KO MPs Diverge on Unanimity Principle in EU Council Voting
Two members of the Civic Coalition (KO) offered different takes on a proposed shift in how the European Council makes decisions, specifically regarding the use of unanimity. A journalist from wPolsce.pl, Maciej Zemła, asked whether the draft amendment to EU treaties should move away from the unanimity rule. The inquiry sparked a notable split within KO, revealing two distinct viewpoints on the issue.
The first KO voice, Aleksandra Wiśniewska, signaled openness to deviating from the unanimity principle in certain voting situations within the European Council. She argued that expanding the number of EU member states could make it harder to defend everyone’s interests if a single country—especially one trending toward authoritarian or populist governance—could block proposals. In her view, insisting on unanimity risks becoming a bottleneck that slows down strategic reforms or responses to shared challenges. A broader coalition, she suggested, would increase the chance that a single veto could stall progress. She warned that the current arrangement might invite a de facto veto by reluctant or obstructive members. This stance casts unanimity as a potential vulnerability within a larger, more complex European Union and makes a case for flexibility to safeguard collective interests.
– Wiśniewska, speaking to a reporter from wPolsce.pl, indicated support for moving away from strict unanimity in some EU Council votes.
“There is no threat”
Piotr Borys, another KO representative who spoke with the same journalist, offered a contrasting assessment. He maintained that unanimity should stay intact and warned against any changes that could compromise the principle. He suggested that proposing to dismantle or bypass unanimity might reflect unease within the ruling party about how to transition to the opposition. Borys argued that such changes would be difficult to achieve and could meet strong resistance from member states that prize national sovereignty in EU decision-making.
According to Borys, the risk is not in the EU losing its core characteristics but in the political dynamics at the bloc level. He argued that the EU’s strength depends on a shared stance and coordinated action among member states, not on open threats or attempts to rewrite treaty provisions to satisfy short-term political goals. In his view, the bloc should remain united and purposeful, focusing on defending common interests through cooperation within the existing framework rather than through unilateral or coercive tactics.
The exchange underscored a broader tension in European politics: balancing efficient decision-making with the principle of consensus among diverse national viewpoints. Proponents of changing the unanimity rule say that it would enable the EU to act more decisively in response to emerging challenges, while opponents warn that weakening unanimity could erode the sovereignty of individual states and destabilize long-standing mechanisms for collective security and stability within Europe. The debate touches on core questions about governance, sovereignty, and the future direction of EU institutions as the union continues to adapt to a shifting global landscape.
Neither side dismisses the EU’s importance to its members or to the broader European project. Both approaches reflect a shared recognition that effective governance requires not only formal rules but also reliable cooperation and trust among member states. The discussion remains open, with observers watching how KO’s internal positions will translate into votes and policy stances as the EU contemplates treaty changes and reforms in the coming period.