Subscribe
The campaign to weaken unanimity in the Council of the European Union is no longer a theoretical argument for Brussels seminars. It is back in active politics. Ursula von der Leyen has repeatedly pressed the case for qualified majority voting in foreign policy, including in areas such as sanctions and human rights. In her 2025 State of the Union speech she spoke of freeing Europe from the “shackles” of unanimity. More recently, after political change in Hungary altered the balance of the debate, she again described qualified majority voting in foreign policy as a way to avoid “systemic blockages”.
That language is revealing. To supporters of deeper integration, unanimity is increasingly framed as a nuisance: a procedural relic that allows one government to delay the will of twenty-six others. To defenders of national sovereignty, however, the veto is not an administrative inconvenience. It is the constitutional guarantee that no member state, large or small, can be compelled into a decision on matters touching its vital national interests.
The ECR Group’s position is clear. It opposes the use of enlargement, foreign policy frustration or short-term geopolitical pressure as a pretext for further centralisation. Its current priorities state that enlargement must not be used as a backdoor for treaty change or new powers such as qualified majority voting in Council foreign-policy decisions. That is the right position. The EU is a union of states, not a unitary foreign-policy machine directed from the centre.
Ireland’s position is more evasive. The Government presents itself as practical and careful. It says Ireland is open to selected reforms in limited areas while insisting that taxation, defence and core neutrality issues remain protected. Irish officials have acknowledged observer status in the Group of Friends on Qualified Majority Voting in Common Foreign and Security Policy. Ministers also point to devices such as constructive abstention, under which a state may stand aside from a foreign-policy decision without blocking it.
This is meant to sound balanced. In reality it is an unstable compromise. Ireland is signalling that it is willing to discuss a reduction of unanimity in some fields while hoping to preserve it absolutely in others. That is not a doctrine. It is a bet that institutional pressure can be contained once conceded.
The problem with that bet is obvious. Once unanimity is treated as negotiable in one politically sensitive field, the argument for keeping it elsewhere becomes harder to sustain. The legal position may differ from policy area to policy area, and many changes would still require unanimity or treaty revision. But the political precedent matters. The same words used today about sanctions or enlargement can be used tomorrow about taxation, defence procurement, migration or the EU budget: Europe must act faster; one state must not hold the others hostage; the world is too dangerous for vetoes.
Ireland, of all countries, should understand the danger. It is a small member state with a long tradition of military neutrality and an economic model built around national control of tax policy. The 12.5 per cent corporation tax rate still applies generally to trading income, even though large multinational groups are now subject to a 15 per cent minimum effective rate under Pillar Two. The broader point remains: Ireland has always depended on retaining sovereign control over key fiscal choices. It has also relied on treaty guarantees and veto protections to reassure voters that EU membership would not dissolve core national decisions into a continental majority.
Qualified majority voting changes the character of that relationship. Under QMV, a measure generally requires support from 55 per cent of member states representing at least 65 per cent of the EU population. That gives smaller states a voice, but not a lock. A small country can be outvoted if enough larger states and their allies align. That may be tolerable in ordinary internal-market legislation. It is far more dangerous in foreign policy, enlargement and sanctions, where decisions can affect neutrality, trade exposure, security risk and diplomatic relationships.
Seán Kelly MEP has now made the Fine Gael tension explicit. In a recent Irish Examiner opinion piece, he argued that the EU should move away from unanimity on accession, sanctions, trade-deal ratification and aid. On LinkedIn, he urged Ireland to use its 2026 Council Presidency to bring qualified majority voting on enlargement, trade and aid onto the agenda. His argument is that the EU must become capable of acting decisively and should not be held to ransom by one government.
This is the familiar pro-QMV case, and it should not be dismissed as unserious. Hungary’s use of the veto under Viktor Orbán caused real frustration. The EU has struggled to maintain coherent positions on Ukraine, Israel, China and sanctions. A single government can delay or water down action supported by most others. Those problems exist.
But Kelly’s answer is still wrong. A bad use of a safeguard does not prove that the safeguard should be abolished. The purpose of unanimity is not to make Brussels faster. It is to ensure that decisions with sovereign consequences have sovereign consent. If a member state behaves cynically, the answer should be political pressure, conditionality where legally available, Article 7 procedures where justified, or coalitions of willing states acting outside EU unanimity where appropriate. The answer should not be to weaken every small state’s future position because one government behaved badly.
