Do you think that EU will get rid of the unanimity-based decision-making process(Veto)?
Posted by Lakuriqidites@reddit | AskBalkans | View on Reddit | 166 comments
This is from EU Commissioner Kos:
The EU can easily accommodate the accession of Montenegro and Albania. However, further enlargements will require reforms within the EU itself, particularly regarding the current unanimity-based decision-making process. A review to potentially move away from unanimous voting on enlargement issues is already underway and is expected to conclude in the autumn,” she explained.
So it seems that they have already decided to accept Albania and Montenegro and further expansion will happen after the "veto" is lifted.
Stealthfighter21@reddit
Why is thing being brought up every other business day. BULGARIA LIFTED ITS VETO IN 2022. The French compromise is the framework of the EU conditions for North Macedonia. North Macedonia suddenly doesn't like it and hasn't done anything to abide by it. Somehow this is again Bulgaria's fault.
Lakuriqidites@reddit (OP)
What exactly has this post to do with Bg or NMK, I haven’t even mentioned them
Puzzleheaded_Sir903@reddit
Catch 22.
You need all members to agree to the change without vetoing it. 😆😆😆
Besrax@reddit
The problem with this is that the big countries in the bloc will be overruling the smaller ones on everything. Couple this with the EU's move towards federalization, and the small countries in the union would have to abide by other countries' decisions on a wide array of topics.
RegionSignificant977@reddit
What do you mean bigger countries? That's not EU parliament where votes are proportional. Every country has equal vote here.
Apatride@reddit
The big country will use the EU parliament as a way to pressure smaller countries to vote the way Brussels want. You do not want us to bring Ukraine into the EU or you do not want a total embargo on Russian gas because it would destroy your economy? Well you are going to do what you are told anyway, otherwise we will use the Parliament to make your life a living hell.
RegionSignificant977@reddit
Well, veto power has nothing to do with EU parliament. There are 720 people there that aren't voting because someone says them to. AfD doesn't vote as the Greens from Germany for example. In the EU commission half a million Malta has the same voice with 85mln Germany. So what's with "big EU countries"? Germany is the most affected by the russian gas ban, by the way. We have 3bln cubic meter consumption a year which is easy to replace.
Apatride@reddit
Germany and France represent a huge chunk of the EU parliament so they can easily punish any country that does not vote the right way in other EU institutions by simply pushing for changes (budget is a big one) that will negatively affect any country that does not obey.
And yes, Germany was the biggest importer of Russian gas but Germany has a strong economy that can easily handle that issue. Same thing for the infrastructure (roads...). If, for the next budget, the EU parliament decides that funds previously allocated to infrastructure will now be used to promote inclusiveness in the work place, German infrastructure can take it, the Bulgarian one won't.
There is clearly a need for Bulgaria to find its new "master" which baffles me considering how proud Bulgarian people are otherwise.
RegionSignificant977@reddit
Nor all MPs from Germany vote the same, nor the ones from France. There are left and right political parties rarely vote the same on some matters especially. How do you think AfD would vote for promoting? inclusiveness. Or Le pen MPs? You are obviously talking nonsense here. German economy was hit hardest by the gas crisis. It isn't handling the issue that well. Bulgaria should be able to build it's infrastructure without external help. The reason why we can't has nothing to do with the EU but with the corruption. We lose billions because of that. I don't think of the largest EU countries as "masters". It's you that thinks like that. But if one country out of 30 is against something there is clearly who's wrong. Usually it's Orban and if Orban was that good Hungary would be much better. Hungary was that far ahead from Bulgaria and Romania as is Austria today, and now is not. At all. Strangely enough Orban rules Hungary almost all of that time. Was he really that good? While his friends are stealing the money of the people of Hungary and not only, while Orban is diverting attention of the public with gay people. How convenient!
Apatride@reddit
One reason why Bulgaria is not as dependent to Russian gas is that Bulgaria has a nuclear power plant and, if I am not mistaken has ordered 2 more. The EU plan for "green" energy which excluded nuclear from the list will change this.
As for how parties vote, there are, sometimes, people voting against the will of the head of State. There is actually an interview from a French politician, who is a EU MP, explaining how she committed treason when she told the French government that France was about to be "isolated" on the topic of considering nuclear power as a "green" energy. But there is no true anti EU party in France left and, unless I am mistaken, there are talks about banning the AFD in Germany. That is without starting on what happened to the non-EU aligned candidate in Romania.
And I am aware corruption is an issue in Bulgaria, it is, unfortunately, a by-product of the Commie days since any system with massive bureaucracy needs corruption to actually function (and EU is a massive bureaucracy). But, and I am repeating myself here, the Ottomans did not make things better, the nazis did not make things better, the USSR (I know BG was not part of it but very much simping) did not make things better and the EU is not going to make things better. Only BG people can make things better and they are doing a decent job since income tax is about 10% and people keep the government out of their daily lives most of the time. Since the ultimate goal of the EU is to have a homogeneous situation through all of Europe (at least the parts it controls), the future for BG is 40% income taxes or so and about 50% inheritance taxes (inherited properties from 1991 is one of the few things that allow the BG middle class to exist).
