The rise of a new superpower and the death of the member states.
Nothing wrong with that, but people should stop telling themselves that this wont be the case.
The end of the veto and a new army, means all laws will move over to the EU, as will foreign policy.
Ending the veto would be a big step for Europe as many new and positive reforms could be finally come into vote.
The problem is the following: countries like Hungary (which is currently led by Putin’s far right supporter and bootlicker Orban, the same guy that keeps robbing the EU of money) will try to sabotage this reform cause it scares them as they will no longer be able to get away with their filthy deeds.
They used to love the VETO when it was about money transfer to South/East Europe a year ago. Lets see if thats conveniently an excluded area
I am not in favour, while I understand that many would want that. The article doesn’t say anything about the kind of majority vote the reformists would like to implement instead of the unanimous agreement. Without that information, this article is of no use to me.
The hard it maybe, I’d rather have an unanimous agreement, even if that means to convince Poland or Hungary. Don’t forget. Today the meanies are Poland and Hungary. Tomorrow it could be your country.
Long overdue.
This is not okay. I understand some countries might misuse it but still it’s a very important element.
To give an example Croatia announced block on Serbia until it gives information on 1500 people still missing from the war and until it starts to trial potential 2500 war criminals in the country.
Serbia getting in without doing that would be a disgrace.
Same goes for Bosnia.
i dont this is a great idea as much as i dislike hungary.
the EU should never become able to strong arm nations.
There are pros and cons to this, but the erosion of sovereignty is too big a sticking point. It will never happen.
Hungary and Poland: *maniacal fascist laughing*
conflicted about the veto but just want a more powerful EU parliament and elected comission president (spitzenkandidat or directly),
There’s a whole world between 100 % of member states must agree and 50 % of member states must agree. Requiring, say, 80 % majority for decisions would mean that few contrarians couldn’t sink reforms, and that states would have to accept that EU is not just a a money source for them.
If this happens then Thank God we left holy shit, I don’t want to share the same foreign policies than the likes of some hesitant members
And the European Union wouldn’t be an union, it will be a federation at that point
14 comments
It’s about time, but it will never happen.
Hungary will always veto such a proposal.
This would be great!
Also a new EU army to go with it.
The rise of a new superpower and the death of the member states.
Nothing wrong with that, but people should stop telling themselves that this wont be the case.
The end of the veto and a new army, means all laws will move over to the EU, as will foreign policy.
Ending the veto would be a big step for Europe as many new and positive reforms could be finally come into vote.
The problem is the following: countries like Hungary (which is currently led by Putin’s far right supporter and bootlicker Orban, the same guy that keeps robbing the EU of money) will try to sabotage this reform cause it scares them as they will no longer be able to get away with their filthy deeds.
They used to love the VETO when it was about money transfer to South/East Europe a year ago. Lets see if thats conveniently an excluded area
I am not in favour, while I understand that many would want that. The article doesn’t say anything about the kind of majority vote the reformists would like to implement instead of the unanimous agreement. Without that information, this article is of no use to me.
The hard it maybe, I’d rather have an unanimous agreement, even if that means to convince Poland or Hungary. Don’t forget. Today the meanies are Poland and Hungary. Tomorrow it could be your country.
Long overdue.
This is not okay. I understand some countries might misuse it but still it’s a very important element.
To give an example Croatia announced block on Serbia until it gives information on 1500 people still missing from the war and until it starts to trial potential 2500 war criminals in the country.
Serbia getting in without doing that would be a disgrace.
Same goes for Bosnia.
i dont this is a great idea as much as i dislike hungary.
the EU should never become able to strong arm nations.
There are pros and cons to this, but the erosion of sovereignty is too big a sticking point. It will never happen.
Hungary and Poland: *maniacal fascist laughing*
conflicted about the veto but just want a more powerful EU parliament and elected comission president (spitzenkandidat or directly),
There’s a whole world between 100 % of member states must agree and 50 % of member states must agree. Requiring, say, 80 % majority for decisions would mean that few contrarians couldn’t sink reforms, and that states would have to accept that EU is not just a a money source for them.
If this happens then Thank God we left holy shit, I don’t want to share the same foreign policies than the likes of some hesitant members
And the European Union wouldn’t be an union, it will be a federation at that point