It would be a very unfair two-tiered system if the new states didn’t get Vetos but the old ones kept them. Thats like the entire problem with the UNSC. We should just abolish Vetos like this in its entirety
Maybe put up a 15y memorandum before they become full voting members with access to vetoes? Get the hang of it, feel each other up. Get assets intertwined. Stuff like that :)
Nah, just abolish the unanimity principle. It has been abused before and it will be abused in the future.
@CyberEgg @crandlecan
What they have learned from Orbán is to prevent any one country going rogue or acting as a 5th column to the detriment of the whole. The principle of unanimity is fine as long as everyone is on the same wavelength. This was always going to be a weak link in the EU project, and it won’t be the last.
Their biggest flaw is that they have their heads turned far too easily. Specifically by unidentified “lobbyists” with no commitment whatever to the European ideal. #DigitalIDBut we can (and need to) mitigate the impact of countries acting in other interests. That is most easily achieved by getting rid of the unanimity principle. Why just accept a weaknes that could be cured without much hassle and side effects?
And what does a digital ID has to do with this?
United nations space command?
Security Council.
IMHO: unanimity belongs in the bin. The bloc has been held hostage by not even a country, but a single person. The system is dead easy to abuse, as the Russians or Americans, you only need to buy one politician to sabotage the entire Union.
Veto rights only ever make sense if your group consists of 2-8 people. The larger the group, the more dangerous do veto rights become.
Yeah, it also means an extra reason for us Norwegians not to join.
Not the strongest argument when you basically chose to be a defacto non voting member already.
Yeah, which means it would be functionally similar - but cheaper and much less sovereignty.
I mean you guys do you. Through the European Market access you guys have to still follow a bunch of things we decide without getting a word in it so it might not be an awful idea.
Actually it’s our politicians who don’t reject new motions. The popular parties famously want to join, but don’t get to because it has to be decided by popular vote.
They could technically veto now, but refuse to. Another coalition could do something different. But joining would take the option off the table entirely.
IMHO the EU has enormously contributed to global peace, but does have its issues. Those biggest deficiencies within the EU I think, are twofold:
- the veto right being too abusable (instead it could work more like how qualified majority works, but with a lower threshold).
- it’s too pro-capitalistic, and not agnostic in terms of economic models
For example, the European Commission tried to push privatisation of state-owned railway companies in the NL. The problem is that with privatisation, lines that are unprofitable, would be cut — even if they emancipated the populace’s mobility. Ticket prices also would increase, and they’re already fairly expensive. So the Netherlands instead decided, to pay the (unnecessary) penalty, rather than privatise. Worth it, imho.
A for-profit model is simply not suitable alone - it always needs regulation. Crucially, models should never focus on profit when they affect public utilities, natural resources, and sectors with regard to domestic and international trade, because otherwise they will lead to increasing poverty for whoever is not straight up an oligarch.
Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland effectively are already non-voting members of the EU, mainly due to the application of EU law through the EFTA relabelling them as such (except for agriculture and fishery, which largely remains theirs).
In my perspective, it’s worth giving Norway and Iceland a temporary opt-out on the fishery and agricultural regards, or at least better conditions for transition.
I also think that for these countries to join, the EU must be made to be agnostic in terms of economic models. Foster cooperation, but do not discriminate against oligarch-resistent models.
I don’t quite understand how this is supposed to work.
AFAIK there is technically no ‘veto’ that you can just deny individual members. Certain policy decisions require unanimity.
Seems like they’d need to redraw the contracts and change how voting works.Yeah, it’s like this shop near me that does vegan sausage rolls but sausage rolls have meat in them. Seems like they’d need to rewrite the recipe and change how it’s made.
On principle, not necessarily.
The article just makes it sound like it would just be a bilateral thing and the remaining member states just accept or veto the accession. It’s likely a more complex and involved process than it’s made out to be.Also if they actually do change how voting works, they might as well push for more qualified majority instead of unanimity.
Uh oh.