I am going to ask you the same question I asked others: What is the benefit of a stronger EU? Surely it is not about preventing corruption, BG has been in the EU for 18 years and so far, all that happened is that EU corruption (PfizerGate) was added to BG corruption.
RegionSignificant977@reddit
Don't make me search for how french MPs are voting on the matter of nuclear energy. France has 81 MPs you are talking about one! What about other 80 people. You will find one moron or even more in every group of 80 people. What had the other said?
No one is stopping nuclear power in Europe. Stop manipulating people. France has a reactor under construction and plans to build six more. Finland has plans to build more, Poland has plans to build more. Sweden has plans to build more, Czechia, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and of course, Bulgaria.
Bulgaria has never had cheap natural gas, and has never relied on gas for electricity generation because of that. Even back in the communist days. And that's directly related to the corruption. Bulgaria was paying more than Poland to Gazprom. Every single country that has more than one gas supplier was paying less than Bulgaria. We had one until yesterday! Despite that TAP/TANAP is less than 50km from the Bulgarian border. We had contract for 30% of our needs with cheaper supplier and the morons that are on gazprom payroll were postponing the pipeline that was needed for us to receive that for years. Should we blame EU for that? We probably payed more for gas than the whole of the EU to Pfizer in those decades of overpaying for gas. A rumor is circulating that the cashback from Balkan Stream pipeline was 800mln, only for the pipeline itself. And every single year in those more than 3 DECADES we are overpaying not only by 5, 10% for that gas. We now have interconnectors because of the EU that allow Bulgaria to diversify. But EU has to make us to build them. And EU payed those.
I'm old enough to remember what was Bulgaria in the nineties. If it wasn't EU Bulgaria might be like Bosnia or even Moldova.
ImaginaryZucchini272@reddit
if bulgaria does not want this why did she entered EU?
Stealthfighter21@reddit
You think Bulgaria or anyone else entered the EU because it wanted to get overruled by the big countries? Your question makes nonsense.
ImaginaryZucchini272@reddit
they entered EU because they had economic advantages in doing this! look at what Poland and CZ look like now!!
Besrax@reddit
When we entered, these things weren't even a topic for discussion.
Valuable-Layer-7798@reddit
It wasn't because nobody in EU assumed that the system would be abused like the current burgarian politics abuses it.
LargeFriend5861@reddit
How do we abuse it?
Valuable-Layer-7798@reddit
In order to avoid offending the Bulgarian people, I explicitly wrote Bulgarian politics. If you identify your self with Bulgarian politics or you are part of it .... then your lack of common sense is quite disturbing.
Besrax@reddit
I'm sure this is the reason.
Valuable-Layer-7798@reddit
Just imagine how retarded a group of people should be to use such lunatic set of arguments.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
Bulgaria shadow Gov is real!
ImaginaryZucchini272@reddit
yes correct. But EU cannot be stopped for a decision taken by a single country.
Besrax@reddit
It's not that simple, this is really context-dependent.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
If the Middle East didn't want to be ruined by prepetual war why does it get bombed by the US?
ImaginaryZucchini272@reddit
bulgaria accpepted EU. It was not imposed
LibertyChecked28@reddit
That's like arguing that having a smartphone, internet, and bank portfolio in this day and age are "fully optional" instead of them being softcore necessities that outright remove you from the system if you don't have them.
There waren't any other options for it to be a "choice" in first place. Bulgaria had "accepted" the EU for the exact same reason we had "accepted" the Axis & the Warsaw pact back in the days: We see in what direction the temporary wind blows, and we follow it because we ain't stupid- We tolerated Anti-Semitism under the Germans, we tolerated the Iron curtain under the Soviets, and we WILL tolerate Pseudo-Feudalism under the EU.
LargeFriend5861@reddit
And you think those are comparable in any way? Bulgaria finally gets a choice to integrate into the wider European community, and you just think to stop it for some dumb nationalism? Cmon, man.
Kobajadojaja@reddit
No one country will be able to block new legislation with this system.
Besrax@reddit
What if that one country has genuine arguments against it? What if that legislation is at the expense of said country, while others would benefit from it?
Kobajadojaja@reddit
Then that country should get some other countries on board to block it. Qualitative majoriy is going to replace the new system, not simple majority.
nickkkmn@reddit
The issue is that this basically removes the sovereignty of that small country in the decision making process.
IllyrianBTR@reddit
What sovereignty?! When you, as a country, decided to be part of the European Union, there is no more sovereignty. You have EU law thar supersedes local law. You have EU courts that supersedes local courts decisions. You think you still have sovereignty, but in fact you don't. Although not quite a Federal System, it is quite similar. You still have the illusion of sovereignty though, which is quite nice.
nickkkmn@reddit
When we, as a country, decided to become a part of the European union, we knew that the veto existed. We knew that any decision that was not in our interest could be stopped. The EU is far from a federal system as it is now. And in all honesty, I'd very much prefer being outside of the EU than to be reduced to a province of a federal state.
