Reforming E.U. Governance: On the States’ Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest is the privileging of the interest of a part, by that part, over a conflicting broader interest, such as the public good. In exploiting such a conflict, a part of a whole puts the part’s own interest, and therefore benefit, above those of the whole to which the part belongs. A state government in the E.U., for example, could veto governance reforms of the federal government because the state would benefit in some way, even just in terms of retaining its portion of governmental sovereignty, even though the E.U. itself would be harmed. Exploiting a conflict of interest is selfishness in governance. The underlying assumption is that the part is greater than the whole. Aristotle warns of such misordered concupiscence, which is the placing of a smaller good above a higher good.

In October, 2026, the European Commission—the E.U.’s executive branch—introduced far-reaching proposals to the E.U.’s governance system with an eye to the accession of a slew of new states being likely in the years to come. Marta Kos, the Enlargement Commissioner, said at the time, “The main question has been: is the EU fit for another enlargement?”[1] I contend that the answer to this question depends on whether the officials of the state governments were willing to resist the temptation to exploit their personal and institutional conflicts of interest, for the proposed reform would transfer more governmental sovereignty from the states to the Union. No one who loves power gives it up easily. The countries in the U.S. at its outset “bit the bullet” in agreeing to give the Union some limited (enumerated) powers (or competencies) by giving them up. The war had ended, so united military action was not the motive; rather, the Americans had realized that the confederal Articles of Confederation (1781-1798) had not worked because the states were still fully sovereign and thus any one could block federal legislation. Unlike the U.S., the E.U. has been federal rather than confederal—dual rather than full state sovereignty—since its founding in 1993. Even though there had been amendments since 1993, the disproportional, obstructive amount of governmental sovereignty of the states as of 2026 was arguably counter to the effective governance at the federal level. By comparison, the disproportional sovereignty of the American members thirty-three years after 1798 was similarly problematic. The E.U.’s plight in 2026 was similar to that, rather than to the shift from the Articles of Confederation to the adoption of a federal government in the U.S. in 1789 because the E.U. has had dual (i.e., state and federal) governmental sovereignties since 1993. 

The specific reforms may be different, but the E.U. and U.S. are indeed comparable. Labeling E.U. states as “members” and the E.U. itself as if it were a “bloc” have been used as obvious tricks to obscure and outright deny the comparison rather than merely to appease Euroskeptics as if they would suddenly have temper tantrums were the E.U. explicitly labeled as a federal (not even confederal!) political union of states. While at Yale, I spoke to the E.U. ambassador to the U.S. on this point; she was concerned about the impact that use of the correct labels would have on Viktor Orban in the E.U. state of Hungary. I told her that she was overestimating what he would do, and enervating the E.U. (especially expectations regarding what the E.U. could do) in the process by allowing Euronews and other media companies to incorrectly use “bloc” to refer to the E.U. I have zero influence.

In October, 2026, among the Commission’s proposed reforms was the “idea of extending qualified majority voting . . . particularly in foreign and security policy, where a veto [by one state] can undermine the EU’s ability to project geopolitical weight abroad.”[2] The political power in 27 states all sailing in the same direction in a Union is one of the main benefits of the E.U. itself, so retaining the veto of the states in the European Council and the Council of Ministers has enervated the E.U., as if tying one of its arms behind its back. Unfortunately, the proposal itself is lame because the Commission was proposing merely to identify “areas where so-called passerelle clauses could be activated, allowing the [European] Council to move from unamimity to qualified majority. Activating those clauses, however, itself requires unanimity,” meaning that one state could veto the change on any legislative or policy proposal to which the passerelle clauses apply.[3] When something is so obviously stupid, the expression, “you can’t make this up” applies—meaning no one would imagine such pathetic stupidity to be possible for a human being. The reason for the lame proposal is doubtless the refusal of governors of the states to give up the power of the veto even though even at 27 states, the E.U. already needed qualified majority rule on foreign and defense domains. The refusal is essentially the exploitation of a conflict of interest, both in terms of personal and state power.

Similarly, the proposal by 11 states in September 2026 “to explore curbing obstructive foreign policy vetoes on the basis of sincere cooperation, notably through greater use of constructive abstention,” is lame.[4] Were he still the governor of the E.U. state of Hungary, Viktor Orban would have laughed at pressure to merely abstain rather than wield his state’s veto. The proposal ignores the nature of raw political power and thus should not even have been proposed.

The Commission’s proposal to curb the state veto on 150 steps in the accession process, and the proposal “to make more use of enhanced cooperation, which lets at least nine member states pursue deeper integration on matters of crucial or strategic interest where blockages exist” are more realistic.[5] Allowing the veto only at the very beginning and at the end of a potential state’s accession process makes so much sense that allowing the veto on each of the 150 steps points to the excessive attachment to power at the state level at the expense of governance and administration at the federal level. The conflicts of interest described above could thus be expected, and yet the Von der Leyen administration could be said to be sidestepping rather than confronting the reality of likely exploitation at the expense of the Union.

