A BIG Step Towards a Federal Europe? (ft. UEF) - Part 1

A new way to elect the EU president? No more VETO voting? The European Parliament has set the stage for a potential seismic shift towards a more federalized European Union with a new proposal that seeks to alter the bloc's fabric in three substantial ways. This initiative calls for a comprehensive reshaping of EU institutions, exemplified by changes to the presidential election process and the veto vote mechanism. It also advocates for expanding EU competencies, granting the Union greater exclusive powers that may redefine the balance between EU governance and national sovereignty. Finally, it proposes a robust enforcement of EU authority by amending the consensus requirement of Article 7, thus streamlining the Union's ability to act decisively. This compact yet potent set of reforms could mark a pivotal point in the evolution of the EU's political dynamics.
✅ Video contributor and sponsor
Union of European Federalists - UEF (UEF activities are co-funded by European Union)
www.federalists.eu/
The UEF is a supranational, non-governmental political organization who are committed to the struggle for a European Federation endowed with supranational institutions with limited but real sovereign powers.
☝ Domenec Ruiz Devesa, MEP is the actual President of the UEF.
Support the Channel:
💁‍♂️ Patreon: / eumadesimple
☕ Buy me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/EUMadeSi...
📷 KZbin: / theeumadesimple
Sources:
www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/...
www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdat...
verfassungsblog.de/a-leap-tow...
commission.europa.eu/about-eu...
www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2...
www.politico.eu/article/eu-la...
wayback.archive-it.org/12090/...
www.academia.edu/26262466/Kis...
www.euractiv.com/section/futu...
www.europarl.europa.eu/news/e...

[@MrNathanael94]

If we're already renaming things, the confusing "Council of the EU" and "European Council" thing should be sorted out, as no one can distinghish between these two without being confused which is which. If the plan is to have a true bicameral system, it would be adequate to rename the Council of the EU (the council of ministers) to "Senate", being the Upper Chamber, while the European Council (heads of governments) which has the character of a more informal meeting ("summits") could keep the term "council"

[@Crowned159]

I had to rewind just to remember that the council of the EU And the European council aren't the same name

[@Serocco]

The other institutions' heads should also be renamed. Treasurer of the European Central Bank and Speaker of the European Parliament are so much easier to get the point across. I love the idea of both the Commission and the European Council being led by one person and that person being President of the EU. Makes it clearer who actually is supposed to represent the people. If the EU Council remains, and it isn't renamed Senate, then I'd just rename the European Council into maybe the European Assembly or something similar. If the current proposal passes, it's gonna be subordinated under the Union President, who will or at least should be the one directing policy and direction to the heads of state.

[@uskybear]

@@Serocco I think you spelled 'removed' wrong.

[@diegogabossi9152]

and don't forget the council of Europe, that is often confused with european institutions but has nothing to do with them!

[@pionieresvizzero2224]

The confusion increases if the Council of Europe also considers us.

[@lellyparker]

I think the only way the EU countries are going to federalize is if those wanting federalization leave behind those who do not. So creating a Federal Union WITHIN the European Union with both operating at the same time.

[@victormendes956]

That's a beautiful idea. For the naysayers, if they want to have half the benefits for half the responsibilities, alright, if they want to have all of the benefits they'll have to compromise. It will be easier to convince if they feel they'll be left sidelined or potentially behind.

[@mr.frostvampier]

This, its like the €-Zone, u gotta have to convince people by showing of how good (at least i hope so) it works out. Highlighting the benefits is way easier this way.

[@ffeyzula]

Sounds like Macron's idea for multi-tiered EU.

[@lamebubblesflysohigh]

yep. I dont understand why France and Germany dont form a single superstate if they wish so.

[@laugesteffensen8768]

Most anti-democratic statement i've ever heard in my entire life. Your statement is a resounding reminder, why EU isn't democratic.. Shame on you, shame on your idea of forced policises pulled over peoples head.. you really have no idea what monster country you are dreaming about to create!

[@_braileanul]

Why would the small countries be in favor of being guaranteed of losing their minister in the European Commission? How do we trust every single president of the union will handpick the right and fairest bunch?

[@blackhole3298]

For the last 80 years small countries were allowed to actually have a say. It is a historical anomaly. This period appears to be ending. China and Russia will bully smaller countries around them, Iran aims to control the Middle East, as do the Saudis. Nigeria is claiming regional hegemony in West Africa. Brazil seeks to steer South America in the direction it wants. Trump and his loyal foes in America have become disillusioned with NATO, UN, WHO and other institutions because they are now going against their interest. How long until Germany, France and the UK will catch onto this behavior? The last 80 years, he so called rules based order is an anomaly in history. We smaller countries (mine has around 10 million) have been given an actual say on the world stage, without having ourselves literally anything to back this. Just imagine the Baltics or Luxembourg without the EU or NATO, a random peasant would have about the same influence like those countries on the world stage. Just like western business men can dominate and control large parts of small African communities. I say we actively use the voice that has been given to us through kindness, and nothing else! We have nothing to justify our influence on the world stage (small EU countries, like mine with 10 million people). Just imagine us outside of the EU, we would be like Serbia. A country hardly anyone cares about. We should use the chance to shape bigger institutions. If we fail to adopt and pro-actively help to create and mold these new powerful institutions, the big players in Europe will just do it without us.

[@Pointi69]

Oh easy . We get our stuff together in Europe or we all lose against the bigger economic countrys. Or the most violate ones.

[@rata5177]

There would be regulations and checks on choosing ministers.

[@apostolidispeter2499]

From what I understand, the commission will turn to a "help the president do stuff" organization, not one that decides and votes on stuff. That would be the council of the EU which still has representatives from every country.

[@clapetto]

I want to bring you a different point of view: when a national election happens, and the prime minister decides the composition of its cabinet, I have never seen anyone complain that the cabinet doesn't have representation from all the provinces. This is not different, as the cabinet (in this case the Executive) is not an organ of representation: the Parliament and the Council are. Moreover, the Parliament and Council would vote on the President's nomination, balancing any representation and extending it from what it is today.

[@jollybucket669]

Something I have never understood is why does Europe want to be federalized? It's not as great as you think.

[@fbkintanar]

I am not a European, but I closely follow this channel and the issues it raises from the perspective of another (sub)continental political organization, ASEAN (specifically the Philippines). This is arguably the second most successful subcontinent-scale political organization, but it is very different from the EU with no prospect of federalization in the coming decade or two. So I am interested in what can be achieved at the confederal level, and how the emergence of (sub)continental political entities complements or transcends the state system that came out of European wars and colonialism, the so-called Westphalian state system that assigns very specific roles to nation states. I think there is a need to balance political interests at global (UN), (sub)continental and national levels. The path forward won't be simple, and the whole world is watching the progress of the European project. Thank you for making the complexities of Europe a bit more comprehensible.

[@jenshep1720]

just keep in mind that this channel is a bit skewed. the chances for federalization arent as good as theyre made to look here. there was already an attempt at an eu constitution, and it failed due to lack of approval by the citizens. the approval ratings havent really overwhelmingly changed since then. plus, the countries dont just hand over competencies to the eu, they do it because theres some sort of benefit to them, and that isnt the case at the moment because too many of them exploit the weaknesses in the eu's processes for their own gains. plus, there are several political camps at work here, who dont all see the eu in the same light. there are the federalists with a vision of europe, but there are also more conservative factions who view it as simply an alliance and are wary of giving it too much power over their internal affairs. that hasnt stopped the federalists so far, but it has slowed them down a lot.

[@itshenry8977]

While i understand that this may be better for states like Belgiuml, Netherlands, Germany, I do feel that the eastern europeans members might be forced to back down from ramping up their industry since they too want to get rich like the Westerners who by Industry in the 19th-20th and 21st centuries became superpowers with colonies around the globe, while eastern Europe was under the stranglehold of Either Austria-hungary, Germany, Ottomans, Russia who aren't very known for their Industrial capabilities (except of course Germany) Europe will become divided by East-West Economical Inbalance which has to be fixed, I as a czech do not want to drive 30 minutes away just to find a German doing my exact job and making 4 times the money i do in the Čr. Simply east has less buying power than the west. The West by polluting the world in the Industrial revolution now wants to fix their mistake by stopping or limiting their own and the Industry of others to a more sustainable one, but the east didn't have the headstart with Industry like the west did therefore they have less money and see this as the west being hypocrites trying to prevent the east to rise to the same level of wealth. While I very much would love to stand united with my European Kin i'd have to be equal to them first, since no act of Union is truly a Union until its Equal. -->Forgive my bad grammar English is my second language)

[@igorpiernik1319]

Ye, I feel very similar here in Poland, with the addition of phobia of Germany :DD

[@theChaosKe]

I would personally look at purchasing power parity for a comparison. Looking at wages is not that acurate as inflation and taxes arent the same in countries. PPP is a bit closer to each other with Germany at 119 and Czechia at 86. Now where you can really boost your personal wealth though is working in germany and living in czechia for example.

