[icebraining]

Right, but the point is that (currently) criticizing as a union requires unanimous approval from the member states, and some don't approve.

The article proposes changing the voting scheme to a qualified-majority rather than unanimity, but personally I think it would be better to try to understand why those countries are against it and work to change that, rather than overruling them, which just reinforces the idea that the EU is a tool of a small clique of countries to rule over the others.

[AnthonyMouse]

Another approach may be to use secret ballot. The issue many states have is that they don't want to be on record supporting something even though they do, for fear of retaliation etc. But if nobody knows how you voted, you can vote how you want to.

[Digit-Al]

That works unless a vote is unanimous. At that point it is obvious what you voted.

[emn13]

You could choose not to publish the tally (or do you mean for votes that are required to be unanimous?), or agree beforehand not to disclose detailed-enough tallies to draw this conclusion (e.g. report only that 2 or fewer nay's were voted, but not whether that number was 0, 1, or 2.)

But more practically: I kind of doubt it matters when the vote is unanimous, because at that point you're in good company, and it's going to be hard for some external entity to blame you all too much (and if they do, it's easier to find backing for your position from all those that voted like you).

[eightysixfour]

Votes are required to be unanimous, so a secret ballot changes nothing for the affirmative, it would only hide who voted against.

[LoSboccacc]

that would immediately make me to switch from 'reform the eu' to 'leave the eu', there's nothing worse than a bunch of unaccountable politician twice removed from local issues voting secretly away from our control and ability to retaliate by electing someone else.

[mtgx]

You may reconsider after watching this video on why secret ballots (or anonymous voting in general) should be preferred over "voting transparency":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY

[LoSboccacc]

at most I see it as a need to introduce a bill to refund money spent on political campaigns. secret vote at that level doesn't work, it's common for lobbies to spend on both sides to ease a bill trough, so they are interested more on the end result than the single vote, and as such they don't care if the vote is secret or not, only if the final result is favorable.

[AnthonyMouse]

But if the final result is unfavorable, who do they punish? The entire legislature, including everyone who voted with them? Good luck with that.

[disgruntledphd2]

Just to note, this would be the European Council, which is made up of national ministers, who are definitely elected.

You may be thinking of the Commission, who can propose legislation and are appointed for five year terms by the Council (following nominations by national governments).

[thefounder]

>> but personally I think it would be better to try to understand why those countries are against it and work to change that, rather than overruling them....

Think why US governors vote differently on various foreign policy issues such the Iraq/Afganistan war or the current trade war. Absolute majority is hard to achieve even in the United States.

[JumpCrisscross]

> US governors vote differently on various foreign policy issues

Not sure if this is sarcasm. American governors govern states. They have zero purview over foreign policy, which is strictly a federal matter.

[xvf22]

I think in this case replacing governors with senators may be appropriate and closer to the original intent.

[Latteland]

They have influence by using the bully pulpit, talking about it, making plans that are different. See California right now on climate change.

[propman]

China used political capital to buy off the votes in Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Greece so those 3 countries veto any measure that China doesn’t want the EU to develop.

China is smart, not naive. They can bring the EU to their knees with tens of billions of dollars making them completely ineffective due to their huge bureaucracy.

[Brakenshire]

Some country will always take that position because there is economic and diplomatic benefit in taking it.