Procedure : 2022/2705(RSP)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : B9-0305/2022

Texts tabled :


Debates :

PV 09/06/2022 - 3
CRE 09/06/2022 - 3

Votes :

PV 09/06/2022 - 6.8
CRE 09/06/2022 - 6.8
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

PDF 150kWORD 45k


<TitreSuite>to wind up the debate on the statements by the Council and the Commission</TitreSuite>

<TitreRecueil>pursuant to Rule 132(2) of the Rules of Procedure</TitreRecueil>

<Titre>on the call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties</Titre>


<RepeatBlock-By><Depute>Hélène Laporte, Philippe Olivier, Nicolaus Fest, Laura Huhtasaari, Gerolf Annemans, Susanna Ceccardi, Antonio Maria Rinaldi, Jaak Madison, Gunnar Beck</Depute>

<Commission>{ID}on behalf of the ID Group</Commission>



European Parliament resolution on the call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties


The European Parliament,

 having regard to Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

 having regard to the proposal for a Council Regulation on the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, repealing Council Decision (76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom) and the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage annexed to that decision,

 having regard of the Rules of Procedure of the Conference on the Future of Europe,

 having regard to the final conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe,

 having regard to Rule 132(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas the European Union is not sovereign, but has been founded by sovereign States whose sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised through elected representatives who cannot delegate their powers;

B. whereas there is no ‘European people’ as such, but rather distinct countries, nations and peoples within Europe, each characterised by their unique cultures and traditions;

C. whereas public opinion expresses growing scepticism and alarm towards the establishment of a centralised European superstate, which consistently fails to respect such basic principles as subsidiarity and proportionality;

D. whereas the Conference on the Future of Europe completely lacks financial transparency; whereas the democratic deficit of the Conference has been clearly illustrated;

E. whereas the Conference has been used as a smokescreen to force through fundamental policy changes, circumventing the mechanisms of representative democracy to the detriment of the sovereignty of the Member States;

F. whereas the outcome of the Conference was designed to promote a pre-determined agenda and failed to be representative; whereas many of the proposals, including abolishing unanimity in the Council, were already embedded in the Commission’s working documents after Brexit;

G. whereas the supporters of creating a European superstate and of further enlargement of the EU have long recognised that the unanimity principle needs to be abolished, as the veto rights of individual Member States pose an obstacle to their agenda;

H. whereas following the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe, 13 Member States have expressed their opposition to a modification of the Treaties;

Proposed Treaty changes

1. Opposes the call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties whose sole aim is to implement ‘ever-closer Union’, as proposed by the Conference on the Future of Europe; considers this proposal a failed attempt to address the demand for much-needed, thorough reform of the EU’s functioning; points out that Article 48 procedures for Treaty change have been used in the past to push through a European Constitution; recalls that this was only prevented by the outcomes of referendums in certain Member States;

2. Demands that national referendums be held across the Member States to allow citizens to vote on the possibility of Treaty change; highlights that this would give real democratic legitimacy to such change, unlike the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe, which were endorsed by a small group of citizens who were selected in a non-transparent manner; raises its concern that once again ignoring or circumventing the democratic need to consult the public on a move towards ‘ever-closer Union’ could result in longer-term risks to peace among the nations of Europe;

The content of the Conference on the Future of Europe’s proposals

3. Strongly opposes the abolition of unanimity and the scrapping of veto rights in the Council; recalls that unanimity and veto rights are of the utmost importance since they are the safeguard of Member States’ sovereignty and of crucial interests, notably in the field of foreign policy;

4. Calls for a more democratic and transparent European Union in which a significant number of competences are handed back to the Member States, which should remain fully sovereign with extended veto rights; reiterates the importance of respecting the fundamental principles of proportionality and subsidiarity where the EU does have the competence to act; stresses the fundamental role of the Council as a forum of the Member States and rejects any attempt to weaken its competences;

5. Rejects the European Parliament’s proposal on the use of transnational lists as it would severely infringe upon Member States’ competences, particularly those relating to voting age and electoral conditions, which differ from one Member State to another;

6. Considers that the full constitutional and parliamentary control of the Member States over European electoral law must be preserved, given the importance of electoral legislation for the healthy functioning of democracy, in which citizens chose their representatives through elections and give them a mandate to protect and represent their interests;

7. Expresses concern about the proposals regarding a fully-fledged European army and stresses that Member States must retain sovereign control over their defence capabilities in line with their international obligations;

8. Recalls that there is no commonly agreed definition of the rule of law; strongly condemns the expansion of sanctioning mechanisms for alleged breaches of the rule of law through the enactment of the Conditionality Regulation[1], as this expands the Commission’s powers at the expense of democratically elected governments;

9. Recalls that health policy is a Member State competence, and that the COVID-19 crisis has shown the EU’s inability to act in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability when it comes to the negotiation of vaccine contracts;

10. Declares accordingly that the implementation of health and social competences at EU level can only lead to the diminishing of the national social safety net and the impoverishment of citizens;

11. Rejects any proposal to weaken a migration policy based on strict control of the external borders and denounces the presence of illegal migrants, who threaten labour conditions and foster social conflicts; strongly opposes the migration propaganda narrative aimed at convincing the public of the economic benefits of mass immigration without considering the related social and security costs;

12. Notes the fact that the migration proposals emanating from the Conference in essence mirror, and sometimes literally reproduce, those outlined in the Commission’s 2021 Migration Pact; highlights this as one of the best examples that the outcome of the Conference has been scripted and pre-determined;

13. Deplores the lack of transparency that characterised the whole Conference, in particular with regard to funding, as to this day, nobody knows exactly how much was spent on the Conference; considers that the lack of transparency was a pre-condition to bring about the scripted and pre-determined outcome;


° °

14. Instructs its President to forward this resolution as well as the annexed proposal to the European Council, the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.


[1] Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget. OJ L 433I, 22.12.2020, p. 1.

Last updated: 7 June 2022Legal notice - Privacy policy