Translated by Federico Emanuele
Within the already fragile balances of the European Union, the right of veto continues to represent one of the most controversial and paralyzing focal points. Originally established as a guarantee for Member States, it now risks turning into an institutional trap capable of blocking crucial decisions in an increasingly unstable geopolitical context.
The principle is simple: in several key areas — from foreign policy and taxation to enlargement — the EU decides by unanimous vote. This means that any single country has the power to oppose and halt the entire decision-making process. It is a mechanism designed to safeguard national sovereignty and ensure that no State is bypassed on sensitive issues. However, as recent analyses highlight, this very tool is increasingly being used as a negotiating lever.
In recent years, the veto has effectively become a political weapon. Some governments employ it not so much to defend vital interests, but rather to extract concessions on other dossiers: EU funds, budget flexibility, or stances on domestic issues. The result is a decision-making system exposed to the logic of horse-trading and pressure, which slows down — or completely stalls — Union action.
This problem is further amplified by EU enlargement. With 27 Member States (and others potentially on the horizon), reaching unanimity is becoming increasingly complex. A single "no" is sufficient to block sanction packages, international aid, or strategic decisions. In a context marked by the war in Ukraine and global tensions, this sluggishness risks compromising the EU's credibility and effectiveness on the international stage.[1]
Yet, reforming the system appears extremely difficult. The paradox is evident: overcoming the veto would require amending the European treaties, but such an amendment itself requires unanimity. In other words, Member States would have to vote unanimously to renounce one of their most powerful instruments.
Furthermore, many governments view the veto as an indispensable guarantee. For smaller countries, it represents a safeguard against the dominance of large economies. For others, it is a means of maintaining margins of sovereignty within a Union perceived as increasingly invasive. The prospect of shifting to a qualified majority voting (QMV) system — already utilized in many areas — sparks fear: the risk of being subjected to decisions not shared on fundamental issues.
Several possible solutions remain on the table, such as the gradual extension of qualified majority voting or the use of so-called "passerelle clauses," which allow for changing decision-making rules without formally reforming the treaties. However, even these options require a political consensus that, at present, remains elusive.
The debate over the veto, therefore, reflects a deeper tension: the conflict between the need for a faster, more effective Europe and the desire of Member States to preserve control over fundamental decisions. It is a delicate balance that puts the very future of the European project at stake.[2]
In an increasingly competitive and unstable world, the ability to decide rapidly is no longer merely a technical matter, but a strategic necessity. As long as the deadlock of unanimity remains unresolved, the European Union will continue to oscillate between ambition and stalemate.
Mondo Internazionale APS - All Rights Reserved ® 2026