Correction: 50bn euro for Ukraine (not 500bn) Clarification: the VETO vote is only applicable to some areas (e.g. fiscal policy and foreign policy). QMV already used in most areas.
QMV: QMV is a mechanism used within the European Council and Council of the EU to take decisions without the need for unanimity. "democracy"" Imagine being in a small country and saying no. The bigger countries say yes. "democracy" Now it is: Meh small countries F you. Also: EU countries inhabitants can not vote for things like letting other countries join. Only member countries inhabitants can vote if they want to join yes or no. Rest of EU people cannot say: nah we do not want country x or y to become member. "democracy"
If removing the veto goes, then a Super majority would seem the best solution. One or two individual countries using the veto for financial or personal gain isn’t showing unity, but I also don’t like the idea of 55% majority either. 80% seems about right to me.
If they can't get it through the normal rules, a compromise in having super majority might be needed to move things forward, but we also have to be careful, too much of a majority could very well end up giving Germany a veto by simply having the biggest population, but that can be countered by the need of multiple countries needing to side with Germany to block something.
@@jonC1208 but in an incredibly far future when the eu can be considered a country made up of states where Catalonia leaving Spain would be more of a state splitting than an independent movement.
7:00 Frankenstein was the monster. The actual thing was a poor and misunderstood being. You can clearly see this guy has never read the thing he quotes.
That’s how it should have been from the beginning. The EU is currently too far from the average European and no one knows the people who are making the decisions.
Well, while it is like that. It's also for a reason. EU is primarily for co-operation of EU member states. It is kind of an government too, but limited type. While EU does have big impact, even compared to US federal government EU has very limited powers. Who you vote in both EU directly and who you vote for your government primarily drives where EU goes, as local government both appoints people to various EU positions and has it's own seat there too. Overall, best way to affect EU is by changing things in your own country, as primary way people are represented in EU is by their own countries. There obviously is room to do do direct action, but EU is union of member countries, so those are the primary players.
@@bastiaan7777777 What does history has to do with anything? And a bloody civil war would disagree with you:/ The fact remains as is: Even if all the reforms are to get passed, EU would still be one of the least federalist nations.
As a Swede I can say that the attempt to force countries to take in economic migrants against their will convinced me we need strong protection for the national interest of individual states, another example is the building of gas pipelines to Russia and the Putin-understanders in general. The idea of super qualified majority is a step in the right direction but I don't think 75% is enough, it should be 80-85%, otherwise the large countries could still force their will against the interest of the smaller countries. I think we also need to take a critical look at what powers could be transferred back to the national governments, the principle of subsidiarity means decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible. Moving power to decide over issues away from the local level to EU is one of the major causes of EU skepticism.
With migrants, I assume you mean refugees? Everyone in the EU could use some migrants since birth rates have been going down for decades now. When it comes to refugees, what's wrong about forcing countries to take refuges in proportion to their population? A 10k refuges won't hurt sweden, but of course, when other countries refuse to take refuges, they will be a lot of them in places that can't handle that. Exactly that happened in Sweden because poland and lots of others did not want refugees. The EU countries always follow their own agenda, which is mostly stay in power because politicians' first priority is to get voted again and that it's really bad if those people have free will in a Union that is all about the right and will of the common people like us
@@NIdo-tj7vu Refugees=mostly women and children fleeing to the closest safe country. Economic migrants=mostly men traveling from far away to the countries with most social benefits. But either way, it should be a choice for each country, not imposed by EU. Sweden made the bad decision to open our borders so why should Poland have to pay for our mistakes? Trying to force countries to take in migrants against their will achieved nothing except increasing EU skepticism in many of the member states. If you refuse to listen to those opinions then those parties that does, like AfD, will keep growing.
To me it seems you want the advantages without the advantages. If you think the super majority will be made so Sweden and other Norther state can do as they please, dream on. As for immigration, it's time for ALL of the Union to decide. Meaning no country will be left alone and that if there one policy ALL of the Union will follow it. Harder measure and strict regulations? Very well, it does for all 27 countries
@@NoName-hg6cc That's fine, we don't need QMV at all, precisely for this reason. We contribute a lot for EU and always have. You can dream on about forcing us to do anything though, we're a free democratic country and we will never let anyone else rule over us.
I would like to see the suggested changes go through. However, being from a smaller country, I would certainly prefer a Super Qualified Majority Voting system to its suggested alternative!
I understand the feeling. I don't mind the 75% of members, but what comes with it is the 80% of population. That nearly gives Germany a veto. Germany only needs one more small nation to be against it to veto anything with that. I don't want that to be the case. And I say this as a German 😅.
The US system operates as a bicameral legislature where laws have to pass both a lower body that has power divided by the total population and an upper body that has power divided equally among the states. This system has worked pretty well at sharing power between big and small states. Of course, European prejudices will fear any system that looks American.
@@badluck5647 The US is one of the terrible examples out there of democracy. Please don't get involved or meddle in our social democracy. And this is me saying it as a European who has nothing against Americans, but only against their third-world country pretending to be something where you can go bankrupt if you go to the hospital.
Can we get more information on the 4/5 mechanism? This seem like a game changer? It basically changes the odds from almost 0% to at least 50/50. I tried to read the original proposal and found some paragraphs mentioning it, but I have a hard time putting it into the context of the proposal and EU rules.
Yeah, I see no one talking about this, but until now I never even considered a reality where this reform passes, but this changes absolutely everything ! Would be glad to hear more too
right, and I ask myself, who put it there? and did "they" even have the right to put there? Or does it only aply for future changes? which for me is the likeliest opion, since i cannot see how the treaties can be changed without unanimity, as Article 48 clearly states "The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by ALL the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements." But please let me be wrong.
@@purelle88 True, it's a matter of survival. With India getting its act together, the world will end up with more than 2 economic superpowers, it's up to Europe to decide whether the world will have 3 superpowers or 4 superpowers.
@@jeckjeck3119 I respect my opinion on this topic 😃 The important is what we want for us, not what others want for us or what we want for them. I do not speak about economics.
I like the SQMV idea, being from a small country myself. The one thing that worries me the most with this sort of change is the ever present and at this time rising far-right all over Europe. It is well known they are all about nationalism and various degree of xenophobia. These days most of it is directed at 3rd world immigrants, for the problems they bring are the most visible. But not so long ago, we, the perceived "Eastern Europeans" were the bringers of all their problems according to them. I worry that should EU become QMV at the time where far-right is at large, their way of thinking might spread beyond their own domestic matters and into EU, alienating us not just from within their borders, but from within the EU itself. And in that case, our voice could be lost completely, which could destroy the highly positive perception of EU the citizens are holding around these parts.
