Budget squeeze and the prospect of a larger European Union have brought institutional reform back to the centre of debate in Brussels, as several member state governments call for what they describe as a “slimming down” of EU institutions.
According to recent media reports, a group of capitals is pressing for a major restructuring of the EU’s institutional machinery, arguing that administrative costs must be curbed at a time when national budgets are under strain from higher defence spending, support for Ukraine and domestic social pressures.
The trigger has been the Commission’s proposal to allocate around €118 billion for administration in the next multiannual budget cycle, which some governments consider excessive.
This push coincides with difficult negotiations on the 2026 EU budget and on the mid-term trajectory of the current multiannual financial framework. Several governments have argued for tighter ceilings and greater flexibility to respond to unforeseen crises, while the European Parliament has warned that “more with less” is not realistic if existing policies and new priorities are to be maintained. The dispute over numbers has therefore merged with a wider question: should the answer be a leaner Brussels apparatus or a stronger one?
In parallel, the Council and Commission have framed institutional change as a precondition for future enlargement. The Council’s own policy line on “internal reforms of the EU” stresses that the Union must adjust its values framework, policies, budget and governance “to become fit for the future and to prepare for an enlarged union”. With Ukraine, Moldova and several Western Balkan countries on the accession track, the question is no longer whether the EU will grow beyond 27 members, but how its institutions will function if it does.
The Commission’s 2025 work programme includes a planned initiative entitled “An EU fit for enlargement: policy reviews and reforms”, a non-legislative package intended to set out how common policies and decision-making should be adapted before new members join.
The European Parliament has already adopted a resolution on the institutional consequences of enlargement, underlining that internal reform must accompany accession. The detail of the Commission’s proposal is still pending, but it is expected to address both budgetary and institutional questions.
At the same time, the Commission has launched a broader simplification drive set out in a communication sometimes summarised in Brussels as a push for a “simpler and faster” Union. The agenda focuses on reducing reporting obligations, cutting red tape for businesses and public authorities, and reviewing existing legislation through a series of “fitness checks” across sectors from digital policy to energy security and transport. For national governments that want to see a leaner Brussels, this is presented as evidence that streamlining can be delivered without fundamental treaty change.
Think tanks have framed these developments in terms of the Union’s “absorption capacity” and the need to become “fit for 35” – a reference to a possible Union of 35 members if all current candidates eventually accede. Work published by the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies (SIEPS) distinguishes between incremental reforms (such as extending qualified majority voting via existing passerelle clauses), more ambitious treaty changes to alter the core institutions, and more far-reaching ideas for a multi-tier or multi-speed Europe.
Other analysts, including the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Wilson Center, emphasise that enlargement will require adjustments to the EU budget, cohesion policy and common agricultural policy, as well as to voting rules in areas such as foreign policy if unanimity is to be avoided becoming an obstacle in a larger Union.
Within the European Parliament, figures such as Sandro Gozi have argued that without prior internal reform an enlarged EU “would risk paralysis”, pointing to existing difficulties in decision-making at 27 and warning that these could intensify with a larger membership. This camp tends to see institutional strengthening – including more majority voting – as necessary to preserve the Union’s ability to act externally and uphold rule-of-law conditionality internally.
Set against this are member states that treat current debates primarily as a question of expenditure and administrative efficiency. Their focus is on the size and structure of the Commission and other institutions, on possible consolidation of agencies and support services, and on the growth of staff numbers in Brussels relative to national administrations. For these governments, enlargement strengthens the case for rationalising the centre rather than expanding it, particularly when national civil services are themselves under pressure.
The result is a debate over whether the current “slimming down” agenda implies a rollback of EU-level powers or a technical exercise in streamlining. Supporters of more integration argue that cutting administrative capacity risks weakening enforcement of EU law and slowing down policy delivery, especially in areas such as sanctions implementation, defence industrial planning and energy security. Their counterparts respond that clearer priorities, fewer overlapping programmes and simpler procedures are compatible with maintaining, or even improving, effectiveness at lower cost.
For now, treaty change remains politically sensitive, and most governments appear to favour measures that can be taken within the existing legal framework: adjustments to budget headings, changes to internal rules of procedure, and targeted use of passerelle clauses. The forthcoming Commission communication on an EU “fit for enlargement”, and the subsequent European Council discussions, will indicate whether calls for restructuring stay within these limits or evolve into a broader constitutional discussion.
What is clear is that institutional reform, budgetary choices and enlargement are now tightly linked. Decisions taken in the coming months on the size and shape of the EU’s institutions will do more than trim administrative lines in the budget: they will help determine how a future Union of 30-plus member states is governed, and how far authority lies in Brussels or remains with national capitals.
