28.11.2023
Quite interesting processes are taking place in the governing structures of the European Union. The point is that on November 22, the European Parliament voted with a minimal advantage (291 “for” and 274 “against”) to change the EU statutory treaties . It should be noted that this draft amendment has been prepared since the end of 2021, and over the past year the proposals have undergone accelerated development. This is the first attempt to revise the EU’s constitutional treaties since 2009.
Key proposals for the future reform project
It is necessary to dwell in more detail on the main points in the reform project, which are also of great importance for Ukraine. Firstly, the European Commission, as the highest executive body of the EU, could be reduced to 15 representatives instead of a representative from each country. Potentially, countries with pro-Russian governments (Hungary, Slovakia) could lose their position as European Commissioner, and as a result lose the opportunity to veto the EU decision. Secondly, the plans include expanding the rights of the European Commission on issues of foreign policy, security, military industry, border protection and providing assistance to countries affected by aggression. Thirdly, and this is very important, it is planned to simplify and speed up the procedure for depriving the voting rights of a member state that does not meet the values of the EU.
This moment will allow us to gain significant leverage over the current governments of Hungary and Slovakia, which allow themselves anti-European and pro-Russian rhetoric and actions. Fourthly, fundamental changes are planned in the voting procedure itself. In particular, the possibility of replacing the principle of “unity” in voting with the principle of “qualified majority” is being considered. Therefore, to make a decision, a simple majority of countries representing more than 50% of the EU population must vote, which will make it impossible for Russia to influence the EU through small countries with corrupt governments, as happened in the case of Hungary and Slovakia.
Germany is the main lobbyist for EU reforms
It should also be noted that the main lobbyists for this reform of the EU Charter are Western European countries, especially Germany, for which an imperfect bureaucratic decision-making system prevents them from pursuing a permanent policy of developing the European Union and protecting its interests. It is also characteristic that this project from Germany in the European Parliament was supported by representatives of all political parties in the Bundestag. In fact, this may indicate a unanimous understanding among all political forces in Germany that in the future their country must regain leadership in the EU, both in the sphere of governance and security. At least, this is where the situation is heading, especially with regard to the Russian-Ukrainian war, since Germany has become the second largest supplier of weapons, ammunition, as well as financial and other assistance to Ukraine after the United States.
Consideration of the EU reform project is going well, the only problem is the final consensus of all countries
Therefore, in order to implement the above changes to the EU statutory treaties, several more procedural steps need to be taken. An application has already been made to the country (now Spain) that holds the presidency of the Council of the EU with a request to open a convention on the reform of the EU treaties and to transmit this request to the European Council. Accordingly, the Spanish government has indicated that the issue will be on the agenda at the next EU summit in December 2023. Following this, a vote on the opening of a treaty reform convention is due at the December summit, with a simple majority vote required to make a decision. This means that it will be practically impossible for pro-Russian EU countries to block this process.
However, the biggest problem is that in the end the final draft of the changes must be adopted by consensus of all EU countries. It is at this stage that the main problems may arise in the position of countries like Hungary or Slovakia. Therefore, the most effective means of influencing the main inhibitors of decision-making is to limit or cancel financial assistance, which is actually critical for Hungary. Therefore, the example of the recent unblocking of subsidies by the European Union to Hungary to overcome the consequences of the pandemic may indicate the beginning of influence on the Hungarian government.
Therefore, it can be summarized that the reforms that are currently being considered in the European Parliament can, without exaggeration, become a qualitatively new stage in the functioning of the EU and its effectiveness. The main question remains only whether the European bureaucrats have enough political determination to put pressure on Hungary to the end so that it does not block the final adoption of changes to the statutory treaties. That is why there is a high probability that such an option is not excluded, and dozens of EU countries will again depend on the ambitions of one or two corrupt pro-Russian regimes.
“The main question remains only whether the European bureaucrats have enough political determination to put pressure on Hungary to the end so that it does not block the final adoption of changes to the statutory treaties. That is why there is a high probability that such an option is not excluded, and dozens of EU countries will again depend on the ambitions of one or two corrupt pro-Russian regimes.”
