Beyond Unanimity - Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli

A Union Tested by Crises and Its Own Rules

Europe today finds itself at a critical crossroads. From the war in Ukraine to the conflict in Gaza, instability across the Mediterranean, and a shifting global balance of power, the EU faces external shocks that require urgent action. However, the Union often struggles not because of a lack of capacity, but because of its internal structures. At the centre of these problems is the EU’s requirement for unanimity in key decisions, designed to protect national sovereignty but increasingly slowing down action. While commonly referred to as a ‘veto,’ no legal provision grants member states an explicit veto; rather, unanimity effectively gives any single state the power to block decisions, creating the practical equivalent of a veto.

Understanding EU Decision-Making

EU decision-making in certain sensitive areas, such as foreign policy, taxation, treaty amendments, enlargement, and justice and home affairs, often requires unanimity, meaning that all member states must agree for a proposal to be adopted. Legally, no member state possesses a formal veto, however, the unanimity requirement gives each state the practical ability to block a decision. This distinction matters: since the EU treaties refer to unanimity rather than granting explicit veto powers, mechanisms like qualified majority voting can be introduced to ease deadlock in areas where the treaties permit it. By contrast, in bodies with formal veto rights, such as the UN Security Council, majority voting cannot override a single member’s veto.

Vetoes, Sovereignist Pressures, and Institutional Deadlock

Repeated blocks under unanimity illustrate the tension between national sovereignty and collective governance. Hungary, for example, leveraged its ability to prevent unanimous decisions between 2023 and 2024 to secure domestic concessions. Larger states, like France and Germany, have proposed limiting unanimity in strategic areas, while smaller states resist reforms that might reduce their influence. Similar patterns are emerging in other member states, where rising support for sovereigntist parties points to a broader challenge for the EU.

Democratic Deficit and Citizen Engagement

Underlying these challenges is a democratic paradox. Of the three main EU institutions, only the European Parliament is directly elected, yet it holds less power than the Commission and the Council. This fuels the long-standing charge of a “democratic deficit.” The EU Parliament often plays a marginal role in major decisions, while the Council, dominated by national governments, and the Commission, an unelected executive, shape much of EU policy. Citizens therefore feel distant from decision-making, a gap eurosceptic and sovereigntist parties exploit. If this disconnect persists, the Union risks eroding legitimacy and its ability to act. The central question remains: how can Europeans have a real say in decisions that affect their future?

Paths to Reform: Efficiency and Participation

Reforming areas that currently require unanimity by introducing qualified majority voting could reduce the impasse while preserving smaller states’ influence. And according to the aforementioned difference between unanimity in the European Council and the veto power of the UN Council, such reforms are feasible and would allow the Union to act more decisively in crises. This approach balances efficiency with sovereignty, overcoming the practical ‘veto’ effect without undermining the legal framework.

A second avenue for reform lies in strengthening the role of the European Parliament, the only directly elected EU institution. Enhancing its legislative competences would anchor democratic legitimacy and provide citizens with a clearer voice in shaping Union policies. In parallel, proposals to empower the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy reflect recognition that the current intergovernmental model is insufficient to address contemporary geopolitical challenges, particularly in foreign and security policy.

Equally important is citizen participation. The European Commission’s Competence Centre on Participatory and Deliberative Democracy (CC-DEMOS) and initiatives like the Citizen Participation and Deliberative Democracy Festival connect citizens with policymaking. The 2024 edition focused on environmental issues and the green transition, showing that getting citizens involved helps build trust and push back against eurosceptic sentiment. Expanding these efforts could strengthen European democracy. Without reform, Europe could be left out of key global decisions and struggle to respond to crises from Ukraine to the Mediterranean.

Conclusion: A Democratic Laboratory at a Crossroads

The EU is a supranational system that pools sovereignty among its members while preserving national identities. However, if unanimity continues to block decisions and citizens feel excluded, the Union risks stagnating and losing influence. By reforming institutions, Europe could turn its current challenges into opportunities to strengthen legitimacy and resilience. The real test is showing that democracy beyond the nation-state can work by responding quickly to crises, protecting values, and acting with a united voice globally. If it succeeds, Europe can lead regionally and serve as an example of democratic innovation.