Von der Leyen sfrutta la sconfitta di Orbán per spingere per la fine del veto nella politica estera dell’UE
https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-uses-hungary-viktor-orban-defeat-to-push-for-end-of-veto-in-eu-foreign-policy/
di Forsaken-Medium-2436
47 commenti
right on
im not sure many will agree with her on this
Not just foreign policy, the veto only creates troubles when there 27 different nations.
Qualified majority instead of VETO please! It’s the only way the EU and its member states can survive the upcoming turmoil!
>“Moving to qualified majority voting in foreign policy is an important way to avoid systemic blockages, as we have seen in the past,” she said. She urged governments, which would have to agree to any change, to “use the momentum now.”
Yes, we need this, now.
Before another Kremlin puppet can win control of another state and block it again.
They need 2 states to block a qualified majority change. Currently there is only FICO who could try to stop it.
THIS is THE moment to push the change through, so we are not held hostage by a Orban Hungary situation again
Veto is the main bureaucratic struggle of eu.
I was waiting for this exact news. The time is now.
yeah this is the friction, veto was meant to protect states, but sometimes it just blocks the whole table. with 27 countries that brake more and more feels like damage instead of protection
PLEASE
Is this the qualified majority – 4 nays equal veto version?
Do it already please!
Majority now ! I have enough of Putin’s puppet blocking everything.
No; EU is a collection of sovereign states, majority cannot rule over any of them. We need consensus.
I’m more worried that it seems to be economic issues that made orban loose.
Which means that they weren’t very worried about corruption, dysfunctional democracy and the media landscape.
We need to reform EU to be able to kick out countries.
The only reason we are talking about Hungary’s election now is because they managed to hijack EUs foreign policy.
I couldn’t really care less about a small insignificant country and what their citizens vote for. I just don’t want them to impact our security.
Being from a small insignificant country, If we would behave in the same manner, I want EU to kick us out and I’ll vote by emigrating long before that.
We absolutely need to get rid of the veto policy, a 2/3rd majority should be fine to decide on things. It’s the same principle for almost every democracy anyway.
Veto has no place in anything. It’s just a tool to be abused by whoever doesn’t like a certain policy, but wants the benefits of being in that group. There is no justifiable situation where a veto would work, outside of extreme cases that would not happen in any case. Qualified majority is the way to go. If the theoretical of a country being bullied by a majority via vote ever happens, that country has the option to exit instead of holding the entire group hostage.
A democracy shouldn’t have a veto.
EU can function again without that stupid Veto rule.
Removing the Veto equals hollowing out member states individual power. I’m not a fan of this because this greatly favors the bigger nations and denies smaller nations of resistance. Cf. the Belgium Euroclear dossier.
We’re strong as a union but removing veto would bash against the reason why we’re a union. Through debate and discussion and extensive talks in the council we can achieve consensus on international matters. This removal would throw members under the bus and push something forward against a country’s will and create gaps. Trust gaps we can’t really afford in these times of uncertainty where we need cooperation and EU integration.
Qualified majority, in general, can be anything above simple majority but as currently practiced by the EU Council to adopt EU legislation, it means a “double-majority rule” of:
1. at least 55% of member states vote in favour = 15 of 27
*and*
2. those member states represent at least 65% of the total EU population
There are also cases where a “reinforced qualified majority” is required, which means:
1. at least 72% of member states vote in favour = 20 of 27
but retains 2. those member states represent at least 65% of the EU population
Also, under EU qualified majority rules, an abstention is considered an “against” vote.
[https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/how-does-the-council-vote/qualified-majority/](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/how-does-the-council-vote/qualified-majority/)
This would be such an important thing to get done! – I absolutely love that.
The veto made sense at some point there were fewer countries and less complex make-up too.
Russia will always try to find a weak point to disrupt EU but without a VETO they will have to work a hell of a lot harder to do it.
They won’t get this. Not a chance Ireland, france etc will want it
What would that mean for things like chat control?
The EU has grown too big for any veto.
So unconditional support to Israel becomes the baseline?
How to make a railroad.,…
Veto won’t go away because smaller countries in the EU do not want to be at mercy from the bigger countries in the EU.
Veto would kill just as it killed commonwealth (PLC) in 18th century.
I 1000% agree on removal of the unilateral veto.
But just to play devils advocate – how will this avoid countries being able to say that the EU is controlling the without consent?
If every country besides Germany agrees to something, do we really think the everyday Germans will be okay because they know this imposition is better than allowing 1 country to hold up the entire legislative process? Just an example – I think you could replace almost any country with Germany.
This is ridiculous. Initially it was about Orban being the problem. Now that Orban is gone, it’s the right of EU member states to veto, enshrined in the EU rules. Orban was removed democratically, removing individuals veto powers of member states is the opposite. The whole idea was that agreement and participation shouldn’t be forced. Is that not the democratic norm that the EU wants to defend abroad?
When Bulgaria and Romania were not allowed in Schengen because one vote against there was not such a big tragedy compared to now, when funds can’t be given to Ukraine. That’s why I would like to keep the veto system.
No union can survive if a foreign power just needs to bribe one member.
So now that Spain started to Veto the idea of any attack on Iran suddendly the Veto is not a good thing no more.
Amazing
This would be great, althoguh probably with stricter conditions, at least maybe require the approval of 2/3 or 3/4 of all countries and of the total population, so that none of the regions (Northern, Western, Southern and Eastern Europe) can be left out.
However, I fear this will not be easy to push through, too many countries (such as French) have interest in maintaining the veto for selfish reasons.
[Liberum veto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto) killed PLC and it will kill EU. It’s easy to bribe and influence just one guy and stop any reform.
It’s never the perfect time, but I’m still glad bratanki did the impossible, proud of you guys.
Slovakia still might be a problem and if you don’t do it soon Poland as well when the nutjobs get back into the government.
about time
Yes fucking PLEASE
Small countries will never agree to this even if they are currently pro eu.
So say we all.
Beautiful move!
4/5 would seem sensible to me. Enough that it’s not going to split the EU, but not so that a few rogue states can throw a tantrum whenever they want.
spain needs to be silenced apparently
Hurry up!
Please change to majority
Good
Veto should not be cancelled its very dangerous for the small nations and the e.u. cannot be trusted as they have fallen to the influence of cartels
When a politician says, “The problem is we need MORE powers.” One hesitates and considers, “Where have I heard that before?”