On paper, it always looks great when measures are adopted unanimously. In real life, however, this concept is the very best way to cripple the effectiveness of any organization. It is a rare thing that everyone sees everything the same way. As we see in this particular case, a single pro-mafia nation (perhaps more in the future) is able to prevent the EU from doing the right thing.
NATO, by the way, is just as dysfunctional, having the same methodology. In this organization, we have Turkey being the blackmailer.
Turkey is a nightmare. We can’t kick them out of Nato because they will become a full putler terror shithole like the CRINKS.
Thanks to their piss-poor response to illegal immigration, the EU members face an avalanche of far-right leaders; all of whom answer to the rat fuhrer.
Austria, Orbanistan, Slovakia, Holland.
Waiting for their moment to take power are Le Pen in France, Sinn Fein/IRA in Ireland and AfD in Germany.
There are probably more.
Nato and EU will continue to prevaricate like the integrity-free arseholes that they are, for another decade before Ukraine gets a chance. Ditto Moldova, Georgia and Armenia.
@scradgel:
1st: you have to know that the English are helping to develop the engine of the last Turkish aircraft, and are considering also selling them Typhoons, while Putin and Erdogan have the same fight, same methods, same values.
in 2nd: I don’t know what you call the poor management of illegal immigration, it must nevertheless be said that all these old European nations will have a real need for immigration: war => baby boom => grandpa boom = > splash. but rather we should be lucid and educational, adapt, rather than looking for scapegoats… not to mention that there are also jobs in our countries that locals no longer want to do.
moreover, without stability and development in their countries of origin you will never be able to stop the exodus…
in any case I see the EU as a cathedral, fragile and difficult to develop, the nations are like “singles”, the EU is like a couple with its advantages and disadvantages… in general people prefer to combine to leverage and be stronger, taller.
Don’t fool yourself – or let yourself be fooled – about the need for immigration, Mr. lorangebleue. This is a complete lie.
As I said, I’m in favour of immigration. Of people who have skills that we need. We don’t need illegals, who by definition are criminals.
I would not consider any asylum claim unless it has been made from the first safe country. The French have a policy which is itself criminal : despite taking £millions from us, they just send their rubbish over the channel to England on shitty little boats owned by traffickers.
@OFP
without addressing the particularities of the different pension and solidarity systems of the countries, we easily understand that a country of 80 million inhabitants producing a certain volume of wealth per inhabitant when it decreases to 30 million due to the age pyramid will encounter impoverishment. here I say random figures: if the Americans with the same starting resources, without external colonization and capture of wealth from others, go from 350 to 100 million inhabitants they will not be able to have the same army and the same volume of wealth. but the great bloodletting which was WWII has consequences and will continue to do so…
If the German government had committed itself to create laws that are friendly to families, instead of the other way around, the demographics would look much better. It decided to go the easy and cheap route; letting massive low-skilled people flood the country, destroying the low-wage sector and compounding the problem of people not being able to afford children. Their education system has also been reduced to being second-rate, a fatal mistake for a nation with so many hi-tech industries.
it’s also true.
unfortunately one of the operating assumptions of our societies is that the greedy, who have the appearance of producers of wealth, (while often they only postpone/shift costs over time) direct or have great influence over countries. some also say that these greedy people are a consequence of the pressure of the American pension system which leads to a financial and short-term vision of the different economies…
another perverse effect of grandpa boom…
I add :
with the increase in the standard of living and the increase in awareness of their ecosystem, people are/will have fewer children…
because you have to have good living conditions to have a good birth rate in rich countries. (in poor countries, children are above all their pension system, and in a state of poverty we are more subject to “nature”), so as long as politicians do not do what they must do to ensure the sustainability of the system ( fight against climate change, decarbonization of the economy) we will go towards the abyss.
the problem is that each generation is the bearer of the future mainly only for its own generation. people are born into landscapes of knowledge and as they age, they are unable to reinvent themselves. if there are too many old people then we lack the ability to adapt and reinvent…
Moreover, without this aging population (and what’s more, we become radicalized when we get older) Putin would not have been able to rely on it for his war against Ukraine.