The Silence of Ministers. Consensus and Blame-Avoidance in the Council of the European Union

According to conventional wisdom, in areas where the Council of the European Union is supposed to decide by qualified majority voting, it does not vote but rather decides ‘by consensus’. This article aims to explain why the Council does not vote and what ‘consensus’ means. Given that consensus is often used by international organizations and EU institutional bodies, it is important to explain how it differs from unanimity. The article argues that formal voting is avoided because it would disclose the identity of opponents and would be detrimental to the negotiation process. Furthermore, ministers tend not to register their opposition even when they remain unsatisfied with an adopted measure because they expect to be blamed by their constituencies for having failed to defend national interests. Consensus is not necessarily used to signal that a general agreement is reached. It sometimes results from a strategy of blame avoidance that conflicts with democratic accountability

Decision rules, social norms and the expression of disagreement: the case of qualified majority voting in the Council of the European Union

When a group has to make a decision, one can assume that the members’ incentives to state their position vary according to the different decision rules. Decision-making in the Council of the European Union offers an opportunity to study how a decision rule influences the way members of a group state their position. Indeed, in several areas, decisions must be made by qualified-majority voting. But the combination of this rule and of social norms specific to the Council discourages the minority from expressing itself at different stages of decision-making. Decisions seem to be made without opposition at two main stages of the decision-making process: during the plenary sessions, representatives do not vote; according to the official Council records, a high proportion of measures are adopted without opposition