Another way of seeing the excessive attachment to power at the state level is by looking at the insistence by the states that each one have a commissioner. Even though the Lisbon Amendment to the E.U.’s Basic Law states that the Commission should have a number of commissioners equal to two-thirds of the states, chosen by “strictly equal rotation” that reflects the interstate diversity in the Union, “the European Council unanimously decided to keep one commissioner per member state . . .”[6] Small states in particular have resisted losing a commissioner, but the underlying reason has more to do with state governments being too desirous of power at the federal level, ironically at the expense of federal legislative and executive activity.

The chances of the reforms passing, given the rather obvious self-interests of state officials and their respective legislatures, were expected to be low even by officials in the Commission when the proposals were announced. “Some things are drafted to be killed,” one E.U. official told Euronews.[7] Lest the state officials be viewed as exorbitantly selfish people childishly refusing to give up any more power, it should be remembered that the process by which the federal level in the U.S. gained power at the expense of the member states in the nineteenth century spanned decades, and extended most notably in the New Deal federal social programs during the Great Depression in the 1930s, so perhaps it is too much to ask the E.U. states to give up their vetoes and their right to their own commissioner within the span of a few years in the mid-2020s under the urgency of enlargement. In other words, perhaps the E.U.’s planned enlargement was proceeding too fast; maybe the matter of adding more states should have been held off until proposals to reduce the application of the state veto mechanism could politically surmount the conflicts of interest existing at the state level, for even with 27 states, the veto in the European Council and the Council of Ministers was already an obstruction, especially on foreign policy and the ability of the E.U. to provide a united defense of the E.U. during Russia’s multi-year invasion of Ukraine.

---

1. Luca Dertuzzi, “EU Commission Throws Down the Gauntlet to Member States,” Euronews.com, 6 October 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.

On Britain’s Possible Accession after Seceding from the Union

Secession is a nasty business. Both Britain and South Carolina learned that lesson. Whereas the American member-state failed to secede from the U.S., Britain succeeded in seceding from the E.U. The parallelism presented here is no accident, for just as the U.S. federal system has been charactered by dual sovereignty—both the Union and the members having at least some governmental sovereignty—so too does the E.U.’s federal system. In deciding whether or not they want Britain to become an E.U. state again, the British ought to keep this fact in mind. 

Calling states “members” makes no difference to the divided sovereignty; in neither the E.U. nor the U.S. are the states fully sovereign, and neither the E.U. nor the U.S. itself is fully sovereign at the expense of any sovereignty remaining in the so-called members (i.e., states). In contrast, to refer to countries that belong to an international organization such as NATO or the UN as “member-states” just compounds the category mistakes that have been oriented to the false assertion that the E.U. and U.S. are qualitatively different rather than of the same (empire-scale) level and political genus (modern federalism of dual sovereignty). Just as sovereign countries formed the E.U., such countries formed the U.S., which at first was nothing more than a military alliance, and then a confederation of sovereign countries, and finally, from 1789, a federal system characterized by dual sovereignty. 

That feature of (early) modern federalism was salient for the British voters who voted to secede from the Union. In fact, their refusal to accept the E.U. having any governmental sovereignty was hardly absent from their judgment to vote in favor of their state seceding from the Union. Such a fundamental divide—between the actual sovereignty held by the E.U. and the Euroskeptic denial that such sovereignty even exists—is more important than other “pros” and “cons” that the British voters considered in voting on secession. So it is unfortunate that after Britain seceded, the question of whether the state should once again become a state has been dominated by “pros” and “cons” without giving much attention to the more fundamental matter of sovereignty.

In late September, 2026, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham “told a Labour Party conference that he would present ‘options’” concerning the relationship between the former E.U. state and the European Union.[1] He told his group’s delegates, “We could stay as we are. We could look at what George Osborne has said about a customs union, we could look at what the Liberal Democrats said about the (EU) single market, or we could go all the way.”[2] He went on to say, “We have to look at what is doable and what would be the problem is (sic) and cons of each.”[3] That is to say, they would have to look at the problems associated with each option. Such a practical, piecemeal approach ignores the more fundamental problem that existed when Britain was state: namely, getting the E.U. itself wrong, meaning mis-categorizing it in its basic, or constitutional, law, as if it were, as the former prime minister, David Cameron once said, “a network to which Britain happens to belong.” International networks, or “blocs,” do not have supreme courts that can overrule state courts, a parliament whose representatives are elected by federal (i.e., E.U.) citizens, and an executive branch. Blocs do not have three branches of government that individually and together, constituting a government, have at least some sovereignty.

