Germany’s Chancellor Scholz of the Social Democratic Party proposes an end to EU vetoes, starting in areas of foreign policy and taxation.
Germany’s Chancellor Scholz of the Social Democratic Party proposes an end to EU vetoes, starting in areas of foreign policy and taxation.
8 comments
Post title is a summary from a Twitter retweet, Times of Malta article title is ” Scholz backs end to EU veto, seeks ‘gradual transition to majority voting’
German leader wants majority voting on foreign policy and taxation”.
What does taxation mean here? AFAIK taxation is on country level
Can somebody explain why Germany wants an end to the EU nation’s veto power since the creation of the EU?
Makes sense. Eastern European countries whining about “Oh Germany secret Russian agent in EU” should be supporting this.
Weird article; I think it’s either misleading or incorrect. Scholz talked about expanding majority voting to replace unanimous decisions in the EU, but “starting in foreign policy and taxation” seems just wrong. Relevant quote in context:
>(…) And because I take these concerns very seriously, I say: Let’s look for compromises together. I could imagine, for example, starting with majority decisions in areas where it is particularly important that we speak with one voice. *In sanctions policy, for example, or in human rights issues.*
Translated with [www.DeepL.com/Translator](http://www.DeepL.com/Translator) (free version)
German original:
>Mein Werben für Mehrheitsentscheidungen ist gelegentlich kritisiert worden, und ich kann die Sorge gerade der kleineren Mitgliedsstaaten gut nachvollziehen. Auch in Zukunft muss jedes Land mit seinen Anliegen Gehör finden, alles andere wäre ein Verrat an der europäischen Idee. **Und weil ich diese Sorgen sehr ernst nehme, sage ich: Lassen sie uns gemeinsam nach Kompromissen suchen. Ich könnte mir zum Beispiel vorstellen, zunächst in den Bereichen mit Mehrheitsentscheidungen zu beginnen, in denen es ganz besonders darauf ankommt, dass wir mit einer Stimme sprechen. In der Sanktionspolitik zum Beispiel, oder in Fragen der Menschenrechte.**
Video (also in German): [https://youtu.be/EE-KpJdTfN8?t=205](https://youtu.be/EE-KpJdTfN8?t=205)
Edit: Sanctions could be taken to at least fall under foreign policy, but I do not understand where the sentiment about taxation is supposed to be coming from. He did talk about fiscal policy being a major european issue, but that is neither the same as taxation, nor do I think that was even in this same part of the text as the talk about unanimity.
I’d veto his proposal.
Might be useful in the short term but in the long run end of veto power would mean influence of corporate lobbies over EU policy would increase while influence of local politics would decrease (so bad news if your local population disagrees or stands in opposition to something large financial entities may be interested in).
You should kind of expect the largest countries to want an end to the veto. I don’t think this is a new stance.
There are alternatives to an out-and-out veto. But… anything that delays/obstructs the big powers is always going to get pushback from the big powers. Similar issue in the US with Senate representation being by state rather than by population. Large population states are often annoyed by that. But not having that means the small states get routinely run over.