EU and Israel: France wishes to break the unanimity lock on foreign policy matters at the council.

The EU’s Foreign Policy: The Case for Unanimity

Isabelle Lasserre – October 28, 2014

The EU’s foreign policy dossier is a priority for Israel.

Atlantico: Breaking the unanimity deadlock within the EU council?

Bruno Alomar: Breaking the unanimity deadlock within the council regarding foreign policy is essentially putting an end to the independence of member states in foreign policy matters. Thus, in a way, it would mean the end of sovereignty for a country like France, with the legal and political consequences that come with it. Can we seriously imagine France being in the minority – as it has recently been on the Mercosur issue – in the heart of French sovereignty?

Furthermore, this touches on the core of the European foreign policy problem. There cannot be one simply because member states do not agree on anything or only on a foundation of values so thin that it cannot withstand any crisis. Whether it’s about America, Russia, China, Israel, etc., Europeans only agree on two or three simple ideas: human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. This will never make a foreign policy. Europe’s diplomatic strength lies in its national diplomacies, which must sometimes work together. For smaller states – with all the implications that suggests – access to a diplomatic network like the EEAS has its own importance.

It is important to note that in order to break the deadlock of unanimity and right of veto, it would first require a unanimous vote, and likely changes in European treaties… Will this ever happen and with what democratic legitimacy?

In reality, this remains highly unlikely. Europe spent 20 years (1989 to 2008) trying to establish a treaty (Maastricht 1992, Amsterdam 1997, Nice 2007), after failing with a treaty project in 2005. It was a long and tortuous path, even when the EU had far fewer member states. Nobody realistically believes that negotiations could reopen to change the current treaty. The German chancellor – he only says what others think silently – publicly repeated this in recent months.

Now, it must be very clear: if member states, through their constitutional procedures (referendum or parliamentary process), decide to change the treaties, this would not be inherently undemocratic. But what one member state does with a certain political majority, another member state with a different majority at its helm can undo. This is called democracy.

And yet, the blockages exist, the war in Ukraine has shown that, and other heads of government will soon follow Viktor Orban’s lead. What does this say about the state of the EU in terms of foreign policy amid the current international chaos?

It simply says one very straightforward thing: the EU is an international organization primarily concerned with economic issues (its five federal competencies relate to the market, currency, and trade), which should focus on what it does best. It is a very large economic agency. As long as it tries to be something else, that is a government, it will fail. This is, in fact, the opinion of the vast majority of member states – except for one notable member state that sees Europe as a way to surpass itself: France.