Facing Up to Federation

If Ukraine’s integrity as a sovereign state is to be salvaged from the depredations of Russian President Vladimir Putin, it must be brought into the EU as soon as possible. The EU’s federal credentials require it to welcome any European state that shares its values. Notwithstanding the standoffishness of Britain, Iceland and Norway to the west, half a dozen other countries to the east and south need accession to the EU. The Union’s self-interest is served by spreading prosperity, security and the rule of law across its neighborhood. JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. Is the EU ready for such enlargement? We shall shortly find out. Three years ago, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promised a “pre-enlargement” review of the EU’s preparedness to accept new member states: the result is finally to appear on Sept. 30. How will she justify her claim that the Union can widen and deepen at the same time? The Commission will impose tough conditions on accession states to maintain a steady path during transition periods to full integration. EU common policies and the budget will be assessed for their robustness in a larger and more diverse Union. There will be appeals for more constructive abstention and greater recourse to enhanced cooperation under existing rules. Much of this is familiar. Other Topics of Interest UK Police Call In Bomb Disposal Team Near US-Used Air Base Several men were arrested on suspicion of explosives offenses, and residents of Whelford were evacuated, Gloucestershire Police said. The big question, however, is whether von der Leyen will seek to reduce the prevalence of national vetoes which encumber the emerging federation of states with a confederal method of government. There has been no institutional reform since the Treaty of Lisbon was signed in 2007. The European Council is rudderless and badly coordinated with the Council of ministers, which is stuck. Few member states are focused on the general interest of the Union as a whole. While being themselves incapable of taking decisions, most refuse to let executive authority settle with the Commission. The accession process is stalled because the Council, in contravention of the treaties, insists on unanimity at every step of negotiations. The threat of the veto dilutes the force of legislation – for example on immigration and asylum – and delays decisions on sanctions, the new multi-annual financial framework (MFF), human rights protection, and Israel. On the pressing questions of climate change and AI, indecisiveness is the norm. As usual, there is much vague talk about ditching unanimity in favor of qualified majority voting (QMV). Mario Draghi is surely right to want more QMV to advance “pragmatic federalism.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz seems especially keen on QMV in the field of foreign policy, ignoring the fact that German foreign policy can intimidate smaller member states. Why has nobody challenged him, in return, to drop his veto on the MFF? So, the Commission, backed by the European Parliament, has a duty to act. Article 48(7) TEU – the “passerelle,” or bridging, clause – is specifically designed to shift decision-making in the Council from unanimity to QMV and to expand Parliament’s powers of co-decision with the Council over all law-making. But the passerelle may only be deployed by unanimity, which is why it has never been used. Von der Leyen now has the chance to table a formal proposal to amend the decision-making procedure so that, in place of unanimity, the passerelle may be triggered by the highest possible threshold of four-fifths of member states representing two-thirds of the total EU population. And in a second adjustment, the right of any single national parliament to block the passerelle should be removed. The Commission must also propose the suppression of Article 353 TFEU – a clause added to the Lisbon Treaty (largely to placate the UK) to prohibit the application of the passerelle to four cardinal provisions of the treaty. These concern the Council decisions on revenue to the EU budget (“own resources”) and the MFF; the famous ‘flexibility clause’, which allows the Union to supplement its powers in pursuit of treaty objectives; and the operation of the Article 7 TEU procedure in respect of breaches by a member state of the values of the Union. These two straightforward amendments should be endorsed by the European Parliament and then ratified by national parliaments, avoiding a Convention and wayward plebiscites. Eurosceptic member states and political parties should be obliged to explain why they oppose the prospect of expeditious democratic government in an enlarged Union. The Commission must be brave enough to break the EU’s long taboo on constitutional reform. President von der Leyen says she is not opposed to treaty change, where and when it is necessary. This indeed is the time and the place. In her recent Strasbourg speech, she strengthens the case for opening the treaties for revision by proposing to create, with Canada in mind, a new category of associate member state. And if her mooted Congress of Europe ever comes to pass, it can plot the roadmap towards Europe’s federal future. There is no point in Ukraine joining an ungovernable Union. Unless the EU takes these steps now, enlargement may hardly be possible, and certainly not a success. Reprinted with permission. Read the original version of this article by Andrew Duff here. Andrew Duff represented the European Parliament at the drafting of the Treaty of Lisbon. He is a senior fellow at the European Policy Centre. The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.