comment: >
  
  Or just idk ... vote?
context: German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said on Wednesday that the European Union could no longer afford to have decisions blocked by individual member states.
  "Qualified majority voting can lead to fairer...results for all of us," Baerbock told a conference in Portugal's capital Lisbon. "We must be capable of acting efficiently and swiftly."
  Baerbock said that EU countries are often not even able to draft a press release "because they cannot agree on the same wording". >
  
  The big issue is the use of the veto as a bargaining. Hungary did use their veto to block aid to Ukraine but removed it in exchange of a deal on EU subsidie. >
  
  bro the only reason veto exists is bargaining >
  
  More like the veto exists to maintain sovereignty.
  It’s a delicate act. Do you want to be a member of a union or do you want to be in control of your own country?
  In the United States the states can’t veto what the federal government does. Instead they have to go to a federal court and ask the federal court to agree that the federal government broke its agreement to the states. In this sense you can say that the states lost some of their sovereignty.
  The EU wants to be a union but not have individual states give up its sovereignty.
  You have a similar effect for the United Nations and the Security Council with its veto capability. It’s about preserving sovereignty for the parties involved. >
  
  Countries that have individual veto can only lose it if they vote to lose it, and they’d be mad to do so. >
  
  There should be a veto proof majority though. 
  Even if you set the bar to 90% it would hobble bad faith actors. >
  
  So any decision that is good for 90% but catastrophic for the remaining 10% would be a choice between voting for something catastrophic for your people or having your country leave the EU (again with potentially catastrophic consequences). 
  There's good reason why there are single country veto areas. >
  
  Honestly, that scenario seems less likely than anti-democratic efforts from Hungary and Poland fucking some shit up. >
  
  Only because of the same concessions/negotiations that occur behind the scenes
  You have to be fair when comparing. >
  
  You want to be fair with comparisons? Then go look up the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its veto system. >
  
  Why don't you tell me what you're trying to say.
  That veto powers are bad?
  There's a reason they exist. >
  
  They exist because at some point someone wanted it, and it was agreed on.
  The still exist because somebody doesn’t want to relinquish that power. >
  
  It's a nice sentiment considering Hungary especially has become so obstructionist. Political arson is not a great way to represent your country. That said, majority vote power in a union of sovereign nations is not likely to be the best solution. There's obviously no perfect way to go about this, but there should definitely be checks and overrides for all of these processes so things can actually be done. Not that I'm out here riding for Germany or France, but the EU is a good thing to have. >
  
  
  A qualified majority is reached if two conditions are simultaneously met: 55% of member states vote in favour - in practice this means 15 out of 27. the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population.
  
  Why should 500k be able to hold 450 milion hostage? >
  
  Well, unlike the United States, as stated in other posts, these are all sovereign nations and not subsidized landmasses like states are. It's not really about the majority, it is about the interests of the nations and their own ability to govern. >
  
  That's actually the exact situation the United States used to be. Before the Civil War, the states had far more power than they do today. The issue of slavery just happened to be the power possessed by each state that was tearing the union apart. >
  
  
  A better analogy might be if the US government was in a union with, say, Mexico, Argentina and Brasil - and decisions made in Rio could overrule decisions and policy made by the US government.
  
  You mean the Articles of Confederation? >
  
  
  afaik there was no US President until the articles of confederation morphed into the Constitution drawn up in 1789. In the EU each country has it's own such President (or equivalent head of state) already, and in some cases, their constitutions have been in place for hundreds of years.
  
