A discussion has heated up in the European Union over the report voted on at the last session of the European Parliament encouraging changes to the treaties. The reason of the discussion were namely the not fully thought-out proposals for further changes to the treaties. However, the question arises whether they are needed at all; I believe they are not. Because if the changes to the EU treaties contained in the report were adopted in the future, almost all member states would lose out, except for the largest ones, especially Germany, and the centre of gravity of decisions made in essential matters to the functioning of states and their citizens would shift to Brussels. And this is not what was meant at the beginning of the creation of the European Community, which was to be an organization of cooperating sovereign nations.

The Treaty of Paris

The process of cooperation between European states, which initiated European integration, began with the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, which was created by Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy. The culmination of this decision was the Treaty of Paris, which came into force in 1952. At first, the goal was economic cooperation and opening borders, free movement of people and capital, and the community of states being built was to be based on Robert Schuman’s peaceful post-war vision, i.e. cooperation of sovereign states based on Christian values. There was no question of politicizing the integration process. At least not until the march through EU institutions began by neo-Marxists and liberals, who, rejecting the Christian foundation, began trying to build something like an internationalist federation. Over time, more treaties appeared.

Treaties of Rome

To date, there have been five major treaties, in addition to the aforementioned Treaty of Paris. Then the Treaties of Rome followed signed in 1957. They established the European Economic Community, abbreviated as EEC. The main goal of the Treaties of Rome was to create a European common market and a community of nuclear energy. On their basis, the following were also established: the European Parliamentary Assembly, the European Social Fund, the European Investment Bank, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers (composed of representatives of national governments). In 1985, the EEC introduced the Schengen Agreement, which abolished checks on the internal borders of the signatory countries.

The Maastricht Treaty

Then, in 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, which created the first legal possibility of political integration. It changed the name of the EEC to the European Union. The Maastricht Treaty significantly expanded the scope of the common economic policy and developed a timetable for the introduction of economic and monetary union, which resulted in the introduction of the common currency, the euro, from 1999.

The Treaty of Nice

The previous framework for European cooperation was clarified by the Treaty of Nice, signed in 2001, which came into force in 2003. It was primarily intended to reform the European Union so that it could function efficiently after accepting 10 new countries from Central and Southern Europe. This group included Lithuania and Poland. The Treaty established that the European Commission was to consist of a number of commissioners equal to the number of member states.

The Treaty of Lisbon

Revolutionary changes came with the controversial Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force in December 2009. It completely changed the rules and functioning of the Community. It gave the European Union legal autonomy equal to that of the states and the Union became a full-fledged subject of international law. The Treaty cleverly replaced the Constitution for Europe, which was rejected in referenda in France and the Netherlands. The Treaty is almost the same as the Constitution, but only the first chapter, which gave the Union symbols of statehood, i.e. the coat of arms, anthem, flag, was deleted. In this way, it entered into force under a changed name. The Treaty of Lisbon expanded and strengthened the EU institutions, while weakening the member states. It introduced exclusive competences of the Union in the following areas: internal market, customs union, monetary policy of countries that adopted the euro currency, marine resources and fisheries policy, common trade policy. Thus, the Union began to move further and further away from the idea of ​​the so-called founding fathers of the community, slowly losing its original character of Europe of the homelands.

EP resolution and proposed treaty changes

At its last session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament adopted a resolution with a majority of just 17 votes and voted in favour of another amendment to the EU treaties. In the vote, 291 MEPs were in favour of the proposed changes, 274 against, and 44 abstained. On 12th December  2023, the document will go before the Council of European Ministers. According to the Spanish presidency, there is enough of a majority to pass it on to the European Council, which is expected to convene a Convention on Treaty Changes with a simple majority. Here’s what the proposals for controversial changes include:

• removing the veto, which was introduced to the treaties by French President Charles de Gaulle to protect the interests of nation states from domination, primarily by Germany. Currently, the main changes recorded in the document are the abandonment of the principle of unanimity in voting in the EU Council in many areas and the transfer of competences from the level of member states to the EU level;

• creation of new exclusive EU competences in the field of environmental protection and biodiversity as well as confirmation of the exclusive competences of the Union, as set out in the Treaty of Lisbon, i.e. the internal market, customs union, monetary policy of the countries that have adopted the euro, marine resources and fisheries policy, common trade policy.

Extending the Union’s competences in seven areas

The European Parliament report also includes a significant extension of the Union’s shared competences, which would include seven new areas: foreign policy, security policy, border protection, public health, civil defence, industry and education. If these proposed changes to the treaties were implemented in the future, it would mean the abolition of nation states and the creation of an EU superstate managed by Germany using bureaucratic Brussels institutions. This is not the kind of solution and this is not the kind of Union we voted for in Lithuania in the 2003 accession referendum. We agreed on something different. We joined the European Community as an international organisation of cooperating free nations and sovereign states, where all countries were to be equal, and EU institutions were to support states and their citizens in economic development. And all this on the principle of subsidiarity. The proposals for changes to the treaties that are dangerous to sovereignty are a kind of caricature of the accession agreement and integration.

