The EU Should NOT Accept New Members. Yet.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 сер 2023
- EU Reform goes hand-in-hand with accepting new EU members. Starting with the infamous VETO vote that stops the EU from moving forward. This video will look into the changes the EU needs to make before accepting new members to the block. EU accession is important, but some key EU reforms need to be made before the Western Balkans (Serbia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Albania), Ukraine, Moldova and Turkey join the block.
Support the Channel:
💁♂️ Patreon: / eumadesimple
☕ Buy me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/EUMadeSi...
Socials:
📷 UA-cam: / theeumadesimple
Sources:
Source 1: Euractiv, EU Reform France and Germany www.euractiv.com/section/eu-r...
Source 2: Wikipedia, Potential Enlargement of the European Union
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potenti....
Source 3: Investigate Europe, Explainer Europe cuts off funds for hungary
www.investigate-europe.eu/en/...
Source 4: Carnegieeurope, is the EU ready for Further Enhancement?
carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceu...
Source 5: Euractiv, EU reform France and Germany:
www.euractiv.com/section/eu-r...
Source 6: European Parliament, As Hungary Blocks global tax deal
www.europarl.europa.eu/news/e...
Source 7: Reuters, EU Wrangles with Hungary over Ukraine
www.reuters.com/world/europe/...
Source 8: Euronews, Brussels Recommends freezing 7.5 billion in EU funds to Hungary
www.investigate-europe.eu/en/...
Source 9: Euractiv, German top aide: No EU-reform, no enlargement
www.euractiv.com/section/poli...
Source 10: Euractiv, Enlargement could work without Reform
www.euractiv.com/section/poli...
Source 11: Politico, European Union Membnership Enlargement www.politico.eu/article/europ...
Source 12: Euronews, Hungary and Poland Allies Defend Vet Power in EU Foreign Policy www.euronews.com/my-europe/20...
EU needs reform before they accept new members
Yes - it should return to EEC :P
The Party VOLT has the best Ideas for reforming EU 💜
@@morawiecki5916 fr fr
@@maka4235 de de
@@morawiecki5916 and stop giving subsidies to Poland (etc.) ? :)
As a person from a non-EU country, in Europe, I agree that we shouldn't join yet, it would be great for us in many ways but I'd rather us join when Europe is capable of letting us in than to join a Europe that WE will just use and not contribute to anything, we need to work together and we already are in many ways, half the people in my country already have EU citizenship and have proven that are worth their salt, but it needs to be more than that.
Moldova?
European union is not the incredible european union of the 1990s 2000s 2010s anymore
Because the administration got highjacked by some kind of weird activist hippie high tax too much rules forcing rules on everyone lobby
So careful about joining
UK?
And we can still be friends and cooperate, even if your country doesn't join.
serbia, i know its serbia
Hungary should be kicked out of EU!
into the arms of brics now you thinking
Hungary and Poland are the two EU member states which still have some backbone and commonsense left in the undemocratic, Zionist Marxist gangsters union where the rights of the member states are completely squashed, disregarded and in Hungary's case punished for not goosestepping to the demands of the insane, subversive, anti European, totalitarian Zionist Marxist regime in Brussels. Hungary is being picked on by the unelected gangsters of Brussels jus because Orbán want peace in Ukraine. Orbán and the Slovac PM Fico who has been shot (by the gangsters of Brussels) they both know that Ukraine has been utterly destroyed. Why then would anyone send $60 billion to a regime there that is almost dead, corrupt and a frigging dictatorship that sent 600 000 of their own country men to die in that losing war?
You need to know what you're talking about before making stupid comments.
They can have them. I’ve a feeling that given the choice the people of Hungary would suddenly be huge fans of the EU. They are a rather ungrateful bunch. The place was a mess after the end of the Cold War.
So true..We have to reform the EU before we accept new members..
The veto should stay only for issues that have to do with national security and Defence since the EU is not a military organization and also in many cases, some European states make decisions according to their national economic interests that might be against the national security of another member state.
True, but due to veto EU can't do that quickly.
And for Ukraine, quick EU integration is a question of life.
While other candidates can wait, Ukraine cannot. And it shall not wait, because Ukraine is the one who defends Europe from russian invasion.
@@kikiwora Ukraine can wait, I'm from Romania and for sure they don't deserve to be in EU.
They have a lot of problems, including territories of Romania with majority Romanian ethnics that are oppressed. They claim democracy only when serves their interests and they don't respect other people.
So NO Ukraine in the near future, I hope they will change their policy, they fight for territories received from Russia, but they still occupy territories occupied by force when Molotov Ribbentrop Pact was signed and that is null but they still don't return to Romania the historical territories BUGEAC, TINUTUL HERTA, BUCOVINA DE NORD, etc.
This doesn’t sound good to Scottish nationalists in the Uk
The EU is *also* a military organization. What do you think Borrell does? And what do you think DG DEFIS is?
This shit is literally telling you how to think. Everything is so wrong with the EU
Then you’ll loose those countries to China, or even Russia even. They already lost Turkey basically
turkey , ha-ha
Cosa c'entra la Turchia con l'europa.persa la Turchia?? Personalmente non aprirei ad altri paesi dell'est eur.da italiano trovo che certi paesi es.ungheria e Polonia facciano solo i loro interessi e sui migranti ti dicono cavoli vostri
Turkey is big , Islamic country. Nothing to do with European culture and civilization . Turkey will Never join EU.
As a Pole I can say that even being liberal and proeu myself, there should be a gate for a block of countries to veto decisions, for example at least 5 countries despite their size, that way the biggest countries would have to agree couse they are able to build these blocks .Strategic decisions like bringing back russia to european politics to prewar extent couldnt be done wiyhout eastern eu feeling secure with it for example.
I think the problem lies with just 1 country having that power.
@@EUMadeSimple Yeah when 1 country can dictate what 26 other countries want to do something is majorly wrong I think.
I suppose right now all we can do is hope that sooner rather than later there are more Poles like you and less "LGBTQ exclusion zone" people.
I've heard about your upcoming elections. That's scary.
@@TheAstrobiologistOWwhat do you mean by LGBTQ exclusion zone?
I don't have a problem with veto staying, but it really needs to be based on a percentage of countries and a percentage of the overall EU population.
It's crazy that we actually still have veto rules where one member can block the rest, and because of that, there's no way the EU should expand until reforms are done, otherwise, more gridlock will happen with one or two members, abusing the veto rule.
Majority voting needs to be more of a thing, with veto only being used if there is enough support from members to block something.
I also think reforms in the EU is needed in other areas, I think the European Parliament needs to be given more powers, whiles reforms to the EU Commission is needed, maybe merge the EU Commission and President together and have it directly elected, also, reforms in bringing the EU project closer to the citizens, so they are more aware of what's going on, because for many, the EU can seem distant.
I am from Türkiye and as I see things EU countries have to sort out their problems first and start accepting new members later because EU must be strong and stable so that members can benefit from it. New members will add to the chaos not to the stability of the union.
But to keep candidates close, EU must continue membership process, even it is slow to keep things stable and in order. For Turkish this became an emotional process more than economical and democratic process. Turkish democracy can thrive under the influence of EU countries and depends on the relations. You all know how quickly Türkiye can slide away from democracy and far from EU and western alliance of people feel rejected. While people here feel that EU dream is over it is not too late to win them back. Erdogan will not be here forever and I think Türkiye will contribute much to union as well as union influence on Turkish democracy will be so great. It will be a politically wise decision to try to pull Türkiye towards EU rather than forcing procedures. I have lived through membership process and the Turkish decline in the last part. We need EU standards that’s for sure.
