you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 46 points 4 weeks ago (26 children)

Good I really hope this happens. Vetos will destroy the EU. It’s not democracy if one autocrat can stop everything.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 weeks ago* (21 children)

    It's not democracy if the majority can compel the minority to go against their will. Germany and France will become the dominant powers even more so than they already are which will ultimately result in the slow erosion and downfall of the EU being what it claims to stand for. Vetoes and consensus democracy were founding ideas for a reason.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy

    It's convenient to hold up Hungary as the evil example of misused vetoes but the solution to that is to move to suspend countries as a member, for acting in bad faith repeatedly. Using freedom from association. Not to destroy your democracy from within by making it less democratic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 4 weeks ago (17 children)

    It's not democracy if the majority can compel the minority to go against their will.

    That's.... Exactly what democracy is though. Like Brexit is a great example of this. The majority forced the minority against their will.

    I take the rest of your point though and agree. We just need to get past the "one or two arseholes" issue. I'd be happy with some kind of supermajority decision making process.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

    It's not democracy if the majority can compel the minority to go against their will.

    That's.... Exactly what democracy is though

    Only to some extent. Modern democracy typically includes some forms of minority protection to reduce the risk of a “Tyranny of the majority”.
    That said, the EUs qualified majority system already has some such measures, like giving smaller countries more votes in parliament relative to population.
    Also every country has an equal vote in the council.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

    "Tyranny of the majority" is a MAGA euphemism for "we're not the majority."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 weeks ago* (2 children)

    Dude, that expression is soooo much older than Maga. 1835 is not a year suspect of the right wing assholery of today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    Doesn't make it any less worthless of an expression.

    The majority having a different opinion doesn't mean they are tyrants for going through with it.

    Are there instances where it was the case? Sure. Look at slavery.

    But the great majority of the cases it is a worthless expression made by people who can't stand they are in the minority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    Nah, the expression has merit in political science, it has only recently been profaned by the US reich wing, because they like to couch their bigotry in the language of science, sociology and intellectual rigor. Because by misusing and coopting those terns, they get to redefine them in the public eye and weaken arguments against their position that rely on those terms.

    Your perception of the term "tyranny of the majority", a term originally coined to point out the conservative overreach against and suppression of minorities, is a great example of how they colonize language.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 4 weeks ago (10 children)

    Aye, you're right in that democracy isn't just one singular concept, there are various forms.

    But think on what the idea of democracy is supposed to represent. It's supposed to be rule by the people. If 48% of the people are having their authority to rule superceded by the 52% then how can you say it's rule by the people? It's rule only by the majority. Democracy only in colloquial common parlance.

    The word democracy has been bastardised even since its very conception so it's difficult to define without arguments. The EU however have already defined their democracy at the highest state level on similar principles that anarchists do, of consensus. All countries are equal, all countries can say no. This will throw that away in favour of less democracy, less equality, less say in how the continent functions, in tyranny of the majority.

    It will be the beginning of the end for the European project. And I'm not saying that lightly or as hyperbole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)
  • [–] 3 points 4 weeks ago (7 children)

    You are making the mistake to believe the EU can only compete by becoming what it despises. This will have the opposite effect in reality, with the EU breaking apart.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago* (5 children)

    Confederacies just don’t last very long historically. They either break or become more centralised eventually.

    [citation needed]

    (And they often break apart after briefly becoming more centralized, in an misguided attempt to force unity where there isn't any anylonger)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago* (3 children)

    The US was at most very briefly a confederacy, and the US civil war had little to do with that despite one side calling itself such.

    The EU is an obvious successful modern example, and if you want historical examples, then the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations lasted a millenium and despite sometimes nominally having an emporer it was practically a confederation.

    And besides, ask some person living in a Democrat majority US state how they feel about the current Trump administration of their federal government interfering with their life and sending a militarized police occupation force into their cities?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    I would like a response to my specific points though about trouble the EU is running into

    I would first like to have some solid evidence that these are caused by the confederal structure of the EU, and that they would be indeed solved by moving to a federal system. So far that seems to me like pure conjecture and also a huge gamble that could destroy the EU in the process.

    That kind of abuse of power can happen under literally any system from fascist to socialist.

    In a centralized state, yes. But that is exactly what a confederacy isn't. And the concrete example is that people in other states voted for Trump and thus directly interefered with the affairs of a state that didn't. That isn't at all comparable to a state internal problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    Qualified majority makes sure that even without veto France and Germany don’t become dominant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    It's not 1960 anymore. Sure, early on the EU (well its predecessors) were just France and Germany. But today? The combined population of Germany and France is 150 million. The EU population is 450 million. The most populace country, Germany, represents just 19% of the EU's total population.

    For a comparison, in the US, California represents about 12% of the total population, so not that different. And historically, when the US was founded, Virginia contained about 19% of the total US population.

    The EU has grown immensely, but its governmental structure reflects an earlier era. Veto powers made sense when everything in the EU other then Germany and France was a rounding error. But the EU has grown so much that France and Germany now occupy a similar position to any number of most-populated states and provinces in countries around the world. One province having 19% of the population is not unusual. Hell, the largest German state has 21% of the German population, and they don't run an internal veto system.

    The veto system made sense when Germany and France truly controlled the EU and dominated its population. But as the block has grown, these countries now look more like the most populated provinces or states you find in every country. And their relative influence will only decline further as the EU continues to expand. The EU has grown and matured, and it's time for its government to do so as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 weeks ago

    You're absolutely right and I do agree. At the same time what this is about is not about many smaller countries getting dominated by big countries. This is about prohibiting foreign powers to bribe their way into power in EU via puppets in a single EU country. As a citizen in a small country I have no concerns that our neighbours in also smaller countries will not agree on certain political decisions where Germany and France may have a different persuasion. If so I naturally would expect a diplomatic consensus would be found.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

    Veto was put in place so that smaller countries wouldn't have to worry that after joining EU bigger countries will outvote and exploit them. I think requiring unanimity is fine in some cases but EU should have mechanisms to move on without some members if they object. Trade deals? Unanimity required. Sanctions on foreign countries? Majority decides. Military aid? Majority decides.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 weeks ago* (1 child)

    I feel like you could also provide protection for smaller countries through law and the ECJ, or legislative procedures/instruments other than vetos. For example laws to prevent decisions that are overwhelmingly negative for few countries, processes that direct compensation to countries negatively affected by laws, or a veto leading to a compulsory mediation process rather than a full stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment