Germany S Plan To Reform The Eu Even Less Dominance

While many day-to-day EU decisions are already taken by majority vote, Scholz wants a “gradual transition to majority rule in the common foreign policy, but also in other areas, such as tax policy”.
Calls to remove veto powers have gained momentum amid frustration over the EU’s heavy-handed sanctions program against Russia. However, the plan is fatally flawed. It takes specific problems posed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as justification for a permanent blow to national self-determination across the EU. Removing veto powers would allow the EU majority to force countries to take decisions against their will. Decision-making would always be skewed in favor of the bloc’s big powers: under the EU’s qualified majority voting rules, 55 percent of member states, representing 65 percent of the total EU population, are required to approve legislation. Germany alone has almost 20 percent of the EU’s population, so it’s no wonder Scholz wants to change the rules. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is also strongly in favor of the proposed reform. Ironically, however, removing veto powers would require unanimous consent from member states. And while the move would hurt every small EU country, it is seen specifically as an attempt to strike back at Hungary and Poland, the bloc’s two conservative rebels, whose current governments would never agree to the move. Hungary’s resistance to Russian energy sanctions has fueled considerable resentment of the EU’s slowness to act on the international stage. But Budapest is not the bloc’s biggest problem. There is an appalling hypocrisy in the German implication that unanimity has prevented the EU from punishing Moscow when Germany is more responsible than any other nation for Europe’s structural dependence on Russian energy. And lawmakers in Berlin are still at it, with the deputy speaker of the German parliament now calling for increased Russian gas imports through the opening of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. There is little evidence that a majority voting system would have made much more than a cosmetic difference to EU sanctions on Russia – although by suppressing national concerns, it would likely have left landlocked central European countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia with an even worse energy disaster than they are facing now. However, there is no doubt what removing veto powers would mean for national sovereignty within the EU. The unanimity requirement guarantees that countries, however small, cannot simply be swept along with policies they disagree with. (unless they volunteer to make that sacrifice). It ensures – to the extent consistent with EU membership – the sovereign right of a national government, accountable to a national electorate, to decide the fate of a nation. That the EU’s most influential figures in Berlin and Brussels see this as a problem is telling. They would rather enforce consensus than accept compromise as necessary in a union of equals.
As proponents of the rule change point out, the current unanimity requirements benefit those outside the ideological and political consensus. Today, this usually means Eastern European countries that are culturally different from the West. The EU is becoming allergic to this diversity of opinion and realizes that its plans for further eastward expansion will only multiply the potential for ideological disagreement. Therefore, he wants to remove the mechanism through which dissent can be expressed. It’s not hard to see where this will lead. Voters who identify with the EU consensus will cling ever closer to the bloc, while those with different views will feel a new sense of alienation leading to a rapid rise in apparent Euroscepticism. After all, it’s normal in any democracy to have to put up with policies you don’t like – it’s quite another to be forced to do so by foreign powers.

title: “Germany S Plan To Reform The Eu Even Less Dominance Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-23” author: “Arlene Brown”

