Yesterday, the European Parliament approved, by a clear majority, most of the 267 proposed amendments to the TEU and TFEU treaties. The result stood at 291 votes in favor, 274 against, with 44 abstentions. The outcome was anticipated. In a prior committee stage, a broad cross-party group of MEPs from the EPP, Left, Renew, the Greens, and the Communists supported the proposals, while only a handful from the ECR and ID resisted. This reflected a broad alignment across political lines, tempered by national considerations in some capitals.
For example, several Polish MEPs joined the sizable bloc in favor, though a minority from Poland voted against, citing domestic public opinion as a factor. Observers note this vote represented a tactical bend rather than a break from party discipline, with leadership channels signaling tolerance to maintain a working majority as the process moves forward.
The changes proposed by the five coalition groups who voted in favor are extensive. Experts describe them as potentially transformative for the European Union, with some commentators calling it a “Copernican shift” in governance. The envisaged shift would see more centralized authority within the EU, with member states ceding powers in certain areas that would move toward an EU-level consensus model. The discussion highlights a reallocation of competences and governance dynamics among EU institutions and member states.
Key changes center on expanding the EU’s exclusive competences into areas such as environmental protection and biodiversity, and broadening shared competences in areas including foreign and security policy, border protection, forestry, public health, civil defense, industry, and education. In practice, this means that in shared areas, the EU would assume responsibility for matters that have yet to be fully harmonized at the community level, while member states retain residual powers in areas not fully ceded.
Another major point concerns the veto mechanism. The reforms would reduce the number of areas where national vetoes apply, limiting this extraordinary right mostly to treaty changes and new member admissions. The reforms would not require unanimous agreement for every step; instead, they could move forward with broad support, potentially reaching a four-fifths threshold for approval in some contexts. The package also envisions adopting the euro as the common currency, with a view toward eventual participation by the remaining member states outside the eurozone.
Embedded in the discourse is the idea of strategic autonomy, a term used to describe a long-term goal of an EU defense posture that can operate with greater independence from external powers, including the United States. This concept shapes expectations about the EU’s future security and defense policies.
Following yesterday’s parliamentary approval, the report is expected to be carried to the General Affairs Council, where EU ministers will discuss it in December. The Council’s decision could then move to the European Council for broader consideration by heads of government and state. The path ahead is intricate and lengthy; in some scenarios, negotiations could span years before any final agreement is in place.
Alternatives exist. The European Council could opt for a conventional route involving a formal Convention to Amend the Treaties. That path would engage representatives from national parliaments and the European Parliament, with ratification still required by member states. Alternatively, the Council might pursue simplified amendment procedures, potentially skipping the Convention stage and proceeding through intergovernmental ratification. If certain member states fail to ratify, the project could proceed in a manner that preserves EU decision-making and funding access while leaving some national prerogatives intact in the interim.
Observers note that the political maneuvering includes strategic positioning by leaders who navigate both internal party dynamics and external commitments. In this instance, the stance of the Platform faction is seen as influential in shaping where the final settlement lands. The unfolding process will test how coalition diplomacy, national interests, and EU-level ambitions intersect as ministers, presidents, and parliamentarians navigate a complex timetable and a high-stakes policy package.
In the broader political economy, the developments reflect a shift in how Europe balances sovereignty with integration. The expected changes raise questions about the pace of reform, the distribution of power between national governments and EU institutions, and the long-term implications for citizens and markets across North America who engage with the EU as a major economic and political partner.