Ireland should be especially wary of becoming the polite facilitator of this shift during its Council Presidency from July to December 2026. Formally, the rotating presidency does not chair the Foreign Affairs Council; that role belongs to the High Representative. But the presidency still matters. It shapes agendas, manages files, chairs most Council formations, works through Coreper and working groups, and sets the tone of institutional brokerage. If Ireland uses that role to normalise QMV in sensitive fields, it will not be acting as a neutral chair. It will be advancing a constitutional change in EU practice.
Constructive abstention is no solution. It may be useful in exceptional circumstances, and Ireland has used it before in the context of Ukraine-related military support through EU mechanisms. But it is not a substitute for unanimity. If a state repeatedly abstains to avoid blocking decisions it cannot support, it is not preserving sovereignty. It is accepting marginalisation. The country stands aside while others define the Union’s position, and then lives with the diplomatic and institutional consequences.
The enlargement question makes the danger clearer. The European Parliament has pushed for opening and closing individual accession clusters and chapters by qualified majority rather than unanimity. Supporters say this would stop one member state from blocking candidate countries for bilateral reasons. But accession is not a technical file. It changes the Union’s borders, budget, voting weights, labour market and strategic posture. Every member state has a direct national interest in how enlargement proceeds.
The ECR Group has rightly opposed attempts to use enlargement as a vehicle for majority voting. In March 2026, during debate on the 2025 Enlargement Package in the European Committee of the Regions, ECR Vice-President Anna Magyar stressed that unanimity in the Council must remain central to credible accession decisions. That is the correct test. Enlargement can be strategically valuable, but it must remain a decision of the member states, not an institutional momentum exercise.
Ireland’s defenders of “limited” QMV should explain where their limiting principle lies. If sanctions can move to QMV because the world is dangerous, why not defence industrial policy? If accession chapters can move to QMV because enlargement is urgent, why not the final accession steps? If aid and trade ratification can move because one state should not block the many, why should taxation remain permanently immune from the same argument?
The answer, in practice, is that Irish governments want flexibility when the veto frustrates their preferred EU outcome and protection when it shields an Irish interest. That is selective sovereignty. It may be convenient in the short term, but it is not a serious constitutional position.
There is also a democratic issue. EU foreign policy remains closely tied to national electorates. Irish voters do not elect a European government with a full foreign-policy mandate. They elect a Dáil and a government that must answer domestically for decisions on neutrality, sanctions, diplomatic recognition and military alignment. Moving sensitive foreign-policy decisions to QMV weakens that chain of accountability. A government could tell voters it opposed a decision but was outvoted. That may be procedurally tidy in Brussels. It is politically corrosive at home.
None of this means the EU should be paralysed. Europe faces serious external threats. Russia’s war against Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, Chinese pressure, US uncertainty and hybrid attacks all require coordination. But coordination is strongest when it rests on durable consent. A Union that overrides national red lines may move faster in the moment, but it will also deepen mistrust among its members. Efficiency bought at the price of legitimacy is not strength.
Ireland therefore needs to stop hiding behind procedural language. Observer status, constructive abstention, targeted reforms and “non-sensitive areas” all sound reassuring until the direction of travel is examined. The direction is away from unanimity and toward a Union in which smaller states are expected to accept decisions shaped by larger coalitions.
Seán Kelly has at least been candid about where he wants to go. He wants Ireland to use the Presidency to push the debate forward. The Government’s position is less honest because it seeks to appear protective and reformist at the same time. That ambiguity will not survive the coming months. Von der Leyen, Germany and federalist voices in Parliament will continue to press the issue. Ireland will have to choose.
The ECR answer is the right one: keep unanimity where sovereignty is at stake. Do not use enlargement as a backdoor to institutional centralisation. Do not pretend that removing the veto in one field has no implications for others. Do not ask smaller member states to surrender their final protection in exchange for promises of faster decision-making.
Ireland’s interests are not served by semi-federalist enthusiasm dressed up as pragmatism. They are served by a clear defence of the principle that member states joined a Union, not a hierarchy. If Ireland gives ground on that principle now, it may discover too late that the veto it treated as expendable in someone else’s dispute was the same safeguard it needed for its own.