8 ms·

Will you feel the same way when the EU seeks the end of veto powers (as is currently happening)? https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/european-parliament-ado

Will you feel the same way when the EU seeks the end of veto powers (as is currently happening)? https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/european-parliament-adopts-resolution-suggesting-abolition-of-veto.960752 https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/european-parliament-a...

pojzon 4y ago
Which is going to get introduced because nations like Hungary, led by oil oligarchs connected to Russia, want to fk over whole EU for their personal gain. You should work towards stronger union not weaken it.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  I am a Czech citizen and a mild Euroskeptic. I definitely do not want the EU to become stronger than it already is. We have had enough experience where obsession with "more power" leads, and I do not want to see this scenario replayed again in slightly different conditions. What I value about current EU is precisely that it cannot just squash dissent by force, even from a single country.
  - zwirbl 4y ago
    > What I value about current EU is precisely that it cannot just squash dissent by force, even from a single country. And this often means that the EU can't get anything done on an EU wide level
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      That is, for me, a feature, not a bug. Consent is a great thing. Many people of smaller nations like Czechs, that regained sovereignty after a long period of subjugation to various powers, do not really want to give it up again so that the French-German axis may have their job easier.
      - zwirbl 4y ago
        Why did they join the EU in the first place then? Was it for the money and having some entity to blame for domestic policy failures? The last point is what politicians here in Austria like to do
        MagnumOpus 4y ago
        For the money, and to get rid of their Roma travelers (because those now legally migrate to west.)
        inglor_cz 4y ago
        We entered a EU that had veto powers for each member and I, personally, would like to stay it that way. The fact that you once joined an organization does not mean that you must agree with any subsequent development.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  I am not a Hungarian citizen, but I am grateful that Hungary often has enough courage to call nonsense a nonsense and use or threaten with their veto to bring a bit of sanity in the EU. Heck, I can say that Hungary voted more frequently in my interest than my government. The EU is frequently used to push some regulations in favour of big corps that would never pass in any of the national parliaments without a big fight. That's why I'm glad that at least someone sometimes can stop this.
  - pojzon 4y ago
    Can you give any example of Hungary and Poland vetoing in good faith ? Lately it seems they only cover own ass, while all other states are in agreement. When only you see a problem its often the case you are the problem not the other way around. Ps. I say that as a Polish citizen.
    - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
      > Can you give any example of Hungary and Poland vetoing in good faith ? Hungary and Poland were the only countries opposing the unlimited migration. Hungary is the only country that pushes back on sanctions that harms us in Germany more than them in Russia. Austria and Netherlands were opposing a huge debt package to fight corona. > Lately it seems they only cover own ass, while all other states are in agreement. Maybe state governments are in the agreements, but not the majority of population. In Germany, some topics were truly polarizing, governments frequently voted for topics that had domestic majority against it, and Hungary and Poland voted for what represents the will of German population majority. On the other hand, in capitalistic economic theory, the only way to get a sane system is if everyone acts only in its own self-interest. Asking humans to do something for "common or higher good" usually leads to one party exploiting the other. > When only you see a problem its often the case you are the problem not the other way around. I doubt that in Europe, we ever had that strong consensus between European citizens. It's usually that governments have strong consensus that is not always reflected in the population. Instead of ditching veto right, I would rather go the other direction, to the more Swiss style direct democracy, where power would be brought back to people, and away from the governments. If citizen could decide on important topics, we would not need veto at all. > Ps. I say that as a Polish citizen. As a German citizen, I wish you more power to your citizens, as opposed to EU or polish goverment, even when we have different preferences.
ivolimmen 4y ago
Yes. My view on the EU is that it is far from perfect but the fact that we collaborate on a larger scale is necessary and we should only try to enhance it. At some point (500+ years?) we should be one planet, that should the goal. (Sorry; I am out-of-this-world-super-left).
