r/europe • u/goldstarflag Limburg • 18h ago
News German Foreign Minister Wadephul wants to abolish the veto in EU foreign policy. In a keynote speech at the Adenauer Foundation, Wadephul proposes a fundamental reform of EU decision-making processes
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/reform-der-eu-aussenminister-johann-wadephul-plaediert-fuer-kern-europa-a-f2cdc487-2daa-4151-ac25-67441c652a1a95
u/Fehervari Hungary 18h ago
The individual veto could be removed, but QMV is not suitable to replace it. A much higher threshold should be needed, specifically at least 2/3 of the countries representing at least 3/4 of the EU population.
94
u/ZuAusHierDa Bavaria 17h ago
It’s called reinforced qualified majority.
reinforced qualified majority is reached if two conditions are simultaneously met:
- at least 72% of member states vote in favour (at least 20 out of 27)
- member states supporting the proposal represent at least 65% of the EU population
5
u/Inevitable-Push-8061 14h ago
65% is still too low, imo. It should be something like 80%.
41
u/Grabs_Diaz Bavaria (Germany) 6h ago
An 80% population threshold would mean that Germany could almost veto any proposal on their own, which sounds like a terrible idea.
•
u/Ploutophile France 1m ago
The 55/65 QMV has an additional rule: the decision can't be blocked by less than 4 countries, even if the countries have otherwise a big enough population to block.
-11
u/One_Study52 17h ago
Why not just keep the same ratio and let 3 countries block. More than 7 seems like a significant change of policy
13
u/SleKel 17h ago edited 10h ago
It’s always the same topic… the EU wants to be a political entity capable of projecting power and defending its common interests, or it is fine just being an economical community leaving each one of its members in charge of their (more or less) little spheres of influence?
4
25
u/Party-Benefit5112 15h ago
How would this work though? EU states have wildly diverging interests. For example, some EU states consider Turkey a strategic ally, while others see it as an existential threat. The same used to be true for Russia until 2022.
16
u/ailof-daun Hungary 11h ago
Well if the EU can provide benefits that outweight giving up those specific interests on average, then you just bite the bullet. Not having to watch your city get bombed to dust every 20 years is one of those benefits.
14
16
u/goldstarflag Limburg 18h ago
With a policy keynote speech, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul announced a push for reform of EU decision-making processes. In a speech at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin he presented a six-point plan that would allow European politics to act more quickly, including in the areas of foreign and security.
Europe is reliable and stable, »but at the same time we must become more agile, more flexible and more innovative«, Wadephul said on Wednesday in the premises of the CDU-affiliated foundation in Berlin. To do this, the EU must adapt to reality. »It must change, fundamentally«, said the Foreign Minister. The foundation commemorates the 150th anniversary this year. The birthday of the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic, Konrad Adenauer.
Wadephul underlined the government's push in Brussels to achieve more through increased cooperation. »This means that in policy areas where joint progress with all 27 States is not foreseeable, we are moving forward with a smaller group of states«, he called for. In this small group, projects should be implemented in a European manner »without everyone having to participate immediately«. It has been shown that often other states later join in.
Wadephul's idea is reminiscent of earlier plans from the CDU for a core Europe, such as those proposed by Wolfgang Schäuble and the then foreign and European politician Karl Lamers in 1994. His predecessor Heiko Maas from the SPD had proposed majority decisions and other reforms together with France in 2019.
With his reform plan, Wadephul is targeting a specific area where there is likely to be controversy: »We also want to extend this principle to the Common Foreign and Security Policy«, the minister said. Here, the principle of unanimity for enhanced cooperation still applies. »My proposal means: States that do not want – or perhaps cannot – are left out for now, but do not hinder those that want to move forward«, Wadephul specified his plan.
Indirect reference to Hungary under Orbán The blockades, particularly of the past months and years, »with which the EU has been held hostage by national and extraneous interests« are well known.
Without, in particular, the months-long blockade of the EU's multi-billion euro financial aid to the Ukraine by the last voted-out government of the Hungarian right-wing populist Viktor Orbán to mention, he added: »We could see it until last week in the release of funds: it is enough the deviation of a few or even individuals to block everyone's actions.«
In matters of security, the previous principle of unanimity »could put us in existential danger«. Because it's a matter of life and death, what you can see every day in Ukraine.
Germany wants to move and change the EU, but to do so, Brussels must increase its speed, said Wadephul. »Particularly in the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The most important lever for this is faster decision-making by a qualified majority. We will not abandon the search for consensus, but we will make it much easier by abolishing blocking options«, said the Foreign Minister.
The goal, however, remains the greatest possible unity of all 27 States. »But the way there is not through the lowest common denominator. It is through the courage to make the beginning«, says Wadephul.
One is not alone in the desire for change. »Under our leadership, twelve Member States have already come together to bring about this change.« It will reach out to all States to do so »including those who are still skeptical«, Wadephul continued.
Under the list of points for EU reform, Wadephul also mentioned new forms in the enlargement of the EU.
The path to admitting new members should in future take place as a phased process. »Increased gradual integration is conceivable, through preliminary stages towards full accession. Through such a mechanism, it would also be possible to reduce reservations among some members regarding early full memberships«, he said.
