Europe’s unanimity rule is increasingly turning strategic decision-making into political paralysis. The concept of a “pooled veto” offers an alternative approach, preserving safeguards for national interests while preventing single governments from obstructing decisions that affect the entire Union
Written By:
Davor Nadi, Director of IEC and former Member of Croatian Parliament;
Alva Finn, Executive Director of the European Liberal Forum, the political foundation of the ALDE Party;
Emil Kirjas, former State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia, former Secretary General of Liberal International.
On Thursday, April 23, 2026, the Council finally signed off on the €90 billion loan that keeps Ukraine afloat through 2027. It was presented as a breakthrough. It is not. It was a payment held to ransom for months, at a cost Kyiv measured in artillery shells, and unlocked not by diplomacy but by the much-awaited Hungarian election.
With Orbán out of the picture we have reason for hope that Péter Magyar will make different choices from his predecessor. But wishful thinking will not end the war in Ukraine. It will not complete the EU project on enlargement. And it will not protect the Union from the next capital that decides obstruction is more profitable than cooperation. A queue is already forming, with Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico publicly pledging to “take the baton from Hungary.”
As we look to debate what we want Europe to look like in the coming decades, one word keeps surfacing: resilience. We want institutions that are future-proof, flexible and prepared for the geopolitical shocks that arrive monthly rather than once a generation. Yet our system is outdated, rigid, and unable to adapt to the world it is supposed to shape. The unanimity rule is becoming a rope around the Union’s neck. Whether by shielding Moscow’s interests, pivoting toward Beijing or bending to Washington, one member state can hold the entire continent hostage. Vladimir Putin knows that one European leader in his pocket is enough to hobble the entire Union and he will keep interfering in our elections for as long as unanimity gives him that leverage.
Yet, we should not discard veto rights entirely as it remains a vital safeguard for national interests. Smaller member states can rightfully fear being steamrolled. National parliaments fear losing democratic control. The solution is not abolishing the veto system entirely or to replace every veto with a simple majority. One possible solution can be a move from individual to pooled veto.
Under this model, vetoes can only be exercised by a group of member states representing at least 15% of the members and at least 5% of the EU population, in practice at least 5 member states representing about 22.5 million citizens. This would guarantee that veto power is exercised only when it reflects the interests of a substantial number of Member States, reducing the likelihood of vetoes that undermine wider EU interests.
Under this system, the veto would still be a significant tool to promote national or regional interests. For example, the Visegrád Four would only need to find one more ally to block a migration policy they find overreaching. The Nordic-Baltic Eight could collectively veto any attempt to weaken sanctions on Russia. Similarly, the “Frugal” members could group together to veto new collective debt instruments.
A pooled veto would transform how we make decisions. A good example for this is the enlargement process stalled for more than a decade. Today, the map of Europe is being redrawn by force. If we leave candidate countries like Ukraine or those in the Balkans waiting for another ten years, we are not just testing their patience; we are inviting rivals like Russia and China to fill the vacuum. With NATO in crisis, Europe’s territorial integrity has never been more important. If enlargement is to be our strategy, then we need a mechanism that makes integration inevitable and improves our capacity to make decisions. An institution designed for six, retrofitted for twenty-seven, simply cannot govern thirty-five on the basis that any one of them can stop the clock. That is why accession of new member states, and the end of the national veto should be seen as part of the same battle to unite Europe in an increasingly complex world.
Orbán’s defeat has given the EU a moment to breath. Yet, Europe cannot run on the hope that there will never be another Orbán and the polls say otherwise. The EU’s future will be tested by crises we cannot yet name, so it is time to build institutions ready to meet them.