessary arrangements are made to ensure the confidential treatment of information where necessary.
On the issue of non-binding agreements, I am ready to look at ways to ensure that Parliament is informed, at the appropriate moment in time in the procedure, and in full respect of Council’s prerogatives as confirmed by the Court.
I am fully aware that the issue of Treaty change is high on the Parliament’s agenda and I fully support President von der Leyen’s statement that we need treaty change where it can improve the functioning of our Union. With the resolution from 22 November 2023, the Parliament has formally triggered the treaty revision process in Article 48 TEU and I can confirm that the Commission stands ready to play its institutional role in the procedure set out in the Treaty, and in particular to give its opinion if and when consulted by the European Council.

The EU’s governance can be swiftly improved by using the potential of the current Treaties to the full, in particular when it comes to enhancing the Union’s capacity to act swiftly and efficiently by moving from unanimity to qualified majority voting in Council whenever possible.
The Commission made recommendations to activate the ‘passerelle clauses’ that would allow the shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting in four Communications in 2018 and 2019, notably in the areas of energy, taxation and important aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. None of them was taken forward by the Council.

We need to find ways together to address the concerns of Member States about the transition from unanimity to qualified majority voting. I am fully committed continue engaging with Member States to move this agenda forward to enhance Europe’s capacity to act.
Another area where we could move from unanimity to qualified majority, even without amending the Treaties is enlargement. As mentioned by the Commission Communication on pre-enlargement reforms and policy reviews, while the need for unanimity for admitting a new Member State is fully justified, the possibility of empowering the Council to decide by qualified majority could be explored for certain interim steps of the enlargement process.

Here below the transcript of the questions and asnwers during the hearing:

Reinier Van Lanschot (Verts/ALE). – Mr Šefčovič, you recently said that EU reforms are inevitable to make us ready for a larger Union, and I agree. There are three things that I want to ask you to make sure that adding new Member States forges the EU into the world's best democracy.

Firstly, we need to be able to act quickly in times of war. So what is your concrete plan, together with Ms Kallas and Ms Kos, to move from unanimity to qualified majority in foreign policy and enlargement?

Secondly, European democracy is not yet fit for substantial enlargement. Will you ensure the preenlargement policy reviews include the right of this Parliament to propose laws and make our elections truly European with transnational lists?

Thirdly, the Parliament demanded Treaty change more than a year ago. This is the only way to make a Union of 500 million people work. Will you fight with us to ensure the Polish Council Presidency organises a vote to open the treaties?

Maroš Šefčovič, Commissioner-designate. – Thank you very much, Mr Van Lanschot. So let's take them one by one.
If it comes to the preparedness of the EU and the candidate countries for the enlargement, as I said, there will be a huge political effort and detailed work done in the form of the policy reviews, and this would be as a matter of priority, done very quickly. And I know that the bulk of work will be done within the first 100 days of the Commission.

If it comes to use of QMV, there you would probably recall that the European Commission already, if I recall correctly, in 2019, proposed that especially in the area of energy, in the area of enlargement, and in the area of taxation, that we can use the passerelle clauses and go from the unanimity to the QMV. This was not adopted and accepted by the Council, but we stand by that proposal.

If it comes to the Treaty change as a whole, now we will have in a couple of days the new President of the European Council, António Costa, becoming the President of the European Council. Let's see how he will approach this question, because, as you know, we've always been saying that we are ready to support the Treaty changes if it would make our European Union work more efficiently, more swiftly and in a speedier manner. And we clearly stand behind it as a College, and Ursula von der Leyen, our President, also included into the Political Guidelines.

If it comes to the electoral law, this would be with Commissioner McGrath. But my advice here is to start as quickly as possible, because the five years with a file like this will pass very, very quickly.

Sandro Gozi (Renew). – Thank you Commissioner-designate, Ursula von der Leyen before being elected by this Parliament committed in writing and in her speech on Treaty reform. Then this issue got lost in translation because in none of the mission letters, the Treaty revision issue is mentioned. My first question is are you, the Commission, in charge of Treaty revision?

My second question is, in the light of your answer, you mentioned the President to the European Council. You say that the Commission is not an honest broker. Sorry, Commissioner-designate, the Commission has the right of initiative under Article 48 to change the Treaty. So, in your view, what are the indispensable reforms that we must absolutely do to adopt before enlarging? And I would like you to be precise on this.

Last question is that you are in charge of trade and institutional relations with the UK. I would like you to take the commitment to appear before the UK delegation, before each meeting of the Partnership and Parliamentary Committee.

