Sir, – John O’Hagan (Letters, March 13th) expresses understandable frustration with the EU’s veto system in foreign policy, and the fact that it allows a small state to block the wishes of the overwhelming majority.
He also suggests that those who oppose removing the veto should acknowledge the difficulties it creates for collective EU action. That is a fair point. The ability of countries, such as Hungary, to delay or block measures, including support for Ukraine, has been deeply frustrating for many.
However, those who favour abolishing the veto should also acknowledge the potential consequences of doing so. Recent EU responses to events in the Middle East illustrate why smaller member states in particular should still value unanimity in EU foreign policy.
Many Irish people have been critical of the stance taken by EU leadership during the Israeli war on Gaza, including the early support offered by Ursula von der Leyen to Israel without consultation with member states. The EU has also failed to impose even minimal trade sanctions despite serious questions about Israel’s compliance with the EU – Israel Association Agreement. Admittedly, the failure to suspend the agreement reflects the fact that such trade measures are already decided by qualified majority voting rather than by veto.
RM Block
More recently, von der Leyen has also offered no criticism for the joint military attack by the United States and Israel on Iran, an action that is a clear breach of international law. Most EU governments, including our own, have likewise failed to issue a clear condemnation.
If qualified majority voting were extended to EU foreign policy, it is not difficult to imagine scenarios that many Irish people would regard as even more troubling. A majority of member states might vote to give explicit political or other support to Israeli military actions that Ireland strongly opposes, rather than the more tacit backing being provided by some.
Equally, a future majority could decide that it should become EU foreign policy to explicitly support a United States military intervention that breaches international law.
The veto undoubtedly creates frustrations, but it also ensures that smaller member states like Ireland are not compelled to align with foreign policies that run counter to their values. – Yours, etc,
SÉAMUS WHITE,
Stoneybatter,
Dublin 7.