IllyrianBTR@reddit
When you decided to be part of the EU is the moment you threw away your sovereignty. Many laws have changed since you joined, thats not an argument. This initiative might also change with your vote. Don't worry, Brussel will find a way ;)
Kobajadojaja@reddit
No, it does not. It just means that one country out of 30 can not sabotage the rest.
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
I totally agree.
Besrax@reddit
It's not that simple when it's a divisive issue and/or is in the interest of the big countries in the union.
requiem_mn@reddit
Sorry, but you make no sense. Big countries are still one vote. Everyone has one vote. I don't see how that is to their advantage. Anyway, you replace simple veto power, with, lets say three countries veto. Still very strong veto, but it would not allow the Netherlands to fuck everyone else. Or allow others to hide behind the Netherlands. And it would also make occasional Orban irrelevant.
ivanp359@reddit
You’re right about several things, such as that it would make an occasional 1 state sabotage the entire thing, or the hiding you mentioned- those are good things. Everyone gets 1 vote too, that’s correct.
The issue is that the country’s vote “weight” is tied to population numbers. This would mean that if you have less than roughly 3.7% of whole EU population your vote matters less, and if you have more it matters more.
And pretty much everyone can imagine a scenario where a smaller population country will get shafted with such a vote system
requiem_mn@reddit
Sorry, what body in EU has that weight tied to population numbers? European Commission ha exactly 27 members, one from each country. There is no weight in their vote. European Council has 27 voting members, one from each country. Where does the size of the country come in question? If you need three instead of one, it could be three smallest countries.
And if you are going to say European Parliament, that is not how Orban vetos shit.
ivanp359@reddit
Qualified Majority Voting system - Google it.
If voting is changed in any form they’ll use that system(in the Council). It already is used for certain stuff that don’t get vetoed. Those include single market, environment, and consumer protection.
It’s a good (or at least better than the veto one) system in general, but it shouldn’t be used for everything. And especially not for enlargement of the union.
requiem_mn@reddit
To quote myself, where this conversation started:
Qualified Majority Voting system is not what I was suggesting. And in general, should not be used.
ivanp359@reddit
I mean sure, but that’s still hypothetical, and it’s keeping same system with a small twist. Also are we still talking about enlargement, or are we talking about other things voted?
Either way if they do decide to change something with the voting- it would 100% use QMV
requiem_mn@reddit
So, I established how one country veto should be changed to 3 country veto
You said that the problem is weight of the vote of each country, being dependent on population of said country.
I said NO, that is not true.
You said, but here is QMV.
I said, I am not talking about QMV, I said three countries veto.
And now you claim they would 100% use QMV.
Do you see how you went of rails? I made a suggestion how they could reform current veto system, and you are completely ignoring what I said. Common, its not that long of a thread, keep up.
And to sum it up, my three vote suggestion is not dependent on "weight" of the vote. Your claim that they will use QMV is not backed up by anything. They already have Reinforced qualified majority, which is just as likely to be used as QMV, instead of Veto.
ivanp359@reddit
I wrote this in my other reply to the other guy (check history if necessary).
If they want to address the “Orban” type of issues, they would logically use a system that addresses it. Switching from essentially 2 to 3 won’t make a big difference
requiem_mn@reddit
No. It's a switch from 1 to 3. You are arguing that it would be bad for little countries if there is no veto. If three countries in the EU are against something, that is soooo much different than one country. And it would still allow small countries to block big ones if needed.
ivanp359@reddit
Realistically its always been 2 and not 1 for the stalemate . If it’s all just 1 they can get voting rights and finance suspended (nuclear option).
First it was Hungary and Poland backing them up by vetoing the second vote. Then Poland changed government and Fico came in power in Slovakia.
DisrespectfulOtter@reddit
You keep dodging my questions so I'm asking yet again.
Where do you get this information that there's 100%/absolute certainty that they'll use QMV
ivanp359@reddit
Cause it’s only logical that they would use a tested system that addresses the issue of one (or ideally 2) country blocking all and any legislation changes. Just upping the number to 3 won’t really change a thing.
Essentially (and if) they would go with any change at all (cause someone or many countries will veto it), they will go with something that was tried out, rather than some dude’s reddit comment
But fuck do i know 🤷🏻♂️ - might be Ursula’s throwaway account just trolling
DisrespectfulOtter@reddit
I would like a source for this statement. Where does it say that the current 1-veto system will be changed to that one?
ivanp359@reddit
Ask OP, they claim that. My comment is an “If” statement
DisrespectfulOtter@reddit
No. They did not claim that. YOU did.
requiem suggested replacing 1 veto for 3 veto
and then you came and said
We're talking about the veto here. It is literally not tied to population numbers, unless I've been magically transported in an alternative reality.
Currently 1 veto from any country regardless of how big or small can halt the whole fucking thing.
So I'm asking for the thing that you brought up: where does this idea come that the current veto-system will be replaced to the one that's weighted by population numbers?
ivanp359@reddit
By OP i mean the albanian dude that made the post, not the MN guy
DisrespectfulOtter@reddit
the other OP didn't say anything about qualified majority either.
Actually please go ahead and copy-paste exactly where OP is talking about replacing the current veto-system with qualified majority, maybe I missed that bit of information.
ivanp359@reddit
Im not quoting anyone in order to copy-paste them. You guys just want to fight windmills based on a comment with no real life logic. Reddit in a nutshell
Necessary_Doubt_9058@reddit
This is well regulated by the two conditions for the qualified majority in the Council. The vote has to represent both 65% of the total EU population and 55% of the member states. So what you describe can't happen.
Besrax@reddit
That doesn't change much of what I said. Big countries have much more diplomatic leverage than the smaller ones and can convince other countries to vote a certain way. What if Germany and France want to do something, while Bulgaria and Romania don't? Who do you think will win the majority vote?
arapske-pare@reddit
Do not worry, there will be no federalisation
Legal_Mastodon_5683@reddit
The EU doesn't work that way. It's all about little horse-trading schemes where the problem gets broken up into 100 little details and you can always reach a compromise with smaller countries on punctual issues they are most concerned about. Basically everyone needs to pick a battle and what they would gain from it and then if done correctly, everyone gets something, nobody gets everything. The exact definition of compromise. Of course, Hungary is an exception.
Necessary_Doubt_9058@reddit
Well this is how decisions are normally formed anywhere, as long as there is no threatening or blackmailing, diplomacy is a legitimate way to influence other countries, since the starting point is the fact that all member countries are independent and capable of making sovereign decisions. If Bulgaria and Romania made a proposal that other countries are not convinced about, then it's just that – other countries are not convinced about it, no point in pushing it down their throats.
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
For Bulgaria''is interest, being overruled from Brussels is way better than being forever miss lead from Sofia. The most coirrupt and poor small things want a total independence.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
Yesterday it was Mosscow, today it's Bruzzels, tomorow Ankara- everyone knows "what's best for us" but ourselves.
LargeFriend5861@reddit
We are a small country, what do you expect? Let's atleast allign with the rich countries that actually let us vote on matters in a democratic sense.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
LargeFriend5861@reddit
?
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
As i said, those who dissaprove may leave.
LibertyChecked28@reddit
And how exactly are we expected to "leave" when [Her Holiness] can at any point in time intervene in our autonomy and go as far as to brick our entire Gov aparatus as to ensure that we remain on the "Objectively Correct" path with "The Forces of Good"?
Serbia for example dosen't want to have anything to do with the EU even if it means eating dirt under a rock, and yet the EU itself physically can't endure more than 5 seconds without menddling with their affairs.
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
This is how i see things on generally: in order to be relevant on a global stage, EU needs to federalize. Simple. There will be no bulgariansm, ,hungarians, slovens: only europeans. Do you think Russia would even considere to invade Ukraine if and EU with an EU Army by 500 million peoples said no?
LargeFriend5861@reddit
Why can't we have Bulgarians (Not Bulgars), Hungarians, and Slovenes in a united Europe? I feel like we'll always be those identities, but why can't we start also being Europeans for once?
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
Imagine German or Italian or even Romanian spaces before national identity movements: a total mess. Bavarians, saxons, italian city states, romanian principalities etc. Very often fighting eachother. The national identity didnt erased original ethinicity. There are still bavarians. For intance im a moldavian ethic romanian. And now i like to think european. It is only a matter of time until european identity will gain weight.
LargeFriend5861@reddit
I think the European identity should still be secondary, but you're mostly right in a way.
Besrax@reddit
Really depends on the specifics. Some things are better dealt with locally.
LargeFriend5861@reddit
And if the big countries try too much, the small ones can also overrule them in the end. It's a matter of balance. A federal EU is for the best in the end, so we might aswell accept the bad with the good.
RevolutionMuch1159@reddit
I disagree. Now we have a single country Hungary that opposing that EU almost all the time for almost everything .. The idea is if the majority of the countries to have the right to say instead of one country to block to the entire foreign policy of the EU.
chunek@reddit
The veto needs to go, but it is very hard to get rid off. More likely that we will see a multi-tier EU in the future, where countries can choose the level of integration, so that shitheads like Orbán can't block progress anymore.
Vesko85@reddit
This will mean the end of the European Union.
chunek@reddit
The end of its current shape, maybe.
Veto is not a good mechanism tho. Look at the United Nations, it has veto since the early days, and it is very crippled by it, barely anything gets passed. And it was Stalin, who insisted that the UN would have veto rights.
The EU needs to evolve, it needs a mechanism that allows members to work closely and coordinated, without individual members blocking their actions. But because not all countries want the same things from the union, one option is to have different levels of integration. Free of choosing, a la carte.
We already have a multi-layered system, for example not all EU members have the euro, and not everyone is part of Schengen, etc. And not all Schengen members are part of the EU, for example Norway, Switzerland..