[@romanhvizdak7051]

4 times? Average median salary in Germany is about 2 times higher that of Czech Republic. Maybe not even that.

[@gloowacz]

@@romanhvizdak7051Oh, "only" TWICE as rich? Oh that makes it no problemo then. All is good and dandy.

[@genmontgomeree9888]

As a Belgian I can say that I support every chance for countries like that of the Visegrad group to improve. I'm personally opposed to the idea that EU federalism will be beneficial for Belgium. The fact that my country is becoming outcompeted by Eastern European countries and countries like the Netherlands is largely its own doing and it getting outcompeted should force us to change policy direction to make us a more competitive and free market economy. Federalising the EU and making the whole continent adopt the idiotic policy decisions the Western European countries are making like Belgium and France or the ones of the Mediterranean countries will just sabotage the whole continents economic prospects and through that every other prospects. At the end of every decision, the bills need to be paid and the Western European countries that make the original core of the EU don't even fulfill the strict conditions that have been set on countries like the Czech republic. The economic growth of the EU is largely carried nowadays by the Eastern European members and this is less because of the funds they receive (since so do the Mediterranean countries) and more to do with their own policies and the exemptions it has received by the EU for some of their regulations. The EU commission is more influenced by its older Western European members than its newer members.

[@user-jm9rh6py5i]

The proposal is through the parliament. Now, even if it would pass through the council (20-23.12.2023), I don’t see any way that it could pass through the unanimity vote. The unanimity vote is the problem which causes the need for change of voting system. There is no way, that someone like Orban would give up on his biggest leverage, which he likes to exploit so much.

[@primotef8863]

EU member state: "EU slow to react" "undemocratic" "overly bureaucratic" EU: *proposes reasonable solutions* EU member state: BuT mAh SoVrENtY

[@jonikasemi]

While I'm all for the EU coming closer together, I just see it as borderline impossible that the countries opposing further integration will drop their opposition to such a big shift of competencies to Brussels. Other than the two-speed Europe proposition, I think the only probable outcomes are that the proposal completely fails and dies out after years of debate, or that after said years of debate the changes get watered down so much they become irrelevant even after being passed. I want to believe, but it's hard 😬

[@NotUnymous]

Agreed. There is the way of robbing certain countries of their power to vote tho. It's like a final legal possibility and it's in discussion for Hungary. Before this happens, nothing will happen.

[@paul1979uk2000]

To be fair, the same thing has been said many times through the decades and somehow, the EU countries seem to find a way forward. But it's very likely there will be some watering down of some of these proposals. But regardless, major change is needed, otherwise I suspect the EU and its countries will go in decline and get pushed aside by the US and China, which will have a negative impact on all Europeans.

[@puraLusa]

That is exactly how to describe EU 😂 Now, on a serious note, the big ones are in hurry cause the international geopolitics demand a eu reformation for their survival and ours indirectly. U might think this is about eu reformation but it's also to centralize power to produce a defense strategy in a world who is becoming less diplomatic and more agressive.

[@THEBEEEANSS]

@paul1979uk2000 European countries have been in decline for decades, a European country hasn't been relevant on the world stage since the Cold War.

[@dandavidson4717]

@@THEBEEEANSSWell, that’s a load of nonsense.

[@wulsiter252]

1984 here we go...

[@catlover12045]

I don't think this would pass the counsel in its current from. Why would they vote for themselves to have less power?

[@paul1979uk2000]

That's always the case, set the bar high, knowing it's going to get watered down at a later stage, but just getting a few of these things through would be a major success, even if some are watered down. As for the veto rules, that needs to go, if that doesn't go, there's little to no chance the EU will let any new countries join and longer term, the EU is going to have to expand if we want to compete with the US and China long term.

[@AB-zl4nh]

They have done this many times since the 1951 EU founding. It depends on the politics of the day.

[@paul1979uk2000]

@@AB-zl4nh True, and many of these proposals will get watered down, that's why the bar is set high, so even if watered down, progress is still made. But I do think when it comes to veto rules, that needs to go, if that doesn't go, there's little to no chance of any new country joining the EU, and it very likely will end up pushing towards a two speed Europe, if that happens and many of the big countries are on board with it, that's going to leave the smaller countries at a major disadvantage. To put it bluntly, if some of the smaller countries are hard-nosed about blocking everything, it's going to force the rest to go ahead and form their own core union, if that happens, the ones on the inner core will have a major advantage and it would eventually push the outer core members out, in the end, it's better all the members try to find a solution to move forward, but make no mistake about it, major reforms are needed.

[@Toreadorification]

@@paul1979uk2000 the "need" is for Euro entusiasts, Euroskeptics have no such need!

[@the_expidition427]

This is why the Americans overthrew their colonizers

[@DukeOfTheYard]

If the changes will be decided by the leaders, they might pass. If the nations will have a say, they will never pass.

[@mikatu]

exactly, why would some countries let the veto go, when that is the only weapon they have.

[@jonC1208]

@@mikatu becauae as we saw eith the uk if an ultimatum is send they can choose leave and probably go broke and have to crawl back or to have to agree to give up the vetoe, is not personal is politics

[@gloowacz]

@@jonC1208 So what you are saying is that we should give up because otherwise EU will bully us for petty revenge the same as it did with UK? Well at least you are being honest about the current state of EU governance.

[@Toreadorification]

@@jonC1208 There is no possibility of sending an ultimatum. There is no process to kick out countries in EU. UK did not receive any ultimatum, it just decided voluntarily to leave.

[@jonC1208]

@@Toreadorification in negotiations of what is basically a new foundung treaty you can be much morr flexibke since previous rukes wont aply after the new treaty. Also ehat I meant is that realistically a country like hungary due to geography beeds to be a member of the eu or it will have conimic issues

[@Oldmanplum]

Quite frankly I don't see how majority voting can work when to things like foreign policy. Do we really imagined that 45% of EU countries would allow themselves to get dragged into a war or some foreign entanglement after losing a vote?

[@THEBEEEANSS]

The EU doesn't have any interests outside of Europe, it's not like EU troops are gonna be marching on Damascus anytime soon.

[@Oldmanplum]

@WyattAshlock-yv8ue The EU has over 20 foreign missions on going right now. Including personel in Iraq, Mali, Somalia, Niger, and others. These are restricted to training and policing missions for now, but with a full federal system it could easily morph into more active French style intervention

[@dandavidson4717]

Counterbalance that with the advantages, though. The invasion of Ukraine has really highlighted the necessity of greater cohesion.

[@nnnik3595]

@@Oldmanplum Very few countries have expeditionary forces in the EU. I do not see interventions as realistic in the near future.

[@MrToradragon]

@@Oldmanplum I don't think it will happen that fast, while in generation or two, it could happen, I think that for now we are safe. At least until we will have one consolidated federal army, navy and air force. And that really is, at least 25, maybe 50 years head, unless something bad will happen. As well I don't think that EU as whole could became as pro-military as USA are so intervention would likely not pass anyway. On the other hand smaller interventions in "failed" states could perhaps happen way sooner. Especially if those would poses danger for (internal) safety of the EU.

[@MstrPablo]

Hello, I'm from Poland and I don't agree with the European Union. In 2004, when we joined the EU, we only thought that it would be about the freedom of trade and movement of people, and not about striving to create one super-large country under the dictation of Germany, thank you, I prefer to live in Poland and cooperate, but not in this edition. Creating something like this takes away the independence of countries without any opposition because they want to push through changes for their own benefit. It reminds me of the Soviet Union and reeks of communism from a mile away, disguised as democracy. Most governments in Europe are leftist, and besides, each country has its own culture and you will see, maybe not immediately, but everywhere this culture will be killed and a new phenomenon will be created, the same as what happened in the Soviet Union. Our ancestors did not die in wars so that we would now give up our independence and culture. Leaving the EU is the only way to maintain independence. Leftist values ​​are bad

[@user-ge1bj3gy6b]

If you just want freedom of trade and movement of people, then you can join EFTA like Iceland and Norway, why join the EU?

