Expanding Qualified Majority Voting Could Lead to Power Concentration in Brussels

The veto right of member states embodies and protects fundamental EU principles and values, Zoltan Lomnici Jr., scientific director at Szazadveg, told Magyar Nemzet in an interview. Ursula von der Leyen’s plan has no independent legal basis for transforming the decision-making mechanism of the common foreign and security policy, he argued.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (Photo: AFP)

From the very beginning, the existence and functioning of the European project has been defined by fundamental EU principles and values. These are embodied and safeguarded "in one single institution": the member state veto right. The Treaty briefly defines this as "decisions of the European Council are taken by consensus unless the Treaties specify otherwise," explained Zoltan Lomnici Jr., commenting on the plan Ursula von der Leyen has recently floated. 

Von der Leyen’s plan would cause a concentration of power, says constitutional lawyer Zoltan Lomnici Jr., scientific director at Szazadveg (Photo: MTI/Noemi Bruzak)

The Treaty also stipulates that legislative acts cannot be adopted and, unless otherwise provided in the Treaties, the Council and the European Council shall act unanimously,

pointed out the expert.

Qualified majority, that is, bypassing consensus, is possible only in limited, explicitly listed exceptions. Even then, the 'emergency brake' applies: if a member state objects for vital national reasons, there is no vote, and the matter must be brought before the European Council,

he explained.

Broadening exceptions cannot be done through a simple political declaration either. Even the so-called passerelle clause under Article 31(3) requires unanimity in the European Council, and in military or defense matters it is excluded.

Shifting foreign policy decisions to qualified majority, effectively hollowing out the veto right, would require treaty amendment – which can only be achieved through the Article 48 TEU procedure.

As long as these provisions remain in force, Ursula von der Leyen's idea has no solid legal basis, and it would involve significant restrictions on member state sovereignty,

the expert emphasized.

The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional,

Zoltan Lomnici Jr. cited the Treaty.

He pointed out that: "This provision excludes even the possibility in principle of changing the current decision-making mechanism to the detriment of any member state – especially without amending primary law."

Von der Leyen’s plan has no independent legal basis for altering the decision-making mechanism of the common foreign and security policy. Article 30(1) TEU explicitly sets out who may initiate in this field: any member state or the Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Commission may appear only in a supportive role,

the scientific director highlighted.
Therefore, he argued, the Commission President’s statements cannot be considered a legally grounded initiative but merely a political stance that disregards both the procedural framework enshrined in EU treaties and the constitutional protection of member state sovereignty.

Von der Leyen’s Plan Could Cause a Concentration of Power

In recent times, federalist interest groups within the EU, organized along imperial logic, have declared war on sovereignty, national identity, and subsidiarity. One key instrument of this would be moving from unanimous decision-making to the qualified majority voting model,

 Zoltan Lomnici Jr. stressed.

Ursula von der Leyen's proposal would violate the sovereignty of member states, because the extent of the transfer of powers in the field of common foreign and security policy is exhaustively laid down in the Treaties.

According to Article 5(2) TEU, the Union may only exercise the competences expressly conferred upon it by the Member States. In the common foreign and security policy, this division of competences is based on the Member States' right of veto and the requirement of unanimity.

he explained.

Qualified majority voting works in other areas where the European Commission can initiate and oversee implementation. Extended to foreign policy, this would mean that the Commission would play a greater role in drafting proposals and coordinating implementation, he emphasized.

This could cause a concentration of power in Brussels, since the European Commission and the European Parliament would be strengthened, while the individual voice and legal status of the member states would be weakened,

concluded Zoltan Lomnici Jr., noting that in practice, the veto right means that in the affected areas, every member state can block any decision contrary to its national interest or constitutional identity.

Cover photo: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (Photo: AFP)