Germany and ten other countries together with the European Parliament propose to abolish unanimity and replace it with a qualified majority. What does this mean for smaller member-countries?
1. How many and in which cases does the unanimity rule apply today to decision-making in the EU?
Today and based on the Treaty of Lisbon applied since 2009, approximately 20% of decisions are taken unanimously by the Council of Ministers or the European Council of the European Union (EU). In other words, all 27 member states must agree. While 80% is obtained by enhanced qualified majority (QMV). With the agreement of 55% of the member states (15) representing 65% of the EU population. This 20% includes the Union’s most serious issues, such as the decisions on the common foreign policy (CFSP) and the common defence, EU enlargement, tax harmonisation, increase in the long-term budget (MFF), some institutional issues, social security and economic policy issues.
2. Has this always been the case in the European Union?
No. When the Union began as the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1958, almost all matters were decided by unanimity. In 1965, when unanimity was about to be abandoned on a significant number of issues, the then president of France, General de Gaulle, reacted. France left the Council (vacancy crisis) refusing the qualified majority. This major crisis was resolved with the so-called “Luxembourg Compromise” (1966) which gave the informal right to each member state to invoke “damage to its vital interest” in order to thwart majority decisions. This informal compromise was effectively abolished in 1987 with the implementation of the Single European Act.
3. And how did we get to today’s 80% of decisions being taken by qualified majority?
Successive amendments to the Treaties (Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties) essentially expanded the qualified majority rule in decision-making by adding new policies by abandoning unanimity. The latest Treaty (of Lisbon) simultaneously makes the European Parliament (EC) a co-legislator, which means that in almost all matters that are decided by a qualified majority, the Parliament must also agree in order to have a final decision (ordinary legislative procedure).
4. How does the qualified majority work?
For a decision to be taken by a qualified majority (agriculture, environment, internal market, etc.) at least 55% of the member states (15) must vote in favor of the decision, representing 65% of the total population of the Union . This means that neither the small countries alone, if they ally themselves, can make a decision nor the large ones. Both groups need to cooperate. Of course, four countries, including the largest, can form a “blocking minority” and stop a decision being made. However, voting is rarely held in the Council. While 80% of qualified majority decisions are finally taken unanimously under the psychological pressure of avoiding isolation for a country. It should be noted that apart from unanimity and qualified majority, decisions on procedural matters are taken by simple majority (14 countries out of 27). While the variations of unanimity / majority with the cooperation of the EP reach about 35.
5. Which system, unanimity or majority, ultimately produces better decisions in the Union?
Without a doubt, the qualified majority system allows for better decisions to be made in a higher denominator. Whereas with unanimity the Union is obliged to compromise with the most reluctant or rejecting member state at the expense of the quality of a decision. This is how many of the incomprehensible decisions and long-winded texts of the Union arise.
6. Which countries, small or large, benefit from unanimity?
There is a myth that unanimity (veto exercise) protects the smaller member states of the Union. The opposite. As a rule, it serves the larger member states more. Of course, in the case where a genuinely vital interest of a small member country is at stake, unanimity is useful. But in most cases it is used by (small) countries for unrelated matters. And in this case it either finally gives in or “puts it on its feet”, abstains (Orbán) as it completely isolates itself or its veto is bypassed (by intergovernmental agreement). I have recorded 16 serious vetoes (appeal for unanimity) by Greece in the 42 years of its participation in the Union, from sanctions in Poland (1981) to the issuance of a condemnatory statement on China (2017). Of these, only one veto brought beneficial results to the country as it genuinely concerned national interest – the accession of Cyprus (European Council Helsinki, 1999).
7. Can a member state abstain (Orban-style) from taking a decision?
The right to abstain is provided by the Treaties. There are two types of abstinence. The normal abstention from the Council or the European Council when it takes a decision (by unanimity or majority). A state does not take part in the voting / decision making. However, this does not prevent the other member states from deciding (either unanimously or by majority). However, whatever they decide (regulation, directive, etc.) also binds the member state that abstained. Therefore, the abstinence here is done more for appearances, for political reasons. This is the abstention that V. Orban did (following Solz’s prompting) by “going for coffee” and therefore not exercising a veto allowed the 26 member states to decide unanimously on the start of accession negotiations with Ukraine, etc.
The second abstention – known as “constructive abstention” – is exercised in the context of the common foreign policy only. But in this case, the absent country does not exercise a veto, but is also not bound by any decision taken (Cyprus exercised it in the past, e.g. for Kosovo).
8. Could a small member-country abstain to promote/defend its interests?
Obviously it could if it considered that this serves the objectives it has set and thus allow the accession negotiation process to proceed. In practice, however, this would mean abandoning the veto for this specific case (not in general, of course).
9. What is the future of unanimity?
In view of the new EU enlargement, unanimity should be abolished in favor of qualified majority voting (QMV). Otherwise the Union will be paralyzed. But the abolition of unanimity can only be done by a unanimous decision of the member states (even if Chancellor Soltz says whatever he wants). A difficult thing. However, the abolition of unanimity should be accompanied by a regulation/clause (emergency brake) to protect the genuinely vital interests of the member states.
10. And what (should) be the position of the small member country?
Today he is in favor of maintaining unanimity. However, it should be in favor of abolishing unanimity and switching to a qualified majority with a clause protecting genuinely vital national interests. The permanent and timeless interests of a member country are served by the deepening of integration promoted by the qualified majority.
