The First Steps towards EU Federalisation?
EU-proponents are Pushing for a Much More Ambitious Union
by Julien Yvon
The past month has seen a plethora of nationalist waves. The election of Javier Milei as president of Argentina, the return of Geert Wilders’ Freedom party as the largest party in the Dutch parliament and a flurry of anti-migrant riots across France and Ireland.
Meanwhile, the Brussels pendulum has swung in the opposite way. On the day of the Dutch election, the EU parliament approved the ‘Report on proposals of the European Parliament for the amendment of the Treaties’ – a proposal which Polish Conservative MEP Jacek Saryusz-Wolski described as the start of a creation of “a dystopian superstate that degrades member countries to the status of regions.”
The proposal itself was put together by the Constitutional Affairs Committee and then brought before the EU parliament by the so-called ‘Verhofstadt Group’ – a circle of MEPs led by Eurofederalist Guy Verhofstadt, mostly deriving from the Liberal Renew group. However, the vote was carried over the line by the more globalist-minded MEPs of the EPP and S&D groups. Overall, 609 votes were cast; 291 approved, 274 disapproved, and 44 abstained.
Proponents of the report have stated that drastic reforms were imperative if the EU were to cope with future crises and a possible enlargement to 30+ member states. Guy Verhofstadt himself claimed that the current vetoing rights of member states amounted to “blackmail” – specifically pointing to Viktor Orban’s conservative government that had previously utilised its veto to block key legislation on migration and aid to Ukraine. The German Social Democrat Gabrielle Bischoff reiterated Verhofstadt’s point by underlining the inefficiency of the current veto system which she claimed rendered the EU indecisive.
As expected, the bill has received ardent criticism from across the continent. The Polish conservative government has already tabled a resolution that would oppose any EU treaty changes, stating that proposed modifications would “serve the interest of the EU’s two biggest nations” and “fundamentally reduce Polish sovereignty”. Meanwhile, Slovakia’s left-wing-nationalist government has vowed to “put Slovakia first” when it comes to any attempt to abolish national veto rights.
So what clauses does the controversial proposal actually contain? As previously mentioned, the proposed treaty changes would spell an end to unanimous voting. This measure would certainly reduce the number of blocked legislations. However, many would argue that this would result in the imposition of policy on recalcitrant states that are contrary to their vital interests. A majority of countries with ultra-liberal economic models, for example, could impose deflationary measures and privatisation initiatives upon more state-centric economies such as France.
The EU commission would be transformed into an EU Executive. The EU president would henceforth be nominated by the EU parliament (as opposed to the European Council) and be given the right to choose the executive’s members. The head of each respective member state would thus lose their right to nominate commission members who, in theory, defended their national interest. Instead, the European parliament would be handed more legislative powers.
Under the new proposals, the EU’s sphere of influence would be greatly enlarged. Indeed, the trans-nationalist institution’s prerogative would be stretched to the key policy areas of “cross-border health threats”, “sexual and reproductive health and rights”, public health, civil protection, industry and education. These policy areas are currently the exclusive responsibility of the respective states. If the bill were to pass, however, these competences would be transferred to the EU executive and parliament.
The report itself utilises the usual jargon of “global solutions for global problems” when recommending the establishment of sectors of ‘shared competences’. These sectors include energy, foreign affairs, exterior security, defence, cross-border infrastructure and external border policy. Hidden under the guise of ‘common policy’, the EU Executive would essentially grant itself the jurisdiction to impose a uniform policy across the continent.
State aid rules would also be further reinforced. According to the report, all state subsidies, foreign investments, and commercial negotiations with non-member states would have to be presented before the EU Executive for approval. The report has also promised to “strengthen” the “Union’s common immigration policy”, handing the EU Executive more powers to do so.
The first steps towards an EU army have also been taken. Indeed, national defence policy would be further integrated into the Union’s common policy, under a newly-established “defence union”, according to the report. The programme includes shared technological and military information as well as common military drills and units. The proposal also explicitly states that all military units would be “under the operational command of the union”.
Consequently, a centralised European federalism would be strengthened to the detriment of the nation state.
The proposal has caused a rift within the Union. Political figures whom we traditionally perceived as ‘Euro-fanatics’ have publicly voiced their opposition to the bill. Former president of the European Council Donald Tusk stated that the proposal represented “the stupidest method” to “fix Europe” and fell into the naïve “Euroenthusiasm,” which led to Brexit. Note that this was the man who once said that there was a “special place in hell” for all those who supported leaving the EU. Meanwhile, the EU’s Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, reiterated the need to protect the sovereignty of national borders, having recently stood on an anti-migrant platform for the French presidential primaries.
In an ever-changing multi-polar world, battle has commenced within the EU. The Russo-Ukrainian conflict, and the ensuing energy crisis, has accelerated the autonomist ambitions of some EU leaders such as Emmanuel Macron. The proposed changes to the EU treaties emphasise a desire for a strengthened, centralised EU state with an independent policy on energy, industry, and defence. The nation state has often been seen as an obstacle and an inefficient burden for the federal project. The autonomists of the EU parliament continue to lock horns with not just the nationalists but also the ‘Atlantists’ who continue to look westwards, across the Atlantic for alliance and policy inspiration.
The implementation of the treaty changes has many more obstacles to face. For now, member states still have their right to veto, and many would suspect that the likes of Poland and Hungary will oppose the measures. Its victory in the EU parliament is significant, however. It highlights that the EU federalist dream, once proclaimed a Brexiteer’s fantasy, is now the mainstream opinion in Brussels.