As I said before EU must stay strong and stable, for the good of the members as well as for the good of the candidates therefore EU should decide for the best way even if it means prolonging the membership process.
New members should not have veto rights for a time defined by major EU countries or they fulfill the criteria again defined by major members. You cannot just accept a member and give them full control over decisions. It should be done according to the EU’s best interest since candidates want membership because EU is governed right and it is the reason they want to join. Keep the club clean people and respect the older members. Remember that EU is the shining beacon of democracy and prosperity and should be preserved at all costs.
Also please find a way to regulate immigration. This a real problem that is hindering all work towards progress and happiness of the people of EU.
When it comes to Ukraine, remember these people are fighting and bleeding for a better future which is connected to west so they should be evaluated accordingly and fair.
Turkey will never be in EU, you don't belong.
Idk how to say this but...Turkey aint joining EU ever my man😂
@@serbianwarrior385 yes we know that. We are finished with this theme around 2000s. It was related to the video.
@@rccasual7525
Dont be a simp...
@@serbianwarrior385
Most of us do not care. And also Serbia is not in a very different position.
First of all, we've heard all of these arguments before the former Warsaw-Pact countries entered the EU. It didn't stop any of them. Secondly, they're not a member in the forseeable futur. Some - like Turkey and Serbia - make it even impossible that they ever become a member of the EU. There is also a possible life outside the EU (like Suisse, Norway, Iceland and so on).
At least a '' normal '' comment !
😊👍
@@bennybenny43Lol, that's how you define comments that you like? There is an apposite button for that mate.
@@zedtrek LOL
That's how you react when you're in front of an other point of view ?
@@bennybenny43 which point of view?
@@zedtrek Scroll it up...
Most recent polls in Serbia show that more than 60 percent of people are for joining the EU as an economic union if Serbia didnt have to give up Kosovo, less than 30 percent people are for joining if Serbia has to recognise Kosovo. Its pretty black and white, every year Serbia fullfills more requirements and EU just adds more. Serbia is the only candidate ever that EU demands them to recognise their teritory as a sovereign. I wouldnt want to join either.
чак и да признамо косово као независно европска криминална унија је очекивала да се остатак србије федерализује односно припреми за уништење ако знаш политику Динкића у време владе коштунице они су наглас причали о томе а пошто нису тада то успели они су прогласили косово независно....еу нас не жели они желе да униште Србе и Србску државу као такву европска унија је наш непријатељ
Not a problem for me. Serbia can stay outside.
To sum it up, you’d like the EU to listen a bit more to the French 😂 As for this multi tiered EU advocated by France for… ever, you might have noticed it’s there already. Schengen/not Schengen, Eurozone/Not Eurozone, etc. And now an outer circle/tier with the CPE (European Political Community).
Now you don’t address the main conflict in your own analysis, which results from what’s unsaid: the nature of the EU. Either it’s a union of countries, and then strategic disalignment can exist and vetoes are a valuable safeguard, or it’s a union of citizens and there’s no reason a Malta citizen holds more power than a German one. Reality is it’s both, hence this complicated voting system and a very specific way of negotiating called « package deals ».
Talking about various voting systems without looking at how it would change the constitutional and political nature of the EU (or, the other way, how a change in the EU’s nature would be needed to make another voting system works) is a bit shallow.
At the end of the day, institutions are just a way to organise reality, they don’t create it. Power and influence is what really matters. As far as the EU is concerned, the main event for the last two decades was Brexit and how it rebalanced power and influence across the block, not so much reduction of veto rights.
Thanks for your comment tixien. I don't necessarily advocate for a multi-speed EU. I am actually undecided. Multi speed opens all kinds of new problems that warrants its own video. That's why I mentioned it.
And you present a fair point, moving away from Unanimity will change the nature of the EU.. but only to a degree. We already use QMV for most of our policy areas. It's just the 7 areas mentioned in the video where unanimity remains. I will take your constructive criticism on board though and will try to cover it in more detail on my video about multi tier EU coming in a couple of weeks/months.
Thank you!
@@EUMadeSimple Always a pleasure to talk with people who like using their brain😊 (although it’s Sunday, mine won’t push it too hard today😂).
I’m all for multi tiers, as I like stuff which embrace reality. And it’s here. And it works. It comes with specific difficulties for sure (not the least how it makes it more complicated to citizens) but what does not?
I agree with you decision making setups have changed, adapted in the past, and vetoes are now of limited scope and use. And that’s precisely my point: it altered the nature of the EU but in an unspoken way. There was such a debate in 2005 but, once passed to voters, the outcome was inconclusive to say the least. Since then, the EU runs on « constructive ambiguity », to reuse T. May’s words. And why not. After all, the EU is first a crisis-solving mechanism, a pragmatic bottom-up construct. But you still need to realign stakeholders on your goals on a regular basis if you want them to support your means and ways.
Otherwise the gap between expectations and reality just widens, and we know where it ends.
Have a lovely Sunday 😉
That’s a very toxic approach, anything France or Germany propose is automatically something bad? And if small countries Veto for their benefit that’s good? Weird analysis.
We are moving into a multipolar world and we can’t rely on the US and China as much anymore, Europe has to become a player in the big game too and this is only possible if we become more maneuverable and can act faster. Right now we don’t have a chance to be competitive in a world where all the other big players are unified countries and they can play EU countries against each other. There can be things like the membership that stay unanimous but at the very least economic and financial decisions can’t be unanimity vote anymore, it just won’t work.
The EU is a great concept but if the big countries pay into it billions only for the free market that everyone benefits from and countries that block their changes to force concessions and benefits for themselves, quite frankly it’s debatable how beneficial it still is
@@ja_u Seriously, what you understood from my post is Germany and France are bad and vetoes are good? Really? Oh dear.
Definitely ,there is no place for Turkey
Ukraine should wait some good decades to join the EU!!!
The EU accepted Bul and Rom because of the political reasons while still not accepting Ser and Mne who are now much more ready than Bul, Rom…they can accept Ukraine even though they won’t be ready until 2050 if the war stops today. EU HAS double standards!
@@cinoeyewe will get Ukraine into EU from political reasons too we have to invest in Russia or we our economy is done by 2050. But first we have to put someone like Zellensky on throne of Russia.
Great video I definitely agree that the veto needs to go away and change with the suggestions you showed.
Sadly to change this requires everyone to agree which won’t happen. The EU is kinda broken in this field.
thank you!
@@EUMadeSimple maybe real democracies can check-mate those who oppose supermajority system. Simply all 26 countries left the current EU as organization and collectively organize a new one with new set of rules. Hungary may fill free to stay alone in older one EU without any other countries in. It would be interesting to see Orban's face
Removing the veto would be the single biggest mistake we can make, despite how Hungry and Poland is abusing it...
@@user-kg4fr9jr7vTrue.
We need a EU constitution that *mandates* democracy and allows the EU legal system to punish snd kick out members that doesn't fulfill democratic minimum standards.
But other then that removing the veto for anything applying to *all* members needs to stay.
Indeed the veto isn't enough...
The thing is, that EU is not a country but an union of independent countries. If veto goes away countries effectively lose independence. This is especially bad for smaller countries.