One shield against that though is the fact that most Far Right movements across Europe are pretty Eurosceptic. They'd far sooner pull their countries out of the EU than try to utilize it to spread their ideology. At least I think so
Yeah being from Spain i see the far right talking about the african immigrants as if they are little more than animals and i cant help but think that could be our grandparents going to México, Argentina or France. Like, we were in that situation only less than 50 years ago what are you talking about?
@@davidsarmiento1547 Immigration related issues will never be resolved like that... Talks such as this only pour fuel into the fire. But that's all it is - talk. Rather than tackling actual issues they prefer talking and talking and talking... 😴
I am from Eastern Europe too, but here we are not against immigrants but ILLEGAL immigrants. I support any European law that would work against illegal immigration.
A small eastern european country, are you from one of the Baltic states? Are you free of the rise of the far right? Being from Romania I witness their rise within my country and it is deeply worrying. We really need an updated Chapel Hill Expert Survey for Europe before the elections to understand the magnitude of the problem.
Hi, I was one of the citizen ambassadors of cofoe. I am happy to see it is being covered like this! It is good for others to learn about the consequences of CoFoE. Also i have been in toch with the UEF. It makes me happy that they are both supporting the conclusion of the conference, as well as letting you be able to cover this! If you ever would like to learn more about cofoe from a citizen ambassador participant POV, feel free to reach out!
Thank you for your comment. I am also happy that UEF supported me in covering it. I think it is important for citizens to see what this is all about. Might be great to have your POV for my next video in March :)
I'll tell you an ironic story. Once upon a time in the beautiful country known as the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth there was a political system called elective monarchy. Upon the monarch death a parliament of all the nobles (nobles called szlachta) would gather and with the best of intentions for the country they would pick another king. It worked for quite some time. Especially when the most powerful of dynasties reigned being chosen by the szlachta. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth had it's golden age for more than 100y. But then in 1622 the liberum veto was established with the idea of not letting corruption spread. If all szlachta but one was corrupted a law born from corruption wouldn't pass. It wasn't in use for another 50 years. But after that time in the next 100 years liberum veto was used 72 times and the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth diminished and szlachta chose worse and worse kings and later the country was partitioned. It's controversial but I recognize the law of liberum veto as the biggest nail in the coffin of the once mighty Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Nowadays I find it ironic that in Polish politics there's such a fear about losing veto in European politics being veto one of the reasons Poland didn't existed for 123 years. Don't repeat our mistakes Europe.
I'm surprised people don't bring it more often. We have an actual (historical) evidence of how destructive veto can be (complete loss of sovereignty and country literaly disapearing from the maps for over a 100 years) and yet we go with "this time it will be different" attitude...
European Union "NO", longer serves Europeans! When you're supporting Hamas Terrorists living in Europe, amongst Islamic radicals, it begs to ask a question? What's wrong with the European Union, why is European countries COLLAPSING FINANCIALLY IN ORDER TO FEED ECONOMIC ILLIGAL MIGRANTS that are causing problems in Europe!
Is the story supposed to prove that the system proposed as an alternative will be beneficial to every country out there in the EU, not just the biggest players? Not gonna elaborate on this: liquidate the veto and you will see no EU in less than 10 years. Porównanie z dupy, już teraz lobbyście łatwiej dać pod stołem w Brukseli, żeby udupić kawał kontynentu dla swoich zysków, nie idealizuj UE, ona przepoczwarza się w twór, który wielu ludziom się nie podoba - i nie było to sygnalizowane podczas referendum.
I tried finding the results of the voting and I couldn’t find it anywhere. Id also like to know who is against wide vote referendums since these kinds of votings is what will help me choose who to vote for in june
@@Zomerseti get your point but not every country are like you, im from a smaller country and we take referendums a bit more seriuosly and research a bit more and as a whole we have more of a discussion instead of shoving talking points down the publics throats. (This is just my impression from watching and listening to uk media, never livedin the uk)
I'm also disappointed that referendums were removed but I can understand the fear, especially for the smallest countries. Plus it would be a nightmare to organise between countries were every citizen are obliged to vote and those like France where 30% of the population has lost so much trust in politics that it doesnt even check their own country's elections anymore.
Hallo . About sovereignity, there is no sovereignity if you are not strong enough to enforce it. I’m sorry now neither the big ones like Germany, nor the small ones like Malta can execute any real sovereignity, but only a formal and ineffective one
As I said under the prev video: The only way I can ever accept the removal of the VETO is if we introduce a Supermajority as you showed here in this video (75% of member states, 80% of total population or something along those lines). This will shield (especially smaller) member states from a "big countries" coalition that could just do whatever they want.
IMHO The only way to remove a veto would be to define the power of a country by its living quality instead of capita or size. An economical powerhouse like France or Germany may have most people, km2 and biggest economies . But maybe not the best living qualities. Though they have most of the power… and they will do everything to gain more economical growth and capital from the rest of EU. Also, the more people or size it needs to get something through may means that France and Germany need to look for more partners for their ideas. But also that they can easily “veto” every other idea they don’t like.
@@MathieuDeVinois You realize that, at least in Europe, the living standards/quality pretty accurately resemble the GDP per Capita. If we go with your idea countries like Germany and France would've many more votes than Eastern Europe or the Balkans and could push colonial-like policies meaning pushing development into their countries while using the above mentioned regions keep underdeveloped and just use those regions as workforce factories :) Thats the hole point with the discussion we have here. There is no perfect solution, but its much better to make it hard for the big countries to push laws that help only them and give them a better chance for veto, than to give them the upperhand in law creation and make vetos "easier", because after all it will still take a coalition of countries to get a veto going.
Sovereignty without the power to enforce it is no sovereignty. A Europe of small nation states must either follow China, USA or in future India.If you do not have the man-power for a big enough economy or to innovate, you are always someones vassal state. That is just the way it always was and will be. Might makes right.
For small countries it should be either SQMV or bust... why? Because just QM means that largest 3 countries will always automatically have 65% of population if they manage to get 55% of votes meanwhile small countries will never get over 65% of population mark. An alliance of Germany + France + Italy (47% of population) would basically get the right of veto while everyone else would lose it. Coincidentally they are also largest economies in the EU which means such arrangement would allow them to tailor EU laws to benefit them.
Well, we could impose a super majority higher than 55%. Or make it so that 55% isn't enough and you need at least half of Europe or at least 12 countries
@@NoName-hg6cc Or let the 75 % and 80 % limits, but instead of AND we could place OR, so then it would mean that given resolution will be passed either if representatives representing at least 80 % of population, or 75 % of member countries wants given resolution to pass. Sure, it still is not perfect and can cause problems under some conditions, but it still will be better than current situation.
