The European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) Committee held a structured dialogue with Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič on 27 April 2026, revealing divergent views on treaty reform, the ethics body, and enlargement governance. While some MEPs pushed for ambitious treaty change and a strong ethics framework, others questioned the feasibility and enforcement mechanisms, leading to a nuanced debate.
ambition vs. pragmatism Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D) and Sandro Gozi (Renew) pressed the Commission to take concrete steps toward treaty change, arguing that institutional reforms are needed to prepare the EU for enlargement. Šefčovič, however, noted that Article 48 TEU leaves the next step to the European Council and urged using existing flexibilities like passerelle clauses, signalling a preference for incremental change over a full treaty revision. This reflects a cleavage between those advocating deeper EU integration through formal treaty change and those favouring pragmatic use of current provisions.
support and pushback The proposal for a common ethics body saw pushback from Loránt Vincze (EPP), Marieke Ehlers (PfE), and Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz (EPP), who questioned the level of parliamentary support and enforcement mechanisms. Šefčovič defended common minimum standards, arguing that a harmonised approach would strengthen integrity across EU institutions. The disagreement highlights a tension between strengthening EU-level oversight (favoured by the Commission and some MEPs) and preserving institutional autonomy (favoured by sceptics).
concrete models vs. policy reviews On enlargement, Reinier van Lanschot (Greens/EFA) and Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D) demanded concrete models and timelines for Ukraine's accession. Šefčovič avoided endorsing a specific model, stressing that policy reviews in 2026 would provide clarity. This leaves a gap between those seeking rapid integration and the Commission's cautious, step-by-step approach.
Broader consensus on procedural issues Despite these differences, broad consensus emerged on the proxy-voting amendment, the revised Framework Agreement, and constructive momentum on the right of inquiry. Gabriele Bischoff (S&D) and Thijs Reuten (S&D) reported progress on the right of inquiry, with Šefčovič supporting a Lisbonised file but urging a new Parliament report. On better law-making, Bischoff and Vincze sought stronger parliamentary involvement, while Šefčovič highlighted the revised Framework Agreement and tasked EVP Dombrovskis with updating the Interinstitutional Agreement.
Impact on stakeholders The various positions would have different impacts: stronger treaty change could empower EU institutions but face resistance from national governments; a robust ethics body would increase transparency but impose administrative burdens on MEPs; concrete enlargement timelines would benefit candidate countries but risk overpromising. EU producers and consumers would be indirectly affected by the pace of enlargement and regulatory simplification, with Ehlers criticising slow deregulation and Šefčovič citing €12 billion in savings from better regulation.
Next steps The AFCO committee will hold a plenary vote on proxy voting, continue technical work on the right of inquiry, and meet again on 5 May. The Commission is expected to present policy reviews on enlargement in 2026, while the ethics body proposal remains under discussion.