The European Union’s governance structure is underpinned by the principle of unanimous approval by all 27 member states on decisions of critical importance, like approving new candidates for membership.

EU leaders have often used their right to veto resolutions critically important for the future of the Union by threatening to use their veto to acquire concessions from the European Commission.

The last European Council meeting held in Brussels has once again resorted to some shrewd horse trading to move ahead with important decisions. In the lead-up to the summit, EU officials and diplomats were fretting about Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s inflammatory positions on Ukraine.

But after days of intensive negotiations and some creative political tactics, the European Council agreed to open accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova. Still, it failed to agree unanimously on a €50 billion aid package for Ukraine.

European Council President Charles Michel welcomed the accession resolution approved by all member states’ leaders except for Orban, who was ‘unavoidably absent’ when the decision was taken. Michel described the  resolution as a “historic moment” for the Union.

Brussels sent a clear message to Kyiv, Moscow, and Washington that the EU will continue to support Ukraine and draw it closer to the bloc. The complex context of this decision is the US Congress’s struggle to get its own package approved by Democrats and Republican lawmakers and Ukraine’s efforts to overcome the stalemate on the battlefield.

Realpolitik logic indicates that a small member state like Hungary cannot politically do much to oppose a decision so crucial for the Union. EU admirers and critics agree on one thing: Brussels is the political horse-trading capital of Europe.

In the days leading to the EU summit, the European Commission agreed to unblock €10.2 million in frozen EU funds earmarked for Hungary. This move led to strongly worded criticism from key voices in the European Parliament and beyond. Still, this concession was enough to convince Orban to take a ‘coffee break’ while his colleagues debated and approved the accession decision.

Member state leaders are experts in seeking ‘workarounds’ when deadlock threatens decision paralysis in the European Council. However, this is not the best way to energise the decision-making process, at a time when the EU faces existential threats due to rapidly changing geopolitical realities.

Ireland’s Prime Minister Leo Varadkar argues there is a way around Orban’s veto regarding getting fresh financial aid to Ukraine.

He comments: “the 26 member states can provide money on a bilateral basis, not through the multinational financial framework, not from the EU structure. There are workarounds”, adding that proceeding without unanimity is “not where we want to be.” 

Hopefully, Ukraine, defending Europe’s security from Russia’s aggression, will get the financial and military aid it needs from the EU in January at the next summit. 

The stance of EU member states’ political leaders often reflects the realities they face in their countries. It is difficult to accept that the EU can address its structural governance weaknesses by retaining the right of any member state, irrespective of its size, to veto crucial decisions, even if this is done as part of the horse-trading process.

The EU governance reforms are long overdue. The next European Commission must address these reforms with urgency.