The other day, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, brought back to the fore her proposal for a change in the EU's decision-making on foreign policy issues. Today, the top decision-making body in the EU is the European Council, where the heads of member states participate and most decisions, which include foreign policy and defense issues, require unanimity. That is, each member state has a veto right (right of veto), so one state is enough to "block" the decision-making. In recent years, the President of the Commission has proposed, led by Germany, that decisions on foreign policy issues (e.g. defense, Russia, Turkey, the accession of other countries, etc.) be made by qualified majority, instead of by unanimity as is currently the case. Specifically, the Qualified Majority Voting rule provides that a decision is approved if it is supported by at least 15 of the 27 member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population.
The qualified majority rule will give further advantage to large member states and will nullify the ability of a state, especially a small one, to protect its vital interests. Essentially, a state alone will not be able to protect its vital interests and in such a scenario the entire policy in the EU will change drastically. The permanent refrain of the German President of the Commission and those who are leading the way in favor of qualified majority voting is that this is expected to limit deadlocks in decision-making! But who ensures that the vital interests of a small state, such as Cyprus, will be protected, especially when other member states have interests to the detriment of Cyprus? Given the strong interests of Germany, Spain and others with Turkey, who will protect Cyprus and Greece when they want to include Turkey in Eurodefense or upgrade trade relations, bypassing Turkey's obligations to the EU for the Republic of Cyprus? Even now that member states have the right of veto, there is enormous pressure and sometimes stabbings from partners in the EU and it is predictable what will happen if the veto is abolished. Characteristically, the President of the Commission, in order to include Turkey in the Eurodefense, pretextually invoked a procedure through which she bypassed the veto of the states and there was an incredible battle behind the scenes to limit her pursuit. Without first truly safeguarding our vital interests through the deepening of the EU such as common defense and others, there cannot be such a change.
For any change to be made, all member states must agree and that is why change is difficult. However, the stance of the Cypriot Government, parties and MEPs - and similarly in Greece - is extremely important and must be based on rationality to protect vital national interests and not on sentimentality, theories and party relations. And while the veto is a top issue in the EU, in Cyprus the discussion is avoided since it would reveal the real positions of many who are now "hiding" artificially.
Kostas Mavridis, MEP DIKO – S&D
photo betexion, https://pixabay.com
