Few topics recur in European debate as reliably as treaty change. After every major crisis, voices in Brussels and national capitals argue that the EU’s founding documents, last overhauled by the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, no longer fit the Union’s tasks. And yet no full treaty revision has been attempted since.
The case for reform
Advocates point to unanimity requirements in foreign policy and taxation that allow single governments to block collective action, to enlargement scenarios that would strain current voting arrangements, and to institutional questions such as the size of the Commission. The Conference on the Future of Europe, a citizen consultation that concluded in 2022, produced proposals that would in several cases require treaty amendment.
The case for caution
Sceptics answer with history. Treaty change requires unanimous agreement and ratification in every member state, in some countries by referendum, and referendums on European treaties have failed before, in France and the Netherlands in 2005 and in Ireland, initially, in 2008. Governments remember. Many also argue the existing treaties contain unused flexibility, including passerelle clauses that allow moves to majority voting without a new treaty.
The likely path
Between grand reform and standstill lies the EU’s habitual method: incremental change through secondary legislation, intergovernmental agreements and creative use of existing provisions. It is less tidy than a new treaty and less risky than a ratification gamble. On current evidence, that middle path remains the Union’s default, though enlargement may yet force the question.