Firm_Ad_5189@reddit
What about instead of getting rid of the veto altogether, the EU should adopt a 3 countries veto for example? Like instead of just 1 country blocking a decisions there would 3. This way it's much harder to abuse the veto system, keeping also decision power for smaller countries as well
Vesko85@reddit
And bargaining will begin between the countries to support each other. Blocks will emerge within the Union itself. The European Union was created solely and exclusively for economic purposes. Everything else is doomed to fail, and the more countries there are in it, the harder everything will happen — with or without veto.
Dim_off@reddit
That's a good idea. It will protect the interests of all regions
arapske-pare@reddit
It won't, it will just guarantee that imperial core of EU (Brussels, Berlin, Paris) have even more power over others.
arapske-pare@reddit
I have even better idea.
We dissolve European Commission completely, and put 20 year moratorium on re-employment in any kind of state institution for it's bureaucrats.
Next, we do the same for EU parliament, then refound it under completely new agreement, constitution etc.
One with a clear demarcation of responsibilities.
Outrageous_Trade_303@reddit
It's not possible, while the MEPs are assigned based on each country's population. It needs to be one country one vote in order to get rid of veto, otherwise it isn't fair for small countries
IllyrianBTR@reddit
What is not fair for small countries? Should Germany with 83 million be subjected to the will of Luxembourg with 666 thousands? Of course bigger countries should have a bigger say. That's how democracy works.
Outrageous_Trade_303@reddit
That's a faulty democracy and EU knows that already.
In any case the way you are describing will drive everyone out of EU except of the largest country. :p
IllyrianBTR@reddit
That's not a "faulty democracy", that it indeed democracy. EU knows this, that is why it has this system in place and that's why the decisions are made by Germany and France, whether you, me or anybody else likes it or not. The most powerful dictates. The small countries have no choice, their economies would not survive in direct competition by the big corporations and massive subsidies. That is why the EU subsidies small countries and they go kick ass with a smile.
Outrageous_Trade_303@reddit
That's BS and in any case pointless to discuss.
IllyrianBTR@reddit
Sure, bullshit.
First-Egg-713@reddit
As a smaller country this just handicaps your pull to affect any decision making in the EU though, no? Why would anyone vote for that?
You would essentially then just be subject to the interests of the larger countries and what they dexide in belgium. Fuck that shit… you would lose sovereignty over your own country
IllyrianBTR@reddit
But... but... that's how democracy works no... we should follow the opinion of the majority of the population not of the minority
LargeFriend5861@reddit
Why not have a federal EU, tho? Sounds good enough.
arapske-pare@reddit
I can't wait to be even smaller cog in even bigger faceless machine.
No thank you, we already had an attempt at creating a family of European cultures and nations dedicated to ideas of freedom, where wars will be gone, and general welfare will ensue.
Yes I am quoting Nazi propaganda.
Para-Limni@reddit
Decision making in the EU is a lot more complex that you make it up to be.
Terrible_Duty_7643@reddit
One vote per country still stays as one vote, regardless of the size of the country.
The only think that changes is that instead of every single country needing to agree, you can have a qualified majority of lets say 70/80/90%.
So your comment just falls flat and is without any merit.
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
Yes i do, the future is a federal EU, with a single voice on all matters. With an EU Army with a single command center. Those who dissaprove may leave.
Distinct_Read1698@reddit
The question of federation is not the same as ditching the unanimity rule for acceding countries.
arapske-pare@reddit
The question of Federation should be as unacceptable as the question of removing veto
AsterKando@reddit
How is that not just going to bring back ethno-nationalism to Europe overnight?
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
EU doesnt have other alternative. Be as one or not be at all. How? By being smart i suppose. Im not saying it won't happen, im saying europeans knows better than anyone what nationalism is, what may lead to and how to counter it. Im from Romania. From last canceled presidential elections until now (basically few months) laws which condemn fascism has being passed by parliament. If you are using a "legionar" rhetoric you are condemned.
arapske-pare@reddit
This is just idealist drivel
PlamenIB@reddit
I see a certain neighbor of ours thinks that everything is about them but it is about Ukraine.
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
Those who cry about sovereignty remember this: absolutely not a single policy which apply to you it is not applied adliteram to the others as well. What is good in terms of corruption or monetary policy or security for France should be good enough for Portugal (blyat) or Bulgaria. Fair enough?
Apatride@reddit
Thinking that the EU prevents corruption is just ridiculous. It might be a more refined/western corruption but the PfizerGate and many affairs in France show that the EU is not efficient to prevent corruption. If a bigger, highly bureaucratic structure was a good way to prevent corruption, it wouldn't have been so common in USSR. Actually, corruption is necessary in such systems since it is the only way to get anything done.
And then there are topics that benefit some members or simply harm others. As an example, nuclear energy was not added to the list of "green" energies and it damaged France a lot while giving an edge to Germany (which many consider to be the actual goal). What is god for a Dutch fisherman might not be in the best interest of a Greek farmer.
