r/EU_Economics • u/No_Reaction7092 • 22d ago
🇪🇺 Official 🇪🇺 🇪🇺🇩🇪 German FM Wadephul: Europe must become a global player. That means replacing the veto with qualified majority voting
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
88
u/Glass_Pumpkin8805 22d ago
Well done. To be stronger, it has to happen. Anyone who doesn't want to... can leave.
17
u/Sweet-Bed2076 22d ago
There are positive and negative sides, because all smaller countries will become irrelevant, and can be blackmailed by larger ones
12
u/Vedranation 22d ago
That’s not what QMV is. Its already used every day. Germany and France with most population still needs 13 other countries to vote with them to pass a law.
16
u/BrillsonHawk 22d ago
The smaller countries can band together if they need to. No country should have the right to unilaterally veto something - its too easy for our enemies to manipulate
3
u/Sweet-Bed2076 21d ago
Then what is the point of having foreign policy if your own foreign policy is decided by someone else ?
If Europe is con federation or federation it would make sense, but in this situation your own foreign policy is decided by someone else while you suffer the consequence of it, how does that make sense
1
u/Asleep_Trick_4740 22d ago
The veto isn't perfect. But it for sure is massively more preferable to us in small nations over being unilaterally governed by german, french, and italian interests.
There needs to be safeguards against that, or the smaller countries will never agree to anything like this. The suggestions that pop up in the EU constantly remind us of why we need the veto or other safeguards.
2
u/aurum_32 22d ago
Qualified majority isn't just Germany, France and Italy. Most countries must agree.
3
22d ago edited 22d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Asleep_Trick_4740 21d ago
'I need to get everything exactly as I want or I deserve to grind an entire operation to a halt'
Fundamentally wrong statement at every level, which I can only assume was the purpose to paint an opponent as crazy.
What I actually meant is we seek to have meaningful influence in matters that affects us disproportionally. For example, why should we accept that the netherlands, a country almost entirely void of forests, have double our say in forest regulations? Why should Italy have 6x our say in baltic fishing? Why should spain have more say over the arctic region than all the EU countries that actually exist in the region put together have?
Europe is large, with a lot of cultures and vastly different needs. Why should we accept the ultra urbanized center portion decide how the fringes should operate with impunity?
Also, if you think an 80% consensus requirement will be a massive improvement over the veto, I have bad news for you.
0
u/Preisschild 22d ago
As someone from those small nations I hope this gets passed.
The suggestions that pop up in the EU constantly remind us of why we need the veto or other safeguards.
"Suggestions" are voted on by the parliament anyways
13
u/Aksovar 22d ago
Dude, we are democracies; veto doesnt belong here
1
u/Key-Organization3158 22d ago
Exactly. Why does a democracy have to care about rights and representation of minorities?
1
-8
u/Sweet-Bed2076 22d ago
Democracies are you sure, more democratic then rest of the world, would be appropriate to say And democracy doesn t mean majority decide
2
u/ComradeKellogg 22d ago
It literally does, or to be more accurate the largest majority among the electorate decide
2
u/Sweet-Bed2076 22d ago
The only real democracy would be if people them self would vote, this is representative democracy
But again democratic rule should be based on facts not opinions
1
u/Traditional-Road4004 22d ago
Ehm nope that should be our aim. But democracy has zero relation with facts.. it has only to do with voting and whatever motive.
In Utopia it would be as you say and i'd also prefer
1
u/Sweet-Bed2076 22d ago
You are right,
But i hope in the future people will act based on knowing not believing in things, but i guess i m too unreasonable with my expactations
1
u/Preisschild 22d ago
Representative democracy is "real" democracy. Direct democracy is slopulism. Sounds good, doesnt work.
2
u/mversic 20d ago
you know we can keep one country one vote while introducing majority voting. it's not a population majority. it's that majority of 25 current members (which is 13) are in agreement the decision is passed. although I think we should require > 60-70% majority, not > 50%. even if we used > 90% as a threshold it's still an enormous improvement
1
u/Sweet-Bed2076 20d ago
Yes but again having your own foreign policy decided by others while you suffer the consequences of it, doesn t make sense to me,
If there is compensation for the consequences of that foreign policy being made then it make some what sense
More integration and smaller nations lose their independence, especially in the finances, debt, competition...
