IRIA News

7 minute read

Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden have urged the European Union to take measures to prevent individual member states from blocking common foreign and security policy decisions, arguing that the bloc must be able to respond more quickly to growing geopolitical challenges.

The 11 countries submitted a joint non-paper to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas and other member states ahead of an informal meeting of EU foreign ministers on Wednesday.

The document proposes five principles aimed at reducing what the signatories describe as “obstructionist behavior” and improving the EU’s ability to take collective action.

The initiative comes amid growing debate in Brussels over the bloc’s reliance on unanimity in foreign policy. Under the current system, a single member state can prevent the EU from adopting a common position on major foreign and security issues.

The signatories said the EU’s traditional culture of consensus remains important but should not become an obstacle to collective action.

“The Union’s culture of consensus is an important source of its legitimacy. Therefore, we continue to strive for consensus wherever possible,” the countries said in the letter. “But we must also ensure that this culture of consensus fosters common action rather than preventing it, otherwise we will have legitimacy but no strength.”

Five Principles for Foreign Policy Reform

The proposed framework focuses on five areas that the 11 countries believe could reduce the ability of individual governments to obstruct EU decisions.

First, the countries called on member states to uphold the principles of sincere cooperation and mutual solidarity established in the EU treaties. They argued that governments should not deliberately prevent the Union from acting collectively.

Second, they urged greater use of “constructive abstentions” as an alternative to outright vetoes. Under this approach, a member state could refrain from supporting a decision without preventing the other EU countries from moving forward.

Third, the signatories called on governments to avoid linking foreign and security policy decisions to matters that are “essentially unrelated to the subject matter.” They also opposed raising objections over individual aspects of a proposal in a manner that ultimately prevents the EU from reaching a decision.

Fourth, the group encouraged Kallas to examine options available under the existing EU treaties to improve decision-making, including measures that could allow the bloc to move from unanimity toward qualified majority voting in foreign and security policy.

Finally, where member states retain the ability to object based on “vital and declared reasons of national policy,” the 11 countries said those reasons should be clearly and fully explained. They argued that detailed explanations would allow other governments to hold meaningful consultations and seek compromises.

“The legal framework for all five principles is already in place. It is solely up to us to put them into action and thus advance our foreign policy,” the letter said. The non-paper was also circulated to the foreign ministers of Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Germany Leads Calls for Change

Germany has been among the strongest advocates of reforming the EU’s foreign policy decision-making system. The initiative reflects growing concern among several major member states that geopolitical developments are moving faster than the bloc’s ability to reach consensus.

“The Union’s external action faces a fundamentally changed landscape, shaped by strategic competition, growing instability and attempts to undermine the rules-based international order,” the signatories said.

“In this environment, the Union’s ability to defend its values and interests hinges on whether it can mobilize its collective political, economic and diplomatic weight quickly and effectively.”

The countries argue that the EU’s growing geopolitical responsibilities require it to respond more rapidly to international crises, security threats and challenges to the rules-based international order.

The issue has become particularly prominent since Russia’s war in Ukraine, which exposed divisions among EU governments over sanctions, military assistance and broader foreign policy toward Moscow.

The ability of one member state to block decisions has also generated repeated disputes inside the bloc, particularly during the tenure of former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

The signatories’ proposal reflects lessons from years of disputes over Hungary’s use of its veto power. Orban repeatedly used Hungary’s position to delay or block EU initiatives, at times linking foreign policy decisions to issues outside the immediate matter under discussion.

Earlier this year, Hungary triggered a major dispute by blocking a proposed €90 billion loan for Ukraine amid a separate disagreement with Kyiv involving the Druzhba oil pipeline.

The episode reinforced concerns among several EU governments that unanimity can allow a single country to use its veto to extract concessions or pursue national objectives unrelated to the wider EU position.

The 11 countries did not call for the complete abandonment of consensus. Instead, they stressed that consensus should remain the preferred approach while arguing that it must not prevent the EU from acting when consensus cannot be reached.

Their proposal therefore seeks to establish mechanisms that would allow the bloc to move forward without requiring every member state to actively support a decision.

Push Toward Qualified Majority Voting

The most significant element of the initiative is the call to explore a transition from unanimity to qualified majority voting in certain areas of foreign and security policy.

The debate has centered in part on the EU treaties’ so-called “passerelle clause,” including provisions under Article 31 that can provide a legal route toward qualified majority voting in specific areas. Rather than replacing unanimity across EU foreign policy in a single step, the change could be introduced on a case-by-case basis.

Qualified majority voting would make it considerably more difficult for one government to prevent the EU from adopting a common position. At the same time, it would reduce the ability of individual member states to protect particularly sensitive national interests through a veto.

The 11 countries acknowledged that member states must retain safeguards where vital national interests are genuinely at stake. However, they argued that such objections should be clearly declared and substantiated so that other governments can assess them and attempt to find an acceptable solution.

The proposal therefore seeks to strike a balance between preserving national interests and ensuring that the EU can act collectively.

Test of EU Unity

The initiative highlights a wider question facing the EU as it seeks to strengthen its role as a geopolitical actor: whether its decision-making structures are capable of matching its ambitions.

The 11 countries argue that the bloc possesses significant political, economic and diplomatic weight but risks weakening its influence if internal divisions prevent it from deploying those resources effectively.

The proposal will now be discussed among EU member states, with the informal foreign ministers’ meeting providing an early opportunity to assess support for the five principles.

Whether the initiative can produce consensus on changing the rules remains uncertain. Any move toward qualified majority voting is likely to face resistance from governments concerned about losing their ability to protect national interests in sensitive foreign policy matters.

Nevertheless, the joint position by France, Germany, Spain and eight other member states demonstrates growing pressure for reform. Rather than eliminating consensus, the countries want to ensure that the pursuit of consensus does not leave the EU unable to act.

The central argument is that a foreign policy system designed around unanimity must adapt to a more contested international environment, where delays caused by internal vetoes can directly affect the bloc’s ability to respond to crises and defend its interests.