Twelve countries have already backed the initiative, with repeated obstruction by Viktor Orbán's Hungary increasingly fuelling calls for reform. #EuropeNews
BUT if every EU country had dealt with UK as single state, even if working with other countries, the result would have been very different.
Most likely, but they could have created a way to fully copperate.
So they should have something like EU without having something like EU.
So the point is ?
The countries don’t need the political structure of the EU. They could cooperate in other ways. Going for itself doesn’t require to act in the most selfish way.
True, but a political structure like EU solves a lot of problems when you think about cooperating: without EU every cooperation agreement would be a bilateral agreement between two states, and every pair could (and would) be different.
I am old enough to remember how it was to do business before the current EU, not to talk about travelling.
And in the Élysée …
Some words are missing.
You are right, sorry.
I was saying that in the Élysée Treaty, the US, NATO or any other country or organization were never mentioned and the US president at the time (Kennedy) was not happy about it.
Which is why the unanimity rule is obsolete in my opinion. When EU was smaller, it made sense, now not anymore since there is no way that every decision is good for everyone.
Even a single state that had the unanimity rule would be problematic: no decision could be made since nothing will be good for everyone. Same for EU, if we must decide on something and it need to be good for everyone there are 2 cases: 1) your result would be useless since it would be watered down in many ways or 2) you don’t decide.
The countries could just have continued their EU behaviour outside of the EU.
They did, but they did not used the weight of EU, which is bigger than the sum of the single states.
True, but a political structure like EU solves a lot of problems when you think about cooperating
It does. Which makes blocking the EU inconvenient but it doesn’t block the countries.
Again, it is true, you are not blocking the countries. But they have not the same weight of EU.
and the US president at the time (Kennedy) was not happy about it.
The question is why? Did he just want the best for Europe and Nato or was the US losing too much influence?
Obviously because they lost influence.
If you had not noted it, after the Brexit charade (which, btw, demostrate why it is important that EU work as a single entity) EU started to move faster (not always in the correct direction in my opinion) exactly because the United States’ Trojan horse in the EU, the UK, was out of the decision process and cannot block things anymore.
So they should have something like EU without having something like EU.
True, but a political structure like EU solves a lot of problems when you think about cooperating: without EU every cooperation agreement would be a bilateral agreement between two states, and every pair could (and would) be different.
I am old enough to remember how it was to do business before the current EU, not to talk about travelling.
You are right, sorry.
I was saying that in the Élysée Treaty, the US, NATO or any other country or organization were never mentioned and the US president at the time (Kennedy) was not happy about it.
Yes. We started with Hungary blocking the EU. The countries could just have continued their EU behaviour outside of the EU.
It does. Which makes blocking the EU inconvenient but it doesn’t block the countries.
The question is why? Did he just want the best for Europe and Nato or was the US losing too much influence?
Which is why the unanimity rule is obsolete in my opinion. When EU was smaller, it made sense, now not anymore since there is no way that every decision is good for everyone.
Even a single state that had the unanimity rule would be problematic: no decision could be made since nothing will be good for everyone. Same for EU, if we must decide on something and it need to be good for everyone there are 2 cases: 1) your result would be useless since it would be watered down in many ways or 2) you don’t decide.
They did, but they did not used the weight of EU, which is bigger than the sum of the single states.
Again, it is true, you are not blocking the countries. But they have not the same weight of EU.
Obviously because they lost influence.
If you had not noted it, after the Brexit charade (which, btw, demostrate why it is important that EU work as a single entity) EU started to move faster (not always in the correct direction in my opinion) exactly because the United States’ Trojan horse in the EU, the UK, was out of the decision process and cannot block things anymore.