Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, in a written answer on 23 July 2026, defended the use of differentiated integration mechanisms such as enhanced cooperation and permanent structured cooperation as fully compatible with EU treaties, while rejecting accusations that such tools amount to a camouflaged federalism that undermines national sovereignty. The answer, addressed to a group of MEPs from the Patriots for Europe, European Conservatives and Reformists, and Europe of Sovereign Nations groups, sought to reassure that any shift away from unanimity would remain within existing treaty frameworks and require unanimous ratification for any treaty change.
The Commissioner acknowledged the Commission's longstanding view that unanimity voting should be reconsidered in certain policy areas, including aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, to enable faster and more strategic decision-making. He pointed to the possibility of activating 'passerelle clauses' by the European Council as a treaty-based mechanism to move to qualified majority voting without a full treaty revision. However, he stressed that any change to EU competences would require the ordinary revision procedure under Article 48 TEU, including ratification by all member states according to their constitutional requirements.
On the question of national sovereignty, Šefčovič emphasised that national parliaments already play an active role in safeguarding the boundaries of EU competence through the subsidiarity and proportionality mechanisms introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. The answer did not announce any new legislative proposals or concrete timelines for moving away from unanimity, instead reiterating existing treaty provisions and the Commission's general orientation. The response is likely to be seen as insufficient by sovereignty-minded MEPs who fear that enhanced cooperation and strategic autonomy rhetoric are being used to bypass national vetoes.
National governments wary of federal drift may view the answer as a reaffirmation of treaty safeguards, but remain concerned about incremental erosion of unanimity. EU institutions gain flexibility to advance integration in defence and foreign policy, potentially at the expense of national parliamentary oversight. Pro-integration member states and the European Parliament may welcome the openness to passerelle clauses, while eurosceptic MEPs and national parliaments face a continued battle to preserve veto rights. The answer provides no new concrete measures, leaving the debate at a declaratory stage.