Well, the Federal goverment of usa at first also made the larger states stronger, but that’s really something good, it shows that the most succesful have the biggest saying. If their strategt is wrong, they will also fall in status over long periods of time. It’s a future proof system, there is no perfect thing in politics
I'm from a smaller state, Portugal, and I tell you now, our government is oblivious. As weird as it sounds... I rather do whatever the Germans say its best for my country.
Let's be honest, getting France, Germany and Italy on the same page on a consistent basis is approaching fantasyland. Also, population numbers are not consistent. Third, the larger countries should obviously have a voice that is proportionate to their size. Personally, however, I would like to see continental discussions on general issues and regional discussions on regional issues. Countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, and Malta should obviously have more say on immigration issues when they're the first stop and gets to carry a disproportionate amount of weight.
The European Union is becoming more and more like the Soviet Union. But if it does happen, it will be even more disappointing. The goal is to colonize smaller countries. This is already looming large. If this were not the goal, then cooperative, free trade would be enough. On the other hand, even today, the powerful western member states dictate what the smaller eastern member states are allowed to think. With the European Union, the countries of the former Soviet sphere fell from bucket to bucket. You can't talk about freedom and equality at all. The union goes so far as to overthrow democratically elected parties and leaders in some member states. For example, in Hungary they have been trying to do this for 12 years. This country is mercilessly blackmailed, rightfully due money is refused to be paid out with all kinds of false reasons.
In today's global landscape, independent European nations risk becoming increasingly irrelevant, particularly with the remarkable economic ascent of China and India. To safeguard our collective strength and influence, it is imperative for Europeans to unite. Failure to do so could lead to long-term economic decline and a diminished global significance.
I agree, but I cannot support it until SIGNIFICANT reforms are made to ensure the ability to self-govern every single aspect not absolutely 100% necessary for the achieving the success of the union. That means limiting the power of the EU to basically only a handful of things. Also some reforms to enable the actual democratic process of the EU to work as intended would also be nice. As most people don't pay as much attention to the EU as they do their own government causing there to be too little pressure on the parliament from the people causing it to not effectively represent the will of the people. Edit: Also the commission needs to properly represent all the countries. The people need to have some say in it. I am not going to be part of a union where people I didn't elect are the group with the exclusive power to propose laws. If the only thing the parliament the people elected can do is say no to something, then the commission can just keep proposing year after year until it goes through one day and never propose to repeal it. That's unacceptable. Either parliament also gets part of that authority or the commission needs to be in some way held accountable by the people. To be fair some of this is proposed already. But if it doesn't pass I simply cannot support the EU getting more authority over the states part of it.
@@Hardcore_Remixerculture in single countrys can be incredibly diverse a Bavarian and a Saxon have way different culture but a unifying trait just as all eu country the ideas of democracy and the enlightenment you talk about self governance but I am afraid as us or Chinese puppets there wouldn't be much of that.
I hate it. Feel free to convince me I'm wrong. 1) If a small country like Cyprus or the Baltic countries is invaded by Turkey/Russia and countries are asked to vote then will 90% of the countries are going to agree to go to war with Turkey/Russia?! I don't see France or Germany agree to go to war for a tiny country on the edge of the continent. 2) If a country like the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal, then do ultra religious countries at the edge have to make it legal, too? Just because Western countries want to save money on their healthcare? 3) If a country that isn't Germany wants to build a factory with outside companies, do they have to go to Germany and beg for permission to economically lift their region while not bothering Germany's plans? 4) If Greece decides: we want to import these goods from a Mediteranian country, then can the other countries jump on and say: "wait, wait, you can't get this cheaper product that us! Either put us in the deal or buy the expensive stuff from us because we're united, right?" 5) What if countries like Italy decide: "You know what? I don't want any more immigrants, thank you. I have enough." Will Mother-in-law Germany jump out of its seat and threaten Italy to let all immigrants in because Germany doesn't believe in families and would rather have cheap (serfs) workers? 6) Will countries be forced to enforce discriminatory policies like ESGs if Germany or France suddenly decide that being economically bankrupt is better than being successful? I mean, it's not their countries that rack billions of dollars that are going to suffer! It's going to be the poorer countries that don't have a skilled workforce that are going to suffer. 7) Speaking for trained workforce. How does this solve the continuous deminishioning of skilled labor in poorer countries? Will a graduate student in Poland or Romania be stopped from migrating to France or Germany for better salary and lifestyle? 8) Laws and Taxes. So who gets the short end of paying for all of it? The fat rich moguls in Germany who can buy islands like cars? Or the poor communities in Soviet era countries who suddenly find out that their cabins in Rural countryside with no plumbing, heating or roads suddenly have to pay hundreds of Euros to their local tax collectors for what is essentially a roof over their heads? 9) So these laws... Germany doesn't have a single nuclear power plant and France is full of them. If this Federation happens then will poor countries be forced to: close down their nuclear power plants because some politician on the other side of the continent said so? Why? We are all buying from Russia now? 10) Let's talk laws: so we are all going to be forced to buy EVs from Germany because the laws say that: you can't have gas powered cars in cities anymore? Sure I guess if the EV experiment doesn't work, might as well make everyone pay for like those vaccines. All in all: it feels like this is another way to centralize power in France and Germany and take away power from everyone else. But I am open-minded. So please convince me that I am wrong!
This should have been done a long time ago. Orban and Hungary with a population less than 10ml, manipulating the whole European Union(~500ml) in favour of putin is rediculous.
I personally would support an EU council, operating similar to the US senate -> every member state has the same number of 'senators'. This would give the smaller member states the same power as the larger ones, and where it simply counts, which side has the most supporters. And I would say the council should ceep a president for representitive and coordinative purpose and as a tie breaker if the EU has an even number of member states.
Doesn't make sense. Why Germany, a nation of 80 milion, should have the same number of rappresentatives that Malta has? It would leave larger groups of bigger nations unrappresented, while making smaller nations more rappresentative of the voters will. Just because we shouldn't let smaller nation underappresented, doesn't mean we should go for the opposite extreme
@@ominosentenzioso5100 We could consider it also like most of high chamber of parliament. It would help to represent the countries and not the people directly and as such each country have the same importance.
@@ominosentenzioso5100this model doesn't have the same amount of representatives. The number is based on the size of the population - larger population -> more representatives, and vice versa
@@andreiasw1 the thing is that this is simply a project at trying to keep France and Germany relevant while pulling the strings across Europe. Nope, thank you...
the changes are needed but not creating a federal union. Member states need more freedoms not less. 2 speed EU as suggested by Juncer would be good. and stop the madness of accession of new members especially Ukraine!