[@Helperbot-2000]

well, then leave :) go join the utopia of britain or something, they really had a genius plan there shooting themselves in the leg. also you should strive to make it less obvious that youre an uninformed *M O R O N* since you A: called the soviet union communist. B: implied communism is bad. C: amazingly managed to say communism isnt democratic. D: called leftist values bad (XDDDDDDDD okay polak hahaha). E: said the EU either is, or would be under the controll of germany (lol). F: fail to realize the exact think you complain about the EU happens in literally every other country to larger and smaller scales; subcultures over time get closer and closer to eachother, the independance of smaller regions in a country beeing outvoted because of the way democracy works, talk about your ancestors fighting for your freedom like that didnt literally happen with smaller regions in countries over time uniting together (often via force might i add and not democratically like the EU would do it)

[@MstrPablo]

@@user-ge1bj3gy6b as I said earlier, only now I will try to expand my statement. Many people did not know in 2004 what the EU was planning to do. Many people were unaware of the consequences of what would happen in 2004. When Poland joined the EU, I was 10 years old and I couldn't express my opinion, and what's more, I was unaware like the majority of society, Everyone at that moment was counting on things to get better. Of course, the economy has improved, but the last few years can be said to say that since 2015, when the first wave of migration to Europe by Angela Merkel began, the EU began to change drastically.

[@MrPakurfulo]

I totally agree with you. I'm from Spain and I don't want this. What's the point? We don't need to be a super large country. Look at the US, USSR, China, they are all a huge mess. It's better to remain as small countries. Competition is always good, even if it's competition of ideas and ways of doing things. To be honest I'm glad Poland is within the EU.

[@tamassuveg9714]

Sry but my hungary and your poland is infamous from the high level of corupton in the party this is the must needed change.

[@Snooper810]

Im pro EU but Orban and Poland THEY ARE RIGHT. IF THEY DONT WANT TO TAKE MIGRANTS, THEY SHOULD DECIDE FOR THIER OWN PPL

[@nixonrulez]

Central government should have less power not more! EU should stay free trade and Tax free Union. End

[@ajx9747]

We will never give up veto 🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪 It protects small countries against big powers like France etc.

[@AB-zl4nh]

The vast majority of decisions in the EU doesn't use a veto. The EU Parliament doesn't have nationalist veto. The Council of the EU, ministers from the 27 national governments do but only in a small minority of areas like defence. Instead it uses supermajority to make most decisions.

[@DutchSkeptic]

All of these will cease being "countries" in the first place. Instead EU members states will become E.U. states just like U.S. states.

[@DiogoSilva-og7tc]

​@@AB-zl4nhthen I'm sure it's okay if we keep it.

[@jonC1208]

@@DiogoSilva-og7tc but thise few decisions are in the current world the most important to be taken so the veyoe is desproporcionally problrmatic

[@walideg5304]

If Ireland is not happy they can leave the European Union too. Ireland was miserable before joining the EU and be allowed to be the tax heaven for big US companies stealing money from the Europeans

[@prodigy2]

Please keep us updated :)

[@EUMadeSimple]

I will do :)

[@Nick_Trimpos]

Its a risky proposal (cough Orban cough) , but i am down for it. May we finally enter the first steps of an actual union, with the final step towards a Federation!

[@FemboyDisciples2]

Well Poland now can vote againt Orban, but same time im not fan of Federation thing.

[@ArtisZ]

​@@FemboyDisciples2Why not?

[@TheVincent0268]

The Fourth Reich

[@FemboyDisciples2]

@@ArtisZ I think any country should have own vote and voice about it. Also the federation not gonna be next day and also Its a thing the country gonna votes about it and some of countries they dont gonna vote for it.

[@RodrigoFerreira-bs6hd]

​@@FemboyDisciples2Slovakia will replace Poland

[@blacku9625]

Ok it all sounds simple and easy, but I have a question. What would be a path to make these changes a reality? National governments have to vote on this? Both chambers? Presidents of UE countries? EU Parliament? Council? Orban is not gonna lose any time soon and before this proposal is actually in the final stage, Le Pen and others might come to power. I just don't see this happening with rising euroscepticism and it just seems like a forward escape.

[@catears2379]

I'm not an expert but I believe countries have 4 years to check if it doesn't interfere with their law and ratify it. After 4 years if there are still some counters that didn't ratify it then the project goes back to one of the EU organs (though it's phrased in a really weird)

[@blacku9625]

@@catears2379 Yeah, I thought so. So not gonna happen imo. There's 27 countries in the EU. Their governments are structured differently, but for simplification let's assume almost every one of them has an upper chamber, lower chamber and president. So 27*3=81. Then we have EU Council, Parliment, Council of EU, Commision. So that's 85. Some of the countries might use a referendum on this. Number unknown. Some countries might send the proposal to their Supreme Court to determine if the proposal isn't violating the constitution. Number also unknown. So that's roughly 100 steps to get this done. And all of the actors have to come to an agreement on this. I'm Polish, and even considering that pro-EU coalition won the election, there's still a president who wouldn't approve this, and the Supreme Court that won't be changed soon would also not approve this. And it's not only Poland. I don't think it would be easy to ratify this in Italy, Greece, Austria, Cyprus, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovakia, but we'll see. The crucial elections for the future of the EU will be next year's European elections and the next French election.

[@catears2379]

@@blacku9625 wiesz co ja nie znam się zbytnio na prawie unijnym, ale tam to jest jakoś strasznie dziwnie sformułowane. Bo niby po tych latach projekt wraca do któregoś z organów, ale nie ma powiedziane co ten projekt ma robić + powstaje sytuacja gdzie cześć krajów już projekt przyjęła O ile dużo krajów tego nie ratyfikuje to sprawa pewnie będzie jasna nwm co się dzieje jak jeden czy dwa kraje tego nie wprowadzą

[@KungsZigfrids]

@@catears2379 So if all countries act as they should, Latvija for one can never ratify this because the first baselaw in the constitution says: "Latvija is an INDEPENDANT democratic republic." The second law goes: "Latvijas countrys sovereign power belongs to LATVIJAS people."

[@catears2379]

@@KungsZigfrids As I've already stated I'm not an expert when it comes to European law, nor an expert when it comes to Latvija's law (btw a lovely country to visit, enjoyed it very much). Unfortunately law tends to be interpreted in many different ways and I gues they will find a way to ratify the changes and still pretend as it doesn't contradict constitution...

[@lamebubblesflysohigh]

Scraping veto and replacing it with qualified majority (55% of votes representing 65% of population) would take virtually all power away from smaller less populous members and give it to large members with high population. Namely France, Germany, Spain, Italy and to the lesser extend Poland. Take any combination of 3 from this group and you are close to 50% or even over 50%. So all these 3 countries have to do not is to find 12 countries.... and since most small countries are economic satellites of these 5 that can be easily bullied into submission or bribed you can pass anything. Now factor in all those exemptions various countries have which means some of them dont care about some particular issues because they are exempt anyway and they can simply trade their vote for something they also want to pass for free. Good luck pushing this..... If you want to democratize the EU and make it more efficient: first remove all exemptions, bring everyone into Shengen which would make every country and thus every citizen equal and then you can propose something like removing veto.

[@Quickshot0]

While I can see why you think that, it's important to remember the proposal also makes the EU parliament substantially stronger. And the EU parliament also has to sign off on any change, and the EU parliament is split in to parties based on ideology, not country. So trying to pass things on a purely country based approach will just fail. And instead one will have to make sure that things match the peoples will in the EU parliament as well. So your idea this would become about big countries only seems quite unlikely to me. Also countries not in Schengen currently are Ireland, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania, none of these have much population. So overall it seems kind of a small thing to get stuck over. And Romania and Bulgaria are supposed to enter in the next few years. So really were just talking about two divided small islands with a few million people on it, who's borders aren't always properly split and policed and could let non-EU people enter the EU in their current setup. Which makes scrapping their exception potentially even questionable via-via the illegal immigration issue. Though beyond that, I'm not sure what Schengen has to do with making the EU more democratic via these reforms, after all the veto is only increasingly being used to favor minorities interests, rather then the good of most. So it clearly has no future and maintaining it would lead to further abuse.

[@lordjey268]

But EU parliament is essentially a majority vote, which again favours more populous countries. And no, representatives in EU parliament do not vote based on any supranational party affiliation. They have loosely ideologically connected blocs, but the concerns of the representatives are the concerns of their voter base. And there simply is no such 'European' voter base that is equally conscious of and concerned about all the issues affecting various societies of Europe. Germans are concerned about Germans and French about French, etc. And even if they harbour no antagonism toward other nations of Europe, they neither have understanding, or even awareness, of their concerns.

[@Quickshot0]

@@lordjey268 Interesting claims, but that's different from a fair few Europeans I know, that do vote based on ideology and care about outcomes across Europe. Heck I even know there are blatantly pro-EU and anti-EU parties, that basically draw voters on that basis. So I don't think I can take your point of view as some kind of universal truth, rather then that it's just a point of view by some voters. Similarly, I'm fairly sure for instance that the ideological greens, tend to care a good deal about green energy solution first over just local solutions. And the EU parliament voting behavior often seems more focused on what is good for the EU, then a local interesting. So here to based on my personal knowledge, I'm not really able to come to the same conclusion as you are.

