Uprising in the EU against unanimity rules that hinder its foreign policy

In a world that is changing rapidly, with an unpredictable White House, turmoil in the Middle East, and an increasingly unstable international landscape, Europe cannot afford decision-making processes that drag on for months (or years) due to the blockages of certain countries. This is the view of a large group of Member States — including Spain — that propose formulas against the unanimity rules to overcome vetoes and speed up the EU’s foreign policy.

Read more Trump angers London with the idea of changing the U.S. position on the sovereignty of the Falklands

In a document, seen by this newspaper, addressed to the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy, Kaja Kallas, the Foreign Ministers of Spain, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Romania, and Sweden defend a series of ideas aimed at ending the excessive use of this type of veto power, such as that systematically exercised by former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán for years.

Their reading is that the EU’s capacity to act must be strengthened in the face of a geopolitical scenario marked by “strategic competition,” growing instability, and attempts to undermine the international order. To this end, they attach a document with five possible formulas to use the tools already available in the European treaties, without the need to reform the current legal framework. Exploring ways to overcome unanimity and move towards consensus decision-making.

One of these would be to promote the use of a “constructive abstention” instead of an “obstructionist behavior.” That is, a country clearly shows that it does not agree with the decision of the rest through an abstention, without thereby torpedoing the common sentiment of European foreign policy. Another of their ideas is that if a country wants to block a proposal, it must do so for a strictly related reason, something that would have prevented much of Orbán’s vetoes. In addition, they ask that these reasons be presented as soon as possible so that there is enough time to clarify and consult them.

Another fundamental point is that if a decision on foreign or security policy issues must be adopted by qualified majority, all Member States have the right to oppose “for vital and declared reasons of national policy,” as established by the Treaties, but it is necessary that “such reasons be detailed, in order to allow meaningful consultation and facilitate efforts to find an acceptable solution for all Member States.”

The document also encourages Kallas to explore options available within the current legal framework to improve decision-making, including with her own proposal, and calls for acting under a principle of “sincere cooperation” and “mutual solidarity” to try to reach common positions on all foreign policy matters, reminding that these principles are legally binding and apply to decision-making in the Council.

Read more Mazón’s defense believes it is impossible to prove that a previous alert would have prevented deaths

“While our goal remains to achieve the greatest possible unity among all Member States, it is in our own interest not to allow ourselves to be trapped in deadlocks when we cannot reach consensus,” defend these eleven ministers in the letter, also sent to the other Foreign Ministers of the Twenty-Seven.

The communication will be addressed during the Foreign Ministers meeting held this Wednesday in the Irish town of Wicklow, where the diplomatic heads of the Twenty-Seven will also have in their hands another completely different proposal from France and Germany, which dwells on Europe’s difficulties in achieving a strong voice in the world. In this case, they call for reforming the organization of the European Union’s foreign policy, which could strengthen the role of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, in order to avoid institutional cacophony in Brussels.

According to the Treaties, the High Representative is the one who must coordinate the EU’s foreign policy but, right now, what happens is that many of Kallas’s competences such as defense, relations with the Middle East or with neighboring countries, have their own departments within the European Commission, so if this idea goes ahead, the Estonian would gain coordination competences. However, it would be the President of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen — criticized for her presidentialist zeal — who would have the final word as her superior, something that would also strengthen her and would not resolve the strong rivalry between the two over institutional control of diplomacy.