EU May Change Decision-Making Rules Amid Hungary’s Repeated Vetoes

The European Union is weighing a fundamental shift in its decision-making rules after repeated vetoes by Hungary stalled sanctions and delayed Ukraine’s EU accession talks.

A group of member states is now exploring the transition from unanimity to a qualified majority system, which could prevent single governments from blocking joint action.

Why Hungary’s Vetoes Are a Problem

EU foreign policy currently requires unanimity, meaning all 27 members must agree. Hungary has repeatedly used this rule to hold up decisions on sanctions against Russia, financial aid to Ukraine, and joint statements condemning Russian strikes.

On August 29, Budapest again refused to sign a statement condemning Russia’s latest missile attacks, prompting sharp criticism from several EU partners. This pattern has led to what many diplomats describe as the “hostage-taking” of EU foreign policy.

How the Rules Could Change

According to a document reviewed by Bloomberg, twelve EU member states circulated proposals ahead of the informal meeting of foreign ministers in Copenhagen on August 30. The paper outlined options to replace unanimity with a qualified majority system for foreign policy decisions.

Under this mechanism, decisions would pass if supported by at least 55% of EU states representing 65% of the bloc’s population. Advocates argue this would allow Europe to act more quickly in response to crises and prevent single-member obstruction.

Critics, however, warn that such a shift would require treaty changes and risk deepening internal divisions. Central European states are apprehensive about losing control over security matters that directly impact them.

Hungary’s Position on Ukraine

While Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been the EU’s most vocal opponent of sanctions and aid to Kyiv, Budapest has signaled potential flexibility. Deputy Foreign Minister Levente Magyar recently said Hungary could reconsider blocking Ukraine’s EU accession negotiations—if Kyiv offers compromises on the rights of ethnic Hungarians in Transcarpathia.

This issue of minority rights has long been a confrontation point. Budapest insists on expanded language and education rights for the Hungarian community in a small region in the west of Ukraine, while Kyiv argues that existing laws already meet European standards.

What This Debate Means for Ukraine

For Ukraine, the outcome of this institutional debate is critical. As long as unanimity is required, Hungary’s veto power remains a significant obstacle to EU integration and long-term financial support.

If qualified majority voting is adopted—even for limited areas of foreign policy—Brussels could respond faster to Russian aggression and move forward with enlargement without constant last-minute bargaining with Budapest.

At the same time, any change to EU treaties would take time and require consensus, meaning that in the short term, Ukraine’s accession path remains vulnerable to Hungarian pressure.

A Critical Moment for the EU

The Copenhagen discussions highlight a broader struggle within the EU: how to balance the sovereignty of member states with the need for effective collective action in times of crisis. The war in Ukraine has accelerated calls for reform, but entrenched divisions could make treaty change slow and politically costly.

Still, the fact that twelve EU states are openly advocating for a qualified majority shows that frustration with Hungary’s blocking tactics is reaching a tipping point. Whether this will be enough to drive institutional change remains uncertain—but the debate has now begun.