I do wish you well if this is genuinely what most eu citizens want, but I’m more convinced & thankful than ever that where I live isn’t in. Of course the eu (& all gov’ts) want more power, it’s what they need it for that matters. Some of these ideas address the democratic deficit in the current eu setup, and that is welcomed of course, as is removing the veto for most things as it’s become a tool of blackmail. I am far less convinced by the arguments about needing to club together to compete with the US & China. Both of those have something the EU will never have - a common culture and language. The way the host talks about companies competing against a fellow eu company being bad is exactly the wrong way to look at it. Again, it’s the language & culture issue which means European companies take longer to grow but either way, trying to remove cut throat competition between companies stinks of the state dictating it’s commercial market and nothing good ever comes from that. I would ask what do the people who believe in this idea think they can accomplish that they currently cannot, if the eu became one huge country that can sit as equals with the US & China? I’m not at all convinced that is necessary, but more importantly I don’t believe it’s possible no matter how the eu is structured because its language & culture again. The eu is already able to pass a similar law as the US Ira (Americans think they’re being cute using that term), now it’s another question entirely whether it should commit all those billons in tax money. Let the Americans and Chinese fight it out, it’s not necessary to add another fist to that fight and regardless, most European countries found their way to democracy and market based economies with individual freedoms centuries ago, so the largest issues of that fight have been settled in this part of the world. I know there is a bit of a freak out going on in Germany with its economy and companies setting up factories elsewhere but I’d argue that a) isn’t because of the US Ira act (mostly), it’s because Germany bet on the wrong technology for their all important automotive sector and are now racing to catch up and b) the days of endless cheap gas to (relatively) cheaply run their factories are over. Germany is a unique case in that through clever engineering and gov’t support never moved past the industrialization phase - but it was never going to last forever and it’s long past time it let other countries with cheaper labour fill that sector and Germany move into r&d, tech etc at the top of the chain. We currently have a perfect illustration of why many of the points in this video may not be possible even with best intentions by true eu believers. All European economies rely on shipping passing Yemen and yet, even that simple and clear foreign policy issue that is relatively close cannot inspire a coordinated response, nor even action by most eu countries. Spain is pushing back on the idea it will help, Italy is being noncommittal even tho it has a military vessel near there, France has sent a ship but cannot stand the thought it’s tied to US so is playing its part down and Germany as usual is nowhere to be seen. How on earth will a federal Europe ever be able to act on any issue when it can’t even do something as straightforward as protect its own ships from attack off the coast of Yemen. That said, if this is what you want, I am rooting for you because it has to be up to eu citizens- that whole democracy thing again!
The only people going on and on about language are the ones that only speak english. No one in the EU has a problem with multiple languages, especially not in business. As for difference in culture, when one is good at international business this again is no problem. China and the USA are also not one big culture as most people seem to think, be it less different of course than EU countries. If one cannot handle culture differences, you will not succeed as a business exporting outside the comfort zone of your own "culture". That all sounds very medieval. What China and the USA, as the nations you speak of, have in common is an abundance of raw materials that EU nations lack, and the simple fact that both countries have been a united market for centuries, compared to the EU SM being in its infancy stage of about 30 years.
@@ab-ym3bf I actually have US citizenship, among 2 others and languages, so I understand the country very well. Obviously you can run a company, organization or government in many languages but it clearly slows things down and requires a lot of effort to translate everything between all the languages. It is often held up as a reason why European tech companies grow slower than their US counterparts because of language & culture. As for the raw materials comment, you already have that - in fact, as you surely know that was how the predecessor of the eu began so that isn’t a reason to hand more powers to Brussels. As for economy/market, the eu already sits with the US & China equally but politically, and militarily it doesn’t and the question is, can you & do you want to integrate completely and if so, why? Apart from inflating some ego’s, I’m not sure what it accomplishes and that’s if possible at all. A person in Spain and another in Estonia are not going to think the same on issues and so far, the eu has got around the democratic issue by being technocrats with a commissioner from each country with often made up useless ministries that are not permitted to act in coordination with their home countries, so they supposedly act on behalf of all eu people. If you want to get to a federal place, then first a common eu identity needs to be created. Like I said in last comment, if that is what a majority of your fellow citizens want, then I fully support the effort to get there.
One culture? One language? China is anything but. And USA aren't that united either. Learning more than one language is enriching. And yes, EU can definitely stand on par with China, India and USA
@@markdickson3820 international companies do their business mostly in english (or French in dealing with African trade, or Spanish when dealing with the americas outside the USA) and certainly do not translate internally. And no, the EU does not have the natural resources like China and the USA have. The world is passed coal, the EU has no oil and gas to speak off, hardly any rich pockets of precious metals etc. There are numerous reasons sure, but to pile them all up under "language and culture" is absolute bollocks. As for one identity, no thanks. We in the EU are happy with the diverse nature of cultures and identities that form part of the union, it enriches us all. The European identity is the sum of all. You do not need to have one culture to come to a joint position, do you really think an Alaskan has the same opinion about a topic as a Texan or Newyorker? Same for all those different cultures within China. What is different is the way they are organized, with a federal government making decisions on certain fields like foreign policy. Again, that doesn't require 1 language and 1 culture.
@TeslaDaVinci-ey5hz it works in other countries like China and the USA, or do you think those are homogenous? Every eu memberstate has education where foreign languages are taught. There is not a country I visited where people didn't speak either English, German or French. And yes,luckily there are cultural differences, as there are everywhere, so we can enjoy them when visiting, and learn from each other to find the best possible solutions to problems. Or do you think a progressive Califórnia feels much in common with a bible belt hillbilly? It won't work? It already has been for a while now.
A federal EU would be cool to see, but with the QMV, if the EU qualified majority decides to do nothing against immigration, smaller countries can't anything about it.
Orban's veto to stall money to Ukraine does not prevent all other member countries from sending money. Member states that cannot pass legislation through the EU are usually free to do so themselves. Forcing smaller countries to be bullied by larger ones is bad for the union.
I have been impatiently waiting for the EU to unify as a single continental nation. I wish them success in this endeavor. They can then rise to the top of the world power structure politically, environmentally, and economically. It is time to counter the loser America as the world leader. I am an American and I do not feel America is any longer a reputable leader for freedom and democracy. Trumpism is proof of America's failings. The EU can construct a very progressive constitution that will bind all countries in unified principles of freedom and democracy which can put America to shame with its presently crippled and failing efforts at constitutional government. Good luck. You deserve to be the world's next leader.
I cannot support the EU in any way until it adopts democracy. Do you know anybody who actually voted for Ursula van de lying ? of course not she was appointed. You had no choice.
@@MENSA.lady2 While you technically correct, in Practice EU Parliament would always vote for the leader of the largest party or coalition and those are known in advance so voters can select their chosen party accordingly. It’s the same way leaders of many European states like Britain are picked.