Fundamentally understanding what the E.U. is politically is incompatible with being in the Union. This incompatibility dwarfs the particular advantages and disadvantages of various options. That is to say, if Britain is to become a state in the Union again, acceptance of the dual sovereignty enshrined in the E.U.’s basic law should be requisite by the British government and a majority of the electorate voting in a referendum. A house divided cannot stand, especially if each state retains a veto in the European Council and the Council of Ministers; the UK could “enforce” its erroneous disavowal of any E.U. sovereignty by holding federal legislative and executive action hostage. Put another way, if a majority of the British, as well as the British legislature, approaches the E.U. as if it were an international organization or bloc, the E.U. would be executing a self-inflicted wound by allowing Britain’s accession as a state. Obviously, other options, such as a customs union, would be fine, but to be a state, the UK would need to accept the fact of dual sovereignty.  

---

1. Mared Gwyn Jones, “UK’s Burnham Floats Going ‘All the Way’ and Rejoining the EU,” Euronews.com, 30 September 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

President Von der Leyen’s State of the Union Address: Outsourcing the E.U.'s Strength

E.U. President Von der Leyen’s 2026 State of the Union address can be characterized as a bricolage of concerns “all over the map,” with proposed significant outsourcing of responsibilities to the international level. A notable opportunity cost that goes along with her approach is the political benefit that could have been gained by alternatively focusing on internal reforms to the E.U.’s governance structure and processes. Outsourcing internationally adds to this cost of a missed opportunity to sell internal reforms by making the E.U.’s federal level look weak. Even referring to the E.U. as a “bloc” and proposing an “associate membership” for Canada saps rather than strengthens the European Union.

Rather than proposing that qualified-majority voting apply to foreign policy and defense, President Von der Leyen “proposed a brand-new mechanism fashioned on NATO’s Article 4 that member states would trigger in the event of a hybrid attack.”[1] She thus ignored the E.U. itself, addressing instead the relationship between the E.U. states and the international alliance. By implication, the E.U. itself is weakened rather than strengthened. This is ironic, for she also said, “And in the cold fragility of today’s world, only Europe can provide true sovereignty to Europeans.”[2] Voiding the veto power of the state governments in the European Council and the Council of Ministers on defense would go towards providing such true sovereignty at the federal level; outsourcing to NATO would not.

Similarly, the president “offered to create a tailor-made status of ‘associate membership’ to bring Canada even closer to the bloc.”[3] Such a “status” would undermine the equality between Canada and the E.U. that is implied and thus proper for “an ‘alliance for the future’ to deepen EU-Canada cooperation in such areas of economic security, intelligent manufacturing, cutting-age technology, defence, energy, critical minerals and batteries, as well as the Arctic region.”[4] Canada’s tension with the U.S. on tariffs and the E.U.’s interest in retaining Greenland provide the subtext behind the proposed deepening of “EU-Canada cooperation,” but the president overreached in suggesting that cooperation itself should or does entail any sort of membership, and as if the E.U. were a bloc rather than a political union of states, and the word “membership” does not apply to states. In short, cooperating with another country is not to say that it is or should be a member or state, and in fact being a part even with an associate status is inconsistent with the equality that is implied in “E.U.-Canada cooperation.” Ironically, rather than the E.U. coming up on top as having Canada as a possible associate member, the E.U. is weakened because in having members the union is self-relegated as if it were merely an international bloc of countries like BRICS.

Thirdly, even though President Von der Leyen “framed the summer of 2026 as the ‘summer of truth’” in terms of “wildfires, retreating glaciers, water shortages, crop losses and extreme heat that have wrecked havoc” in the E.U., with the continent warming twice as much as the globe as a whole, her response was to be a European Heatwave Plan, which would “address early-warning systems, health preparedness, urban adaptation, and protection for vulnerable groups.”[5] Federal legislation bearing on the states could have been proposed that goes far beyond mere preparedness. Again, she was unwittingly enervating the Union by putting the states out in front, in the driver’s seat as it were.

With the military threat from a belligerent Russian president to the east, climate change from above, and a distancing U.S. administration to the west, and the prospect of the accession of additional states at home, the E.U. could no longer afford the veto mechanism that Hungary’s Viktor Orbán had so abused with impunity at the cost of the common good of the E.U., but the State of the Union speech did not include the rather obvious reform to qualified-majority voting on all competencies. Furthermore, no substantial federal legislation was proposed in defense (even of Ukraine), foreign policy, and to combat climate change by reducing carbon emissions throughout the E.U. Such a reform, which gives the E.U. some more governmental sovereignty even at the expense of that of the state governments, could put the E.U. in a strengthened position internationally such that the Union could pressure the U.S. administration to ease up on Canada in terms of tariffs. A strengthened E.U. could arguably be better for Canada than getting an associate membership status in a Union misconstrued (and thus internally weakened) as an international organization.

