- cross-posted to:
- europepolitics@feddit.org
- cross-posted to:
- europepolitics@feddit.org
You must log in or register to comment.
Removed by mod
This is a strawman, also
Black-and-white fallacy
The black-and-white fallacy is a logical error that happens when an argument presents only two extreme choices as the only possible options, while ignoring other valid alternatives.Obviously we don’t want what the US has, this is not that.
It makes it possible, while right now it isn’t. That alone should give people some pause to think about why the EU was designed like it is.
The way the EU is designed right now, One country like Hungary, can hold the whole EU hostage.
The proposed change isn’t perfect, that’s impossible, but it’s far better than what we’re stuck with now.
That is a false narrative. There was always the option to kick Hungary out (the process exists, despite some people claiming it doesn’t). But Germany didn’t want that because the German car industry is using Hungary for cheap assembly of parts.
No you can’t just kick out Hungary that easily.
You’d have to disband and reform the EU to do that. This same channel did a video on how it would work if the EU wanted to kick them out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WADDH_g-95Q
Anyway, we didn’t want to kick them out, they stayed and it looks like it’s working out great now having them in, we don’t want people to think the EU will just ditch them if it gets tough.
This is simply nonsense. Politicians from larger countries (especially Germany) are pushing the idea that expulsion/suspension isn’t possible because they see it as an convenient argument to consolidate their power (and Orban’s labour supression politics to provide cheap labour to German car companies was also popular with them).
Do you have any source to back this up, this sounds like hogwash to me.
The fact that you said you could just kick them out, or even said it would be easy for them to rejoin, which is blatantly false. Makes it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about or acting in bad faith.
They would have vetoed against being kicked out, probably …
The relevant article of the EU treaty explicity forbids that.
Now who’s using the black and white fallacy.
Freedom of association explicitly allows Hungary to be kicked out.
Freedom of association encompasses both an individual’s right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. It can be described as the right of a person coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests.[1]
Freedom of association is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Organization also ensures these rights.
That wiki page is about Human’s Freedom-of-association, it doesn’t apply to the EU.
You can’t apply human rights to say, Hungary.
One is a person, the other is a country…
the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.
Freedom of association is both an individual right and a collective right
But clearly your understanding of political theory is lacking, so arguing beyond this is pointless.
It does not apply in this category. If it was that easy it would have been at the very least a discussion point in the media, it is not.
The EU is still too slow. Agreement from 60 % of countries with 60 % of the population, rather than the existing 100 %, should be a good middle ground.
This doesn’t make anything faster. You still need to go through the same process. It only makes it easier for large countries to ignore smaller ones.
At most 40 % of the smaller ones. This is fine for foreign policy.
And yes, it’s faster overall because there is no process required to appease the countries that would veto.
Why would a smaller country want to join or stay in the EU if it is constantly over ruled by the larger countries? Implementing something like this will destroy the EU, not strengthen it.
As the video suggests, Montenegro might join even without veto powers
No, the video doesn’t say anything like that. A political party from Germany has suggested to make that a new rule. There is so far afaik no response by the Montenegri government on this.
But sure, they might feel strongarmed by Germany to agree anyways, but this is exactly the kind of precedence that will make other smaller countries in and outside the EU consider if it is really in their best interest to join or remain in the EU if it becomes just another means to excert legal and economic coercion by larger countries.
It’s not only the majority of people, but also the majority of countries
But think about the children!
SPD and Clever are opposites
couldnt the veto be fixed a bit by having a limit on how many times you can use it in x amount of time? like a year for example? Or if you constantly use it then you get to use it less for some time?
or have system where if every other member, or everyone -1 , is against the veto then it could be overruled?
reducing need for consensus just makes it cheaper for manipulators to gain power since they need to convince less amount of people.
No vetos by 2040, sounds really good. Then maybe things can move along.
@atro_city
Why wait till 2040?!! No-one has any idea what the world will look like in 2040!!Did you watch the video?
