The European Parliament has sharply criticized the European Commission for attempting to sidestep parliamentary oversight by invoking an emergency clause to push through a massive €800 billion defense investment plan. On March 12, MEPs passed a resolution endorsing the general framework of the Commission’s “ReArm Europe” initiative while also demanding greater military integration within the EU.
At the heart of the controversy is a proposed €150 billion joint loan for weapons procurement, which Brussels aims to fast-track by invoking Article 122 of the EU treaty. This clause, typically used during crises, allows measures to bypass the usual legislative process, cutting out Parliament and leaving final decisions to the EU Council. If the Commission proceeds as planned, the only directly elected EU body will be left with little more than symbolic debates and non-binding resolutions.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen defended the move, insisting it was the only way to act with the urgency required, given that Parliament often drags out legislation for months or even years. But the attempt to bypass lawmakers triggered a rare show of unity across party lines, with MEPs from across the political spectrum voicing outrage.
Even among von der Leyen’s usual allies, skepticism ran high. Manfred Weber of the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) warned that excluding Parliament undermines democracy—a statement some found ironic, given his history of sidelining conservative parties. Social Democrat Sandro Routolo slammed the move as “a slap in the face to parliamentary democracy,” while the Greens’ Hanna Neumann accused the Commission of routinely ignoring issues until it’s too late, only to then demand emergency powers.
Right-wing opposition was even fiercer. Roberto Vannacci of the Patriots for Europe (PfE) group condemned the use of emergency powers to saddle future generations with massive debt for a defense program unlikely to yield results for years. In a scathing critique, he argued that the EU’s real crises—energy shortages, inflation, migration, and rising terrorism—were being ignored while Brussels focused on military spending.
A Step Toward an EU Army?
Despite the uproar over parliamentary exclusion, mainstream MEPs still backed the €800 billion initiative, including the €150 billion joint debt. Not only that, but they also pushed for even deeper military integration, calling for the development of an independent European pillar within NATO and the establishment of an EU-controlled air fleet for crisis response—a potential stepping stone toward a full-fledged EU army.
The resolution only narrowly passed, with support coming mainly from von der Leyen’s governing coalition (EPP, Social Democrats, Renew Europe, and Greens) and part of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). Meanwhile, right-wing groups like the Patriots and European Sovereignists, along with the Left, overwhelmingly opposed it.
More EU Control, Less National Sovereignty?
Whether Parliament gets a say in the final package or not, key decisions—such as debt repayment strategies and potential “buy European” requirements for weapons—now rest with national leaders in the EU Council. However, while politicians argue over technicalities, the broader implications of the plan seem to be going unnoticed.
Critics warn that this latest move follows a familiar pattern: using crises as opportunities to centralize more power in Brussels. Von der Leyen has invoked Article 122 before—once to control energy policy after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and earlier during the COVID-19 pandemic. The latter resulted in unprecedented Commission control over vaccine procurement, later embroiled in a corruption scandal, and the introduction of joint EU debt, which remains unpaid.
Some fear that “ReArm Europe” will follow a similar trajectory, accelerating the EU’s transformation into a centralized superstate. By binding member states through shared debt and creating a common EU military structure, Brussels may soon claim the need for joint foreign and defense policies. That, in turn, could mean eroding national veto power and further consolidating decision-making authority in the hands of unelected EU bureaucrats.
