The Perspective of the Eastern European Countries on the Future of Europe

The Interregional Conference in Bucharest brought together key stakeholders to address EU enlargement, the rule of law, competitiveness, federalist action, and the recent inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria in the Schengen area. The conference underscored the critical role of the rule of law as the backbone of democracy, with Alin Orgoan emphasizing Romania’s need to regain public trust following the annulment of presidential votes by its Constitutional Court. He also highlighted Malta’s ongoing challenges with judicial efficiency and the impact of the European Court of Justice’s rulings on judicial appointments.

EU Digital Ambassadors Razvan Petri and Vlad Adamescu, from ‘Politica la Minut’, discussed the need for more public participation among the youth and the transformative impact of the Erasmus program. They underscored the necessity of making Erasmus more accessible and the role of digital platforms in educating and informing the European public.

Dacian Cioloș discussed the renewed focus on EU enlargement, driven partly by Russian aggression and the urgent need for reconstruction in Ukraine. He noted the overall growing political and public acceptance of enlargement despite rising anti-EU sentiments. Cioloș stressed the need for progressive integration, suggesting that member states be allowed access to policies upon completing negotiation chapters, to facilitate smoother integration processes.

The conference also highlighted the disparities in educational funding across EU states, advocating for increased EU funds for economic development and making Erasmus more accessible to financially struggling students, particularly in expensive cities. Alin Orgoan suggested this as part of a broader strategy to ensure that candidate countries embrace EU principles and are adequately prepared for integration.

Furthermore, the need to update EU Treaties was a recurring theme, with discussions focusing on how the current treaties are outdated and not reflective of global changes. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and Laura Codruța Kövesi were cited as exemplary models of upholding the rule of law within the EU framework.

The conference concluded with calls for institutional reform within the EU to enhance decision-making processes. The current unanimity requirement was criticized for blocking progress, with suggestions for a more flexible approach. The importance of resource management was also noted, with a specific call to exploit resources like graphite in Romania and implement solutions from reports by prominent EU figures like Draghi and Letta.

Conclusions: The Interregional Conference in Bucharest highlighted the complexities of EU enlargement, the indispensable role of the rule of law, and the urgent need for institutional reform to tackle current geopolitical and economic challenges. Key action points include developing a robust mechanism for integration, increasing economic support, and redefining EU institutions to improve governance.

Listen here the recording of the event

Introduction by Catherine Vieilledent, Sec Gal UEF Groupe Europe
Today, we review 3 founding reports that have been presented this year, each with a different stress: one centered on European competitiveness (a complex, multifaceted concept), the other on leveraging the Single Market, the third on European defense.

All converge on a common diagnosis: the EU is losing ground worldwide and must urgently equip itself to address the challenges of a non-cooperative international environment, with traditional allies becoming economic rivals, neighbours turning into war mongers, third countries rallying to challenge the existing global status quo.

Under such changed circumstances, the EU’s strategic autonomy is an urgent and imperative task and the huge investment gap must be bridged (800 billion euros yearly) in order to deal with the green and digital transitions and to construct a credible defense. Together the 3 reports form an immense roadmap for the European Union and a renewed agenda for Ursula von der Leyen’s 2019 “geopolitical Commission”, now to grow into a geopolitical Union.
The 3 reports converge on the need to align EU policies like trade, competition, the fiscal union, the capital market by 2026, foreign and security policy in order to construct our strategic autonomy and remedy our dependencies. Most pressing is the need to unlock the EU’s financial capacity, settle the protracted debate on a sizeable European budget, with own resources, on a common debt or a deeper financialization of European savings with pension funds. The call is for the EU to get ready: despite its sizeable population and big, prosperous market, Europe lacks scale because it is fragmented; it lacks speed, due to poor governance and coordination, and it lacks focus because it is not united and it is not prepared.

The analysis may be cruel but on the other, it is a call for bold action. There is no proposed regression on decarbonation as key to cheaper energy, economic growth and a path towards restoring EU competitiveness. European defense industry, though highly competitive, must urgently address the need for aggregation and integration of capacities. Accelerated interconnectivity of energy, transport, telecoms and data in the Single Market, sectors long forgotten because they were deemed strategic, must unlock national markets that have become straightjackets: the EU today must respond to the challenge of continental scale markets, and repair fragmentation and underinvestment.

The reports make a very strong case for more unity, more cohesion in a better Union. They show the way towards the sovereign and democratic Federation that the Union of European Federalists, a supranational, non-governmental political organization has committed to since 1946. I am the Secretary Gal of UEF Group Europe, co-organiser
of this event as a multinational section of UEF created in the institutions for EU officials and staff in the 1970s and I am proud, also on behalf of UEF, to welcome our 4 distinguished speakers at this critical juncture in European history.

Brussels, November 21, 2024

European Parliament's Major Pro-European Political Groups agree to a Legislature Pact

The Union of European Federalists (UEF) is pleased that three of the largest political groups of the European Parliament—the European People’s Party (EPP), the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), and Renew Europe (RE)— have agreed on a cooperation platform for the 10th legislative term.

The agreement, signed by Manfred Weber (Chair EPP), Iratxe García Pérez (Chair S&D), and Valérie Hayer (Chair Renew Europe), pledges for a collaborative work to deliver on an ambitious reform agenda aligned with the Political Guidelines outlined by the European Commission President on 18 July 2024.

This alliance directly answers the urgent call made by the UEF following the European Elections. The UEF has strongly advocated for all democratic and pro-European forces to unite in the European Parliament to reinforce European unity in the context of rising Eurosceptic and Europhobic far-right political parties, including by agreeing to a Legislature Pact.

Treaty Reforms as fundamental for a stronger Europe

Furthermore, The UEF takes note that the agreement stresses the importance of reforming the Union by saying that “we commit to advance necessary reforms, including Treaty changes, towards ‘an ever closer union’”.

“This is a truly historic step in the European political system: the first written coalition agreement among political groups at the EU level” said Domènec Ruiz Devesa, former MEP and President of the UEF.

The next step: The European Council

As agreed in the resolution on Building consensus for Treaty change at the recent Federal Committee in Budapest (16 November), the UEF denounces that the Presidency of the European Council has so far ignored the request of the European Parliament to put the convening of a Convention for the reform of the Treaties on the agenda, and calls on the European Parliament, also on the basis of the said Cooperation Platform to continue the battle begun in the previous parliamentary term for the opening of a Convention to reform the Treaties ex art. 48, in particular by adopting a Plenary Resolution recalling the obligations of the European Council on the matter.

A topic that isn't new to our channel is looking towards the future. Now, with an unpredictable factor in the United States, we are thinking about their future more than ever. Naturally, we have to cover such sentiments on a livestream. And of course we won't do it alone; join us in our conversation with MEP Lukas Mandl (EPP) and listen to his views on topics like the war in Ukraine, the US-EU relationship, and European Integration! What do our politicians think about Federalism? What does the EU's relationship with the US look like with a Trump presidency?

Guest: MEP Lukas Mandl (EPP), President of the Spinelli Group (https://thespinelligroup.eu)

Host: Elliot Baudeweyns

Before starting the political event, two video messages were shared by the actual Chair of the Spinelli Group Lukas Mandl and by the former Chair of the SG, Daniel Freund.

Watch here the video by Daniel Freund

Listen here the AUDIO PODCAST of debate

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.