• magnetosphere
    link
    fedilink
    55
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Did the veto only exist in the first place because it was necessary to sell the concept of the EU? Telling governments “don’t worry, you’ll be able to veto anything” sounds like an argument you’d need in order to get skeptical countries to join when the EU was new and untested.

    In practice, the veto seems like a terrible idea. Any stubborn, selfish head of state can blackmail the entire EU by threatening to veto an important measure.

    Now, the EU has proven itself, plus, member states have seen the perils and costs of leaving. There’s much less need to accommodate those who refuse to act in good faith. Getting rid of the veto is an excellent idea.

    • lemmyvore
      link
      fedilink
      English
      271 year ago

      I think there’s some confusion about how the “veto” works. The EU uses many ways to reach decisions, and those ways are different depending on the type of topic. Some are decided by majority, some by unanimity.

      The topics that require unanimity are the ones that would make no sense otherwise, since the EU doesn’t have the ability to coerce a member state into doing things it doesn’t want to do, beyond withholding funds and other soft measures like that.

      This reevaluation will switch some things from the unanimity principle to qualified majority.

      It’s important to remember that the EU is a built on the willingness of its members to cooperate and participate. It tries to use the carrot almost exclusively, not the stick. So far this has worked out amazingly well considering the previous century for example. The countries that have joined the EU have cooperated and prospered. The ones that wanted to cooperate without outright joining have been able to do so (Norway, Switzerland, Greenland). The ones that changed their mind could leave (UK). The ones that couldn’t bring themselves to agree with its values have never joined.

    • theinspectorst
      link
      fedilink
      20
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The veto existed from a time when the EU was much smaller (in both scope and scale). Having a member state veto today is approaching being as ludicrous as if each US state had a veto on national legislation - it allows small countries with extremist governments (of which there is always likely to be one in office somewhere) to clog up the gears of the entire union.

      The European Council’s well-established alternative to member state vetoes also still does plenty to respect member state interests - qualified majority voting. QMV means big changes aren’t getting passed on a 51%-49% knife edge. QMV puts a two-step lock in place, requiring a) at least 55% of member states that also b) account for at least 65% of the EU’s population, to vote in favour.

      But this is all moot. Abolishing the member state veto will itself almost certainly be subject to multiple member state vetoes at the Council so this is going nowhere.

      • Unaware7013
        link
        fedilink
        141 year ago

        Having a member state veto today is approaching being as ludicrous as if each US state had a veto on national legislation - it allows small countries with extremist governments (of which there is always likely to be one in office somewhere) to clog up the gears of the entire union.

        I hate to tell you this, but that’s actually how our stupid Senate works. Each state sends 2 idiots to washington, and either one of those idiots can tank legislation with a fucking email.

        • theinspectorst
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          Agree that’s a stupid system, but 60 out of 100 senators can still vote to override it, right?

          In the EU, on votes that aren’t subject to QMV, 26 out of 27 member states can fervently agree with something but still do nothing about a veto by the 27th state, whose veto can often have nothing to do with the question at hand and be more about domestic political posturing or some other such nonsense.