  I'm unsure what this is supposed to be proving. The Articles of Confederation did have Presidents, and each state did have an elected head of state in the form of their governor. 
  Not to mention that American governments grow out of the English government, and so inherited the traditions of the English constitution despite eventually codifying our own in writing while the English still use an unwritten one (when you see the Supreme Court bringing up and arguing about English law from the 1600s when deciding a modern issue, this is why). 
  And then, of course, each state adopted its own constitution in either 1776 or 1777 when they officially broke from England. States that came to exist after the war, of course, did not draft theirs until later. >
  
  Um, isn't that reasoning why Britain left? >
  
  One of many >
  
  Sounds nice but think of the day Germany will be against, and everyone else for. >
  
  In a democracy, sometimes you get outvoted. >
  
  The council is literally the heads of state. EP is directly elected. All other institutions are appointed by one or both of the above. And if you don't like it, you can leave, as the UK has shown us.
  Unless you can't be bothered to look up the first thing about the EU before criticizing it, your comment is something called a "lie." >
  
  If you wanted to disband the EU from the inside, trying to get rid of the veto would be the best way to do it.
  Federalizing Europe is insanely unpopular, and that's essentially what this is. The problem is that some people have decided the EU is a group of countries that have to act like one country instead of just being a free trade/defensive treaty. >
  
  Here‘s what she said:
  
  We sometimes have situations where we want to act as the EU but unfortunately are not even able to formulate a press release because we cannot agree on the full wording. That is why I suggest that we make better use of the possibilities that the EU treaties already offer today.
  One example: We recently launched a training mission for Ukrainian forces, with a decision that required unanimity. After a long debate, Hungary decided to "constructively abstain," allowing the others to go ahead.
  We want to build on such pragmatic solutions so that we as the EU can live up to our responsibility as a strong global player - whether through this form of constructive abstention or the passerelle clause, which is already in the treaties, or through qualified majority voting in specific, specifically defined policy areas such as climate-related issues, sanctions or human rights.
  
  Source, translated with DeepL, emphasis mine >
  
  Its kind of shocking how many people here seem to think that we should get rid of the veto.
  The veto was promised to protect smaller countries from the influence of larger countries, and also for more self-centered countries like France or the Netherlands for example.
  People here seem to think that a removal of the Veto would be accepted by literally everyone except Poland or Hungary but that's not the case, many countries would not want to get rid of the veto, and any attempt to get rid of it in a way that can not be vetoed would mean that multiple countries would immediately leave the EU, effectively leading to the EU's collapse.
  As annoying as vetoes are, they're necessary when multiple large groups of people are involved, all with their own interests and wishes, a removal of the veto would mean that countries lose their sovereignty.
  There haven't been any recent polls on it (at least that I can find), but last time they did in 2017, There were many more people against a Federalized Europe than in favor of it, with a decent portion of people that weren't sure or had no opinion. Even in Germany it only had 30% support and 33% against, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark all had 10\~13% in favor and 48\~52% against.
  While somewhat dramatic, it would be better to either suspend or remove countries from the EU than abolishing the veto. At least the countries that are holding up the European Union, and those not in favor of a Federalized Europe wouldn't then be threatened by having their sovereignty sabotaged. >
  
  A federalized Europe would be way more far-reaching than just eliminating the single country veto, so those polls are not really relevant. The treaty of Lisbon already established qualified majority voting in a number of policy areas by the way, so it's not as revolutionary as you make it sound. >
  
  Abolishing the veto and letting everything go down to a vote is exactly what federalization of Europe entails. Rome wasn't built in one day after all. If the European Union decides they want something, you can't stop it. You have effectively lost all sovereignty.   
  Yes, there are some areas currently in which you can't veto but those are limited, and even though it by definition somewhat undermines sovereignty slightly, it doesn't give that perception to people. Just because they're fine with those certain topics not being veto-able doesn't mean they're fine with everything else not being veto-able. >
  
  Of course they can stop it, they can leave? The ability to cede from the group inherently maintains the sovereignty of the individual states. >
  
  Thank you for reiterating what I said in my first post. >
  
  But my point is that the removal of the veto is no threat to sovereignty, they can simply remove themselves from the organization if the organization goes in a direction they do not like. Besides that it's just an international treaty. 
  I do agree that removing the veto would result in a much smaller EU most likely, but that does not mean that the removal of the veto would be  sovereignty violation. That is two separate issues. >
  