I wouldnt want a multi-tiered EU, but unfortunately there is no other realistic choice. That is why I support the idea, and hopefully the more integrated part will have the other members outside of it join, just like with Schengen agreement. Maybe a third solution would be the enhanced cooperation method, but it would risk fracturing the EU more as this method is topic-based. So yes, multi-tiered should be the way to go ahead
Agreed as otherwise there will just never be new members as reform is unlikely to ever happen to the veto system
I don't think *tiers* alone is the solution.
I think that regions with tiers within them might be a better solution.
Different regions in Europe have different concerns and needs.
Allowing for differences in laws between them while maintaining compatability is better then to try to force the exact same laws on each region.
Question is: how are you going to motivate the EU members, to be in those tiers? The only solution that I see: exchanging political influence in return of economical advantages, considerable economical advantages.
Would be ideal to not have that but we kinda already do with the Euro Zone, and maybe more of that might be needed as the union expands.
But I think some major reforms are needed to the EU, with veto rules being scrapped or reduced a lot, majority voting being used a lot more, I also think the European Parliament needs to be given more powers and reforms to the EU Commission, maybe merge the Commission and President together and have them directly elected.
Another major area the EU needs to do a lot better on is connecting with the people, for many, the EU can seem distant, whiles a lot of what's being done at the EU level, a lot of EU citizens not being aware of what's going on, and I think that would do wonders against the Eurosceptic movement around Europe, because they use ignorance as a weapon to push their own agenda and are more than willing to use the EU as a scapegoat to get what they want, so if Europeans were more clued-up on what's going on, that should be harder for them to do that.
It makes more sense to look at the American Federal model.
A larger unified EU means only more power and stability to the continent.
@@elliasp6204 You mean like western Europe importing all of Africa to replace us? No thanks, if western Europe is the model of perfect EU, I would rather by colonized by China or Russia. Dumpster fire, look at France.
Yes but if a small country with like 2million of 450million ppl can block change for everyone that’s a problem. Just look at what has happened, China abused this when the EU wanted stricter rules for human rights violations and Hungary did it for Russia.. it’s just way too easy for foreign countries to stop EU law by corrupting some small Eastern European already corrupt country
I don't give a shit about "continent power". Germans won't decide about laws in my country.
Why is Georgia part of ruzzian in 1st map? Also isnt part of Azerbaijan considered as Europe while none of Armenia is?
Well hypothetically speaking, Turkiye's accession to EU (assuming that freedom of movement is granted) will destroy Turkish economy even further as Turkiye's blue collar workforce would instantly abandon Turkiye for wealthier Western nations. Turkiye would then need immigration from poorer non-EU nations which would bring further problems. I think from a Turkish standpoint it's a lot healthier to accept that Turkiye will never be an EU member and it has no reasons to, anyway. Europe's borders are open to well qualified individuals from all over there world and that's good enough.
Not what happened to eastern Europe.
Super looking forward to the new video on multi-tiered EU! Great video by the way, I love how factual it is, and does not get lost in the sometimes overly positive mindset of pro-EU people.
Glad you enjoyed! And yes.. In a month or so :)
@@EUMadeSimpleEvilMadeClear
There’s absolutely no way we (Humanity) , will let her, Ursula (possibly linked to lord voldirmor or satan herself 🤞🏽)... stay till term end in 2029? Like wtf 🤨 This ends soon..
It’s time we start calling out this evil for exactly what it is,..., airing our thoughts, wasting the censors time, and playing AI mind games still pack a punch....We are still the masters of manipulation and thought😅
These puppets character speak and sound like all the other monsters in human history and all openly display a lack of basic human emotion which intuitively sets off our internal alarms ....wake up people 🤦🏽♂️🙏🏽
At 0:31 you display Georgia and Belarus as part of Russia while displaying Kazakhstan and Armenia as separate.
Honestly kinda disrespectful towards those two, especially Georgia.
Well about Georgia that could be true, but belarus is pretty much russian at this point
@@mikel9138 It is true about Georgia, it wants nothing to do with Russia.
Mistake I guess. Mistakes happen. The question is why Armenia and Georgia are on the map and not Azerbaijan, also a mistake?
@@o_s-24 They aren't Europeans
@@mikel9138 and Turks are?
Great video. Although I am from a candidate county and although I really want to see my country in the EU, I think you are right. There should be reform before that, even if it leads to larger waiting times. It is in the interest of the EU. It can be made a lot better. Maybe a multi teir EU is the only way to solve it, at first I didn't like the idea, but it just makes a lot of sense and plus I don't see an alternative currently. I'm going to watch that video next.
Which candidate country are you from?
@@monzar7268Novak is south Slavic so probably Serbia or montenegro
he is from Serbia. He frequently comments on my videos :)
Thanks Novvak :) I am also undecided whether multi tier is the way forward. But just like you said - not sure how else we can move forward.
You forgot about Georgia as well. Georgia, although it did not get candidate status, still applied for membership
The next country that needs to enter is Montenegro because it has a 100 percent harmonized policy with the EU, is a member of NATO, has a small population and we use the euro as a currency, thereby giving hope to other countries that the effort will pay off 🇲🇪🇪🇺🇲🇪🇪🇺
You use the euro unilaterally though :)) that's pretty fkud up man.... :))
@@RaduRadonys It’s illegal but again it will be useless to change it because they are so close to becoming an EU member now
Montenegro is corrupt, there is no rule of law, its political leaders are mafia bosses, their main income is cigarette smuggling, they are BFFs with Serbia...
@@RaduRadonysthat is a common practice. It is good for the Euro, because it increases its value. Montenegro has no control over it’s monetary policy however, which is a problem. However using euros does increase stability. The Euros value is higher than the natural value of a montenegran currency tho, which makes exporting more expensive and entices imports.
They have a bit of an auth government from what I've heard. It could be another Orban
We got to change the veto's, thats completely unacceptable at this point
No human rights no membership. Bye bye Turkey ✋😏
Exactly
ahahahahahahaha you have rights???? show it to me. is the refusal of the vaccine right you are talking about. or you are stoned.
I think you make up excuses
@@honza_88And you are from Romania 😂
M8 Poland is probably more homophobic than Turkey…
The EU should definitely take up the rest of Europe.
That is only possible if all members are in peace with each others and build up more thrust.
Sadly this won't happen anytime soon
@@metodiusm428
What about in 20 years? or 10? 30?
Why? Just so it looks nice on a map? The EU is a corrupt evil abomination.
And not from África?.
anyone i know in Türkiye dont care becoming eu membership really
Balkans should be give priority in EU membership
True, they’re are small countries with small population and economy, way easier to integrate than Turkey or Ukraine
I think that EU problem is who will contrubute to EU budget (EU funds) if Turkey and Ukraine join, even Balkan states. So if Germany is larger countributor and Poland largest beneficial how many Euros will Ukraine and Turkey received and how many countries need to be contributors to EU? Only Germany and France can not hold much together positive financial balance for too long.
We need either Norway or Switzerland to join to be financial contibutor or financial balance would be too much pressure for just Germany and France.
@@danielm6319 even italy, which despite the not exactly idyllic economy, has always been a contributing country
@danielm6318 Balkan states are peanuts money. We are losing population quite fast, and if go into EU it would go even faster. After joining EU all of those states combined will have less than Belgium. And I think Norway is contributing to the EU. Maybe someone can confirm this?
Awesome video ! Not only is everything super well explained, it also highlights solutions and hypotheses for the future, instead of pointing out only the quirks in the system.
Thank you :)
EU financial balance would be unstable if we accept Türkiye and/or Ukrayina. So I think we need to make those nations rich in EU first to be contributors (like Spain) or we need either Norge or Switz to join.
Spain is not a taxpayer?.
