A BIG Step Towards a Federal Europe? (ft. UEF) - Part 2

[@EUMadeSimple]

Correction: 50bn euro for Ukraine (not 500bn) Clarification: the VETO vote is only applicable to some areas (e.g. fiscal policy and foreign policy). QMV already used in most areas.

[@JmKrokY]

Cool

[@bastiaan7777777]

QMV: QMV is a mechanism used within the European Council and Council of the EU to take decisions without the need for unanimity. "democracy"" Imagine being in a small country and saying no. The bigger countries say yes. "democracy" Now it is: Meh small countries F you. Also: EU countries inhabitants can not vote for things like letting other countries join. Only member countries inhabitants can vote if they want to join yes or no. Rest of EU people cannot say: nah we do not want country x or y to become member. "democracy"

[@Zomerset]

If removing the veto goes, then a Super majority would seem the best solution. One or two individual countries using the veto for financial or personal gain isn’t showing unity, but I also don’t like the idea of 55% majority either. 80% seems about right to me.

[@benitzers8858]

no

[@Zomerset]

😂I am happy for people to disagree with me, but just saying ‘no’ will not change my mind.

[@julianmarco4185]

So... Russia just invaded the Baltics. Or Turkey invaded Cyprus. Do you think 80% of the countries will vote to go to war with either?

[@paul1979uk2000]

If they can't get it through the normal rules, a compromise in having super majority might be needed to move things forward, but we also have to be careful, too much of a majority could very well end up giving Germany a veto by simply having the biggest population, but that can be countered by the need of multiple countries needing to side with Germany to block something.

[@MichaelTavares]

@@Zomersetyes

[@miagatwa2457]

I hope the reforms go through. Change in the system is needed

[@miagatwa2457]

Bit sad that they rejected the EU-wide referendums, it would make (in my opinion) the EU more democratic

[@jonC1208]

@@miagatwa2457 thats because many member states dont do referendums usually. Also imagine spain with its separatist problem agrreeing to that

[@VillaDish]

⁠@@jonC1208I imagine that the referendums wouldn’t address national issues like separatist/independentist movements rights?

[@jonC1208]

@@VillaDish a question like, "should minorities be allowed to create their own states inside the eu?" Woueld probably appear eventually

[@VillaDish]

@@jonC1208 but in an incredibly far future when the eu can be considered a country made up of states where Catalonia leaving Spain would be more of a state splitting than an independent movement.

[@MrTohawk]

7:00 Frankenstein was the monster. The actual thing was a poor and misunderstood being. You can clearly see this guy has never read the thing he quotes.

[@MrTohawk]

@default3740 my point is that Frankenstein is a monster and the "monster" isn't

[@jeckjeck3119]

@default3740 And he was trying to revive people, defeat death. Not create a perfect life form:/ The guy watched too much anime.

[@pollutingpenguin2146]

That’s how it should have been from the beginning. The EU is currently too far from the average European and no one knows the people who are making the decisions.

[@mukkaar]

Well, while it is like that. It's also for a reason. EU is primarily for co-operation of EU member states. It is kind of an government too, but limited type. While EU does have big impact, even compared to US federal government EU has very limited powers. Who you vote in both EU directly and who you vote for your government primarily drives where EU goes, as local government both appoints people to various EU positions and has it's own seat there too. Overall, best way to affect EU is by changing things in your own country, as primary way people are represented in EU is by their own countries. There obviously is room to do do direct action, but EU is union of member countries, so those are the primary players.

[@bastiaan7777777]

@@mukkaar EU has very limited powers... wrong

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@bastiaan7777777 Compared to US federal government, yes. Like comparing a fly to a camel.

[@bastiaan7777777]

@@jeckjeck3119 Usa has not a history like Europe, cannot compare.

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@bastiaan7777777 What does history has to do with anything? And a bloody civil war would disagree with you:/ The fact remains as is: Even if all the reforms are to get passed, EU would still be one of the least federalist nations.

[@bjornSE]

As a Swede I can say that the attempt to force countries to take in economic migrants against their will convinced me we need strong protection for the national interest of individual states, another example is the building of gas pipelines to Russia and the Putin-understanders in general. The idea of super qualified majority is a step in the right direction but I don't think 75% is enough, it should be 80-85%, otherwise the large countries could still force their will against the interest of the smaller countries. I think we also need to take a critical look at what powers could be transferred back to the national governments, the principle of subsidiarity means decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible. Moving power to decide over issues away from the local level to EU is one of the major causes of EU skepticism.

[@NIdo-tj7vu]

With migrants, I assume you mean refugees? Everyone in the EU could use some migrants since birth rates have been going down for decades now. When it comes to refugees, what's wrong about forcing countries to take refuges in proportion to their population? A 10k refuges won't hurt sweden, but of course, when other countries refuse to take refuges, they will be a lot of them in places that can't handle that. Exactly that happened in Sweden because poland and lots of others did not want refugees. The EU countries always follow their own agenda, which is mostly stay in power because politicians' first priority is to get voted again and that it's really bad if those people have free will in a Union that is all about the right and will of the common people like us

[@themarcel508]

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@bjornSE]

@@NIdo-tj7vu Refugees=mostly women and children fleeing to the closest safe country. Economic migrants=mostly men traveling from far away to the countries with most social benefits. But either way, it should be a choice for each country, not imposed by EU. Sweden made the bad decision to open our borders so why should Poland have to pay for our mistakes? Trying to force countries to take in migrants against their will achieved nothing except increasing EU skepticism in many of the member states. If you refuse to listen to those opinions then those parties that does, like AfD, will keep growing.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

To me it seems you want the advantages without the advantages. If you think the super majority will be made so Sweden and other Norther state can do as they please, dream on. As for immigration, it's time for ALL of the Union to decide. Meaning no country will be left alone and that if there one policy ALL of the Union will follow it. Harder measure and strict regulations? Very well, it does for all 27 countries

[@bjornSE]

@@NoName-hg6cc That's fine, we don't need QMV at all, precisely for this reason. We contribute a lot for EU and always have. You can dream on about forcing us to do anything though, we're a free democratic country and we will never let anyone else rule over us.