  But the problem is that we don't know how many countries would be left after that, we don't even know if the EU would still exist at all.
  Its foolish to abolish the veto just because Hungary and Poland are in the way, only to then ruin and/or destroy the entire EU. >
  
  you would certainly know how many countries are left based on the discussion that would lead up to such a historic change, do you think it would just be a magic switch flipped and then poof, veto power is gone?
  that would be a debate that would take a minimum of years >
  
  True, but I'm against it regardless of how many countries would jump out in the event that it happens. Anyways, they're not having that kind of debate, the only country that actually spews this is Germany, and this only gives credence to the far right's anti-EU rhetoric. >
  
  It's interesting watching this from the US. Increasingly these days, Europe is viewed as the EU, rather than the constituent nations, at least over here. Stuff like this rather hammers home that such a view is not really accurate.
  To be honest, from where I sit, it kind of looks like the EU is an attempt to get the benefits of an American style union, while preserving the individual nations autonomy to a much greater extent. Somewhat like the old Article of Confederation, though even that isn't a 1 to 1 comparison. 
  Still, considering that most of Europe was trying to kill other parts of Europe within the last few centuries, and the sheer variations in culture, it makes sense to me that a true Federal system isn't realistic. Maybe in another century, if the various populations and cultures intermingle more and begin to identify as European first, rather than German or French or Hungarian. Not anytime soon though. >
  
  
  it kind of looks like the EU is an attempt to get the benefits of an American style union, while preserving the individual nations autonomy to a much greater extent.
  
  That's exactly what the EU is.
  
  Somewhat like the old Article of Confederation, though even that isn't a 1 to 1 comparison.
  
  It's close enough, and it shows why the EU is just as doomed as the United States was under the AofC.  The US only survived, and later became a world power, because it adopted a much stronger central government.  You just can't have it both ways: you can't enjoy the economic benefits of a large American-style union without mostly abolishing sovereignty.  If you want a loose confederation, you'll never get the kind of benefits the American system has, because the member states can never all agree to anything.
  Ask anyone in the German political system if they think Germany should reform itself into a loose confederation with all the German states having sovereignty.  I'm sure they'd all reject this idea: it would make Germany no longer the huge economic power it is now. >
  
  The individual veto was promised to countries to alleviate fears that they would simply be overridden by the larger countries.
  Removing the individual country veto is just the first step, if they get that they will move on to the second step of "why does 5 million people Denmark have as much of a say as 80 million Germany?"
  And then the problems of anywhere that isn't the high population areas stop being important, as resources get bundled even further into managing the voting populations, just like in the US >
  
  Except many parts of the EU already did away with the veto in exchange for majority voting requiring 55% of countries and 65% of population, that is: the large countries cannot unilaterally overrule the small countries, and small countries cannot unilaterally overrule the large. This proposal is only for the broadening of the scope of a majority voting system already implemented. >
  
  How does this not happen? In this system of Germany France and Italy oppose something its shot down. Spain could have a coalition of 23 countries and still be shot down. The bottom half don't matter at all. >
  
  If a whole ~45% of the EU is against something (and if all France, Germany and Italy are opposing there will absolutely be many more countries joining) then it probably shouldn’t pass. That’s not rocket science, it’s supermajority 101. 
  On the other side, it requires 65% of population and 55% of member states. So even in a world where say, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland (combined 67% of EU population) all supported a bill, they would still need another 10 counties to agree to pass anything. >
  
  It isn't rocket science that the big members are trying to usurp sovereignty from the smaller members. Why would malta agree to this? They should just stop being a sovereign country at that point.
  Almost nothing would pass without France or Germanys approval >
  