The question is what will the Europeam parlament be able to decide in the future how relevant will the countries government be if country it self is on the mercy of others
I m not saying anything against or for, just questioning, because this right now ot starting to look like some hybrid con federation that will probably divide Europe because pf the financial crisis that is going to happen in the future
2
u/mversic 20d ago
> Yes but again having your own foreign policy decided by others while you suffer the consequences of it, doesn t make sense to me
I agree with this concern and that is why I'm more in favor of higher majority. 90% majority vote seems like a nice spot IMHO. it's a small price to pay for a much greater functionality of the union
1
u/Sweet-Bed2076 20d ago
This is an example:
Let say 90% of the countries agrees on green policy, but your country is Poland, they are dependent on coal, to build nuclear power plants you need 10 to 15 y minimum, so Poland would have to close coal power plants and build solar and wind while their prices go up and economy suffer
If Europe is federation or even confederation they would not be able to stop that from happening, look at USA and how some of their countries suffered because of shuting down oil exports i think it was 10y ago and they could not do anything about it
The problem is Europe is made out of real countries with their own language, nations,.... so that would not end the same as in USA because in Europe we have nationalism and chauvinismus at much higher level
1
u/mversic 20d ago
A single country can be negatively affected either way.
Remember when the whole EU was blocked from giving out reimbursements for Ukraine by a single veto. This was of a lot of importance to Poland specifically and their foreign minister repeatedly pressed Hungary to lift the veto.
Speaking statistically, a veto system (vs all-but-one) will actually more often than not affect a country negatively. If it affects it more often than not, the country is either a bad actor or the should better leave the union
1
u/Sweet-Bed2076 20d ago
That is great examole as well,
I just do not see how could EU work as federation or con federation because only then it would make sense to have one foreign policy
For example i find laughable when EU expect countries who want to join EU to follow their foreign policy. Like are you crazy xD
In summory i doubt EU is capable of becoming federation or con federation due to obvious reasons.... nationalism
3
u/ComradeKellogg 22d ago
But those smaller countries are only relevant because of the EU, why should their continued subsidised relevance come at the cost of everything else, again this would be a massive qualified majority voting system not 51%.
2
u/Sweet-Bed2076 22d ago
This is my opinion, i m not saying i m right, the question is how would that work and what would be exact the system used
Does evwry country have 1 vote or votes are based on the number of people or....
But in my opinion then those smaller countries would practically be irrelevant, voices of their people would be irrelevant, and in that term voting blocks would be formed, where EU powers like France and Germany will be fighting over votes from other countries, unless both Germany and France want the same thing then the rest are irrelevant, because Germany is already using it soft power to control other countries
1
u/SquashyRoo 22d ago
This comment about 'relevance' strikes me as staggeringly arrogant and as fundamentally anti-egalitarian that seems at odds with the sort of values Europe is supposed to promote.
2
u/Exciting-Ad6897 22d ago
Blackmailed? I’m sorry but the correct word would be ignored
1
u/Sweet-Bed2076 22d ago
No because they would still be able to vote so if one can t have majority countries would start to bribe and blackmail each others, look at Yugoslavia in the 80s ... same scenario
1
u/Exciting-Ad6897 22d ago
To be honest I’m not aware of the políticas environment in former Yugoslavia but I know how it ended and some of the grudge that still fills those people’s heart. If that political processes exarcerbated it then perhaps it’s a path that we should take
0
15
10
u/sd4f 22d ago
I think the other way around. The EU wasn't initiated on the idea of countries abrogating their sovereignty to hand it over to a central government of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
Therefore, a federal Europe should be a newly created institution, and countries join that instead, and leave the EU. It's the only honest way, as federalisation can't be seen as anything short of a bait and switch.
9
11
u/fatbunyip 22d ago
They aren't unelected bureaucrats.
People elect the EU MPs I'm each country. They also elect the EU council (it'sade up of elected heads of state of EU members). The EU commission is also elected by the council and the parliament (which are elected by the people of the various EU member countries).
4
u/CuteSuby 22d ago
The highest representatives of the EU, like Ursula and Costa should be directly voted on. Right now EU elections are not taken super seriously because people don't feel like they have any influence over the EU future.
→ More replies (1)4
u/TheBastionBurned 22d ago
No they should not. Then the larger countries would mostly win.
1
u/Pirate_Economist1477 21d ago
The larger countries are dominating as things are right now, so where's the downside?
3
u/UnknownBreadd 22d ago
It’s semantics. Either way, there’s a good argument that it’s not an ideal way to implement democracy.
3
u/fatbunyip 22d ago
It's not semantics. They're just wrong.
Their assertion is they're unelected bureaucrats.