[@buurmeisje]

This will never pass and that is a good thing, smaller EU-countries should not and will not give up their veto rights.

[@AB-zl4nh]

This has been happening since 1951. The EU has amended the EU treaty several times since. Each time reducing the veto. So it's very possible but it depends on the politicians in the Council of the EU. Which can change with each new national election.

[@paul1979uk2000]

You do realise that all countries end up giving up their veto rights, it's not just the small members. Besides, what are the alternatives? As the EU stands, there's no way it can expand with new members, Poland and Hungary have been a massive warning message on why reforms are needed. In any case, I can see this going two ways, one is that all EU members find a solution to do reforms, even if it means watering them down, the alternative is that a core group of EU members could move ahead without the rest, a two speed Europe in other words, if that happens, that will put the outer core countries at a major disadvantage, especially the smaller ones.

[@buurmeisje]

@@paul1979uk2000 I mean I hope the union falls apart so

[@attilaabonyi8879]

​@@buurmeisjeah a pessemist i see? No thank you

[@Dasistrite]

People will never be ready to give away the independence that their fathers fought for with their lives. Hell i can see that this federation idea could cause an continent wide civil war and no one wants that! So it's better to try to make EU purely an trade union. We already have NATO for those who want to bolster their security.

[@kacpersokoowski5208]

Who "needs" it? Who is "we"? How did it become decided that "we" need it?

[@alganis3339]

Most of the EU citizens if we look at the latest pools and yes we can look at them because it's the only thing that we have.

[@Pointi69]

If you are not for EU you can leave. Easy.

[@kacpersokoowski5208]

@@Pointi69 Does the EU equal federalisation? Where do you know it from?

[@kacpersokoowski5208]

@@alganis3339 >and yes we can look at them because it's the only thing that we have.< There is no such a "because". In democracy only voting is the valid source of obligation.

[@alganis3339]

@@kacpersokoowski5208 Why and what are you arguing about ? I just told you that the pools are showing that EU citizens in their majority want more federalism so we can say "WE"...

[@jwil4286]

I actually agree that the EU should have a single migration policy. If one country refuses to take migrants, then no migrants come in.

[@thechosenone729]

They are not going to do that in fact they will force it upon people.

[@jwil4286]

@@thechosenone729sadly I can't completely write that off

[@thechosenone729]

@@jwil4286 They will since majority of voting power will be in hands of Germany and France after the change. Without Veto you can't stop such a resolutions from happening and if France and Germany decides and all of them agree upon less restrictive migration policies all other countries will be forced to apply them unitarily... maybe at first they do it by "Take migrants or pay" but later it will be just "Take migrants".

[@AtakenSmith]

I like the changes, but with a 55% minimum feels low. We have the Veto system so everyone is on the same page always, it's to make sure the EU stays together. Achieving the same unity with 55% is I'm not sure gonna work...

[@derdunkle8999]

I think it's a barguing strategie. If you start at 55% you might convince the countries that 60% to 70% is enough. If you start at 65%, they might long for 70% to 80%.

[@examinetruth5392]

55% is crazy, that means that certain countries can just always be on the same page and get through whatever they want. Also Hungary and Poland not being able to say no to EU's crazy open borders where hundreds of thousand of people from other cultures are heaping is also crazy.

[@Quickshot0]

@AtakenSmith Maybe it's a little low in some ways, though at 55% to pass, it means at most only 45% can be against, and usually you have a fair few more neutral people who don't care to much either way. But even at the most extreme this means you must have already a 10% gap between those in favor versus those against. Which isn't that small a gap either anymore. Also the Veto system lately is actually starting some cracks to form in the EU. It was ok when the number of nations in the EU was more limited still, but now it increasingly instead means a way to cause problems as well, which is not good for European unity. Clearly some kind of change is necessary to reduce this problem. Still I agree your concern is a valid one and something to definitely keep in mind on the matter. @examinetruth5392 Theoretically if all nations always agreed on everything, sure. But in practice in democracies it's not really something one really sees. Even bare majorities like 50% often show changes over who is in favor or not, not to mention each election seems to change which groups in such a case can even achieve a majority. And in the case of the EU this is still true as any law needs to pass the EU parliament. So in practice some nations forcing everything through seems pretty unlikely and all the groups don't agree enough with each other for that. Beyond that, the EU never required such numbers from Hungary or Poland. The last time that came up every nation was asked to take some share of the refugees and Poland and Hungary were I think more at a few thousand, which they then afterwards reneged on at that, which is kind of a bit of a crappy move to pull when the numbers were minimal already anyway. Fortunately for Poland though the other countries didn't treat them unreasonably when next time they were the ones who ended up with a lot of refugees though and once again decided to help out by redistributing hundreds of thousands elsewhere through Europe. Once again I believe based on how much each country was willing to take in. So I think you're being a bit to panicky there really, the EU has never done much from up high forced decision making if at all. A lot of it is a much more reasonable deal making between countries on what is possible. As it has always been really.

[@michaelw7311]

@@examinetruth5392 the whole concept of federalization of Europe is giving more power to the colonial countries like Germany and France. Nowadays Europe has only one thing to sell -> access to 450kk mln very rich people. For countries like Germany and France will be easier control Europe and taking profit from access to European market. As we know EU population will be slowly declining, that's why France and Germany see need to expand Europe because they are earning on it quite a lot. That's why there are talks with Ukraine and Turkey, we will add 120 mln people. This is new colonialism branded as sharing "European values", it is pretty similar to "exporting democracy" by USA :)

[@examinetruth5392]

Germany and France is already selling what they can sell to Ukraine and Turkey @@michaelw7311

[@slawomirkulinski]

It's simple - you want to talk to EU call Germans.

[@lucasroach7835]

Eww, after 1000years of struggling for autonomy we're supposed to give it up? Thats foolish.

[@eccoeco3454]

Then enjoy being having the autonomy of being fucked by Russia china or the states your treat (well no... It's more them that will decide but eh at least it's not Europe eh?)

[@TheSteakLP]

The "More EU Competencies" part will be where it fails. No matter how much sense it makes, some politicians just have the stance of losing competencies = bad

[@hugovillajos6709]

This is one of your best videos yet! Very excited how this debate goes and of course hear your thoughts on it.

[@padriandusk7107]

Aaaand there comes what most people have been afraid of: Instead of a United Europe, it's becoming a United States of Europe.

[@1God1Fury]

Diminishing sovereignty of individual country.

[@tlk889]

What exactly is the difference between the two?

[@padriandusk7107]

@@tlk889 Grudging deference instead of Mutual cooperation, i'd say. Instead of sovereign countries working together as a whole, it's becoming a gigantic country made of countries which have to obey to whichever has the most authority at the moment, with each country/side of the whole mess waiting for its turn do to whatever will benefit THEM instead of the whole group.

[@zaazee5584]

@@padriandusk7107 Well thank you, with your statement "Grudging deference instead of Mutual cooperation, .... with each country/side of the whole mess waiting for its turn do to whatever will benefit THEM instead of the whole group." you perfectly described the state of the EU as of right now. The reduction of nationalism is one of the biggest tasks on the path of a truly United Europe under the hood of the United States of Europe. Yes, these phrases complement each other, as there won't be a United Europe without a United States of Europe and vice versa. Now, i am sure the ideas presented in the video would be a big step forward.

[@padriandusk7107]

@@zaazee5584 Also, people won't abide by this that easily, and leaders would rather listen to their people, making and unmaking them, than to any kind of council, before which they can simply claim "circumstances have led to x negative thing" if something goes wrong or not fast enough. Why would people feel defiant about a United Europe, if it benefits everyone? Because they can't feel said benefits. Or rather, because they think and feel the losses outbalances the gains. National pride or influence, spendings, security.....you name it, they could regret it. National flags replaced or forced to cohabit with the EU one. Local decision topled by EU ones. Everyday products costing two, three, four times more after joining the EU. Mass immigration coming from EU countries and working for close to nothing, reducing general wages. And that's a HUGE problem to solve. Leaders aren't unanimously loved in their country for what they doing locally. If what they concede to Europe makes their popularity even worse, then they're toast. And no leader, since decades, has shown enough sincerity and devotion towards the construction of a better future for THE WHOLE UNION to risk his own political career. Still, the funny thing is, most of em managed to both suck at their job AND getting politically crushed anyway. Maybe time will make people think and feel they're not just "forced to be good neighbors", but also citizen of a whole, solid union? For now, it's far, VERY FAR from the case.

[@jasip1000]

I hope that the citizens out there in the different EU countries will get the opportunity to say yes or no, to all those changes. It’s a big no, seen from my Danish point off view.

[@AB-dd4jz]

we never get a say on anything those tyrant do, they override our own laws and our own politicians are too corrupt to fight it !

[@Jojo-dm8wq]

It was a big no for france too but they didn't give a shit, if voting mattered they wouldn't let us do it.

