Short-cut to a New Europe – Is Treaty Change Still in Sight?

Calls for EU treaty reform are growing louder as the Union prepares for future enlargement and ongoing geopolitical challenges. This article explores the legal, political, and institutional barriers to treaty change — and the consequences of doing nothing.

This article was written by Emmeline Peeters, Gergely Stégner, and Nándor Dani  as part of the Newsroom Europe project. As part of this initiative, the author examines current European developments from a transnational perspective. In international editorial teams, participants critically and constructively report on political processes and European power structures — in this case, focusing on the controversial question of EU treaty reform and its role in preparing for the future of European integration.

With the war in Ukraine, rising geopolitical tensions, and the EU’s ambitious enlargement agenda, the Union finds itself at a turning point. Questions that had long been politically dormant — such as reforming the EU’s foundational treaties — are once again at the center of the European debate. The 2022 conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe sparked calls from institutions and experts alike to make the EU more democratic, transparent, and capable of acting effectively in times of crisis.

At the core of these demands lies one key question: Can the EU still function with the same rules that were designed nearly two decades ago? The Treaty of Lisbon, signed in 2007, laid the foundation for the EU as we know it today. But since then, the Union has faced multiple crises: the financial meltdown of 2008, Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, and now the war on its eastern flank. These challenges have exposed structural weaknesses in how decisions are made — especially when they require unanimous agreement.

This article explores what’s at stake in the treaty reform debate. It explains how unanimity often leads to gridlock, how leaders like Viktor Orbán have used veto power to delay or block EU action, and why many believe that switching to qualified majority voting (QMV) is key to improving decision-making — particularly in foreign and security policy. At the same time, it examines the political risks of such a change, including fears of empowering a Franco-German axis at the expense of smaller member states.

Treaty change is not a simple process. It requires either the ordinary revision procedure (with a full intergovernmental conference) or the simplified revision method — both of which involve complex negotiations and domestic ratification. And while some countries like Germany, France, and Belgium are open to reform, others — especially in Central and Eastern Europe — strongly oppose it.

The article also takes a closer look at creative alternatives to formal treaty reform, such as the use of passerelle clauses, which allow limited shifts in voting procedures without amending the treaties. It evaluates how likely such workarounds are, and how long-lasting their impact might be.

Ultimately, “Short-cut to a New Europe” shows that while the need for reform is widely acknowledged, the path forward is anything but straightforward. Whether through treaty change or internal procedural innovation, the EU’s ability to evolve will determine how well it can respond to future challenges — and whether it can remain united while expanding to up to 36 member states.Calls for EU treaty reform are growing louder as the Union prepares for future enlargement and ongoing geopolitical challenges. This article explores the legal, political, and institutional barriers to treaty change — and the consequences of doing nothing.

Click here to read the full article.

This article was created as part of the Newsroom Europe 2025 project and was written by the project participants. Newsroom Europe is a project of the European Academy Berlin.
With the kind support of the European Union through project funding in the framework of CERV – Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values.