While many day-to-day EU decisions are already taken by majority vote, Scholz wants a “gradual transition to majority rule in the common foreign policy, but also in other areas, such as tax policy”.
Calls to remove veto powers have gained momentum amid frustration over the EU’s heavy-handed sanctions program against Russia. However, the plan is fatally flawed. It takes specific problems posed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as justification for a permanent blow to national self-determination across the EU. Removing veto powers would allow the EU majority to force countries to take decisions against their will. Decision-making would always be skewed in favor of the bloc’s big powers: under the EU’s qualified majority voting rules, 55 percent of member states, representing 65 percent of the total EU population, are required to approve legislation. Germany alone has almost 20 percent of the EU’s population, so it’s no wonder Scholz wants to change the rules. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is also strongly in favor of the proposed reform. Ironically, however, removing veto powers would require unanimous consent from member states. And while the move would hurt every small EU country, it is seen specifically as an attempt to strike back at Hungary and Poland, the bloc’s two conservative rebels, whose current governments would never agree to the move. Hungary’s resistance to Russian energy sanctions has fueled considerable resentment of the EU’s slowness to act on the international stage. But Budapest is not the bloc’s biggest problem. There is an appalling hypocrisy in the German implication that unanimity has prevented the EU from punishing Moscow when Germany is more responsible than any other nation for Europe’s structural dependence on Russian energy. And lawmakers in Berlin are still at it, with the deputy speaker of the German parliament now calling for increased Russian gas imports through the opening of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. There is little evidence that a majority voting system would have made much more than a cosmetic difference to EU sanctions on Russia – although by suppressing national concerns, it would likely have left landlocked central European countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia with an even worse energy disaster than they are facing now. However, there is no doubt what removing veto powers would mean for national sovereignty within the EU. The unanimity requirement guarantees that countries, however small, cannot simply be swept along with policies they disagree with. (unless they volunteer to make that sacrifice). It ensures – to the extent consistent with EU membership – the sovereign right of a national government, accountable to a national electorate, to decide the fate of a nation. That the EU’s most influential figures in Berlin and Brussels see this as a problem is telling. They would rather enforce consensus than accept compromise as necessary in a union of equals.
As proponents of the rule change point out, the current unanimity requirements benefit those outside the ideological and political consensus. Today, this usually means Eastern European countries that are culturally different from the West. The EU is becoming allergic to this diversity of opinion and realizes that its plans for further eastward expansion will only multiply the potential for ideological disagreement. Therefore, he wants to remove the mechanism through which dissent can be expressed. It’s not hard to see where this will lead. Voters who identify with the EU consensus will cling ever closer to the bloc, while those with different views will feel a new sense of alienation leading to a rapid rise in apparent Euroscepticism. After all, it’s normal in any democracy to have to put up with policies you don’t like – it’s quite another to be forced to do so by foreign powers.

title: “Germany S Plan To Reform The Eu Even Less Dominance Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-06” author: “Kevin Munsey”

While many day-to-day EU decisions are already taken by majority vote, Scholz wants a “gradual transition to majority rule in the common foreign policy, but also in other areas, such as tax policy”.
Calls to remove veto powers have gained momentum amid frustration over the EU’s heavy-handed sanctions program against Russia. However, the plan is fatally flawed. It takes specific problems posed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as justification for a permanent blow to national self-determination across the EU. Removing veto powers would allow the EU majority to force countries to take decisions against their will. Decision-making would always be skewed in favor of the bloc’s big powers: under the EU’s qualified majority voting rules, 55 percent of member states, representing 65 percent of the total EU population, are required to approve legislation. Germany alone has almost 20 percent of the EU’s population, so it’s no wonder Scholz wants to change the rules. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is also strongly in favor of the proposed reform. Ironically, however, removing veto powers would require unanimous consent from member states. And while the move would hurt every small EU country, it is seen specifically as an attempt to strike back at Hungary and Poland, the bloc’s two conservative rebels, whose current governments would never agree to the move. Hungary’s resistance to Russian energy sanctions has fueled considerable resentment of the EU’s slowness to act on the international stage. But Budapest is not the bloc’s biggest problem. There is an appalling hypocrisy in the German implication that unanimity has prevented the EU from punishing Moscow when Germany is more responsible than any other nation for Europe’s structural dependence on Russian energy. And lawmakers in Berlin are still at it, with the deputy speaker of the German parliament now calling for increased Russian gas imports through the opening of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. There is little evidence that a majority voting system would have made much more than a cosmetic difference to EU sanctions on Russia – although by suppressing national concerns, it would likely have left landlocked central European countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia with an even worse energy disaster than they are facing now. However, there is no doubt what removing veto powers would mean for national sovereignty within the EU. The unanimity requirement guarantees that countries, however small, cannot simply be swept along with policies they disagree with. (unless they volunteer to make that sacrifice). It ensures – to the extent consistent with EU membership – the sovereign right of a national government, accountable to a national electorate, to decide the fate of a nation. That the EU’s most influential figures in Berlin and Brussels see this as a problem is telling. They would rather enforce consensus than accept compromise as necessary in a union of equals.
As proponents of the rule change point out, the current unanimity requirements benefit those outside the ideological and political consensus. Today, this usually means Eastern European countries that are culturally different from the West. The EU is becoming allergic to this diversity of opinion and realizes that its plans for further eastward expansion will only multiply the potential for ideological disagreement. Therefore, he wants to remove the mechanism through which dissent can be expressed. It’s not hard to see where this will lead. Voters who identify with the EU consensus will cling ever closer to the bloc, while those with different views will feel a new sense of alienation leading to a rapid rise in apparent Euroscepticism. After all, it’s normal in any democracy to have to put up with policies you don’t like – it’s quite another to be forced to do so by foreign powers.