[@anitabakala9045]

Nein nein nein from Poland as well!

[@Dzyn79]

@@anitabakala9045 Once again NO. It is going to be return in history when Germany is striving for power again through proposed changes . O! NO!!!!

[@babszemek]

Democracy is slow. Dictatorships are fast.

[@NoverianSnowCone]

EU needs to get serious about illegal immigration. We (including the joke that now has become the UK) need to get serious about deportation and the cancer that is terrorism.

[@metrotrujillo]

create your own army, and handle your own security otherwise you are a colony

[@razvanciobotaru3089]

Very good video. Can you make a video called "If Romania and the Republic of Moldova unite, how would the EU help." For more details you can see Romania and Moldova United? Europe's Newest Nation, and and to prevent a similar scenario as West and East Germany, check and Why Germany is Still Divided 30 Years Later, both video on TLDR News EU.

[@EUMadeSimple]

I will look into it

[@vasiliivanov9618]

As moldovian I would like to see such a video, sharing with a big group of people.

[@AndDiracisHisProphet]

@@vasiliivanov9618 interesting. I did not know that there even was a unification movement in romania and modova. why is that?

[@wallachia4797]

@@teodoraciobotaru293 Why would those channels be mentioned? Some of them are genuine losers, while others are just highschool educational channels with no tangence with politics.

[@MrToradragon]

There should already be some plans on integration of transport networks and electric grids. I have certainly seen some paper regarding improvement and conversion of railways in Moldova to standard gauge.

[@ziggytheassassin5835]

When i was younger, i wanted a unified eu, but as i got older, im now very against centralisation. I think the eu should remain a broad federation of allied independent states. I dont want brussels deciding the future of my country especially given their history of pushing mass immigration and increased internet regulation. European countries are not like american states. They are distinct peoples with unique cultures and millenia of history. A centralised eu will innevidably work to hollow out and disregard those identities to be stable.

[@DiogoSilva-og7tc]

One good evidence of this are the "european values" which are very much WESTERN european values, many times not shared or held in the same regard in other countries.

[@dennisengelen2517]

I'm from the East of Flanders (Dutch speaking northern state of Belgium) and trust me, we don't want what Brussels says either and are hoping for a confederation because much of our tax money goes to the poorer south French speaking part of the country where many people don't work and literally live off our hard earned money lol.

[@erikeliasson4739]

I am very in favor of european centralisation. The way I view it is a simply an upscaled version of what our own countries already are. "I don't want Brussels deciding the future of my country" could very well just be "I don't want *insert capital here* deciding the future of my *local community*." Population wise it's nothing crazy, still having fewer people than India, and India is still a functioning democracy. The only real dilemma I see would be language, where the obvious answer would be having english as the official language. It would be a bit confusing, having english as the official language while the UK itself is not a part of the country. German or french would likely take their place, but they don't have as many speakers outside of their respective countries (in Europe) as the british do.

[@greywolf7422]

@@erikeliasson4739 So you think that is acting in good faith to the people of the past who fought hard to maintain their national identities. And to keep their cultures alive, not "Italian Pizzaria" alive, but keeping the nuances and unique social relationships that made the people of those nations to invest so much into their communities in the first place. What would an individual be in this new Europe, a worker drone to be punted across the continent or part of an ethnic, neighborhood and/or national community that millions died to preserve.

[@giuseppearleo6324]

​@@greywolf7422you don't understand the point: Europe has no future if not united. The wars fought in the past were due to the twisted idea of nationalism, that brought only devastation to Europe. There is no way of competing with the US or China or India for a small european country by itself.

[@Cqmper_]

The EU is good for trade and economic partnership but not for political matters. If the veto will be gone, some countries will be forced to accept laws and rules from Brussels. That's not very democratic in my opinion. The same as a Federal European State or United States of Europe. I think it will not work because to many different cultures and mindsets. Just look at Yugoslavia.

[@Quickshot0]

@Cqmper_ On the other hand, if a singular country can block changes that absolutely everyone else wants that is arguably even less democratic. Perfect agreement by everyone on everything with in society is in practice impossible after all. As such, the continuation of the veto at the current number of voting nations in the EU or more, is also no longer viable and so something must change. And I think requiring more then just a bare majority, could be a reasonable compromise for this. Needing 55% of votes and only 45% opposition means those in favor must have a fairly substantial 10% gap lead after all. And as such any feeling of just a few votes being different changing the majority would be gone.

[@MajinOthinus]

"If the veto will be gone, some countries will be forced to accept laws and rules from Brussels. That's not very democratic in my opinion." No, that is literally the definition of democracy. No democratic decision in the world has ever been adopted with actual unanimity. Democracy is majority rule, not unanimity rule. One country being able to block all others is the very definition of undemocratic rule meanwhile.

[@albevanhanoy]

Treaty of Maastricht 1992 Treaty of Lisbon 2007 We need a new treaty.

[@thepotatogod2951]

Treaty of Prague would sound nice wouldnt it.

[@itzpro5951]

@@thepotatogod2951 sounds like it will mean nothing

[@dana696danass6]

so basically eu federation throught back doors.... typical eu..... if u want federation do europe wide referedum.... but u know it would not pass ....

[@ItsJamero]

The EU should just degrade to a purely economic union, it has outgrown its purpose. A federation of Europe simply would not work, and the centralization and increasing of EU competnecies leads to Brussels calling for major changes in countries while not knowing the economic situation in them. The benefits are to few and the the problems are to many.

[@Bobogdan258]

Do you believe a united military wouldn't be way more efficient economically and logistically than what we have now?

[@Pointi69]

Then it is waste of money to support countrys with less economic. In fact for the bigger countrys it would be more interesting to let the other countrys poor to have cheap workers. I would say this is nor really a good idea.

[@Toreadorification]

@@Bobogdan258 The answer to this is very technical. Possibly yes, possibly no. The real problem is who would have control over it, which is more important than its efficiency!

[@hulejul9748]

Yep. the federalists are just Germans or French or Belgians, that all think they're gonna be the ones to rule the continent. Going back to the economic trade union and rolling back all the centralization of the last 20 years is the only way forward

[@SuperCrumpets]

@@Pointi69 1 european military run by hitler

[@bezimeni2000]

this won't pass, as soon as you want to remove single veto, that story falls appart

[@yourgodemperorofeverything1354]

Yeah, right. Countries that for houndreds of years fought to not be under controll of major european powers will for sure hand over their self governing and unite in one federated europe. For sure

[@monterrang1]

why would they be in the EU if don't want wanna be controlled by major european power?

[@yourgodemperorofeverything1354]

@@monterrang1 What EU was and what was promised is totally diffrent than what it turned out to be. Many countries wanted to go in when it was simply organization that made trade easier and helped with cooperation, not when it was trying to enforce their own agenda over will of the people of certaing countris and their governments. In theory also, EU was made in a way so even smallest member can do things to protect itself from too much influence of the EU, which proposed opotions from the video would make much harder. Right now those who don't want to be controlled by Germany or France still have options, but after federalization, not much.

[@monterrang1]

@@yourgodemperorofeverything1354 "EU was made in a way so even smallest member can do things to protect itself from too much influence of the EU" wtf are you even talking about? How can a member not be under influence of the EU? Are you sure you even know what's the EU was supposed to be or you're just spitting bullcrap from your ass?

[@premadesetups]

@@yourgodemperorofeverything1354 what is the EU agenda? to promote freedom and equality? is this what we are fighting against? why can't we all live and let live, why do we have to be so racist with each other even tho we look exactly the same, do we really want to let our language barrier put an end to everything we could be as a continent? we are not slovaks, neither germans nor swedish or french, we are europeans and we will fight for our freedom Long live liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness, cheers from Romania

[@potato96hasdrowned66]

​@@monterrang1EU at start was basically project to support revival of europe, not planned to be USA but what if in europe

[@davidenegri02]

Wonderfull video. Thank you very much to share this type of content and propose a debate about a theme that big medias don't involve people.