  You seem very intent on ignoring the part where countries still get a absolute vote, regardless of size. 80% of the population of the EU won’t do you any good if you only gather 13 countries. This is how democracy should work. Vetos are inherently undemocratic, and weaken the EU’s ability to function effectively. >
  
  Much like communism isn't in a vacuum neither is democracy. Malta will now have to "sell" their vote to Germany or France or Italy to have any relevance. I know yall hate to bring in American politics but this is creating the European version of "fly over states" the bottom 20 have so much less political power they might as well be subsumed. One of the big 3 will be telling the bottom 16 or so how to vote for favors. 
  Only a veto grants sovereignty for these countries. >
  
  I don't like this.
  On one hand, yes, countries that veto everything are annoying.
  On the other hand, this is not the United States of Europe. >
  
  And if you leave because you don't agree with moves like this then you'll be railed as a backwards racist country. >
  
  Oh come on, as if the average Leave voter was so educated about the consequences of Brexit. They were fed lie after lie. Brexit was presented as a perfect solution that would magically rid the UK of all its problems, and surprise surprise that didn’t happen. I’m not saying that the EU is perfect, or that member states don’t have the right to leave when they feel it doesn’t work, but the way Brexit played out was not beneficial for anyone.
  Boris Johnson with his fucking crooked bananas nonsense >
  
  I never said anything that disagreed with you and you never said that went again what I said. Both things can be true. >
  
  Leaving the EU because of, say, the veto vote makes sense, but that was not what Brexit was about at all. It has never been a rational debate.
  Much of the Leave campaign was built on anti-immigrant rhetoric, which at times really was racist. Some of the backlash is well deserved, although some Europeans do have an unnecessary hate boner towards the UK in general. >
  
  Isn’t that the point of the EU >
  
  How interesting that everything the EU does, also happens to be in German interests also. >
  
  Oh is that why Germany is constantly being sued over EU laws and regulations they ignore?
  Interesting. >
  
  Not constantly. Recently. >
  
  Its really hard to keep EU without it tho.
  Germany also offered the economical legislation as bargain cheap for getting read of the veto.... and they still got denied. ( basically people wont be forced into euro anymore) 
  I dont know if its possible to do this. >
  
  There isn't any sort of deal that makes it worth it for everyone else to get rid of the veto, because without the veto whatever they get in return will just get taken back further down the line.
  When it comes to the smaller countries only an absolute fucking moron would support getting rid of the veto no matter what the offer was in return. >
  
  The same Germany whose constitutional court checks every EU decision? >
  
  not a single EU decision was ever blocked by the German constitutional court >
  
  but many were vetted and, to some degree, put in temporary hold. >
  
  that was a very wrong decision by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, which could be prevented by having a European constitution. >
  
  the constitution  was rejected by France and Netherlands >
  
  And it's the reason why the EU is as dysfunct and powerless as it has proven to be since 2004. >
  
  I'm seriously impressed how many people don't understand how this Idea came into place. 
  In the span of a year and on multiple occasions orban used his vote to slow down processes in the EU. It's obvious this shouldn't be happening for the reasons Baerbock named. 
  It's simple democracy that sometimes the collective does something the individual does not approve, even though the individuals are country's in this case. 
  Especially in this case this shouldn't even be a discussion, since Orban is so far off on his own, it's borderline malicious.
  It's Obviously a valid solution for this.
  Same situation with Erdogan and Nato. >
  
  And this is why you need a mechanism to kick countries out of the EU. You don’t change the voting system for everyone to deal with one shitty autocrat >
  
  It's not in the EU interest to kick countries out when they don't agree with the majority. If you go down that road, it won't be long before the dissolution of EU. >
  
  Former american diplomat to EU in his book:
  Huizinga, T., “The New Totalitarian Temptation – Global Governance and the Crisis of Democracy in Europe,” (Encounter Books, New York, 2016
  recaped how the EU works.  He explains in detail that the EU is run by elites who wish to create an “ever closer union,” regardless of the desires of the populations of individual EU countries."
  Taking away veto from individual states will take decision-making proces even further away from the people and give more power to the "elites". Such decision would push EU even deeper into this oligocracy. >
  