- martindevans 4y ago
  One huge government ruling the entire world sounds out-of-this-world-super dystopian to me!
  - afavour 4y ago
    The fact that you derive “one huge government” from “one planet” probably speaks more to your biases than anything else. There are plenty of models that would allow for a small level of administration globally and local governmental control that is still considerably better than what we have today.
  - NoGravitas 4y ago
    United Earth sounds super dystopian? https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/United_Earth https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/United_Earth
    - martindevans 4y ago
      United Earth sounds nice, but the United Citizen Federation is a bit less nice.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    I don't think "One huge government" was claimed. The claim was "one planet", which I think more means people should be unified more than we currently are. One could imagine lots of ways to have a unified planet without one centralized government. The EU is certainly one model you can achieve unification at large without "one huge government" as it consists of many smaller governments coming together.
ginko 4y ago
Yes. The veto power allowed individual countries to block major decisions. Require 2/3 majorities for important stuff if you want but requiring all country leaders to agree on everything makes the EU too slow.
WJW 4y ago
Not OP but also Dutch. Yes I would definitely like the EU to abolish veto powers and move to a majority rule. Europeans are too divided and need to band together to form a realistic opposition to the US and China. Veto rule is no way to govern a large group, since you only have to bribe a single member to cripple the whole. This has been known since at least the ancient Greek citystate era.
- MrMan 4y ago
  No mention of Russia interesting
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  Why does the EU need to form a realistic opposition to the U.S.?
  - mcv 4y ago
    The EU has been far too dependent on the US. Just after WW2, and arguably during the Cold War, this was unavoidable, but things have changed. The EU is a lot stronger now, whereas the US is becoming less reliable as an ally; 20 years ago, they suckered the world into two long, harmful wars, there's been a movement towards extreme nationalism, away from international cooperation, and even away from democracy in recent years. On top of that, there are a lot of principles on civil and human rights that are core the EU that the US doesn't subscribe too; they're still not member of the ICC, they rarely prosecute their own war criminals, use torture, extralegal assassination, and have a tendency to strong-arm other nations, including European allies, into doing what the US security apparatus wants. Make no mistake, when tensions with totalitarian dictatorships like China or Russia rise, the EU will always jump into bed with the US, because the flawed humanitarian values of the US are still better than none at all, and we're still allies. But the US is not the beacon of human rights and democracy that it once was, or was presented as. The EU should be more independent and champion this values independently from the US. And that should include criticism when the US fails to live up to those values.
  - WJW 4y ago
    Because we don't like a foreign power influencing our policy to their own benefit and our detriment?
veltas 4y ago
Don't know why this was downvoted into oblivion. Seems like the point adds to conversation, isn't rude, ignorant, etc. Whether or not you might agree with them.
- LeonidasXIV 4y ago
  Because it is a loaded question (check the wording) that also mostly backfired.
  - easytiger 4y ago
    It wasn't loaded. It was a genuine question. Did it backfire? I voted remain. But the brexiteer argument was that the EU is NOT just a trading bloc and has conspiratorial designs on further reduction in national sovereignty. Indeed the EU commission are seeking this right now and have plans to campaign for it. The remain campaigners and media denied this. They denied even that the EU wanted a military. The responses to my question indicate that these people support further reductions in national sovereignty to be handed over to EUP and EUC. Tax setting powers and foreign policy powers included. It literally proves the Brexit supporters correct.
martopix 4y ago
Not OP but can't wait.
mschuster91 4y ago
