Germany calls for end to EU unanimity rule to stop bloc 'standstill'
(www.euronews.com)
Europethe power of veto seems weird, surely a super majority to let countries in or kick them out (75%) and a majority to pass laws.
the small states have the same say as big states is a problem at the national level as well, its an anachronistic hang over I mean its more beneficial for a tiny nation to be in the EU then out.. Switzerland taking the piss is another problem :)
About fucking time. Fat pricks like Orban shouldn't be able to hold up 26 other nations because of their extra-national dick-sucking abilities.
Why we allow clearly undemocratic countries like Hungary under Orban to remain in the EU, is a much better question than asking why we should allow large countries to overrule the legitimate concerns of smaller democratic countries.
A thought on this:
A fair system (and our current system, in theory) is based on the principle of “one person, one vote.”
Accordingly, the large countries would have to have significantly more votes than the small ones, in proportion to their population.
Because right now, I don’t quite understand why the vote of a Luxembourg citizen is worth as much as that of 100,000 Germans. In my opinion, that has little to do with fairness... at least as long as the large countries are still footing the bulk of the budget.
To put it bluntly: If, in a village of 100 people, only one person had the right to a personal veto, we certainly wouldn’t be talking about an equitable, fair system.
The problem is that in the system you propose, smaller countries would have near zero incentive to participate because they'd always be overridden by larger countries.
Agreed that there may be issues such as Orban, but that's a poor excuse to completely overwhelm other small countries' opinions.
The problem is that in the system you propose, smaller countries would have near zero incentive to participate because they'd always be overridden by larger countries.
I get the problem and I don't claim that my thoughts would be a ideal solution.
Currently, however, we face the opposite problem: The larger countries are increasingly being asked why they bear the lion’s share of the costs only to then have their sovereignty restricted by countries like Hungary (EU law takes precedence over national law).
Both problems—the lack of representation for both the small and the large countries—pose a threat to the alliance in their own ways.
I don’t know which of the two is more serious… but intuitively, I would say that a withdrawal by the large countries would hit the alliance much harder than one by the small ones, since a large portion of the budget (from which small states in particular benefit greatly) would then be lost.
The problem with large countries potentially leaving is that everybody loses out on global power impact. It would only be viable, imho, of the difference of opinions would be vast and would constantly have a negative impact.
After all, nobody agrees with somebody else all of the time.
A lot of other things would need to change first in the EU before we could even consider this objection to be relevant, and aside from that it is common to have minority protections or required super-majority rules that also in theory give a minority greater power than what their number alone would give them.
But as it stands, the EU is a voluntary association of states and not a federal state, and it would have never been so successful if it were something else. In fact, it would likely desintegrate relatively quickly if the people that push for less independence of the states get their way. Most likely it would devolve into a rump union with France and Germany, plus a few client states that are economically too dependent to leave. Proponents of this call that a union of two speeds, but in reality it would be the death of the EU.
In fact, it would likely desintegrate relatively quickly if the people that push for less independence of the states get their way.
I get your point but I guess this is where out views differ.
In my view, cooperation beats competition—always.
The problem with the unanimity rule is that it makes the EU as a whole extremely vulnerable to outside influence. Russia, China, the U.S.—none of these nations has an interest in a functioning EU. A divided continent at war with itself would be much better for these power centers, in line with the “divide and conquer” principle. Currently, it’s enough for these powerful blocs (relative to the individual EU states) to focus their resources on exerting influence in a single member state to paralyze the entire bloc. In the turbulent times ahead, THAT will be the end of the EU—not a further increase in cooperation among the states.
If further integration is not possible due to the individual states’ aspirations for sovereignty, we at least need a two-speed EU to secure the EU’s global position by further increasing the cost advantages of cooperation.
And to put it in utilitarian terms: In exchange for limiting their sovereignty, the small countries gain maximum benefits through cooperation with the bloc’s major economic powers. I see no other scenario in which a voluntary or involuntary reduction in sovereignty would lead to such benefits… which is why the EU is such an attractive and successful model.
It's not "increased cooperation" if the larger states impose their will onto the smaller states, that is coercion.
And I think you misunderstand what makes the EU attractive for member states. It is exactly that the EU isn't an imperial power where the core rules over the perifery that makes it attractive.
You might think that the EU can only survive among the big sharks by becoming one itself, but this is neither desireable on principle, nor is it so clear cut. Historically, alliances of nations often defeated imperial powers, both economically and militarily.
Historically, many alliances have been broken up and subjugated through deliberate outside influence as well...
Let’s hope you’re right and I’m wrong.
When I look around the continent today, however, I’m worried that self-serving politicians in a representative system will destroy the alliance of states out of personal greed... even if you’re fundamentally right.
/edit:
It's not "increased cooperation" if the larger states impose their will onto the smaller states
It is if it happens on a voluntary basis.
If it is voluntary then there is obviously no need to remove veto powers.
If we are not able to deal with countries falling the path of hungary* and our only response is to kick them out of the union, then we shall accept that the EU is condemned to dissapear.
Picture a hungary that is still rulled by orban. You kick them out, then what? Slovakia... poland? What about those countries that are constantly on the verge of falling into putin's hand? We have to be better than that.
It's a fair point. It's also much easier to be all Billy Big-Balls "just kick them out" when it's Hungary - but what about when Germany elects AfD or France elects Le Pen; do we kick them out too?
A federation of democracies needs to be resilient to the fact that democracies don't always elect people we like. Kicking members out every time that happens is not reslience, it's a deathwish.