  What are you on about. Every level of the EU decision making process is either directly elected by the people or appointed by the people’s representatives. It’s a representative democracy all the way down in all legislative branches. >
  
  🤣 >
  
  Has no counter arguments, breaks down sobbing. Yeah checks out. >
  
  OK. Which of the following processes were conducted with your concsious approval:
  
  
  exempt from private jets to CO2 tax.
  
  
  advanced works in CBDC, which by many is described as electronic cage, as it will enable authorities to control how much money you have, for how long and what you can spend it on, on the single transaction level.
  
  
  -exemptions on financial markets to compulsory buy-ins for financial institutions, which abused their privilege to create naked shares out of thin air.
  Tell me you or your representatives agreed to any of it. These are 3 examples just from the top of my head. There are thousands of regulation passed without any supervision, and at some level important. Just nobody can track it anymore. >
  
  Maybe actually tell me the names of the bills EU bills, instead of bunch of points with no evidence they even happened >
  
  sure >
  
  And now we return to not having any counter arguments and thus resorting to taking your ball home. >
  
  This is why I think a European Federation is the worst possible thing to Europe, especially for peripheral countries like Portugal. >
  
  Can I ask why it is bad for countries like Portugal? Genuinely asking. I'm woefully uninformed in this topic. >
  
  First, because we would lose one of the most essential things in a democracy: To vote for our direct representatives and make our own legislation. I find it very scary to be Governed by some shady bureaucrat in Brussels that never presented himself to an election. Plus, how can you make efficient legislation for an entire continent if you don't know the specifics of every country or regions inside those countries?
  Secondly, the EU isn't exactly a Union but a power struggle between France + Germany and smaller Economies. They don't actually care about Europe as a whole, and I don't think a hypothetical European Government would care to create projects to improve life conditions in underdeveloped zones in Azores,  Madeira or inland Portugal. Even our central Government does little effort to invest in those zones, imagine if it falls under control of people who don't care about it (and don't even need because they wouldn't need people's vote to stay in power)
  And lastly: You should never give absolute power to anyone! >
  
  You sound like you don’t know how the EU works. Every level of the EU legislature is either voted by the people or appointed by national governments (who are voted by the people). There is no one who gets unchecked undemocratic power. >
  
  Seriously? Who voted Ursula von der Leyen as the president of the European Commission? I certainly didn't.
  And BTW European MPs are voted according their country and not their political family. That's a huge difference from a legislative election (where you vote members of the parliament as whole) and a European election (where you can only vote in people from your country)
  Do you understand that there's a gigantic difference between how a Legislative election and a EU election, right? It's not even debatable that the decision power of European citizens would be diminished in a European Federation. >
  
  Ursula von der Leyen was voted for by the European Parliament, which as a refresher, is voted for directly by the people. This is absolutely no difference to how a Prime Minister or cabinet minister is a constitutional monarchy get elected. Acting like it is is silly. 
  Your argument about how you can only elect EU MPs from your own country is just silly. Do you think it’s undemocratic you can’t vote for the local county next to yours? 
  There absolutely isn’t a difference between the two elections, voting for a party or voting for a person is just a matter of your preferred stance. I can vote for individual MPs here in Sweden if I wanted to, as opposed to just parties. >
  
  
  Ursula von der Leyen was voted for by the European Parliament, which as a refresher, is voted for directly by the people.
  
  But only a fragment for each country (and in my case, a very small one since we don't ellect a lot of MPs).
  
  This is absolutely no difference to how a Prime Minister or cabinet minister is a constitutional monarchy get elected. Acting like it is is silly. 
  
