I found this on Reddit and I read the whole thing, I thought it was interesting.
The author argues in favour of greater European independence on defence (and less dependence on the US). The article is a year old but I think it’s still relevant.
The author is apparently a journalist with France 24, a French state-owned media company, so you could say that makes him biased in favour of the French position. But I think he still makes valid points.
I don’t think any reasonable person can argue in good faith that Europe should rely on the US and Turkey in order to defend itself.
The EU is a bit of a mess, but I think it is a decent starting point for a defence union. The very reason it’s so hard to make it happen - constant vetos by random countries who are reluctant to accept the majority opinion - is also what would make it good. Abusing power (by for example attacking) would be difficult, but there is a strong common interest in defending the borders of Schengen.
Yeah maybe the veto thing is a bit silly. Maybe these matters could be decided by a majority vote in the EU parliament.
The veto thing is the only way the individual countries can maintain their sovereignty. It’s a union, not federation. There should definitely be mutual cooperation on defence, immigration etc but nobody will agree to cooperation if they are obliged to follow other countries plan. Ireland, for instance is constitutionally neutral. Small countries won’t want to be bullied by larger, so France and Germany combine almost could control everything with simple majorities. Larger countries want the smaller countries to contribute their fair share and not be carried.
There isn’t a binary «veto»/«simple majority». Supermajorities exist, and the Council already has rules like double-majorities to preserver a smaller country’s voice. Vetoes only work for small groups, and cause gridlock in all other cases.
Ireland, for instance is constitutionally neutral
That’s why article 42 is worded that way. Ireland (and Austria) not being able to contribute directly doesn’t mean that the 25 other countries can’t act.
Maybe it should be a federation… although that obviously won’t be realistic for years to come. And France and Germany alone are a way off from a majority if you have a representative parliament… France and Germany together is about 150 million people, but there are around 450 million people in the EU.
I don’t think most EU countries want to be a federation at this point. Close ties, yes, but not loss of sovereignty.
For a simple majority, they can’t enact things on their own. However they can hold up a qualified majority with just a few smaller states due to their size. The EU is about broad consensus which is why it moves slowly for anything regarding sovereignty, which includes immigration and defence.
Yeah fair enough. I wonder what will happen in the future. Maybe a federation will never happen, who knows.
I think that most western countries are converging on economic, taxation and liberal values that align. As developing countries catch up, to meet entry criteria, I expect it will expand east and south, potentially with some trading partners joining or aligning more closely. As the block gets bigger, it becomes more important to trade with, so it may hit a point where everyone wants in, but has to follow their rules. Or it stagnates and never gets there and dissolves over time, either because it’s no longer needed or it’s not fit for purpose.
I think the next 20 years will be telling, especially what happens to Britain and Ukraine in that time.
I think that most western countries are converging on economic, taxation and liberal values that align.
Well illiberal leaders have been elected in the US, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, and maybe more will follow… but yeah who knows.
I think the veto thing is absolutely necessary. The most important functions (defence when attacked, disaster relief) should be triggered automatically without political involvement should they ever become relevant; anything extra beyond core functions should be high hanging. If not we’ll have a European desert storm before we know it.
I have come to think that the only thing that is going to save Europe is how much we struggle to agree on anything. That’s a good thing in times when majorities are untrustworthy.
Majorities might produce bad decisions sometimes but the alternative is that you have leaders making decisions that the majority of people don’t like… which is arguably worse.
As for the veto, I wonder if the EU will dislike that sort of thing in the future, especially if greater EU co-operation is seen as necessary in order to compete with (and defend from) large powers like the US and China. If one country vetoes something that the majority of Europeans want, is that good? Maybe not.
Yeah, for sure it depends on the situation. But for military cooperation I think it might be good not to be too trigger happy.
No doubt for other things we need to be able to decide things without Hungary.
for military cooperation I think it might be good not to be too trigger happy
True. I guess maybe for some actions, a two-thirds majority of votes could be required. I dunno.
Which goes back to the point about France and Germany being able to control the momentum with a third of the population.
With a mathematically representative EU parliament then France and Germany shouldn’t be able to control anything by themselves because like you say, their combined population is less than half of the EU