[@VillaDish]

I hope i see the day the European Union creates a constitution and officially creates a Federal Europe

[@fedethefico]

Likewise

[@wile123456]

We gotta ban fascist and anti-democratic political parties for running in national elections for it to ever work.

Agree

[@NIdo-tj7vu]

Same

[@foxival5150]

Me too

[@autumnjacaranda106]

Members need to focus less on the sovereignty they could lose as a state and more on the sovereignty they could gain from becoming part of a global superpower. Learn from Britain’s mistakes.

[@anglaismoyen]

Yeah, enjoy becoming a mere region.

[@attilaabonyi8879]

​@@anglaismoyenoh shut up

[@Bobogdan258]

@@anglaismoyen The Baltics are a region, I'd prefer a continent.

[@ArtisZ]

Continental supernation! ​@@Bobogdan258

[@Byitn]

That is exactly the point I always make. Having "sovereignity" in a powerless little country isn't freedom, it is just being doomed

[@purelle88]

We need reforms, we need to stay together and being cohesive.

[@bastiaan7777777]

We need reforms, we don't need more countries joining.

[@jeckjeck3119]

EU enemies (Russia, China, etc) and allies (US) don't want that. Euro is the only currency that can potentially replace the dollar.

[@purelle88]

@@jeckjeck3119 The only thing that I care is what WE want for us :) I believe that more united Europe is, more wool be the benefits for all of us.

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@purelle88 True, it's a matter of survival. With India getting its act together, the world will end up with more than 2 economic superpowers, it's up to Europe to decide whether the world will have 3 superpowers or 4 superpowers.

[@purelle88]

@@jeckjeck3119 I respect my opinion on this topic 😃 The important is what we want for us, not what others want for us or what we want for them. I do not speak about economics.

[@r.s.1281]

I would like to see the suggested changes go through. However, being from a smaller country, I would certainly prefer a Super Qualified Majority Voting system to its suggested alternative!

[@KityKatKiller]

I understand the feeling. I don't mind the 75% of members, but what comes with it is the 80% of population. That nearly gives Germany a veto. Germany only needs one more small nation to be against it to veto anything with that. I don't want that to be the case. And I say this as a German 😅.

[@MrToradragon]

@@KityKatKiller Yes, that could be problem, so then perhaps we can switch AND for OR? That would prevent such kind of situation.

[@KityKatKiller]

@@MrToradragon probably. Or just lower the 80% to 75 or 70%.

[@badluck5647]

The US system operates as a bicameral legislature where laws have to pass both a lower body that has power divided by the total population and an upper body that has power divided equally among the states. This system has worked pretty well at sharing power between big and small states. Of course, European prejudices will fear any system that looks American.

[@RemziCavdar]

@@badluck5647 The US is one of the terrible examples out there of democracy. Please don't get involved or meddle in our social democracy. And this is me saying it as a European who has nothing against Americans, but only against their third-world country pretending to be something where you can go bankrupt if you go to the hospital.

[@billyfugate4823]

In terms of equalized representation, in the US our legislative body is composed of two chambers. The House of Representives, whose seats are determined by the populations of each state and the Senate, where each state has two Senators. It was meant as a way to foster the best of both worlds of majority rule with the House while also trying to account and equalize for the voices and views of the smaller states via the Senate. And while our nation is currently in political turmoil, I think the diversity of opinions in the EU would greatly benefit from a similar structure because the threat of party politics would be much mitigated by those diverse opinions. Either way it goes, I would love nothing more than to see a strong and united Europe.

[@PGN1967]

USA already has the greatest president running their country. You folks might want to get some RUBBER DINGHIES when you're trying to escape from America!😅 😅 😢

[@MrToradragon]

While I would consider lack of second chamber of EP as problematic, I don't think it should be constructed the same way as in the USA as we already have more or less proportional representation in the EP and at the same time, if we would adopt the same structure, there would be too many MPs and too few senators, about half of the number that senate in the Czech Republic has. Sure, we can throw in all the PMs of member countries, but that would be problematic for other reasons. Perhaps we could add one seat for each microstate as even thou they are not members of the EU they are affected by the EU. But that still would not solve the issue of roughly 500 MPs and 54 Senators. It would either have to be some sort of proportional representation as well, or big countries would have to be divided into smaller units, each electing one or two senators, so the number of senators would be reasonably high.

[@ant_cosacco1306]

@@MrToradragon We have to start from a base, so we can take the US model and modify it untill it would better adapt to the European situation

[@Byitn]

I would love to see a similar system in Europe. However, our brave leaders are afraid to give more power to the people with not only one but two chambers, so they want to have their Council with their ministers. For now, it will be more than enough to achive equal power betwern the Council of the European Union and the Parliament. In the future I hope to have two elective chambers as in the USA though

[@ant_cosacco1306]

@@Byitn Don't ask it, do everything to realize it. BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE

[@erik7999]

I like the SQMV idea, being from a small country myself. The one thing that worries me the most with this sort of change is the ever present and at this time rising far-right all over Europe. It is well known they are all about nationalism and various degree of xenophobia. These days most of it is directed at 3rd world immigrants, for the problems they bring are the most visible. But not so long ago, we, the perceived "Eastern Europeans" were the bringers of all their problems according to them. I worry that should EU become QMV at the time where far-right is at large, their way of thinking might spread beyond their own domestic matters and into EU, alienating us not just from within their borders, but from within the EU itself. And in that case, our voice could be lost completely, which could destroy the highly positive perception of EU the citizens are holding around these parts.

