Foreign ministers of seven EU member-states have advocated for the use of qualified majority voting (QMV) in taking decisions related to the Union’s common foreign and security policy, Brussels-based web portal Politico reports, transmits MIA.
The initiative is advocated by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, Belgian FM Hadja Lahbib, Luxembourg FM Jean Asselborn, Netherlands FM Wopke Hoekstra, Romanian FM Bogdan Aurescu, Slovenian FM Tanja Fajon, and Spanish FM José Manuel Albares Bueno, who propose a pragmatic approach, focusing only on questions of EU Foreign and Security Policy and utilizing provisions already built into the Treaty on European Union (TEU) in a more flexible way that can work for everyone.
“We want to move beyond old dividing lines between those in favor of more majority decision-making and those opposed to it. We are not advocating for treaty changes, nor do we envision drawn out academic debate,” reads the initiative.
The FMs propose greater use of “constructive abstentions”, which still allows a decision to pass — namely, by not objecting to it, and thus not stopping the other 26 members from moving forward.
“We saw just how effective ‘constructive abstentions’ can be last October, when the Foreign Affairs Council voted on the new EU training mission for the Ukrainian military. We want to build on this emerging trend – and we commit ourselves to systematically scrutinizing our own positions with a view to switching from a vote against to a constructive abstention,” reads the proposal.
The seven FMs also propose that the QMV be put to a practical test, with certain EU foreign policy areas already allowing for decision-making by qualified majority, based on article 31 (2) of TEU.
“If, for example, the Council has unanimously decided to set up a civilian EU mission, the operative terms of that mission could then be decided by QMV. We could similarly apply QMV when deciding on the basis of common EU positions in international human rights forums,” say the ministers.
In addition, they suggest adapting the way decisions are taken in areas that do not require formal voting but consensus applies in practice, nonetheless.
“When the High Representative makes a public statement on behalf of the EU, for instance, the text could be agreed in a Council implementing decision by qualified majority, in accordance with article 31 (2) TEU. This would speed up the way we communicate and make our European voice stronger,” say the ministers.
In the face of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, they note in the initiative, the European Union has proven its ability to act. It has done so by standing by Ukraine diplomatically, financially and militarily; by cutting its energy dependence on Russia; and by offering Ukraine, as well as the Republic of Moldova, a clear EU membership perspective.
“As we look to the future, this ability to take swift and resolute action will remain key for the EU’s role as a foreign policy actor ready and willing to uphold its citizens’ values and interests in an increasingly uncertain global arena,” reads the document.
According to the petitioners, an EU that produces solid, tangible results is needed, but also enhancement of its capacity to deliver in times of crisis.
“And as the EU enlarges, successful European integration requires its institutions to function effectively. In the past, however, such swift and resolute EU action was not always a given. The vast majority of decisions in EU foreign policy require unanimity — which, in some cases, can slow down our ability to act. It is despite, and not because of, these rules that we were able to agree on 10 sanctions packages against Russia in response to its war of aggression against a sovereign state,” reads the proposal.
The ministers understand that some EU partners have concerns about using QMV in EU foreign policy and take these concerns seriously.
“To us, seeking consensus is, and shall remain, at the heart of our European DNA because seeing the world from different angles and being open to constructive compromise is an asset. Thus, we will do our utmost to accommodate the concerns of all EU member states, to ensure the adoption of the best possible decisions for our collective interests. We will work toward further strengthening cooperation in a spirit of mutual trust within the EU,” reads the document.
It notes that member states may invoke the emergency brake provided for in article 31 (2) TEU for vital and stated reasons of national policy.
“In these trying times, we are standing up for an EU that is a capable, effective and decisive actor, protecting the freedom, security and prosperity of its citizens. The EU has always managed to move ahead in challenging moments. Now, once again, it is time to act,” concludes the proposal.
