Why would we suddenly follow Germany’s stance and not Spain just because unanimity is gone? We would likely follow a qualified majority or supermajority, just as other aspects of legislation (perhaps even draw out higher thresholds for voting). If the majority elected to take a position against Russia (or for Ukraine, if you will), then it isn’t anything but counterproductive, that we remain in a political quagmire because of one individual exercising veto powers. If the majority elected to take a different approach to foreign policy towards the US, then it would also be frustrating if it was up to an individual head of state to veto our collective action. This won’t get us moving at all.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Spain’s position is a minority within the EU. If Germany or France want to support genocide, that’s for their people to deal with, the EU as a union, if there is no consensus, should not, through qualified majority have the chance to act as EU in representation of Spain when Spain does not agree with the EU position. Nothing is stopping the countries that support Ukraine (which is basically the almost entirety of the EU) to continue supporting Ukraine. What makes no sense is Hungary to serve as a guaranteur country for a loan for which its people allegedly do not agree with.
It’s not lost on me that Hungary is a net receiver of EU funds, but the EU was not designed for the latest expansionist waves of the late noughties. That’s where the legislative framework difficulties come from. German and British companies wanted access to cheap labour and a larger market, so now we have to deal with the consequences of expanding. The most urgent step is to repeal the lobbying law of 2007 and return to the stringent anti-corruption enforcement. Also, most EU countries already are subject to supra-national legal entities, i. e. the ECJ is sovereign, despite some German judges arguing otherwise. Whoever signed in should have read the ToS.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Spain’s position is a minority within the EU. If Germany or France want to support genocide, that’s for their people to deal with, the EU as a union, if there is no consensus, should not, through qualified majority have the chance to act as EU in representation of Spain when Spain does not agree with the EU position. Nothing is stopping the countries that support Ukraine (which is basically the almost entirety of the EU) to continue supporting Ukraine. What makes no sense is Hungary to serve as a guaranteur country for a loan for which its people allegedly do not agree with.
It’s not lost on me that Hungary is a net receiver of EU funds, but the EU was not designed for the latest expansionist waves of the late noughties. That’s where the legislative framework difficulties come from. German and British companies wanted access to cheap labour and a larger market, so now we have to deal with the consequences of expanding. The most urgent step is to repeal the lobbying law of 2007 and return to the stringent anti-corruption enforcement. Also, most EU countries already are subject to supra-national legal entities, i. e. the ECJ is sovereign, despite some German judges arguing otherwise. Whoever signed in should have read the ToS.
Edit: As if reality conspired to make my point…