EU foreign ministers push for qualified majority over unanimity votes

Seven EU ministers of foreign affairs have written an opinion piece published by Politico, arguing it is time for more majority decision-making in the bloc's foreign policy matters.

We are not advocating for treaty changes, nor do we envision drawn out academic debate. What we propose is a pragmatic approach focusing only on questions of foreign and security policy,

they said.

The authors are Annalena Baerbock, the federal minister for foreign affairs of Germany; Hadja Lahbib, the minister of foreign affairs, European affairs and foreign trade, and the federal cultural institutions of Belgium; Jean Asselborn, the minister for foreign and European affairs of Luxemburg; Wopke Hoekstra, the deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs of the Netherlands; Bogdan Aurescu, the minister of foreign affairs of Romania; Tanja Fajon, the minister of foreign and European affairs of Slovenia; and José Manuel Albares Bueno, the minister for foreign affairs of Spain.

The ministers stressed the importance of quick action in the face of Russia's war against Ukraine.

As we look to the future, this ability to take swift and resolute action will remain key

for the EU’s role as a foreign policy actor ready and willing to uphold its citizens’ values and interests in an increasingly uncertain global arena," they write.

Highlighting the need for an EU that "produces solid, tangible results", they pointed to recent developments that have shown the need to enhance the capacity of the bloc to deliver in times of crisis — now more than ever.

"In the past, however, such swift and resolute EU action was not always a given," they write, adding that the vast majority of decisions in EU foreign policy require unanimity — "which, in some cases, can slow down our ability to act."

"It is despite, and not because of, these rules that we were able to agree on 10 sanctions packages against Russia in response to its war of aggression against a sovereign state."

This is why we are advocating for greater use of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP),

as currently set forth in the Treaty on European Union (TEU)."

The authors emphasise that they are not advocating for treaty changes, nor do they envision drawn out academic debate.

"While the discussion around a more efficient CFSP is part of a wider debate on QMV in other policy areas, what we currently propose is a pragmatic approach — one focusing only on questions of EU Foreign and Security Policy and utilizing provisions already built into the TEU in a more flexible way that can work for everyone."

The suggestions

• Greater use of “constructive abstentions” as set out in Article 31 (1) TEU.

This option still allows a decision to pass, namely, by not objecting to it, and thus not stopping the other 26 members from moving forward.

They used as an example a case from last October, when the Foreign Affairs Council voted on the new EU training mission for the Ukrainian military. "We want to build on this emerging trend — and we commit ourselves to systematically scrutinizing our own positions with a view to switching from a vote against to a constructive abstention."

• Quality majority voting to be put to a practical test.

Their idea is for the EU to apply QMV also when deciding on the basis of common EU positions in international human rights forums. (Certain EU foreign policy areas already allow for decision-making by qualified majority, e.g. the Council has unanimously decided to set up a civilian EU mission, the operative terms of that mission could then be decided by QMV.)

They also suggest adapting the way decisions are taken in areas that do not require formal voting but consensus applies in practice, nonetheless. "This would speed up the way we communicate and make our European voice stronger."

• Building bridges.

Third, the authors seek to build bridges or — in EU lingo — passerelles.

Via the passerelle clause [...] the Council can already decide — unanimously — to make decisions by qualified majority the standard procedure in particular foreign policy fields. We suggest exploring this “bridge” in well-defined areas within the CFSP as well.

They promise to do their utmost to accommodate the concerns of all EU member stats, stressing that governments may invoke the emergency brake for vital and stated reasons of national policy.

"Moreover, we will work on a “safety net” mechanism, in addition to the existing emergency brake, which will seek to ensure that vital national interests will continue to be respected in areas of the CFSP where majority voting is expanded through the passerelle," they write.

Although the authors do not say that they would use the qualified majority voting system against Hungary, in which 55% of member states representing at least 65% of the EU population would have to vote yes for joint EU action, the message is clearly for Viktor Orbán's government. In the sanctions negotiations, the Budapest leadership has consistently slowed down the adoption of restrictive measures with various vetoes, and now, in the 11th round of sanctions, it is no different.

The opinion piece also shows that relations between Berlin and Budapest are becoming increasingly frosty, with Germany increasingly speaking out against Hungary within the EU. The German government is openly backing negotiations to stop the Orbán government from taking over the 2024 EU presidency over rule of law concerns, but German companies have also turned to the European Commission over Hungarian special taxes and other discriminatory laws.

Cover photo: Germany's Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock welcomes her counterparts at a meeting of the Council of the Baltic Sea States in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania on 1 June 2023. Source: Getty Images/Alle Rechte