The case for an EU Foreign Policy Trilogue

The case for an EU Foreign Policy Trilogue
Almost empty - because EU foreign policy is not made using a democratic process (photo: MNZ)

LinkedIn blog post, 17/06/2025, by Sven Franck (en français , in Deutsch)

TL;DR - I recently watched Jeffrey Sachs speaking in the EU Parliament and I can only echo the criticism towards the European Union lacking a proper foreign policy - ideally to be defined in a Constitution, not subservient to the US and not requiring unanimity. Yes, not so fast, but already today, and given the circumstances, Europe could do much better.

Going Ursolo

Instead the Commission President is slow to position the European Union on geopolitical affairs, more often than not following France and Germany and frequently getting called out for taking positions without consensus or mandate - see the group of MEPs from Ireland questioning her stance on Israel's recent attack on Iran.

I understand their frustration: smaller member states are not invited when Macron, Merz and Starmer discuss the future of the European Union 🇪🇺 - find the error(s) - and they also have no say, when the Commission President goes into autocrat-mode replacing the EU's "United in diversity" with "I am EU". A stronger Europe should not mean mimicking Trump or Putin but better integrating our European Union - which for me also includes transparent and representative decision-making processes.

Trilogue vote anyone?

In theory, foreign policy could be a vote between 3 representatives:

  1. one from the Commission, our "EU Government" of sorts
  2. one from the Council of the European Union equally representing member state governments (call it a Senate) and
  3. one from the Parliament representing member states based on population

In the day-to-day legislative work, each brings their version of a legislative text to a trilogue to find a compromise which then gets voted by the Council and Parliament respectively. Why not take inspiration from the procedure and use it for the EU's foreign policy positions? Maybe even allow each institution to put forward motions - the Council and Parliament with a qualified majority? Without a Quorum unless requested by 1/20% of members?

Granted, the devil is in the details, but if our Commission was interested in legitimately representing and talking politics, it could propose to develop a procedure which saw 3 representatives agreeing or even voting on a position (450 million down to a 3:0, 2:1 vote).

Not everyone would be happy since democracy means compromises and majorities. But it would be transparent and it would give all member states a chance to influence European foreign policy. Even better, it would show a way forward for how the EU could one day actually function. What's not to like? For similar ideas. #jumpstartEU.