Maroš Šefčovič, Commissioner-designate. – Thank you Sandro. Quite a long to-do list, but I appreciate that.
Now if it comes, if it comes to Treaty reform, I think that, of course, this is such an important element that this is a horizontal priority for all of us. But I think once this issue is very much dependent on the European Council. So this issue will be dealt with directly by the President of the European Commission and her closest team, and of course, me as a prospective representative of the Commission in the General Affairs Council. I will be the one who will be discussing these issues with the Europe minister. You've been in that club. So you know how it works there.
If it comes to the reforms, which I consider to be absolutely indispensable, I think that if I have to say or mention one, I think that our enlargement process, which is based on 35 negotiating chapters, is extremely heavy. I fully understand that the Member States want to have a unanimous right to decide on opening the negotiations, but also at closing them, because we are admitting new members in our family. But do we need to have a unanimity decision before opening and before closing of every chapter? So if I just calculate from top of my head, 35 times two is 70 plus two additional vetoes, so we have 72 vetoes until you kind of admit somebody to the European Union,
I think that is something which I think should be treated as a political decision at the beginning and at the end. But I would say as a technical assessment on the chapters where I think that we can easily rely on the QMV. But as I said, this is very much in the hands of the of the EU Member States. I know that some are thinking like that, but the discussion would still need to be made and I believe that our policy review will contribute to that.
And of course, before partnership or joint committee meetings, I will be very happy to come to see your parliamentary assembly.

Salvatore De Meo (PPE). – Signor Commissario, Lei nelle risposte a domanda scritta ha evidenziato che la governance dell'Unione europea può essere rapidamente migliorata sfruttando meglio gli attuali trattati, in particolare attivando le clausole passerella che consentirebbero il passaggio dal voto all'unanimità a quello a maggioranza qualificata in alcuni ambiti. Purtroppo, come Lei ben sa, le quattro raccomandazioni della Commissione su questo punto sono rimaste inascoltate.

Allora Le chiedo: come intende favorire un riscontro da parte del Consiglio? Come potrebbe, a suo parere, il Parlamento aiutare concretamente la Commissione a rispondere alle preoccupazioni degli Stati membri per questo passaggio, che in realtà serve per migliorare la capacità di azione della nostra Unione europea?

Infine, non pensa che sia opportuno almeno dare un riscontro e avviare una discussione sulla proposta di modifica dei trattati che, come Lei ben sa, è il frutto di quello che è stato un giudizio dei cittadini nella Conferenza sul futuro dell'Europa?

Maroš Šefčovič, Commissioner-designate. – Thank you very much, Mr De Meo. First and foremost, thank you very much for referring to the Conference on the Future of Europe, because in this particular regard, I think our both institutions work together in exemplary, positive manner. And many of us spent a lot of valuable time with the citizens working in ten working groups. My honour and privilege was to lead the working group on health. And I know that this was innovative, that brought a lot of new elements into our discussion. And based on that experience, first and foremost, we introduced the citizens panels, which are bringing new approach and new attitudes to how we
can better legislate in the future.
And secondly, 95 % of the recommendations, we put into the Commission work programme, and we clearly flagged that this comes from the citizens, which I think was very important, also the response mechanism, to them.
Coming back to the question of the QMV and the the Treaty change, we, of course, would react immediately if and when consulted by the European Council. So that's the procedure. That's how the Treaties provide us with the framework which have to respect and let's see how the new leadership of the European Council would approach this issue. And of course, we Commission as an honest broker, will be always very happy to facilitate the discussion between the members of the AFCO and the General Affairs Council or the Presidencies, as I tried to do it on different separate files, to have, I would say, the discussion which could cover this topic again, so I would say also that both sides, both arms of the co-legislators would understand each other even better.

Nikolas Farantouris (The Left). – Good afternoon, Mr Commissioner‑designate. I would insist on the future of Europe and the treaty reform, and it seems that both the Commission and the Council have forgotten the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe, which asked for more democratic participation, more transparency, more accountability, and more social cohesion – concrete steps towards social cohesion policies.

We also know that the European Council is dragging its feet as regards treaty change, and at the same time the Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's stance is highly vague and problematic in this respect. She hasn't clarified the next steps. So now, Mr Commissioner‑designate, how do you intend to keep the debate on the future of Europe alive within and between the European institutions? Secondly, how do you intend to bring EU law-making and decision-making closer to national parliaments and the civil society in the Member States? Thank you.

Maroš Šefčovič, Commissioner-designate. – Thank you very much, Mr Farantouris, also for your
questions. I think if it comes to to the goals to make sure that our European Union is more democratic, more transparent, with a stronger social cohesion, I think that's the ambition which we clearly share and for which we are really working very hard. And I think over the last period, we clearly demonstrated it by very important measures. Let me just for the brevity of time, mention one and this is SURE, and we managed to do it within the framework of the current Treaty.

