Veto on veto: the EU is looking for ways to circumvent the principle of unanimity
Germany and 10 other EU countries propose to limit the right of individual states to block the association's foreign policy decisions. Among the options is to use "constructive abstention" more often and proceed to voting by a qualified majority. However, experts interviewed by Izvestia warn that the rejection of unanimity will require a revision of the basic rules of the EU and may increase contradictions between countries. How Brussels is going to circumvent the national veto is in the Izvestia article.
The veto is questionable
Berlin was one of the main initiators of the review of the procedure for making foreign policy decisions in the European Union, Euronews writes. Together with France and a number of other countries, Germany proposes to reduce the ability of individual states to block the common position of unification.
A total of 11 countries have joined the initiative: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden. The relevant document has already been sent to the head of European diplomacy, Kaya Kallas, and the rest of the EU members.
"The union's foreign policy activities are facing a fundamental change in the situation caused by strategic competition, growing instability and attempts to undermine the rules—based international order," the publication quotes an excerpt from the document.
The authors propose five principles that should simplify decision-making. One of the main ones is to make greater use of so—called constructive abstinence. In this case, the country may not support the initiative without blocking it for the rest of the EU members.
Another suggestion concerns the use of the veto as a bargaining tool in decision-making. "Not to link foreign policy decisions with issues that are essentially unrelated to them," the document clarifies.
In addition, it is proposed to explore the possibility of switching from unanimity to voting by a qualified majority within the framework of the EU treaties. Currently, key foreign policy decisions mostly require the approval of all 27 countries. With a qualified majority, the support of at least 15 states representing at least 65% of the EU population is sufficient.
This possibility is already provided for by European treaties. However, to launch the mechanism itself, it first requires the unanimous approval of all the countries of the association.
One against all
The debate over the right of veto in the European Union has been going on for years. The countries of the association regularly disagree on key foreign policy issues, from Russia and Ukraine to Israel and Iran.
In the summer, when preparing the 21st package of sanctions against Russia, several countries demanded exceptions at once. Greece and Austria, in particular, opposed certain restrictions related to Russian LNG. France, Italy and Greece sought to ease some of the visa restrictions. Germany, Poland and Portugal demanded exemptions for certain categories of Russian imports. And Bulgaria opposed the inclusion of Patriarch Kirill in the sanctions list, calling it unconstructive. As a result, the initial draft of the package had to be significantly adjusted.
Israeli Minister of National Security Itamara Ben-Gvira
The Middle East is no less controversial. The European Commission tried to coordinate measures against Israel, including restrictions on trade preferences and sanctions against individual Israeli politicians and settlers. However, it was not possible to achieve a unified position. Germany, Italy, Austria and Hungary took a more cautious view, while Spain and several other countries insisted on tougher measures.
In June, EU foreign ministers again failed to agree on sanctions against Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. After the meeting, the head of European diplomacy, Kaya Kallas, explicitly acknowledged that there was no consensus on this issue.
And on August 26, Slovenia single—handedly blocked the approval of a collective statement by EU member states condemning Israel's plans to build Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The country's Foreign Ministry considered that such a step "would not bring additional benefits."
The inability of the Europeans to quickly develop a common position periodically becomes a reason for ridicule from Washington. When US President Donald Trump was asked if the EU was capable of responding to American duties, he chuckled, noting that unification could try, but would not succeed.
The problem is recognized in Brussels itself. "If we do what one country wants and not what 26 want, that's not really democracy," Callas emphasized in April.
What the experts say
Currently, there are 27 states in the European Union, and in the future several more countries may join it. And the system, when one participant is able to stop the decision of all the others, reduces the speed of decision-making, Nikolai Topornin, director of the Center for European Diplomacy, points out in a conversation with Izvestia.
— When one country can block all the others, it looks a bit abnormal. That is why the EU is thinking about how to make the mechanism more efficient and functional. One of the options is to make greater use of the qualified majority," the expert notes.
However, the complete abolition of the principle of unanimity rests on the Lisbon Treaty. Foreign policy and security are among those areas where consensus is required on key issues. And it is unlikely to be possible to get around it. To change the approach itself, it will take the consent of the association's members, followed by a complex ratification procedure at the national level.
"This is a cumbersome process for more than one year, which may also face resistance from individual countries," Topornin draws attention.
In this sense, the European Union, according to the source, is much more difficult than, for example, the United States. The president can sign a decree there, and a decision will be made. In the EU, neither the President of the European Commission nor the head of European diplomacy can act without the consent of the member States.
— Foreign policy is a very sensitive area, where sometimes it is necessary to react extremely quickly. And when some countries advocate one solution, while others object, lengthy consultations, negotiations, and the search for concessions begin. Sometimes it is not possible to achieve a common position at all. Nevertheless, finding compromises is the only option. It is unlikely to be possible to circumvent these principles in other ways," the expert is convinced.
Natalia Eremina, a professor at St. Petersburg State University, also points out the serious consequences of the rejection of unanimity for Brussels itself. This may affect one of the basic principles on which the European Union was built — the right of each country to protect its own interests.
— There is an integration space, but there remain situations when the damage from a common solution may be too great for a country. Risks and opportunities are still unevenly distributed even within an association such as the EU, the expert argues.
In this regard, security and energy issues remain the most sensitive, she adds. The same decision may have different effects on individual members of the union, as countries differ from each other in terms of economy, geographical location, and threat perception.
— Therefore, the situation is in a sense stalemate. Most likely, they will look for legal loopholes. I think it's not only practically impossible to completely abandon the principle of unanimity, but also too radical," the Izvestia interlocutor sums up.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
