Welcome to the European Parliamentary Research Service Podcasts.

Today we'll be talking about the possibility of adopting decisions by qualified majority voting,

instead of by unanimity, in some areas of foreign and security policy,

analysing the pros and cons of such a move in the context of current security challenges.

So, keep listening.

The European Union wants to be a stronger world leader, but to be a global leader, it needs

to be able to act fast. And anyone following European affairs will know that getting 27 member

states with different geopolitical

interests, alliances and histories to agree on a common position is neither an easy process nor a quick

one.

But the crises and security challenges accumulating in and around the EU in recent years have

added to the urgency of having a more effective and

rapid decision-making process in foreign and security policy.

Over the past decade, qualified majority voting, which requires the approval of 55% of

member states, representing at least 65% of the EU population, evolved to be the standard

voting rule in the Council, replacing

unanimity in an increasing number of domains, from humanitarian aid and external border controls

to single market rules or climate targets. But member states are reluctant to give away

sovereignty when it comes to deciding on sensitive issues

such as foreign affairs and security. Indeed, many argue that such a rule undercuts the

bloc's bold ambitions for global influence, and it's difficult not to agree. Let's take

an example, the situation in Belarus in September 2020, when one small country,

...