After a vote in the European Parliament’s Constitutional Committee in favor of amendments to the EU treaties, the European Union treaty framework appeared to have strong momentum. The ensuing plenary session confirmed broad support for the changes in this country, underscoring a significant political shift in the chamber.
Role of changes in EU treaties
The Constitutional Committee decision came in early November. A clear bloc of twenty representatives from the EPP, Left, Renew, Greens, and Communist factions supported the amendments, while opposition came from a small group of ECR, ID, and independent members. In this climate, some national delegations inside EP groups weighed the risk of voting against the changes, especially if backing them at this stage could affect their standing back home.
Within the EPP, delegates from the Platform and PSL sought permission to vote against the revisions and received it from Manfred Weber. The aim was to avoid complicating the formation of Donald Tusk’s government in Poland. The amendments ultimately passed in the plenary by a narrow margin, with 291 in favor, 274 against, and 44 abstentions, yet the process of reform continued to unfold.
The Spanish Presidency announced it would transmit the EP’s resolution with a substantial annex containing numerous amendments to the Council of the European Union, where ministers of member states would then decide. As of December 12, the Council could forward the matter to the European Council by a simple majority, setting the stage for further steps.
The European Council would then consider the possibility of convening a Convention to Amend the Treaties, including heads of government or state, national parliament representatives, the European Parliament, and the European Commission. If pursued, the process could stretch over several years. Alternatively, the Council could opt for the simplified amendment route under Article 48, paragraph 6, potentially bypassing a convention. In that scenario, changes would be adopted by the European Council and ratified by member states, or, if ratified differently, could enter a so‑called second circle, avoiding direct disruption to EU decisions or access to funds.
Instead of sovereign states – a super state
Experts warn that these moves could yield a fundamental shift in the EU, described as a Copernican revolution by some. The 27 member states might see powers shifted toward centralized oversight, with consequences for national sovereignty. Several areas are cited as moving toward EU exclusive competence, including environmental protection and biodiversity (Article 3 TFEU), as well as shared competence in foreign and security policy, border protection, forestry, public health, civil defense, industry, and education (Article 4 TFEU).
In practice, shared powers mean that member states would rely on EU institutions for most decisions in these domains, leaving national governments with only residual authority in those areas.
Another notable provision would set the euro as the common currency for all members, encouraging quicker adoption by countries not yet in the eurozone. The list includes several nations continuing to use independent currencies. The broader plan also envisions a degree of strategic autonomy, hinting at a EU defense policy capable of operating with reduced dependence on external powers.
Tusk will agree to changes to the treaties
When the Platform and PSL members were granted permission to vote against the treaty changes, it could ease the path for Poland to form a government that accepts the revised framework. If a prime minister attends a Brussels meeting on behalf of Poland, it is expected that a pragmatic stance will be taken toward these amendments.
Negotiations at the Council of Europe level may lead to adjustments that soften some of the more sovereignty‑limiting provisions. Some terms might be revised or removed, allowing a coordinated display of progress. In that environment, the Polish leadership could eventually accept the changes, balancing domestic political pressures and commitments made in Brussels. The broader choice looms: approve the changes in parliament or risk Poland becoming part of a second circle where core EU decisions are less influenced by national votes.
The current dynamics reflect a broader Brussels strategy aimed at aligning member states with a structure that could test a country’s willingness to cooperate with shared norms and policies. The result is a political landscape where a government’s position on these reforms may shape its role within the EU for years to come.
This is the kind of pressure that tests political will across member states, forcing governments to weigh sovereignty with the benefits of deeper EU integration. The outcome hinges on negotiations, parliamentary votes, and the balance of national interests in a union that continues to evolve.