Brussels is renewing its push to strip EU countries of their national veto, using the planned enlargement to 30+ member states as justification for a sweeping centralisation of power.
One would think that no EU country would be willing to give up the cornerstone of their sovereignty as guaranteed by the EU treaties: the unanimity principle, which allows member states to veto EU legislation in the most important areas, such as foreign policy or defense.
Yet, the Commission is still pushing for an unprecedented power grab before the end of the decade, presented as absolutely necessary for the EU to remain ‘functional’ with 30 or more member states—like a wolf telling the sheep to unlock the pen so everyone can squeeze in—and there’s a high chance most will give into the pressure.
The question of the treaty change and major institutional reforms—designed to hand more power to Brussels at the expense of national governments—was on the agenda in the EU Parliament’s Strasbourg plenary again on Thursday, June 19th, and neither the Commission nor the mainstream parties of the ‘Ursula coalition’ spared any effort to frame it as the only viable path forward.
“We need treaty change where it can improve our Union,” Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva told the MEPs in her opening speech. However, she argued, the work must start even before that by introducing all possible ‘soft’ changes into the institutional framework under the current treaties, “in order to prepare the Union for enlargement.”
Zaharieva underlined:
The Commission believes that we need to extend the use of qualified majority voting in the Council in some areas, moving away from unanimity.
This could be done even without changing the treaties, she said, using the so-called ‘passarelle clauses,’ which allow the EU to replace unanimity with qualified majority voting (QMV) in specific or all areas of the EU decision-making in emergency situations. Under the QMV system, a decision needs only 15 member states representing 65% of the EU population to be approved and become binding for all, regardless of consent, meaning no individual country or small coalition can block it.
“The Commission’s position is well-known: if the Union wants to play its role quickly, efficiently, and strategically, we need to decrease the number of decisions where unanimity is needed,” Zaharieva argued.
Unsurprisingly, most left-wing MEPs were quick to endorse this line of thinking throughout the debate. “Enlargement means readiness on our side too; as candidate countries prepare, so must we,” said Belgian socialist MEP Kathleen Van Brempt. “By reforming our institutions, updating our budget, making it fit for a bigger union, and yes, by moving away from unanimity.”
Naturally, the only ones to push back against the blatant power grab were from the national conservative side, arguing against both Ukraine’s fast-tracked EU accession—which would make nearly all current member states net contributors overnight with tens of billions of excess cost to taxpayers—and the accompanying plan to irreversibly undermine member state sovereignty in the process.
“Eurocrats say that expansion is urgent and the right to veto is an obstruction. But enlargement of the EU is just putting more people on a sinking ship,” said Dutch MEP Marieke Ehlers (PfE). “New member states will become net recipients without exception. If we also want to restrict the right to veto, then we’ll be creating a system whereby net contributors will pay more and more, but will have less and less of a say. That is not the Europe that we have chosen.”
Swedish MEP Charlie Weimers (ECR) got straight to the core issue: “The EU can’t protect its borders, it can’t return migrants, and what we can’t afford to pay we borrow from future generations, so why are we adding more states to the mess? You say we’re exporting stability; I say we’re importing instability,” Weimers said, adding:
Your solution is not to fix the problems, but to make it easier to ignore member states that say no. You don’t build an extension when your house is burning; you put down the fire first!
The one thing that the mainstream refuses to talk about regarding enlargement is the economic costs, added Hungarian MEP Csaba Dömötör (PfE). “You’re talking like Ukraine’s accession is a done deal, but why do you think that European people can bear any more financial burden? Who’s going to look them in the eye and admit what the cost is that comes with enlargement?” he asked.
Dömötör then pointed out that, unlike other member states, Hungary is holding a referendum on Ukraine’s membership. “We asked those who foot the bill what they think about enlargement. Do you have the courage to do so as well?”