@@Guus-qv2ef They are taxpayers but is EU beneficiaries with -1,946 million euros whike Germany is +25,572 million euroy as contributor. Source: Statista
Take it from a swiss citizen: the swiss people doesn't want to join the EU!
Because we love our freedom to have a vote on every law if we want or we can change the constitution at any time
And because we are one of the weahltiest countries in the World we would have to pay massive amounts to the eu. That is not really appeasing to us.
We love our freedom, our neutrality and the direct democracy
Thats why switzerland will never vote yes to join the EU
Ukraine after the war is won, reformed and a member of EU will very soon become a major donor for the EU. Not to mention EU on its further integration quest will benefit from having Ukrainian military capacities/experience on its side
The entrance of turkey to the EU would be the death of the west. it was fun while it lasted
turkey might dream to enter EU,but this is just only a dream.turkey will never join EU
Russias entrance to the west 😂 West is already dead.
Unanimity voting shouldn't be implemented for EU enlargmnet. For example Hungary would stun Georgia's accession but Georgia can benefit a lot to EU because of its geopolitical state. A similar thing can be apploed to Turkey. If Turkey one day fits for the requirments for EU accession, Cyprus can easily veto Turkey's accession to EU eventhough it would benefit a lot to EU.
Macedonia should be the only one to join, others are quite a bit difficult with malign influences, Montenegro has large serbian/russian influence, albania is tangled in the kosovo situation, Serbia obviously large russian influence and kosovo, bosnia tangled with serbia, Turkey is too big and culturally different.
Especially when there are more important things to do, like equalise economies and lower gas emissions.
And how did EU accept Romania and Bulgaria in 2007,hmm? Did these 2 countries fulfill all requirements before they joined? Maybe we should talk about that.
You can learn from your mistakes, no?
Especially not Serbia for this generation, since it is Russia's trojan horse.
Ireland used veto power more than Hungary or Poland in its lifespan in EU...
Could you please describe the nature of those Irish oppositions.
EU isn’t US or Brazil - It’s a framework for international relations, cooperation and reconciliation, not just another empire trying to hold all the provinces together. EU isn’t a geopolitical unit in a common sense, it’s different
Then we have different visions, which is why a multi tiered system makes sense. Germany and France for example would be open to some kind of EU defense policy, similar economic and financial policy and in general more integration. If some small Eastern European country doesn’t want that then that’s sad but we can’t let that stop us from evolving. We are moving into a multipolar world, US and China want to strengthen their grip on the world and we will just be their toy if we don’t integrate and operate more as one. It’s gonna be a problem working against 2 unified countries if we are like we are right now. Already today the EU is losing competitiveness because US and China play us against each other (also Russia with the help of Hungary but Russia isn’t a world power by any means)
It just won’t work if we don’t change. France will leave, Germany will leave. There needs to be change to survive the next decades
@@ja_u Of course germany and france are open for that because they want to take the girp of the whole continent without caring a shit about other countires sovereignty. These smaller countries joined a political and economic union not a federation!
Very interesting to see more opinion videos, just like your audience requested.
Either way, when reforming, the EU needs to strike a balance between giving member states the power (Intergovernmentalism) regardless of size, and giving the citizens the power (supranationalism) regardless of national origin. The current system is, in principle, the best approach: the two bodies that accept the law which everyone abides by technically have equal power; the Parliament representing the citizens and the Council representatives the member states. They both have an equal say in regards to law, and in my opinion, this is how it should be. It is important to understand that both of these approaches have some merit and advantages, therefore we ought to reach a compromise to best make use of our system; the EU is very close to achieving this.
If the voting method can be reformed and the veto removed, I believe we would reach a nearly perfect legislative system.
Great and informative video, as usual!
Thanks Astro. I agree that a lot of the EU structure makes sense. Just some things we need to think about before enlarging .
Great video and explanation, and looking forward to the next. :)
While I agree that EU needs to reform (not only in VETO area but to equalize the GDP and salaries between east and west EU countries, it is not ok for French or German to have 4500 EUR while Pole or Romanian have 1200 or less) but they should not wait too long becasue in those potential member states the popular support for joining is becoming less and less the times go forward. Most Turks do not support EU membership today, Serbia is on the fence and Bosnia will most likely follow. Albania or Macedonia will also lose support the more the time goes forward.
Firstly Its good that the Turks arent in, about the western balkans its 50-50 and secondly it isnt our job to make them join.
No one can just "equalize" the GDP of a country, it comes naturally with economic and industrial progress, and that just takes time.
@@tomislav5689 Not exactly, with the right enforcement and incentive, a country can easily equalize.
@@mikel9138 and that is what EU is constantly doing after a less developed country joins, and even before it joins.
@@tomislav5689 Wouldn't it make more sense to help the already less developed eu countries first rather than add even worse countries in it?
As Czech I empathize with almost everything said here (Orban, 1 blocking country, need for reform… etc) and generally I am very pro-EU (and wish for some federalism model in the future)…. but … but … I am almost equally torn with the proposed multi-tiered integration, especially because it is driven by France and Germany - those two countries, which vision did fail in our opinion in the East so spectacularly regarding necessity of strategic safety (Energy, Russia) while constantly reminded in the past.
If those countries made a block in fully reformed EU, they would be far from supermajority…
However, considering some potential core of multitiered integration - those can easily dominate anything and henceforth determine future trends by themselves.
That sounds scary over-here.
Macron is disappointed from decrease of enthusiasm in Eastern part of EU for further EU integration, and while I sympathize with him (I wish further integration) I recognize that his own country and his own policies are partly the reason.
The disillusion from handling Russia for the last 15 years (and not listening about the influence of their hybrid influence for example in the migration crisis in 2015, where they managed to stoke panic in our populace to high degree only to be extremely chastised by both Germany and France - created partly heart ache in the hearts of liberals over here … and so on and so on, EU commissioners almost never ever travel to our country and never talk to our media or blogs, while they do to francophone ones … so it helps too to feel integration is just Franco-centric or Germano-centric prospect)
If integration - than let’s overcome Hungary somehow and let’s do that together. Not with Germany/France deciding through some small core.
As a German I tend to conclude from your comment, that maybe the EU itself is failing to deliver anything of importance for our societies.
It will be more beneficial when we all go back to our nation-states, and in Germany we could finally return to our beloved DM.
It makes sense to me, in the absence of any meaningful positive people to exchange, nonexistent political cooperation, lacking solidarity and the perceived failure to come to any political consensus, the EU may be abolished all together.
exactly...it is the new Franco-German Reich. that's why UK left.
@@ponkacbg1969 But leaving doesn’t help. European free market is by definition managed and created by EU. The only viable way is to be in and to break DE/F tandem.
Britain was tired of being alone in opposition … only to leave, when finally stopped to be alone (I watched intently - at that time Brits completely stopped trying only thinking of way out, instead of allying against Fr/De - never tried that)
Fr/De in EU in which both UK and Central/Eastern Europe exist at the same time - represent just 140 million out of 450 million people. Believe it or not this simple math really represents their ability to dominate (or not) in practice.
Now we back almost at square one. Even now, even without UK De/Fr don’t have absolute dominance … it’s just really harder without You.
@@AKAHEIZER every time You need cross it by train@@AKAHEIZER - there was so many stupid breaks on everything)
We need logical and functional EU, not lack of it.@@AKAHEIZER
As a German do You remember Manfred Weber?