I'm not a political scientist, but I could immagine QMV in combination with some sort of "emergency veto". In this system a single member can veto a decision, but if they do so, they can't use another one for a long period of time. This way, if a certain topic is incredibly important to a member they have an "emergency brake" so to speak available to them. But they will be very cautious to use this option because they know that if they do, they won't be able to do so again for quite some time.
QMV is never going to happen, a country would be dumb to give up veto power for little in return and countries are not going to let France and Germany become even more powerful. Incentives are for a continuation of the veto power.
I agree the veto should go but the treshhold of QMV should definitely increase...55% representing 65% is not enough imo. Welp I was to fast you just mentioned it yourself 😂
I do not like that the EU wants to "compete" against other nations. Compete how? Companies should compete. The politicians should only make sure that they do not stand in the way. Politicians should not have ambitions to compete.
As big economic blocks you 'compete' as well - for example import tariffs and corporation taxes, if every country has to decide their own, companies would just move to a country next door and not lose much income. If you change it as a big block it they have to comply. Similarly, you do compete with other economic blocks via subsidies and support in certain economic brances, which is also mentioned in the video. If US artificially increases all money flow into chip making, all knowledge would eventually go there. If we are together in the form of EU we can implement our own legislation/support to make sure we stay competitive. Your last statement is so black and white - classic comment of someone who doesnt understand the intricacies.
@@maarten_zappos9189 all those subsidies and tariffs are against free market, and pro central planning. That is why I am against it. If you subsidize something then you are tipping the market forces in favor of that thing even if it may not be the optimal way of doing things. That disincentivizes search for better technologies and substitute products, therefore it can cause inefficiencies. If politicians were all-knowing, god-like and smarter than the rest of the world together then sure, they might predict what is the best thing to do and know perfectly what to do and all the consequences of their actions but I reject that idea. Politicians are not all-knowing, they can not predict what their actions will cause, maybe they will predict few things but not all.
I agree that this could be true, and while some policies are successful, indeed many are not. My point is mainly that when USA does artificially elevate their local market for example by subsidising AI, if we dont do anything as a whole of EU we lose that market, which could be detrimental - maybe not in pure economic sense if the free market eventually wins, but in geopolitical terms for example safety etc. An example is the 5G 'war', where China put a lot of money into creating the capabilities for implementing this infrastructure first.The west was behind, but luckily not by much thanks to policies accellerating this research. If that wouldnt have happened, we might all have had to use chinese 5g which is a vulnerability risk. So my point is that whilst politicians are not all knowing and probably waste a lot of money on these kinds of policies, the economics are only one thing, and geopolitical and safety are another important factor, which we are all a lot stronger in if we do this together via EU. You think i have some points here? @@tomaspecl1082
@@maarten_zappos9189 yes I agree that the EU is more powerful than the individual states and can have more impact but that is the reason why I oppose it. It is too much power in the hands of politicians. The more fragmented the states are the less harm they can do to individuals. That is because people (and companies) can move to another country but as you said the EU can force legislation into all EU states and then you can not just move to another country next door to oppose that legislation. What the EU also does is that it makes less competition between EU states. Basically it creates an EU cartel. Then the EU countries do not have to compete too much to attract companies and people. For example competing by having smaller taxes, less byrocracy and other incentives. Less competition will make it less ideal for everyone as the taxes will rise, byrocracy will rise and other problems will rise.
@@tomaspecl1082 I think this is kind of opposing your first comment, where you said countries arent supposed to compete, its free market that should do the competing. Unified rules and regulations makes it so much easier for companies to compete in multiple different countries and it makes a company in poland able to compete with a company in spain. Having each country have their own rules and regulations actually reduces the free market as there is a lot of different bureacracy for each country. And while this could be fine as I do agree that it keeps more power for each country and thus for each people and culture to apply their own laws, in the globalised system it is incredibly hard for companies to grow in a similar fashion as in USA and China. As a result we do not have google, apple or tencent, while if EU would be more unified, opportunities for companies to grow faster and gain access to talent pools of the whole of europe is easier. In addition, when done well unifying reduces bureacracy, as there is one set of rules rather than different ones for each country. We have been separate countries for a long time, but this hasnt really returned in countries with very smooth bureacracy, it seems that countries and politics do not behave with the same goals as companies. In addition, i think we need to be careful in using the word cartel, it is very extreme, implying this is not done by democracy and the policy makers are not chosen, but it is a criminal orginisation that rules. Which is not the case, and this federal europe idea would be a step to clearer and more fair democratic policy making. It kind of implies that policy making on low scale, so for each country apart would be okay, but then if it is a democratic system consisting the will of the people of multiple countries it becomes a cartel. While i understand the lack of trust in politicians as well as in the disappointing efficiency and democratic clarity of the european union, I still think it is important to go with the time and focus on allowing our companies to compete on the global market. I must say i like our content-driven discussion, it is interesting to see someone with different views but clear thoughts on why and how.
EU need more power than it has now, or would you rather it to take years for anything to be done when the crisis comes? Even if this all passes, EU would still be less federal than US.
@@jeckjeck3119 but that is the thing, the US Federal system as it is today came about gradually and because of crisises. The US civil war occurred because the south feared the federal government would prevent the expansion of slavery. The US became a power at the expense of the Spanish empire. Plus sadly the EU does have its idiots who will want to leave like the UK did. All in the name of nationalism or long gone dream of empire like Russia. Does the EU need to be reformed, absolutely. But it needs some reforms quicker then others. Like making votes required to pass things like 70 to 80% is needed very badly. I also believe the voting of EU citizens needs to change to better represent them and give voters more a say on who gets elected. That we will need fixed eventually. An finally the EU needs to get better at adding new members.
The one reason why I'm not hyped is because even today in Belgium, the region I live in, Pajottenland, is already underrepresented and the services are getting worse and worse. The EU won't solve this so even if there is advancement on the EU level, on the regional/local level it's only getting worse. This is to say that there are many unofficial historical regions that wiln just be even more ignored than they are today.
@@alganis3339 we can't choose what happens with our money. The decisions are made on higher levels. The Flemsih and Federal level preventing communities what they need in favor of the big cities as there are more votes to win in the cities.
@@briancops3798 I'm not saying it would solve the problem you are talking about I'm just saying that it could help by allowing administration to be more efficient. I agree with you and we have similar problem in France.