So what I want to say for the social cohesion, for very important measures in the area of sustainability, human rights, but also in the area of enlargement, I think that we should, of course, seek a better framework for our work, but at the same time, not to be limited by perceived constraints of the current Treaties, because we have demonstrated that a lot can be done. So I would see these two tracks as parallel. Let's do the best for Europe. Let's be well prepared for enlargement. Let's use all the instruments we have with creativity we demonstrated over this period and at the same time, let's see how we can continue this discussion about the Treaty change, where we of course need the support of the Member States, we need clear position of the of the European Council. And if in any way we can be forthcoming in facilitating such a discussion, I will be very happy to do that.
Coming back to the position of the President of the European Commission, I think she was crystal clear. She said, we are ready to support any Treaty change which would make our union function better, more efficiently. And I think it's a very strong statement.

Gabriele Bischoff (S&D). – Mr Commissioner-designate Šefčovič, you have heard from many political sides that the reform of the Treaties is of utmost importance for this House and we were the motor on this Conference on the Future of Europe. But also you have seen our comprehensive report here.

We expect also to get some more concrete information from you. What can be done to get out of the deadlock? You described it a lot, but what role can the Commission play and what is discussed in the Commission? Because as you indeed said, Ursula von der Leyen emphasised it in her State of the Union and also in the Political Guidelines.
But let me be also a bit more specific, or ask you for some specific answers regarding the passerelle.

We have the Draghi report and also there it highlights the existential challenge to European competitiveness and calls for an extension of qualified majority voting in more policy areas, including also through the passerelle. What could be done concretely to overcome the problems of the passerelle, why it is not used yet?

Maroš Šefčovič, Commissioner-designate. – Thank you very much, Ms Bischoff, for this question. The first, what I would underscore once again, we also should position ourselves and we must also see the enlargement as a catalyst for progress on our capacity to act. I think that is not disputed by anyone. This very much reflects also the atmosphere in the General Affairs Council. And, at the same time, you would also hear back from these Member States, and you will hear it from me once again, that we shouldn't take the enlargement process to be a hostage to the lack of the progress on the Treaty change discussion.

I believe that it will kind of push us into the direction that we have to have progress on both sides and to get to that level. I know that I am repeating myself, but I think for us, it's impossible to act without having the European Council position very clear. When and if we are consulted, of course we would immediately react. We said that we are supportive of the Treaty change, we made a proposal, in official Commission communication for the passerelle in concrete areas. I was just telling you how we see the negotiations on the chapters if it comes to the enlargement, and we are very much inspired by the report of Mr Draghi, because we know that competitiveness also is very
much linked on our ability to act swiftly and to act quickly.

So this would be, of course, the issue, and we can bring it, after discussing with the Presidency, back to the General Affairs Council to see how the Draghi report, how the enlargement discussions would impact also discussion on eventual Treaty change or better use of passerelle. But I also have a high hope in incoming President of the European Council, António Costa.

ORIGINAL IN ITALIAN HERE

EURACTIV Italy interviewed Lukas Mandl, MEP of the European People's Party, president of the Austrian section of the European Union of Federalists, recently appointed president of the Spinelli Group, which brings together federalist MEPs.

What are the main objectives of the Spinelli Group in this legislature?

I can only speak for the beginning of the legislature, since, as you know, we have a rotation system for the chairmanship of the federalist parliamentary group called the Spinelli Group. It is an honour, but first and foremost it is a mission to chair this Group. The objective can only be the reform of the European Union. Thinking big is what we ask of the members of the Spinelli Group. And what we recommend to our colleagues in the European Parliament, as well as to all other EU institutions, including the Member States. To think big, to have more leadership, a more visionary approach to achieving EU reform.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that we have now passed the longest period in the history of the European Union without a new treaty. The Lisbon Treaty was the last one in 2008. We had no reform while the world was changing so much. We also have the longest period in EU history without a new accession. The last one was more than 10 years ago, that of Croatia in 2013. But one country, the United Kingdom, has left the EU. There are at least two facts, two figures - no treaty reform and no membership for the longest period - that must encourage us to visionary leadership to work on EU reform.

Leadership means serving. Leadership also comes with responsibility. The term ‘responsibility’ includes the word ‘respond’. To be able to respond to people's concerns. Because people's concerns are present in every single member state. Maybe in different ways, but in every member state there are concerns about the EU. In the capitals of the member states, in the governments of the member states, there is a risk assessment that leads to fears about treaty reform. Because there is fear that the situation will get worse. But fear is never a good attitude to deal with any kind of activity. We have to overcome this fear. We must take into account the risk assessment and work so that the situation does not get worse, but better.

