At the meeting of the Ministerial Council, which took place on Tuesday, September 20, the main topic of discussion was the day after the conclusion of the Conference on the Future Europe. Particular emphasis was placed on the prospect of greater use of qualified majorities for decision-making in the Council, with references to the need for immediate application of the “skip clause” gradually and in specific areas. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen alluded to similar developments in her speech to the European Parliament last week, speaking of the need to improve the way decisions are made in the EU. The German chancellor explicitly referred to this issue in her speech in Prague in August.

This is a question that has been in the political news of the EU for quite some time and will remain so due to considerable resistance and hesitation from several member states. A qualified majority basically means that a member who wants to block a decision will no longer be able to invoke the veto power provided by the treaties, so that he cannot block an EU decision and action that is considered detrimental to him. This right is not completely abolished, but the scope and manner of its exercise are limited. The main argument of the opponents of such a development of events lies precisely in the inability of – mostly small – states to protect their national interests without the possibility of using the right of veto. On the other hand, the main arguments for using supermajority voting are greater efficiency in decision-making and isolation of extreme views that prevent the Union from taking action on a range of issues, from foreign policy to immigration and human rights. The efficiency argument gains more weight when we consider that we have entered a new expansion trajectory – with the Western Balkans and beyond – and therefore further heterogeneity between member states is expected to increase.

If we are willing and accept the prospect of deepening and integrating the EU with our country’s participation in it, qualified majorities are undoubtedly the future of the EU process. However, there are problems and hidden dangers for which we must be prepared. Politically extroverted Greece, active in EU institutions and dynamically present at all stages of the production cycle of European public policy, should not be afraid of this prospect. The few cases in which it may be in the minority are outweighed by the vast majority of cases in which it would be to the advantage of other Member States to over-indulge in individual voices of reaction. Thus, the point is to jointly shape the content of political decisions in the EU, and not to occupy the defensive line of trenches and heroic defense behind the right of veto. In the forty-one years of our participation in the building of the EU, we have often fluctuated between these two situations. The possible expansion of the qualified majority signals the need for an absolute consolidation of the first approach in everything that concerns our European presence.

* Spyros Blavoukos is Associate Professor at the Athens University of Economics and Business and Head of the European Program Arian Kontellis, ELIAMEP