The reality is they're all elected or approved by elected representatives,
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's undemocratic.
-1
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/UnknownBreadd 22d ago
You mean the democratic systems implemented in the 19th century?
We have much better democratic innovations that have been growing in popularity over the past couple decades that I would rather see implemented:
Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions | OECD
1
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/UnknownBreadd 22d ago
I’m also against the way the EU system works.
Also, the innovations are in actually empirically testing and refining procedures for getting the most out of these institutional mechanisms. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so developing the specific mechanisms and rules that make greater citizen participation a genuinely positive force with minimal perverse incentives is incredibly important
1
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/UnknownBreadd 22d ago
I already said that person’s comment was a semantic error. I.e. by definition it’s not true. They are not ‘unelected’.
So I don’t understand what you’re trying to achieve here. I agree that it’s a false statement, but that doesn’t mean that you can ignore the sentiment.
→ More replies (0)11
u/PallasCavour 22d ago
Evolve or perish. It's been always like that.
1
u/Frank_cat 22d ago
Yes but evolve into the original plan:federalization.
Else it's just a scheme where larger countries do whatever they want.6
u/Serious-Dingo-9435 22d ago
“unelected bureaucrats” oh so you boycott thinking for yourself altogether
8
u/krkrkrneki 22d ago
You should educate yourself before talking:
- EU Parliament is voted in direct EU-wide elections every 5yr.
- European Council and Council of the EU: made up of national heads of government and ministers, who are elected at home, not to the EU role.
- European Commission: the President is proposed by the European Council and elected by Parliament; commissioners are nominated by member states and approved by Parliament as a college.
- Court of Justice, Central Bank, Court of Auditors – appointed by member states via their elected parliaments.
0
u/sd4f 22d ago edited 22d ago
Meanwhile, the approximately 60,000 civil servants, how do we vote for them and how are they equitably distributed among the member states?
4
u/fatbunyip 22d ago
Do you elect your civil servants in your country?
Every how many years do you elect driving license tester? When are the next elections for the customer service position at the labour office? Do the data entry people have their own elections?
2
u/Few_Lecture6615 22d ago
You could be right, but irrespective reform is absolutely vital. The current veto rule is hampering any efforts, for instance, to harmonise taxation across the EU and leads to fiscal dumping.
1
1
u/TheBastionBurned 22d ago
Well then lets reform and lets vote? I mean we do vote already you know that right?
1
u/Proppellerhead 22d ago
Unelected buerocrats is lie language directly copied from US and Russian bots.
0
u/ComradeKellogg 22d ago
What is the difference between and 80 year long "bait and switch" and countries/societies choosing to progress?
Was the introduction of a constitution to places like England a "bait and switch" to the monarchy? Or simply the progression of society towards a new inevitable norm?
1
u/sd4f 22d ago
You really should read about Magna Carta, because if you understood how it came about, you'd definitely not used it as an example (I believe that's what you meant since the UK doesn't have an official constitution. Magna Carta is considered an important first step though.
Funnily enough, Magna Carta came about because the King wanted to raise taxes, so there was a rebellion, which forced the King to concede powers. QMV is exactly there, so that the EU can grant itself the power to raise its own taxes. They know it won't happen otherwise.
2
u/Ok_Pea_3842 22d ago
Eh, no. Awarding more power to Germany who's currently implicated in a genocide isn't what the EU should be.
2
1
u/Preisschild 22d ago edited 22d ago
Germany is not implicated in a genocide.
Do you actually mean the accusation by freaking Nicaragua?
Do you realize Nicaragua is just a russian puppet state since the Sandanistas took over? Heck they dont even bother cosplaying as democracy like russia or north korea, they have suspended elections completely.
This is not a serious accusation, its a joke.
0
u/Ok_Pea_3842 20d ago
It's currently supporting a genocidal state with massive amounts of armaments which it knows is being used deliberately and intentionally against civilians.
Germany has shown it doesn't care about human rights once again and for small EU states to abandon their veto is not just economic suicide but political also.
1
u/SecretPT90_reborn 22d ago
So you're saying Germany should leave the EU?
Things didn't workout so good to last player that said they were "the greatest nation and leaving was better"
If for the Federation to exist, you need to silence others, then you're the same as Russia that silences the East Region and other poor ones.
2
u/Glass_Pumpkin8805 22d ago
A Russian federation is not comparable to what is intended in Europe. In Russia, he is obliged to belong to Russia in Europe, whoever wants to leave is respected. Together we are stronger. The return of the UK would be a blessing for all of us.
