So the plan is to ask nicely not to veto? I’m surely missing something.
Good I really hope this happens. Vetos will destroy the EU. It’s not democracy if one autocrat can stop everything.
Veto was put in place so that smaller wouldn’t have to worry that after joining EU bigger countries will outvote and exploit them. I think requiring unanimity is fine in some cases but EU should have mechanisms to move on without some members if they object. Trade deals? Unanimity required. Sanctions on foreign countries? Majority decides. Military aid? Majority decides.
I believe veto was the thing that has destroyed the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
It’s not democracy if the majority can compel the minority to go against their will. Germany and France will become the dominant powers even more so than they already are which will ultimately result in the slow erosion and downfall of the EU being what it claims to stand for. Vetoes and consensus democracy were founding ideas for a reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy
It’s convenient to hold up Hungary as the evil example of misused vetoes but the solution to that is to move to suspend countries as a member, for acting in bad faith repeatedly. Using freedom from association. Not to destroy your democracy from within by making it less democratic.
Qualified majority makes sure that even without veto France and Germany don’t become dominant.
It’s not democracy if the majority can compel the minority to go against their will.
That’s… Exactly what democracy is though. Like Brexit is a great example of this. The majority forced the minority against their will.
I take the rest of your point though and agree. We just need to get past the “one or two arseholes” issue. I’d be happy with some kind of supermajority decision making process.
Aye, you’re right in that democracy isn’t just one singular concept, there are various forms.
But think on what the idea of democracy is supposed to represent. It’s supposed to be rule by the people. If 48% of the people are having their authority to rule superceded by the 52% then how can you say it’s rule by the people? It’s rule only by the majority. Democracy only in colloquial common parlance.
The word democracy has been bastardised even since its very conception so it’s difficult to define without arguments. The EU however have already defined their democracy at the highest state level on similar principles that anarchists do, of consensus. All countries are equal, all countries can say no. This will throw that away in favour of less democracy, less equality, less say in how the continent functions, in tyranny of the majority.
It will be the beginning of the end for the European project. And I’m not saying that lightly or as hyperbole.
If 48% of the people are having their authority to rule superceded by the 52% then how can you say it’s rule by the people? It’s rule only by the majority.
Wouldn’t a more elegant solution be more thought put into what kind of votes need a supermajority or some specific % over 50 to need a successful vote? Surely at some point, for it to be a democracy, you do need the majority rule to win the day, right++? I’d argue one or two nations vetoing a thing agreed upon by everyone else is more explicitly anti democratic than those nations needing to abide by a vote they handily lost.
I think the EU is at the limits of what a loose confederation can do, we’ve seen historically these arrangements just can’t really function long term on a large scale. And the argument here is that for Europe to stay relevant in a world where the US and China, not to mention Russia, exists if not as outright adversaries then stiff competitors, there needs to be a better ability to coordinate this like military and money. Especially the latter, I’d argue… how many European start ups immediately abandon ship for the US as soon as they go public because there’s a pile of investment money there rather than the fractured markets of Europe? That problem is never going away on its own, even with the US playing target practice with its feet (slight digression there, but I think it’s one of the most obvious examples of why the EU needs reform towards stronger federal power).
At a certain point, if you want a large functioning democratic body with any power, you need to submit to the decisions of that power whether you agree with the decision or not. That’s not just colloquial versus not, that’s the very essence of democracy imo. If you can just opt out of decisions you don’t like, that’s not really democratic rule, that’s just a forum for discussion.
++(Obviously, this implicitly needs rights and protections to prevent one group from outright repressing another, but still, a veto seems like a really, really inelegant solution to avoiding tyranny of the majority situations.)
you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means
You’re absolutely right and I do agree. At the same time what this is about is not about many smaller countries getting dominated by big countries. This is about prohibiting foreign powers to bribe their way into power in EU via puppets in a single EU country. As a citizen in a small country I have no concerns that our neighbours in also smaller countries will not agree on certain political decisions where Germany and France may have a different persuasion. If so I naturally would expect a diplomatic consensus would be found.
That’s a good way to dispose of the few nations that oppose genocide.
Last week Slovenia stopped the EU from issuing a unified statement criticising the Israeli government’s move to break the West Bank by building settlements in the E1 area, as defined by international law.
Hungary, under Orbán, repeatedly using its leverage over EU decisions to extract concessions, including guarantees over the Druzhba oil pipeline. Under Péter Magyar, Budapest has also blocked Ukraine from making enlargement progress.
Two examples listed where it would have helped oppose genocide.
Fair point / perspective. Very disappointed to hear that about Slovenia. They’ve been so progressive in other ways.
