The American factor in EU reform
Despite their divisions, both U.S. conservatives and progressives care about transatlantic relations and will seek to influence EU reforms.
In a nutshell
- The U.S. will closely watch the EU’s latest reform attempt
- Conservatives and progressives differ on the plan’s merits
- The U.S. position will hinge on who wins the White House
The year 2025 has been an important time for attempts to overhaul the European Union’s treaties. The proposed changes would have profound consequences, accelerating European federalization and affecting EU enlargement prospects. The ratification debate will influence Europe’s global competitiveness, regional security, migration management and individual liberties. These decisions will also affect the transatlantic partnership between EU nations, non-EU states like the United Kingdom, and countries such as Canada and the United States.
It is unlikely that either Americans or Canadians will be neutral voices on EU reforms, as conservatives and progressives have contrasting views on the current proposals to enhance European governance from Brussels. Their perspectives could influence the debate and its outcome, making North Americans a notable wild card in Europe’s policy.
EU reform plans and a conservative perspective
In November 2023, the European Parliament voted on a substantial plan to reform treaties, which came into force on April 30, 2024. The Draghi Report on European competitiveness, penned by former president of the European Central Bank and former prime minister of Italy, Mario Draghi, and the report of the Conference on the Future of Europe both promoted greater consolidation of authority in Brussels. Advocates of reform believe this is crucial for Europe in an era of great power competition, arguing that a fully integrated market, economic, legal, political and military identity will enhance Europe’s global standing.
The establishment of this defense union could be seen as a challenge to NATO structures.
The proposals call for the establishment of a new “European Defence Union” as part of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy, involving the transformation of current national armed forces into a single unified armed force. The European Defence Agency would be empowered to “procure armaments on behalf of the Union and its Member States,” and “decisions relating to the common security and defence policy shall be adopted by the Council acting by a qualified majority.” The establishment of this defense union could be seen as a challenge to NATO structures.
The EU also seeks to strengthen its climate governance framework and expand its powers over environmental issues, by enforcing targets such as achieving climate neutrality by 2050 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030. Member states are required to develop and update their national climate and energy plans to align with these goals. Given the EU’s consistent pursuit of green policies, it is possible that green technologies would be promoted without thorough consideration of their costs and effectiveness, an approach that aligns with progressive policies in the U.S.
For new EU treaties to come into force, they generally need to be ratified by all EU member states.
Despite the aim of simplifying the framework, the EU’s new economic governance proposals still involve complex rules and procedures, including annual progress reports and assessments by the European Commission, which increase bureaucratic burdens. The proposals also fail to significantly enhance the role of national parliaments, social partners and other stakeholders in the economic governance process.
The emphasis on fiscal discipline, while crucial, may hinder growth-oriented policies, particularly during economic downturns.
Uncertain ratification by EU members
For new EU treaties to come into force, they generally need to be ratified by all EU member states. This process is expected to take several years. Each state must determine its own ratification process, with a significant factor being whether ratification requires a national plebiscite or can be simply an act of the government or legislature.
Several governments and major European political parties are currently regarded as euroskeptic and may oppose, seek to amend or derail the EU reform process.
Facts & figures
Likely opponents
States with notable euroskeptic factions: Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, France, Italy, Sweden, Czech Republic, the Netherlands
Euroskeptic parties: Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany, Brothers of Italy in Italy, Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Netherlands, National Rally in France, Fidesz - Hungarian Civic Alliance in Hungary, Law and Justice (PiS) in Poland, Voice (Vox) in Spain
U.S. perspectives
Both American conservatives and progressives share the hope for a Europe that is whole, free, at peace and prosperous. Despite differences over issues such as how to respond to the Russian war against Ukraine, trade and tariffs, or energy policies, the bipartisan consensus for a strong transatlantic community remains consistent. The outcome of tomorrow’s U.S. elections, regardless of whether the Republican or Democratic candidate wins the presidency, or which party controls the U.S. Congress, is unlikely to change this broad bipartisan consensus.
More from James Jay Carafano on the U.S. and Europe
- Would a Republican U.S. president support Ukraine?
- Albania as a NATO anchor in the Balkans
- The U.S. perspective on Black Sea security
- The ebb and flow of the Three Seas Initiative
However, despite this broader consensus, stark value differences remain. American conservatives and progressives are likely to hold opposing views on the consequences of accelerating EU integration.
Progressives generally align with the EU reform agenda, sharing similar views on governance. In contrast, American conservatives believe that further EU integration would undermine Western competitiveness. They argue that restricting national sovereignty would severely limit the capacity of nations to innovate and adapt. Conservatives contend that a European superstate would not resemble the American model, which is characterized by a significant division and balance of power among the federal executive, legislative and judicial authorities. Additionally, under the U.S. federal system, individual states enjoy substantial autonomy in managing various issues, including public safety, law and the economy – a degree of independence that EU member states might lose with deeper integration.
Scenarios
Most likely: Significant U.S. presence in the EU reform debate
The U.S.’s role in future debates over modifying EU treaties will be significantly influenced by the American political party controlling the White House, as the U.S. executive branch manages key instruments impacting transatlantic affairs. The U.S. State Department will also issue guidance to U.S. embassies on how to engage on this issue.
American civil society, which is robust and has a substantial presence in Europe, can also inform and engage in the ratification debate, shaping public opinion and influencing policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic.
The American left is likely to be a strong advocate for the EU reform agenda. However, several factors will influence the level of attention and support Europe can expect from this group. American conservatives have historically been less engaged with internal EU governance and prefer bilateral negotiations with member states rather than talks with Brussels, but this could change if they become concerned that reforms will undermine Europe’s value as a strategic partner, make Europeans more susceptible to Chinese influence or reduce their capability to secure NATO’s eastern frontier against Russia.
Additionally, American conservatives dislike many of the proposed legal and social reforms, fearing they will add momentum to progressive efforts to implement similar changes in the U.S. Thus, they will likely oppose these reforms out of common cause.
American conservatives may increase their interest and attention on EU reforms to strengthen bonds with euroskeptic center-right or conservative governments and movements. Similar dynamics will likely play out in Canada, whose governance will be significantly influenced by future national elections in the near term.
Several transatlantic issues, including regulation, energy, environment, defense and civil liberties, are likely to become entwined in future dialogue over EU reforms.
Expect both Russian and Chinese efforts to manipulate and influence the debate on European integration, with the primary goal of weakening transatlantic bonds between the U.S. and Europe. Beijing and Moscow take one or both sides of the debate, either publicly or covertly, to advance their own interests.
For industry-specific scenarios and bespoke geopolitical intelligence, contact us and we will provide you with more information about our advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
