The European Union is taking another step toward consolidating itself as an autonomous entity vis-à-vis national sovereignties. On Tuesday, September 9th, the Commission and the European Parliament reached a new cooperation agreement that, if ratified, would, in practice, leave the Council—that is, the governments of the member states—in a secondary role within Brussels’ institutional balance.
The pact, which has been in the working since last fall, and defined as an “updated framework of understanding,” must be voted on by MEPs and approved by the College of Commissioners. However, its content is already causing unease in national capitals, where it is perceived as a covert transfer of power in favor of two institutions that do not directly represent the states, but rather the EU bureaucracy and European political groups.
Under the agreement, the European Parliament will gain faster and fuller access to information on non-binding international agreements —such as the controversial 2023 memorandum with Tunisia—and a greater number of commissioners will be obliged to intervene in plenary debates. In exchange, the European Commission will obtain a consultative role in the internal reforms of the chamber, as well as a commitment by MEPs to improve their attendance at sessions.
The deal comes on the eve of Ursula von der Leyen’s annual State of the Union address in Strasbourg after months of tensions between the two institutions. In fact, Parliament President Roberta Metsola even filed a lawsuit against the Commission and the Council for having approved a new defense loan scheme without the chamber’s participation. With the new framework, Brussels commits to providing more detailed explanations each time it resorts to emergency legislation that sidelines Parliament.
Transparency or centralization?
Parliament’s negotiators, MEPs Bernd Lange and Sven Simon, argue that this agreement strengthens transparency and democratic control within the EU. In practice, however, what is being configured is a Commission–Parliament power axis that sidelines the Council, reducing the direct influence of national governments in strategic decisions. Commissioners will also be required to provide earlier notice of any legislative agenda changes and respect Parliament’s right to propose new initiatives.
The text even provides that, in the future, any candidate for Commission President proposed by the European Council must present their intended team of commissioners before Parliament casts its vote of investiture. A change that, de facto, weakens the ability of member states to shape the EU’s executive.
Reactions from national chancelleries have not been long in coming. Several ambassadors from the member states had already sent a joint letter last November to Metsola and von der Leyen expressing “serious reservations” about such agreements, which they consider contrary to the institutional balance set out in the Union’s treaties. For national governments, Parliament is expanding its influence without sufficient legal basis, while the Commission secures greater room to maneuver in managing the EU agenda.
Particular concern stems from the possibility that MEPs might gain access to sensitive information about international negotiations, which diplomats regard as the exclusive prerogative of member states. They are also not pleased with the idea that the Commission would have to justify using emergency procedures that bypass Parliament.
The background to this agreement goes beyond technical adjustments. It represents yet another step in shaping a European Union that increasingly acts like a state in its own right, with reinforced institutions to the detriment of the countries that compose it. The official narrative speaks of efficiency, transparency, and democratic control. Still, the immediate consequence is the erosion of member states’ power in favor of a European bureaucracy that is ever more autonomous and difficult to oversee from national capitals.
