Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden are pushing to explore the idea of moving from unanimity to qualified majority in foreign policy.
Do you want the total war?
Because this is how.
yeah super majorities are so hard to get seems kinda nuts that they required 100%. could do two thirds or even three fourths. I mean three fourths is really hard to get.
I can see that getting vetoed.
Why should anyone have veto? Same goes for UN. The only thing it does is letting few being free to do whatever they want. Would terrorist country like US or Russia decide to nuke some smaller country? They have veto, so why not!
Or terrorist country like USA decide to kidnap President of another country and steal their Oil, for example.
The UN is a diplomatic platform, not a global government. The idea is that if the particular countries couldn’t veto, they’d leave the organisation altogether instead. Having everyone take part in the same diplomatic organisation is the main goal, not producing actionable resolutions.
So what is the point of it then? Small country roes something terrible, they get condemned. US murders people without any oversight.
The point is to have a dialogue and to allow the largest influences to shape the dialogue. It’s not meant to have any power beyond diplomatic conversation. The most hostile countries to the US still get in a plane and fly to New York to participate. Think about that.
I think once the US and EU realize that the “Unipolar moment” is fucking over we’ll get a lot more use out of the UN.
Because getting small countries to stop helps reduce war deaths.
Who gets the big countries to stop killing the small countries?
If nothing else works, other big countries. However, it is generally a high bar to get two big countries to go to war with each other.
You have a deeply flawed understanding of who is leading the world in amount of war deaths and why.
Feel free to correct me, but you’re the one who asked the question. Just insulting isn’t a good rhetorical device.
No one. That’s supposed to be NATO’s job.
Lol
that’s what they want you to believe
I never said they were good at it, I said that was their job.
No? NATO is there to prevent revolutionary backlash against imperialist countries.
To allow the big countries a place of communication to prevent wider conflict.
People wanted to join the EU and not lose sovereignty.
The veto is the sole reason these institutions still exist. There’s no way in hell any member would give up that power.
You should put more thought into the arguments you make, because clearly 11 members would.
Cool, in the EU all countries have veto power. In the UN, all permanent members of the security council have veto power. You just need one of them to refuse to give up that power. In the EU, I believe this could somewhat work, but in the UN ? No way the US, China, Russia, France or the UK would give it up without leaving the institution.
I think that’s what OP meant. That changing the veto rule with the EU is something that’s possible. Your prior comment made it seem like the whole EU wouldn’t exist
I like those 5 principles.
I hope something close to that will succeed.Sounds like the powerful nations in the Union, want more hierarchical power, and hierarchical structures,
“Because we need to be Strong!”
“The World has Changed, and We must not be Left Behind, we must not Become Weak!”
Now where have I heard that before…
Sounds like you want the EU to collapse like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The history of vetoes is very interesting.
Counterpoint: vetoes are generally anti-democratic.
The "most hierarchically strong"countries are the most populous. Funny that.
Fascism ---------- Democracy ---------- Anarchy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .⬆️
. . . . . . . . . . . . .Vetoes are here. . .Vetoes are anti-Democratic, in the sense that they protect vulnerable minorities, from powerful majorities.
Centralization, unification, and empowerment, makes power structures much, much more vulnerable to corruption.
The ability of parts of the world to impose their will on the weaker, instead of letting them advocate for themselves, is what unavoidably walks the walk to fascism, literally every single time in history.
protect vulnerable minorities
Like Viktor Orbán?
Viktor Orban is a rich powerful authoritarian, in the pocket of bigger more powerful authoritarians.
Neither he, nor the people funding him are vulnerable minorities.
If a rich guy hires a Mafia that sends poor people to do their dirty work, you don’t make laws against being poor.
Make laws that actually solve problems, keep the weak safe from rich assholes’ manipulation, to make the Mafia weaker.
All the various “right-wing” authoritarians around Europe, are getting to power, by fucking Ginormous amounts of corruption. Greece, where I’m from, is one such joke.
Europe should protect the sanctity of those power structures, to prevent people like Orban from getting to power, instead of taking the lazy, short term way out, that leaves the Union weaker and easier to internally take over by the fascist bastards, later.
I see so your suggestion is to make a government that has never functionally exist before and not eliminate something based on how it has actually been used the vast majority of the time but rather protect it based on your idealized version of how it could be used in your fantasy government.
I am sure all the people who will suffer in the meantime support your fantasy.