title: “Germany S Plan To Reform The Eu Even Less Dominance Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-17” author: “Lucille Applebury”

While many day-to-day EU decisions are already taken by majority vote, Scholz wants a “gradual transition to majority rule in the common foreign policy, but also in other areas, such as tax policy”.
Calls to remove veto powers have gained momentum amid frustration over the EU’s heavy-handed sanctions program against Russia. However, the plan is fatally flawed. It takes specific problems posed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as justification for a permanent blow to national self-determination across the EU. Removing veto powers would allow the EU majority to force countries to take decisions against their will. Decision-making would always be skewed in favor of the bloc’s big powers: under the EU’s qualified majority voting rules, 55 percent of member states, representing 65 percent of the total EU population, are required to approve legislation. Germany alone has almost 20 percent of the EU’s population, so it’s no wonder Scholz wants to change the rules. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is also strongly in favor of the proposed reform. Ironically, however, removing veto powers would require unanimous consent from member states. And while the move would hurt every small EU country, it is seen specifically as an attempt to strike back at Hungary and Poland, the bloc’s two conservative rebels, whose current governments would never agree to the move. Hungary’s resistance to Russian energy sanctions has fueled considerable resentment of the EU’s slowness to act on the international stage. But Budapest is not the bloc’s biggest problem. There is an appalling hypocrisy in the German implication that unanimity has prevented the EU from punishing Moscow when Germany is more responsible than any other nation for Europe’s structural dependence on Russian energy. And lawmakers in Berlin are still at it, with the deputy speaker of the German parliament now calling for increased Russian gas imports through the opening of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. There is little evidence that a majority voting system would have made much more than a cosmetic difference to EU sanctions on Russia – although by suppressing national concerns, it would likely have left landlocked central European countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia with an even worse energy disaster than they are facing now. However, there is no doubt what removing veto powers would mean for national sovereignty within the EU. The unanimity requirement guarantees that countries, however small, cannot simply be swept along with policies they disagree with. (unless they volunteer to make that sacrifice). It ensures – to the extent consistent with EU membership – the sovereign right of a national government, accountable to a national electorate, to decide the fate of a nation. That the EU’s most influential figures in Berlin and Brussels see this as a problem is telling. They would rather enforce consensus than accept compromise as necessary in a union of equals.
As proponents of the rule change point out, the current unanimity requirements benefit those outside the ideological and political consensus. Today, this usually means Eastern European countries that are culturally different from the West. The EU is becoming allergic to this diversity of opinion and realizes that its plans for further eastward expansion will only multiply the potential for ideological disagreement. Therefore, he wants to remove the mechanism through which dissent can be expressed. It’s not hard to see where this will lead. Voters who identify with the EU consensus will cling ever closer to the bloc, while those with different views will feel a new sense of alienation leading to a rapid rise in apparent Euroscepticism. After all, it’s normal in any democracy to have to put up with policies you don’t like – it’s quite another to be forced to do so by foreign powers.