Last but not least, President Emmanuel Macron is completely right when he says that the EU can also die. Memento Mori (remember you must die) is an absolute pillar of European intellectual history. And of course it also applies to the EU itself. Stating this does not mean wanting it, but on the contrary it means demanding a serious approach, as I have just tried to emphasise. What I really appreciate about the Spinelli group is that we draw attention to these main tasks and work together in a multi-party and transnational way. This will also be central to the success of the Spinelli Group.

After two and a half years of war in Europe, the EU is still far from a European defence. We still pay twice as much for energy as the US and China. According to the Letta and Draghi reports we are 800 billion investment short (20% must be public) needed to implement green and digital transitions and ensure a European defence. How can the EU overcome this?

The Letta and Draghi reports provide us with an excellent outline of the challenges and possible tools to solve the problems. Both reports can also be part of the Spinelli Group's policies for this term. Secondly, we must not stop halfway. I have a lot of confidence and that is why I voted for Ursula von der Leyen again for a second term. I know and take the concerns of the people very seriously, because I have to represent the citizens. I voted for her again to ensure stability and because I believe she will not stop halfway when it comes to defence. As you have just pointed out, we must continue to strengthen Europe's defence capabilities - which, as you know, we started with the war of aggression against Russia. We must continue to do so. For the first time we will have a defence commissioner. At the very first meeting of the Spinelli Council, several members of various groups expressed the wish to invite the new Defence Commissioner, Andrius Kubilius, to one of the first meetings of the Spinelli Group at the beginning of the mandate. And in all the other areas you have just mentioned, leadership and responsibility, also understood as responsiveness, will be important. This is what the Spinelli Group will recommend and also politically demand from the EU institutions.

Yesterday the patriots had the upper hand, voting amendments to the budget resolution with the EPP and then voting against the whole resolution with the S&D and the Greens. Since the Spinelli Group includes MEPs from all pro-European parties, can it play a role in helping Ursula's pro-European majority to remain united and keep the nationalist groups at bay?

Yesterday's less than pro-European behaviour was not the vote on transparency and accountability of humanitarian aid and funding in the Palestinian territories. Because that was the issue. It is a clear pro-European approach to transparency and careful handling of taxpayers' money. The problem with not being very pro-European was to vote against the report in its entirety. This should not have happened. But I respect this democratic result and emphasise it. There is no doubt that the European People's Party is pro-European - but I don't really like the expression because there is no possibility of being anti-European; that would be schizophrenic. But so are the other groups represented in the Spinelli group, precisely because of their pro-European approach. Of course, the Spinelli group is part of the glue that unites the pro-European groups. It does not matter that the vote in the European Parliament can never be predicted in its entirety. Voting dynamics are part of parliamentarianism and those who respect democracy also respect these voting dynamics.

The Spinelli Group played an important role in the drafting of the proposal for treaty reform approved by the European Parliament in November 2023. Are you going to relaunch this initiative to put pressure on the European Council to convene a Convention? What can we learn from the fact that the European Council did not even put Parliament's Treaty reform proposal on the agenda? Is Parliament's power of initiative to amend the Treaties jeopardised or at risk by the European Council's ignoring Article 48 TEU?

I think we have to do both at the same time. On the one hand, we have to think big and demand leadership and a visionary approach. On the other hand, we have to deal with the existing structures, which do not grant the European Parliament the power that would be appropriate for a directly elected Parliament. Of course we must ask the governments of the member states to convene a Convention. But we must also ask them what they are waiting for. That is, what else needs to happen to start the EU reform process, which will take many years anyway. On the other hand, we have to take seriously the risk assessment of member state governments and address their concerns to try to persuade them. And never stop talking - that is the speciality of parliamentarians. This is what we should also do vis-à-vis Member State governments to overcome their fear. Fear is never a good counsellor. Overcoming fear and having a visionary approach to the Convention will be our recommendation.

How can we overcome the fear of the risk of failure, considering the outcome of 2005 on the Constitutional Treaty (when referendums in France and the Netherlands voted against ratification and caused the Constitutional Treaty to fail, even though other referendums were in favour and the majority of European citizens who voted in a referendum were in favour of ratification)? How can we possibly avoid a similar fate for the next treaty reform?

I believe that it cannot be 100% avoided. But the example of 2005 and the subsequent Lisbon Treaty shows that the EU is capable of standing up if it is forced to do so. The Lisbon Treaty would not have been successful without the problem of creating a European Constitution. We keep running. The positive, constructive, visionary and unifying approach has always won in the end. This does not mean that Macron is wrong. He is right: the EU can also fail. But as long as we keep running, we will not let it fail. The example of 2005 is negative. But it is also positive because it shows that there is always meaning and significance in continuing to run, to try and to get back up after falling.