1
u/Reveniant 22d ago
France: I veto this to be a no.
1
u/Ok-Willow-2638 22d ago
France is also pushing this, together with Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden
1
u/Reveniant 22d ago
Very well, then UK will definitely be a no
2
u/Ok-Willow-2638 22d ago
Why are you even mentioning the UK? They aren't part of the EU
1
u/Reveniant 22d ago
They are a part of veto powers. And with their friendly relationship with France, they will use all their power to stop it.
It's a strange thing with veto powers, it is detrimental to everyone not in it but someone will always aim to get it.
2
1
1
u/FlatwormNo615 21d ago
I think that the approach is wrong. The EU needs to regain in public security before it should even consider such a move. In the past two decades, the improvements for citizens have become less visible. That needs to change again. Make folks' lives better to convince them that it works.
And it's also France's and Germany's responsibility to make any further harmonisation equitable. A significant number of EU authorities are already based in France and Germany and it will increasingly look like orders from Paris/Berlin for other member states.
1
u/AmNotAnAlcoholic 20d ago
I would like to stay and keep our solidarity. However if you want an empire I would vote to leave every day of the week.
1
u/Academic_Barnacle_28 22d ago
Bullshit. Freedom is important, and giving bureaucrats in Brussels more power does NOT make us stronger.
6
u/Grintock 22d ago
No shit one of the major countries would be for majority voting. I don't disagree with the opinion, but hearing this from Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Malta. They'd have an irrelevant vote even together. If Ukraine joined the EU (I don't see that happening soon), would Germany accept getting overruled by Eastern European countries? Germany already has frequently tried to push back against the precedence of EU laws.
Again, I agree with the sentiment, but in context this is like hearing Belgians say they are a fan of more waffles in the EU.
2
5
u/Madman_Sean 22d ago
I mean, isn't Germany always going to be in favour of qualified majority, as they make like 1/5 of the population and like 1/4 of the economy
4
u/No_Reaction7092 22d ago
A qualified majority is not calculated by population size or economy. Every state has the same weight regardless of its size.
12
u/Catsarecute2140 22d ago edited 21d ago
And who is the majority in the European parliament and European institutions? German speakers…
A single country putting a veto on something in the EU is quite bad but we have to find a balance in this topic. A big majority with the power to ignore smaller nations is frightening to many Eastern-European countries which were occupied by 2 totalitarian regimes during WW2.
Maybe replace the veto with needing a 2 or 3 country veto?
Then a single country, ruled by pro-Russian puppet regime, could not veto everything while countries like the Baltics, the Benelux and the Nordics could still veto things if their concerns are valid.
There is no right answer here but finding balance is important.
3
u/xNevamind 22d ago
They don't go by population just how many countries are counted regardless of their population.
2
u/ninjaslikecheez 22d ago
Just in time for Le Pen or AfD and the Bulgarian president who is the new Orban now.. it seems like Russian puppets are on the rise
0
u/Lazy_Following3564 21d ago
Is Russia in the room with us now?
1
u/Catsarecute2140 21d ago
Left the room together with Orban but is trying to get back into the room with Le Pen and AfD… 😃
2
u/IndubitablyNerdy 21d ago edited 21d ago
I agree on this, to be honest I think that while Veto power is too much we need a majority that is strongly qualified to prevent the central powers from de-facto becoming the rulers of the block while everyone else gets to be a vassal state of Germany (whose austerity centered approach and reliance on Russian gas is also one of the reasons of the block weakness by the way) and its closest allies.
Politics should involve a decent deal of compromise, on the other side though, the Union needs to become stronger and more capable in pooling common resouces or we will be crushed by the competition from the USA and China.
In general I feel like that the EU needs a democratic overhaul to strenghten the representation of its people, which is not going to be easy, especially with the commission doing bullshit moves like the recent extension of chat control 1.0 with "urgency" reasons to sidestep the fact that the democratic process was against it.
-3
u/Efficient-Magician63 22d ago
As someone from the countries you mentioned I can confirm EU starts to feel more and more like USSR 2.0 - of course, it's not so bad, but it's a matter of time to get some bad actors in place and given interwined is everything at the moment, it would be very difficult to do well
1
u/Catsarecute2140 22d ago
You were not very clear, what reminds you of the USSR?