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
I am very confident that an unnified EU agency can fight more efficient. Also an EU can correct itself and perfect its measures in a better way that a small nation can do. Why? Because have authority. When EPPO (European Public Prosecutor’s Office) invrestigate something, greek senators are resigning in mass. Just a simple example. About farmer and fisherman, these are only irrelevant details. Everything can be adjusted until it works resonable well for everyone.
arapske-pare@reddit
EPPO is able to effectively prosecute comparatively small-time Eastern European corruption because they do not have access to same networks nor enough money to bribe the right people in the West.
However, to look at massive, faceless bureaucratic machine of EU as something "incorruptible", "easy to correct itself", or even positive is insane to me.
Apatride@reddit
How is local industry (farmers, fishermen...) irrelevant? What could be more important than our ability to feed ourselves? Pro-EU people in general, and especially in the Balkans, have that inferiority complex, thinking that giving control to someone else (and foreign, so not someone who really cares about Romania or Bulgaria) will solve their issues.
And EU fight more efficiently for/against what exactly? Outside of fighting against the right of self-determination for smaller countries or countries who decided to get out, of course.
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
Think in big terms. Do you think a person like Elon Musk, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs can achieve the same in any EU country if they were born here? Obviously not. And why is that? Because of the size of the market, chopped on small feuds like across the continent. The goal for EU is to compete with big boys (US and China) remember? To do that first it needs to become a omogenous entithy (not on DNA terms, but to surpass the nationalistic familiar gestures). If you get stucked on stupid slogans like "ours verus yours/ our farmer versus their fisherman/ sovernity/ national identity/ local industry etc" you will not get too far. EU needs vision.
Apatride@reddit
Well, if you want people who hoard 100 of billions of dollars while 10% of the population in their country has to rely on food stamps, I agree the EU is a great way to achieve that.
We are already heading towards that in France where 1 farmer commits suicide ever other day while large corporations like Monsanto are taking over. Now GMOs have their use,, they are better than starvation, but they are not a good alternative to healthy, locally produced goods. And this is going to get much worse if/when Ukraine joins since Blackrock already owns half of the country and will flood the EU market with low quality and less healthy products with very low salaries for the workers, pushing many existing farmers towards bankruptcy.
Now if you want the smartest people in Europe to make it big, the last thing you need is EU bureaucracy. If Jobs or Gates had to deal with the kind of regulations with have in the EU, they would never had had any chance of success, just not enough room in their garage for a full team of lawyers.
And no, the goal of the EU is not to compete with US or China, otherwise it would produce locally instead of outsourcing the industry to China because "if it is made in China (by kids) and imported via oil guzzling tankers, it does not count towards EU carbon footprint". The goal of the EU is to push towards a federal model where people in Brussels, who were not elected by Romanian citizens, can impose things to Bucharest.
Now the EU has one big benefit: You can move freely within the EU (although Germany is already closing its borders...). So when I decided I did not want to live in Western Europe anymore, I moved to Bulgaria since it aligns better with my values. If you think things are so much better in Western Europe, just go there.
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
Obviously i do not have a general picture of what are you saying about France's farmers, orr where from or why did you moved. You keep bringing particular examples on a debate im trying to keep it as general as possible. Because we (EU) are at the beginning of a road. It may look overwhelming but it can be fixed to accomodate all particular needs of its citizens. I also do not know what your values are. You're sounding like a hardcore socialist to me. I only know that EU doesnt have too much time for debate and must act quickly. I expect to see EU agencies overruling local national agencies on absolutely all areas, to find a form of confederation (there are plenty of examples, pick one) and finally i expect to see a strong EU performing on a increasingly polarised global scene.
Apatride@reddit
I believe I understand what you want. What I do not understand is why you would want it.
Socialism is about giving away your individuality, you become a cog in the machine with no say on politics (in its purest sense: "The life of the City"), you have little to no way to improve your condition significantly and, in exchange, and in theory, people receive what they need (nobody starves, nobody is homeless). I am all up for the second part but the first part is a deal breaker.
What you are pushing for contains the first part (you did not get to elect Von Der Leyen and you do not even have the option to vote for someone who would not support her or at least the EU but she gets to make decisions that impact you and your neighbours and you seem to be happy about that) but I do not understand what you expect to get out of that. So far there is absolutely no evidence that the EU prevents poverty, homelessness, or insecurity, it is actually the exact opposite.
And I agree, it seems a big part of the issue is that I focus on what the impact will be on the life of actual people, my neighbour, the farmer who produces my food... And it seems to me that you are focusing on a federal system for the sake of it.
So please, explain to me how the life of people in the EU, keeping in mind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since it has defined the right and needs of people for more than 2 centuries, would benefit from what you are pushing for.
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
I propose you to start from general to particular. Personal i do not have a problem with Von Der Leyen, but thats me. I may be wrong. If we (ordinary citizens) have to directly vote for an EU President or not, i dont know. Plenty of smart people out there who can inlight us.. There are many forms of government. Some parlamentar types in which the elected govern delect the president (Germany's case) versus presidential (France) or semi-presidential (Ro's case) where the president is dirrectly ellected by subjects. What will happen to EU monarchies? All these things are very debatable but must be done.