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro and Marta Pacheco, “State of the Union: Five Takeaways from Ursula von der Leyen’s Speech,” Euronews.com, 16 September, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

Should the E.U. Pay Prospective States to Reform?

Should the European Union pay prospective, or “candidate,” states to undergo legislative, rule-of-law reforms prior to accession even though becoming a state is not assured? In April, 2026, Marta Kos, the Commission’s commissioner for enlargement warned the E.U.’s parliament that the Commission might “suspect €1.5 billion in E.U. funding for Serbia due to rule-of-law concerns and contentious judicial reforms” that had been introduced in Serbia’s legislature in January.”[1] I contend that the legislative or constitutional proposals should have been sufficient to freeze the very question of Serbia’s accession, and that the Commission should not pay candidate states to undergo reforms in the first place.

Speaking to the elected representatives in the federal parliament, “Kos said she was particularly concerned about legal amendments that introduce major changes, creating a flawed form of autonomy for Serbia’s anti-corruption prosecution and weakening the independence of the judiciary.”[2] That those constituted major changes are were on the scale of amendments rather than mere statutes could have alerted President Von der Leyen as to whether Serbia was in any condition to become a state in a political union in which rule of law (i.e., an autonomous judiciary, and democratically-valid multi-party elections) is assumed rather than even subject to debate. In other words, rule-of-law, as enforced by a judiciary independent of whatever party happens to be in power in the legislative and executive branches of a government, is so fundamental in the E.U. that major changes even being proposed in a prospective state should be a huge red flag. Accordingly, the question goes beyond whether to suspend paying money to such a state to undergo reforms that should be done anyway.

That Serbia’s political culture, at least with respect to its government, was worsening appreciably is clear from Kos’s statement, “We are increasingly worried about what is happening in Serbia. From laws that undermine the independence of the judiciary to crackdowns on protesters and recurrent meddling in independent media.”[3] Such crackdowns and meddling go beyond rendering a judiciary subservient to a governing political group, and thus render Serbia unfit at least for the time being for joining the E.U. as a state. At the very least, in other words, Serbia should not be “eligible for E.U. funding to support its required internal reforms.”[4] If prospective states want to join the E.U., then they should be willing to pay for their reforms themselves. Why, in other words, should the E.U. feel obliged to pay? I contend that joining the E.U. is of such value to any outside state-level republic that the E.U. should not in principle pay for candidate states to get themselves into shape from a democratic standpoint.

Even on policy grounds, the accession of Serbia was risky for the E.U., given the military aggressiveness of Russia in Ukraine. That the E.U.’s parliament had “adopted a resolution criticizing Serbia’s failure to align with E.U. foreign policy” against Russia in 2025[5] should have been a wake-up call for the E.U., given Viktor Orbán’s intentional undermining of E.U. foreign policy with regard to Russia. Did the E.U. administration want another Hungary wielding its veto in the European Council and the Council of Ministers in favor of Russia even as that country was still invading one of its neighbors?

Therefore, Kos’s statement, “We will continue to support Serbia on its E.U. path,”[6] can and arguably should be subject to formidable critique. After all, the E.U. was not so weak at the time, even given its refusal to expunge the veto-power from states in the European Council, that the Commission should have been so desperate to take in even marginal states. The greatness of the E.U. depended more in making internal reforms at the federal level in line with the fact that the member-states were semi-sovereign, than in enlarging. Just because Orbán had just been voted out of office in Hungary does not mean that the intransigence of one state in the European Council and the Council of Ministers could not again hamstring federal foreign and military policy even in the face of the Russian bear invading one of its neighbors on President Putin’s utterly fallacious supposition that the old Russian empire should rise again.

1. Eleonora Vasques, “E.U. Considers Freezing Serbia’s €1.5 billion in E.U. Funds Amid Rule of Law Scrutiny,” Euronews.com, April 20, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.

On the E.U.’s “Pragmatic” Federalism

It is ironic that even though European political theorists, including Immanuel Kant, Johannes Althusius, and Kenneth Wheare, made substantial contributions on the topic of federalism, even political leaders in the E.U. as late as 2025 were stumbling over the basics, getting the very concept wrong. Unfortunately, that has caused journalists to trip and fall too, leaving E.U. citizens grappling over the apparent problem of being citizens both of their state and the E.U. even though, according to former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi spoke in 2025 in favor of “’pragmatic federalism’ as the political conditions for a true, federal union do not exist in the E.U. at the moment.”[1] The claims that “pragmatic federalism” is somehow not indicative of “true” federalism, and, moreover, that somehow the E.U. has states that are semi-sovereign (as the E.U. itself has exclusive competences) and yet federalism does not apply are patently absurd. Draghi was confusing the politics of the moment, in which the anti-federalist, Euroskeptic ideology was still too powerful for more governmental sovereignty to be moved to the federal level from the states, with whether the E.U. had a federal system already. In other words, “political conditions” are distinct from whether the E.U. has a federal system of public governance. Draghi’s assertion is all the more astounding not only because of his governmental experience at the federal level, but also because the dual-sovereignty (of the states and the Union) means that the E.U. fits within the category of modern federalism rather than confederalism (using Wheare’s terminology). Europeans have quite understandably been confused in trying to classify the E.U. away from the pull of the anti-federalist ideology in Europe.

