this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2025
24 points (96.2% liked)

Europe

7412 readers
644 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
federalreverse@feddit.org
poVoq@slrpnk.net
anzo@programming.dev
EuroMod@feddit.org
24
To veto or not to veto? That's the big question in the EU (www.euronews.com)
submitted 1 week ago by Anonymaus@feddit.org to c/europe@feddit.org
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Governments can veto decisions on foreign affairs, enlargement and budget. But this also makes enacting sanctions against countries like Russia or Israel harder to approve.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tuuktuuk@piefed.ee 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I would prefer the veto rights being reduced strongly.

At the same time, being from a small country, it also worries me that small countries such as Finland can get trampled by the bigger ones. Finland has very close to 1 % of EU's citizens. There is already a system where smaller countries get more places per capita in the European Parliament than bigger ones, but in the end it changes little. In the EP, Finland has 15 places out of 720, meaning we have about 2% of all the places. And therefore, about 2% of the political power. Assuming the MEPs who are from very different parties could even unite as one front in the first place.

It is a bit scary if Finland only has a 2% weight in any decisions made in the EU. There are already things where we are getting accidentally trampled: There are EU rules about having to add an additive to diesel fuel, to make it less polluting. However, that additive freezes in temperatures that are commonplace in winters in Lapland, at least in nighttime. This means, it is de facto illegal parking a diesel vehicle outdoors during a January night in Lapland. I do not think this was ever the intention of the lawmakers, but that's the law they ended up writing.

But still: I think it might make sense that there would be some way of getting around a veto, but it should be made in some manner unappealing to use unless really needed. And also, the power should, in general, be moved from commission to EP, thus reducing the number of cases where the veto right exists.

I wonder if some kind of "emergency brake" could be deviced for situations where the parliament is about to make a decision that will disproportionately damage a member state. Maybe this could be organized as a law, so that a court could decide if something of exceptional national importance is being overlooked by the EP?

[–] Tuuktuuk@piefed.ee 4 points 6 days ago

And, while this is a bit off-topic, I also want to add an anecdote from around year 1998 or so. Back when they decided the name for our currency, Euro, the European Central Bank also decided that when speaking or writing in Finnish, it should be forbidden to say "For the Euro", "From the Euro", "Along the Euro", "Behind the Euro", "Without the Euro" or any sentence that includes both the word for "no" in connection with the word "Euro".

Of course it didn't mean to make such an absurd rule.

But in Finnish those words such as "from", "for", etc. come after the word and without a space in between, so they technically count as parts of the same word. And the ECB declared that "Euro" is a word that cannot be declinated in any manner in any language. There is no way of saying "from" in Finnish without adding an ending to a word, so this was something of a very shitty ruling. Obviously it was simply ignored. But it does showcase a situation where Finland had something that was completely unique in EU and got completely overlooked. Back then Finland was the only Finno-Ugric speaking country in the EU, and in Indo-European languages the decision made sense, but in the one country with a language from a different language family, it didn't. The Finnish language got completely overlooked because Finland was so small, peripheral and insignificant. Maybe not a problem for the EU, but definitely a problem for us people living over here in our insignificant and unimportant corner of the Union.

[–] geissi@feddit.org 2 points 6 days ago

The article keeps mentioning past pushes to abolish unanimity.

But I think It's worth mentioning that the treaty of Lisbon already changed voting rules in many fields from unanimity to qualified majority in 2014:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Policy_areas

It's not like there has never been any progress in that direction.

[–] Mika@piefed.ca 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

EU is a failed project if a single Orbanistan could block the important decisions for years, trading votes for more EU money to support his corrupt regime.

[–] Anonymaus@feddit.org 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Thats why eu should abolish unanimity voting in favor of majority voting instead

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Okay, but would that also mean Germany can't veto more debt?

Despite Hungary abusing the veto, other players also like it.

[–] geissi@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago

Germany, as per the article is one of the countries that wants more qualified majority decisions

Other countries, such as Germany and France, are pushing for qualified majority voting in the areas of foreign affairs and security.

Also, what debt are you talking about?
Individual national budgets are not subject to EU vetos. And the Maastricht criteria that are supposed to regulate national debt ratios are three decades old by now.

[–] Anonymaus@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It’s all a matter of perspective—both unanimous and majority voting have their pros and cons. Some countries will lose their privileges, while others will gain theirs.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 week ago

It will mostly mean that the EU can act in ways that is not beneficial to singular member states, and the importance of member states would suffer in comparison to union decisionmaking.

I am all for it, I just wanted to point out it wasn't Hungary who joined in 2004 who established the rules, and member states could do away with the veto at any point in time, it's just other countries like it as well.

None are abusing it as much as Hungary though.