Dr. Stephen Coutts:

I thank the committee for inviting me to contribute to this important and perhaps somewhat neglected debate in that the conference on Europe has not got the attention that it has perhaps deserved.

As requested by the clerk, I will restrict my comments to the final question on treaty change. I am more than happy to take questions on the broader issues that were included in the invitation afterwards.

I would like to frame my remarks around two questions: first, whether what is proposed in the conference would require treaty change; and, second, whether treaty change is desirable. Based on what is proposed in the documents issued by the institutions, I do not think treaty change is necessarily required. I break this into two elements, namely, institutional and policy-based. On the institutional dimension, two proposals are mentioned - the Spitzenkandidat system and transnational lists. The Spitzenkandidat system can operate as a political practice as we saw in 2014. Whether this is a good idea is a different discussion. The question of transnational lists might require treaty change. The treaty is somewhat ambiguous about this. This can happen with the European Commission's communication which refers to how it would require a decision of the European Council at least. I am happy to go into that in some more detail. That is probably a bit premature at this stage, but if members wish me to cover that, I am more than happy to do so.

Regarding policy areas, there is some competence for the EU at the moment in most policy fields that are mentioned. Of course, the conference might propose to increase the competences, particularly in fiscal areas covering health in light of Covid, but that would require a more detailed assessment. If the conference decides to increase the competences of the Union, I outline in my written remarks a couple of different options. More than likely, it would require use of the ordinary revision procedure, which is the standard full-blown treaty revision procedure.

On the second question as to whether treaty change is desirable, I make a number of remarks rather than point in any particular direction. As I said, it will probably require the ordinary revision procedure which might involve a convention and an intergovernmental conference, and it might be difficult to keep that restricted to discrete reforms.

In recent decades, different actors have become involved in treaty negotiations and in particular adoption. It is not just referendums, but also constitutional courts and parliaments. Sometimes the parliaments require super-majorities. There are a number of different veto points and a number of points at which any treaty could fail. There is, of course, a risk of failure of any major treaty reform with political damage to the Union.

This is not to say that treaty change should never be considered. However, we should be mindful that any treaty change must navigate various obstacles of a political and legal nature throughout the 27 member states.

This is an era of populism, although that is changing. The European Union, as a transnational organisation, might be a particular target. While treaty reform may provide a symbolic constitutional moment for the Union, generating political mobilisation and commitment, it also raises the possibility of the Union being the target of contestation and repudiation in national parliaments and electorates.

I would not rule out treaty reform a priori. This is because of the citizen-led nature of the Conference on the Future of Europe. The process of involving EU citizens and the process of the Conference on the Future of Europe may be as important as any particular outcome. I see an intrinsic value for the legitimacy of the Union in that process of citizen deliberation. Ruling out any particular outcome in advance would risk undermining the bottom-up deliberative nature of the conference. A major treaty reform may not be necessary, given the existing competences and there are risks involved in this route. However, citizens should have the option of proposing treaty change if that is what decided after careful deliberation. This is based on the process itself and the need to keep options open for citizens. I look forward to any questions members may have.