Yes, the veto powers are the one thing that needs to go real quick if the EU wants a chance at standing on its own legs on the geopolitical table. Right now, we have governments corrupted by Chinese influence (e.g. by ports and other infrastructure being bought up in Greece and Italy), by Russian influence (just look at Hungary's Orban blocking EU sanctions) or by autocratic/fundamentalist politicians (Hungary, Poland, very nearly France). Personally, I believe that the US will again fall victim to Trumpian populism in this year's elections and in 2024 they will either re-elect Trump or someone he has groomed to be his puppet. At that point, the US will cease to be an ally that the European Union can rely on, and we will have to be able to stand up to Russia and China - which is going to be impossible if the above-mentioned member states will always threaten to sabotage anything. We need an urgent reform of the entire EU foundation: the veto powers have to go, the European Parliament needs the right to initiate laws (currently, only the Commission has that right), and there must be a way to suspend governments that grossly violate core European values.
- easytiger 4y ago
  You don't think the veto powers ending will precipitate the end of the EU as we know it?
DocTomoe 4y ago
Veto powers are a good thing as long as you don't have too many parties involved. With an EU27+++, they are unsustainable (as seen by what has become known as the Visegrad block). So, as an EU citizen: Let's get rid of these.
brnt 4y ago
Hell yeah. Single member states fucking it up over local posturing is a huge defect in the current EU. Getting rid of the veto is a win for democracy. The EU is getting better every day.
simonh 4y ago
The veto isn't the only, or even the primary mechanism for countries to have a decisive say in EU affairs, the other and I'd argue far more important one is the opt-out. The UK had many opt-outs such as from the Euro, the Schengen Agreement, the working time directive, etc. Denmark also opted out of the Euro. It's why I felt the Brexit argument about sovereignty and being forced into things was so spurious. The worst example of an EU rule we were 'forced into' I could find was some food labels (which BTW we still use). As long as a country is smart about what it does or doesn't opt into, there's plenty of scope to chart your own course within the wider EU program.
- native_samples 4y ago
  "It's why I felt the Brexit argument about sovereignty and being forced into things was so spurious. The worst example of an EU rule we were 'forced into' I could find was some food labels (which BTW we still use)." How much did you look? Or did you find examples of rules the UK was forced into and decide you agree with them. Here's an example of why the opt-outs were never reliable, like so much else about the EU's supposed democratic mechanisms. When the European Convention on Human Rights was written - with major input from the UK - it was meant as a general statement of principle, and is thus filled with vague and contradictory language. It was never meant to be law. Many decades later the EU decided it should be transformed into binding law on every EU member. The UK and Poland quite sensibly pointed out that this would go badly and it would be impossible to predict the consequences. So they negotiated an opt-out. The opt-out was called Protocol 30 and is written in the plainest and clearest English the negotiators could write. It even restates the same thing twice "for the avoidance of doubt". It appeared to contain no loopholes. Nonetheless, just a few years later the ECJ passed a ruling that the opt-out was void. They simply annulled it and because EU membership means accepting ECJ supremacy, that was the end of the "opt-out". Overnight, EU human rights law took effect in the UK too: exactly the thing the government thought it had prevented. To rub salt in the wound, the case before the court was to do with sending an "asylum seeker" back to Greece under the Dublin Convention. This was a now dead part of EU law that stated the country that decides to allow an asylum seeker into the EU must process them. The ECJ decided that actually it didn't like this rule, because it was "unfair", and so annulled that too along the way, with the justification that Greece was such a hellhole it would infringe his human rights to send the asylum seeker back. Again, nobody reasonable saw that coming and the rules as written just evaporated the moment they came into conflict with EU ideology. The history of the EU is full of stories like this. When you learn enough about it, you eventually realize that the treaties and rules are meaningless. It doesn't matter how clearly everyone seems to understand an agreement, tomorrow they might have come up with some Kafka-esque justification for why it didn't actually mean what everyone said it meant. These changes always seem to be to the benefit of the EU institutions themselves, not the people. Such a system of government can never be accountable or trustworthy. Law has to be interpreted as written, not simply discarded the moment it becomes inconvenient. As such the Brexit supporters were right to claim the opt-outs were meaningless. Especially given the pro-EU sentiment of much of the establishment.
zwirbl 4y ago
It's time they did, I'm sick of seeing my home countries (and other EU nations) government f** over the rest to push some agenda. Make it a 2/3 majority and the EU is forced to find a realistic compromise instead of an unrealistic expectation of unity. Have you ever tried getting 25 persons to agree on something?