That ideology has been a major impediment to the E.U. being able to govern. Although qualified-majority voting applies to some of the E.U.’s enumerated powers, or competencies, enough of the important matters of policy and law have been requiring unanimity in the European Council and the Council of Ministers that the veto-power of each of the 27 state governments has “thrown a wrench” in the governmental machinery at the federal level, especially in foreign policy and defense. Whereas the U.S. at first federalized those areas, the E.U.’s initial emphasis was on economic policy and law, so drifting over to include the more traditionally-federalized domains has been stymied by recalcitrant governors threatening to wield their respective vetoes in the Council even in the face of an overwhelming consensus.

For example, between 2011 and 2025, “Hungary vetoed E.U. proposals more than any other member state . . ., with a total of 19.”[2] A “total of 46 vetoes,” moreover, were “exercised in the E.U. by 15 member states across 38 issues.”[3] Poland ranked second with seven vetoes. “Hungary has vetoed a significant number of joint foreign policy statements, but it has also blocked proposals to lend concrete support to Ukraine and start formal E.U. accession talks,” which are necessary for Ukraine to become the 28^th state in the Union.[4] It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Commission, the E.U.’s executive branch, was by the end of 2025 “deliberately structuring its proposals [for legislation and foreign policies] in order to avoid requiring unanimous consent” from the states in the councils, which, after all, represent the states whereas the European Parliament represents E.U. citizens.[5] With such governmental machinery, plus the E.U.’s supreme court, the European Court of Justice, residing at the Union level, the claim that the E.U. is not a true federal union of states is utterly untenable. “Pragmatic” federalism, which is actually a governmental tool in the E.U.’s basic law, does not nullify the E.U.’s federal system, rendering the E.U. as a “multi-speed bloc.” That label actually signifies decadent jargon rather than any kind of governmental system that is capable of enacting federal laws that are binding on the states and anyone on the E.U.’s territory.

Pragmatic federalism is simply a tactic that the Commission can use to bypass the requirement of unanimity in the Councils, which, like the U.S. Senate, represent the states. The tactic was used, for example, to pass federal legislation to phase-out “Russian fuels under the REPowerEU framework” and to “extend the freeze on the Russian assets.”[6] So too, in passing legislation enabling the E.U. to issue debt to support Ukraine militarily, the European Council “bypassed the need for unanimity among member states” by “gathering those [state governors] who wanted to work together while keeping Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic out of the deal as a condition for it to go forward. In doing so, the E.U. . . . showed a new path forward—one where the unanimity requirement need no longer obstruct” the passage of legislation at the federal level.[7] States could be exempted, such as had been done in the Schengen Agreement and the Stability Pact. The exemption of particular states from a federal program, policy, law, or regulation does not invalidate the federal system; rather, the tool merely renders the federal system more flexible. In fact, the U.S. could benefit by adopting the mechanism, especially because so much power has accrued especially since 1865 at the federal level at the expense of state differences. Exempting certain states from a given proposal would not nullify America’s federal system.

Beyond “pragmatic” federalism in the E.U., the question of rendering the state-veto obsolete was being seriously considered by the end of 2025. With 27 states in the E.U. and Russia invading Ukraine just east of the E.U.’s territory, the E.U. could ill-afford the continuance of the veto, especially in the domains of foreign policy and defense. That unanimity would be required to amend the E.U.’s basic law to rid the union of the state-veto is itself a problem, but it could be solved by any states objecting to such a change being exempted from any “enhanced cooperation” that would be switched from unanimity to qualified-majority voting. In short, the precedents of the Schengen Agreement and the European Stability Pact, which are not incompatible with federalism, could be followed. In terms of such competencies of the E.U. that would be added to those that are already subject to qualified-majority voting, states like Hungary and Slovakia could be exempted. This is not to say that there would be a union, such as the “EU-26,” within the union, or a foreign policy union, a defense union, and so on. Such jargon, as well as the euphemistic-sounding “enhanced cooperation” and, even worse, “multi-speed bloc,” only obscures the point that in a federal system, states can be exempted from particular federal legislation (and policies) without the federal system itself being nullified. Also, to refer to exempting certain states as allowing for “voluntary co-operation” in “coalitions of the willing” is also misleading because there is nothing voluntary about being subject to qualified-majority voting on an E.U. competency manifesting as law. Reducing the E.U. to voluntary cooperation and coalitions of the willing undermines the European Union itself by detracting from what strength it does have as a “true federal union.” The extent of vacuous, ideological jargon outdoes even that of the American retail sector, in which customers are called “guests” and even “members,” customer orders are considered “perfect,” and one of the official public holidays is singled out intentionally to be (ideologically) obscured passive-aggressively as “happy holidays.” But I digress.

