Rules of procedure - QMV and unanimity - exist for a reason.
Can we really imagine a scenario where the frugals, knowing they'd be outvoted anyway, would become more cooperative? Or would they rather delegitimise decisions with their national electorates as foreign diktat? 1/5 https://twitter.com/heimbergecon/status/1285149140771573760

Also, we keep bashing unanimity as if it were just procedural red tape, a hindrance to 'governability'. Do we realise that this is exactly what regimes with no respect for procedural values say of our party pluralism, parliamentary deliberation, and cyclical elections?... 2/5

... The rules of procedure for political decision-making must vary depending on the context and nature of each polity: where does the legitimacy of its institutions come from? The EU is not a national democracy, it is a compound polity of national democracies. 3/5

EU's legitimacy comes from consent of EU Member States and their nationals. Removing unanimity altogether, even in sensitive matters, is not a neutral technical choice. It is a policy choice to privilege the effectiveness of EU institutions over the sources of its legitimacy. 4/5

Yes, I too am exasperated by the slow pace of unanimity and the watered-down, compromise fudge coming out of it. I prefer that frustration to either no inter-state cooperation at all or to depriving democratically elected national goverments of their say on essential matters. 5/5