Fuck Politico, Axel Springer and Döpfner. Don’t share, don’t click.
And also downvote.
Looking forward to be drafted to a war to fight for Von der Leyen’s aristocrat husband’s family /s
Unanimity is the heart of EU. Enforce anti-corruption and the Orbans of this world disappear. The von der Leyens too so I call that a win.
This would make actual sense if there was an actual european army that was commanded by EU institutions and those same institutions had the power to declare war unprovoked. As there isn’t at the moment, the only war EU citizens will be drafted to is the one that falls upon member countries’ doorsteps (or upon NATO members’, if your nation belongs to such alliance) OR if specific member states that you belong to decide to be the aggressor in future conflicts. Unanimity allows bad actors such as Orban to abuse their veto powers against the interests and progress of the majority of the Union, which holds back our collective response to an ever changing geopolitical landscape, which in turn might leave us vulnerable to being attacked or strong-armed into a lopsided, paralysing dependence (for instance, on Russian energy or US defence). And that might be the one thing that gets us drafted into an actual war, only not one we prepared for, and with an emboldened enemy against an EU frozen in place by one member state acting on the aggressor’s behalf.
The EU is an Union not a federation, yet. The stability of the union lies in the fact its participants have free reign in foreign policy and collective action requires unanimity. I for one admire Spain’s stance on the subjects of Gaza and Iran, remove unanimity and we may be forced to reckon with the German stance on those matters. Orbán is a cunt that isn’t in jail because the same framework that would be required to jail him, a strong EU anti-corruption enforcement, would likely be used to prosecute the Ursulas of this world, given they are two peas of a pod. That’s why Orbán is a problem and why she wants more power against the original treatise of the Union. Because the current tools would get rid of corrupt people like her too.
Why would we suddenly follow Germany’s stance and not Spain just because unanimity is gone? We would likely follow a qualified majority or supermajority, just as other aspects of legislation (perhaps even draw out higher thresholds for voting). If the majority elected to take a position against Russia (or for Ukraine, if you will), then it isn’t anything but counterproductive, that we remain in a political quagmire because of one individual exercising veto powers. If the majority elected to take a different approach to foreign policy towards the US, then it would also be frustrating if it was up to an individual head of state (sponsored by the US regime and Heritage Foundation, no less) to veto our collective action. This won’t get us moving at all.
On regards to corruption, the EU already witholds funding from Hungary on account of rule of law and democraric backsliding. We can’t hold a position to be for individual sovereignty when it comes of foreign policy and at the same time demand a supranational organisation to come in and prosecute national leaders, who were still at some point in time elected by their people fairly. As you’ve said, we aren’t a federation yet, if the EU prosecuted another country’s leader, it would be a massive overreach and a tremendous cry for sovereignty in jeopardy.
On a personal note, I would be happy with both scenarios playing out, and personally feel federation might be a way to survive a growing upending of rules-based order in the world.
Why would we suddenly follow Germany’s stance and not Spain just because unanimity is gone? We would likely follow a qualified majority or supermajority, just as other aspects of legislation (perhaps even draw out higher thresholds for voting). If the majority elected to take a position against Russia (or for Ukraine, if you will), then it isn’t anything but counterproductive, that we remain in a political quagmire because of one individual exercising veto powers. If the majority elected to take a different approach to foreign policy towards the US, then it would also be frustrating if it was up to an individual head of state to veto our collective action. This won’t get us moving at all.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Spain’s position is a minority within the EU. If Germany or France want to support genocide, that’s for their people to deal with, the EU as a union, if there is no consensus, should not, through qualified majority have the chance to act as EU in representation of Spain when Spain does not agree with the EU position. Nothing is stopping the countries that support Ukraine (which is basically the almost entirety of the EU) to continue supporting Ukraine. What makes no sense is Hungary to serve as a guaranteur country for a loan for which its people allegedly do not agree with.
It’s not lost on me that Hungary is a net receiver of EU funds, but the EU was not designed for the latest expansionist waves of the late noughties. That’s where the legislative framework difficulties come from. German and British companies wanted access to cheap labour and a larger market, so now we have to deal with the consequences of expanding. The most urgent step is to repeal the lobbying law of 2007 and return to the stringent anti-corruption enforcement. Also, most EU countries already are subject to supra-national legal entities, i. e. the ECJ is sovereign, despite some German judges arguing otherwise. Whoever signed in should have read the ToS.
Edit: As if reality conspired to make my point…
Is this from 2016? Because they should’ve done this in 2016.
