| As another comment[0] asked: > Hmmm, what would I do if giving up the right to veto hinged on my veto power? If you're like most politicians, you would do what most politicians do - bargain. For example: agree on veto removal but keep farm subsidies for another X years, or unblock the new "common debt" fund (or enshrine "no common debt fund", depending on which way you lean). Member states politicians have made far more far-reaching decisions for far less: let us not forget Cameron promised the Brexit referendum to increase his chances of winning an election - and then, fascinatingly, followed through. As an EU citizen from a small state with little real power in the bloc, I'm all for the replacement of veto with a quorum. I'd not want to see EU deadlocked over any major issue just because any tiny country with the population of a London borough can wield it to settle a score with their neighbour. Ask any Macedonian what they had to go through for the EU carrot. First they were vetoed by Greece because it didn't like the name. Fine, they changed it. Then they were vetoed by France (which previously was fine with this) because whatever. Or ask any Ukrainian what they think of essential monetary aid, approved by (representatives of) a few hundred million Europeans, being held hostage by Putin's chum. Even in less life-or-death cases, there's a lot of really (long-term) damaging horse-trading behind the scenes to wring concessions of everyone because of the veto problem. It's a perversion of democracy. I don't think this will fly, but I wish it did. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47755919 |