If the EU is taken over by fascists, because that is likely to happen if we remove all the guardrails and wait for one of the big countries to elect AfD/FN etc, then yes that is a deathwish 🤦
it's a market.
Because smaller countries often act entirely egotistically, and their particular interests have ramifications for millions upon millions of people from other member nations. That a country of a million can take a union of 450 million hostage should be unacceptable for the EU.
And large countries don't act egoistically?
If any country acts like that it should be shown the door in a community that depends on voluntary cooperation and not coercion by the majority.
That a country of a million can take a union of 450 million hostage
It's great how America provides a blatant example of the reverse and you completely ignore it. That's a skill.
At the same time Germany is totally fine to veto the EU-Israel trade agreement suspending. In this question Germany looks like two arms for the "unanimity among the bloc's 27 countries" for questions related to Israel war crimes and genocide in Gaza.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20260420-eu-gauge-member-states-willingness-take-measures-against-israel
This comment is incorrect. Not Germany nor any other country has veto rights on this agreement. They rejected it, using their normal vote.
The suspension of the trade agreement just requires a qualified majority and not unanimity. In other words Germany can not veto it and has not vetoed it. Hence the article uses the word reject, as Germany did not vote for the suspension. If only Germany did that, then the agreement would have been suspended, but as even the article you use clear shows, Italy did not support it as well.
Does your point not support abandoning anonymity? Perhaps Germany does not want to impose its Israel-related policy on other states by veto, while maintaining its own point of view?
I guess @sem@lemmy.ml's is a typical ml comment. They just keep parroting the same propaganda over and again without even trying to understand the topic.
IDK about this. Johann Wadephul is part of the christian dems. I hope it's at least a large majority because speaking as an american: simple majorities can really fuck your life up if you let them.
I would feel a lot better about this if there were more progressives currently in power, but it backslid last round of elections and is set to backslide again next time based solely on foreign election funds and psyops coming in.
simple majorities can really fuck your life up if you let them.
Most policy fields in the EU already have qualified majority or "reinforced" qualified majority voting and according to the article Wadephul is specifically calling for qualified majority.
I really don't see where concerns about simple majorities come from.
Nice, glad to hear it.
I really don’t see where concerns about simple majorities come from.
The policy not yet being in effect means we should be vocal about any changes we want and any we don't want. I was clear and explicit about wanting a large majority.
Yeah, your problem is not a simple majority for normal laws, but a fundamentally broken election system.
The EU is in a totally different situation.
A technically better election system than the USA allowed the Nazi party to take control at the end of the Weimar Republic.
A technically better system saw huge gains for the AfD recently.
A technically better system saw France throw shock elections and end up with another nonconfidence vote.
The only technically better system which was pleasantly surprising to me was Australia, going Labor recently.
look into switzerlands system, almost perfect imo. I am extreamly greatful for it
Happiest nation on earth almost every year for decades.
So much broken in the US system. A supposed representative democracy, yet the president is treated like a king - they can unilaterally make and abolish laws, can pardon anyone at their sole discretion, even their wife is called "the first lady".
This turns the EU into the USE. Without veto power, the elite can make sure that there is always a majority for their goals. Rich people will take over the EU, like they took over the US. Merz is too closely linked to the USA as to not deeply question which other effects besides preventing another Hungary this change will bring.
The same can be said the other way round and is already the case. With the current veto power Hungary acts as a Russian proxy and blocks as many important desicions as possible.
I agree that it doesn't help the corruption issues we already have and I think a simple majority shouldn't be enough. But removing the veto power in favor of a supermajority of like 85-90% would make it feasible to stop dickheads like Orban without compromising too much. (Let's face it, if you bought 90% of the EU, the last 10% shouldn't be that big of an issue either).
The decisions are only important because some want to turn the EU into a country whereas the EU could keep going without the need for further decisions. All other countries could have ignored Hungary and do whatever they wanted since they are souvereign countries. There was no need to act as the EU.
Let’s face it, if you bought 90% of the EU, the last 10% shouldn’t be that big of an issue either
Or they are and that's why we are going to change the rules.
The EU started as an American project.
He saw West Germany (and the other member states of the European Economic Community) as vassalized by Washington. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lys%C3%A9e_Treaty
Did the EU become independent or was de Gaulle wrong?
All other countries could have ignored Hungary and do whatever they wanted since they are souvereign countries. There was no need to act as the EU.
If you completely ignore the fact that Hungary was blocking the release of EU funds, and those don't just magically reappear in your national budget if the EU doesn't use them...
those don’t just magically reappear
They do. If Hungary blocks the EU fund then the money is not spent and the countries can borrow more money because the risk for the lenders doesn't increase.
The decisions are only important because some want to turn the EU into a country whereas the EU could keep going without the need for further decisions. All other countries could have ignored Hungary and do whatever they wanted since they are souvereign countries.
No, the decisions are important because this way you present EU as an unified block and it has way more bargaining power that every single state. Look at what happened with Brexit
There was no need to act as the EU.
Then there is no need for EU, if every country can go for itself.
The EU started as an American project.
The EU started because after WWII people in Europe decided that maybe, just maybe, to have a war that destroy the continent every 40 years is not a good idea, after all.
Look at what happened with Brexit
What happened that shows that the EU countries outside the EU structure don't have their united power if they choose to act together?
Then there is no need for EU, if every country can go for itself.
The opposite. There is no need for the EU if all countries just work together.
The EU started because ...
Please read the paragraph of the Wikipedia article around my quote.