A United States of Europe? Here's What Could Happen Next! Could the EU become a true federation, like the USA, with shared powers and a common army? We break down the options the EU faces and what it means for Europe's future.

Video produced by the EU Made Simple, the YouTube Channel with more 134.000 followers until today. Exists also other channels in national language:

• EU Leicht Germacht
• L'UE Simplifiée
• Η ΕΕ ΑΠΛΑ
• UE in modo semplice
• A UE Simplificada
• La UE Màs Simple

The video is avaiable in English (subtitled), German, Greece, Italian, Romanian, Polish and French. Soon the video it will be avaiable also in Portuguese.

Sunday 20 October, 9.00-12.30 | “Sa Manifattura” Viale Regina Margherita n. 33

ore 9.00-11.30

The EU and the challenge of becoming a federal union

Chaired, introduced and concluded by Valentina Usai (MFE Cagliari)

• The European Union and the challenge of having a Constitution, Giulia Rossolillo, Vice President UEF, MFE Pavia
• The distribution of competences in the Federal Union, Paolo Ponzano, European Movement Italy
• Federalist action and civil society involvement: a territorial approach for the realisation of the European Federation, Gabriele Casano, GFE Torino

Ore 11.40

• Kantian Federalism: A Union of Different Peoples, Commemoration of Immanuel Kant on the 300th anniversary of his birth. Report by Angela Taraborrelli (University of Cagliari and European Consortium for Political Research - Kantian Standing Group)

Ore 12.00

• Conclusions by Raimondo Cagiano, National Coordinator of the Debate Office of MFE

October 18, 2024

The meeting of the European Council on 17 October in Brussels focused mostly on the dramatic international situation including the conflict in Ukraine - highlighted by the presence of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy - and the escalating conflict in the Middle East, in particular the dangerous situation in Lebanon and its potential consequences.

An important point of this EUCO was to initiate the debate on the topic of strengthening European competitiveness, a discussion based on the reports by Enrico Letta “Much more than a market” and Mario Draghi “The future of European competitiveness”. The European leaders called on the member states and institutions “to take work forward to meet the challenges identified in the reports” and they will continue the debate at the informal EUCO taking place in November. 

However, the Union of European Federalists (UEF) regrets to note that no mention of Treaty Reforms was included in the European Council’s Conclusions. Despite institutional reforms being necessary to address the root causes of the EU's economic challenges, as highlighted in the reports by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi, they were absent from the final Conclusions.

The UEF recalls that citizens provided a clear mandate to the European institutions for urgent EU Treaty reform following the Conference on the Future of Europe, which concluded in 2022. In November 2023, in response to this mandate, the European Parliament initiated the procedure under Article 48(2) of the Treaty on European Union and adopted its proposal to amend the Treaties.

After sending letters to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Charles Michel, and the heads of EU Member States, alongside our sections and partners from the Spinelli Group, European Movement International (EMI), and the Young European Federalists (JEF Europe), the UEF expresses deep concern over the European Council’s lack of action. “The battle with the European Council still remains. We have already sent two letters to Charles Michel (President of the European Council) who replied ‘yes, don't forget, we started the discussion as part of the European Council's strategic agenda’. This is fine, but we have to put it on the agenda for a decision.” said Domenec Ruiz Devesa, former MEP and UEF President, “As UEF we should now look to the new President of the European Council, Antonio Costa, to relaunch this issue in a few months' time.”

This inaction is particularly troubling given the urgent context of upcoming EU enlargement(s), and the importance of the fourth Copenhagen Criterion, which addresses the EU's preparedness for new member states' accession and the potential need for internal reforms: “Enlargement cannot be unconditional. It must go hand in hand with the deepening of political union” concludes Domenec Ruiz Devesa.

The UEF reiterates its call for a real consideration of Treaty Reforms by the European Council and expresses the importance of aligning the Council’s Conclusions with the aspirations of citizens. 

RELATED LINKS

• Letter to Charles Michel, President of the European Council requesting to include in the Agenda of the European Council of 14-15 December 2023 the discussion on the European Parliament position on proposals for the amendment to the Treaties
• Letter to Charles Michel, President of the EU Council from UEF, EMI, The Spinelli Group and JEF with a memorandum on the Treaty revision procedures
• Letters sent by UEF or its National sections or JEF Europe to the members of the European Council in view of the EUCO meeting of 21-22 March 2024