• theinspectorst@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months 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@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 months 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@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months 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.