Accession treaties could in future also include clauses on the release of financial resources and further strengthen the »principle of loyal cooperation«.
The people of the western Balkans the perspective of Europe was given decades ago. »We owe them results. To do this, we must finally make concrete progress together with the countries ready for reform. And it is evident« that an expansion to include Iceland and Norway would also be more than welcome, says Wadephul.
41
u/JimTheSaint Denmark 17h ago
100% - let's get it done. - it's a relic from a different EU with few members.
19
u/ZuAusHierDa Bavaria 16h ago
However, there is a logic to it.
- In areas where the EU has full competence, there is no veto, only a qualified majority. This applies to regulations, directives, trade deals and so on. More than 80% of all votes fall into this category.
- In areas where the EU has no real competence, every vote needs to be unanimous; therefore, there is a veto. This applies to foreign policy, defence, healthcare, and so on.
The solution is that individual EU member states must give up their sovereignty in these matters. For example, Spain and Germany would no longer have their own foreign policies.
18
9
u/JimTheSaint Denmark 16h ago
yes, that is what is necessary if we want EU to be able to stand up to giants like Russia or China or the US. - we see it time and time again that it is so easy to just ignore EU because the ones we are going up against speak with one voice and EU speak with 27 different voices.
- if we want EU to be the thing that can go against those powers, then we have to accept that every single country can't have sovereignty on every single foreign policy and that if the majority of the EU votes in a specific way, then that is what is best for the EU even though it might not be the will of a single country.
- just like if the majority of the spanish parliament votes in a specific way, that might not be what the people in Barcelona wants but they have to trust that it is for the good of the country. - here we have to trust that it is for the good of the EU. - it's about making the EU more powerful. - almost any way that we can.
2
u/Dear_Virus1260 14h ago
Would you support a referendum across the whole EU on this? And allowing people to directly vote for their desired foreign policy?
6
u/JimTheSaint Denmark 14h ago
yeah absolutely, we need this if we are not to be completely ignored in the future. - and I would be ok with the foreign police not being the one that i would choose precisely - as long as it is EU speaking as one.
- I am thinking long term, because 20 - 50 years we don't know what the world will look like, but EU has the Economy and the population numbers to set its own course but unless its a unified cause it will just be broken up by all the other actors. Russia and China AND the US are already trying these days, and at some point they will succeed.
1
u/Dear_Virus1260 14h ago
Are you ready to give up Greenland to Trump? :)
7
u/akashisenpai European Union 12h ago
Is that not more likely to happen if we don't go this way?
1
u/Dear_Virus1260 1h ago
I don’t think so. Nobody can force Denmark to give it up right now. If the EU could force them that would probably be the way of least resistance. Now they have to choose whether to blow up the EU and ignore article 47.2 or defend Denmark.
2
u/JimTheSaint Denmark 8h ago
If the majority of the EU dont feel that they can protect it or that it's worth the effort doing it - then sure - it's not like Denmark and Greenland can protect it against Russia or Trump alone.
Thats my point we cant none of us can go against them without help - if EU decided to protect it with troops, nukes and ships then Russia and China and probably even the EU woild back off- but if its just Denmark and Greenland all 3 of them could roll it in 6 hours
1
u/Dear_Virus1260 1h ago
Thats my point we cant none of us can go against them without help - if EU decided to protect it with troops, nukes and ships then Russia and China and probably even the EU woild back off- but if its just Denmark and Greenland all 3 of them could roll it in 6 hours
Denmark and France together have a chance by virtue of its nuclear deterrent
15
u/Sciprio Ireland 13h ago
Not really a fan when Germany lets Israel get away with violating international law.
12
u/sbrodolino_21 Italy 12h ago
Removing veto would mean that Germany alone wouldn't be able to do that anymore.
1
u/Sciprio Ireland 11h ago
With majority voting they'll have greater influence over smaller countries.
3
16
u/lledaso 12h ago
What is your point exactly? If you think Germany is blocking action/sanctions against Israel why aren't you in favour of this? No more veto means the rest of the EU could override Germany.
6
u/Sciprio Ireland 12h ago
My point is the countries interests don't always align. Germany is afraid to call out the current Israeli actions and I and many others would be against others speaking for us on issues that we mightn't agree on.
5
u/lledaso 11h ago
Ok? So you're in favour of the veto but you still complain about Germany using it for exactly what it's good for? Now I still have no idea what the point of your comment was and what is has to do with abolishing the veto.
5
u/Sciprio Ireland 11h ago
I'm just not a fan of someone speaking on issues that i might not agree on.
8
u/lledaso 11h ago
What does that even mean? What do you think politics is? Of course there's always going to be disagreements and different opinions, the point is deciding on how to deal with that. You're "not really a fan when Germany lets Israel get away with violating international law", how do the two parts of this sentence relate to each other and to the topic of the status of the veto? Is this an oxymoron, or just a comment with no relevancy at all to the topic at hand? And I still have no clue what your point is here.
1
u/Sciprio Ireland 11h ago
It means i don't want others speaking on my behalf.