[@CrilotStudios]

I like the idea of a Single European State. As far as the choice of government is concerned, I have another idea: Each Union state has its own president/chancellor. These representatives of the Union states are in the Union Council. There are also various parties that are elected across Europe and are thus elected to the Union Parliament. There is also a State Council in each Union State, which consists of representatives from the individual provinces of a Union State. The government then works like this: The Union Council elects a chairman (usually the President of France or the German Chancellor), the Union Parliament elects the Union President and the provincial councils elect a council chairman for each state, these state council chairmen then sit in the Union Provincial Council, which elects the Union Province chairman. These 3 people - the Union Council President, the Union President and the Union Provincial President - are the decision makers. First, the legislative proposals must be voted on by Parliament and when Parliament votes for a law, the 3 decision-makers must vote on the law again among themselves (all 3 must agree) and only then does it become a law. If the 3 vote against it, there will be a second vote in Parliament. If the three are still against it, Parliament can vote a third time and if it still votes for it, the decision-makers must give their consent. This all sounds complicated at first, but it's not that bad. This just ensures that no one gets too much power in a unified union. Of course, this makes legislation work more slowly, which is why things like education, drugs, infrastructure and land use are decided at the state level. I agree with everything you said about the Union level a year ago, but I would add a few things. So the finances should be distributed at the Union level and the distributed finances should be managed by the individual states. Social benefits such as pensions, citizens' benefits and minimum wages should be uniform throughout the Union. The energy is controlled at the center by the Union, but like finances, it is distributed among the states. Same with economics. Trade at international level only passes through the Union. It gets complicated militarily. The (probably) best solution is that there is a Union army, which consists of the armies of the individual Union states. Each Union state has its own army and is, at least theoretically, allowed to go to war against another Union state, even if that would have enormous consequences. Again, Union states are not allowed to independently declare war against another independent country, as it would then be a war by the Union against another country. Each country must commit half of its army to the Union Army, with that half still belonging to the state army. If there is a war within the Union, neither other Union states nor the Union itself may intervene militarily. At the end of a war, negotiations take place as between two independent states, with the Union being allowed to impose consequences afterwards, such as the entry of the entire state army into the permanent Union army. If there are any further questions, please feel free to ask. Maybe I'll make it into my own video with my ideas. Because even though I'm a video editor by profession, I don't feel like creating a new channel.

[@diannegooding8733]

No, no, no!

[@markmerry1471]

I CAN NOT SEE THIS WRKING

[@kjetilknyttnev3702]

EU needs to start protecting EU. That's the thing that matters. Western civilization is under attack. Barbarians are at the gate, or inside. We can discuss economics after our existential threat has been resolved.

[@thechosenone729]

They don't care and they let it happen. They want to take your rights to say what you can and can't do. They will overpower states and later they will build army... i don't know but im starting to think that i will probably move somewhere far like very very far away.

[@apostolidispeter2499]

So the European Court of Justice will be the one that has the final say of if each country follows EU law. That makes it a very important institution for the future of the EU. Maybe the most important.

[@Mr.DalekLK]

Moreover, if we want to carry out such reforms, we need to ask all citizens in referendums whether they agree to the federalization of the EU, because no one agreed to such a thing when the countries joined the EU. Additionally, some EU institutions should be transferred to the V4 countries because, as you can see, Western countries are too weak.

[@Franco60.]

I think that abolishing unanimity voting is the best thing that could happen to the European Union. If, however, the reform fails, I believe that a 2-speed EU is essential so as not to hold back those who are prepared to make concessions in order to fly the EU flag as high as possible. I think it's a shame and counterproductive that some countries belonging to the EU are not adopting the euro as their national currency - it's ridiculous. We are 100% in a process or not at all. There are too many prerogatives within the EU. Thank you for your clear and constructive explanations. ♥️🇪🇺🇺🇦♥️

[@milanlux03]

Go ahead for federation!

[@Kingtot]

As long as the EU supports immigration from areas that don't integrate, like ever, I will never support the Union.

[@TheDestillers]

Veto's can be annoying and seemingly destructive. But it depends on who you think should run your country, your own national government or the EU. I believe my country should be run from my capital and if there is anything that we do not want be part of, we can Veto it. In fact i think removing the Veto will be a very bad move for they EU in the long run, as the citizens of most nations are not ok with their national parliaments being overruled. Do you see yourself as a european citizen before your nationality?

[@FireInNight27]

Yes, i see myself more a European citizen than an italian

[@brainyodin706]

Nope im Swedish. I dont have much in common with other european countries except maybe the other scandinavian countries. I love my country more than Europe, end of story.

[@penislandoof62]

The European common wealth will rise.

[@cokezzz8249]

This sounds like a powergrab by Brussel bureaucrats. All these proposals would do is to drive away more countries away from the EU, such as Eastern European states and other EU hesitant countries like Denmark or Italy. The veto acts like a mechanism of keeping in check powers, just like how US president can veto laws made by the legislature. Essentially for EU where member leaders act like head of state AND parliament, this balance in power ensures greater consideration and diplomacy in making and enacting laws for the best interest of all EU members, instead of only a small majority i.e. Germany or France or other big member states. The EU has already lost the UK and instead of rectifying the reality that a lot of people has for how they perceive the EU, they’re doing the opposite.

[@JoshuaNicoll]

Some of these changes are quite concerning, removing the ability to veto certain laws, while it could remove situations like countries holding up the council, it also means countries can now be bullied by a simple majority, this could easily lead to the formation of larger factions inside of the EU which will only make things worse.

[@Quickshot0]

There already are larger factions in the EU, that's what the various cross EU organizations are after all. So the only real change here is that no one nation can veto a law any more. Something which is a concern as a union becomes larger and has more voting members. And is in fact was a major contributing factor to how the original Poland was destroyed. In the end decision paralysis is fatal, so some kind of compromise might be needed to avoid that happening. Though I do think saying countries are bullied is a bit much, well unless one also accepts then that singular countries blocking everyone else via a veto would then be bullying of everyone else then. In which case one has to figure out which kind of bullying is less problematic I guess.

[@tomekfranciszek9237]

Germany cooperating with France, which they already do, could pretty much veto the entire EU into oblivion and have an easy way of pushing whatever they want, since they would need few allies in making policies.

[@familyguygaming_]

why do you believe that a country with 9 million people has the right to dictate policy for 448 million people? sounds a bit tyrannical no? small countries should control policy within their own country, they shouldn’t be able to gridlock the entire EU

[@JoshuaNicoll]

@@familyguygaming_ why the hell should another country have the right to dictate anything to another country, you seem to have a seriously messed up definition of tryanny. The entire point of the EU was all countries were to be equal regardless of their size. Are you really that oblivious to the principles in which this organisation was originally founded? I mean come on now, this is basic history.

[@Quickshot0]

@@JoshuaNicoll Never the less it is hard to argue that with so many countries holding a veto now, that it might be endangering the organizations ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Which effectively also undermines the many states ability to maintain themselves. Which is a very large problem in and of itself. Especially if left to grow to much out of control. As such the need for some kind of compromise to be able to maintain the EU is kind of unavoidable. While it was nice if everyone could have their cake and eat it too, in practice compromises to try and balance out the various requirements and needs of the individuals, the states and the EU as a whole are required. As such, unless you have an idea on how one could maintain the veto while also keeping the EU governable, some kind of compromise and reduction in veto power seems inevitable.

[@MrToradragon]

As European, I don't think that those presented changes are, while it could be an improvement, are ideal. For example while shift to bicameral system is good, the fact that one chamber will be consisting of only indirectly elected or appointed members, as I understand, is too far from being Ideal. I think that we should have this "senate" bit larger with all the PMs (or their emissaries) and then elected representatives from each state, or rather regions. E.g. every 5 million people would mean 1 senator. And maybe we should grant several "honorary" seats. For example for heads of microstates and/or for heads of EU-wide religions. E.g. Pope, patriarch of Constantinople etc. I think it would be great idea to Include representatives of communities that are not defined by borders. The naming convention is still terrible, I would say. On the other hand having head of executive "chosen" in similar way as PMs are, is step in right direction. I would say. I don't think that transferring Biodiversity and Environmental issues to exclusively EU things is good idea. If they will make too rapid steps or steps that would be in bad direction, it would mess whole EU instead of single country. As well I think that all stuff regarding national parks and other such areas still should remain in power of member countries and possibly be transferred from central level to some lower levels, like regions. This proposals will as well face pushback from certain governments, so some concessions would have to be made. But I don't think that they would happen that much in first group of reforms, but the third will most likely not pass.

[@perjohanaxell9862]

The harder and most important change is removing the veto. Even a 2/3 voting system is better. Removing the veto paves the way for all other changes.

[@klauszinser]

EU-wide referendums. What exactly? How? Widen the EU competencies. Why? No! The EU Parliament is undemocratic. The vote of a German citizen for an MEP is nothing compared to the ones from small countries. Why has the number of MEPs been increased (not Germany). It should have been reduced. There is no access of EU citizens to the EU-court in Luxembourg. National courts most times reject. The EU Parl Petition Committee does not deliver. The EU Ombudsman Emilia O'Reilly, she does not do her job (with Cecilia Wikström it would have been a disaster). She did not care about action against member states when they violated EU law (Infringement proceedings). Each nation - as Denmark - should have the right to vote out. Is Norway, UK, Switzerland etc involved in this? One of the biggest lies is saying the EU administration is cheap. All the EU farm subsidies are managed and paid from the national states.

