Unlike the US, many countries have longer constitutions that are filled with provisions that shouldn't be in the constitution according to the US model. Until you consider that changing stuff in the constitution generally requires more votes than passing laws, so in essence it is "law stuff" that requires more than simple majority to change.
These quotes are from a paper that is highly critical of lengthy constitutions (not in the least because they seem to require more amendments over time), but I'll select here only the indisputable facts:
The US constitution is famous for its
brevity; for years, American lawyers have praised this feature as the secret to its endurance and
durability. Globally, however, the US constitution has been a model more in the abstract;
relatively few countries have directly copied it. In fact, over time, constitutions have grown
longer as they have begun to cover more topics.
With regard to the relationship between constitutional length and amendments, Lutz predicts
that longer constitutions will be amended more frequently because they are more likely to
contain detailed provisions that risk becoming obsolete over time [...] Negretto confirms Lutz’s predictions for constitutions in Latin America insofar as longer constitutions tend to be subject to more frequent amendment. [...] [citing] Negretto, Gabriel L. 2012. Replacing and Amending Constitutions: The Logic of Constitutional Change in Latin America. Law and Society Review 46 (4):749–79.
At approximately 4,090 words, Iceland’s constitution is one of the shortest in the OECD.
Under Article 79, a constitutional amendment can be passed by a simple majority of two
consecutive sessions of the Althingi, with a general election held in between. Legislators are
unlikely to propose an amendment that would prompt voters to vote them out of office, so this
requirement imposes relatively little additional burden on the amendment process. Despite the relative ease of amendment, the constitution has only been amended on seven occasions since 1944, most of which expanded the franchise and rights protections.
By contrast, at 50,700 words, Mexico’s 1917 constitution is the longest in the OECD and also
one of the most difficult to amend. According to Title VIII, any amendment must be passed not
just by two-thirds of the Congress, but also by a majority of state legislatures, which drastically
increases the number and diversity of potential veto players in the process. Despite this, the
constitution had been amended on over sixty-five occasions between 1917 and 2006 – almost
once per year – adding over 500 separate amendments. Moreover, many of these amendments
were required to counteract the revolutionary ideology that Mexico’s drafters enshrined in the
constitution. Because the constitution is so long and covers so many facets of political life,
amendments have been required for relatively mundane matters, such as rules governing the
expulsion of expatriates and foreign investment in the energy sector.
Those (Iceland, Mexico) are two concrete forms of veto over "fundamental stuff". The (potentially) alternating parliaments in a unitary state, and the cousin to the US amendment ratification procedure (federal super-majority, plus majority of states legislatures etc.) but applied to a much more encompassing (topics-wise) constitution than the US one. Wikipedia doesn't list Mexico as having any form of filibuster proper.
Of course this kind of veto only works for issues that were added to the constitution at one point.