You are making brexiters mistakes. Fact is, when brexited happened the regions who were mostly vocals saw their funds REDUCED. Meaning EU wasn't the problem
@@jeckjeck3119euro can’t replace the dollar never as long as the USA remains number one, and the eu is not the new world of innovation and technology that remains in America
it depends, the farther away power is from the people the less the voters are seen as people and more as a statistic just look at america and people in power becomes isolated
It's not a risk if Donald trump is back. It's a chance for world peace. But not with the European union. I respect Christine Anderson. She will get my vote. ❤
I think a better idea would be a regional veto. We should consider the ability of mutliple nations to oppose law proposals if they are actually harmful to a specific regions. For example, if Baltic nations consider a specific proposal harmful for their specific region, they should be able to stop it. But only if there is a clear majority of nations intrested in such, to avoid single nations to oppose a specific reform. Also this would help develop regional cooperation, since it would become vital to associate with the same region's nation to have a political weight. Another idea may be to put a veto treshold. For example, if a single nation wants to veto it, they shouldn't have a big weight into it. But if 5-7 different nations have problems with it, even if in different regions, they should be listened, because there must be several issues to cause such reaction.
Uff that is really dangerous. Spain alone has 17 regions and two of them want to play country. You are bound to get the whole union stuck because of petty nationalism
The "75% of member states, 80% of total population" proposal more or less means that the Baltics would need Poland and 3 more countries (for example Romania, Czechia, Hungary) on their side to block it which is a very possible scenario since the Baltics are anyway in a sort of development coalition (fund) called the 3 seas coalition with 13 member states (all EU countries - Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary).
IMHO veto threshold is better idea, but it should remain reasonably low, with 5 or 7 countries is already too high, I would say 3 or 4 should could be ideal.
We need A federal European military independent of NATO B Federal government C federal constitution D federal judiciary authority E EU supreme court of justice F EU FBI G federal citizenship H federal elections No more divisions so some politicians can stay in power It's time for a European igemony not just union
Federal citizenship is an interesting option. So someone who want to be naturalized can do it by studying in one EU country, work in another, and then live in the 3rd while applying for the citizenship. I like that idea. Rather that what is current situation when your years of living in EU nullifies as long as you move to another EU country.
An independent command from NATO seems redundant. It would make more sense to further intergate into NATO instead of making a mirror organization that lacks American logistics and intelligence. That being said, the EU should do military procurement as a bloc to avoid redundancies in R&D and to achieve more economy of scale. Unfortunately, I don't see this as possible as long as protectionist countries like France will torpedo any contracts that aren't given to French companies.
I agree! And we already have G; with your EU ID card and nationality of one of the EU countries, you have the right to live and move between EU countries without any limits.
@@badluck5647relying on America is a huge strategic flaw tho just look at 2016 a right wing populist got into power while losing the popular vote we can not be reliant on them if that's what they call a democracy.
One thousand years we all fought to ensure our own independence, all of us, most earning the right of tainting our flags red in honor of the blood we spilled to do so. Now, we voluntarily relinquish our independence and national identity in order to make more money. Dear Orwell... It is hard for me ti even say I'm Portuguese, for my people is not that of Portugal, but that of the Azores, and now you want me to not even call myself Portuguese? Europe must remain a Union. Not a political monopoly. We must remain countries. Not mere states as the likes of New Jersey or California. That is not the European way. That's the dumb American way. America makes money, not Peace. America makes money, not Culture. America makes money, not Justice.
Very informative video nice work! I myself would love to see a Federal Europe at some point. However as a citizen of a small EU country (Denmark) I really think it's going to be hard to remove the VETO, I kinda do not want them to remove it as it is now. We are a super small country so In some way removing the VETO would feel like being ruled by Germany, Italy and France. And even though we are from the same continent our culture, law and policies are so fundamentally different. For example taxes, we have some of the highest taxes in the world along with a 25% VAT and basically hidden taxes on all kinda goods (Sugar tax, fuel tax and most notoriously a 150% car tax ) this has ofc made us rather rich as a nation. I know that if we where to remove the VETO and then decided to redistribute the wealth around EU in some form. It would be such a hard pill to swollow for the normal Dane. It kinda allready happened back when corona was rampaging. Where EU decided to start sending money to the countries that was hit the hardest. But without any conditions set. Even though it was a tough time for all countries and as an EU citizen we know we have to help eachother. I'm sure It left a rather sour taste in alot of danes mouths given we had to send so much money to a country with lower tax, lower pension age and higher corruption (unacountable money). So if we ever are to remove the VETO right, I personally think that EU have to handle the big laws and policies such as tax percentage and pension age. I just don't see that happening sadly.
European peoples are very different and it is a good thing that they are united by interests. Something that is normal in Denmark, for example in my country, it is not like that. Diversity should be respected, but we must always agree on something common, and there is no compromise. If we haven't grown up enough as people, then it's better that we don't exist. I am from Croatia.
Most of the money sent in the corona recovery was loans. It will have to be laid back. Also I am assuming you are referring to Italy. Which currently has a pension age of 67, and about the same tax amount.
Qualified majority, with sub regions within the more populated states, getting their own votes. So different parts of france and germany, have the abillity to disagree with each other. That's the system i want.
The changes are great and hopefully they will adopt it and all good people will do everything in their power to make it happen, it will truly change the history in a good direction.
If the supermajority is quite a good idea. I'm strongly against many of these reforms : - Art. 7 = who the fuck are judges to deny a country it's right to vote, to veto - The power of the Commission is not reduced → this is the main democratic problem - Ecological exclusive competence would be dramatic cz Germany will use it to kill Nuclear energy - Industrial competence could be interesting only if it uses to protect the European sovereignty against China/USA
@@Maia_Cyclist The idea of Article 7 is to sanction members who infringe the fundamental principles of the EU (e.g. fair and impartial justice), and it is the Council that is responsible for this (with a veto for each member). The supermajority is a rule of governance of the Union as such; for example, the adoption of an industrial plan
You can view Article 7 as the founding of a Supreme Court. The US states are bound by the constitution and will get punished if they do not apply. EU members are punished if they do not comply with the treaties, a form of constitution if you want. If you sign up to an international treaty you honor it, or find a way out.
I think a super qualified majority is necessary to protect smaller countries. It's super important for a democracy to protect its minoritys from the tyranny of the majority. If we fail to do that we might fail to keep the union together.
I hope the reforms go through. We need to break the shackels of centuries of division and get more cohesion within the union. A union where it are the voters choice who will lead them. But if this does not happen, i hope to see the birth of a multi tier eu. The country's who wan't to federate more can choose too and will grow the more for it ( if done right). The start of this "tier" could be for example , one or different unions of smaller member states. Like a federate Benelux for example. This is probably only a dream. But hope is what keeps us moving forward.
If this passes the division will skyrocket. Almost certainly the shift to the right that we see now will seem like nothing afterwards. Which is the worst part. There is no future for a federalist EU. If this passes most likely the far-right wave of backlash will destroy it. While what we have now is better than that option. And rather than keeping something good, if not perfect, we are going down the road of complete obliteration.