[@fakeskyler2305]

One shield against that though is the fact that most Far Right movements across Europe are pretty Eurosceptic. They'd far sooner pull their countries out of the EU than try to utilize it to spread their ideology. At least I think so

[@davidsarmiento1547]

Yeah being from Spain i see the far right talking about the african immigrants as if they are little more than animals and i cant help but think that could be our grandparents going to México, Argentina or France. Like, we were in that situation only less than 50 years ago what are you talking about?

[@erik7999]

@@davidsarmiento1547 Immigration related issues will never be resolved like that... Talks such as this only pour fuel into the fire. But that's all it is - talk. Rather than tackling actual issues they prefer talking and talking and talking... 😴

[@JaceVibe]

I am from Eastern Europe too, but here we are not against immigrants but ILLEGAL immigrants. I support any European law that would work against illegal immigration.

[@AlexandruVoda]

A small eastern european country, are you from one of the Baltic states? Are you free of the rise of the far right? Being from Romania I witness their rise within my country and it is deeply worrying. We really need an updated Chapel Hill Expert Survey for Europe before the elections to understand the magnitude of the problem.

[@mathematiqq]

Can we get more information on the 4/5 mechanism? This seem like a game changer? It basically changes the odds from almost 0% to at least 50/50. I tried to read the original proposal and found some paragraphs mentioning it, but I have a hard time putting it into the context of the proposal and EU rules.

[@alzalia_]

Yeah, I see no one talking about this, but until now I never even considered a reality where this reform passes, but this changes absolutely everything ! Would be glad to hear more too

[@benedictkaiser7516]

right, and I ask myself, who put it there? and did "they" even have the right to put there? Or does it only aply for future changes? which for me is the likeliest opion, since i cannot see how the treaties can be changed without unanimity, as Article 48 clearly states "The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by ALL the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements." But please let me be wrong.

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@benedictkaiser7516 It's basically those who want more get more, and I'm all for it.

[@chrislambaa7586]

Doesn't 4/5 just means 80%?

[@chrislambaa7586]

​@@benedictkaiser7516that's how I understood it as well. So I'm a bit confused too.

[@fluubje1997]

Hi, I was one of the citizen ambassadors of cofoe. I am happy to see it is being covered like this! It is good for others to learn about the consequences of CoFoE. Also i have been in toch with the UEF. It makes me happy that they are both supporting the conclusion of the conference, as well as letting you be able to cover this! If you ever would like to learn more about cofoe from a citizen ambassador participant POV, feel free to reach out!

[@EUMadeSimple]

Thank you for your comment. I am also happy that UEF supported me in covering it. I think it is important for citizens to see what this is all about. Might be great to have your POV for my next video in March :)

[@fluubje1997]

@@EUMadeSimple is there a way i can leave you my contact details without them being available to everyone who reads this comment?

[@75davide47]

Before watching this video, I wish you a happy new year!

[@EUMadeSimple]

Happy new year!

[@Kounomura]

The European Union is becoming more and more like the Soviet Union. But if it does happen, it will be even more disappointing. The goal is to colonize smaller countries. This is already looming large. If this were not the goal, then cooperative, free trade would be enough. On the other hand, even today, the powerful western member states dictate what the smaller eastern member states are allowed to think. With the European Union, the countries of the former Soviet sphere fell from bucket to bucket. You can't talk about freedom and equality at all. The union goes so far as to overthrow democratically elected parties and leaders in some member states. For example, in Hungary they have been trying to do this for 12 years. This country is mercilessly blackmailed, rightfully due money is refused to be paid out with all kinds of false reasons.

[@SP95]

The European Union has somewhat been built by various socialist parties across the continent so this is just them being deceitful this time around.

[@SP95]

Kind while stealing money by force

[@MarktYertd]

Creating a cohesive Europe is crucial, where proactive steps are taken to create innovation, establish businesses capable of global competition with China and the USA. It's important to maintain an autonomous military for handling external threats independently and to develop an independent internet infrastructure, akin to China, along with a financial system supported by international platforms like Alipay and UnionPay. The need for change is evident.

[@benitzers8858]

yes

[@ab-ym3bf]

ever heard of SEPA?

[@themarcel508]

EU need less regulation, less financial stimulus and more individual initiatives

[@NoName-hg6cc]

​​@@themarcel508EU needs a federal structure

[@ab-ym3bf]

@@themarcel508 while there probably will be certain rules that one could do without, I prefer it above the unregulated USA where you can get your rights after the damage has occurred. Agree with more individual initiatives, and I'm aware that regulation can be a break on new developments. There must be something on between as the optimal equilibrium. If only someone could hit that spot.

[@lamebubblesflysohigh]

For small countries it should be either SQMV or bust... why? Because just QM means that largest 3 countries will always automatically have 65% of population if they manage to get 55% of votes meanwhile small countries will never get over 65% of population mark. An alliance of Germany + France + Italy (47% of population) would basically get the right of veto while everyone else would lose it. Coincidentally they are also largest economies in the EU which means such arrangement would allow them to tailor EU laws to benefit them.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

Well, we could impose a super majority higher than 55%. Or make it so that 55% isn't enough and you need at least half of Europe or at least 12 countries

[@MrToradragon]

@@NoName-hg6cc Or let the 75 % and 80 % limits, but instead of AND we could place OR, so then it would mean that given resolution will be passed either if representatives representing at least 80 % of population, or 75 % of member countries wants given resolution to pass. Sure, it still is not perfect and can cause problems under some conditions, but it still will be better than current situation.

[@AleXcsGaming]

Well, the Federal goverment of usa at first also made the larger states stronger, but that’s really something good, it shows that the most succesful have the biggest saying. If their strategt is wrong, they will also fall in status over long periods of time. It’s a future proof system, there is no perfect thing in politics

[@tryagainnoob101]

I'm from a smaller state, Portugal, and I tell you now, our government is oblivious. As weird as it sounds... I rather do whatever the Germans say its best for my country.