[@itzpro5951]

NO to Union, NO to federalization, Europe is a continent, not a nation

[@thepotatogod2951]

13 year old detected. Opinion rejected.

[@itzpro5951]

@@thepotatogod2951 sorry that you don't know geography and think Europe is a single country. Apparently to you, a 13 year old knows geography better than you (I'm WAY older than 13 btw)

[@regarded9702]

Your enthusiasm when discussing a European Federation ruins any trust I had in you to fairly report on the topic. You can support a European Federation but to sound so biased just destroys your credibility.

[@1Alex117]

I agree with you. The team of EU Made Simple should get us the news about EU without bias or at least try not to be bias. I am totally pro an European Federation but a news channel should be unbias

[@_braileanul]

Yeah, the title is excessive in my opinion. The contents of the video though were pretty fair

[@zorozyx1347]

They were always like that.

[@Zarco108]

So the proposal passed the EU parliament, when is it going for the EU council ?

[@rntablette9388]

start to redo the 2005 referendum, and then enforce the decision of WE THE PEOPLE !!,

[@asmodeoux]

the countries have joined a union where every country’s vote matters, now they say if you’re too small you have to obey to the rest, it’s a radical change to EU also giving the environment authority to EU & making education a shared responsibility between EU and the country sound like awful measures it can be a major step to implement EU-wide education as propaganda tool, then use some climate scoring to manipulate developing countries, then use this new voting mechanism to enforce EU-wide high taxes controlled by digital euro if that happens that would be the end of EU, unfortunately, let’s enjoy Europe we know now I hope Poland and Hungary will never let those measures to be implemented

[@cristianz858]

Actually, the European Parliament has made another proposal not mentioned in this video: redefining Qualified Majority as 2/3 of the Member States representing 50% of the population. This would give small countries votes basically the same weight as bigger countries votes (since the population threshold would be easier to reach even without the support of France, Germany, etc).

[@Gabranth86]

So what happend? 28th Nov as I'm writing this. Did it got the green light and moved to European council? Couldn't find any info on google.

[@dylanf3108]

This is just the US federalism system with a socially democratic slant and more confederal.

[@eclipsenow5431]

Majority voting! But sadly the far right countries will never give up their right of Veto - their most cherished power 😢

[@ivan_matvichuk]

A very interesting issue! I think that voting with the majority is the only right way! I hope that my country will also become a member of a united Europe) 🇪🇺

[@rohaisme]

I'd say some issues require larger than 51%. Because if it's too close to 50-50, popular opinion can change quickly

[@MykeWinters]

@@Humble_Bundle Ukraine

[@VincentHondius]

This will destroy EU as a whole because it will prevent minorities from stopping tyrannical majorities

[@RisingFlag100]

​@@MykeWintersyou mean Russia? Lol

[@yoannbelleville7763]

@@rohaisme I think it should depend on the policies being voted.

[@atam3977]

More federalization means more power to Berlin (means bigger single point of failure). The last decades have proved to the direction Germany wanted to push UE was in many aspects wrong and moreover harmful to part of the community.

[@AB-zl4nh]

This is completely wrong.

[@dcseain]

Hello from the US. California, Texas, and Florida do not have more influence at the national level than Delaware, Vermont, and Wyoming, for example. One sees similar non-dominance in Canada, Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina here in the Western Hemisphere also. I find your concern improbable at best under a sturdy federal framework.

[@atam3977]

@@dcseain However, you mention federal structures that, despite everything, were more homogeneous both historically and geopolitically. Especially the US, which already in the Declaration of Independence included a framework at many levels, which other states followed. Contrary, the EU's treaties on very basic level are far than federation. For example, depending on the path of the Nord Stream, the geostrategic situation of one or another region of Europe could change dramatically.

[@dcseain]

@@atam3977 Oh, indeed. I have LONG thought the EU would be stronger with a Federal system, but agreed that it is far from that point yet.

[@mw00295]

@@dcseain Germanic countries in EU outnumber countries of other ethnicities. This will be Germanic imperialism under a new coat of paint, plain and simple. On top of that Poland is already full of German politicians with German/Germanized surnames voting against interests of Poland. And they are massively overrepresented in comparison to people with Polish surnames in mainstream politics, due to intergenerational wealth and influence.

[@szaszm_]

I'm afraid Orbán will veto the proposal that would prevent future vetos.

[@tibsyy895]

"I am too old to understand this" make me cry 🤣🤣🤣

[@daedaluslv2032]

65% is too low

[@navnnavn9790]

If this comes to frution (which I highly doubt), I hope my country and a lot of other smaller nations have the self respect to leave, especially in regards to veto.

[@SkenderPig]

Honestly, if this is how you feel, I hope you leave too. I also hope you will live with the consequences in silence, unlike the UK

[@csibesz07]

​​​@@SkenderPigYou know, you can blackmail governments with this crap, but not the people. They don't like important decisions, affecting their lifes in bad way, taken away from their capitals. It will be interesting to see finally countries effectively working together due to federal EU: planning to leave together cause that's the bargaining they'll have at this rate, as you put it so discreetly.

[@SkenderPig]

@@csibesz07 I understand, although there is an inherent flaw with this thinking. There is no future for a Europe in which ulltra-nationalism is a guiding principle. Either you accept this reality soon enough and make compromises in order to sustain yourself in this new world, or you get left behind, as is your absolute right. But don’t make it our problem.

[@csibesz07]

@@SkenderPig It's not ultra-nationalism, it's called common sense. And whatever you think this new world is, you can't pass laws not agreed by the people living the consequences (often in smaller countries/borderline). Now it will be EU's success or failure how this is taken into account, be it migration, foreign policy or economy.

[@SkenderPig]

@@csibesz07 No, it is ultra-nationalism, because you are not disagreeing with these proposals on any other ground but a nationalistic one. Smaller countries still have a say, also it is literally detrimental to the entire union to hurt any one of their member states (meaning: even if acting in national self interest, it would align with interests of other members). Either you do not understand how qualified majorities work, or you just have a problem with democracy in general, since there's always a minority not getting their way. There is a reason why even the conservative populist assholes such as the likes of Orban only ever talk about being anti-EU, but do not have the guts to cut ties. They understand that it is only talk, that they would have no future on their own. The sooner the "people" (as you say) can see through the populist lies, the sooner we can get to work on becoming a more perfect society, but alas, here I am discussing this with someone who doesn't have a genuine interest in any of that. You can just leave, it is your right after all. We'll be fine, you'll come around eventually, and we will welcome you when you do.

[@TheNigel01]

I am not for the veto proposal. Imagine if the Western countries voted to unload all their issues on the minority. the current system is better since it gives an ear to the needs of the few.

[@ioannisimansola7115]

Change happens only after deep discussion on the main causes of things. This is where EU suffers

[@AintImpressed]

To be honest federalisation of the current European Union is hardly possible. There are great cultural and language barriers still in EU and what I can definitely say is that smaller countries in Eastern EU will not want to become part of a federation like that, giving up their quasi-independece.

[@prommerjakub]

Personally I’d rather be in a federation and give up independence of our government since we seem to be unable to elect anybody decent (most recently R.Fico for the fourth time)… way to go Slovakia…

[@maksimmatkun9227]

@@prommerjakub Youre part of democracy, not every politician will be in your favour. However, giving independace is lasting and irreversible state and very undemocratic one.

[@iAdam43]

Id rather leave eu than a federalisation tbh EU is for money not for taking our some what freedom of choice as a country

[@iAdam43]

@@prommerjakub I am slovak but id rather stay this than a federation the west doesnt have any decent prime ministers either.. its just rotten shit everywhere tbh

[@novvak168]

This would be maybe the biggest changes on the continent in the last few decades. I'm strongly for it. Even if everything is not in the final version. Scraping the veto would be such a victory not only for the EU, but I would say for all members in the long run. I think that many of the 10 members can be convinced to vote for it, but for a couple it will be difficult. Thank you EU made simple for helping make a federal more connected Europe!!!!

[@Joso997]

No, we are keeping the veto!

[@Zimionz]

It is a nice proposal - or rather a pipe dream with zero chance of getting approved by all states. And it's not just Orban who's unwilling to give up veto power on defense, fiscal and foreign policy, although his might be the most difficult to overcome.

[@grzegorzfloryda9355]

eu cuck

[@gloowacz]

Veto is the only thing keeping the unelected EU Comission in check. It stays.

[@mikatu]

mate, veto is not going anywhere. instead of one single country, it will required at least 13.

[@shmoko1989]

More waste of money while Europeans struggle

[@philippededeken4881]

These guys are corrupt, massively corrupt.

[@romanmrenka5430]

if you take right of some member states, this will be just empowerment of anti-EU movements, i think this will either be end of EU, or split into EU and other union, as i am Slovak, i cannot trust politicians from other countries to share slovak values and interests in decision making...