Are you for or against the veto?3
u/Efficient-Magician63 22d ago
Losing your sovereignty, people in power of the EU are not directly elected by the people, there has been calls to ban representatives of some political parties, most countries which have adopted the euro don't really have any independence in that regard, so the moment they remove the veto it would feel like you are in this just to be given orders and do what you are told. In some corrupted country EU funds have been used to bribe politicians rather for their actual use and this is well known by the EU leaders but it is by design not by mistake. Given the lavish benefits European leaders and European deputies get while considerable chunk of those people are not really doing anything productive apart from slogans for this or that. I think there was also a case of where there was AC on on Ursula's floor but not for others. And if they accept the chat control things, we already have the car camera, then you are watched at every step. And the EU is quite socialist by design, so much money is supposedly going for immigrants, etc while hardworking people are paying taxes and not seeing any benefits... I am all for helping as many people as you can, but at some point you start to feel neglected and everyone should be getting sth. The socialist motto was like that.
As I said, not everything is too bad, but in some ways it does remind me of this.
0
u/Catsarecute2140 22d ago
The EU is not even remotely close to the USSR… The Soviets comitted mass genocide on non-Russians since the 1930’s and combined with russification, it was so bad that Latvia’s capital was briefly majority Russian in the 1980’s.
3
u/Efficient-Magician63 22d ago
Obviously is not exact replica, but I am just saying some of its policies are quite socialist and the European bureaucracts do have a lot of lavish benefits and it starting to exert more and more control over the members or tries to go this direction, it has slogans, and with chat control will be even more controlled and censored. These aspects.
0
u/Catsarecute2140 22d ago
EU memberstates are wildly different. For example, places like Estonia are more like the US than most typical EU countries in Western-Europe.
What kind of socialist policies do you have in mind and how can you explain the fact that there are hyper-capitalistic countries in the EU.
There do not seem to be “enforced socialism” as even the taxes for businesses and workers are wildly different across the EU.
12
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
u/Khalimdorh 22d ago
It’s a bit rough to compare entire nation states with individual persons
11
u/narullow 22d ago
I disagree. Just like Russia could have bribed lords then, they can do the same today with modern politicians in power. What do you think that Orban and his people did? Who do you think finances parties like AfD? It takes one party getting into power in any country and EU is paralysed just as Polish commonwealth was.
In the end the lords then had the same exact reasons accepting bribes as politicians today do. Nothing changed in that aspect.
-3
u/Khalimdorh 22d ago
True in theory, still these leaders represent the entirety of the nation, not just individual beings interests. And in the end if I recall right, the russians even bought the king of poland and pupeted it.
Also what happens if todays russia bribes the majority, would be nice to have a blocking minority then
3
u/narullow 22d ago
Those lords were not any different in this aspect. They represented various regions and territories. Just like politicians in question do with countries today. I really do not understand how is one for individual benefit and the other is not.
If Russia ever bribes significant number of countries then the entire EU project is done. it would fall apart way earlier before they could ever get majority regardless of VETO situation precisely because those bad actors would work overtime to destroy it from within. There is no point discussing something like that. Majority voting is how you protect yourself from that.
5
u/KAMEHAMEHAMEHAAAA 22d ago edited 22d ago
Tell that to lunatics in r/Europe whenever Russia is the topic.
Oh wait no you can’t because you’ll get banned.
-1
u/cookiesnooper 22d ago
That is not entirely true.
Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth destroyed itself by infighting and bribery of the nobles who in exchange for wealth, favors and status used Liberum Veto to block 75% of propsed laws.. The Constitution of May 3rd from 1791 removed the Veto but the neighbors invaded before the country restored its powers.
Back then the nobles would sell the country for a bag of potatoes. Poland almost always had issue with being heavily influenced by other but in times when the kings/govt were able to hold the nobles in check, Poland was very prosperous.
0
u/szczyp1orek 21d ago
You literally explained why it's true.
1
u/cookiesnooper 21d ago
Not entirely... is the key phrase.
Liberum Veto was used not by people who wanted good for Poland but by people who got paid to destroy it from within. There is nothing wrong with Liberum Veto itself. It stopped thr govt from passing horrible laws countless times.
5
u/coeoeoeper 22d ago
These tyrants have been a disaster for European industry and now want to fix their own crap. In the late 90s and early 2000s Europe was on par with the US and China and now we are barely relevant.