[@Teutathis]

Let's be honest, getting France, Germany and Italy on the same page on a consistent basis is approaching fantasyland. Also, population numbers are not consistent. Third, the larger countries should obviously have a voice that is proportionate to their size. Personally, however, I would like to see continental discussions on general issues and regional discussions on regional issues. Countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, and Malta should obviously have more say on immigration issues when they're the first stop and gets to carry a disproportionate amount of weight.

[@Justnotoverthink]

I'll tell you an ironic story. Once upon a time in the beautiful country known as the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth there was a political system called elective monarchy. Upon the monarch death a parliament of all the nobles (nobles called szlachta) would gather and with the best of intentions for the country they would pick another king. It worked for quite some time. Especially when the most powerful of dynasties reigned being chosen by the szlachta. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth had it's golden age for more than 100y. But then in 1622 the liberum veto was established with the idea of not letting corruption spread. If all szlachta but one was corrupted a law born from corruption wouldn't pass. It wasn't in use for another 50 years. But after that time in the next 100 years liberum veto was used 72 times and the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth diminished and szlachta chose worse and worse kings and later the country was partitioned. It's controversial but I recognize the law of liberum veto as the biggest nail in the coffin of the once mighty Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Nowadays I find it ironic that in Polish politics there's such a fear about losing veto in European politics being veto one of the reasons Poland didn't existed for 123 years. Don't repeat our mistakes Europe.

[@peterneumeier5575]

Interesting…

[@PGN1967]

European Union "NO", longer serves Europeans! When you're supporting Hamas Terrorists living in Europe, amongst Islamic radicals, it begs to ask a question? What's wrong with the European Union, why is European countries COLLAPSING FINANCIALLY IN ORDER TO FEED ECONOMIC ILLIGAL MIGRANTS that are causing problems in Europe!

[@RokeJulianLockhart.s13ouq]

Thanks for the historical context. It's almost more useful than anything else.

[@wkon3]

Is the story supposed to prove that the system proposed as an alternative will be beneficial to every country out there in the EU, not just the biggest players? Not gonna elaborate on this: liquidate the veto and you will see no EU in less than 10 years. Porównanie z dupy, już teraz lobbyście łatwiej dać pod stołem w Brukseli, żeby udupić kawał kontynentu dla swoich zysków, nie idealizuj UE, ona przepoczwarza się w twór, który wielu ludziom się nie podoba - i nie było to sygnalizowane podczas referendum.

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@wkon3 Like there would be no EU once UK left? Everyone would follow them? LMAO.

[@666wurm]

I'll get excited if step 5 is completed. Won't hold my breath until then.

[@Danefalt]

Glory to the united Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺

[@gonfer457]

I am not sure if the russian would want to join the United State of Europe.

[@dererik9070]

​@@gonfer457a free Russia would just not at the moment

[@JakubHromadzki]

I'm definitely against this. The EU is clearly failing in many areas of policymaking. Expanding its competences will be an irreversible mistake and will further distance politics from ordinary people. There is no European demos, even this video is in English. I have no sense of community of interests, culture and history, even with some neighboring countries, let alone with the entire EU. In the accession referendum, I did not vote for my country to join an institution that tries to usurp statehood. A more appropriate term for the proposed changes is centralization, not federalization.

[@maarten_zappos9189]

With the increase of globalisation a certain degree of centralisation of power is required. Small countries cant compete by themselves versus india china and USA and will become powerless unless we unite more; for example if poland says we raise import on chinese goods, the chinese can just blackmail poland by not doing business in poland at all anymore; a small loss for china a huge detriment to poland. They are not scared to do so; they have convinced many countries to not recognise Taiwan this way. So, an increased degree of unitedness of EU is necessary in the long term. This proposal acknowledges that the EU is failing in many areas and tries to make EU more democratic. You now say that your opinion is the one of 'ordinary people' , which is a classic right wing idea: "we are the people and our opinion is the opinion of the people" but ordinary people greatly benefit by increased power of EU to fight tax evasion of big corporations for example. Also saying EU tries to usurp statehood is an argument of extremism, which also really doesnt hold much value..

[@anitaklein2630]

It essentially does exactly that. And no, ordinary people won’t want it. Freedom over everything

[@architkumarsingh4547]

Correction at 5:16 It's 50 billion euros not 500 billion euros.

[@sirxander5420]

Who was responsible that EU wide referendums were not included in the EU reform? That seems like an important thing to have

[@VillaDish]

I tried finding the results of the voting and I couldn’t find it anywhere. Id also like to know who is against wide vote referendums since these kinds of votings is what will help me choose who to vote for in june

[@Zomerset]

As a Brit, I can assure you referendums aren’t a great thing. Arguments will continue for years.

[@nenasiek]

​@@Zomerseti get your point but not every country are like you, im from a smaller country and we take referendums a bit more seriuosly and research a bit more and as a whole we have more of a discussion instead of shoving talking points down the publics throats. (This is just my impression from watching and listening to uk media, never livedin the uk)

[@Zomerset]

@@nenasiek fair point. Glad it works well in your country. I hope they can all be done the same way as your country.

[@zenymax8348]

I'm also disappointed that referendums were removed but I can understand the fear, especially for the smallest countries. Plus it would be a nightmare to organise between countries were every citizen are obliged to vote and those like France where 30% of the population has lost so much trust in politics that it doesnt even check their own country's elections anymore.

[@krasimirdimov4778]

In today's global landscape, independent European nations risk becoming increasingly irrelevant, particularly with the remarkable economic ascent of China and India. To safeguard our collective strength and influence, it is imperative for Europeans to unite. Failure to do so could lead to long-term economic decline and a diminished global significance.

