Nine EU countries join forces to reform voting rules on foreign policy and dent veto power

A group of nine European Union countries have joined forces to reform the voting rules that currently apply to the bloc’s foreign and security policy decisions, which are governed by unanimity and often fall victim to the veto power of one single member state.

The countries argued Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the tectonic geopolitical shifts it has triggered are strong enough reasons to launch the review and gradually move from unanimity to qualified majority, the requirement that applies to the vast majority of EU policy areas, such as climate action, digital regulation, single market and migration.

“The EU foreign policy needs adapted processes and procedures in order to strengthen the EU as a foreign policy actor,” the nine countries wrote in a short statement released on Thursday morning.

“Improved decision-making is also key to making the EU fit for the future.”

The newly-formed “Group of Friends on Qualified Majority Voting” consists of Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Spain, and is open to other countries who wish to join.

Their collective mission is to remake decision-making “in a pragmatic way, focussing on concrete practical steps and building on provisions already provided for” in the EU treaties.

The statement, however, does not recommend specific areas of foreign policy, such as sanctions or military assistance, in which qualified majority, rather than unanimity, should apply.

The countries promise to share their future deliberations “transparently” with all 27 member states and coordinate their work with the EU institutions.

The support of Germany and France, the two largest and most influential economies in the bloc, gives the campaign a significant boost in terms of credibility and visibility.

Ironically, though, the nine states fail to conform a qualified majority on their own, as this necessitates 15 member states representing at least 65% of the bloc’s total population.

A growing debate

The debate of qualified majority vs unanimity has progressively gained traction in recent years and quickly escalated after Russia launched the full-scale of Ukraine, a transformational episode in the continent’s history that made the EU re-invent its policies and broke long-standing taboos.

Despite the strong unity and surprising velocity with which most foreign policy decisions were made, the last 15 months have seen embarrassing moments where unanimity was blatantly exploited by just one capital.

Hungary, in particular, has been heavily criticised for its generous use of this individual power to hold hostage key agreements, such as an EU-wide ban on Russian oil imports, an €18-billion package in financial aid for Kyiv and an OECD-brokered deal to impose a 15% minimum corporate tax.

The vetoes were eventually lifted but only after Budapest’s unilateral demands were met in full. 

In most cases, member states had no choice but to acquiesce in order to break the impasse: last June, Hungary caused fury after pushing for a last-minute demand to exempt Patriarch Kirill, the head of Russia’s Orthodox Church, from the list of EU sanctions.

Another headline-making case occurred in September 2020, when Cyprus single-handedly blocked EU sanctions on Belarus because of an unrelated dispute with Turkey.

These PR fiascos have fuelled calls to ditch unanimity and adopt qualified majority in foreign policy. Both European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and High Representative Josep Borrell have publicly backed the reform, underscoring its growing appeal.

“If countries know in advance that the final decision can be taken by a qualified majority vote, they have a strong incentive to negotiate, to create alliances and to shape the consensus,” Borrell wrote in a blog post last year, weeks after the furore over Patriarch Kirill’s exclusion.

“If they know that they can block everything – and are sometimes even compensated for it – they do not have an incentive to invest in a healthy compromise. They can sit on their positions, obliging others to change. And the more outliers are seen as successful in their tactics, the more these dynamics spread, with vetoes now happening more frequently than in the past.”