In the E.U., the 27 state
governments are able to wield a veto on most important policy proposals in the
European Council. Expecting unanimity where not even consensus is enough is so
utterly unrealistic at 27 that it may be time to reconsider whether the E.U.
can afford such an easy (and tempting) means by which state governors can
exploit the E.U. by essentially holding it hostage. To be sure, like the
filibuster in the U.S. Senate, the veto in the European Council represents the
residual sovereignty that states in both unions enjoy, but extortion for
financial gain by means of threatening or exercising a veto in the European
Council (and the committees of the Council of the E.U.) suggests that the continued
use of a veto by state governments is too problematic to be continued. Residual
sovereignty can find adequate representation by qualified majority voting,
which is closer the threshold needed to maintain a filibuster in the U.S.
Senate. That the E.U. state of Slovakia maintained its veto on a proposed number
of federal sanctions against Russia on July 9, 2025 when the European Court of
Human Rights ruled that Russia had violated international law in invading
Ukraine is a good indication that the veto had outlived its usefulness and was
being used by governors for sordid purposes by using the E.U. rather than
strengthening it in foreign affairs.
On the very day when Ukraine’s
President Zelensky and Pope Leo “discussed the Vatican as a possible location
to host peace talks to end Russia’s full-scale invasion” and Zelensky thanked
the pope for the Vatican’s help in reuniting 1,350 of more than 19,500 “children
taken by Russia after Moscow’s 2022 invasion,”[1]
the judges at the European Court of Human Rights, which is not part of the
E.U., ruled that Russia’s government had violated international law not only by
shooting down the MH17 commercial airliner, but also in “the murder, torture,
rape, destruction of civilian infrastructure and kidnapping of Ukrainian
children” in Ukraine.[2]
Meanwhile, U.S. President Trump voiced frustration at Russia’s President Putin
for not being willing to negotiate an end to the invasion, and Putin unleashed “a
new record-breaking barrage of drones and missiles against Ukrainian cities.”[3]
On the very same day, the government
of the E.U. state of Slovakia confirmed “that it would for the time being
maintain its veto on the new package of sanctions that the European Union
intends to impose on Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine.”[4]
The additional sanctions would target “Russia’s financial and energy sectors, including
the Nord Stream pipelines.”[5]
Countries supplying or financing Russia’s war machine would also be subject to
sanctions. Besides being politically tone-deaf, the wayward state government
did not object to the economic restrictions per se, but rather, to “the
proposed phase-out of all Russian fossil fuels by the end of 2027.”[6]
But because qualified majority-voting rather than unanimity applies to the
phase-out proposal, the Slovak governor “resorted to sanctions, which require
unanimity, to extract concessions from Brussels.”[7]
What kind of concessions? Plain and
simply, the extortion of the E.U. for money as “compensation” for anticipated
financial damages, even though the legal opinion of E.U.’s executive branch is
that the E.U. prohibition of gas from Russia would “act as ‘force majeure’ in
court and shield governments and companies against damages.”[8]
At the very least, the state’s
governor was politically tone-deaf on July 9, 2025, more concerned with
exploiting the veto mechanism for money than with the visuals in advantaging
Russia by vetoing sanctions as leverage for the fossil-fuel prohibition that is
subject only to qualified majority vote. That Slovakia’s government had no
objection to the economic sanctions and yet maintained a veto against them in
order to gain leverage on the gas prohibition, effectively making that proposal
subject to a veto, shows that the veto mechanism was indeed subject to abuse at
the expense of qualified majority voting. This hyperextension of the veto
mechanism to a bill subject only to qualified majority voting suggests that the
two voting mechanisms cannot coexist. Power abhors obstacles, and qualified
majority voting is an obstacle to state governments accustomed to being able to
veto federal legislation and foreign-policy proposals. If indeed the governmental
sovereignty retained by the states is sufficiently represented in qualified
majority voting, which is 55% of the states and 55% of the population of the
E.U., the veto power is an excessive block by states on federal action and the benefits
to Europe that can come from collective action. Both the value of such benefits
in federal legislation and foreign policy and the exploitation by state
governments of their veto power at the federal level argue against retaining
the veto mechanism. Slovakia has laid bare the imbalance in the E.U.’s federal
system as bottom-heavy at the expense of benefits that could be realized by
collective action. The abuse of the veto authority is sufficiently evident in a
veto that benefits Russia being confirmed on the very same day that the top
court in Europe on human rights ruled against Russia’s invasion and the Pope
met with Zelensky on a way forward on peace even as Putin continued to stall
for time to unleash more bombs.
Abstractly speaking concerning
the E.U., the whole is more than the sum of the parts, and the whole suffers to
the extent that a part is able to direct the whole. That each part maintains
its integrity as a unit does not justify any part in being able to hold the
whole hostage for financial gain. It is utterly unrealistic to assume that a
policy or law of the whole is or should be in the political and economic
interests of every part. Lastly, for a part to put itself above the
whole is presumptuous and egocentric, which is to say, selfish. Given the
salience of self-interest, which stems from self-love, in human nature, undermining
mechanisms designed to curb exploitation by selfishness at the expense of overall
good is utterly foolish in any political society.
2. Aleksandar Brezar, “Top European Court Rules Russia Violated International Law in Ukraine,” Euronews.com,
July 9, 2025.
3. Jorge Liboreiro, “Slovakia Maintains Veto on New Package of EU Sanctions against Russia,” Euronews.com, July 9, 2025.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