[@hungrymusicwolf]

I agree, but I cannot support it until SIGNIFICANT reforms are made to ensure the ability to self-govern every single aspect not absolutely 100% necessary for the achieving the success of the union. That means limiting the power of the EU to basically only a handful of things. Also some reforms to enable the actual democratic process of the EU to work as intended would also be nice. As most people don't pay as much attention to the EU as they do their own government causing there to be too little pressure on the parliament from the people causing it to not effectively represent the will of the people. Edit: Also the commission needs to properly represent all the countries. The people need to have some say in it. I am not going to be part of a union where people I didn't elect are the group with the exclusive power to propose laws. If the only thing the parliament the people elected can do is say no to something, then the commission can just keep proposing year after year until it goes through one day and never propose to repeal it. That's unacceptable. Either parliament also gets part of that authority or the commission needs to be in some way held accountable by the people. To be fair some of this is proposed already. But if it doesn't pass I simply cannot support the EU getting more authority over the states part of it.

[@Hardcore_Remixer]

Yes, we should unite as allies, not as people with only one culture because it would be a lie and lies don't get far.

[@dererik9070]

​@@Hardcore_Remixerculture in single countrys can be incredibly diverse a Bavarian and a Saxon have way different culture but a unifying trait just as all eu country the ideas of democracy and the enlightenment you talk about self governance but I am afraid as us or Chinese puppets there wouldn't be much of that.

[@hanyu_dada]

@@Hardcore_Remixer then china or india wouldnt have ever existed

[@Ny0s]

This would be a huge step forward indeed!

[@two_motion]

How can the EU Council vote on YOUR sovereignty? Each country should vote individually into/out of a union.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

If an Federation is formed there will be laws and counterweights for all. But you are either in or out

[@DenisSyniavskiy-ir9qy]

This should have been done a long time ago. Orban and Hungary with a population less than 10ml, manipulating the whole European Union(~500ml) in favour of putin is rediculous.

[@simonsaysno]

Orban's veto to stall money to Ukraine does not prevent all other member countries from sending money. Member states that cannot pass legislation through the EU are usually free to do so themselves. Forcing smaller countries to be bullied by larger ones is bad for the union.

[@erikempire318]

Yes, remove the vetos and and make the EU a full federal state.

[@bohomazdesign725]

As I said under the prev video: The only way I can ever accept the removal of the VETO is if we introduce a Supermajority as you showed here in this video (75% of member states, 80% of total population or something along those lines). This will shield (especially smaller) member states from a "big countries" coalition that could just do whatever they want.

[@MotoRide.]

Yes SQMV is the way to go, I Gree wholehearthedly. Hope the reform goes soon as this veto blackmail is getting out of hand.

[@badluck5647]

What about a bicameral legislature that has a body divided by population and a body where each county gets an equal number of votes?

[@MathieuDeVinois]

IMHO The only way to remove a veto would be to define the power of a country by its living quality instead of capita or size. An economical powerhouse like France or Germany may have most people, km2 and biggest economies . But maybe not the best living qualities. Though they have most of the power… and they will do everything to gain more economical growth and capital from the rest of EU. Also, the more people or size it needs to get something through may means that France and Germany need to look for more partners for their ideas. But also that they can easily “veto” every other idea they don’t like.

[@bohomazdesign725]

@@MathieuDeVinois You realize that, at least in Europe, the living standards/quality pretty accurately resemble the GDP per Capita. If we go with your idea countries like Germany and France would've many more votes than Eastern Europe or the Balkans and could push colonial-like policies meaning pushing development into their countries while using the above mentioned regions keep underdeveloped and just use those regions as workforce factories :) Thats the hole point with the discussion we have here. There is no perfect solution, but its much better to make it hard for the big countries to push laws that help only them and give them a better chance for veto, than to give them the upperhand in law creation and make vetos "easier", because after all it will still take a coalition of countries to get a veto going.

[@cptprice111]

however, that's exactly how it will be... they've done it in Africa so far, I'll do it in Europe as well@@bohomazdesign725

[@rnlspurlock]

Did the Commission release the Communication yet?

[@lucapandini909]

Hallo . About sovereignity, there is no sovereignity if you are not strong enough to enforce it. I’m sorry now neither the big ones like Germany, nor the small ones like Malta can execute any real sovereignity, but only a formal and ineffective one

[@SwordQuake2]

6:47 bUt Ma SeVeRenTi!!! Man, this bullshit is annoying. Fuck sovereignty if you're going to be alone against the world. Unity is strength!

[@TexRex6352]

9:53 "Give up your sovereignty to ensure your sovereignty." 🤣👌

[@jeckjeck3119]

That's one way to frame it.

[@blackhole3298]

Sovereignty without the power to enforce it is no sovereignty. A Europe of small nation states must either follow China, USA or in future India.If you do not have the man-power for a big enough economy or to innovate, you are always someones vassal state. That is just the way it always was and will be. Might makes right.

[@_blank-_]

​@@blackhole3298 Huh? The EU is already the US' lapdog.

[@theastronomiefreak]

Why do only have 4/5 countries approve the treaty change?! If that’s the case, there seems to be at least some hope for it to go through..

[@youtubeview4354]

No eu referendum? , the EU in its finest democracy...

[@jeckjeck3119]

People you elected literally blocked it:/ Also, you would be the first one to copmlain when you lose said referandums.

[@ivankintler5282]

This is your real voice :) Its great! Happy New Year!

[@1LPMx1]

I'm not a political scientist, but I could immagine QMV in combination with some sort of "emergency veto". In this system a single member can veto a decision, but if they do so, they can't use another one for a long period of time. This way, if a certain topic is incredibly important to a member they have an "emergency brake" so to speak available to them. But they will be very cautious to use this option because they know that if they do, they won't be able to do so again for quite some time.

[@derdunkle8999]

That's an interesting idea. Butinstead of a cooldown, I would give the Eus Court of Law the option to decline the veto if ther isn't a good reason.