@@AKAHEIZER (Schulz - kinda lessened this stupid collab)@@AKAHEIZERManfred Weber would have been rather great leader of European commission. He had backing of all Central/ Eastern EU countries… as well as majority of votes in European Parliament
He was very probable to be next leader, first competent after long time, first with deep democratic legitimacy…. only for Macron to throw tantrum over him, having tantrum in the inter-governmental setting, where he got the ear of Germany government, who almost apologetically submitted U von der Leyen instead of Weber as palatable German replacement - who cared about everyone else except France?
That is what I talk about.
@@ponkacbg1969that’s just bullshit. Not only is the Veto something the big powers can’t ever use because “they are reasonable and can take a hit to their big economies”
And I know it’s gonna be the old “Germany benefits from the open market” but so does literally everyone else in the open market, and on top of that Germany is a net payer of over 21billion euro while countries like Poland receive over 12billion euro, are integrated into the EU market and as if that’s not enough, like to Veto on bullshit to get their way.
Quite honestly, if we keep going like this with Veto powers on everything we will all go down together. Or France and Germany will eventually leave and that’s gonna be bad for everyone else too. We really need to get away from this “EU is just for France and Germany to benefit” idea because that shit is not true
The Eu should throw out Hungary and let no other country in that doesn't meet the necessary level of democracy and stability. No poor countries that need their own people to build up their country. But those candidate countries should be helped with fighting corruption and education. Turkey is aa Asian country and should never be let in. The small part in Europe says nothing and their treatment of minorities is just another reason to keep them out. Not saying we shouldn't work with Turkey where we can but the people already here aren't really intergrating and a danger to our democracy. Not all of course but too many.
Same with Schengen, Austria holding Romania and Bulgaria with only one no vote meanwhile all others voted yes
In your guys opinon if in a crazy hypothetical Norway, Iceland and Switzerland voted to join would you let them in now or wait?
To be fair, those are already inside in every sense except technicality. The only thing keeping them from officially becoming members is they deciding they actually want to be there.
Those are already in .
We don't need EU, we're going in BRICS, greetings from Macedonia
To care! Pozdrav iz Beograda
🤡
Really? Then why so many EU top diplomats and leaders (Merkel, Teresa May, Von der Layen...) have paraded in the capital Skopje trying hard to push the country in NATO? We (the people) certainly did not want to be part of the so called western alliance and preffered to be left alone. Oh yeah....and who gives a shit what you think?@@a.m.4148
it will be better for everyone.
Honestly, part of me thinks Hungary shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore, temporarily, not permanently, they should be given a second chance at some point. Multi-tiered EU sounds fine in theory, but in your graphics it appears to be based on geography which I think would divide us further, I don't think all countries in the less integration graphic want less integration and not being allowed to integrate further would make people more Eurosceptic and probably push them to form closer ties with the US and support them not the EU when there's a conflict of interest / opinion / international policy. More or less integration should not be based on geographical location, especially if we're still talking about Turkey joining the EU.
2:46 the guys eyes, when the EU don't wanna put up with your goulash anymore 😂😂😂
Leave a light on for Scotland. We are coming your way. We are aligned with your values and will work hard to meet and exceed your membership requirements as a founding nation of the UK. Thank you.
Scotland will be welcome! 😍
wonder when Scotland will get its independence... what do you think?
Scotland is not a country.
@@RaduRadonys It might become one.
@@RaduRadonys yes it is
I agree with you, the European Union must reform its laws and that laws can be approved by a simple majority... The United Kingdom was always a burden for the European Union because deep down they did not feel part of the union and many projects were delayed due to this
Laws are aproved in Parliment by majority of votes .
Serbia too.. always feel they are in their own just like UK
I vehemently oppose QMV, that leads to ignoring nearly half the continent's interests.
I still feel like the Supermajority would end possibly up excluding too many countries anyway.
This only got so bad due to Hungary and the war. We just need high standards for admissions and mechanisms for punishing breaking them. And we basically do, the funding would be cut wouldn't it be for the dire situation in the East.
The rotating presidency is a big issue indeed, what are the potential solutions except reducing the presidency to the ineffective 4 months?
The Parliament seems like a relatively easy fix, add more and rebalance.
The Commission is bloated anyway. Perhaps just make permament duos working on one matter each?
The budget definetly could use some restructuring, especially in farming, but free trade and growth kinda offset the contributions.
No, if the Netherlands can keep Romania and Bulgaria outside Schenghen even if we worked so hard to get in, the system should stay the same and should not be changed because one country doesn't vote like the "great powers" would want. Democracy is agreement of all parties involved, not just the majority. Brexit is a good example - the majority agreed on 1 thing and the UK is not handling the situation well.
What France and Germany are proposing is the ex USSR model if you ask me - everybody voted for what Moscow wanted and there was not debate if 1 party disagreed. This will make the voting process into a performance art. We didn't break our economies while making the political changes just to get the same short stick. And I come from Bulgaria so I have seen these processes with my own eyes.
@@oldebarneveldt5326 that's just not true but you missed the point completely.
@@oldebarneveldt5326 You didn't understand my comment now, did you?
@@oldebarneveldt5326 i'm not your teacher. you have eyes and brain. you just need to think. i'm done explaining stuff to people who aren't ready and are just searching for the next debate to get some "i'm right points" which don't even matter.
@@flexparachute I have seen your nonsense. What I don't have though, is your arrogance!
I like your new longer Vids. Way better than before
Turkey did with NATO exactly what Hungary did with EU, pretty much blackmail...
The original six plus Austria should leave the EU as a block, and start again as a confederation just like Switzerland.
It’s very sad but honestly this is the only way. The EU core is still aligned and would work with veto powers but the expansion has let in countries that just abuse the system for their own gain.
In the end it’s also a multi tiered system you propose, we don’t need to leave the EU, just approve further integration in a 1st tier EU
Austria stays with us.
@@misiek_xp4886 who is us blud
And what would be the benefit for those ,six plus Austria ,by doing that ?
@@marcioborgesreis9066 You can bypass the idiotic unanimity this way. We want to put sanctions on someone? Ok let us (Europe core) do it. We want to strengthen ties economically? Perfect lets do it. We want to make certain legislation? Sweet, we can do that.
Currently, we are all being held captive by the unanimity that countries like Poland or Hungary use to extort concessions. Its a bullshit system and its not future proof.
Right now we have to be very careful which new countries we let into the EU because they will have a veto to completely stop any proposal because of unanimity voting. And especially small countries have always and will in the future abuse this system to strong arm their own agenda. And not only that, we have seen with countries like Hungary, Cyprus and Greece, that they are also ready to sell this veto to countries like Russia and China. If China doesnt like something they force Cyprus to veto it, their investments in the "new silk road" give them power to shut down harbors if you dont act like they want.
With a core EU we could just say "ok if you Malta, Cyprus or Hungary dont want to do something then dont do it, we will tho"
I am from Macedonia, and we are tired from EU's and our neighbor's games, pressures, hypocrisy and unreasonable conditions. Macedonian public is growing tired of and looks unfavorably towards this kind of behavior. If it was up to me, I'd quit negations and seek an alternative ally.
what ally would be better than EU?
Yeah, the EU and Bulgaria basically forcing Macedonians to change history books was pretty disgusting. Some things are not worth benefits from joining the EU.
These are the rules and everybody should respect it, so why are you complaining? If you don't have the criteria, you don't enter, simple.
@@sharknado623 We don't want to enter any more, simple. EU is not letting anyone in anyway. So between the choice of: changing our constitution and not entering and not changing our constitution and not entering, we choose the latter. Simple! cheerio EU .. We don't need your hypocritical dictatorial system, good riddance.
