The EU has entered a permanent ‘crisis mode’ with the financial and refugee crises. As a consequence openly voiced minority positions in the Council have become more common. This is a new development since decision-making at the EU level has been consensus oriented (Bickerton, Hodson, Puetter 2015: 711; Heisenberg 2005). Consensus implies the absence or silence of explicit opposition. Member States aim for non-public dissent in order to avoid the unveiling of blocking minorities as well as blame and critique by journalists (Novak 2013). Accordingly, it is rare that Member States resort to voting and public dissent in Council decision-making.
In light of the theory the research paper asks why Member States would publicly dissent a Council decision. EU Justice and Home Affairs, a sovereignty sensitive issue area, is a least likely case for QMV and open Member State criticism. The meaning and reasoning of Member States for explicit opposition on EU refugee and border policy are explored by the means of qualitative methods, a comparative case study and policy analysis. The research finds that openly voiced opposition weakens legitimacy of EU decisions. In this vein, Member State public dissent can be linked to less compliance with the adopted policy. As a consequence, the departure from consensus does not only have normative implications but also seems to seriously imbalance the general effectiveness of EU policy.
Literature
Bickerton, C. J., Hodson, D. and Puetter, U. (2015) The New Intergovernmentalism: European Integration in the Post-Maastricht Era. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53:4, 703-722.
Heisenberg, D. (2005) The Institution of 'Consensus' in the European Union: Formal versus Informal Decision-Making in the Council. European Journal of Political Research, 44:1, 65-90.
Novak, S. (2013) The Silence of Ministers: Consensus and Blame Avoidance in the Council of the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51:6, 1091-1107.