Apatride@reddit
You are not answering the only question that matters to me (and honestly the only question that truly matters in general): "How will this system make the lives of real people (not some imaginary future Elon Musk) better?".
Again, it seems to me that you are pushing for a system (one you are apparently not clear on and rely on "smart" people to clearly define) without being able to explain what the benefits would be.
I think we can agree that, ultimately, any change to the current system should be motivated by an actual improvement for the people or at least the strong possibility of it. So what is in it for me or, at the very least, for you?
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
This new system is not designed to make the lives of real people better in any way, despite it definetely not exclude it as a probability. It is designed to make sure EU will survive and be relevant.
Apatride@reddit
Ok, when you say EU, are you talking about the institution that has Von Der Leyen as a president or are you talking about the sum of countries on the European continent?
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
"sum of countries on the European continent" definetely. I do not use to follow EU pollicy at high level. Why who why. Von Der Leyen is visible. I dont have this high dissaprove rate as your. And i dont care about her in particular.
Apatride@reddit
Ok. What makes you think that Europe (as in the sum of countries on the European continent) is at risk? Is it just because of the conflict in Ukraine? And to emphasize that, are you advertising a new system, one you do not fully understand, and with no particular benefit to people but that will remove any say you might have on how your country is ruled, because you think it is the only way to prevent Russia (150 million people) from occupying the entirety of Europe?
Even assuming Russia wants to take over Europe (there is no evidence it wants to take Kyiv if you look at the facts, much less Europe), how can an army, who is, allegedly, scraping washing machines for spare parts for their tanks, invade the entirety of Europe?
More importantly, if they are that evil, WW1 showed us that large alliances do not prevent conflicts, they just make conflicts bigger. So isn't a nuclear holocaust the most likely scenario? Of course, some would object it is better to have your entire family destroyed by a nuke than losing your freedom but, as we established already, the loss of freedom isn't your main concern.
Sakky93@reddit
The EPPO absolutely fights against corruption in my country. I trust them 10 times more then our local justice system.
Apatride@reddit
They fight the corruption of people they do not control. Considering that Von Der Leyen still refuses to let the EU investigate her SMS with Pfizer, the argument of justice and corruption is rather weak.
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
I saw some news about EPPO started investigating in Ro as well. And im happy about that. From which country are you?
Sakky93@reddit
Croatia, we have the most shady public prosecutor you can imagine, and all he does is complain about the EPPO and threaten the opposition.
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
Imagine EPPO was founded in 2021 only.
Sakky93@reddit
So what happened if someone embezzled EU founds in 2020?
Long_Hovercraft_3975@reddit
Agency is very young. It doesnt mean that it doesnt investigate from which funds Leonardo bought pigments for Monalisa. Check their website. Lots of Ro frauds:
https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/media/news
shortEverything_@reddit
Nah we don’t - we’re desensitised to the EUs lies anyway.
Stealthfighter21@reddit
We're desensitized by NMs lies.
shortEverything_@reddit
Admit your facsist past bulgar and genocide conducted in Macedonia
Stealthfighter21@reddit
And they aren't even an afterthought.
Mako2401@reddit
No, because then what will the small meaningless countries like Bulgaria do with their neighbors?
PlamenIB@reddit
“Small and meaningless” lol. The center of the world economy and kingdom of Hunza spoke. Please everyone- on your feet and 👏🏻
neljudskiresursi@reddit
Wait, when did this diss between Macedonia and Bulgaria start? Last time I watched news some years ago, you were still best buddies
neljudskiresursi@reddit
Wait, when did this diss between Macedonia and Bulgaria started? Last time I watched news some years ago, you were still best buddies
Mako2401@reddit
How is Rumen "KGB " Radev? Or Boyko "Al Capone " Borisov?
PlamenIB@reddit
Great. Probably using their Apple Pay and Revolut as basic services. How is the great uncle of Alexander the Great and Cleopatra the one and only Gruevski? I have heard his successor Mickey Mouse is going for the next loan? This time China? Russia maybe?
Mako2401@reddit
IF Rumen "KGB" Radev was my president I'd move to Russia. At least I know who's my "daddy" there" .
PlamenIB@reddit
Love. Your ex PM is not allowed in his own country and your current one is the laughing stock of EU as he takes loan after loan. And your current president has no idea where she is most of the time. A person should know where the line is.
vbd71@reddit
Both are taking care of their business deals.
Mako2401@reddit
Good to hear, they are great statesmen and leaders of the vital country in the EU.
Distinct_Read1698@reddit
Lol, using the word "meaningless" when your entire identity is fake.
Aggressive_Limit2448@reddit
Bulgaria is a vital Schengen and EU member which borders Turkey and is a close ally of both big EU countries like Greece and Romania.
It has much higher gdp and more prosperous country than Serbia.
MK has a framework which needs to follow. VMRO historical has Bulgarian roots but mk needs to do reforma in order to get close to EU.
Mako2401@reddit
"vital" hahahahaha. Bulgaria is vital to the EU? ??????
