German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul called for eliminating the European Union's unanimous vote principle in the areas of foreign and security policy and replacing it with the majority vote principle seen in democracies.

all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Sounds like a bad idea. Maybe something like 90% instead of 100%? That still prevents solo vetoes like hungary but doesnt make it so easy to completely destroy the EU from the inside.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    As far as I understand it, an idea proposed by many is qualified majority voting where a decision can be made by 55% of member states with 65% of EU population. Didn't read the article yet so I don't know if there was something else mentioned.

    Found this source for further information on how qualified majority voting works: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/how-does-the-council-vote/qualified-majority/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children)

    unanimous

    This means complete agreement by all members of a vote. So if they werent actually talking about 100% then they just misused the word unanimous.

    A quick search of the query "EU unanimous" gave me this. There are a lot of EU bodies that work in various ways so it can get confusing.

    https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/how-does-the-council-vote/unanimity/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    This is the exact situation the US Confederation was in before they became the United States. The solution was that the vote on dropping the veto had to reach a qualified majority that would form a coalition of the willing and move forward without the opposition. In case of the USA the opposing states joined later. We could do the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    I can see good arguments on both sides. On one hand, the current mechanic hands every member state a veto on everything. On the other, if too many members get dragged into domestically unpopular adventures by a foreign majority, other countries will withdraw, either formally or by simply refusing to participate in Brussels.

    Then again, given that one of the Heritage Foundation’s (ahem) “Trump Administration’s” stated goals is to dismantle the EU, perhaps Merz’s government are simply useful idiots

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    As a European federalist I can assure you that we need to get rid off the veto. The USA became the United States in the one moment they dropped the veto.

    After Brexit no European nation that wants to keep their sovereignty will leave the union. I can highly recommend reading Timothy Snyders „The Road to Unfreedom“ on that topic: The EU is a group of failed empires (FR, ES, IT, PT, DE etc.) and nation states that are too small to exist without being absorbed or controlled by larger empires (especially eastern Europe) if they don’t stay together.

    Thus even if the EU becomes more integrated it will the lesser evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
    [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Even a broken clock...

  • source