4 ms·

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 d

by dh2022 6mo ago

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?

euroderf 6mo ago
Then you would have the United States Senate.
fifilura 6mo ago
> what would I do if giving up the right to veto hinged on my veto power? Was that a rhetoric question? Of course it is a leap of faith. But the idea is that it will make the union as a whole stronger, and then maybe even giving up your veto right would make it worthwhile.
bigbadfeline 6mo ago
> EU is asking countries to give up their right to veto foreign policy decisions. Any country can veto this proposal. Hopefully it well be vetoed by more than one. There is no realistic alternative to veto in the situation the EU is in. It could be an option later on, they have to be patient, now is the worst time to move towards coercive powers. Especially under such a nonsensical pretext: >> Von der Leyen uses Orbán defeat to push for end of veto in EU foreign policy Orban was defeated, democracy worked, veto power is no longer under the threat of abuse, if it ever was. A lot of other issues could be improved in the EU, do that instead of fixing what's not broken.
- illiac786 6mo ago
  Some think this is one of the major broken thing in the EU, the inability to handle quickly, speak with one voice. Veto right is actually very undemocratic: A minuscule minority overrules the vast majority. but it was the only way to convince countries to form the EU. And to be fair, it’s a way of protecting minorities. > There is no realistic alternative to veto in the situation the EU is in. Many many people disagree on this. There is no alternative to supporting Ukraine as much as possible. Very uncomfortable truth, shitty situation, and unfortunately, delusion/denial is a very common (and very relatable) human reaction to such situations.
  - bigbadfeline 6mo ago
    > A minuscule minority overrules the vast majority. This is not a game of numbers, numbers would have some weight if decisions were affecting everyone equally, but the EU isn't homogeneous, foreign policy issues affect different countries differently depending on geography, culture and history e.g. Central Europe is much less exposed to adverse events, dependencies and risks than the periphery. As I said before, now it's not the time for coercive changes, wait until integration takes its course and makes the political environment approximately the same for all members, the EU is far from that now. > but it was the only way to convince countries to form the EU. Then don't alter the deal and ask everyone to pray for not altering it any further. > There is no alternative to supporting Ukraine as much as possible. Depends on what each of the EU members considers possible and what risky - forcing some countries to go against their economic and political security will most likely lead to re-partitioning of Europe and another age of European wars. It's quite disturbing to observe the continuous lack of an honest conversation about the political realities in Europe, which is precisely how the leading countries of the EU blew Ukraine / Russia... removing veto power only reduces the incentives for that to ever happen.
    - illiac786 6mo ago
      What if a majority wants to alter the deal? What is tariffs affect one country more than the others, should it be allowed to veto a tariff decision? I agree now might not be the perfect time, but there never will be. and this veto thing is really crippling the EUs ability to act.
      - bigbadfeline 6mo ago
        > and this veto thing is really crippling the EUs ability to act. That's the point of it. As it is, there's no reasonable assurance that acts approved by the majority won't sacrifice some of the existential interests of members deemed expendable - "for the greater good". We all know that there's no connection between what politicians promise and what they do - until that changes, having the ability to cripple their actions will continue to be indispensable. > What is tariffs affect one country more than the others, should it be allowed to veto a tariff decision? I don't know if individual EU members are allowed to impose additional, national tariffs on non-EU products but why not - a lot of issues can be resolved by giving members more freedom and more say in decision making rather than more coercion. > What if a majority wants to alter the deal? They can alter it only for themselves in the way I described above. It's disingenuous to call the EU dysfunctional and blame that dysfunction on lack of coercive powers. Maybe the EU is functional exactly as much as its levels of development and integration allow, maybe pushing for more creates unacceptable political risks, there's a lot to consider here looking at the excessively bloody and inadequately smart history of Europe - it was a power keg and it still is. Removing veto power won't make it better, it can actually make it go off again, risk is what really tips the scales here.

by dh2022 6mo ago

euroderf 6mo ago

Then you would have the United States Senate.

fifilura 6mo ago

> what would I do if giving up the right to veto hinged on my veto power? Was that a rhetoric question? Of course it is a leap of faith. But the idea is that it will make the union as a whole stronger, and then maybe even giving up your veto right would make it worthwhile.

bigbadfeline 6mo ago

> EU is asking countries to give up their right to veto foreign policy decisions. Any country can veto this proposal. Hopefully it well be vetoed by more than one. There is no realistic alternative to veto in the situation the EU is in. It could be an option later on, they have to be patient, now is the worst time to move towards coercive powers. Especially under such a nonsensical pretext: >> Von der Leyen uses Orbán defeat to push for end of veto in EU foreign policy Orban was defeated, democracy worked, veto power is no longer under the threat of abuse, if it ever was. A lot of other issues could be improved in the EU, do that instead of fixing what's not broken.

illiac786 6mo ago
Some think this is one of the major broken thing in the EU, the inability to handle quickly, speak with one voice. Veto right is actually very undemocratic: A minuscule minority overrules the vast majority. but it was the only way to convince countries to form the EU. And to be fair, it’s a way of protecting minorities. > There is no realistic alternative to veto in the situation the EU is in. Many many people disagree on this. There is no alternative to supporting Ukraine as much as possible. Very uncomfortable truth, shitty situation, and unfortunately, delusion/denial is a very common (and very relatable) human reaction to such situations.
- bigbadfeline 6mo ago
  > A minuscule minority overrules the vast majority. This is not a game of numbers, numbers would have some weight if decisions were affecting everyone equally, but the EU isn't homogeneous, foreign policy issues affect different countries differently depending on geography, culture and history e.g. Central Europe is much less exposed to adverse events, dependencies and risks than the periphery. As I said before, now it's not the time for coercive changes, wait until integration takes its course and makes the political environment approximately the same for all members, the EU is far from that now. > but it was the only way to convince countries to form the EU. Then don't alter the deal and ask everyone to pray for not altering it any further. > There is no alternative to supporting Ukraine as much as possible. Depends on what each of the EU members considers possible and what risky - forcing some countries to go against their economic and political security will most likely lead to re-partitioning of Europe and another age of European wars. It's quite disturbing to observe the continuous lack of an honest conversation about the political realities in Europe, which is precisely how the leading countries of the EU blew Ukraine / Russia... removing veto power only reduces the incentives for that to ever happen.
  - illiac786 6mo ago
    What if a majority wants to alter the deal? What is tariffs affect one country more than the others, should it be allowed to veto a tariff decision? I agree now might not be the perfect time, but there never will be. and this veto thing is really crippling the EUs ability to act.
    - bigbadfeline 6mo ago
      > and this veto thing is really crippling the EUs ability to act. That's the point of it. As it is, there's no reasonable assurance that acts approved by the majority won't sacrifice some of the existential interests of members deemed expendable - "for the greater good". We all know that there's no connection between what politicians promise and what they do - until that changes, having the ability to cripple their actions will continue to be indispensable. > What is tariffs affect one country more than the others, should it be allowed to veto a tariff decision? I don't know if individual EU members are allowed to impose additional, national tariffs on non-EU products but why not - a lot of issues can be resolved by giving members more freedom and more say in decision making rather than more coercion. > What if a majority wants to alter the deal? They can alter it only for themselves in the way I described above. It's disingenuous to call the EU dysfunctional and blame that dysfunction on lack of coercive powers. Maybe the EU is functional exactly as much as its levels of development and integration allow, maybe pushing for more creates unacceptable political risks, there's a lot to consider here looking at the excessively bloody and inadequately smart history of Europe - it was a power keg and it still is. Removing veto power won't make it better, it can actually make it go off again, risk is what really tips the scales here.