@@vault13dweller15 Exactly. What remains to do is to convince our traitorous government of profiteers.
Well it is not entirely related to the subject of the video but I think membership of Turkey will truly test our acceptance of secularism as a core european value not only in Turkey but also in all of Europe. The arguments about turkish identity not being european enough always turns out to be religiously motivated int he end on both sides (in turkey and europe) and it is a big shame for all europeans including turks. There has to be a future for all of us where we liberate ourselves from the influence of some idiotic ancient moral codes and get together around modern, logical and benevolent shared core values. Just be open-minded and you will be surprised for sure. Those who most fervently oppose turkey and other so called muslim majority countries share the same mentality with radical islamists in those countries you see...
I would agree with you except that latest elections in Turkey do confirm that this country is not yet ready for democracy as we perceive it in the West.
@@dprout3392 the democracy as you perceive in the west assumes that the Turks should elect a candidate approved by Brussels and Washington?
@@Murmilone No at all. It requires that all religions be tolerated but excluded from the constitution. State and religions be separated.
The acceptance of secularism in Europe is tested every day on the streets of our cities where people all over the world and followers of every religeon live. We dont have to accept 90 m people that 99% of them follow 1 religeon to test it
@@dprout3392i am confused. How do you think Turkiye is ruled? Secularism is already in Turkish constitution and religion is separated from the government for hundred years now. Do you think Turkiye is governed like Iran or gulf countries?
We should also never accept multiple states all at once. Have a period of e.g. 5 years between admissions. The "big bang" expansion of 2004 was a mistake in retrospect as we've accepted multiple states that simply were not ready to be accepted.
LOL first of all you accepted Bulgaria which didn't even have a referendum to join EU, which is a requirement. So EU clearly doesn't care too much about democracy as long as their interests are being pushed.
Western Balkans combined have 15mil people. After joining EU it would be even less. Just strip them of their veto power or give a periond of let us say 5years and if they behave good give rights like other countries if not new 5y of waiting
@@dovlaaaable Oh no, most of them shouldn't get in. Macedonia should, Montenegro maybe, then Albania.
Serbia definitely not, and Bosnia just applied.
The multi-speed approach makes sense to me. However, wouldn't the eastern flank want to have more, rather than less military integration?
We do not want other countries behaving like Hungary and Poland, on the same side to destroy the concept of Rule of Law in Europe. No, firstly we deal with this filo-Russian mentality and then we can accept new members.
At this point I expect Hungary vetoing care packages meant for itself.
While you address some fair points, I really disagree with the point of now allowing new members, because:
a) Promises. Back in 2003, the Western Balkans were promised a future in the EU;
b) Ignoring the made efforts by the countries. While some have been backsliding (Serbia, Turkey), others have been through great efforts to become new members. North Macedonia literally changed its name to do so;
c) Maintaining hope and influence in the countries concerned. The disinterested attitude of the EU pre-2022 Ukraine invasion seriously affected the attitudes of the people of the Western Balkans towards the EU. It can make them more disinterested in politics, create more opportunities for corruption and 'strong men', and leave them more open to influence of China and Russia. You can see that in some countries, democratic values have been decreasing in part because of this;
d) The time it'll take to join the EU. Out of all applicants, only Montenegro is likely to join in the short term (if their politicians finally sort their own mess out). The others would be Albania and North Macedonia, and they will still take years to join. Integration into full EU membership can still take place while the EU works on reforming;
e) But countering the previous point, reform in the EU can easily take a decade if not more. What you are basically saying is telling a whole extra generation that they have no chance of joining even if they qualify for membership;
f) The short-term effect of countries joining. Really, what's the overal impact of a country like Montenegro joining the EU? We're talking about a country that would have the second-smallest population of the block (just above Malta) and mainly consists out of mountains. It's agriculture and economy are small, so it'll make little dent in the EU budgets. The only significant impact would be the veto right. But considering the strong EU attitude of the population and willingness to organise demonstrations for it, it is highly unlikely it'll change into the next Hungary.
The 'concerning' countries (those who's membership would make the biggest impact on the EU as a whole) would really be Ukraine and Turkey. At present, Turkey is unlikely to ever join - currently nobody's taking their application seriously, even the EU itself: it isn't even considered to be part of the current enlargement program - so the most likely country that would make the biggest impact would be Ukraine. Concerning attitude it will be absolutely no issue, as its European ambitions is a reason why it is currently at war (and we all massively owe them for their efforts to keep the Russians at bay and reinvigorating the EU). The biggest impact would be on the budget, which is going to be massive. But Ukraine isn't going to be a member this year, next year or the year after. It is more likely not going to be before 2030, so there's time left for reform;
g) From a selfish point of view: some of these countries have highly valuable resources, especially Ukraine (in natural gas, lithium, titanium and other resources, contribution in energy production). A country like Ukraine will be a massive contributor to the strategic independence of the EU;
h) At present, the current applicants face restrains including on economic level. Keeping them away from EU membership will limiting their economic development, which will put them in a position of remaining poorer countries;
i) For all of these countries, there simply isn't a plan b: none have other means of becoming the next Switzerland. They literally have no other option than to be part of the EU;
j) In line with the previous points: most of these countries are depopulating because of limited economic opportunities, corruption and no visible viable future within their respective countries. Blocking any possible EU membership will accelerate this process;
k) One important reason why the EU has changed its attitude towards expansion is the realisation that the current status quo is not a guarantee of maintaining peace on the continent. The best guarantees are a) EU membership (peace and prosperity between members) and b) NATO membership (the shield against outside adversaries). You can bet that because of our support for Ukraine, Russia will try to pull every possible lever to create as many crises as possible for us. For example, I for one wouldn't be surprised if there's a strong hand of Russia in the recent Serbia-Kosovo tensions, or the general destabilisation in Bosnia & Herzegovina;
l) There is no equal level between the EU states and those wishing to join. The perfect example is North Macedonia, which has been going through a lot by being pushed around by Greece, France/Netherlands and Bulgaria. It would take away their ability of becoming on equal footing with other European nations.
The most realistic way of maintaining peace and prosperity on the continent is to allow any country that wishes to join the EU to provide them this opportunity, provided they meet the conditions. Just because a country wants to it doesn't mean we should lower the standards, we do indeed need to take into consideration about how it went wrong with Hungary. We do indeed need reforms, such as the abolishment of the veto. But we cannot just decline other countries because of faults in the system. We cannot leave them hang out to dry, to treat them as second-class Europeans because we've made a mess and need to change things. And it isn't just for the future of these countries, it is also in our interest to have these countries be part of the EU. We therefore should not and cannot decline countries who have met the conditions of becoming new member states. It should be the other way around: with new members around the block, we need to work fast on preparing the EU for the membership of these countries.
Actually as Croatian I would say Macedonia are ready to join as well as Montenegro.
Also Serbia could be problematic as well as Türkiye and Ukrayina. Macedonia also has small evonomy like Montenegro.
@@danielm6319 Also, if Serbia joined right now, it would be 10 times worse than Hungary with their pro Russian and anti EU politics. Meanwhile, Serbia already pretty much gave up the idea of ever joining the union, and it's been strengthening its ties with Russia and China for years. If it remains outside the EU, the influence of those powers will only become stronger at the doorstep of Europe. So, there are no easy solutions and some kind of reform is really needed.
@@danielm6319 North Macedonia has problems with all its neighbours. How is ready to join exactly?
