Perhaps the most “popular” suggestion is to remove unanimity in decision-making. But here the issue is not legal, it is purely political, as the Portuguese MEP of the European People’s Party (EPP) Paulo Ranzel, a member of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, explains.
Changes in the functioning of the EU will be discussed by European leaders at the forthcoming summit. One of the most “mature” proposals is the abolition of unanimity in decision-making.
Everyone agrees that it is not easy to make decisions in the “EU of 27”. It will be even more difficult when the countries of the Western Balkans or even countries like Ukraine and Moldova join. In an effort to disengage, the “Conference on the Future of Europe”, which began in April 2021 as an online dialogue with the participation of citizens and recently concluded in Strasbourg with the support of the French EU Presidency, worked out concrete proposals for institutional change. Some of them require time-consuming procedures to change the Treaties in the EU, others do not.
Perhaps the most “popular” suggestion is to remove unanimity in decision-making. But here the issue is not legal, it is purely political, as he explains o Portuguese MEP of the European People’s Party (EPP) Paulo Ranzel, member of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs.
“In many cases, decisions are already made by a majority and not by unanimity,” the Portuguese MEP told Deutsche Welle.
“Beyond that, we do not need to change the Treaties to abolish unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty provides for this and allows the Council to take a decision, by which some areas for which unanimity is now required will now be subject to majority decisions. The point is, however, that unanimity is already required for this decision. “
“Let’s start somewhere …”
Sounds weird, but it’s true: European leaders must decide unanimously that … they do not want to decide unanimously. And that is difficult. But as SYRIZA MEP and Vice President of the European Parliament, Dimitris Papadimoulis, points out, “Europe can only move forward if it is not a hostage of every Orban. A few days ago, he was forced to make a last-minute compromise on the Russian oil embargo in order to get what Orban was asking for. If we want the EU to continue to be effective in the economic sphere, in the social sphere, in its geopolitical role, we need a ‘realistic federalism’, as Draghi called him, speaking in the European Parliament a few weeks ago. Which means that the issues that are decided by an increased majority must be expanded “.
In his speech, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi called for “reform of the Treaties”, noting that in any case “the principle of unanimity leading to cross-vetoes must be abolished.” Many agree on this, in principle. But what happens when decisions concern sensitive foreign policy issues? “I think we should put aside the issues of foreign policy and defense, there needs to be special attention,” Dimitris Papadimoulis told Deutsche Welle. “Let’s start with the issues of education, health, the environment, the economy, the fight against tax evasion and financial crime. As far as Greece is concerned, however, I think that our interest is in the deepening and democratization of the political unification of Europe. “Orban and Morawiecki are not good company for our national issues.”
Reservations about the complete abolition of the veto are also expressed by the Portuguese MEP Ranzel. “It is clear that each country has its own history,” he says. “A country like Greece or much more Cyprus will always have some issues with Turkey. Spain with Morocco, France with Algeria, Portugal with Central Africa. “Usually others do not realize how sensitive these issues are.” So, in practice, what is the solution? “Especially the smaller countries want to maintain an ‘escape route’ to the veto on issues that touch on the core of national sovereignty,” said Paulo Ranzel. “Perhaps we can agree that, for example, decisions on sanctions will be taken by an increased majority, as will decisions on humanitarian aid, while in other matters lifting the veto is not such a good idea …”
“Governments did not want the Conference”
In the wake of the “Conference on the Future of Europe”, the European Parliament adopted a resolution last Thursday approving proposals for institutional changes, such as the abolition of unanimity. It is recalled that about 20 years ago the “Constituent Assembly for the Future of Europe” was set up with the ambition to launch the necessary reforms, but the participation of the citizens was minimal. With the “NO” of the French in the referendum, the hopes for a modern European Constitution were buried.
Today, the “Conference on the Future of Europe” reiterates its call for institutional change, although it avoids any reference to a “Constitution”. But again, these would mean that you have to spend for these processes. Asked if he was satisfied with the outcome of the Conference, the Vice President of the European Parliament, Dimitris Papadimoulis, replied: “No, I am not satisfied. Any positive results are due to the active participation of the citizens and the positive role played by the representatives of the European Parliament – I was one of them – and the representatives of the national parliaments. The Commission had a bureaucratic involvement and the Council acted as a major ‘brake’. And in general, because governments did not want this thing, they did not advertise it at all. And they did not actively participate. “
Giannis Papadimitriou, Strasbourg
