31–40 of 64 posts
To all against a priori against this, I encourage you to read up on the history and consequences of "liberum veto"
This is very short term thinking. The EU will not survive losing the veto. And it'll happen in under a decade.
It is actually a good idea.
I see no path where this would be a good idea unless you want to create a group where everyone thinks the same. If Hungary is a bit of a flip flop in terms of democracy then either they have to focus their attention on improving living conditions there so people realize the value of their alliance (if that's the purpose, improving living conditions) or realize that Hungary isn't a good fit for this type of alliance a…
Of course the important thing is to decide what should be handled at the city, region, nation and EU level. There's a tradeoff. Decisions made at lower levels are generally better for accountability and give better adaptability to local circumstances but on the other hand they often lose leverage.
A city wouldn't be able to talk as an equal to large companies like Apple and Google for example, even many countries can't. But the EU can. Replace Apple / Google by Russia / China / US and it's even worse.
The EU has a problem with a lack of legitimisation of the whole political construct and other power players know about this weakness. The degree of freedom in political decision is strongly inhibited. This wouldn't solve any problems either, on the contrary. Personally I don't feel like a EU citizen. It is like being a citizen of a bureaucratic monster that serves no specific function. That tries to justify its exist…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is very short term thinking. The EU will not survive losing the veto. And it'll happen in under a decade.
I wouldn't put a date in predictions, but wuthout right to veto they're playing harder into the nationalistic propaganda of "Brussel forces us"
This rightly points out that many issues that are known will have their veto used don't even get brought up. Removal of the veto will stop this and I expect lightning rod topics and disputes to occur much more frequently.
Same with the free-riding comment. Removing the veto will expose some nations "true colors" in ways that most do not anticipate. It's not all sunshine and rainbows of agreement among the EU member states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see no path where this would be a good idea unless you want to create a group where everyone thinks the same. If Hungary is a bit of a flip flop in terms of democracy then either they have to focus their attention on improving living conditions there so people realize the value of their alliance (if that's the purpose, improving living conditions) or realize that Hungary isn't a good fit for this type of alliance a…
Would you let one or two cities have veto power over the policy of an entire country? If not then what's the difference here? If yes do you think that would work? Of course the important thing is to decide what should be handled at the city, region, nation and EU level. There's a tradeoff. Decisions made at lower levels are generally better for accountability and give better adaptability to local circumstances but on…
And this is why analogies are bad.
A few important details:
1) The EU is not a country.
2) The one-country veto already has limited applications within the context of the EU. Foreign policy is one of the most important, but most EU laws start from the Commission and go through Parliament instead where they pass by a simple majority.
3) What von der Leyen is in effect asking for is for EU member nations, who are sovereign and with each having their own foreign policy, to subordinate their foreign policy to the EU’s foreign policy. That is a massive power shift from the members to the EU Commission.
Out of curiosity, can there not be something like a two party or N party veto? i.e. requiring a minimum of two or N parties to work together to veto? The choice between just a single party having a veto power vs no party with veto powers seems a little black and white to me. Happy to be enlightened on the matter.
Interesting situation. EU is asking countries to give up their right to veto foreign policy decisions. Any country can veto this proposal. Hmmm, what would I do if giving up the right to veto hinged on my veto power?
The EU has a problem with a lack of legitimisation of the whole political construct and other power players know about this weakness. The degree of freedom in political decision is strongly inhibited. This wouldn't solve any problems either, on the contrary. Personally I don't feel like a EU citizen. It is like being a citizen of a bureaucratic monster that serves no specific function. That tries to justify its exist…
It's so much easier to move aroud, both for short term travel and longer term too. The common currency (at least in most countries) really helps as do things like no roaming charges. If you decide you want to go and look for a job in another country you just do it, no visa hassle or asking permissions.
I was born in the UK and moved to France (long before Brexit thank goodness) it would have been much harder without the EU.
I certainly consider myself a EU citizen, more than British or French (I now have both nationalities).
Of course it's not perfect but getting rid of individual coutry vetoes would help with a lot of things in the wider geopolicital sphere - and has already been done in many domains)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you let one or two cities have veto power over the policy of an entire country? If not then what's the difference here? If yes do you think that would work? Of course the important thing is to decide what should be handled at the city, region, nation and EU level. There's a tradeoff. Decisions made at lower levels are generally better for accountability and give better adaptability to local circumstances but on…
> Would you let one or two cities have veto power over the policy of an entire country? And this is why analogies are bad. A few important details: 1) The EU is not a country. 2) The one-country veto already has limited applications within the context of the EU. Foreign policy is one of the most important, but most EU laws start from the Commission and go through Parliament instead where they pass by a simple majorit…
A thousand or even a few hundred years ago most people travelled very little and often were born, lived and died in the same village. At that time the village was the natural unit of organisation. As communications improved, with horses, trains, planes, internet the unit of political organisation had to scale up to cities, regions, nations and now supra national organisations like the EU
The nation state is an outdated concept that has lived its time. In a world where those we need to talk to are the US, China, Russia even big EU countries like France and Germany are too small so we need to scale up.