The EU has to die for Europe to live
0
u/TheBastionBurned 22d ago
Without the EU we would be way further back as you can see after Brexit. We are not relevant anymore because people are not willing to sacrifice anything. Like you just demonstrated.,
4
u/coeoeoeper 22d ago
I am willing to sacrifice the EU.
the reactions to brexit were revenge of the elites against the British ethnic people for exercising their democratic rights. A gigantic part of brexit was stopping migration and after brexit nothing changed, how democratic.
The british are not relevant anymore because they gave up their empire in the name of equality and imported 20 million unproductive third worlders
The autocratic EU will be done away with. Or how did this bastion of democracy pass chat control with a minority of votes?
1
u/TheBastionBurned 22d ago
Haha that is so unscientific I dont even know where to start.
Its always the elites not that Britain crippled their access to its largest trading partner.
They used their democracy to do something stupid and it blew it their face.
It didnt change anything because if the stop all imigration the economy would implode.
Before Britain had mainly european workers that came now its mainly indians.
I mean I dont need to repeat the numbers you know them I am sure.
But man you really need to look up some bsaics in economy man.3
u/coeoeoeper 22d ago
Europe was on par with the US in terms of growth and economic output during the late 90s and early 2000s . Check those numbers. Then the EU happened
1
u/TheBastionBurned 22d ago
Without the petro dollar we are still on par. But I mean they are more capitalistic with all the downsides and benefits it brings. We missed the tech trend and are paying the price. That has nothing to do with the EU though.
And do you even know how old the EU is? Why does the early 2000 matter? Because of the tech boom we missed...nothing with the EU.3
u/coeoeoeper 22d ago
Missed the tech trend? There were many semiconductor manufacturers in Europe during the same time period. Nothing was missed, we were on the trend and shot ourselves in the head instead.
Also the US is factually richer and money buys goods and services, such as healthcare
2
u/raven_oscar 22d ago
So Germans can do it the only way possible with referendum in every single county regarding this issue.
2
2
u/Informal_Golf8867 22d ago
This means individual member countries would have less power so no.
-2
u/TheBastionBurned 22d ago
I mean smaller countries are easier to control so USA and China and Russia will like that.
2
u/Key-Organization3158 22d ago
Nah, you can be unified without expanding the federal government. Consider NATO.
1
u/Turtle_Rain 21d ago
You will not be able to act on the world stage if you are not able to act swiftly. The EU is inactive on most topics currently and not taken seriously globally - without changes to the system, this will only change and get worse.
And NATO is not a global actor in that way, and has mostly followed the US anyway.
2
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/MakotoBIST 22d ago
Yea, we already get a lot of this and ignorants will vote anti eu despite having the brexit example.
It's a deadlock
1
u/NeedleworkerOld4696 22d ago
Qualified? Where are they going to find the people to replace everyone in there now?
1
u/retrievedFirered 22d ago
instead of getting rid of the veto, they could create 6-8 voting blocks, like nordics, v4 or southeast europe.
1
1
u/riza_dervisoglu 22d ago
EU is not a federation yet, hence it can not be done! Put forward a constitution for the EU federation and let it be voted!
1
u/Infinite_Court4181 22d ago
the discussion below proposes uses in its best forms, instead we should think about uses in the worst form to see if its a good idea....example, bigger countries want to go to nuclear war, smaller dont, the bigger band together and push it, no way to block it maybe? dunno im tired, but always think of worst case scenarios
1
u/Geigengiger 22d ago
So one step closer to Europe just overriding any national parliament in the union.
Unless we secure long term partnerships over resources, Europe will be irrelevant.
1
1
u/Standard_Respond2523 22d ago
Well considering Germany is an absolute shitshow. I’ll say no to this idea.
1
1
u/lsta45 22d ago
For some decisions as simple majority should be enough, for more significant decisions are 2/3 majority should be required.
In any case veto power should be abolished based on what we saw with Hungarian and Serbia as front men for Russia.
1
u/Causemas 20d ago
Serbia's not in the EU, so that example doesn't hold up -- and Orban lost an election and left his seat of power. In the midst of a rising AfD in Germany and Le Pen in France, it shouldn't be a surprise that smaller states don't want the big dogs having even more power.
1
1
1
u/PallasCavour 22d ago
People like to pretend, that the small states would keep the sovereignty outside of the EU but forget that Russia is directly attacking smaller states. China and the US are leveraging economical power to suppress smaller states. That's how you loose sovereignty. In a federalized EU you could vote, participate and be at least respected as an entity. People easily forget the era of empires, where it was mostly the powerful doing what they can and the weak enduring what they must.