  Wrong. In a Legislative election I indirectly vote in who I want to see Governing by selecting which party I want to see represented in the Parliament that will later vote in which executive should Govern. In a European election I only vote in a small fraction of the MPs that correspond to my country, so it's impossible to compare both elections. It's like if you weren't able to vote in a selected group of deputies who are members of a international political family that don't even have enough votes to select who will be the president of the EU commission.
  
  Your argument about how you can only elect EU MPs from your own country is just silly.
  
  How? You want me to be Governed by someone from a different country even if I can't vote in that person. Don't you understand how absolutely unfair and undemocratic that is?
  
  There absolutely isn’t a difference between the two elections, voting for a party or voting for a person is just a matter of your preferred stance.
  
  That's beyond wrong... It's almost nuts. Do you realize that when you vote in a Legislative you vote on a party list as a whole and the same thing doesn't happen in a European election (where you vote in candidates from your national party that will later be included in European political families). >
  
  That you, or your country, specifically didn’t vote for Ursula is entirely irrelevant. The EU is a democracy, as long as the majority is in favour a motion passes. Ursula won with 383 votes out and support of the 3 largest pro-EU coalitions. It’s almost guaranteed at least 1 MP from each country supported her. Who exactly is impossible to know as it was a secret ballot, making your claim of knowing highly suspect.
  Also, “governed by someone I didn’t vote in” have you seen any electoral system of the 21st century? German states elect their MPs and other states don’t get to decide. Swedish MPs are elected based on regions and kommuns. I can’t vote for Malmö’s MP unless I live there. That is just how elections work, at virtually every level of the EU and its members. If your country doesn’t work like that then it’s a matter of you being the odd one out. 
  I don’t think you fully grasp that many different countries have different ways to vote. I can vote for only people in Sweden. I am not forced to vote for parties. Your country might force voting for parties, but all do not. >
  
  I understand that Legislative elections work differently according the country but I guess you always vote in who you want to see Governing, right? I assume you are only able to vote in MPs from your region, but who you see in the outdoors and TV debates is the candidate to Prime Minister (and not the MPs from your region).
  That is the biggest and most important difference between a Legislative Election and a EU election: When I go to vote in Election day, I already have in mind who I want to see as Prime Minister (even though I am voting in MPs) and not in certain European MPs that will later elect the president of the commission, even though I have no clue who that person may be.
  Pretending these two elections are similar makes zero sense. >
  
  That just sounds like a lack of interest and research on your behalf than if I am to be honest. EU candidates will put their support behind coalition at the election stage, and those parties will put their support behind candidates for high offices as well. That you don’t look into that when you vote is not a flaw in the system. 
  Not to mention that if a parties candidate for PM doesn’t get voted in by their region, they absolutely won’t become PM. It’s an important step to the voting process, and one you’re entirely discounting. But assuming it was a guaranteed, do you know who you want to be energy minister? Minister of education? Defence? Culture? All those positions are similarly voted in by parliament and I will assure you that 90% of people will not consider this. And while I want say you don’t with certainty, I would bet money on it. >
  
  In other words
  Germany says our decisions should not be blocked by other countries. >
  
  Except their proposal would require 55% of member states and 65% of population. France and Germany together aren’t even 35% of population, and lacking 13 other countries to support them. >
  
  
  55% of member states and 65% of population.
  
  That still creates situation where "west" can force anything upon "east", while it can't happen other way around, as "east" is not meeting population treshold. >
  
  Hungarian here. Since our prime minister is Putin’s lapdog, she is right. >
  
  To project European influence and power on a regional or even global level the EU must not be blackmailed into following national interests by single member countries. At least in certain areas like foreign policy and defense. >
  
  Finally they are coming to their Senses. >
  
  It's not really fixable though, no matter how much they are coming to their senses or not.
  Any solution to it would need to be voted on... and of course blocked by poland and/or hungary. Which are the primary problem overall.
  As long as poland and hungary vote to protect each other, nothing can and will change. >
  
  Stop spamming that article and actually read it. And prefferrably, tune in to the publicly available hearings in the EU parliament.
  For you:
  
  “We do not support unconsidered and premature attempts to launch a process towards treaty change,” 
  
  None of this is a general rejection. Then, there is:
  
  “Treaty change has never been a purpose of the Conference,” the joint document said, warning against its findings being “instrumentalised”.
  