To be sure, within the E.U., the state-veto has been seen by some people as “the last resort to protect” state rights.[8] Tamás Lattmann, an international-law expert, said, “A veto power is the last line of defence of vital interests. Every case of circumvention has led to a set of new problems, often the inoperability or discrediting of the system itself.”[9] However, that states could be exempted means that their vital interests would not be threatened. Also, exempting states would not discredit the E.U.’s federal system. In fact, the U.S. federal system could arguably benefit by being more flexible, as so much governmental power has been federalized and “one size does not fit all” in an empire-scale federal union, whether in North America or Europe.

The argument that the state-veto “serves as an equalizer between smaller and larger member states” has also been made, especially because the European Parliament has representation by population.[10] During its debt crisis, for example, the state of Greece could have made the case that E.U. policy reflected the interests of German creditors to the extent that even the anti-austerity party was pressured to accept continued austerity. Furthermore, the smaller eastern states could legitimately argue that the large states in the west have disproportionate (even in terms of the population part of qualified majority voting) informal as well as formal power. The problem is in relying on a mechanism, the state veto, that has been such a detriment to the enactment of federal policy and law.  In the U.S. Senate, which was established principally to safeguard the interests of the small member states, the filibuster, which can be overridden by 60 votes (out of 100), is typically viewed as sufficient for the minority on any given question. To be sure, a minority is not the same as one state. In E.U. competencies subject to qualified majority voting, a single state, whether large or small, could vote no and yet be subject to a federal policy or law. The case of tariffs on Chinese imports was a case in point in 2025. If the filibuster mechanism is sufficient protection for small states in a legislative chamber in which each state has the same number of votes, then the number-of-states set at 65% in qualified majority voting could be deemed sufficient. Generally speaking, a majority of 65 percent has more democratic legitimacy than does a simple majority—a point that Americans might want to consider.

In conclusion, the Commission and Council could hardly be blamed for trying to obviate the state-veto without subjecting objecting states, for their vital interests are untouched because they are exempted. With enlargement of the Union being an issue, as well as the need for federalized defense and foreign policies given the military aggression of Russia and even Israel, the Union could no longer afford the veto-mechanism itself even by 2023. The mechanism actually pertains to confederalism, in which governmental sovereignty is retained by the states, rather than to modern federalism, in which the atom of governmental sovereignty is split, though not necessarily evenly, in a federal system between the states and the federal level. That the E.U., even initially in 1993, has the salient feature of dual sovereignty means that that union has never been a mere confederal system; the E.U. is thus well-within being a “true federal union.” Even though it has been in the interest of E.U. officials to appease Euroskeptics so to as to render them more docile, ideological denial has cost the European project severely, and the state-veto has played a major role in the self-inflicted federal impotency.

---

1. Sandor Zsiros, “The EU Wants to End the Era of National Vetoes—But It’s Complicated,” Euronews.com, 23 December, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.

Immobilizing E.U. Holdings of Russian Assets

By invoking Article 122 of the E.U.’s basic law, a clause that had been used most significantly during the Coronavirus pandemic and in the 2022 energy crisis, the E.U. in December, 2025 finally circumvented the twice-threatened veto by the state of Hungary and indefinitely froze €210 billion of assets of the Russian Central Bank that had been within the E.U.’s territory since Russia began its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine nearly four years earlier. I contend that the European Court of Justice, the E.U.’s supreme court, could apply a rational basis in a judicial review of the triggering of the emergency-conditioned article, especially because the Commission invoked the article in order to obviate Hungary’s threatened veto. Because every E.U. state except for Belgium and Hungary were for freezing the assets until Russia such time as Russia ends its militaristic aggression and compensates Ukraine financially for damages the Belgian and Hungarian state governments were violating the informal norm of consensus in the European Council and the Council of Ministers. Like the U.S. Senate, the European Council, which also represents the states, is like a club of sorts. The problem facing the Commission is that violating a norm is not a legal basis for obviating a threatened state-veto by invoking an emergency clause of the E.U.’s basic law, especially if no emergency actually exists after nearly four years of the invasion. Even though I am personally in favor of the E.U. obviating Hungary’s serial obstructionism that may be, at least in part, retaliation against President Von der Leyen’s Commission for having penalized the Hungarian government financially for having violated E.U. law, legal reasoning should not succumb to the gravity of the “black hole” of personal opinion.  There may be nothing so much like a god as a general on a battlefield, with power over life and death, but neither the European Commission nor myself is a general. In short, the Commission’s legal justification in invoking Article 122 is tenuous at best, even though countering Hungary’s Viktor Orbán’s abuse of his state’s veto-power in the European Council and the Council of Ministers was needed for the E.U. to be able to function within its enumerated competencies (i.e., powers).

