[mactunes]

I have a genuine question which I have been wondering about for sole time:

Is there anything positive to this “one nation can veto everything” rule? It feels like this is really blocking a lot of progress in the EU where some of the right-spectrum nations can simply block anything or bargain from.

Why do we have this rule and is it hard to get rid of it?

[nine_k]

Yes, there is. The rule means that nothing can be forced onto any nation.

Many people, and nations, would be hesitant to join a union where you can be coerced to tolerate neighbors you otherwise wouldn't. Hence the idea of consensus.

[raxxorraxor]

Because we don't have a real European public and open discourse. It is just some losers online that happen to speak English as a common language. But even then you wouldn't know anything about domestic politics in Bulgaria (assuming your aren't from there).

You cannot really get to anything you can call democratic voting, it would be so random and indirect that it would basically become meaningless. So states still need a hard veto for themselves and the direction the EU will develop in.

[origin_path]

In practice the EU has already got rid of this rule in almost every area, for that exact reason. However, it means that the arguments for leaving the EU get stronger. It used to be that a good answer to opposition to the EU was "but they can't force us to do anything because there's a veto". Now it's very far from that.

It's that exact trend that led to Brexit in the first place - your comment shows why it's problematic perfectly. EU supporters see it as a way to force left wing politics onto populations that otherwise would reject it.