Member states of the European Union are entering a new phase of conflict, as the European Commission seeks to limit member states’ right of veto on international issues in order to shield itself from conflicting views.
The “catalyst” for echoes of change came after the defeat of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán in the elections, following which European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen renewed calls for the European Union to abolish the national veto in foreign policy, advocating a shift to Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) to prevent systemic deadlocks.
With Orbán serving as Hungary’s prime minister for 16 years, Hungary frequently blocked foreign policy decisions, repeatedly causing disputes between Brussels and Budapest. Less than 24 hours after the election, von der Leyen once again called on the European Union to gain more power over national governments so that it could impose certain foreign policy decisions. In other words: to put an end to the right of veto, a historic EU instrument.
The proposal generally concerns foreign policy and security issues, such as sanctions against Russia and funding for Ukraine, which were previously held up by vetoes from individual countries.
In spite of von der Leyen’s assertion that Hungary was on a “pro-European” path following Péter Magyar’s election as prime minister, his statements have repeatedly drawn parallels with Orbán’s views. In particular, Magyar has pledged to maintain the country’s strict anti-immigration stance, signalling continuity with Orbán’s disputed border policy amid ongoing disputes with Brussels over asylum rules and EU funding. On top of that, things are still up in the air regarding Ukraine, as Magyar has cast doubt on its EU membership.
“Von der Leyen aims to remove the veto power of EU member states on international issues in order to suppress any dissent against her will. This constitutes a final betrayal of the sovereignty of nation states,” said Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, leader of Debout la France (France Arise), on his X.
Although such a strong drive for change is quite characteristic of the European Commission President, who in recent years has called on the EU to make radical changes: to abolish the right of veto and move to qualified majority voting, as for her this would mean supporting her allies despite disagreements with the EU member states themselves on foreign policy issues. But even among the most pro-European members, few are prepared to push for this internal revolution.
The reason lies in a reluctance to relinquish control over their own foreign policy, and the potential risk of being forced to ratify decisions they might otherwise oppose. Apart from countries such as France and Germany, which stand to gain from such a decision, veto rights are a vital tool for some smaller states, giving them a voice.
If Brussels succeeds in gaining the upper hand, this will result in the interests of smaller countries being ignored, meanwhile foreign policy will be dictated by major players such as Germany and France. Euroscepticism, on the other hand, will intensify, as member states that voted against but found themselves in the minority may sabotage the implementation of common decisions. And the main threat is that fundamental changes could weaken the principle of “unity in diversity” and deepen divisions within the Union.
In this way, the speed-up mechanism could lower the quality of foreign policy by failing to take into account the vital interests of certain countries.
However, even among supporters, opinions sometimes differ: some countries want majority voting to apply across the board, meanwhile others want it to apply only to certain issues, such as taxation, but not to foreign policy. Even with strong support, a problem remains: to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting, Brussels will first have to convince all member states to back the change.
