- 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.
- Two would be toxic. Malta and Cyprus, or whatever. Three might be viable.
- An N party veto is called a quorum. So if you need 75 % of all countries, it is a 7 nation veto.
- I remember clearly that 20 years ago when they were trying to pass their constitution they were saying: "do not worry we can transfer all power to the EU because any country could always veto it so it is safe"
- 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.
- 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"
- https://michalovadek.github.io/eu-veto-tracker/. It's not just the nationalistic usual suspects that use their veto power.
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.
- 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 and kick it out.
Removing veto power probably makes it more likely that the next Orban pulls them out of the EU entirely which might not be in the interest of the alliance.
- 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 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.
- > 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 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.
- Political structures exist to influence the world around them.
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.
- First, Hungary is not a "a bit of a flip flop in terms of democracy". They are just not fully democratic country anymore, full stop. The system there did not changed, judiciary, media and the rest of the country are as much in the hands of a leader and easy to be abused as yesterday. The person on top of it changed. He did promised reforms, it remains to be seen whether they happen or not.
But second, regardless of Hungary, anyone can veto is dysfunctional system.
> unless you want to create a group where everyone thinks the same.
Everyone has veto is literally a system where everyone must think the same, else nothing will happen.
> Removing veto power probably makes it more likely that the next Orban pulls them out of the EU entirely which might not be in the interest of the alliance.
That would be bad for Hungary, but good for the rest of Europe. Hungary presence in EU was damaging to EU for years now.
- Ditto. EU would be much better without Hungary. And if on their way out Hungary could leave with Slovakia that would be even better.
- We are fully democratic as shown by outing Orban last night.
Doesn't mean we should just blindly vote with the herd.
- > Everyone has veto is literally a system where everyone must think the same, else nothing will happen.
thats not true, it just means that everone must not be extremely opposed to something for it to happen.
- No, it means anyone can make any decision hostage. They do not need to be extremely opposed. They just need to slightly not want it.
- This is a very simplistic view. There are benefits to approving things one dislikes slightly: like being able to influence decisions which are personally important. Rejecting things you disagree a bit with just because you can leads to being ignored. Like for example Orban - did anyone in the EU take this guy seriously in the past few years? EU more or less talked over his head (and the head of Slovakia as well)
- and yet this is clearly not what has happened. you COULD make any decision hostage, but thats not what anyone does, as such, the veto has a very important purpose, and removing it would be betraying the terms that the union was based on, just because people are now members. its basically "I altered the deal, pray I dont alter it further"
- Brussels appears to be extremely tone deaf to the basic needs of ordinary people, and taking further steps in a direction to centralize power is just going to push more people to the far right.
For example, the fact that right-wing governments in central and eastern Europe are protecting their borders, represents a very popular perspective, apparently shared by very few in the EU governing body.
Consolidating power at a moment when many EU policies are clearly unpopular seems like it will have unintended consequences.
- " ... apparently shared by very few in the EU governing body." Source? Given Frontex' action I doubt it.
- [dead]
- 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 existence not through being a guardian of common values, but a bureaucracy of not-quite-experts.
I genuinely wonder about people that feel patriotic about the EU. I have nothing against them, I just don't want to share the same house.
Orban was someone to point the finger to for what feels like decades. To see this result and extract a mission to extend EU powers is delusional in my opinion.
- There are a lot of upsides to being in the EU.
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)
- What EU country are you from? For me there where mostly upsides of being in the EU. Free travel, better consumer legislation, more invidual rights and protections, etc.
- I think the EU is just a bunch of countries in a trenchcoat. The main reason for this is the lack of mobility between countries. Each country has its own language, and more importantly social security, benefits, taxes, and the properties are much more expensive compared to salaries than pretty much anywhere in the world.
So either you're a long term renter with locked in low rates, or own an apt, so you have very little incentive to move. People who do move usually come from a poorer part to a richer part, and once in their lives, or they move to a warmer country like Spain when they retire.
- There could also hardly be a worse representative than von der Leyen. She is the perfect example of an incredibly unpopular and even incapable (she did terribly as the German minister of defense) but cunning career politician who SOMEHOW made it to a top position in the EU.
- > Orbán, the EU’s most autocratic leader […] lost by a decisive margin in Sunday’s vote, amid the highest turnout in Hungary’s democratic history.
What a ridiculous sentence. He’s an autocrat, but he’s out of power after losing a democratic election. Which is it?
Words have meaning.
- It was election, but Hungarian democracy is severely lacking and barely a democracy. A miracle happened, because too many people were too pissed at Orban. That does not make the country non autocratic, it means miracle happened and now new guys has all that power.
- haha, a miracle happened, people voted someone out, but its NOT a democracy.
why is it so needed to try paint it as not a democracy when it has CLEARLY proven that it is such
- Mostly because I know more about Hungarian system then you. It is was not clearly proven as such. The system is still heavily favoring one party. Just because you can flip who is on top of all stars align and 80% of voters come in mostly does not make it functional democracy worth the name. Orban was able to stay in power so long, because anything less then that would mean he gets all that power again. Opposition media and parties in the country were destroyed long time ago. Judiciary is routinely abused.
Simple as that. Yes, it was pro-democracy, anti-Russia, pro-EU vote. That does not mean Hungary changed over time. It means it has one last chance at reform. If it does not reform, there will be no way to flip it in elections the next time.
And yes, American conservative fans of Orban know all of that - Rubio, Vance, Rod Dreher, Peterson. They loved and admired the arrangement and want to emulate it.
- "one last chance to reform", i dont buy it. these things happen, and will happen again. people have been predicting doom for thousands of years, but this time its truly the last!
- Yes they do. A kindergardener can lead their kindergarden in an autocratic style. That means they (=auto) decide (=cratos) things and don't e.g. ask others (=demos) in a democratic sense.
Then they can still end up being fired. Autocratic is a style of leadership, and nowhere in the definition does it say autocrats can't be removed from their position of power. Sure, it is hard to remove autocrats once they have consolidated power, but that doesn't mean they are not autocrats before they did.
Whst you do is like calling a fire only a fire if it burns down a house. But that would be too late you know?
- I think there's quite a difference between calling someone an autocrat vs an autocratic leader, the latter being more of a characterization of how they are leading, which is I imagine why those words were chosen.
- How does an autocratic leader lose an election, can Xi lose an election?
27 points by nickslaughter02 5 hours ago | 37 comments