European democracy
#TheFutureIsYours Strengthening European democracy
Eliminate unanimity for Council decisions that do not concern the admission of new members, loss of fundamental rights or diplomatic actions of particular relevance.
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Please log in
You can access with an external account
21 comments
Very good. Unanimity should be replaced by qualified majorities (55 % of Member States AND 65 % of the total population of the Union.
Conversation
Who decides that a decision counts as "loss of fundamental rights" or "diplomatic actions of particular relevance"?
Fundamental rights as defined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. For the "diplomatic actions of particular relevance" we should decide together in what cases a diplomatic decision requires unanimity: to declare war, when it touches the provision of strategic material, etc. Open for debate, I'd say.
"Charter of fundamental rights of the EU" is a piece of paper. It can't decide anything, that's up to whoever is interpreting it. Is it the council among themselves? The courts? The parliament? With simple majority or supermajority?
I think it would be acceptable to dismiss the veto in all matters. Then there would be no debate needed for finding out whether some action or another qualifies. But if there are such qualifiers, the interpretation needs to be done by someone other than the council. Or the parliament, who has vested interest. Maybe the EU court would be the right place.
I'd go even further, i dont see why the admission of a new member state should require unanimous agreement from the current member states. This gives too much power to individual member states.
An example i can think of is how Greece did not want to admit Macedonia in the EU until they change their name to "North Macedonia". Current member states should not be allowed to "bully" applicants into doing what they want just to be allowed to join the EU.
This rule may have been applicable in the early years of the European Community; By 27 it became totally unusable and blocked any advance of Europe.
I fully agree. Unanimity at the size the EU is now only serves to hold all other members hostage, potentially even at the behest of the EU's geopolitical opponents. A union like this cannot allow itself to allow one single member to bring it down.
Hello, Bon îls is clear that the current system does not give satisfaction... For me democracy is 51 % of voters, whites don't count. We are for or against, for the others its has no use... So, they need to change the current treaty... To be the most effective remains a referundun on the subject... wanted a new European treat? Yes/no Then, the policies (parliamentary and specialist) drafted three different treaties (texts that drive the road), simple information for the commons of the Europeans and we choose by referumdum what we wish... (n°1, n°2, n°3) A good text must be democratic, with a control of political action, a separation of powers (executive, legislative and judiciere). Three more or less federalist texts...
A unanimous vote is in stark contrast to the founding principles of Universal Democracy. This is an element that distinguishes us from totalitarian regimes.
Conversation
Unanimity is essentially the only guarantee in EU decision-making that the interests of the smaller Member States also prevail and that the mainstream/progressive majority cannot do whatever they want. Those who want to abolish unanimity will undermine European democracy and, ultimately, Europe.
Those who want to eliminate unanimity are the same people, who wish to enforce ideological uniformity accross the Union. And that attempt at a European liberal hegemony is the chief cause of the crisis of the EU that has made this conference necessary in the first place.
So, you are in favour of allowing a minority to impose a blockade on the majority for ever? That is not democracy, it is blockade and sabotage. The basis of democracy is that the direction of the majority is followed, and the limit to the will of the majority is guaranteed 1) by the respect for human rights, including those of minorities, 2) and by the respect for the separation of powers and the rule of law.
Therefore, a tiny minority of states in the European Council should not be able to block the democratic and legal functioning of the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission.
Conversation
No way!
So, you are in favour of allowing a minority to impose a blockade on the majority for ever? That is not democracy, it is blockade and sabotage. The basis of democracy is that the direction of the majority is followed, and the limit to the will of the majority is guaranteed 1) by the respect for human rights, including those of minorities, 2) and by the respect for the separation of powers and the rule of law.
Therefore, a tiny minority of states in the European Council should not be able to block the democratic and legal functioning of the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission.
The EU is neither a democracy, nor is it a state. It is a free association of sovereign member states, who - according to the German Constitutional Court - are the masters of the EU Treaties that govern the Union. Therefore, it is right and proper for the individual members to maintain a veto in most important decisions.
No, I think you are stuck in the 1980s. Since we decided to unite our destinies with a common monetary policy, common fiscal guidelines, a charter of fundamental rights and so many other initiatives, we are no longer a Confederation where every tiny part can block and destroy the progress of the majority will. What you are proposing is not feasible and you are proposing it in the knowledge that it is not feasible, thus clearly favouring the end of the European Union.
Given the current level of integration of the European Union, which is democratic in that elections are held to its Parliament, the only possible way forward is a federal solution. There is no need to be united in all policies, no need to be equal in everything. That is not necessary. But it is necessary that the decision-making process is smooth and follows democratic rules in order to achieve maximum effectiveness.
Your country has freedom on many issues without the need to block in the Council. What Hungary has been told is that it cannot bypass the fundamental rights of minorities in your country. That is the basis of a healthy democracy: majorities decide, but minorities are respected in their fundamental rights, guaranteed by the rule of law and the separation of powers.
It is very nice to say that Europe is a democracy and that we must change the Treaties to ask the citizens for their opinion even though this has already been done in the past and the views of the peoples have not been respected! Remember the 2005 European Constitution Treaty rejected by France and the Netherlands by referendum is still accepted by their leaders. All of these federalists were closed at the time because they were well arranged. I think that we will have to go either to federalism or to a Europe of nations or to something else that has yet to be invented, but whatever that is, it is up to the people to choose by referendum and by allowing them always in the future to be able to change their minds The choices of our parents are not necessarily ours and ours will not necessarily be those of our children. The United Nations regularly reaffirms the right of peoples to self-determination. That’s really what makes a people a democracy, not a dictatorship.
Finally, as regards the white vote, it should be taken into account. Those who vote white moves to vote, so they express an idea that needs to be interpreted. This idea is generally a disavowal of the binary choice that is proposed to it. Not should rather consider that from a certain blank voting threshold, no party can have an example majority of 1/4 seats in parliament. This would have the virtue of further promoting alliance games and thus the emergence of new ideas and compromises. Rejecting the white vote is not taking into account the discontent of some. It is sometimes very difficult to choose between plague and cholera. Finally, I find it perfectly undemocratic to ignore the expression of citizens in a vote. Voting blank is an expression.
Conversation
Tout ce qui peut permettre aux européens de poursuivre un même élan démocratique sur un socle de valeurs communes est un pas dans la bonne direction.
En tant que Fédéralistes (Union des Fédéralistes Européens- www.uef.fr ) nous privilégions une Europe fondée sur un socle de valeurs communes et de droits fondamentaux invocables directement par les citoyens européens, sur l’état de droit et sur la constitution de forces de sécurité communes venant en soutient d'une politique étrangère commune. .
Nous exhortons donc les citoyens européens, les partis politiques, les communes et les régions, les partis politiques, les parlements nationaux les membres du Parlement Européen, de la Commission européenne ou du Conseil à faire de la réalisation d’un État Fédéral LE thème central de leurs activités.
Basically, realise the United States of Europe. A Europe with American sauce. For pity, less liberalism more ecology and respect for the democratic choices of citizens whether or not it is in line with yours. I hope that if this were to happen, we would ask the peoples before their advice... they are the first to be concerned. What often characterises federalism is often the rejection of referendums and the fear of asking the people for their opinion. It is often thought that when the people agree they have understood everything but when they are against what it is either that they are afraid or that they have not understood anything. That is why we refrain from asking him anything on major issues on a regular basis, but we will ask him for his opinion on summer time or winter time. Despite my great age, I think I remember that power belongs to the people and delegates it for a fixed period to representatives. Good to you
Loading comments ...