@@GioBall North Macedonia don't make any problems. Actually, with Serbia they sign "Open Balkan Inituative", with Greeks problem is solved by changing name, with Bulgarians they currently need to agree something about history and Albania don't make any problem since they [North Macedonia] join NATO.
Supermajority seems like the way to go personally... It protects smaller members while also keeping it reasonable since imho most things should still be passed on unanimity, but one or two countries fucking with the system is fucking insane. The fact Hungary could just fuck all progress because they got punished is insane.
I think the European Union needs to recruit new members urgently. Many Americans think that because of the aggressive behavior of Russia and China, the European Union will live its past history again. damn It seems like a second Marshal aid is on the way.
i think america should focus on her problems and leave EU to make her own decisions for her own good.
Dear people who are in EU, what are your thoughts on Serbia as a country, and our people?
Would you like to see Serbia or any other country in the EU?
like serbia and serbiand and their christian roots. wish they have peace
As a Romanian, I don't know that much about Serbia, but I want it and its' people inside of EU and NATO. I would hope that 1. Kosovo gets split half for Albania and half for Serbia, or fully reintegrated in Serbia, 2. You give minority rights to the Romanians in the historical Banat region on the border with Romania instead of considering the Romanians there as an ethnicity different from Romanians, and minority rights to Albanians or any other minority as well so there's no more conflict and we live in peace and harmony.
As a Slovenian I would love Serbia in the EU. But the truth is Serbia currently really is not in a good state enough to be let into the EU. You still have huge problems with nationalism and your current government is very authoritarian. If we would let Serbia in now it would only become Hungary 2.0.
serbs are very angry people, similar to russians. I don't think that they belong to the EU.
As a Romanian, I think Serbs are very divided, some pro-EU and European values, some very nationalist and pro-Russia. I don't know if the pro-Russian movement is blown out of proportion on the news or if that's truly the reality on the ground. I would love for it to be exaggerated and for Serbia to join as soon as possible, but if it's not exaggerated the EU can't afford another Hungary.
The Veto system was a huge mistake and should have never been implemented in the first place.
Your position sounds viable, unless of course, you are in a minority group.
Europe has a very looooong history of shitting on minorities.
The veto needs to stay.
It FORCES compromise and moderation.
When the EU was only Germany, france, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg it made sense.
But now it is just a mess.
@@mattia8327 The issue is, they should have seen this coming. They knew the EU would expand eventually. But they didn't have the firesight to anticipate..
@@mattia8327
The EU was never just 6 countries.
Besides, you left out the UK.
What we know of today as the EU evolved over time from pond scum or primordial ooze or something like that.
Roflmfao!
The unanimity principle with country vetoes is broken, but the supermajority as proposed here does horrible job addressing the points raised by the smaller states. 80% population requirement means that large state like Germany (who already almost has the 20% of EU population necessary to block anything) would effectively retain its veto while everyone else loses it. It's still a huge shift of power from the smaller states to the larger ones.
Lets look at it this way - larger states naturally form a "voting block" of its citizens, with disproportionately more weight than independent smaller states. If NATO had a voting system, United States would totally dominate in the voting over larger but more disunited Europe. So to fix that the Supermajority QM voting it could be more like 75% member states with 70% population (=requiring greater percentage for number of states and less percentage for population), meaning that Germany together with either France or Italy can still block everyone else, but so can a coalition of 7 smaller states.
It's not about what this video wants, or what we individually think. Our free votes, will democratically, hand the forward or the waiting signal. And it will certainly not be propaganda, that will ready us for the next steps. It is about all Europeans, and true freedom of democracy deciding the next steps.
The core issue in case of Hungary is one of culture. While the hungarian population at the collapse of the iron curtain had a genuine desire to adopt western institutions, and western way of life, in 2022 the majority views these with slight detest at best.
Economically it is vital for the country to be part of the EU, but otherwise the people want to do nothing with it. Since there is no procedure to kick out a country against it's will, this is kind of an impossible situation, casue Hungary will indeed block any reforms which in the long run may force it to change it's current radical right-wing authoritarian system.
The only viable way for EU leaders may be to pick on the country until it leaves voluntarily. The anti-eu propaganda of the government over the years had already planted some kind of HUXIT sentiment in the fanatic government supporter strata of the population.
In my opinion, the EU should focus on fixing its economy by being innovators and independent on china and the usa instead of adding new poor country, cuz they will not able to help economically in the future.
true
I agree that the EU should focus more on economy and especially on industrializing but I also think certain members once ready should be let in like Ukraine.
agree
I think you can do both. New member countries are not harming the EU economy, it's the opposite. Eastern Europen members added in 2004 and later are the fastest growing part of the continent. Plus they offer natural resources, investment opportunities and expertise. These nations are well educated and have a lot of room to grow. I still agree with the point of the video. I just wanted to show that on the economic part new members don't harm existing ones.
As someone British who voted for Brexit,and No I don’t regret it either the countries that want to join the EU will be net recievers,not net contributors.
And I think with the withdrawal of the U.K. my feeling is that the EU cannot afford new members.
And note that no country has joined to replace the U.K.
I believe that EU should decrease amount of their members. Not in the litteral sense of kicking out existing members, but through integration of current members into a federations with united representation in EU. Of course considering current geopolitical state of EU it might be a bit impossible, but at least I could humour myself believing that maybe someday such prospects would be possible.
we don't even want to enter the EU.
Greetings from Macedonia
good then stay out of Eu and stop begging to join
@@user-si8cf2we5w Очигледно е дека си неписмен или незнаеш англиски. Никого не молиме да влеземе во Еу. Напротив несакаме во тој клуб на педери и педофили.
As a Brit I don’t blame you.
very good video, definitely some challenges in the EU’s future for a geopolitical world in need for a stronger Europe and its values
Hungayri - biggest problem
Great video, probably the most useful in this chanel.
Neither the EU nor the candidate countrys are ready.
The EU will be lucky to continue to exist considering the challenges to EU authority being brought by existing EU member states.
The EU must either pursue greater fiscal, legal, and military unity or face collapse.
The Veto can be used but on issues where only one member stands in the way then a qualified Majority should be used and Scotland will back that for sure.
so what will be the purpose of veto?you say the veto should be used but the majority woould have to acctually take the decision that means that the veto dont exist
I remember there was a topic of "EU Core" in like 2016-ish. I remember in slovakia the goverment expressed very strong desire to be part of it.
i don't fully agree but i've always wanted to hear the reasoning behind this opinion
It shouldn't matter for size of population of smaller or bigger countries if it is measured in percentage.
For veto to work shouldn't work on one country but rather at a minimum of 5 or so. This way they still can veto but can't force their way.
this ^^^^^^
The problem with that is that you then can pass a law that we take all the money from Sweden for example and that Sweden cant veto that
@@geenkaas6380 well it could also be set to maximum percentage and the veto still stands. The decision is more democratic this way.
Where this whole EU thing doesn't work well is because we're united yet divided. More laws need to be equalised , same civil laws, criminal laws across EU same taxes, signs, licence plates, a base language for general communication in schools mandatory (no need to get rid of native language. english is already a good established kind of) ect.
This is the only way for being a "union". EU citizens need a feel of future direction. This is missing and is the reason for so many issues. The leaders aren't giving good directions in this regard. Imho.
If any country wants to join they have to accept the direction that is agreed upon.
I'm not a political scientist but I could imagine a sort of "emergency veto". In such a system any member state can veto any decision but if they do they won't be able to do so again for a certain time period.This way members will really only use their veto if they consider something to be extremely serious for them.