@@the11382 You're right on the short term it will even be badder (economically). However integrate, for instance, Ukraine will make the community and the market bigger (+40 millions people) & with out Ukraine Russia can't have any imperialist views BUT it will also create a huge social dumping + they will flood the single market with their wheat...
I don’t get the last point…for the new proposals to be set in motion they need to be ratified via the old ratification standard! Only after they have been ratified do new changes require a mere 4/5 majority…right???
Replacing the veto to QMW is the biggest change needed. The end of blackmailing and progress is the biggest problem in the EU. Countries like Hungary and Poland constantly blackmailing the EU must end. Not so much Poland as they finally elected a democratic leader but Hungary, laughing at our faces and using their veto to blackmail the EU for funds has to end.
Someone who doesn't change it's national courts to favour his views ultimately making it undemocratic. Sort of like what Trump did to the Supreme court or other authoritarian leaders like Putin or Xi. Understood?@@Murmilone
5:20 On one hand you get Political Black mail where a small country can veto a decision. On the other hand, without the Veto, you get Large countries ignoring the needs of the small ones, making key decisions for them and even deciding who should settle in them - which in Effect is Neo Imperialism as the concerns of Smaller Ethnic groups would get pushed to the side to irrelevance.
Already political blackmail: Look at EU funds for Poland to help fight covid. Only give that money if Poland complies with some EU dictatorial rules...
I don’t understand this desire to form a gigantic superstate. If we look at the data smaller nations tend to perform better in per capita gdp than large ones, the one outlier been the US (but America is an outlier in many regards so …). I mean look at the wealthiest nations in Europe: The Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Luxembourg, they all have small populations. I just don’t see the upside to one giant eurosuperstate.
You forget most of those countries do well because they are in the union. Paraguay bs Brazil: which country have the better economy? Nicaragua and Mexico?
@@NoName-hg6cc then why would the smaller and richer countries would want to be a part of superstate? Why would they vote for it, so their riches can be redistributed among poorer countries? It doesn’t make any sense. A euro superstate would benefit the PIGS greatly because they’re the poorest and most irresponsible nations in the union, it would give France the critical mass they dream of to be a political and military superpower and to Germany to be an economic and industrial superpower, but there’s NOTHING in it for the smaller richer countries, they’re better off as a part of an economic union and NATO membership.
@@didixtar2863 They would because their voice will be heard in the WORLD better than single nations. They would because they are protected and they may want to still have that protection, something that won't happen if EU collapse. Yeah, there are some issue. Dor example those small states might have to stop laundering money and getting money from other big countries, for example, Southern countries, because they are fiscal havens and issue questionable financial practices. Yes, France and Germany will need to curb excessive nationalism and work in the interest of all. But I think it's doable. Otherwise the economic union will break and those countries may find themselves in a worse economic situation
@@NoName-hg6cc their voices will be heard in the world as long as they’re a part of of the majority, which considering the economics of the superstate to be, they won’t be. As for protection they’re already protected as part of NATO, which is far more powerful and reliable than the EU, because make no mistake, the Germans and the French would surrender Poland and the Baltics to Rusia in order to protect themselves without a second thought (why do you think they’re so pro US and pro NATO, because they know that the EU can’t be trusted in a war scenario). Letting the French steer the wheel of this superpower to be, means that it will be inherently anti American, which could be a political dead end for Europe. Europe is an aging continent, with very little in the way of natural resources, hard power and cutting edge technology, this is not the time to play tough guys.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions". You cannot have a EU state until you have a European conciousness. Anything other than that will be perceived by many (possibly most) people as a form of conquest. An empire. And that would be a ticking bomb. At this point in time, anyone who claims that the Dutch see the Greeks, or the Austrians see the Romanians, for example, as their fellow European brothers is either deluding himself or lieing.
@@NoName-hg6cc Most Europeans do what? Identify primarily as Europeans and have a sense/feeling of brotherhood with the other Europeans? Not even close! There is plenty of proof that this is not the case, from the way Italy was basically abandoned at the start of the Covid pandemic, to the manner in which Eastern Europeans are referred to in the Western press.
Maybe the other way round. A real EU State, representing european values and interests in the world, could become a strong focal point for a european unification process in the minds of the people.
@@DukeOfTheYard "Identifies primarily" nobody does that not even at national level, region or city come first usually. They do however feel European. The Next Generation show perfectly the mutual assistance of Europeans countries
@@NoName-hg6cc Actually in my country (Romania) most people identify as Romanians first, local allegiances are a very distant second (I am referring to ethnic Romanians, of course). And it is the same in Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria or Greece, to name but a few. I know that there are some countries (Italy comes to mind) where local identity is very important, but that does not exist everywhere. Pressing this matter is just foolish. If a European identity will appear in time, that's a different matter, but for the moment it does not exist.
In theory yea in practice no. I personally distrust big eu countries more then US even with Trump. Eu can have say in exterior politics but no in interior it already have to much power, then lobby and corruption in Parlament is already on same level as country Parlaments. I se eu as good idea but basicly we are colonies of big eu countries
Don't agree with you small countries are the ones who benefits the most of EU. I If they were not in EU, they would have a weak currency, military security, etc however it's true they don't have the power to influence EU politics.
@@quentinp45 beside having " good " curency we still have weak security, etc. i love idea of "EU" but lets be realistic EU was not planed as union of partners more like neocolonial project. our whole political structure is rotten to core. i never voted for Ursula nor Manfred something.
@@HelionDark I agree with you : EU is the most ambitious political project ever developed in the sense that it united people that have made wars/genocide to each other for centuries. However, to my french point of vue, the neocolonial project of EU is mostly driven through the commissioners by american interests. BUT : - what will the EU prerogative in our EU of Nations ? (i m keen of this idea) - how EU could work if small countries are playing against the big ones ?
what started as liberal initiative became a State Anti-democratic initiative. EU just think how get more power from nacional states, even in USA a state have more autonomy to say no to federal law, than EU members has.
the QMV sounds good but the population part should be erased, that's because any country with a large population can influence the votes even though more than 55% of nations vote for a thing. I would go for the Swiss example in this case and have every country represent a vote after internal voting has been done, just like cantons do. and If you have over 51% in favor then the law is passed. There might be downsides to these as well but I cannot see any at this time.
I understand, why EU wide referendums were taken out from the proposal. I think Brexit is a very good example, that shows, that a referendum is not a good way to take decisions, because it’s to easy to influence people with ‚alternative facts‘. People believe the lies, that populists spread before a vote (e.g. we send the EU £350 million a week - let‘s fund our NHS instead - vote leave) and then take decisions, that cannot be easily reverted.
