The European Council of 27 heads of state and governments takes most of its decisions by consensus. If a member state does not support a decision because it conflicts with national interests, there is no consensus and no conclusion.
The right of veto is perceived by many as one of the structural weaknesses that has reduced the relevance of the EU as a respected geopolitical power.
Still, the issue of shifting voting powers within the Union from a necessary consensus to a qualified majority remains as controversial as ever.
During a lecture earlier this week entitled The Future of Europe, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz proposed that the council abandon the system of unanimity voting and switch to a qualified majority vote on issues like foreign policy and tax policy.
The context here is a potential expansion of the EU to “30 or even 36 member states”, which would make the decision-making process even more fraught, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine that has shown the veto rule is no longer relevant to the EU.
Malta’s political parties have no appetite for change on the veto issue.
A spokesperson for Foreign Minister Ian Borg told Times of Malta that the EU treaties were clear on this matter and that any changes needed all member states to agree.
The official narrative leaves no doubt that, like other small countries including Luxembourg, Cyprus and Ireland, Malta is likely to oppose any council voting system changes, especially on tax matters. And this is understandable for small countries, especially island states with no natural resources.
The right of veto is considered by some politicians in the larger member states as a hand grenade that small member states, as well as other not-so-small ones, threaten to use if their national interests are threatened by council propositions. Mark Rutte, the outspoken Prime Minister of the Netherlands, in his ‘Churchill lecture’ of February 2019, advocated the partial abolition of the unanimity principle of the European Council.
Rutte’s line of thinking was: “Stop the naivety of soft power based on principle and values; start using the hard power of realpolitik instead; don’t be afraid to acquire that hard power with inflexible trade policy; values like democracy and human rights are nice, but the EU has to become a geopolitical superpower, if necessary through street fights.”
Critics of the unanimity principle believe that the right of veto is a tool for EU politicians who do not feel like guardians of European interests.
They argue that adherence to the veto principle is one of the signs that the EU is acting solely on the basis of national interests. The Union, the argument goes, is merely an accumulation of national interests and can be nothing other than a constant exchange of member states’ interests because of the treaty system.
The abolition of the veto system is unlikely to happen anytime soon. The EU will continue to be a hotbed of tension and conflict. It is a marriage of convenience for 27 countries that seem to bicker about everything but want to continue to trade among themselves freely.
While many have written the obituary of the EU for many years, new geopolitical realities are again cruelly revealing the structural weakness of a Union that unites its members on issues like trade and free movement of people and capital.
Denying that the EU needs structural reform on many issues, including the voting system, can only make the bloc more dysfunctional.
The Ukraine war is a cruel reminder that the more we quell nationalistic tendencies in favour of supranational decision-making, the better off the world will be.