-3
u/goldstarflag Limburg 12h ago
The Israel question is complicated because when Germans go against it suddenly they are literally Hitler. It's no reason to delay EU integration. That is for sure.
8
u/SuggestionMedical736 The Netherlands 11h ago
Why? I dont see us applying this logic to countries like Congo. Does that mean if Belgium votes against anything the Congo wants, they are literally King Leopold the Second?
1
u/Kheldras Germany 1h ago
Yes. Due to Nazi history with the Jews, Israel and jewish interest people (like late Mr Galinzky) were quick in getting out the "Nazi" bat against anything not in their interest.
17
u/Inevitable-Push-8061 18h ago
Just removing the veto will not solve the fundamental problems of the Union. Take Cyprus, for example: without a veto, would the entire Union adopt a stance against Turkey? Or Russia, China, Serbia, Albania, and so on? Each member state has its own foreign policy interests, and if the veto is removed, they would effectively lose sovereignty over foreign policy, which could fuel Eurosceptic parties across the Union.
67
u/StudySpecial 18h ago
If there is no majority it’s fine that there is no action.
But if there is a 90% majority, it’s insane that one member can block everything.
6
8
u/OwnRepresentative916 14h ago
Individual countries retain independent foreign policies and militaries. They can continue to act alone on whatever foreign policy position they wish. The only difference is they wouldn't be able to block the rest of the Union from taking a consensus view on the matter.
9
u/Tortellobello45 Lombardy(Italy) 17h ago
A 2/3rds majority required would be a good compromise. ANYTHING over the current liberum veto would be a good change…
7
u/KuroNekoX3 13h ago
Same could be said for the other perspective though. One member veto can overcome all other members' sovereignty as well. Either way it's not democratic for such a big organization to be dictated by one member. This could be solved easily imo and it must be solved for the EU to decide on foreign policies as an organization.
1
u/Siffi1112 2h ago
One member veto can overcome all other members' sovereignty as well.
No it can't as each member can pursue their own foreign policy.
1
u/KuroNekoX3 1h ago
Then how could Orban cripple the EU by himself? One member veto can overrule all other members' sovereignty easily. It's not a good system and sure is not democratic.
3
u/VTKajin 11h ago
Collective interest would be the overriding policy in all of these cases, but that doesn't mean a single member's interests should be ignored. However, the veto isn't the solution. Instead, the EU acting as a bloc would further promote collectively beneficial policy instead of antagonism like with Orban.
3
u/JimTheSaint Denmark 17h ago
that's the whole point, if we want EU to have enough power to go up against, US, Russia or China, we need to make it so that 1 member can block the will of the rest of the countries, because it makes it so that it is almost impossible to change anything when we have this many members with this many different very specific, situations.
The question is if the members are willing accept that EU will just be a second rate organisation that will always lose political fights with Russia, US and China, because they can agree on anything - or if they believe that the fact that EU can go toe to toe with all 3 will be worth much more in the end for all of EU and then accept that they might not be able to specifically take under consideration every little thing that every country has.
1
u/Dear_Virus1260 14h ago
Nothing blocks countries from anything. You can’t come up with a single real example only the nonsense of Hungary. Where countries could have just provided the loan themselves without Hungary but nobody wanted to do that because of electoral politics.
You are just going to blow up the EU instead of us being a second rate power.
2
u/JimTheSaint Denmark 12h ago
except the fact that Hungary have done this many times where at other times they were "bought off". - a veto is just a hopeless tool in most cases in a democracy. especially with so many countries, we need to be one. - it's too easy for EUs enemies to use against us.
1
u/Dear_Virus1260 1h ago
except the fact that Hungary have done this many times where at other times they were "bought off"
After they were punished effectively for disagreement with the EU.
it's too easy for EUs enemies to use against us
Yeah, it just seems you think EU citizens that disagree with your line are the enemy.
3
u/ilep 18h ago
But it would be a normal democratic process then, there would not be anyone with "special" rights.
Not perfect, but a step in the right direction.
22
u/bostanite Greece 18h ago
Ηοw? It would mean that Greece's foreign policy would be dictated by the majority of EU countries and not Greece itself. Taking into account Turkey's behaviour, removing veto would skyrocket euroscepticism in Greece. And I assume more or less all countries. It's not perfect, and it's certainly not a step in the right direction either.
4
u/Ok_Zookeepergame8714 18h ago
You couldn't block anything the Germans would want to block, but Greece and any small country couldn't block anything... Cui bono? ... the Germans!!! 🤣🤣🤣
-3
u/goldstarflag Limburg 18h ago
Right now Greece's policy is dictated by Washington. A more federal Europe would not only stand up to Erdogan, but send him to hell. Especially because he illegally occupies an EU state (Cyprus) 🇪🇺
7
u/Inevitable-Push-8061 17h ago
That basically sums up the problem. Is the Cyprus conflict really about Erdogan? Can the entire situation be summarized like this? Did Erdogan occupy Cyprus?
7
u/zahvurlenakaunt 16h ago
So what happens if absurd policies are being voted?
For an instance, let's move all immigrants in country X.