pojzon 4y ago

Which is going to get introduced because nations like Hungary, led by oil oligarchs connected to Russia, want to fk over whole EU for their personal gain. You should work towards stronger union not weaken it.

inglor_cz 4y ago
I am a Czech citizen and a mild Euroskeptic. I definitely do not want the EU to become stronger than it already is. We have had enough experience where obsession with "more power" leads, and I do not want to see this scenario replayed again in slightly different conditions. What I value about current EU is precisely that it cannot just squash dissent by force, even from a single country.
- zwirbl 4y ago
  > What I value about current EU is precisely that it cannot just squash dissent by force, even from a single country. And this often means that the EU can't get anything done on an EU wide level
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    That is, for me, a feature, not a bug. Consent is a great thing. Many people of smaller nations like Czechs, that regained sovereignty after a long period of subjugation to various powers, do not really want to give it up again so that the French-German axis may have their job easier.
    - zwirbl 4y ago
      Why did they join the EU in the first place then? Was it for the money and having some entity to blame for domestic policy failures? The last point is what politicians here in Austria like to do
      - MagnumOpus 4y ago
        For the money, and to get rid of their Roma travelers (because those now legally migrate to west.)
      - inglor_cz 4y ago
        We entered a EU that had veto powers for each member and I, personally, would like to stay it that way. The fact that you once joined an organization does not mean that you must agree with any subsequent development.
tut-urut-utut 4y ago
I am not a Hungarian citizen, but I am grateful that Hungary often has enough courage to call nonsense a nonsense and use or threaten with their veto to bring a bit of sanity in the EU. Heck, I can say that Hungary voted more frequently in my interest than my government. The EU is frequently used to push some regulations in favour of big corps that would never pass in any of the national parliaments without a big fight. That's why I'm glad that at least someone sometimes can stop this.
- pojzon 4y ago
  Can you give any example of Hungary and Poland vetoing in good faith ? Lately it seems they only cover own ass, while all other states are in agreement. When only you see a problem its often the case you are the problem not the other way around. Ps. I say that as a Polish citizen.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    > Can you give any example of Hungary and Poland vetoing in good faith ? Hungary and Poland were the only countries opposing the unlimited migration. Hungary is the only country that pushes back on sanctions that harms us in Germany more than them in Russia. Austria and Netherlands were opposing a huge debt package to fight corona. > Lately it seems they only cover own ass, while all other states are in agreement. Maybe state governments are in the agreements, but not the majority of population. In Germany, some topics were truly polarizing, governments frequently voted for topics that had domestic majority against it, and Hungary and Poland voted for what represents the will of German population majority. On the other hand, in capitalistic economic theory, the only way to get a sane system is if everyone acts only in its own self-interest. Asking humans to do something for "common or higher good" usually leads to one party exploiting the other. > When only you see a problem its often the case you are the problem not the other way around. I doubt that in Europe, we ever had that strong consensus between European citizens. It's usually that governments have strong consensus that is not always reflected in the population. Instead of ditching veto right, I would rather go the other direction, to the more Swiss style direct democracy, where power would be brought back to people, and away from the governments. If citizen could decide on important topics, we would not need veto at all. > Ps. I say that as a Polish citizen. As a German citizen, I wish you more power to your citizens, as opposed to EU or polish goverment, even when we have different preferences.

ivolimmen 4y ago

Yes. My view on the EU is that it is far from perfect but the fact that we collaborate on a larger scale is necessary and we should only try to enhance it. At some point (500+ years?) we should be one planet, that should the goal. (Sorry; I am out-of-this-world-super-left).

