The European Union faces growing pressure to rethink how it makes foreign policy decisions. In a recent interview, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, spoke about the need to accelerate reactions to geopolitical events by reconsidering voting rules for candidate statuses and beyond. She argued that in foreign affairs the bloc should move toward qualified majority voting, noting that the current system often stalls urgent actions because any single member can block a decision.
What does the unanimity principle mean for the EU?
Unanimity requires broad agreement from all voting members for a proposal to take effect.
Read more
What does the unanimity principle mean for the EU?
Unanimity is a decision-making method that must be supported by all voters for a proposed proposal to take effect. Pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty amendments, the EU decides unanimously on taxation, social security, foreign policy and security. In all other matters, decisions are allowed by a qualified majority.
Von der Leyen highlighted that countries like Turkey, which has held candidate status since 1999, have not joined the union yet. She pointed out that Ankara’s path to Brussels is now even more distant.
Her comments come ahead of a summit expected to grant candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova. Discussions in this area have continued since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it appears that Chisinau and Kiev may receive candidate status only months after the conflict began. Georgia has not been granted the same opportunity.
deterrent, objectionable
Politico noted that von der Leyen’s proposals could touch another facet of foreign policy, such as how sanctions are imposed. Brussels has faced difficulty in agreeing on harsher measures against Moscow, sparking frustration among top EU officials.
The debate over the sixth sanctions package against Russia illustrates the challenge. It took weeks to persuade Viktor Orban of Hungary to back the package, as its energy security concerns loomed large. Even so, Orban called the package a historical mistake.
There is a sense that the EU’s patience is thinning as it navigates the risk of future confrontations with dissenting members. In May, von der Leyen personally traveled to Hungary to seal Hungary’s support for the sixth package. As unity grows more essential for granting candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova, critics warn that such diplomatic trips might give way to more direct measures aimed at influence over dissenters, potentially disenfranchising them. Analysts warn that this could stall important decisions at the European level.
Timofei Bordachev, director of the Valdai Club program, commented that von der Leyen’s stance could be seen as a maneuver to pressure hesitant states. He argued that dropping unanimity would risk undermining European integration and threaten national sovereignty. His view is that the consequences would ripple through how member nations view their own authority and influence within the bloc.
Another observer, Lyudmila Babynina of the Russian Academy of Sciences, cautioned that changing the treaty would be a lengthy, intricate process. She noted that not all member states are ready to renegotiate and that even with an opening, nothing is guaranteed. Babynina described any such move as a signal intended to shape political discourse and to challenge entrenched positions, while acknowledging the difficulty of reaching a broad consensus.
Bordachev himself suggested that changing the unanimity rule could take five to seven years and might still not unfold as hoped. He floated the idea of a new intergovernmental process to abandon unanimity, but stressed that even with such a process, success was far from assured.
endless discussion
The topic of unanimity has resurfaced repeatedly since 2018 when the German Foreign Ministry supported Jean-Claude Juncker’s proposal to abolish it. Juncker believed that those who wanted to loosen the bloc’s unity were not yet aligned. Over the past few years, calls for reform have grown louder, with von der Leyen at the forefront of the debate.
Two critical factors complicate the path to reform. Several states openly oppose abandoning unanimity, notably Poland and Hungary. Additionally, any substantial change would require a unanimous vote to alter the Lisbon Treaty, a condition that is very hard to meet under current circumstances.
Lyudmila Babynina of the Russian Academy of Sciences remarked that even if talks begin, there is no certainty of a successful outcome. She emphasized that any draft text would be a compromise and that it is unlikely all member states would accept a shift toward qualified majority voting due to concerns over surrendering national sovereignty.
Bordachev also expressed doubt that the process would yield quick results, suggesting that a formal decision to move away from unanimity could take several years and that even then, change is not guaranteed.
The debate continues to blend political rhetoric with practical governance as the EU weighs how best to secure its collective interests while preserving member state sovereignty.