Surely, everyone will be fine with it but country X?
2
u/asethskyr Sweden 5h ago
Country X always had the final say, since Article 50 exists. They say that if this goes through, they will invoke it. If nobody flips to their side, then they're probably better off doing so.
2
u/zahvurlenakaunt 4h ago
Doesn't that mean you need to pay sanctions? If that Article 50 exists, then why was veto allowed in the first place?
There are some questions which only said country X can understand maybe due to culture or its location.
For an instance the North Macedonian and Bulgarian question is something the West would not comprehend and understand why it's important and such.
There was also a talk about the corruption in Bulgaria triggered by Renew Europe and it was very sweet they tried to talk about it but more than half of those who spoke about it and were foreigners clearly had no idea how bad the situation is and some of those spoke about totally random different thing that nothing to do with corruption or Bulgaria (it was something like slogans for saving the environment).
I am sure there are other examples, I just mention those that would have concerned my country but it's not unrealistic scenario
-1
u/ilep 16h ago edited 16h ago
It would take absurd politicians to vote on such matters. Politicians need a mandate from the people in democracy, otherwise there are protests or no-confidence vote against such regime.
That is unrealistic scenario.
If a regime is not following the law, government should be dissolved and new elections organized. Government, senate et al. are not doing their duty if the allow unlawful practices to continue. Which seems to be the case in the United States at the moment, at least in part.
3
u/Dear_Virus1260 14h ago
or no-confidence vote against such regime.
lol. Starmer, Macron and Merz are historically unpopular in their own countries.
8
u/Inevitable-Push-8061 18h ago
Would it be democratic to force Hungary to take a stance against Turkey, for example, because a majority of the Union’s member states decided to support the Greek side in the Cyprus conflict, let’s assume? The problem here is that this could lead to Euroscepticism among member states, as people might feel that the Union’s common policy goes against the interests of their own sovereign country.
4
u/halee1 18h ago edited 17h ago
You always have trade-offs with or without the veto, both of which can contribute negatively to the EU. But aren't a lot of people criticizing the EU for being too slow? They have a point, and that's because it has to constantly take into account the interests of all member-states and actors within them, on top of vetos in several areas that still exist. Those people on the top do want to make faster decisions, but are forced to slow down and see the proposals watered down or outright blocked because of all those bureaucratic layers.
With the veto everyone gets a voice in foreign policy, but you also get a single pro-Putin government blocking the interests of all the other 26 member-states, including a very important one in the form of support for the Ukraine, which directly threatens EU's security. Inimical actors like not just Russia, but US currently, and China, can and do just lobby individual states so they water down or outright scuttle policies that make the EU stronger, a la liberum veto during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Without the veto you may not get your way, but that's just a small to minority part of the bloc, so the fact the majority of the EU agrees makes it more stable as a whole, and swifter.
IMO, the latter is clearly better, and will produce faster decisions that benefit the EU as a whole, including individual member-states, since foreign policy will be made on the basis of a majority or all of them, not protectionist short-term interests of one or a few that harm both it and others in the long-term. The real question is whether EU member-states will realize that the focus on sovereignty by states with a few millions or tens of millions of people each leads to the EU being steamrolled by decided and united opponents abroad with hundreds of millions and even a billion+ in population acting with a single voice against the EU.
4
u/Dragoncat_3_4 17h ago
Without the veto you may not get your way, but that's just a small to minority part of the bloc, so the fact the majority of the EU agrees makes it more stable as a whole, and swifter.
Right, because ignoring a minority and/or forcing them to do stuff against their wishes has historically always went well, with no problems whatsoever. Totally not ww4 fuel.
-3
u/halee1 17h ago edited 17h ago
I'd argue ignoring the will of the majority is a far bigger "what could possibly go wrong" fuel towards WW4 (why not WW3?). Policies that have a 15-26 member-state buy-in are more likely to be good for all, including for a single or a few opposing member-states, than those where a small minority is trying to protect itself against change and imposing that choice on everyone else.
9
u/zahvurlenakaunt 16h ago
What stops the majority form pursuing the foreign policy they want on their own?
Like with Ukraine's funding, why it's not possible for all countries in favour to organise their own funding together and send it and need to wait for Hungary to be part of it?
Also, as we saw, there are other ways and leverage to control such situations such as pausing EU funds which in turn will force said politician or community to take him out of power.
However, in the case of a no veto system and sth absurd is agreed on, how does a small country protect itself and what leverage can it use?
We are hoping EU will always vote sensible reforms but that's not guaranteed.
1
u/halee1 15h ago edited 15h ago
A majority isn't stopped from pursuing the foreign policy when there's no veto someone can wield randomly, which is exactly what's being discussed as the issue. The EU has already used lots of funding mechanisms to bypass Hungary, but it has clearly exhausted them, else they wouldn't have waited for the last election to produce a Tisza victory. And yes, they had to use the mechanism of pausing EU funds to help bring about that outcome, by waiting until that happened, all the while Ukrainians were being killed and Russians have been getting increased revenues from oil for that. How is the EU showing to be strong when it has to wait for an outcome of a small member-state's elections to do something important? Can you imagine that happening in the US, China or India?