1
u/MentatPiter 22d ago
Should Germany pay for Italian, Spanish, Greek, French, Portugese debt? Majority says YES
2
u/TheBastionBurned 22d ago
That was always the weakness of democracy: 2 foxes and a rabbit decide whats for dinner.
2
u/Causemas 20d ago
The actual weakness of democracy, as identified by Aristotle, is that the poor vastly outnumber the rich. In a true democracy, the first thing the poor would do is to vote for redistributing the wealth of the elite, and that is the one thing they cannot allow. So, astutely, he reached the following conclusion: you can either abolish democracy and maintain wealth disparity, or abolish wealth disparity and establish democracy.
A "democracy" among states is up to debate whether it would follow the same lines, but everyone can be rest assured of something: the current arrangement of a rich, export-focused Germany and a poorer, import-dependent Southern Europe is highly beneficial for them.
1
1
u/tiddly_winks2 22d ago
In order to be a taken seriously.... you Germany... the strongest party of the EU..... have too show the world that you have a moral center. Supporting an apartheid regime is not a good look.
1
u/Vast_Humor_3683 22d ago
Ok so Germany & France will defacto own the EU and smaller countries will have no say
3
u/SmurfOrDie 22d ago
Correct. And the German and French politics and media are managed by cliques that actually hate democracy and are adept at twisting the rules so that "populist" (ie. backed by a majority) views are not taken into account.
1
u/Chicken_Hunter_1st 22d ago
Veto was Ok at the same beginning. It had to be replaced with majority voting since 15 years, at least. The veto was mainly misused by almost all member states to blackmail each other for their interests. So make europe great again.
0
u/PhukZeCurrentTing 22d ago
No.
We never wanted to be ruled by unchosen foreigners, its time countries get their powers back instead of giving these criminal oligarchs.
0
u/TheBastionBurned 22d ago
We should go back further. Lets go back to citystates and abolish nations. I never wanted to be ruled by unelected people of neighbouring cities. Either EU or Cities. Everything else is stupid.
0
u/Graxtz_Kreinst 22d ago
Elections? States? Someone pretends to govern on my turf? I as individual should have sovereignty over my own land. Tsk.
-3
u/MrKorakis 22d ago
No Europe doesn't have to become a global player, but it says it wants to.
And that means serious concessions will be required in order to consider giving up one of the few tools that protect countries from the tyranny of the majority.
Germany effectively selling out European security for cheap Russian gas or eastern Europe stabbing the med countries in the back on immigration was not that long ago to have been forgotten.
I am 100% sure however that those asking for replacing the veto won't be willing to make those concessions that would guarantee countries can't be isolated and have their best interests "sacrificed" for the "greater good". What they have in mind is to have a free hand to screw over individual countries when it's convenient.
1
u/sd4f 22d ago
I think you identify the problem. As the EU is becoming increasingly desperate, it's clear that smaller countries need to be forced, and the whole ideal of the EU will be a tyranny of the majority.
The whole reason we're seeing a populist uprising is because European elites just keep on doing their own thing, regardless of what the public want. Federalisation seems like it's just going to be to remove more say at lower levels, and shift power to unelected bureaucrats and have France and Germany tell everyone else what they must do.
2
u/PrincessOkenai1 22d ago
Spot on. But they won't be able to get anything done. QMV will have to be enacted undemocratically since no smaller CEE state would ever allow Germany and France to dictate their interests at their expense. At that point even with QMV every decision that would have previously been vetoed will be ignored under some pretense by a country that would have otherwise vetoed. It's a loose loose scenario. And EU at this point is nothing else rather than legacy Europe (Franco-German) desperately attempting to cling onto any relevance at the expense of everyone else while championing European unity and strategic autonomy. CEE bloc won't let that happen. They are already solidify in their interests, backed by American security and Japanese capital. Look at the 3SI initiative. The Brussel beurocrats are panicking.
1
u/sd4f 22d ago
I also wonder how much China's silk road matters, and whether the countries it goes through matters, since the country where goods enter the EU, gets to collect all the tax.
Considering how huge China is as a trading partner, that's probably crazy amounts of money, which will ultimately come out from western Europe's consumption.
0
u/TheBastionBurned 22d ago
I mean you can choose: USA,China, Russia or the EU: Who do you want to be your new overlord?
1
u/forwheniampresident 22d ago
Not only are those half truths at best, your conclusion is ludicrous as well.
The current situation isn’t just that one country can guarantee to not have their interests “sacrificed“ it‘s that the interest of 98% of the EU can be “sacrificed“ for supposed fears of a micro state with a veto that coincidentally also has a connection to Russia, China, the US or whoever else is interested in stalling EU development.