Aggressive_Limit2448@reddit
It's not Serbia which is failing internally.
Bulgaria is vital because borders Black Sea and Turkiye it's vital for security of EU along with Romania and Greece.
You should have learned many things so far nothing unfortunately.
Dim_off@reddit
Abolishing the veto on some topics will be a natural evolution
Distinct_Read1698@reddit
This is a very fundamental matter. I find it unlikely that this will be changed. If you make countries coexist within the union against their will, it might tear it apart. So it makes sense to keep the unanimity.
oduzmi@reddit
No, Because they need unanimous vote to pass that law.
Jujux@reddit
I am sure something like that will do wonders for Euroscepticism. No chance this will happen, nor should it.
That being said, the EU does indeed need more cooperation between countries, in my opinion.
Aggressive_Limit2448@reddit
Western Balkan is incompatible and it's very low support except in Albania and Montenegro.
This might apply for Ukraine as it's blocked from Hungary so instead to wait. But still Ukraine is far away from actual reforma.
Moldavia is also a good candidate if it's speedrun.
Dardanian_Mapping@reddit
idk
Sea_Top9815@reddit
Yes that's right! But as a Greek I would like to see you in EU. That doesn't gonna make your life easier but at least you gonna be more free to go and work or live in Eu. Cheers guys 🤞🏻
kalosanthrwpos@reddit
It was in the news in recent years but I don't think it happened. The funny thing is that the veto will be gone when no one will veto this decision (all countries have to agree), which is stupid. Why would anyone agree to have less power over important decisions?
LibertyChecked28@reddit
Because the Major players can outright bypass the Veto anyway, even if 90% of the Union is against them. Where as the minor countries, outcasts, and "undesirables" get empowered by the Veto.
And needless to say all Western countries do think of themselves as "Major Players", despite their actual influence, leverage, volume, or relevance and [IF] the Veto remains as it is that means sooner or later the [Nobles] would have to engage on equal terms with the [Filthy Peasants] from P.I.G.S, or the Balkans.
Kobajadojaja@reddit
Because you have more of it if the veto is removed, actually. While this system is active anyone can veto your desired resulotion and states have joined the EU to act as one, not to block each other indefinitely.
kalosanthrwpos@reddit
This is cuck thinking.
Acting as one means that all should be in agreement. How is it «acting as one» when your opinion isn't considered if it goes against the majority?
Kobajadojaja@reddit
Democracy is cuck thinking? You can emmigrate to some other "chad" countries without it, like Russia or China if you want.
kalosanthrwpos@reddit
Without the veto the representatives of each country have less power which means you (as a citizen) have less influence on EU decisions. How is this more democratic?
Also the veto system applies only to important decisions. In most cases, if the majority agrees, the decision goes through.
Kobajadojaja@reddit
The problem arises as every other decision is an important one and you need to act now, not wait 3 years to placate that one guy who is blocking the rest 26.
kalosanthrwpos@reddit
Well, shouldn't have invited that one guy if you thought he was going to cause trouble. It's a union where everyone should be equal. The EU will fail if it forces whatever it wants on the other (small) countries.
Kobajadojaja@reddit
The same argument can be given against any kind of society. You gave out your "freedom" to live in greek democracy. You are forced to act as majority of other Greeks agreed you should act. But escaping that society never comes to your mind because you know you have more freedoms and advantages being a part of it, than livong in some deserted island alone. The same goes for EU. You act as the majority of other Euopeans tell you, because you are more powerfull as a group than as a tiny state that can be crushed and forced to do other things(withiut even a say) by more powerful states.
ace_098@reddit
Or Chad.
Imaginary_String_814@reddit
No because every nations wants to keep their veto in case of national interests.
and just like the current system it can be abused aswell.
ivanp359@reddit
QMV would be great in many areas, such as legislation, defence, healthcare, budgets and other.
However, 0% chance for that to be used for enlargement specifically.
ProductGuy48@reddit
The veto system should be reformed so that each country has a limited number of absolute vetoes each year. In order for their veto to be preserved they need to persuade others over time to support their position. This way, things can be delayed but not prevented indefinitely by just one country.
requiem_mn@reddit
>The veto system should be reformed so that each country has a limited number of absolute vetoes each year. In order for their veto to be preserved they need to persuade others over time to support their position.
In that case, here is what would happen. One country vetoes something. Then, you change that something, just a little bit, and submit it again. Country vetoes again. You change again and submit. and so on and so forth. Bum, country is out of vetoes.
ProductGuy48@reddit
Nah, this is a solvable problem and it exists today with the way laws are drafted.
Mucklord1453@reddit
If they do then it will fall apart like the League of Nations did.
Ladz95@reddit
How is this overruling expected to work? Like 1 country = 1 vote and then measure majority or?
Aggressive_Limit2448@reddit
This applies for Ukraine mostly as EU wants negotiations to start in autumn because Hungary is blocking and might be so until next April when elections happen in Hungary.
I don't believe it will happen because anyway Ukraine will start accession negotiations along with Moldova.