https://cyprus-mail.com/2023/11/22/european-parliament-votes-to-abolish-member-states-veto
The European Parliament voted in favour of a bill to implement a number of reforms to the bloc’s treaties, including an almost absolute abolition of the principle of unanimity, in other words, member states’ veto power. The vote passed with a razor-thin majority of 291 votes in favour to 274…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The vote passed with a razor-thin majority of 291 votes in favour to 274 against, with 44 abstentions.
That sounds problematic for this making it. This is a treaty revision, so the bar for this going through is unanimity of member states. While technically, having a MEP vote one way doesn't mean that their state must have the same position, if about half of the EU is opposed, it seems very likely that this is a long way from unanimity of states.
It is also the only way to prevent the EU from collapsing under an almost byzantine but wholly impotent bureaucracy. Even if this causes the usual obstructionists to leave, the better off the union will be. Europe must become a true federal state, instead of institutionalized bickering and infighting.
That's good. Vetoes were preventing too much things in the past. This should push member states to compromise and find agreements with each other.
While that may be true, I feel like you’re ignoring the fact that a foundational change to the core procedures that the EU operates by could absolutely drive more than a few member states to bail - and I’m not talking about Hungary or Poland.
Whenever you come across a “sword” solution to a Gordian knot of a situation like this, it’s crucial to consider how you’d feel if the shoe was on the other foot. This is, in fact, one of the core points of a democratic, rules-based system of government - the rules must be applied agnostically. If you’re making a rule that only “works” when you/your party are in power, it’s an objectively bad rule, and will be used in ways that you are guaranteed to not like.
Which states do you consider at risk of leaving the EU for that?
The Visegard states like to bark, but when the alternative becomes being a russian puppet again, they will come back crying and stop trying to play both the EU and Russia.
The Netherlands would commit economic suicide on so many levels when their harbors would no longer access the EU and they couldnt export their own product there either. Also the drug cartels wont be happy at all.
Without the EU Putin would try to reignite the Balcan into war, so his Serbian puppets can scoop up some territory for him.
The western European countries know that their economy would go down in epic proportions, if any of them left the EU.
The danger is that you avoid doing what's necessary, and end up with a status quo that's worse than the change you wanted to avoid. Currently deadlock, infighting, and division mean the EU is increasingly beholden to foreign powers. I mean, sure I'd prefer it if 'my' party had power in the EU. But I'd still prefer the 'other' EU party over China.
Also, judging by your comment, I assume you're also from a country with a (defacto) two party system. But the EU is basically like a multi-party system. So the 'other' EU party, won't be the polar opposite of 'my' party. It'll be a coalition of parties, who have reached their own internal compromise, which means extremes are avoided. Multi-party systems are also usually less dramatic in their swings. Eg. the Netherlands where if Wilders ends up leading a government, his more extreme positions will be tempered by his government coalition partners.
i think the last decade of developments in US politics have provided everyone with an example of where that goes, though. not passing the "sword" policy because you fear your opponents using it doesn't actually matter; your opponents, when they come into power, may just immediately enact it themselves. and if they can't, there's a good chance they'll first enact a policy that broadswords aren't swords, technically, probably, maybe, totally, according to this one precedent from the year 1835, and then enact a broadsword policy.
bad-faith actors, authoritarians, fascists, etc., are more than happy to watch everyone else pull their punches based on some assumption they'll do the same. they won't.
that being said, i can't imagine the veto rule ever accomplishing anything good on anyone's side, really. it favors obstructionism by its very nature, which is inherently anti-democratic.
I get your point, but each EU member state has a democratic solution on its own (yes, with flaws), and EU ain't a country in the first place.
In other words, they didn't assemble to start a new country. They were there to collaborate internationally as sovereign states.
The problem in this case is that a single veto stops everything. To get anything throu the EU it has to be a compromise. That is just the nature of a multi state system, with even more parties. So usually those laws are not that insane, as the commone ground is generally speaking in the political center. The veto rule gives extremist minorities a lot more power, as 26 of the members can agree, but one can stop it. So if you are not a political radical in the EU political landscape, this rule is good for you.
However members bailing is possible, but it is balanced out with greater unity allowing for economy of scale in a lot of fields. So loosing a few members might very well be worth it for the EU, if it turns the EU into a proper country.
the European Commission would be reduced from its current size of 27 people down to 15, meaning that not every member state would have its own commissioner
I have to ask, what’s the specific intention of this portion?
Enlargement readiness. The portfolios of the commissioners are getting smaller and smaller with each new member, requiring more and more coordination to get anything done.
I don't know the intention, but I'd imagine those now in power will have more power and for longer.
We have a Commissioner for Promoting the European Way of Life. If I see it correctly something like four which are some version of commisioner for economics. Also three different ones for foreign affairs of some description. Also two for finance, but that nearly makes sense. I also somehow doubt we need a Comissioner for the Green Deal specifically.
Basicly bloat and it is better to have less, but with sensible job descriptions.
Why suddenly all this rush? It seems that they are hurrying to have everything approved before the parliament composition changes with next year's elections. Like eIDAS 2.0, ChatControl 2.0, CRA, etc.
afaik removing the veto was 1 of the things that needed to change before france/germany/etc would allow expansion?
Maybe, but honestly, the last few years were a shitshow to look with all the crossed vetoes in everey decision
If the are intentionally rushing that way, then they perhaps want to do it while they can predict the outcome.
Can someone please explain like I am 5 why we even had a veto system? I have read somewhere that it is mainly for in the beginning to protect the core values of the union.
These include the transfer of inclusive competency on the matters of environmental protection..., meaning that law pertaining to those matters would be entirely set at the European level.
This damages the environment than protect it. It's premature.
Although scientifically we probably know enough to find a solution, no country has a successful implementation of environmental protection. We haven't been shown how these politicians really achieve carbon neutrality. It's not too different from a made-up fantasy so far. Even EVs have flaws.
My impression is that they've possibly made it HARDER to find a practical solution.