Betrayal of the will of the citizens of Europe

The content of the document voted on is a betrayal of the will of the citizens of Europe, including the residents of Lithuania, expressed in the referendum in 2003. This is the appropriation of most competences belonging to the states and imposing on people decisions that are inconsistent with their will and the world of values. We have already been through the centralization and unification of everything in the past era during communism. Therefore, there is no point in stepping into the same river twice. There are a lot of seven new competences for the Union. Although when it comes to border defense, security policy and civil defense, one can still partially agree with some of the arguments of the supporters of the changes, but transferring foreign policy to Brussels is a deprivation of sovereignty. Conducting foreign policy is one of the main pillars of an independent state. Treaty changes for Lithuania, Poland, Hungary or other countries would mean the liquidation of the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the ministers of these ministries would in fact become mere advisors to EU officials. On the other hand, transferring matters related to industry would mean that the states would no longer be able to decide independently on the establishment of new industrial plants.

Another issue is public health, which is to be managed by the EU. If it was about a uniform healthcare system, it would be a completely different matter, which could be agreed with, but it is about imposing a public health policy. We saw how imposing such a policy from outside works during the pandemic, when uncontrolled companies introduced vaccines to the market without the necessary full clinical trials of side effects. Due to international orders and control of our health, many people have died, and many people are now suffering from the side effects of vaccines, causing, for example, thrombosis, and no one is responsible for it. International bureaucrats, including the EU ones, have already made us one big experiment, we do not want another one. It is safer for us if social health policy remains a national competence.

However, what is most outrageous is the EU’s desire to take over our children’s education. These proposed treaty changes are unacceptable, because we can see all too well in Western countries what education looks like in the EU’s implementation. Forcible imposition of gender and LGBT ideology in schools is the norm for EU officials. Parents in a given country must be guaranteed the right to raise their children in accordance with their beliefs and worldview. The EU’s takeover of education will mean a fight against our tradition and the Christian world of values. We already had an example of what this could look like in Lithuania during the time of Minister of Education Steponavičius, when gender ideology was aggressively promoted in kindergartens using the example of the “two princes”. Thanks to the protests of parents, the depravation and scandalization of the youngest children was effectively stopped. We are much obliged for such “progressives”.

How MEPs representing individual member states voted

Let’s take a look at how MEPs representing individual countries voted. The vote showed that it will not be so easy for supporters of centralization and an EU superstate to implement the changes. These harmful ideas could have been stopped already at the voting stage in the EP, because the resolution was passed by a majority of 17 votes: 291 MEPs were in favour of the proposed changes, 274 against, and 44 abstained. Unfortunately, abstentions do not count in the EP as they do in Lithuania. With such proportions of votes in Lithuania, the resolution would not have passed, because the sum of votes against and abstentions is greater than the votes for. But in the EU it is different and a simple majority is enough.

The fatal document was almost rejected. That is why it is especially painful that 5 Lithuanian MEPs voted in favour (Juknevičienė, Maldeikienė, Auštrevičius, Blinkevičiutė, Olekas), 3 abstained (Kubilius, Mažylis, Ropė) and only me and Uspaskich voted against. And looking at the votes of individual countries, it is clear that the resolution was not representative and this gives a hint of optimism. MEPs from 13 countries did not support this resolution in the majority, while MEPs from another 13 were in favour, which is a kind of tie in the number of countries, because MEPs from Finland voted: 6 in favour, 6 against. Yes, unfortunately, the resolution passed, because the majority of MEPs supported it, but in reality it was the Germans who decided, because 64 of them were in favour, 11 against, and 3 abstained. Since the difference in the vote was 17 votes, the Germans themselves gave the advantage. Interestingly, the Italians were almost evenly divided, with 37 in favour and 34 against. Only the small state of Luxembourg supported this resolution in its entirety (for 5 votes), but this is rather due to their attachment to the fact that some EU institutions have their headquarters there.

And how did MEPs from our region and other countries vote? Poland – 9 in favour, 38 against, Hungary – 4 in favour, 10 against, Sweden – 1 in favour, 15 against. The Irish voted very principally: 0 in favour, 11 against. The resolution was also mostly opposed by Croatians, Czechs, Danes, Cypriots, Dutch, Romanians, Slovaks, Maltese and Latvians. That is why it is hard to believe that the majority of Lithuanians voted for this resolution that is harmful to the sovereignty of states, especially since some of them talk so much about belonging to a patriotic party. “You will recognize them by their deeds…”

There is hope

This deeper analysis of the vote (the entire table below the article) gives hope, however, that in the next stages of the procedure, the proposals for changes to the treaties will not be accepted, or rather will certainly be rejected during potential ratification, because all countries without exception must approve such changes. And as the vote in the European Parliament showed, MEPs from as many as 13 countries voted in the majority against the proposal to introduce a new EU treaty, which instead of nation states would create a supranational federation in the form of a superstate. There is hope that Germany will not be able to persuade all countries to a scenario that would be beneficial only for them. The future of our continent is a Europe of homelands with an independent Lithuania and Poland and sovereign nations of Europe.

Waldemar Tomaszewski
Member of the European Parliament