comment: >
  
  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.
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.