At a turning point in terms of decision-making processes in critical sectors, EUROPE. Chancellor’s report yesterday Germany Olaf Soltzfrom Prague, with a gradual transition to making most decisions in common foreign policy, but also in other areas, to the similar positions of the President of France is added Emmanuel Macronwhile in the recent past there have been similar statements by the Chairman of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen but also his Mario Draghi.

“If they say so Germans and French, which means that progress is being made in this area, ”says a source in diplomatic circles. Athens is following developments with interest. So far, given that the issue of changing the decision-making process in the EU has not been raised at any level, institutionally there is no formal preparation. However, the fact that the relevant reports are being condensed to the highest possible level indicates a mobility around an issue that cannot be ignored.

According to the analysis of an experienced diplomatic agent, there are two parameters that determined the course of events and prompted the opening of the debate on the abolition of the principle of unanimity in areas that concern even the sovereignty of member states: the first decisive event was Britain’s exit from the EU. As pointed out, as long as the UK was a Member State, there could be no hint of such a discussion, as London’s positions were clearly in favor of maintaining the principle of unanimity. The second decisive development was the complexity of EU decision-making. in relation to Russia after its formation war in Ukraine. Obstacles to decision-making on sanctions, primarily from Hungary, but also from other countries, opened the way for a discussion of redefining the process.

Revoking unanimity touches the foundation of national sovereignty and is considered a challenge for smaller EU member states. to entrust such an opportunity to the elders.

“The principle of unanimity has been a difficult parameter since the days of the EU. from 12-15 Member States. In Europe on the 27th, we are talking about endless consultations, deals and compromises that cause long delays and act as a brake, especially in cases where the demonstration of quick reflexes is vital to the interests and prestige of the EU,” the diplomatic source emphasizes. This is not a secret. This has been established several times in recent years when the EU is called upon to manage various crises, “Instrumentalization and political abuse of the veto power are often evident,” it says.

However, the abolition of the principle of unanimity in the field of foreign policy affects the essence of national sovereignty, and it is extremely difficult for small member states to give such an opportunity to larger ones. In this context, the discussion in Athena is evolving in favor of a more flexible scheme to avoid the instrumentalization of unanimity by countries without much weight, which use the “weapon” of unanimity to advance their agenda on other issues. However, the Greek side is clearly in favor of creating security barriers for vital issues so that the axis of national sovereignty is not affected.

To achieve this, ingenuity is required to formulate a hybrid model. In any case, according to a diplomatic source, this is a discussion that has a long way to go and lengthy procedures for changing conditions.

views

Soltz’s proposals and the power of veto

George Pagulatos*

Soltz’s speech is an important contribution to the Dialogue on the Future of Europe, which is dominated by Macron’s proposals. Contrary to Macron’s deepening priority, Soltz proposes enlargement along with deepening the EU. Both rightly strive for a strong and “sovereign” EU capable of defending its security and interests by making collective decisions. Soltz opposes “enhanced cooperation” schemes. It proposes a complete transition from unanimity to a special strengthened majority of member states. Of course, the abolition of unanimity implies a change in the bylaws that requires unanimity. A strong EU, united in foreign policy and defense, would be a shield for a country like Greece, which is threatened by a NATO partner outside the EU.

The reluctance of small member states to sacrifice the power of veto in foreign policy is a matter of course. There are strong arguments in his favor. Maintaining the veto power ensures that EU decisions remain inclusive. The isolation of minority member states on key foreign policy issues would weaken the legitimacy of the EU. and its recognition in these countries. At the same time, E.E. he would have no way of forcing members of minorities to adhere to the policies they oppose. On the other hand, the ability of member states to use the power of veto to blackmail decisions in their favor leads to paralysis or decisions with a low common denominator, weakening the EU. For more details, see S. Blavoukos and G. Pagulatos, “Europe after Putin’s War: The EU. in a New European Security Architecture”, ELIAMEP Policy Paper, 95/2022.

Thus, a qualified majority is the right direction, but the transition should be gradual. Smaller Member States need strong assurance that they will always be able to use the provided “emergency brakes”. The transition to a qualified majority should be the final stage in the formation of a European consensus on foreign policy regarding the main security challenges and the need for strategic EU autonomy. In light of the specter of war in Ukraine, the debate is polarizing but also maturing.

At present, much remains to be done to improve the functioning of the existing foreign policy and institutional framework for EU security. and full exploitation of existing opportunities.

* Mr. Yorgos Pagulatos – Professor of the University of Economics, General Director of ELIAMEP.

A dysfunctional but necessary rule

Spyros Vlahopoulos*

There is no doubt that the unanimity rule creates problems of dysfunction. A veto by one state, not always well-intentioned, is enough to derail the necessary decision. However, on the other hand, the very positive consequences of the unanimity rule should not be overlooked. Thanks to this rule, weaker states know that their vital interests will not be left unprotected against the will of the majority. This element is very important, because it is only with this sense of security provided by the unanimity rule that smaller and weaker states are willing to agree to cede that part of their national sovereignty that is necessary for the functioning of the EU. Let’s not forget that the unanimity rule applies to particularly sensitive areas such as common foreign and security policy, citizenship, EU membership, harmonization of national legislation regarding indirect taxation, its Union finances, aspects of justice and home affairs, as well as harmonization of national legislation. in the field of social security and social protection.

The EU is shaking and anyone who doesn’t see it will probably go blind. The exit of the United Kingdom, the challenge of the rule of law of the EU by various supreme courts (the most typical examples are the courts of Germany and France), the lack of solidarity among the countries of the European South in solving the immigration problem. and deviations from the rule of law in some countries created an explosive scene. The last thing the EU needs now. it is a revision of a fundamental rule which, whatever the problems involved, ensures, as far as possible, European unity and the participation of weaker states in the vision of a united Europe. Since the proposal to limit the unanimity rule comes from the strongest link in the EU, Germany, its eventual passage will strengthen Euroskeptic voices at a time when a united Europe is needed more than ever.

* Mr. Spyros Vlahopoulos is Professor of Law at the Hellenic Academy of Sciences.