EU falls into its trap: unanimity

The “unanimity trap” continues to block decisions in the European Union. Now it is Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s support.

A European Union faces a impasse increasing due to the rule of unanimity, which allows any member state vetoes decisions in key areas. Call him “trap”.

The topic gained new relevance after the opposition (veto) of the Hungary to a 90 billion euro package of support for Ukraineadding to dozens of blockages recorded in the last decade.

The right of veto applies mainly in sensitive areas, such as foreign policy, defence, enlargement and parts of the Community budget. In these cases, the 27 member states need to fully agree for a decision to move forward. It is enough, therefore, a single country to stop the entire processcreating situations of political paralysis.

Although the mechanism was designed to protect national sovereignty and ensure balance between large and small countries, it has been increasingly used as an instrument of political pressure. Since 2011, member states have resorted to veto tens of timeswith emphasis on the Hungary, which leads the number of blockages.

Experts warn that this strategic use of the veto weakens the EU’s ability to act, especially in a demanding international context, marked by the war in Ukraine and geopolitical tensions. The need for quick responses contrasts with the slowness of the decision-making process, often hampered by divergent national interests.

The debate over reforming the system has intensified in Brussels. One of the proposals involves expanding the use of voting by qualified majority, already used in around 80% of European legislation. However, this solution faces a paradox: any change to the rules itself requires unanimity among member states.

There are also alternative mechanisms, such as the so-called “bridge clauses”, which allow changing the voting method in certain areas, or the use of financial pressure, making access to European funds conditional on compliance with common rules. Still, these options are limited and politically sensitive.

Although many countries recognize the need for reform, resistance persists. Abdicating the veto means losing a crucial tool for defending national interests — a step that several governments are unwilling to take.

Thus, the European Union remains trapped in a “unanimity trap”: a system created to guarantee consensus, but which, in practice, can block essential decisions. As long as there is no agreement to reform it, the risk of political paralysis must remain at the center of the European project.