Monkey Paws Finger crawls: And it first will be used to enforce mass observation stuff like chat control?
At the same time Germany is totally fine to veto the EU-Israel trade agreement suspending. In this question Germany looks like two arms for the “unanimity among the bloc’s 27 countries” for questions related to Israel war crimes and genocide in Gaza.
The suspension of the trade agreement just requires a qualified majority and not unanimity. In other words Germany can not veto it and has not vetoed it. Hence the article uses the word reject, as Germany did not vote for the suspension. If only Germany did that, then the agreement would have been suspended, but as even the article you use clear shows, Italy did not support it as well.
Does your point not support abandoning anonymity? Perhaps Germany does not want to impose its Israel-related policy on other states by veto, while maintaining its own point of view?
You mean a nation state, complicit in genocide once again, violently suppressing pro-Palestinian voices is voluntarily surrendering their veto power, as to not impose their Staatsräson on other nation states within its sphere of influence? I don‘t think so!
Germany has leverage through it‘s size and influence in the EU, especially in scenarios with QMV (Qualified Majority Voting). So even without unanimity rule, it still has a lot of power to create consent.
Without the unanimity rule, they‘d become virtually impossible to outvote, as they only need a few allied countries, while still being able to build a blocking minority (this is what happened in the article posted by Sem, not a veto, but a block by minority vote). It would also have the power to discipline smaller countries, forcing them to tow the line, aka marginalizing them.
So contrary to your take, Germany is trying to maximize its power in the EU, which is in line with the aspirations of Merz wanting Germany to become a regional power again. The Hungary example has its basis, but I find it to be rather convenient for Germany‘s strategy.
Practically in terms of current conflicts this means for Germany: Become untouchable and a Blocker in regards to measures against Israel, while also easily force action on Ukraine.
Germany bad!
Du bist da was ganz Heißem auf der Spur.
I’m afraid you have an essentialist understanding of history. You believe that there is something deep inside Germanness or Frenchness or whatever country, and that this gives countries or citizens fixed qualities. A typical example is the hypothesis of the German sonderweg, which has been disproven by academic historical research. Or your idea here about a German drive for power.
You’re probably German, so maybe you also need to look into your own family’s history to see that you are not like your potential Nazi ancestor. It’s really not useful to transpose your family history onto a contemporary, highly diverse country.
Removed by mod
Nom-sensical as in nomnomnom tasty?
Jokes aside, it might really be good for you to look into your own family history to make sure you aren’t mixing past and present.
This comment is incorrect. Not Germany nor any other country has veto rights on this agreement. They rejected it, using their normal vote.
This turns the EU into the USE. Without veto power, the elite can make sure that there is always a majority for their goals. Rich people will take over the EU, like they took over the US. Merz is too closely linked to the USA as to not deeply question which other effects besides preventing another Hungary this change will bring.
The same can be said the other way round and is already the case. With the current veto power Hungary acts as a Russian proxy and blocks as many important desicions as possible.
I agree that it doesn’t help the corruption issues we already have and I think a simple majority shouldn’t be enough. But removing the veto power in favor of a supermajority of like 85-90% would make it feasible to stop dickheads like Orban without compromising too much. (Let’s face it, if you bought 90% of the EU, the last 10% shouldn’t be that big of an issue either).
The decisions are only important because some want to turn the EU into a country whereas the EU could keep going without the need for further decisions. All other countries could have ignored Hungary and do whatever they wanted since they are souvereign countries. There was no need to act as the EU.
Let’s face it, if you bought 90% of the EU, the last 10% shouldn’t be that big of an issue either
Or they are and that’s why we are going to change the rules.
The EU started as an American project.
He saw West Germany (and the other member states of the European Economic Community) as vassalized by Washington. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Élysée_Treaty
Did the EU become independent or was de Gaulle wrong?
All other countries could have ignored Hungary and do whatever they wanted since they are souvereign countries. There was no need to act as the EU.
If you completely ignore the fact that Hungary was blocking the release of EU funds, and those don’t just magically reappear in your national budget if the EU doesn’t use them…
those don’t just magically reappear
They do. If Hungary blocks the EU fund then the money is not spent and the countries can borrow more money because the risk for the lenders doesn’t increase.
The decisions are only important because some want to turn the EU into a country whereas the EU could keep going without the need for further decisions. All other countries could have ignored Hungary and do whatever they wanted since they are souvereign countries.
No, the decisions are important because this way you present EU as an unified block and it has way more bargaining power that every single state. Look at what happened with Brexit
There was no need to act as the EU.
Then there is no need for EU, if every country can go for itself.
The EU started as an American project.
The EU started because after WWII people in Europe decided that maybe, just maybe, to have a war that destroy the continent every 40 years is not a good idea, after all.
Look at what happened with Brexit
What happened that shows that the EU countries outside the EU structure don’t have their united power if they choose to act together?
Then there is no need for EU, if every country can go for itself.
The opposite. There is no need for the EU if all countries just work together.
The EU started because …
Please read the paragraph of the Wikipedia article around my quote.
What happened that shows that the EU countries outside the EU structure don’t have their united power if they choose to act together?
In the case of Brexit nothing, there were (is) UK on one side that thought they can impose their conditions to EU. We all know how it ended.
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.Then there is no need for EU, if every country can go for itself.
So the point is ?
I don’t understand what you are thinking, if every country go for itself there is no need for EU but if there is EU is useless because every country can go for itself and just work with the others…Please read the paragraph of the Wikipedia article around my quote.
The Élysée Treaty was signed after the founding of the first “release” of EU, which was CEE, and was formalized in 1957, 6 years before the Élysée Treaty. And in the Élysée Treaty US or any other country or organization and the US president was not happy about it for example.
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 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.
The Élysée Treaty was signed after the founding of the first “release” of EU
That’s a strong argument. There is the desire within Europe to live peacefully together. Unfortunately it doesn’t guarantee that the US haven’t taken over the EU.
And in the Élysée …
Some words are missing.
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.
