As the Commission hones its proposal for a 28th regime for European start-ups, it would do well to consider the last time it did so, how badly it failed, and what should be done better. Cue the cautionary tale of European political parties.
On Thursday, Ursula von der Leyen, Antonio Costa, and heads of state or government gathered in a Belgian castle to reflect on the EU’s ways forward, and simplification is the word, whether in the form of harmonisation of national rules or deregulation of European laws.
As part of this effort, von der Leyen, speaking in Davos, surprised observers when she not only reiterated her strong support for a so-called “28th regime”, but also dubbed it “EU Inc”, borrowing the name from a related petition. This legal framework aims at simplifying procedures for “companies, especially innovative ones, with a single set of rules to invest more easily and operate in the Single Market.”
In the commercial realm, this initiative is unprecedented and its achievement looks promising. In the political realm, however, the EU already has its 28th regime – for European political parties and European political foundations – and it has not led to much.
In October 2014, following years of discussion, Regulation 1141/2014 created a new form of legal personhood for European parties and foundations – that is, parties and foundations acting at the European level. While still partially under by national law where they had their seats (Belgium, for the most part), European parties and foundations were, from then on, all regulated identically under EU law and recognised equally by member states.
Progressively set up starting in the late 70s and long in the shadows of political groups of the European Parliament, European parties had been recognised and publicly funded since 2004, but never had a single and Europe-wide legal form. Now was their time to shine.
A decade and €600m (2004-2022) in taxpayers’ money later, what success story are we seeing?
Following the 2024 European elections, two new European parties (on the left and far-right) were registered for the first time since the entry into force of the new regime, bringing the total to 12 and somewhat assuaging fears that the regime’s registration criteria were too strict for newcomers.
Yet, this welcome development for political pluralism hid the fact that the newcomers in question were not really new: the European Left Alliance was a splinter from the Party of the European Left, while Europe of Sovereign Nations gathered national parties from other European parties or previously unrepresented at the EU level. Meanwhile, long-standing European political alliances, such as Volt Europa or the European Pirate Party, with proposals markedly different from the existing political offer, still fail to meet the restrictive registration criteria – despite representation in most member states, elected MEPs, and hundreds of thousands of votes at EU elections.
Overall, the design of this 28th regime has therefore not allowed the emergence of new challengers, but merely applied to pre-existing entities, failing to ensure both political pluralism and periodic renewal.
Even more important is whether this common regime has contributed to its intended goal. The new legal form aimed at better implementing a provision from EU treaties, that European parties “contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.”
Over the years, and despite the continue preponderance of parliamentary groups, European parties have begun finding a limited role for themselves in the European political system, among others to bring political families together across institutions. However, European parties still fail on any other metric traditionally assigned to political parties: they do not structure the vote of European citizens, do not mobilise voters, do not choose elected officials, nor do they contribute to the formation of the EU’s executive.
The average reader’s lack of familiarity with them is the clearest sign of this regime’s failure: ten years on, European citizens are largely unable to recall European parties, their leaders, or even their names.
The main reason behind this failure is the absence of a political-electoral single market. Under pressure from member states, EU institutions designed a new regime disconnected from the realities of politics and without a modicum of harmonisation: not only do national parties remain an exclusively national affair, but even European elections and the choice of European leaders are firmly segregated from European parties.
As a result, European citizens now finance up to 90% of the budget of European parties, but continue to vote for national parties, national politicians, and national political projects.
In the same way that European political parties have failed citizens due to limited or stalled reform of their status and of the electoral law, EU Inc will not flourish and serve its purpose unless it is backed by strong single market reform, as outlined in the Draghi report.
Whether in the economic or political realm, “power requires Europe to move from confederation to federation,” said Draghi.
Image Credit: European Union, 2025
