German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, in a lecture he gave on the future of Europe at Charles University in Prague on August 29, proposed that the Council of the European Union should gradually abandon unanimity and adopt qualified majority voting, beginning with foreign policy and other areas such as taxation.
He argued that unanimity was preventing the EU from acting quickly and pragmatically, and that the risk of stagnation would increase with every new member state.
He suggested beginning with areas where it was absolutely necessary for the EU to speak with one voice such as sanctions and human rights.
He added that since the Russian conflict with Ukraine, it had become clear that unanimity did not make sense.
Chancellor Scholz has touched a raw nerve, even for Malta, as can be seen by the immediate reaction to his speech both by official spokespersons of other member states and by EU experts and academics.
The spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs and Trade stated that Malta stood by the veto system of the EU, and stressed that the EU treaties were clear that any change required the agreement of all member states.
To assess realistically and historically the chancellor’s proposal, one must go back to the essence of the EU.
The EU is a union of separate, independent and equal states that have decided to have ‘pooled sovereignty’ in certain policy areas.
The move towards supranationalism was first taken with the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, the precursor of the EU. Six European states decided to transfer their sovereignty on their resources of coal and steel to a high authority composed of independent appointees from each member state.
Subsequent treaties enlarged the union to 27 member states, and each successive treaty added to the areas of competence of the European institutions, culminating in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty.
There are, however, some policy areas, among them foreign policy and taxation, where member states retain full, or almost full, sovereignty and where the EU plays only a minimal role in policymaking.
The evolution of the EU can best be characterised by a continuous search for a balance between sovereignty and further integration. Its institutional set-up and decision-making process reflect this balance.
The move from unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV) has always been the subject of intense inter-state horse- trading and complex bargaining whenever treaty change was on the agenda.
Each member state seeks to balance the benefits accruing from further integration with its core national interests.
Even where the treaty allows for QMV, member states do not easily give up their national interest. In the past, safeguards were provided by the 1966 Luxembourg Compromise and the 1994 Ioannina Compromise when a QMV topic of grave concern to one or more member states was being considered. In such cases, member states were required to seek to create a solution that all member states could unanimously agree upon.
These compromises have now been superseded by the Lisbon Treaty, which more clearly ensures that vital national interests in sensitive areas would not be impaired by QMV.
We, as Maltese, should always respect the principles in our interest and in the interest of particular economic niches- Edward Zammit Lewis
For example, the so-called ‘emergency break’ allows a member state to call a halt of the decision-making procedures when particularly sensitive topics in the fields of foreign affairs and security, the criminal justice system, and social security are on the agenda.
The matter is then referred to the European Council which decides by unanimity.
The right to impose and collect taxes has always been an essential prerogative of sovereignty. It is not surprising then that taxation remains one of the few policy areas for which the Lisbon Treaty retains the unanimity rule, in spite of pressure from several large member states and from the commission.
Introducing QMV in the area of taxation has long been a commission objective. In January 2019, it issued a communication suggesting the phasing out of unanimity by 2025. Experts interpreted the commission’s four-stage proposal as a slippery slope for adopting QMV in all tax matters, and the proposal did not gain sufficient support.
There have been calls from some member states for the commission to introduce QMV in cases where different national tax rules cause distortions of competition within the internal market and when such distortions cannot be removed except by harmonising these rules. This suggestion would open a Pandora’s Box and has not been taken by the commission.
The issue of unanimity/QMV will no doubt continue to feature prominently in the debate on the future of Europe and accession of new members.
The bottom line remains that the EU is a voluntary union of sovereign, democratic and equal states.
We, as Maltese, should always respect the said principles in our interest and in the interest of particular economic niches which guarantee us quality jobs and significant economic spin-offs.
This will, in no manner, affect us in our resolve towards an enhanced EU solidarity and towards solidifying the European project.
I strongly believe it is the only legitimate and feasible way forward for us as a nation, and for further European integration from which all Europeans may prevail.
Edward Zammit Lewis is a Labour MP and former justice minister.