.
@CaminoMortera I respectfully disagree. To say that voters only have a say in government decisions when 100% of them agree on something is to misunderstand the whole point of representative democracy.
When the US president takes a foreign policy decision, that person has been chosen by a majority of electors that were voted by the people. When the US Senate takes a foreign policy decision, a majority of Senators elected by the people have agreed.
If the Council were to switch to taking foreign policy decision by qualified majority rather than unanimity, the voters would be represented in that decision by their elected foreign ministers. A majority of them (even more democratic in the EU's case because the votes are taking into account the representatives' state size) would have voted for it.
There is no other way to have a common EU foreign policy. What we have now would be like if any of the 50 US state governors could veto a foreign policy decision of the US. There would be no United States if that were the case.
Europeans face a choice: do they want to be sovereign and relevant, or not? If they don't, then go ahead and dismantle the EEAS and keep national vetoes on foreign policy. But forget about being independent of foreign powers in the 21st century. And if you're in the East, start learning Russian.
Kallas is neither the worst nor the best HR we have ever had. Times have, quite simply, changed. When the failed Constitution and then Lisbon designed the EEAS, Britain was in the EU and History had apparently Ended.
To think that the Commission or the EEAS are the only bodies capable of an effective European foreign policy is to ignore how the EU has handled, rather successfully, the crises of the past five years: by distributing labour.
To those advocating a unified foreign policy: what do you do with the counterfactual of the never-ending sanctions drama, other than calling for the abolition of national vetoes? And if vetoes go, who can voters hold accountable in the EU machinery for decisions that turn out to be mistakes? I can think of a couple of very serious examples. How does the EU survive if voters feel that 'Brussels' is imposing decisions on the most core tenets of what makes a country a country, war and peace, without them having a say?
I, for one, think QMV on foreign policy would be the end of the European project. And because I do not want the European project to end, I think we need to be creative.