Is it time to drop the unanimity requirement in the EU Council in matters of foreign policy and security decisions?
Seven foreign affairs ministers argued in a joint op-ed published by Politico on Monday, June 12th, that this change is necessary. This is not the first time EU members have advocated for stripping the veto power of others, some of whom understandably see such a move as the ultimate violation of national sovereignty.
“We need an EU that produces solid, tangible results,” the ministers write, arguing that it’s the unanimity requirement that keeps the EU from reaching its true potential. “We also need to enhance our capacity to deliver in times of crisis — now more than ever,” it added, referring to the war and how the EU should be able to do more to help Ukraine.
The op-ed was written jointly by the foreign ministers of six EU member states, including Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, and the Netherlands.
This is only the latest edition of member states lobbying for stripping the veto power of others. In May, nine EU countries—calling themselves “the Group of Friends”—issued a similar statement to advocate for qualified majority voting to replace unanimity in order to “improve effectiveness and speed of our foreign-policy decision-making.”
In addition to those involved in the recent journalistic effort from Monday, the May resolution was also signed by Italy, Finland, and France. Romania, on the other hand, seems to be the only newcomer to the club of those who would rather see a more centralized EU.
In the EU Council, qualified majority voting (QMV) means only 55% of member states who represent at least 65% of the bloc’s population are needed for a decision to pass, not all of them: meaning that no individual country can block anything it deems detrimental to its interests.
So far, nearly all important decisions that pertain to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) need to be supported unanimously. This is not the case for migration, for instance, as last week’s example perfectly demonstrated when Europe agreed on migrant quotas without the consent of seven member states.
If qualified majority voting would be the standard procedure in foreign policy too, we’d see similar decisions that disregard national interests in areas of, for example, sanctions policy, weapons shipments, or EU enlargement.
Indeed, according to the foreign ministers, changing the decision-making process is not only key to properly standing up to Russia, but also to making way for Ukraine and Moldova’s EU membership. “As the EU enlarges, successful European integration requires its institutions to function effectively,” the op-ed reads.
By trying to explain their position, the authors also appear to admit just how dramatic moving to qualified majority voting in the Council would be. “We are not advocating for treaty changes, nor do we envision drawn out academic debate,” the foreign ministers wrote, saying that they only propose “a pragmatic approach—one focusing only on questions of EU Foreign and Security Policy.”
Pragmatic or not, if security was no longer subject to the unanimity requirement, smaller member states would instantly lose their voice in negotiations. Of course, the authors promise to build a so-called ‘safety net’ mechanism to ensure that will not be the case, but if the whole point is to take away individual states’ veto power, then it’s hard to imagine anything else would be quite as effective.
In essence, a shift like this would practically mean the next big step toward a centralized, more closely integrated federal union with its very own European army—which still feels like science fiction, but not distant enough to be taken lightly.
For the larger countries set to gain more from such a switch than to lose from it, the process of “ever-closer union” is seen only as the natural evolution of Europe. “The EU has always managed to move ahead in challenging moments,” the foreign ministers wrote in their piece. “Now, once again, it is time to act.”