  Which you are doing right now. Ffs, at least find something not directly shitting on your own claims.
  Aside from that, poland and hungary have absolutely been wreaking havoc in the voting process, and the EU is looking to fix that. (I think the last one was vetoing of aid to ukraine by hungary) A statement of a particular conference does not change anything about that.
  Additionally, this wasn't a vote, it was a report. You seem to be deliberately trying to make it look like something it isn't. >
  
  12 member states, issuing a common statement to oppose any treaty change in foreseable future, don't change anything about German proposal to amend the treates, abolishing veto power?
  Sure/s >
  
  Please link the actual full statement (good luck finding it, I wasn't able to) and THEN we'll see if even that claim has any merit. In any case, the article is far from what you claim it says. >
  
  Very bad idea we are not the US this is not one state there is millions of different nationalities all together different people very different, no way few big countries without majority of differently adjusted people should say whats good for everyone >
  
  EU decisions should only be blocked by Germany, correct madam? >
  
  No, what makes you think that? >
  
  The rain has issued a statement saying things touched by water should be considered wet. >
  
  Is there no mechanism to override an individual country's veto? Doesn't sound very democratic to let one country hold the rest hostage. >
  
  Why would anyone join a union where you are at the mercy of the majority? 
  Countries could easily just ally to wreck a smaller country and decide their policies for them. >
  
  Any country that is a federation now had its parts join and be at the mercy of the majority, see also all the former German countries/kingdoms who are now just Germany. This is not a new concept. >
  
  We aren't in the age of the renaissance, feudalism, city states, kingdoms and lordships though... >
  
  Precisely. So why do small populations get to dictate policy, like in the dark ages? >
  
  So that minorities have a say for their future and so that all the power doesn't only flow to the top. >
  
  Alternate headline: "Germany says EU decisions they want EU to make should not be stopped by individual countries". Those who disagree point to three EU decisions that were not in favor of Germany. >
  
  It's complicated, right?  The US House just ground to a halt because of a very small group of extreme believers.  There definitely should be ways for a clear majority to move forward in the face of opposition.  Consensus is great but also things need to be able to happen. >
  
  In the US House example, all it took was a clear majority for the Speaker to get elected. The 20 hold outs made it so no clear majority could be made. If any side had a clear majority, the 20 hold outs wouldn't have mattered because all you needed was majority to keep things going. If you are trying to go the route of solving the recent US House debacle, you are asking to move the goal post to plurality at this point instead of majority. Instead of needing to have a majority of votes, you just need more votes than everyone else, even if that doesn't reach majority.
  This of course opens up a new can of worms, as a plurality system can also lead to a core non budging minority overriding the will of the majority as long as the majority are not united. >
  
  cough HUNGARY >
  
  When you have rogue members like Hungary  then sometimes maybe better to need at least 25% objecting to a measure to block it. Just look at NATO issue with Turkiyieyeiye >
  
  EU is way too big and powerful. Central EU policymakers should be concerned only with intra-europe trade and monetary policy, not social regulations within member states.  Personally I think both the shared currency and the free movement of labor were mistakes. >
  
  Thsts rich coming from Germany >
  
  When has Germany ever vetoed key European projects? >
  
  Never, hating on Germany for no reason is just really popular. >
  
  Jab at Hungary, the parasite of the EU? >
  
  Atm we have 25 counties that kinda go in 1 direction. Then we have the polish government that want money and force their conservative/religious believes on their citizens and Hungary government that wants money and suck putins dick. >
  
  Any system that doesn’t have a way to deal with bad faith actors is a broken system.