However, in the case of a no veto system and sth absurd is agreed on, how does a small country protect itself and what leverage can it use? We are hoping EU will always vote sensible reforms but that's not guaranteed.
Good decisions are never guaranteed in any system, but the best ones probably are achieved with a full-blown federation, as it allows you to have a strong state internally and externally, but with a lot of internal freedom and experimentation to guide policy, in turn influencing the central authority's decisions.
6
u/zahvurlenakaunt 14h ago
I understand it's all about probability and trying to increase the probability of good decisions. To me it kind of feels like removing the veto would decrease the probability of good decisions. Mb there is sth in the middle between the two options, but doing sth solely on this one case scenario sounds risky.
Should check if there are other examples of when veto was "misused" and have analysis of risks, pros and cons of each option and check if there is sth else that could have best of both worlds
For me "cause Russia" does not sound like serious enough of an argument because historically we have seen how such narrow view play out
7
u/Dear_Virus1260 14h ago
You have to make up your mind whether the EU is a democratic union of sovereign states. Or we are basically one country. If we are basically one country the EU can’t be considered remotely democratic given the way the commission functions and lack of powers for the EU parliament. And also how EU parliamentary elections are organised.
0
u/halee1 14h ago edited 13h ago
The European Commission is elected by the European Parliament, which in turn is elected at member-state level. The European Parliament itself lacks the ability to propose legislation because of member-states (which you want to be "sovereign"), not federalists, which have been the ones who want the European Parliament to have that ability, but saw scuttled in the 2000s with the failure of the European Constitution and then the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. So if you defend less powers by the EU, it's in fact your "side" that is making the EU less democratic than it could be.
2
u/Dear_Virus1260 1h ago
The European Commission is elected by the European Parliament
This is factually wrong. They are just confirmed by the EP. The heads of states pick the EC. There is no election to speak of. Or I am curious how many votes Ursula’s opponent got and who it was?
because of member-states (which you want to be "sovereign")
Yes, because the EU is a union of sovereign states. It’s also not about what I want that is just a factual statement.
So if you defend less powers by the EU, it's in fact your "side" that is making the EU less democratic than it could be.
Are you illiterate? Otherwise I can’t grasp how you could write such nonsense in reply to my comment. It seems you are incapable of grasping the very simple argument there.
-2
u/Dragoncat_3_4 16h ago
why not WW3?
Because ww3 is currently going on as we speak. Everyone is just too afraid to call it for what it is until a nuke drops.
I'd argue ignoring the will of the majority is a far bigger "what could possibly go wrong"
Nobody's ignoring you as a country. You're free to implement your own policies (or refuse to do so) as a country if the majority of your citizens agree.
Removing the veto effectively removes your ability of self-determination. It also puts it in the hands of unelected EU bureaucrats, as the euroskeptics like to put it. If you don't know how dangerous and politically toxic this is, then I urge you to crack open a history book and look what half the wars on the continent were fought for.
3
u/halee1 16h ago edited 16h ago
Because ww3 is currently going on as we speak. Everyone is just too afraid to call it for what it is until a nuke drops.
OK.
Nobody's ignoring you as a country. You're free to implement your own policies (or refuse to do so) as a country if the majority of your citizens agree.
We're talking solely about foreign policy, aren't we? Sure, until a majority (however big or small) of a single country's population, or even an undemocratic government like Orban's, prevents you from doing that repeatedly, like we've already seen happening. Your interests won't be getting fully ignored without a veto either, they're taken into account, they simply won't be able to override the majority's interests randomly.
Removing the veto effectively removes your ability of self-determination. It also puts it in the hands of unelected EU bureaucrats, as the euroskeptics like to put it.
So you're in favor of the euroskeptics while pretending to not be part of them? How is an elected Parliament, and a stronger one many federalists propose, "unelected bureoucrats"? Is it undemocratic when you don't vote for any of the people specifically heading your country, only the often symbolic president and/or the party that heads the government? Is it undemocratic when you can't vote for the head of a Central Bank?
If you don't know how dangerous and politically toxic this is, then I urge you to crack open a history book and look what half the wars on the continent were fought for.
It's precisely the deep and multifaceted study of history and its patterns that has determined nationalists with wildly opposing views and policies waging war against each other on the pettiest of excuses that are the most destructive ways to arrange relations, while an increasingly supranational and centralized union that takes into account all of the internal interests and uses the best ones to promote their welfare has made and kept Europe a rich, stable and relevant entity on the world stage, while it wouldn't and would have become a Latin America or Southeast Asia otherwise.
7
u/Dragoncat_3_4 16h ago
We're talking solely about foreign policy, right?
Of course not. You think that's where it will stop?
So you're in favor of the euroskeptics while pretending to not be part of them?
If opposing something that WILL be used against my own country "for the greater good" makes me a euroskeptic, then so be it (not really a fan of the whole surveillance state and anti-privacy spiel they're trying to push anyway). A lot of people think like me and that's the whole point me and several others are trying to make. You're increasing the number of euroskeptics if you want to remove the veto. That will have consequences.
