The problem is that treaty change requires unanimity. So changing the treaties to stop Hungary from abusing unanimity will be next to impossible. We basically have to hope for a change in government in Hungary and for them to cooperate if such a veto removal can go through.
how about every country except hungary (+ the other undemocratic ones) form a new treaty, creating a "new" european union and leaving the old one behind, just as a legal loophole to kick them out?
@@telotawa Interesting thought! Maybe somewhat similar to the idea of a Union with different speeds/integrations. Some countries have adopted the Euro, others haven't. You could say that the same would be possible for many other improvements.
@@telotawa That’s essentially how the U.S. got around the unanimity requirement in the Articles of Confederation to adopt the more centralized, majoritarian Constitution they have now. They just made a new Constitution that left out any State that rejected it, and the resulting fear of being left out led all the states to eventually ratify it anyway
It is Volt - sadly within each country their manifestos do take stances on politically charged issues other than structural EU reform which can make them unappealing to a section of their potential voters.
Very interesting proposals! I think they are very rational, although I wonder if a collective presidency might be better. I have in mind something like the Swiss model (although strictly filling the functions of head of state, not head of government). The EU is very diverse, so it might be hard to find just one bloke who can serve as the embodiment of the Union (plus, having the head of state be collective would fit the motto of *In varietate concordia* very well)
Thanks! And indeed not easy to find someone who represents us all. At the same time, we don't seem to mind what nationality a person has when we admire the same pop stars, football players and the like, so who knows ;)
One could argue that without an EU the sovereignty of these countries would be rather limited. How much can a single small country keep to its own rules against large powers like the US or China?
Although I would personnaly like to see an european confederal state I must say this essay is just filled with ideals that can never be achieved. The original point of the ECSC was to stop war between the original member states. The European states, currently at least, are too different to be able to achieve everything this video dreams of. The power of the union is its differences. And as these countries are only binded by treaties, and in international law that means countries are only bound political reality. European intergration is a process that will happen over time. But forcing smaller member states to give up their sovereignty by limiting the commissioners and the european council to a select few seats will not work. This will result in the bigger states having all the power, and thus the smaller countries would lose theor bargaining chips. There are at least two things that the Union should focus on, if it could ever achieve such unity: one common army, and the staye sponsord independent news.
As a non-European observer, I would agree. The “European Senate” idea is fair, but its decisions should still at least be made by supermajority vote. This would largely uphold the principle of consensus government that the EU is founded on, while ensuring that one or two mischievous actors can’t stall the whole process. Still, I think these EU-centralizer people need to recognize the value of consensus government. For such an extraordinarily diverse place, all interests big or small need to be respected, and all sovereigns need to have a say.
A national perspective is bad because it is small. European perspectives are good because they are bigger. What logic is that? Further, why stop there? Take a global or galactic perspective, to be future proof.
@@Ciceroni1 The criticism I had and tried to express was that the scope of Europe being superior was stated as a given when I would have wanted some justification for that claim. So far it seems arbitrary to fit the arguments being made.
Of course having all of this on a global (or galactic) scale would of course be better. However, while doing all this on an EU level already is difficult to achieve, going even further is even more difficult. So while not necessarily superior it is more achievable. Wouldn’t you agree?:)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I happily agree with all these points. Let’s make the EU more democratic, more transparent and more fair.
And less intrusive. Stop trying to make EU acountry, please.
Great video 👏🏻
Thanks!
The problem is that treaty change requires unanimity. So changing the treaties to stop Hungary from abusing unanimity will be next to impossible. We basically have to hope for a change in government in Hungary and for them to cooperate if such a veto removal can go through.
how about every country except hungary (+ the other undemocratic ones) form a new treaty, creating a "new" european union and leaving the old one behind, just as a legal loophole to kick them out?
@@telotawa Interesting thought! Maybe somewhat similar to the idea of a Union with different speeds/integrations. Some countries have adopted the Euro, others haven't. You could say that the same would be possible for many other improvements.
@@telotawa That’s essentially how the U.S. got around the unanimity requirement in the Articles of Confederation to adopt the more centralized, majoritarian Constitution they have now. They just made a new Constitution that left out any State that rejected it, and the resulting fear of being left out led all the states to eventually ratify it anyway
Great video. This is the future.
Which EU party represent this ideals? I would like to vote for members of these ideas.
It is Volt - sadly within each country their manifestos do take stances on politically charged issues other than structural EU reform which can make them unappealing to a section of their potential voters.
We have a short video on Volt as well. For more information about them, you can visit their website:)
ruclips.net/video/N8TwSQmw78M/видео.html
Volt
I agree with many of these, but I don't believe that they can be done
Independent broadcast is a seriously good idea.
For me i rely on "eu made simple".
EU Made Simple is a great channel indeed! But what a pity that these channels don't get proper funding from the EU like other media outlets...
Very interesting proposals! I think they are very rational, although I wonder if a collective presidency might be better. I have in mind something like the Swiss model (although strictly filling the functions of head of state, not head of government). The EU is very diverse, so it might be hard to find just one bloke who can serve as the embodiment of the Union (plus, having the head of state be collective would fit the motto of *In varietate concordia* very well)
Thanks! And indeed not easy to find someone who represents us all. At the same time, we don't seem to mind what nationality a person has when we admire the same pop stars, football players and the like, so who knows ;)
Ah yes take away all the sovereignty of individual states...I'm sure this will end well...
One could argue that without an EU the sovereignty of these countries would be rather limited. How much can a single small country keep to its own rules against large powers like the US or China?
Although I would personnaly like to see an european confederal state I must say this essay is just filled with ideals that can never be achieved. The original point of the ECSC was to stop war between the original member states. The European states, currently at least, are too different to be able to achieve everything this video dreams of. The power of the union is its differences. And as these countries are only binded by treaties, and in international law that means countries are only bound political reality.
European intergration is a process that will happen over time. But forcing smaller member states to give up their sovereignty by limiting the commissioners and the european council to a select few seats will not work. This will result in the bigger states having all the power, and thus the smaller countries would lose theor bargaining chips.
There are at least two things that the Union should focus on, if it could ever achieve such unity: one common army, and the staye sponsord independent news.
As a non-European observer, I would agree. The “European Senate” idea is fair, but its decisions should still at least be made by supermajority vote. This would largely uphold the principle of consensus government that the EU is founded on, while ensuring that one or two mischievous actors can’t stall the whole process.
Still, I think these EU-centralizer people need to recognize the value of consensus government. For such an extraordinarily diverse place, all interests big or small need to be respected, and all sovereigns need to have a say.
A national perspective is bad because it is small. European perspectives are good because they are bigger. What logic is that? Further, why stop there? Take a global or galactic perspective, to be future proof.
Galactic does sound good. But maybe because I like Star Wars:)
@@Ciceroni1 The criticism I had and tried to express was that the scope of Europe being superior was stated as a given when I would have wanted some justification for that claim. So far it seems arbitrary to fit the arguments being made.
Of course having all of this on a global (or galactic) scale would of course be better. However, while doing all this on an EU level already is difficult to achieve, going even further is even more difficult. So while not necessarily superior it is more achievable. Wouldn’t you agree?:)
Next video: who TF asked
That wouldn't be a very interesting video I'm afraid...