[@maxjansen5591]

I personally would support an EU council, operating similar to the US senate -> every member state has the same number of 'senators'. This would give the smaller member states the same power as the larger ones, and where it simply counts, which side has the most supporters. And I would say the council should ceep a president for representitive and coordinative purpose and as a tie breaker if the EU has an even number of member states.

[@ominosentenzioso5100]

Doesn't make sense. Why Germany, a nation of 80 milion, should have the same number of rappresentatives that Malta has? It would leave larger groups of bigger nations unrappresented, while making smaller nations more rappresentative of the voters will. Just because we shouldn't let smaller nation underappresented, doesn't mean we should go for the opposite extreme

[@alganis3339]

@@ominosentenzioso5100 We could consider it also like most of high chamber of parliament. It would help to represent the countries and not the people directly and as such each country have the same importance.

[@terahlunah]

@@ominosentenzioso5100 It called bicameralism

[@galgrunfeld9954]

​@@ominosentenzioso5100this model doesn't have the same amount of representatives. The number is based on the size of the population - larger population -> more representatives, and vice versa

[@inteallsviktigt]

@@galgrunfeld9954yea that doesn’t make sense. The council should stay one member per country. And parliament should be proportionate as now

[@signalshift6676]

I feel like this one dude didn't really read Frankenstein

[@jeckjeck3119]

Yeah, he was trying to create a life to reverse death, not create a perfect life:/

[@rnlspurlock]

It looks like the Commission and the Council kicked any reforms until after the elections in June.

[@joh8379]

To be honest, Europe is our only chance for a prosperous future.

[@bastiaan7777777]

Without the EU you mean?

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@bastiaan7777777 Without EU, Europe dies.

[@_blank-_]

LMAO, what? The longer European integration goes on, the less influential my country (France) has become. We're just a province of the American empire now. The EU is a neoliberal mess that submits to the US.

[@jamboism]

It's not a risk if Donald trump is back. It's a chance for world peace. But not with the European union. I respect Christine Anderson. She will get my vote. ❤

[@simonneve1100]

I dont want EU at all,

[@Blabla-od7vt]

"Finanical decisions will still require unaminous agreement from each member country." Then what's the point....

[@dererik9070]

No veto powers = no blackmail from hungary

[@diogorodrigues747]

For example, when it comes to foreign policy agreements it's a huge breakthrough.

[@Blabla-od7vt]

​@@diogorodrigues747Thank you!

[@JasonFlopster219]

Why not establishing a simple majority voting, which means 1 country has 1 equal vote, no matter of size or population? With the current 2nd criteria of having a certain amount of population in the QMV, a vote from Germany or France has theoretically more worth than the combined vote of the smaller member states like Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg. Making the vote of smaller countries basically pointless. And with the SQMV, Germany's No-vote could nearly single-handedly put an end to a proposal, due to they contain 18,75% of EU's population. (PS: I'm a German)

[@nenasiek]

This is one of the major problems with the e.u and im glad that even a german can see it. I understand that germany and france wanna keep their power but I rather leave if it gets worse so the major powers are gonna have to decide if its worth possibly destroying the e.u to keep it

[@dererik9070]

​@@nenasieknot really they pay the bills and are the larger parts of population so ofc they should have a larger say then fucking Malta

[@dererik9070]

Can you please explain how the largest payer of the EU with 18% should have the same amount of power as fucking Malta (0.1%) in a democratic sytem

[@JasonFlopster219]

@@dererik9070 They could at least do it like Germany's 2nd chamber (the Bundesrat), where the German states have 3 to 6 votes depending on their population. Which means the smaller states, like Saarland or the city states Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg, have 3 votes and the big ones like Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony have 6 votes. In this case it would only need 2 EU member states to join forces to have a equal footing to Germany or France in vote.

[@dererik9070]

@@JasonFlopster219 that would be better but still worse than a unicameral system as it still would be less democratic then just a Parlament which gets seats based on vote%

[@Inkyminkyzizwoz]

What you say about things like trade and industrial policies being better decided together was one of the biggest arguments against Brexit!

[@MAXIMUSLOK]

We need A federal European military independent of NATO B Federal government C federal constitution D federal judiciary authority E EU supreme court of justice F EU FBI G federal citizenship H federal elections No more divisions so some politicians can stay in power It's time for a European igemony not just union

[@rustix3]

Federal citizenship is an interesting option. So someone who want to be naturalized can do it by studying in one EU country, work in another, and then live in the 3rd while applying for the citizenship. I like that idea. Rather that what is current situation when your years of living in EU nullifies as long as you move to another EU country.

[@badluck5647]

An independent command from NATO seems redundant. It would make more sense to further intergate into NATO instead of making a mirror organization that lacks American logistics and intelligence. That being said, the EU should do military procurement as a bloc to avoid redundancies in R&D and to achieve more economy of scale. Unfortunately, I don't see this as possible as long as protectionist countries like France will torpedo any contracts that aren't given to French companies.

[@RemziCavdar]

I agree! And we already have G; with your EU ID card and nationality of one of the EU countries, you have the right to live and move between EU countries without any limits.

[@dererik9070]

​@@badluck5647relying on America is a huge strategic flaw tho just look at 2016 a right wing populist got into power while losing the popular vote we can not be reliant on them if that's what they call a democracy.

[@bastiaan7777777]

How about following current agreements and treaties first before turning to new idea's? Dublin treaty for example....

