Yes, and Ukraine has been working towards it for years. Ukraine’s accession to the EU here isn’t a split second, “Sorry about the war” offer, it was a core demand of Euromaidan and has been a goal of Ukraine since the early 2000s.
And Ukraine clearly is not ready. They’re a weak democracy filled with corruption. The fact that they are in the middle of a war also doesn’t help.
The EU on the other hand still needs significant reform, when it comes to visibility to the general population, figuring out how to root out unanimity stuff on the EU commission, and figuring out what to do with idiots like orban. And making clear that EU law supersedes national law
I agree that things need to change in the EU. It’s completely unacceptable that a couple states that went wrong can blackmail the whole union. If necessary, the EU needs to be able to suspend membership in extreme cases. And be done with unanimous agreements, and change to a majority one. The current rules are too idealistic, and didn’t account for a state going awry.
Membership suspension should be a no go. But unanimity is indeed a problem with 27 states. There should be a way for a like 70% majority, so the black sheeps can’t take the whole EU ostage.
The rules are not idealistic btw. It the most pragmatic rule of the EU: it is the only way for states to accept ruling from Europe. This way, there is nothing they must do that they haven’t bargained before they accept.
This is why any politician saying the EU is forcing them to do something is a big lier. Nothing in the EU is done without the approbation of each single EU country leader or its representative.
What I mean with “idealistic” is that there are no safeguards to deal with these situations, and in my opinion, it’s because in the past it was thought that once a state was inside the Union, there would be no need to become anti-union, or sabotage it’s working (or there would be safeguards in place already). It’s clear now that a member state can go awry, and become no compliant with the EU, ignoring EU institutions and principles. The EU needs safeguard measures for those cases.
A majority rule will never happen. If it does, the west European countries will be in charge of the EU, which defeats the whole purpose of, you know, a union.
There are many ways to reach a majority. You can have a weighted majority, and agree that you need 3/4 of the votes to reach an agreement. So, those countries with more people have more voting power than many small countries. There are formulas, if you look for them.
Majority rule does not in any way defeat the purpose of a union, it strengthens it, but prevents one agenda, for one member, from cancelling out all the others
Remember that, to be a member of the EU, the state must comply with the Copenhagen criteria.
It’s a long process, that can take years.
Yes, and Ukraine has been working towards it for years. Ukraine’s accession to the EU here isn’t a split second, “Sorry about the war” offer, it was a core demand of Euromaidan and has been a goal of Ukraine since the early 2000s.
Yup, they’re not there yet but they are actively working towards it.
Other countries also have been working for years and are not ready yet. Just like Ukraine is not ready.
And Ukraine clearly is not ready. They’re a weak democracy filled with corruption. The fact that they are in the middle of a war also doesn’t help.
The EU on the other hand still needs significant reform, when it comes to visibility to the general population, figuring out how to root out unanimity stuff on the EU commission, and figuring out what to do with idiots like orban. And making clear that EU law supersedes national law
I agree that things need to change in the EU. It’s completely unacceptable that a couple states that went wrong can blackmail the whole union. If necessary, the EU needs to be able to suspend membership in extreme cases. And be done with unanimous agreements, and change to a majority one. The current rules are too idealistic, and didn’t account for a state going awry.
Membership suspension should be a no go. But unanimity is indeed a problem with 27 states. There should be a way for a like 70% majority, so the black sheeps can’t take the whole EU ostage.
The rules are not idealistic btw. It the most pragmatic rule of the EU: it is the only way for states to accept ruling from Europe. This way, there is nothing they must do that they haven’t bargained before they accept.
This is why any politician saying the EU is forcing them to do something is a big lier. Nothing in the EU is done without the approbation of each single EU country leader or its representative.
What I mean with “idealistic” is that there are no safeguards to deal with these situations, and in my opinion, it’s because in the past it was thought that once a state was inside the Union, there would be no need to become anti-union, or sabotage it’s working (or there would be safeguards in place already). It’s clear now that a member state can go awry, and become no compliant with the EU, ignoring EU institutions and principles. The EU needs safeguard measures for those cases.
A majority rule will never happen. If it does, the west European countries will be in charge of the EU, which defeats the whole purpose of, you know, a union.
There are many ways to reach a majority. You can have a weighted majority, and agree that you need 3/4 of the votes to reach an agreement. So, those countries with more people have more voting power than many small countries. There are formulas, if you look for them.
Majority rule does not in any way defeat the purpose of a union, it strengthens it, but prevents one agenda, for one member, from cancelling out all the others