The reason for indefinitely holding the Russian central bank’s financial assets that have been in the E.U. since the beginning of the invasion is so the E.U. could use those assets as a basis for making loans to Ukraine to bolster the sovereign state’s military position without the E.U. having to issue its own debt. “We are sending a strong signal to Russia that as long as this brutal war of aggression continues, Russia’s costs will continue to rise,” President Von der Leyen said.[1] The objective was to “make sure that our brave neighbour beomes even stronger on the battlefield and at the negotiating table.”[2] According to Euronews, the E.U. was able to shore up “its mightiest leverage,” push back against “external interference” and insulate “the money from the Kremlin’s war machine—all at once.”[3] The external interference was not really external, as this refers to the financially self-interested objection of the state of Belgium and the pro-Russian objection of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Obviating self-interested states whose governors are willing to go against the other 25 states in the Council is laudable even though this objective can be traced back to the E.U.’s federal system, which must be taken as a given to the ECJ. To be sure, finding a way to do it by invoking an article of the E.U.’s basic law was not an easy task for the Commission.

“At first, the Commission suggested activating Article 31.2 . . . to switch the [6 months] renewal of sanctions from unanimity to qualified majority.”[4] The sanctions include holding the Russian financial assets. The article is vaguely, and thus problematically from the standpoint of constitutional language, based on “strategic interests and objectives.”[5] This wording could potentially enable the E.U., by qualified majority voting, to encroach excessively on governmental sovereignty retained by the states. That any state government could invoke “vital and stated reasons” of “policy”—again too vague—to veto any such bills that are in the strategic interests and objectives of the E.U. as a whole meant that the governor of Hungary could easily invoke its ties to Russia as vital reasons to veto the proposal to freeze the Russian assets indefinitely.

So, the Commission turned to Article 122, which applies qualified-majority voting rather than unanimity in the European Council (and the Council of Ministers) “in a spirit of solidarity . . . appropriate to the economic situation.”[6] Here too, the constitutional language is too vague. Hungary’s Orbán had been fragrantly violating the spirit of solidarity for years, and “economic situation” is so vague that the article could potentially be used to expunge unanimity from the federal level.

Furthermore, that Article 122 “bypasses the European Parliament” is also problematic because that democratically elected legislative chamber, the “lower house,” could otherwise act as a check on the Commission and the councils exploiting the article to rid the E.U. of the need for unanimity in the councils. Also, requiring a qualified majority vote in the Parliament would not in itself give the state governments the power to use their respective vetoes in the councils. One of the principal benefits of federalism, as distinct from confederalism, is the mechanism of state-federal checks-and-balances. Considering the American history of consolidation at the expense of the governmental sovereignty retained by the states, the vague constitutional language of Article 122 could be exploited. This is not to say that retaining the state-veto mechanism in the councils is at all healthy for the European federal system. Other means, such as requiring a qualified majority in the European Parliament, are consistent with federalism.

Such a check would be of value in terms of the indefinite freezing of Russian financial assets because the Commission interpreted “appropriate to the economic situation” to be invokable due to a “serious economic impact,” including in “supply disruptions, higher uncertainty, increased risk premia, lower investment and consumer spending,” as well as “non-economic drone incursions, sabotage and disinformation.”[7] Again, higher uncertainty and lower investment and consumer spending provide the Commission with virtually a wide-open door to obviate unanimity in the councils.

Earlier in 2025, the Commission had invoked Article 122 “to set up SAFE which allows member states to directly approve a Commission proposal [by qualified majority rather than unanimously] ‘if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain produces’ or if a member state is ‘seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control’.”[8] Tellingly, it was the Parliament rather than a state government that objected, which is a telling indication that the Parliament should not have been excluded from the procedure to be followed according to the article.

With regard to the “emergency” said by the Commission to justify invoking Article 122 to indefinitely freeze the Russian financial assets in the E.U., the governor of Belgium, Bart De Wever, “questioned the existence of any EU-wide emergency,” as Russia’s invasion was nearing its fourth anniversary.[9] For instance, only 10% of energy in the E.U. was by that time from Russia.[10] Even though the E.U.’s evident economic woes, coupled with the vague wording of Article 122 and its limited jurisprudence, gave the Commission enough leeway to forge ahead,” using even “the economic situation” to invoke the article is highly problematic, especially as the obvious intent was to undercut the state-veto mechanism, which under the E.U.’s basic law at the time, was valid even though Hungary and Belgium were, for self-interested political and financial reasons, respectively, abusing the mechanism given the norm of consensus in the councils.