[@julianmarco4185]

I hate it. Feel free to convince me I'm wrong. 1) If a small country like Cyprus or the Baltic countries is invaded by Turkey/Russia and countries are asked to vote then will 90% of the countries are going to agree to go to war with Turkey/Russia?! I don't see France or Germany agree to go to war for a tiny country on the edge of the continent. 2) If a country like the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal, then do ultra religious countries at the edge have to make it legal, too? Just because Western countries want to save money on their healthcare? 3) If a country that isn't Germany wants to build a factory with outside companies, do they have to go to Germany and beg for permission to economically lift their region while not bothering Germany's plans? 4) If Greece decides: we want to import these goods from a Mediteranian country, then can the other countries jump on and say: "wait, wait, you can't get this cheaper product that us! Either put us in the deal or buy the expensive stuff from us because we're united, right?" 5) What if countries like Italy decide: "You know what? I don't want any more immigrants, thank you. I have enough." Will Mother-in-law Germany jump out of its seat and threaten Italy to let all immigrants in because Germany doesn't believe in families and would rather have cheap (serfs) workers? 6) Will countries be forced to enforce discriminatory policies like ESGs if Germany or France suddenly decide that being economically bankrupt is better than being successful? I mean, it's not their countries that rack billions of dollars that are going to suffer! It's going to be the poorer countries that don't have a skilled workforce that are going to suffer. 7) Speaking for trained workforce. How does this solve the continuous deminishioning of skilled labor in poorer countries? Will a graduate student in Poland or Romania be stopped from migrating to France or Germany for better salary and lifestyle? 8) Laws and Taxes. So who gets the short end of paying for all of it? The fat rich moguls in Germany who can buy islands like cars? Or the poor communities in Soviet era countries who suddenly find out that their cabins in Rural countryside with no plumbing, heating or roads suddenly have to pay hundreds of Euros to their local tax collectors for what is essentially a roof over their heads? 9) So these laws... Germany doesn't have a single nuclear power plant and France is full of them. If this Federation happens then will poor countries be forced to: close down their nuclear power plants because some politician on the other side of the continent said so? Why? We are all buying from Russia now? 10) Let's talk laws: so we are all going to be forced to buy EVs from Germany because the laws say that: you can't have gas powered cars in cities anymore? Sure I guess if the EV experiment doesn't work, might as well make everyone pay for like those vaccines. All in all: it feels like this is another way to centralize power in France and Germany and take away power from everyone else. But I am open-minded. So please convince me that I am wrong!

[@MENSA.lady2]

I cannot support the EU in any way until it adopts democracy. Do you know anybody who actually voted for Ursula van de lying ? of course not she was appointed. You had no choice.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

EU is already democratic but a Federation would be even more

[@Carl-Gauss]

They actually discussed it in the first part: new reform makes EU leader directly elected by EU parliament.

[@MENSA.lady2]

By EU Parliament, so the public still denied a vote.

[@Carl-Gauss]

@@MENSA.lady2 While you technically correct, in Practice EU Parliament would always vote for the leader of the largest party or coalition and those are known in advance so voters can select their chosen party accordingly. It’s the same way leaders of many European states like Britain are picked.

[@jeckjeck3119]

More Powerful EU = Better economy. It's not the question of if, but the question of does Europe want to have money.

[@supernachomachoman4031]

I will NEVER personally agree to any proposals designed to crush sovereignty of member states.

[@andreiasw1]

What do you do when you realize that individual countries are no longer competitive in the world?

[@supernachomachoman4031]

@@andreiasw1 the thing is that this is simply a project at trying to keep France and Germany relevant while pulling the strings across Europe. Nope, thank you...

[@compaq6715]

I'm up for this, but how can we ratify it without an absolute majority? Not sure how this can be bypassed now...

[@quentinp45]

If the supermajority is quite a good idea. I'm strongly against many of these reforms : - Art. 7 = who the fuck are judges to deny a country it's right to vote, to veto - The power of the Commission is not reduced → this is the main democratic problem - Ecological exclusive competence would be dramatic cz Germany will use it to kill Nuclear energy - Industrial competence could be interesting only if it uses to protect the European sovereignty against China/USA

[@Maia_Cyclist]

The ideia of supermajority is to fase out art.7

[@quentinp45]

@@Maia_Cyclist The idea of Article 7 is to sanction members who infringe the fundamental principles of the EU (e.g. fair and impartial justice), and it is the Council that is responsible for this (with a veto for each member). The supermajority is a rule of governance of the Union as such; for example, the adoption of an industrial plan

[@blackhole3298]

You can view Article 7 as the founding of a Supreme Court. The US states are bound by the constitution and will get punished if they do not apply. EU members are punished if they do not comply with the treaties, a form of constitution if you want. If you sign up to an international treaty you honor it, or find a way out.

[@turcsanyimilan]

Why only 4/5 member states has to ratify this treaty change? Isn't the ordinary treaty revision procedure require unanimity?

[@tomasvrabec1845]

5:20 On one hand you get Political Black mail where a small country can veto a decision. On the other hand, without the Veto, you get Large countries ignoring the needs of the small ones, making key decisions for them and even deciding who should settle in them - which in Effect is Neo Imperialism as the concerns of Smaller Ethnic groups would get pushed to the side to irrelevance.

[@bastiaan7777777]

Already political blackmail: Look at EU funds for Poland to help fight covid. Only give that money if Poland complies with some EU dictatorial rules...

[@tomaspecl1082]

I do not like that the EU wants to "compete" against other nations. Compete how? Companies should compete. The politicians should only make sure that they do not stand in the way. Politicians should not have ambitions to compete.

[@maarten_zappos9189]

As big economic blocks you 'compete' as well - for example import tariffs and corporation taxes, if every country has to decide their own, companies would just move to a country next door and not lose much income. If you change it as a big block it they have to comply. Similarly, you do compete with other economic blocks via subsidies and support in certain economic brances, which is also mentioned in the video. If US artificially increases all money flow into chip making, all knowledge would eventually go there. If we are together in the form of EU we can implement our own legislation/support to make sure we stay competitive. Your last statement is so black and white - classic comment of someone who doesnt understand the intricacies.