What if a proposal that is very similar is proposed shortly after again?
I don't think using time as a limit is a good idea. This way you benefit from proposing multiple controversial proposals within a short timeframe as a means to work around the system.
@@Newbyte I ment for this system to be implemented in addition to qualified majority voting. The emergency veto is intended for the rare situatuation that a member state says "I cannot let this happen under any circumstances!" Most of the time, majority voting is how decisions are made and countries will hold on to their emergency veto just in case they really need it. If you propose multiple controversial topics at once like you suggested, then any proposal that isn't vetoed will still have to go through the regular process of qualified majority voting.
I am sorry to say but the EU should only invite those which really wish to join. Bosnia&Herzegovina is very tricky since forever in history, not only EU but also Russia and Turkey wish to be politicaly present in BiH so it would be a very hard to have a stable political cooperation with BiH. Serbia is so much divided on the question of joining the EU, some wish to be "free" (as they believe to join is actualy to become ocupied), some wish to be almost something as a member of the Russian federation, and the least of people actualy wish to join the EU. Turkey if it joined would become a "Hungarian problem" forever. A much better EU policy would be to keep tight(er) ecnomical cooperation with those countries and maybe making it easier for their people to travel to EU, something like for the EU countries outside Shengen, but it should also finaly let Romania and Bulgaria into Schengen or those countries might replace the feeling of being 2nd class EU citizens with the feelings of maybe being better off with some other "alliances" (history should be a teacher for the EU bureaucrats!)
Agreed
no
@@FredSveru. very strong argument.
The way I see it is that we need this multi-tier EU, with one side aiming to become a European federation. We wouldn’t be able to thrive otherwise between the US, Russian and Chinese interests. The remaining countries can decide if they want to give up more independece and join the federation or not. Ofc, the electoral system of the federation would need to be designed to force politicians to represent all people within.
I don't like the idea of "multi-tiered EU", it sounds very discriminating calling new member states e. g. "third-tier EU members" compared to "first-tier" Belgium or Netherlands. It's better to improve cooperation and support for candidate states before they join - less threats and blackmailing and more help. And when they finally join - treat them as equals, that's what the idea of a Union is about. Also, some decisions can be made with supermajority but in my opinion suck key aspects as funding third countries and supplying weapons should only be decided unanimously.
I don’t like a multi tiered Eu, it seems like a bad idea.
The multi tier EU could be a Pandora s box we do not want to open. I dont agree with it at all
It definitely has a lot of drawbacks. Going to cover it going forward :)
As a Ukrainian, I can say that Ukraine does not really have the liberty to wait till the EU solves its internal problems with its inability to make decisions.
Supermajority and qualified majority voting is the only way to move forward for the EU. Veto mechanism is obsolete already. And it will be even more obsolete when more countries will join.
However, I do no think that supermajority or qualified majority voting shall depend on the population numbers of each country.
If we are concerned about smaller countries being weaker represented than bigger countries when making important decisions, we simply have to not take population into account.
For supermajorioty voting: one country - one vote. No veto. It will solve everything.
For less important decisions a qualified majority voting with taking population into account is better.
Thus we have proper representation without decision blocking.
As a Romanian, I say first solve your coruption (besides the war with Russia), and the minority rights. I highly dislike how you're treating the Romanians in Ukraine, after you've been gifted our lands (Budjak and N. Bukovina) by USSR/Russia after World War 2. I'd happily accept Ukraine in EU/NATO after 1. the war with Russia is finished, 2. You gave more rights to the minorities (Hungarian, Romanian, Polish, Russian) and 3. Create autonomous regions just like Switzerland is, so that all minorities can live in peace and have their heritage, language, culture etc preserved!
Why doesn’t Romania offer the Hungarian minority in Romania Switzerland style autonomy? I think it is very hypocritical of you to suggest that Ukraine must be held to a standard that Romania does not keep.
Let’s also not pretend that Romania is not a corrupt country.
@@firstnamelastname7941 Romania's corruption is way smaller than that in Ukraine. It's not even close. Furthermore, Romania is offering a lot of rights to the Hungarian minority. Studying in native language from kindergarten up to college. Unlike in Ukraine which closed a lot of schools for minorities. And who says I wouldn't agree to a Swiss type of autonomy for Hungarians in Romania?
Even if the EU solves all the internal problems tomorrow it will still take Ukraine DECADES to join, you are nowhere near ready to join and be accepted into the EU, your whole country needs to change drastically
@@firstnamelastname7941I’m from Romania and yes, a federation state would make 100% sense for Romania just like Germany.
Multi Speed EU is the only practical solution till the old national chains were broken.
Turkey firstly must convert to Christianity. Then European Union must accept Turkey. Before the accpetance there must be trial period like 5 years. The trial process must include integretion with 1 European Union country. This European Union country must come Turkey and teach everything.
You forgot Kosova they submitted their application this year 2023
Fake countries not recognized by the EU cannot submit applications
Thats a Serbia go school. If you stole me a vallet its still not yours.
Kosovo isn’t recognized by most of the World.
Your proposed solution was the one which came to my mind too. It is not a new idea, so I might be influenced by prior knowledge, but it really does seem to be the only option.
Eastern and Western Roman Empire? It didn't end well...
Historia magistra vitae est.
Maybe for the Western Empire. The Eastern Empire functioned just fine for another thousand years. But I think that the situations are not comparable anyway.
Removing the veto would cause cohesion issues tho... There are upsides to it as well.
Switzerland needs to be forced to pay more contributions and taxes to the EU budget of the European Union because it benefits from the EU single market of the European Union and the Schengen area. Switzerland benefits the most from it and pays the least
Eu should accept new members but on their own terms and not be forced through political circumstances like they are in the case of Ukraine because the EU wants to protect Ukraine from Russia ignoring the risks of accepting into the union a corrupt totalitarian state and the possibility of negative repercussions of giving the Ukrainian oligarchs an ability to openly meddle with European policies.
I agree as person from Moldova, if we do the needed job best case scenario, we will be only ready to join closer to 2030
We should become a Federation then accept new members
Perhaps Ukraine should be the only exception
With such small populations, there would be no negative impact to the EU if Macedonia and Montenegro were allowed to enter the Union tomorrow.
As a Romanian, fully agreed. Would love to have both these countries in the EU, plus our fellow kin the Moldovans!
Veto Vote
And area (km2) also. 🇲🇰 ~ 25 000 and 🇲🇪 ~ 13 000 km2
As a Serbian please don't accept us, just dont be a bully of a organization and let non-memebers trade
Yeah you want the UK dream, market integration but nothing in return. Great stuff, makes a lot of sense /s
Tell your friends and family about it.
What should Serbia offer as a member in return? As a matter of fact, what do most member nations offer? If Serbia was going for a free trade agreement or becoming a member of EFTA, there'd be no drawback for both parties, but only if Serbia had adopted EU standards. The only differences between EU and EFTA members is that the former actually have a say concerning standards and laws and that they usually have to pay more fees to the EU, but also receive more funding. EFTA members can also receive nominal EU funds, but generally not as much as full EU members.
But concerning the UK, they have partially lower standards and several issues with fishing and customs with primarily Irland and France. Thus they won't be able to live the dream.
@@ja_u What in return? Just want to trade feairly, in otter case you leaving countries outside EU isolated. After socialism most of Serbian(Yugoslav) production and industry was destroyed by western backed politicians to make space for EU products. EU is like cult.
Yeah, get rid of the veto. Such a self-defeating idea...