The issue is on the table following the exit from office of Hungary's Viktor Orban.
An apparent inability on the part of the EU to make unified decisions — for example on granting Ukraine a €90 billion loan, imposing sanctions on Russia, or a response to conflict in the Middle East — has led several leading European politicians, led by the leaders of Germany and Sweden, to speak up about fundamentally reorganizing how the EU carries out its diplomacy.

Germany's foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, LINK told German media last week the principle of unanimity in the EU's foreign and security policy should be abolished during the current term of the European Parliament, in order to facilitate more effective international action.

His Estonian counterpart Margus Tsahkna (Eesti 200) rejected this idea, even as the temptation to do so is great in the context of issues relating to support for Ukraine, at least since 2002. Tsahkna said EU treaties provide opportunities in certain cases to find solutions without the need for consensus.

"Looking at the European Commission's proposals over the past year, even in areas such as sanctions policy, budget policy, and the allocation of funds, we have found solutions where consensus is not required," Tsahkna said.

Mikser and Toom agree on removing across-the-board unanimity requirement

MEP Urmas Paet (Reform) said he has for years held the view that the requirement for consensus in foreign and security policy should be abandoned, adding Estonia would not be hampered as one of the smaller member states.

"The past years have clearly demonstrated that fears that the interests of some smaller country would get trampled underfoot have not materialized. Quite the contrary: A single country with an unusual regime has been able to block the will of all the others," Paet said, with reference to Hungary at the now-ended 16 years' Viktor Orban rule.

"The unanimity requirement actually undermines the EU's foreign policy and prevents the EU from being as effective and influential as it could be. So I'm glad that more and more people think this should be changed," Paet said.

Jana Toom, Center Party MEP, also said her personal opinion was that the unanimity requirement should have been scrapped long ago, calling some of its manifestations "absurd."

"This unanimity requirement hinders us at every step. It is absurd that the EU is criticized for reacting very slowly to crises, yet at the same time people oppose abolishing the unanimity principle," Toom said. A qualified majority would be sufficient in most cases, in Toom's view. "Then we could find solutions much faster to all these challenges that are flying at us through the windows and doors, every single day," Toom said.

Sven Mikser more cautious

MEP Sven Mikser (SDE) meanwhile said while the unanimity requirement is in need of review, decisions like this must not be made lightly, as doing so may bring hard-to-predict side effects.

Mikser noted that abandoning the unanimity principle would require very broad agreement and consensus, yet many states fear that their views would then no longer be taken into account. "If we abandon unanimity and move to a qualified majority system, then there is certainly a possibility that large countries will already at the stage of preparing decisions take the path of least resistance and no longer involve smaller countries as much, whose votes are not actually necessary to achieve that qualified majority," Mikser said.

Mikser conceded Hungary's actions under Orban in blocking aid to Ukraine or hampering sanctions against Russia, as well as Belgium's opposition to using Russia's frozen assets, have put the spotlight on the shortcomings of the current system.

In many matters the unanimity requirement could still be ditched, Mikser said, and kept in others, for instance the EU enlargement process of which Estonia was a beneficiary in 2004. Here, unanimous decisions by member states are repeatedly required, but, Mikser said, this could be retained for the starting point and eased at later stages in the accession process.

"Certainly, the requirement for consensus should be maintained for starting an accession process with a candidate country and for concluding that process, though it's hard even to count how many times along this long journey one has to deal with this difficult process of building consensus, and that means these processes often get stuck halfway. So there are areas where unanimity could definitely be abandoned," Mikser said.

Isamaa, EKRE leaders oppose scrapping unanimity

Isamaa leader Urmas Reinsalu says he does not consider it reasonable to review the unanimity principle simply because of Hungary's actions up to now, warning that powerful blocs elsewhere in the region than the NB8 could emerge.

"When it comes to vital security and foreign policy matters, states simply will not comply with decisions if they are adopted by qualified majority, so this would lead to the dismantling of a common foreign and security policy. It would be abnormal if, for example, our region — comprising the Nordic countries, Poland, and the Baltic states — could be overridden by a qualified majority," Reinsalu, a former foreign minister, said.

Conservative People's Party of Estonia (EKRE) chair Mart Helme, a member of the Riigikogu's foreign affairs committee, said the unanimity principle must remain. He stressed that according to the founding treaties, foreign policy is down to each individual state, citing a historical example. "It is not like after the Congress of Vienna, when there was a European 'orchestra' conducted by England, promoting those who were useful to it at the time and sidelining those who were not. A return to such a European 'orchestra' can only function under a relatively stable balance of power, but we see that there is currently no stable balance of power in the world. This would essentially mean that small states would hand over decision-making power to the leading countries of the EU — and they would not get it back," Helme said.

Former prosecutor general: Needs tweaking

Lavly Perling, chair of the non-parliamentary Parempoolsed party and a former prosecutor general who has worked with Ukraine, acknowledged that in certain cases the unanimity requirement should be called into question.
"On issues like foreign policy and the rule of law, we must venture to discuss abandoning the principle of unanimity so that no vassal state of Russia can hold the EU hostage. On all other issues, likely not," Perling said.

Paet said when it comes to changing the unanimity principle in foreign and security policy, the bloc's founding treaties would have to be amended, an initiative which would need to come from the European Council or the European Commission.

"Unfortunately the EU has proven that it is not designed for times of crisis," Paet said, noting we are currently in a time of successive waves of crises.
This means "the EU's decision-making mechanism must also be changed, because otherwise it may ultimately become completely deadlocked in the face of some future major crisis," Paet went on.

Mikser noted amending the treaties is a laborious process, often with unpredictable outcomes, citing the example of the 2004 document meant to replace the EU's founding treaties. However, this failed to pass referenda the following year, and never entered into force, Mikser noted.

Before being swept away by Peter Magyar and the Tisza party at Sunday's Hungarian elections, Orban and his Fidesz party had been the strongest supporters of Russia in the EU and have repeatedly tried to block aid packages to Ukraine. One issue particular to Hungary had been the status of the Hungarian-speaking minority in the far westernmost part of Ukraine, which borders Hungary. The Orban government had claimed Kyiv repressed this national minority.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!