The Great Reset – An Urgent Need for Drastic EU Reform

Adobe Stock

Over the past 70 years, the European Union has evolved from a simple economic cooperation project into a powerful supranational entity with its own currency, court, and ability to impose financial sanctions on Member States. What began as a vision of free trade and peaceful coexistence has transformed into an institution influencing nearly all aspects of governance in Europe, centralizing power at the expense of national sovereignty.

Today, the EU faces an existential crisis. Some advocate for deeper integration, accelerating the trend toward federalization. However, decades of increased centralization have not resolved Europe's challenges but have instead exacerbated them. The solution lies in returning to the EU's founding principles.

In September last year, in collaboration with the Heritage Foundation, the Ordo Iuris Institute organized a conference in Warsaw, bringing together think tanks from across Europe to discuss the potential impact on transatlantic relations of the deep treaty reform proposed by the European Parliament, strongly supported by Germany and France. The need for an alternative EU reform project was also highlighted. This has resulted in an initial report prepared by Poland’s Ordo Iuris Institute and Hungary’s Mathias Corvinus Collegium. This report outlines two possible scenarios for an alternative reform of the EU treaties, aiming to restore democracy and national sovereignty to the center of EU cooperation and make Europe great again.

This two-scenario proposal for an alternative treaty reform can be downloaded here:

THE GREAT RESET: RESTORING MEMBER STATE SOVEREIGNTY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

For a quick overview of this draft proposal, a two-page summary describing the main points of the two-scenario proposal can be downloaded here:

THE GREAT RESET: AN URGENT NEED FOR DRASTIC EU REFORM

Review of the report by prof. Ryszard Legutko

(Prof. Ryszard Legutko is a former co-chairman of the European Conservatives and Reformists in the European Parliament, a philosopher, and the author of, among others, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies; A Treatise on Liberty; The Cunning of Freedom: Saving the Self in an Age of False Idols.)

I would like to thank the authors for this important report. In my opinion, it effectively diagnoses the main problems facing the European Union and identifies methods to address them.

I have always been struck by two phenomena regarding the European Union. The first is the fact that Article 5, which discusses the limits of Union authority and the principles of conferral, subsidiarity, and proportionality, is effectively a dead letter, as evidenced by the lack of any litigation before the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning breaches of these principles.

The second phenomenon is that the organization appears to operate for the benefit of political parties rather than the citizens of Europe. While the omnipotence of the political parties may be limited by a reduction of their authority, the absence of accountability for Members of Parliament undermines their credibility. In fact, in its current form, the institution is harmful, and its very existence poses a significant risk of becoming a mechanism for the seizure of power by pan-European parties, detached from national electorates and without accountability to anyone.

All institutions of the European Union require a significant reduction of power. The very concept of a political union comprising such diverse partners in size and power necessitates the urgent implementation of effective anti-autocratic mechanisms. In the event of a conflict of interest between Germany and France, on one side, and Slovenia and Cyprus, on the other, the smaller partners will always be dominated, as this is the nature of things. Currently, the system inherently favors unequal treatment of various countries. To disguise this blatant inequality, the concept of “leadership” has been fabricated, which, to the best of my knowledge, lacks any basis in the Treaties and, moreover, is extremely dangerous. There cannot be a Franco-German leadership of the European Union, because such an institution does not exist in the Treaties. Advocating for such leadership invites lawlessness and, ultimately, the complete removal of what remains of national sovereignty.

However, there is an equally dangerous concept that is rooted in both Treaties and the Charter: the formula of the “ever closer union,” which contradicts the idea of constitutionalism. Constitutions are meant to establish permanent boundaries of competence among institutions, which the concept of an “ever closer union” blurs, thus encouraging the exceedance of those boundaries. As the authors correctly pointed out, although the Treaty has not changed, there has been a remarkable shift of power from nation-states toward European institutions and informal centers of power, such as the so-called “leadership.” This is the “ever closer union” in action.

The principle of accountability, which is fundamental to parliamentarianism, does not exist in Parliament. It is a mockery of parliamentarianism when members of Parliament, who are not accountable to the Polish or Hungarian electorate in any way and who do not face any electoral sanctions, decide to impose financial penalties on Poland or Hungary.

While it is true that American states have less power than European Union member states in relation to their respective capitals, the practical functioning of the European Union is predicated on stripping power away from member states, particularly the weaker ones. As a result, American states feel more secure in their relationship with Washington than Poles, Hungarians, and others feel toward Brussels.

The proposal to remove powers from the Court of Justice of the European Union is a step in the right direction and would resolve many issues, one of which is the Article 255 Committee established under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This committee is tasked with giving opinions on candidates' suitability to perform the duties of Judge and Advocate-General of the Court of Justice and the General Court. This committee is a mechanism for co-optation of judges and should be abolished. In fact, all co-optation mechanisms currently present in the structures of the European Union should be dismantled.

Finally, all unclear, imprecisely defined, and deceitful terms should be purged from the language of the Treaties and regulations of the European Union. A prime example of such concepts is “shared competencies,” which can be reserved at any time for the sole discretion of the Union and removed from the competencies of member states. Another concerning concept is the positioning of the European Commission, an executive body with virtually no democratic legitimacy, as the guardian of the Treaties.

The above suggestions supplement, explain, and justify the measures proposed by the authors of the report, and if implemented, would significantly rein in the runaway Brussels bureaucracy and establish effective control over the current rule by political parties. I commend the authors for their work and for this valuable contribution to the discussion on proposed reforms of the European Union.