I see no path where this would be a good idea unless you want to create a group where everyone thinks the same. If Hungary is a bit of a flip flop in terms of democracy then either they have to focus their attention on improving living conditions there so people realize the value of their alliance (if that's the purpose, improving living conditions) or realize that Hungary isn't a good fit for this type of alliance and kick it out.
Removing veto power probably makes it more likely that the next Orban pulls them out of the EU entirely which might not be in the interest of the alliance.
Would you let one or two cities have veto power over the policy of an entire country? If not then what's the difference here? If yes do you think that would work?
Of course the important thing is to decide what should be handled at the city, region, nation and EU level. There's a tradeoff. Decisions made at lower levels are generally better for accountability and give better adaptability to local circumstances but on the other hand they often lose leverage.
A city wouldn't be able to talk as an equal to large companies like Apple and Google for example, even many countries can't. But the EU can. Replace Apple / Google by Russia / China / US and it's even worse.
> Would you let one or two cities have veto power over the policy of an entire country?
And this is why analogies are bad.
A few important details:
1) The EU is not a country.
2) The one-country veto already has limited applications within the context of the EU. Foreign policy is one of the most important, but most EU laws start from the Commission and go through Parliament instead where they pass by a simple majority.
3) What von der Leyen is in effect asking for is for EU member nations, who are sovereign and with each having their own foreign policy, to subordinate their foreign policy to the EU’s foreign policy. That is a massive power shift from the members to the EU Commission.
Political structures exist to influence the world around them.
A thousand or even a few hundred years ago most people travelled very little and often were born, lived and died in the same village. At that time the village was the natural unit of organisation.
As communications improved, with horses, trains, planes, internet the unit of political organisation had to scale up to cities, regions, nations and now supra national organisations like the EU
The nation state is an outdated concept that has lived its time.
In a world where those we need to talk to are the US, China, Russia even big EU countries like France and Germany are too small so we need to scale up.
The nation-state is a current living concept that nation-states and their peoples for the most part are incredibly attached to. If you want to convince the peoples of the EU that is an outdated concept that has lived its time, that is a tough and long road ahead of you, or von der Layen if that is the road she’s pursuing but right now there’s plenty of national governments well beyond Hungary that have been displeased with von der Leyen specifically stepping on their toes.
Right now, the way the EU is constituted, the EU takes a backseat to national governments on most foreign policy. Trade is the biggest exception. Reversing that is as an ask she can make, but it’s an enormous ask that if the member states of the EU concede to, will still be an enormous concession, and it’s not something the EU is structurally positioned under its own Treaties and laws to either command nor demand.
First, Hungary is not a "a bit of a flip flop in terms of democracy". They are just not fully democratic country anymore, full stop. The system there did not changed, judiciary, media and the rest of the country are as much in the hands of a leader and easy to be abused as yesterday. The person on top of it changed. He did promised reforms, it remains to be seen whether they happen or not.
But second, regardless of Hungary, anyone can veto is dysfunctional system.
> unless you want to create a group where everyone thinks the same.
Everyone has veto is literally a system where everyone must think the same, else nothing will happen.
> Removing veto power probably makes it more likely that the next Orban pulls them out of the EU entirely which might not be in the interest of the alliance.
That would be bad for Hungary, but good for the rest of Europe. Hungary presence in EU was damaging to EU for years now.
This is a very simplistic view. There are benefits to approving things one dislikes slightly: like being able to influence decisions which are personally important. Rejecting things you disagree a bit with just because you can leads to being ignored. Like for example Orban - did anyone in the EU take this guy seriously in the past few years? EU more or less talked over his head (and the head of Slovakia as well)
and yet this is clearly not what has happened. you COULD make any decision hostage, but thats not what anyone does, as such, the veto has a very important purpose, and removing it would be betraying the terms that the union was based on, just because people are now members. its basically "I altered the deal, pray I dont alter it further"