martindevans 4y ago
One huge government ruling the entire world sounds out-of-this-world-super dystopian to me!
- afavour 4y ago
  The fact that you derive “one huge government” from “one planet” probably speaks more to your biases than anything else. There are plenty of models that would allow for a small level of administration globally and local governmental control that is still considerably better than what we have today.
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  United Earth sounds super dystopian? https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/United_Earth https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/United_Earth
  - martindevans 4y ago
    United Earth sounds nice, but the United Citizen Federation is a bit less nice.
- capableweb 4y ago
  I don't think "One huge government" was claimed. The claim was "one planet", which I think more means people should be unified more than we currently are. One could imagine lots of ways to have a unified planet without one centralized government. The EU is certainly one model you can achieve unification at large without "one huge government" as it consists of many smaller governments coming together.

ginko 4y ago

Yes. The veto power allowed individual countries to block major decisions. Require 2/3 majorities for important stuff if you want but requiring all country leaders to agree on everything makes the EU too slow.

WJW 4y ago

Not OP but also Dutch. Yes I would definitely like the EU to abolish veto powers and move to a majority rule. Europeans are too divided and need to band together to form a realistic opposition to the US and China. Veto rule is no way to govern a large group, since you only have to bribe a single member to cripple the whole. This has been known since at least the ancient Greek citystate era.

MrMan 4y ago
No mention of Russia interesting
atlasunshrugged 4y ago
Why does the EU need to form a realistic opposition to the U.S.?
- mcv 4y ago
  The EU has been far too dependent on the US. Just after WW2, and arguably during the Cold War, this was unavoidable, but things have changed. The EU is a lot stronger now, whereas the US is becoming less reliable as an ally; 20 years ago, they suckered the world into two long, harmful wars, there's been a movement towards extreme nationalism, away from international cooperation, and even away from democracy in recent years. On top of that, there are a lot of principles on civil and human rights that are core the EU that the US doesn't subscribe too; they're still not member of the ICC, they rarely prosecute their own war criminals, use torture, extralegal assassination, and have a tendency to strong-arm other nations, including European allies, into doing what the US security apparatus wants. Make no mistake, when tensions with totalitarian dictatorships like China or Russia rise, the EU will always jump into bed with the US, because the flawed humanitarian values of the US are still better than none at all, and we're still allies. But the US is not the beacon of human rights and democracy that it once was, or was presented as. The EU should be more independent and champion this values independently from the US. And that should include criticism when the US fails to live up to those values.
- WJW 4y ago
  Because we don't like a foreign power influencing our policy to their own benefit and our detriment?

veltas 4y ago

Don't know why this was downvoted into oblivion. Seems like the point adds to conversation, isn't rude, ignorant, etc. Whether or not you might agree with them.

LeonidasXIV 4y ago
Because it is a loaded question (check the wording) that also mostly backfired.
- easytiger 4y ago
  It wasn't loaded. It was a genuine question. Did it backfire? I voted remain. But the brexiteer argument was that the EU is NOT just a trading bloc and has conspiratorial designs on further reduction in national sovereignty. Indeed the EU commission are seeking this right now and have plans to campaign for it. The remain campaigners and media denied this. They denied even that the EU wanted a military. The responses to my question indicate that these people support further reductions in national sovereignty to be handed over to EUP and EUC. Tax setting powers and foreign policy powers included. It literally proves the Brexit supporters correct.

martopix 4y ago

Not OP but can't wait.

mschuster91 4y ago

Yes, the veto powers are the one thing that needs to go real quick if the EU wants a chance at standing on its own legs on the geopolitical table. Right now, we have governments corrupted by Chinese influence (e.g. by ports and other infrastructure being bought up in Greece and Italy), by Russian influence (just look at Hungary's Orban blocking EU sanctions) or by autocratic/fundamentalist politicians (Hungary, Poland, very nearly France). Personally, I believe that the US will again fall victim to Trumpian populism in this year's elections and in 2024 they will either re-elect Trump or someone he has groomed to be his puppet. At that point, the US will cease to be an ally that the European Union can rely on, and we will have to be able to stand up to Russia and China - which is going to be impossible if the above-mentioned member states will always threaten to sabotage anything. We need an urgent reform of the entire EU foundation: the veto powers have to go, the European Parliament needs the right to initiate laws (currently, only the Commission has that right), and there must be a way to suspend governments that grossly violate core European values.

easytiger 4y ago
You don't think the veto powers ending will precipitate the end of the EU as we know it?

