Former Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán forced the European Commission and other European governments to stretch the limits of the treaties that govern how the 27-state union takes decisions.
The far-right leader’s abuse of veto powers to continually block efforts to aid Ukraine pushed everybody else to search for creative ways to settle important debates by majority vote, rather than unanimity, which is the standard (high) bar to clear for EU decisions on foreign policy.
Now Orbán is gone and the commission has suddenly become a fan of unanimous decision-making, at least when it concerns sanctioning Israel.
An attempt to ban trade between the EU and illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories has become bogged down in a legally ambiguous debate about procedure. Is it a foreign policy decision, or a trade one? The answer matters.
RM Block
To approve a change in trade policy Brussels only requires a “qualified majority”, which means the support of at least 15 member states, who together make up about two thirds of the bloc’s population. The Czech government or another country fiercely protective of Israel would be sure to block a proposal that requires unanimous EU approval.
The only hope of banning imports of goods produced in illegal settlements is to ground it as a trade measure.
However, the commission has argued the ban aims to achieve a “foreign policy objective” by sending a political message to Israel. That has been read as the Berlaymont signalling any proposed ban it puts on the table would need the backing of all 27 member states.
The argument looks to be a fairly shaky one.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen is on record as supporting the EU taking more foreign policy decisions by way of qualified majority, rather than unanimity. When the commission last year proposed suspending an EU-Israel free trade deal to protest against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, it repeatedly said only a qualified majority was required.
That proposal never received sufficient support from member states. Italy had been wavering and many believed Rome was on the verge of swinging the debate in favour of suspending Israel’s preferential trading arrangement, but a peace deal in Gaza killed off momentum to sanction Israel.
A trade ban that only targets Israel’s expanding illegal settlements is an easier sell to capitals hesitant to damage their relations with Israel proper. It seems there would be a majority, or very close to one, to ban trade coming from settlements.
The commission’s suggestion that the bar suddenly be raised to require the support of all 27 governments seems to be a pretty clumsy effort to steer the discussion into a debate with no end and then shrug its shoulders when there’s no agreement.