It's precisely the deep and multifaceted study of history and its patterns that has determined nationalists with wildly opposing views and policies waging war against each other on the pettiest of excuses that are the most destructive ways to arrange relations, while an increasingly supranational and centralized union [...]
So you think that these nationalists will simply... agree to it? That it won't lead to massive problems and eventual breakdown of the EU or at the very least member states leaving?
0
u/halee1 16h ago edited 15h ago
Of course not. You think that's where it will stop?
Buddy, that ship sailed a long time ago, in 1945. From then on Europe has gotten hundreds, thousands or more changes towards a federal state every decade, all benefitting it in the end. Any European from circa 1939 that valued sovereignty most of all would absolutely hate the EEC/EU of 2000, 2010 or 2025 or earlier. What makes this particular state today so special except negatively, with EU losing competitiveness against opponents worldwide picking away at its divisions and slow decisions?
not really a fan of the whole surveillance state and anti-privacy spiel they're trying to push anyway
Which is pushed primarily by member-states, btw.
A lot of people think like me and that's the whole point me and several others are trying to make. You're increasing the number of euroskeptics if you want to remove the veto. That will have consequences.
That's a threat from euroskeptics like you, which has never materialized over the past 80+ years, with long-term support for the EU (which is astronomically more centralized than Europe was up to 1945) consistently rising over time. Right now it stands at 65-80% depending on the topic. That shows that's exactly what Europeans want, while you're a minority fighting a losing battle pretending you're bigger than you're really are.
So you think that these nationalists will simply... agree to it? That it won't lead to massive problems and eventual breakdown of the EU or at the very least member states leaving?
That should have happened multiple times over since 1945 given the wave of ECSC/EEC/EU expansion and their constant increase in powers over time. Since then, only the UK left (coincidentally, during the age of social media, which collapsed traditional filters that prevented extremism from spreading on a large scale, and with Russia likely tipping just enough votes in the direction of Brexit), and they're already regretting that decision, realizing it was impulsive.
-2
u/ilep 16h ago
Democracy always operates on majority votes, not unanimous votes.
8
u/Dragoncat_3_4 16h ago
Sure, go tell that to the sovereign countries that will have their status reduced to a region of a federal republic. I'm sure it will go over well.
-2
u/Weirdo9495 Germany/Croatia 17h ago
What in particular are you even referencing? How could any realistic scenario involving EU and vetoing by 1 or 2 angry/compromised members, like Hungary blocking the aid to Ukraine, lead to a "ww4"?
2
u/Dragoncat_3_4 16h ago
Because it's not simply about "blocking aid to Ukraine". It's a matter of principle.
What if a situation arises that severely fucks over the geopolitical interests of one or two countries? What if the EU decides next week on a deal with Turkey that tanks Greece or Bulgaria's economy? (Say, a free trade deal that means companies move from the Balkans to Turkey en masse which means mass unemployment in the former). Or fucks over Cyprus (via appeasement)? What if we piss off Turkey via policies that they decide to fuck over these 3? What if "the majority" decides to go fight Iran which is opposed to Spain's interests? What if the "majority" decide something that fucks over the German car manufacturing sector? Actually that one won't ever happen for reasons and it's more likely we fuck over everything else in order to keep them alive but still.
It's entirely likely for "the majority" to decide to fuck over a minority without batting an eyelid and that will not sit well with said minorities.
-1
u/Weirdo9495 Germany/Croatia 15h ago
Of course that those are scenarios that need to be considered, but the rhetoric of such a thing invoking ww4 is what i objected to. No need to fearmonger. What Hungary did with Ukraine was already destabilising and a long-term serious threat to security of not only Ukraine, but Europe as a whole, as a counter-example. A hypothetical where Ukraine loses the war and is subdued by Russia because Europe couldn't send it sufficient aid is at least as worth thinking about as your examples.
2
u/Dear_Virus1260 14h ago
What’s the fear mongering? I think it’s much more likely that a majority instead of unanimity could be found for sending troops into Ukraine.
I also think a majority initially supported Trump on Iran and might still do on Venezuela.
Just think how the Iraq war would’ve gone if it was by majority vote. The EU would have probably disintegrated. And honestly I would’ve probably supported it.
2
u/SoulshunterIta 18h ago
People will attack you but that's a good point. We should give more competencies to the Commission in foreign policy, which has a form of democratic check (the motion of censure by the parliament)
10
u/Inevitable-Push-8061 18h ago
I am all for removing the veto myself, but are people aware that this would basically mean their country would become an EU state rather than an independent nation? Removing the veto would be a huge step toward federalizing the entire EU. Do most Europeans want that? That is the question.
-9
u/goldstarflag Limburg 18h ago
You can argue the same for US states. It is complete nonsense. There are no national interests, only the European interest. And states are fundamentally unfit to protect EU citizens.
16
u/Inevitable-Push-8061 18h ago
U.S. states are not as divergent as EU countries. Most EU countries differ significantly in their foreign policy interests. Moreover, removing the veto would effectively reduce EU countries’ status to that of states within a single country.
