The starting point
The Council already decides many EU laws by qualified majority, usually together with the European Parliament. But unanimity remains in areas including much of foreign policy, taxation, Treaty revision, parts of social policy, and important budget decisions.
Supporters of unanimity say it protects national sovereignty and prevents large states from imposing their will. That concern is real, especially for smaller countries. Yet unanimity also transfers extraordinary power to every national executive, including the power to block action supported by elected majorities across Europe.
How this works in practice
Veto politics is not the same as consensus. It can produce opaque side deals, delayed action, watered-down policy, or no policy at all. It also makes responsibility hard to trace: governments can support a European goal publicly while using the closed Council process to avoid a clear vote.
Federal majority rule should include safeguards. A double majority can represent both citizens and countries. Constitutional rights, judicial review, emergency brakes, opt-in transitions, and supermajorities for especially sensitive matters can protect pluralism without making paralysis the default.
What this means for a shared Europe
Opposition would remain legitimate. A government outvoted in one decision could campaign to change the law, build a new majority, challenge legal limits, and win later. That is ordinary democracy. Permanent vetoes turn every disagreement into a constitutional crisis.
Ending selected national vetoes would not complete a federation by itself. The European Parliament would also need stronger authority and Council decisions would need greater transparency. The goal is not simply faster Europe; it is Europe whose decisions citizens can understand and contest.