No but they’re in Schengen, the fact that they chose that arrangement was my point, countries that refuse EU membership shouldn’t be able to block EU member states from further integrating with the EU.
EU needs to abandon unanimity in decision making - it’s not even the veto of one “country”, but of one party in one country. Same for UN. Pure consensus is not working.
Not really sure it would work. The security council legitimizes actual wars. In that case I’m okay with there being too much safeguards. The same goes for the EU. If we actually decide to invade a country, I’d prefer it that all 27 member states are unanimous. If everyone from Hungary to Ireland decides that a county needs bombing, then I believe it.
Apart from such things I do agree with you. For most policies (e.g. sanctions) we shouldn’t need unanimity. Though in some cases a bigger qualified majority (like 75% of population and states) might be better.
Within EU there are proposals to move to QMV for most topics (spanish presidency still pushing this), problem is vetos block such reform. EU doesn’t have any power to invade (yet?). Regarding UN, most processes, like UNFCCC and even IPCC, operate by consensus - this dilutes many outcomes, it’s a pity. As for UN-SC, its record of helping is not great, just legitimizes old power, maybe should be abolished. I’d rather see a weighted GA vote (maybe excluding parties to a conflict).
Sure need to consider that - but what bad policy could they get through QMV (>> simple majority but << consensus), that a lone more progressive m-state might otherwise block ?
Add comment