The upshot is that the E.U. could do better in tightening its constitutional, or basic-law, language, enlarging the coverage of the Parliament (especially as a check on the Commission). In the meantime, the ECJ should take a look at the Commission’s invoking of Article 122, especially on the Commission’s interpretation that “economic situation” really means “economic emergency,” which actually makes sense so to avoid the article from being invoked for virtually anything, and that an emergency was still the case almost four years after the commencement of the Russian invasion, which does not seem to be a valid claim. In the background is the consolidation by the U.S. of power at the expense of that of the member-states, and the related switch from the state governments appointing U.S. senators to them being elected by the citizens of the states. Citizens of a state may not vote so to protect the remaining governmental sovereignty held by their state, whereas senators appointed by state governors and/or legislatures would naturally have an incentive to keep an eye on the federal division of governmental sovereignty. Nevertheless, the veto power of the E.U.’s state governments, especially as there were 27 at the time of the invocation of Article 122 to freeze Russian assets, is arguably excessive and thus harmful to the E.U. level as well as the federal system itself, which should allow for federal oversight “with teeth” on abuses by state governments, especially in infringing on democracy and liberty.

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro, “By Locking in Russian Assets for Good, the EU Is Finally Playing Hardball,” Euronews.com, 13 December 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.

The E.U. without Enlargement: An Oxymoron?

The political debates concerning the accession of candidate states such as Texas, California, Alaska and even Hawaii into the U.S. were long past when the issue of enlargement became salient for the E.U. due to Russia’s unilateral, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. In the American case, surely no one was arguing that the U.S. without being enlarged would cease to be credible, yet in 2025, a government official of the candidate state of Montenegro said as much of the European Union. Even if Filip Ivanovic was merely using rhetoric during an interview on October 4, 2025, even that should at least make sense. Making matters worse, his comments can be interpreted as ultimatums for the E.U. even though nothing binds the E.U. to annexing any future state. In fact, given the veto-power of state officials at the federal level in the E.U., enlargement should arguably come only after internal reform of the E.U.’s basic law concerning the power of the states at the federal level.

During the interview with Euronews, the deputy prime-minister of the candidate state said, “If enlargement does not happen . . . then the very concept of the European Union loses its credibility: It’s not European, and it’s not a union anymore.”[1] I demur. That E.U. territory did not at the time extend to the entire continent of Europe does not mean that the E.U. was not European. No one would seriously contend that any of the E.U. states were not European, so it follows that the E.U. itself, consisting of those states and a federal system, was not European. As for the E.U. not being a union unless it enlarged under the pressure of Putin’s militaristic aggression in Ukraine, the E.U.’s own constitutional or basic law at the time put any such claim to rest as ludicrous. It was the deputy prime-minister’s credibility that was actually on the line from his statement.

At the time, nine possible states were officially designated by the Commission as candidates for statehood, with Montenegro being “the most advanced in implementing the constitutional, judicial and economic reforms” that are required.[2] But Montenegro being at an advanced stage does not mean that the E.U. was therefore duty-bound to annex the territory of the state as being within the Union. Even so, Ivanovic said the government of Montenegro “cannot accept” the refusal of the E.U. to extend statehood to Montenegro because the other possible states “would understand that whatever they do is in vain.”[3] Whether the government of Montenegro could or could not accept a negative decision should be irrelevant to the E.U. as it decides on whether, and by how much, and when to enlarge its territory by extending offers of statehood. Asking for something and then stating that unless it is given, the decision will be unacceptable is not the way to ask for something if the expectation is that the request will be granted.

Viktor Orban of the E.U. state of Hungary had been using the state’s veto in the European Council on proposals concerning enlargement and foreign policy. As a result of Orban’s siding with Putin rather than with the majority of other states in the Union, the Union was being back from within in being able to adequately help Ukraine to resist Russia’s invasion even though Putin’s militarism was not justified even by historical arguments because might does not itself make right. Enlarging the Union such that even more states would be able to wield a veto to styme the Union would be recipe for paralysis at the federal level, and so this consideration alone is credible in deciding when it would be best to admit new states. It is not as though taking account of the risk of being held up by a single state forestalling action on the federal level before taking up the matter of enlargement would lack in credibility. Rather, moderating the power of the individual veto, similar to how the U.S. Senate has moderated the power of the filibuster (which is based on the fact that the states retain some governmental sovereignty just as the E.U. states do), would be prudent as requisite to enlarging. Whether or not this strategy was acceptable to Montenegro is irrelevant.

---

1. Mared Gwyn Jones, “EU Risks ‘Losing Credibility’ If It Fails to Enlarge, Montenegro’s Deputy PM Warns,” Euronews.com, 6 October 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.