[@premadesetups]

the truth is we are not slovaks or germans or austrians or swedish, we are european we need to fight for freedom

[@michakrynicki7299]

​@@premadesetupsno i feel im polish way before i feel im europen its just a continet we share sure we shoud be alies and friends but not one nation

[@premadesetups]

@@michakrynicki7299 we could be like the United States

[@michakrynicki7299]

@@premadesetups no we coud not were not same pepole i coud like west slavs federetion but not eu our ancestors were not dying for Independence just for us to give it away without shot

[@premadesetups]

@@michakrynicki7299 shut up we are the same

[@Danubian93]

I really love the fact that this change will grant the EU powers to make laws and regulations governing the educational, cultural and other aspects of 27 DIFFERENT CULTURES.. yes, this trully will bring unity - this is sarcasm - .. Back in the day I though the UK were stupid to exit.. I am starting to see their point.

[@flixelgato1288]

“Supporting competencies: these are areas where the EU can assist member countries but not overrule them” “Idiotic EU, thinking it can centrally make laws about the culture and education of 27 cultures!! >:( “ Bro what? There are valid criticisms to be made, yet you choose the one addressed in the video and already accounted for?

[@lighthouse620]

Federal europe? No thanks

[@marcothebarber764]

As a west European I full agree for a federation, accept or leave and pay the money back

[@riku3716]

Vetos should not be removed. If simple majority can make major decisions for all EU supercedes independence of the nations. Eu is not and in my opinion should not be a nation and should not supercede independence of member. It ahould be union of independent nations participating voluntarily and beinf subject to legislation they too have agreed on. If that makes decisionmaking slow then so be it. Independent nations can make faster moves then in case of emergencies. Just because something would make something easier, faster and more convenient for EU or majority of EU leaders does not make it right or better.

[@zorozyx1347]

Exactly.

[@mati99ish]

they are luring us with "convinience" ,but if we take the hook we will regret it because there will be no going back

[@MajinOthinus]

EU *should* be a nation. History doesn't care for idependent little entities.

[@arisplugis5197]

qualified majority will always mean the will of big countries. because small ones have less representatives in parliament. and what about council? two major questions are: 1) how does votes will count in a counsel? does all countries have one vote. or big countries will have more? 2) are these changes will have to be approved in referendums in every country? because this is not what citizens voted for when joining the union. if contract is changed, then it should be reapproved in a democracy. i hope that in this canal are competent people who can answer those questions.

[@Sup4hi33tk1LLa]

the qualified majority is not about population, it’s about number of countries. For example Germany vote will have the same power as Belgium vote or whatever country you want. It is so that 1 country will not be able to stop the others from voting on something. In this case an example of how Austria blocked Romania acces to schengen when everybody else agreed.

[@sebastiangruenfeld141]

Maybe we should agree first on what "common European values" are before we sanction member states for not sharing them. And just because Germany and France share a set of values doesn't mean they should be forced onto other member states. We had western imperialism already, no need to force your cultural values on others.

[@pep-qew1977]

It will doom us all!

[@spear8492]

Probably... But i don't think the way we are now is better. We are just stagnated... Either we go ALL IN EUROPE or EU as we have it wont last. As a nationalist myself i understand that our nations as they are today have no significative power. Not even Germany or France. Fractured we will be simple midgets in the world stage "Simping" for others. I like to think that if i have a chance to get better ill take it . That does not mean i don't like my country by all means but my kids might have a better future. If not its ok but at least end the EU, and we will go our separate ways simping for the ones we want.

[@JacobRizer]

I think that the before taking decisions on reforms, we should first address the economic differences between the EU countries and even them. We should first achieve economic unity, also by introducing euro to all EU countries and including all EU countries in the Schengen area (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland and Romania). I also think that we should resolve the Schengen area issues with illegal immigration, because right now border controls are back and with no common immigration policy inside the Schengen area and outer border control we won't be able to ensure free flow of people inside the EU. Without coherent economic stability across all EU countries, political reforms should be postponed. Only then smaller EU countries might agree to give up their veto right, to create a European federal government and to give up majority of state competencies.

[@italiansandvich3942]

There are so many ways the EU could be reformed but the reason it has so many of these problems is because on a fundamental level they dont want to unite. A lot of these reforms take away ability for small minorities to block actions that would effect them. Im for more centralization to a point but Europe as a whole is not.

[@puraLusa]

Europe has too many alpha dogs and just 1 meal 😂 That's the big constraint!

[@the11382]

There needs to be more checks to prevent tyranny of the majority, which is why veto power shouldn't be replaced by QMV. There is another side to the EU debate, but many don't want to listen and just point fingers, which is inherently divisive.

[@falsevacuum4667]

@@the11382 The EU already moved to QMV in 2009 for 80% of decisions.

[@Helperbot-2000]

"take away ability for small minorities to block actions that would effect them" by that logic you would surely want anarchy since in ANY nation of ANY size there WILL BE minorities that have less power than they would like

[@falsevacuum4667]

@@Helperbot-2000 That's not the case. The EU works on a principle of consensus. The real issue is not when there is significant division on a topic (since issues like that do not even move toward a vote), it's times when 1 or 2 countries block a something (usually for nefarious purposes i.e. Hungary) that really damage the Union. If countries are not comfortable with going to purely QMV, they could create an in-between kind of voting, like a supermajority, where things could be "vetoed" by say 4 countries or something. That will be discussed during the Constitutional Convention.

[@papi8659]

System works, no need to mess with it

[@daPawlak]

yeah no chance in hell for unanimity, so it's going to die there

[@zzip0]

Federal Europe was voted down n several referendums in EU. This talk needs to stop. EU is not a state. EU is an alliance.

[@ai-d2121]

Well. Thats true. But I don’t see why improving the EU makes the EU a state. No idea.

[@zzip0]

@@ai-d2121 Not discussing "state" here. The topic and my response is about "federal" Europe.

[@ai-d2121]

@@zzip0 Ok. Thus you dismiss the word “ state “ in your comment? EU is not federal, it is an alliance? I merely try to figure out what you mean. No offence.

[@zzip0]

@@ai-d2121 Yes, Europe is not a state. You disagree with this? It means there should be no common taxes. No common debt... As for what I mean, more important is what several EU referendums mean. Refer to them.

[@nuttall47]

How did the public demand these changes? Oh I thought not.

[@peterneumeier5575]

I am from Europe and fully support the idea of the ‚United States of Europe‘ as a federal, democratic and secular state with one constitution, one legislation, one parliament, one government, one president, one army, one tax system, etc. The proposed reform would be a huge step in the right direction. Before we start to reform the EU, I would really like to have a discussion about our common european values. When we talk about democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, equal rights, etc. I fear that it‘s not possible to agree on a common set of rules. The EU has lost it’s ability to act, because single members can veto everything. With members like Hungary, that obviously tries to destroy the EU from inside, we will not be able to take the necessary decisions (e.g. replace veto mechanism with majority voting rights) in time. If it is not possible to change the existing contracts, then the core countries (with common values) should sign new contracts and setup an efficient organization, that is able to act. The other countries, that think that blackmailing should be the core principle of a union, are then free to join a new union with Belarus, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

[@kimlaursen8224]

Good proposals! It’ll defiantly move the EU forward🇪🇺! Think 15-20 commissioners would be a good idea, but think the European Parliment should nominate the president of the commision, just like a prime minister and have an administratively role - Would be a good idea for the European council to nominate President for the whole EU though🇪🇺. The President should represent the EU and connect the Europeans! * The EU should also consider having a union district, -just like Washington D.C.-, to collect all the institutions one place. Near the Alsace region would be a perfect location for this due to its history and geographic center of Europe🌍!

[@Emanuele246gi]

These are good idea, I think this is a good starting point though, let's do things slowly 😉

[@tomorrowneverdies567]

History teaches that federations with more than one identity (usually ethnic or religious) are politically unstable. Examples: Belgium, Canada, Austria-Hungary, Soviet Union, Ottoman empire, British empire, French empire, Japanese empire, etc.

[@AndyHenderson26]

@@tomorrowneverdies567listing empires and authoritarian countries doesn’t really count

[@tomorrowneverdies567]

@@AndyHenderson26 Why not?

[@Emanuele246gi]

@@tomorrowneverdies567 Because they had a different form of government? Because it was a forced coexistence?

[@StevenHartgers]

Worst proposal EU could ever have, strongly against the idea since i first heard it 3 years ago. This is just a power-move for more control over countries.

[@antoniospillos2814]

The EU is an amazing live and dynamic organization ❤

[@TheDankaattila]

Hungary is no longer a democratic country, why is it in the union?

[@bionicle37]

Video lacks objectivity yet again. It is designed to push that veto power gets scrapped

[@zorozyx1347]

As always.