• GardenGeek@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The problem is that in the system you propose, smaller countries would have near zero incentive to participate because they’d always be overridden by larger countries.

    I get the problem and I don’t claim that my thoughts would be a ideal solution.

    Currently, however, we face the opposite problem: The larger countries are increasingly being asked why they bear the lion’s share of the costs only to then have their sovereignty restricted by countries like Hungary (EU law takes precedence over national law).

    Both problems—the lack of representation for both the small and the large countries—pose a threat to the alliance in their own ways.

    I don’t know which of the two is more serious… but intuitively, I would say that a withdrawal by the large countries would hit the alliance much harder than one by the small ones, since a large portion of the budget (from which small states in particular benefit greatly) would then be lost.

    • rollerbang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The problem with large countries potentially leaving is that everybody loses out on global power impact. It would only be viable, imho, of the difference of opinions would be vast and would constantly have a negative impact.

      After all, nobody agrees with somebody else all of the time.