What chance is that there’ll be a convention and that the TEU will be amended progressively?<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The Parliament is calling for a convention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As far as I know, this is the AFCO position, https:\/\/www.europarl.europa.eu\/doceo\/document\/A-9-2023-0337_EN.html#_section1<\/a>, again AFAIK, the committee member amendments were not considered. 16 Nov 2023<\/em> This is a summary by the EP Research Service https:\/\/www.europarl.europa.eu\/thinktank\/en\/document\/EPRS_ATA(2023)754593<\/a>, its brevity is very useful. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I also found these<\/p>\n\n\n\n While examining the AFCO Agenda, I made the following comments, <\/p>\n\n\n\n There were many amendments defending the status quo about the EU as an alliance of nations not citizens, also much opposition to extension of competencies and ending the veto. There were proposals to reverse the roles of the Parliament and Council in appointing the President of the Commission, and extending the role of the President in Commission construction. There were also proposals to introduce expulsion rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There were proposals to expand the role of social partners to include worker\u2019s organisations, and the Regional and Youth Committees, mandating consultation in the legislative process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There was at least one proposal for a referendum, together with a rejection of citizen\u2019s assemblies. There were some quite critical comments on CoFoE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There was a proposal for a bigger parliamentary role in article 7 process, (the Suspension Clause) enabling commencement on the petition of a minority of MEPs. There was a proposal for QMV in the Council on sanctions and some of the early “accession decisions”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The issue of a defence union is controversial, with some arguing to make military co-operation easier and some arguing against any extension in the fields of external relations and military affairs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I also observed, that there were proposals from other committees of the EP. I made further notes, although not complete, <\/p>\n\n\n\n I need to work out what made it through. From the Press Summary, it seems that unsurprisingly, the agenda of increasing the parliament’s power have been sustained, those that suggest leaving it with the council or enhancing citizen’s power have been discarded. But I must read the final text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is what I have found, , <\/p>\n\n\n\n This was held on the 22 Nov, the Parliament asked for a convention. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This extensive EPC commentary<\/a> by Andrew Duff is, I am advised, a fairly good summary on where we stand overall in the EU in terms of the pressures from enlargement, deeper integration, foreign and security policy, strengthening the European Parliament powers and – the key unknown – chances of significant treaty changes. It is dated 31 Oct 2023, before the AFCO and EP vote. I have annotated <\/a>Duff’s paper. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Andrew Duff is an Academic Fellow of the European Policy Centre. He was a Member of the European Parliament (1999-2014), President of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) and President of the Spinelli Group. He tweets @AndrewDuffEU.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n I pr\u00e9cis the EPC report on my “Sailing the High Seas” page<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The EPC report, also references VDL’s State of the Union address 2023<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I have also made the following pages<\/p>\n\n\n\n Andrew Duff wrote a paper on enlargement and reform, which I read at verfassungsblog.de, entitled sticking to the rules<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nAFCO Conclusions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
The Plenary Debate<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
European Policy Centre View<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Elsewhere on this wiki<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n