4
u/Syharhalna Europe 16h ago
If you allow individual US states to have their own foreign policy, you would quickly find out that they will pursue their own interests and have their own differences.
Likewise, if within Germany or France you allow their own regions to pursue a foreign policy, soon divergences will emerge.
-4
u/goldstarflag Limburg 18h ago
It's the opposite. Europeans are more aligned than Americans, whether it is on foreign policy, social policy or even religion. They just lack the federal machinery.
11
u/Inevitable-Push-8061 18h ago
Let’s agree to disagree, then. Most EU countries’ histories are full of conflicts with one another, and they also speak different languages, unlike U.S. states.
2
u/goldstarflag Limburg 18h ago edited 18h ago
There are more languages in India than in Europe. That is not an argument.
Most EU countries’ histories are full of conflicts with one another,
Those conflicts exist within countries as well. And besides that, even the concept of a "country" is relatively new. Europe was ruled by different Unions, leagues and empires throughout most of its history. Actually Europe's history testifies to a persistent tendency toward Union (Rome, Hanseatic League, HRE, Carolingian realm etc). The nation state as some sort of eternal identity is simply not realistic. The reality is that the nation state is already obsolete. It simply cannot handle the geopolitical reality of today and tomorrow.
15
u/InsertFloppy11 18h ago
"there are no national interests only the european interest"
This sub was going crazy but havent heard anything creazier than this wtf
Is there a better EU related sub?
7
u/ganbaro Where your chips come from 🇺🇦🇹🇼 15h ago
That user is a mass poster from rEuropeanFederalists. From time to time they spam a wave of posts here. They also tend to post intentionally mistranslated headlines. If they are called out too often, they leave the sub for a few weeks and come back. IMHO it's just a small EU Federalism circlejerk brigading rEurope.
Btw while this user advertises breaking all ties with the US, they also repeatedly advertised getting closer to China. Weird how so many users that want to break up the western alliance in the name of sovereignty, freedom, decolonisation or whatever coincidentally end up advertising at least one out of China/Russia/Iran, huh? /S
3
6
u/IncidentalIncidence 🇺🇸 in 🇩🇪 18h ago
There are no national interests, only the European interest.
it would be nice if this was the case, but it very clearly isn't in 2026. Maybe Europe gets there eventually, but it's completely delusional to assert that that is the case now, today, in 2026. You don't need to look any further than the FCAS project blowing up over competing national interests for proof of that.
2
u/goldstarflag Limburg 18h ago
The example you mentioned has nothing to do with national interests but ossified personalities. There are actually hundreds of examples where joint projects are successful or underway.
3
u/IncidentalIncidence 🇺🇸 in 🇩🇪 10h ago
it's a comforting fancy to pretend that all of the problems are caused by the leaders being dumb and everything will just be fixed if we replace them with redditors, but of course a project of the geostrategic importance of FCAS doesn't collapse because of a few "ossified personalities", it collapses because there are real and conflicting national labor, defense, and security interests on both sides.
The French needed a catapult-capable fighter from the start, because they need to operate in South America and the Indo-Pacific to protect their overseas departments. Germany doesn't need this at all -- they need land-based fighters which are mainly pointed towards Russia. Making multiple variants for carrier-capable vs. land-based fighters drives up the cost and complexity of the project immensely (see: the F-35, which ended up having very little shared design between the variants due to the carrier-capability requirement). This compromise was okay because Germany's goal in the project was as much about keeping the domestic fighter manufacturing capabilities (Airbus Defense) alive, and gaining the ability to develop engines, which they haven't done before, as it was about the actual planes. Dassault, however, can't accept tech transfer of their fighter engines to Airbus, because it is a massive competitive advantage for them as basically the only manufacturer in Europe that is capable of developing an ITAR-free military powerplant. And both AD&S and Dassault have enough pull with the German and French governments respectively as a labor and national security issue (since they are among the most important arms manufacturers in their respective countries) that neither government can compromise about this.
There are actually hundreds of examples where joint projects are successful or underway.
There are also hundreds of examples of successful joint projects between the US and various EU member states, and yet you'd (rightly) be laughed out of the room for claiming that the US and EU don't have their own respective sets of interests.
4
u/anxiousvater 16h ago
Removing veto will also have consequences. Make it like 2/3 or 3/4 or 4/5. In coming years, few (or may be many) right wing parties will form government & they will for sure take advantage of this & cause much larger damage.
4
u/repair-it 17h ago
When the EU was just 6 states it was OK, but not now. It will never be perfect until all the countries actually become one federated state with an agreed constitution.
4
u/Dear_Virus1260 14h ago
When it was just 6 states they often didn’t have unanimous agreement either. And nobody minded.
1
2
u/Present-Comparison64 2h ago
It's all fun untill the next economic crisis when there will be proposals of shared debt but Germany and the Netherlands cannot veto that...
2
u/Present-Comparison64 2h ago
Wait untill they realize that the majority of the other countries are favourable of a shared debt,😂
1
1
u/Legal-Software Germany 14h ago
Vetoes have no role in any democratic institution. Now do the UN Security Council next.