DocTomoe 4y ago

Veto powers are a good thing as long as you don't have too many parties involved. With an EU27+++, they are unsustainable (as seen by what has become known as the Visegrad block). So, as an EU citizen: Let's get rid of these.

brnt 4y ago

Hell yeah. Single member states fucking it up over local posturing is a huge defect in the current EU. Getting rid of the veto is a win for democracy. The EU is getting better every day.

simonh 4y ago

The veto isn't the only, or even the primary mechanism for countries to have a decisive say in EU affairs, the other and I'd argue far more important one is the opt-out. The UK had many opt-outs such as from the Euro, the Schengen Agreement, the working time directive, etc. Denmark also opted out of the Euro. It's why I felt the Brexit argument about sovereignty and being forced into things was so spurious. The worst example of an EU rule we were 'forced into' I could find was some food labels (which BTW we still use). As long as a country is smart about what it does or doesn't opt into, there's plenty of scope to chart your own course within the wider EU program.

native_samples 4y ago
"It's why I felt the Brexit argument about sovereignty and being forced into things was so spurious. The worst example of an EU rule we were 'forced into' I could find was some food labels (which BTW we still use)." How much did you look? Or did you find examples of rules the UK was forced into and decide you agree with them. Here's an example of why the opt-outs were never reliable, like so much else about the EU's supposed democratic mechanisms. When the European Convention on Human Rights was written - with major input from the UK - it was meant as a general statement of principle, and is thus filled with vague and contradictory language. It was never meant to be law. Many decades later the EU decided it should be transformed into binding law on every EU member. The UK and Poland quite sensibly pointed out that this would go badly and it would be impossible to predict the consequences. So they negotiated an opt-out. The opt-out was called Protocol 30 and is written in the plainest and clearest English the negotiators could write. It even restates the same thing twice "for the avoidance of doubt". It appeared to contain no loopholes. Nonetheless, just a few years later the ECJ passed a ruling that the opt-out was void. They simply annulled it and because EU membership means accepting ECJ supremacy, that was the end of the "opt-out". Overnight, EU human rights law took effect in the UK too: exactly the thing the government thought it had prevented. To rub salt in the wound, the case before the court was to do with sending an "asylum seeker" back to Greece under the Dublin Convention. This was a now dead part of EU law that stated the country that decides to allow an asylum seeker into the EU must process them. The ECJ decided that actually it didn't like this rule, because it was "unfair", and so annulled that too along the way, with the justification that Greece was such a hellhole it would infringe his human rights to send the asylum seeker back. Again, nobody reasonable saw that coming and the rules as written just evaporated the moment they came into conflict with EU ideology. The history of the EU is full of stories like this. When you learn enough about it, you eventually realize that the treaties and rules are meaningless. It doesn't matter how clearly everyone seems to understand an agreement, tomorrow they might have come up with some Kafka-esque justification for why it didn't actually mean what everyone said it meant. These changes always seem to be to the benefit of the EU institutions themselves, not the people. Such a system of government can never be accountable or trustworthy. Law has to be interpreted as written, not simply discarded the moment it becomes inconvenient. As such the Brexit supporters were right to claim the opt-outs were meaningless. Especially given the pro-EU sentiment of much of the establishment.

zwirbl 4y ago

It's time they did, I'm sick of seeing my home countries (and other EU nations) government f** over the rest to push some agenda. Make it a 2/3 majority and the EU is forced to find a realistic compromise instead of an unrealistic expectation of unity. Have you ever tried getting 25 persons to agree on something?