For us in Slovenia referendums have saved us many times in the past. For example: the previous far right government tried to make law that would allow privatization of water sources and the law passed through parliament. Luckily enough signatures were collected so there was referendum in which 75% voted against with more than 70% of population voting in referendum. Referendums are a good things because they remind politicians that people are truly in charge of the country.
This means the Commission President will be like a Prime Minister or Chancellor. That gives EU citizens more power, good. I support Super Majority Voting being used in the Council of the EU. It will protect small states & still speed up decision making.
The only thing still missing for that is to actually have European parties instead of the national party shitshow we have right now. I'd love to see that. It would also mean that the EUPMs are mire Europe focused.
Our soveregnty is already mined by the great powers, the US almost all the times because the achievement of their interests. So, give up their soveregnty to someone who exist to enhance the integration between the neighborhoods, their Economy and the happiness of the people shouldn't be so bad. I know that someone could say that the EU doesn't always bring happiness to all its citizens, but this is only because it is still undemocratic, we must fix it to bring happiness to all Europe. The countries of the EU are big and small. The small one have one cultural group; The big one have more cultural groups; I think that in a European Federation, the big countries, like Italy, where I come from, would be divided, giving existence to that cultural group. Lombardy and Sicily have little in common, except for the language, so, in a European Federation they would become a federated state, instead of the Italian federated state, we will have the Sicilian Federated State, the Lombardian Federated State, and so on... But they would continue to operate like one country, together with the other new federated states of all Europe. The local government will have jurisdiction over local question and the EU will accompany the federated states in the decision that include other federated states. This becouse, the Italian Government wouldn't be necessary anymore, since now would be the European Government to accompany the region, now federated state, in the big task. With a Federated Italy would add an unecessary level in the Government. In the Big task the region should communicate the decision to the Italian Government that should communicate it to the European Government. This would only slow down the decision since now the region itself can communicate the decision to the European Government, cutting a usless step and saving more time. Obviously, not every single region will be independent, but the groups of region that share a more similar common culture. For example, the South-East Mediterranean Regions of France share a similar culture, but different from the similar culture shared by the South-West Mediterranean Regions of France or the Center-West Regions of France or still the South-West Atlantic Regions of France, but I think you get it. How will be decided if the decision has parts that can include nore federated states? In the Regional Council (The parliament of the Federated States born from ashes of the old big countries, and the already existing parliaments of the little countries) would be present 2 or 3 senators, deputats that will represent the European Government and will verify if in this decision is present another interested party. Obviously this choice can be made only through a universal referendum, because the politicians are sure to deny only the word European Federation Sorry for the long comment 😅, but is in this way that I imagine the European Federation, a way that I hope will opened by this reforms
@@NoName-hg6cc How they can support the Federation, from my point of view they would be a dead weight, and btw, trust me, Sicily and Lombardy are too much different. Sicily had Spanish and Arab influence, but today's dialect is much more independent, while Lombardy had a strong Austrian and French influence, even a little German, that strongly shaped their dialect and culture. And, from the way they behave they aren't even considered Italian.
@@ant_cosacco1306Don't tell me, you vote Lega Nord 🙄 You forget that both had Normans influence. That they BOTH influenced each other before any foreign influence and AFTER. And no, they wouldn't be dead weight, they in fact might be economic engines for Europe as a whole
I come from smaller nation (Slovenia) and this is true, majority vote this affects national sovereginty. We were part of Yugoslavia and the main concern was this also. The best is to be agreement - if you cannot agreen with a sovereign country, you should convince it with opinions and arguments. I do not understand why smaller countries should only "team up" with someone. Also as fun fact, Yugoslavia pushed laso "unity" via Brotherdhood and unity ideals. wel this did not work out in the end and yugoslavia fell apart. precesily slovania and croatia wanted to reform the country from federation to confederation (sovereign states). so the reverse
This. We Slovenians (along with a few other smaller countries) and we have unique insight due to bad experiences with Austria and Yugoslavia. Most viewers from this channel come from bigger nations that never have experience with this and it is so difficult to tell them why the removal of veto is a bad idea.
I think we have to stop framing the issue from the fiscal pov. The more important upside is regulatory harmonization which enables a much better economic environment. Also we should still be vary on a fiscal union as the economic disparities are still huge. A social union will not work and also industrial policies should not completely fall to the EU as local factors remain important and are one of the main parameters for optimizing economic policy. Money transfer between countries and especially debt transfers decrease acceptance. Very hard to balance correctly. We also need to make the EU more agile, getting rid of vetos is only the first step. We also have to get rid of EU directives for example. The bureaucratic apparatus is already insanely complex.
@@NoName-hg6ccim swedish and all for working together but im not for it being forced on everyone, the single market is a good idea and we should work on security (military and civilian) but I wanna stay independent.
What happens if one country doesn't sign a new treaty that removes its veto rights? Ot if it's rejected in a referendum, will the EU do it by the back door like they did with Lisbon
Yes to fedetion no to confederation. People need to understand that political decisions in stress moments need to be taken immediately otherwise that would eat us later on...
Veto right indeed showed to have some drawbacks when facing external disruptions however EU should not be trying to reduce role national governments because of this. Truth is there are some areas when national governments should prevail but some that can be merged under EU umbrella. EU policies could be add-ons but not instead-of national policies. More alignment is needed. Common economic policy (true freedom to move, work and life) and trade agreements towards other countries, external politics, are good examples when EU should act as one - pragmatism first and foremost. French will be French, Spanish will be Spanish, no nation would throw away it's heritage for sake of idea of federated EU. There is lots common topics and for sure acting together is better.
As a Norwegian, I can tell that Norway will never-ever join this power-grabbing organization. And the more power it tries to grab, the less likely it is to happen. Better to be rich and small, than poor and big.
you realize that only thing that keeps Norway afloat is Oil, right? if it gets obsolete, Norway would very quickly spiral to recession and be small and poor as there would be no EU to help out as EU helped Greece when it was in troubles.
@@Lukas-lw4eg - naah. The Norwegian oil-fund is spiraling out of control, and growing exponentially. A few more decades now, and it will easily cover the entire Norwegian state budget. While continuning to grow. Then Norway only need to reduce taxes to make it suitable attractive to foreign companies to keep things running.
As an American, and thus on the receiving end of endless bigoted ignorance from Europe, I'm not a fan of Europe. But I see a federal Europe as the European people's best chance for a stable and worthwhile future. So I support a Federal Europe to protect the European people. Even though the Europeans never curb their intelligencia.
@MW_Asura Just because you are a bigot that sees me as a punching bag doesn't privilege your worldview. Europe is going to be dumped by America because of creeps and bullies like you. I think Europe will survive the dumping better as a federation.