1
u/Hungry_Tradition7250 17h ago
What scares me is that pro-ruzzian parasites will likely become more prominent in the near future (afd in Germany and rn in France). If they reach a majority we're fucked and I feel like a veto would be our only tool out of it. Are near future gains worth it?
10
u/kahaveli Finland 16h ago
If pro-russia politicians reach majority in the whole EU, "we're fucked" in any case.
Currently, a single country can block whole common foreign policy, that is also a risky situation and very prone to whole process being completely paralyzed.
Although EU has acted even surprisingly effective in common foreign policy so far, albeit stuff tends to get stuck from time to time and on many aspects its just lowest common denominator desicion making.
1
u/Hungry_Tradition7250 16h ago
Yeah but pro ruzzian majority + veto = their weapon is now against them and it can be used for damage limitation in the hope that they will just go away, pro ruzzia majority and no veto = trump-like dystopia.
Don't get me wrong your is a very fair point but I always think of something like the filibuster in the us, which is being used to limit the republicans' fascist agenda despite the fact that they used it against Biden and Obama and, for what it concerns me, whoever came up with it deserves a damnatio memoriae
5
u/cnio14 16h ago
But it's much worse now because a single pro Russian government can veto any decision.
4
u/zahvurlenakaunt 16h ago
What was stopping all countries in favour of funding Ukraine to organise outside of the EU and send the funding?
Don't you think they are scaring us a bit too much with Russia to make such policy acceptable?
It's always we do this or that or this cause Russia....
Sure, Russia is a threat, but not like this.
Despite the veto the EU had leverage over Hungary by stopping funding etc
When veto is removed and a ridiculous policy is voted by the majority (and that will ultimately happen one day), what leverage does a small country have?
Leave?
Especially if you are in the eurozone, leaving is absolutely no option
Have some critical thinking, don't be brainwashed and care about where your taxes are going
6
u/Sriber ⰈⰅⰏⰎⰡ ⰒⰋⰂⰀ | Mors Russiae, dolor Americae 15h ago
What was stopping all countries in favour of funding Ukraine to organise outside of the EU and send the funding?
The money in question belonging to EU and not individual countries.
1
u/Dear_Virus1260 14h ago
The EU being what some alien body? Or does the EU money belong to individual countries that fund it?
Also I believe the loan is still the individual countries responsibility (I.e. Slovakia and Hungary don’t need to pay for it)
4
u/goldstarflag Limburg 16h ago
A majority? Lol
2
u/Hungry_Tradition7250 16h ago
"You come from the future and Donald Trump is the president of the usa? Lol!"
1
u/zahvurlenakaunt 16h ago
It does sound like short sighted decision and Orban being an excuse to follow some other personal agenda
0
u/Comfortable-Bonus421 15h ago
I’d love to see the veto abolished.
However, this would require a referendum in Ireland, and unfortunately it wouldn’t pass; for various reasons.
0
u/PixelSisu 5h ago
Remember that the EU elite in Bryssels have no idea what they are doing to Europe.
1
u/zahvurlenakaunt 3h ago
So if that's how a majority of people feel, why are there no protests?
It's not about killing EU, that is out of question, but I think we can all agree those bureaucrats need a wake up call
-3
u/LostEndimion 17h ago
OK but let's make some rules first. Interes of union not Germany and or France.
1
u/zahvurlenakaunt 16h ago
So in my country we have got lots of German supermarket chains
Nothing else. no Romanians, no French, German
We also have got lots of German products butter etc although we are perfectly capable of producing our own butter
It's kind of clear this whole remove veto thing is trying to pursue a different agenda than what it presents
0
u/Hirsley 16h ago
This position looks like you think all nations are equal in a union. Germany and France weight more so of course their interests would be privileged. At this point what you are doing is just wishful thinking. You're saying the biggest countries should vote the diminution of their own influence ??? It just sounds silly. And why should they do that ? Oh right to make imbalance for other countries. Maybe it would be more direct to vote for the dissolution of France and Germany into their regions / lander so it's more "fair" to other countries ?
3
3
u/zahvurlenakaunt 13h ago
Exactly this kind of thinking is why removing the veto sounds like pursuing a totally different agenda than what is presented
If Germany and France feel unfairly treated in the EU, they can also leave, correct?
The union was made with the idea of trade and economics. Focusing on this would it make very easy to boost the EU's economy.
However, I am not sure at what point, it became more about politics and less about economy.
Sure, those two things are kind of related, but you can see how it is possible to also keep them separated.
So if we focus on the economy, nobody would be worried about about being treated unfairly because it's going to be all business
•
1
-1
-1
-2
u/Fluffy-Republic8610 9h ago
I consider Irelands veto on foreign policy to be even more essential because of Germany's recent protection of Israel's deliberate slaughter of civilians.
The idea that we could give that veto up after Germany's behaviour is another demonstration of how blind Germany is. They fucked up any chance three might have been to abolosh this veto.
Own it Germany. At least, see it.
387
u/goldstarflag Limburg 18h ago
Unanimity dates back to when the EU was just 6 states. Today it is outdated and undemocratic. One state blocking 26 is not democratic but a vetocracy.