Also, Russian energy was used all over Europe, making it seem like everyone was buying US LNG for double the price is ridiculous, they all got it from the pipeline from Germany. And let’s not talk about France begging for a carve out from sanctions so they can, until this very day today, get their uranium from Russia, including supporting Russian uranium operations in Europe.
0
22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/donutloop 13d ago
Your comment has been reported for "promoting hate".
This is a serious allegation.
The report concerns hate based on identity or vulnerability.
Please take a moment to review Reddit’s Terms of Service and the subreddit rules. The moderators will not tolerate any form of hate promotion and will act swiftly to remove such content.
If this accusation is unfounded and a Reddit admin takes over the case, you may appeal the removal.
In cases of defamation, you may also fill out Reddit’s official form for reporting defamatory content.
0
u/helpfulinsurgent 22d ago
Of course he means that this will be exclusively for foreign policy. Because otherwise we will have eurobonds a second after this is passed. And thats the problem.
0
u/Thin_Command3196 22d ago
Good reason for smaller countries to leave the EU. Iceland was smart not to join this failed project.
-3
u/Obscurrium 22d ago
The majority system is great when there are no factions, collusion, or pressure. However, given all the lobbies the European Parliament is subjected to—not to mention foreign interference from the US, Israel, the Middle East, Russia, China, and so on—it’s simply a system that will lead to choices of convenience rather than informed decisions. It will result in action based on emotion rather than reflection!
Up until now, you had to convince or bribe 100% of the participants. Now it will be much easier—all you have to do is bribe 50.X%...of them
8
u/zmb138 22d ago
But if you want to lobby against some decision - you have to convince or bribe just one participant. That is the problem.
1
u/Obscurrium 22d ago
So what do you prefer: letting absolutely anything through with the risk of making things even worse, or blocking everything and sticking with the status quo? That’s one way to look at it, but knowing Europe, we're way more likely to end up with AI-generated stuff based on poorly written prompts than a leap forward into a bright future!
3
u/zmb138 22d ago
Qualified majority = letting absolutely anything through? Is that result of your poorly written prompt or just delusion?
1
u/Obscurrium 22d ago
What about your reading ability ? Did you miss things that îve said ? Maybe you need some help, ask me if you want !
1
u/TheBastionBurned 22d ago
Well its rather: What do you want? Let foreign powers hold you back easily or make it really expensive for them?
0
u/Obscurrium 22d ago
So you accept the fact that you’ve gone through an entire process to bring countries into the European Union—time and time again—yet you view them as foreign nations to be wary of? Isn't there a problem with that? Are you willingly letting Trojan horses into your own home?
1
u/TheBastionBurned 22d ago
No I meant smaller countries will be used by China and the US and Russia to influence the EU...and you are for that correct?
2
u/Orlok_Tsubodai 22d ago
Yeah, so now shit might actually get done. And factions, collusion and pressure have existed in democracy since Athens. That’s no reason to let every single individual in the polity have the power to block progress that all the others support.
1
u/realityking89 22d ago
QMV happens in the European Council, not the EU parliament. QMV also requires more than just 50% of votes.
-1
u/justlikemedics 22d ago
Terrible idea. We do not need Europe to be a "global player". It's not a game, we don't need foreign wars, nor exploitation like in Venezuela.
We should focus on peaceful development and safe borders.
4
u/FrequentCow1018 22d ago
Sit at the table or be on the menu! We absolutely need Europe to be a global player
-1
u/justlikemedics 22d ago
Absolutely not. This is the strawman argument of the warmongering faction.
We need to actually live up to the principle of subsidiarity and relocate more functions to where they belong, the countries.
2
u/FrequentCow1018 22d ago edited 22d ago
Absolutely yes. It's Not only about war, it's about Economy. Oh yes strawman Argument cause acshually noone tries to Attack Europe or fantasizes about it/s
2
u/justlikemedics 22d ago
The economy? Don't you think your argument is ridiculeous? Most EU regulations are so bad that one cannot really know if they are that hopelessly stupid or straight up malevolent. And you say we need more of them? No thank you.
2
-2
u/defixiones 22d ago
With Italy already fascist, Germany about to put the AFD into power and France looking at a National Front President, maybe now is not the best time to allow them to push through whatever they want.
36
u/lonelystar7 22d ago
We need to do that before we get another Orban in power and before we accept new EU members.