[@tomaspecl1082]

@@maarten_zappos9189 all those subsidies and tariffs are against free market, and pro central planning. That is why I am against it. If you subsidize something then you are tipping the market forces in favor of that thing even if it may not be the optimal way of doing things. That disincentivizes search for better technologies and substitute products, therefore it can cause inefficiencies. If politicians were all-knowing, god-like and smarter than the rest of the world together then sure, they might predict what is the best thing to do and know perfectly what to do and all the consequences of their actions but I reject that idea. Politicians are not all-knowing, they can not predict what their actions will cause, maybe they will predict few things but not all.

[@maarten_zappos9189]

I agree that this could be true, and while some policies are successful, indeed many are not. My point is mainly that when USA does artificially elevate their local market for example by subsidising AI, if we dont do anything as a whole of EU we lose that market, which could be detrimental - maybe not in pure economic sense if the free market eventually wins, but in geopolitical terms for example safety etc. An example is the 5G 'war', where China put a lot of money into creating the capabilities for implementing this infrastructure first.The west was behind, but luckily not by much thanks to policies accellerating this research. If that wouldnt have happened, we might all have had to use chinese 5g which is a vulnerability risk. So my point is that whilst politicians are not all knowing and probably waste a lot of money on these kinds of policies, the economics are only one thing, and geopolitical and safety are another important factor, which we are all a lot stronger in if we do this together via EU. You think i have some points here? @@tomaspecl1082

[@tomaspecl1082]

@@maarten_zappos9189 yes I agree that the EU is more powerful than the individual states and can have more impact but that is the reason why I oppose it. It is too much power in the hands of politicians. The more fragmented the states are the less harm they can do to individuals. That is because people (and companies) can move to another country but as you said the EU can force legislation into all EU states and then you can not just move to another country next door to oppose that legislation. What the EU also does is that it makes less competition between EU states. Basically it creates an EU cartel. Then the EU countries do not have to compete too much to attract companies and people. For example competing by having smaller taxes, less byrocracy and other incentives. Less competition will make it less ideal for everyone as the taxes will rise, byrocracy will rise and other problems will rise.

[@maarten_zappos9189]

@@tomaspecl1082 I think this is kind of opposing your first comment, where you said countries arent supposed to compete, its free market that should do the competing. Unified rules and regulations makes it so much easier for companies to compete in multiple different countries and it makes a company in poland able to compete with a company in spain. Having each country have their own rules and regulations actually reduces the free market as there is a lot of different bureacracy for each country. And while this could be fine as I do agree that it keeps more power for each country and thus for each people and culture to apply their own laws, in the globalised system it is incredibly hard for companies to grow in a similar fashion as in USA and China. As a result we do not have google, apple or tencent, while if EU would be more unified, opportunities for companies to grow faster and gain access to talent pools of the whole of europe is easier. In addition, when done well unifying reduces bureacracy, as there is one set of rules rather than different ones for each country. We have been separate countries for a long time, but this hasnt really returned in countries with very smooth bureacracy, it seems that countries and politics do not behave with the same goals as companies. In addition, i think we need to be careful in using the word cartel, it is very extreme, implying this is not done by democracy and the policy makers are not chosen, but it is a criminal orginisation that rules. Which is not the case, and this federal europe idea would be a step to clearer and more fair democratic policy making. It kind of implies that policy making on low scale, so for each country apart would be okay, but then if it is a democratic system consisting the will of the people of multiple countries it becomes a cartel. While i understand the lack of trust in politicians as well as in the disappointing efficiency and democratic clarity of the european union, I still think it is important to go with the time and focus on allowing our companies to compete on the global market. I must say i like our content-driven discussion, it is interesting to see someone with different views but clear thoughts on why and how.

[@Xamufam]

it depends, the farther away power is from the people the less the voters are seen as people and more as a statistic just look at america and people in power becomes isolated

[@rainerbrombach5502]

Fortunately, such horror never affects the majority of citizens of European countries.

[@KityKatKiller]

The thing about a super qualified majority is that it doesn't necessarily help the smaller countries. It also gives more power to the biggest ones. If 80% of EU citizens need to agree, then that effectively gives veto power to Germany. They obly need to find one other non-micro country and they can veto anything.

[@dererik9070]

I would rather have the biggest payer of the EU have a near veto power than have hungary or Malta have it

[@KityKatKiller]

@@dererik9070 Stop. I get the sentiment, but we shouldn't slide into "I'd rather" as long as there's still an option to have neither. All that needs to be done is the 80% population line of the super qualified majority needs to be reduced to 75 or 70%.

[@dererik9070]

@@KityKatKiller the "super qualified majority" was something he made up the numbers I would honestly be surprised if anything more than 70% would happen maybe 75% if we stretch it

[@gerginborisov]

The European Union should not be a Presidential system. If it ever gets a proper executive branch, it should be elected by Parliament.

[@bastiaan7777777]

No no, it should become a monarchy, ruled by kings or queens after a final battle royale between current royalty...

[@xander9460]

Veto needs to go. It's insane to me it was even implemented in the first place.

[@potato96hasdrowned66]

Noble Democracy (Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth reference)

[@DaddyRaiden]

I don’t get the last point…for the new proposals to be set in motion they need to be ratified via the old ratification standard! Only after they have been ratified do new changes require a mere 4/5 majority…right???

[@recodonfo2017]

I really hope this plan will never materialize. We already have enough trouble being ruled by people who haven't been elected by EU citizens in the first place. Imagine giving them the freedom to do as they please and without delays/vetos.

[@Masterlewger]

I hope everything goes well

[@briancops3798]

The one reason why I'm not hyped is because even today in Belgium, the region I live in, Pajottenland, is already underrepresented and the services are getting worse and worse. The EU won't solve this so even if there is advancement on the EU level, on the regional/local level it's only getting worse. This is to say that there are many unofficial historical regions that wiln just be even more ignored than they are today.

[@alganis3339]

It could help us have a better use of our money and allow us to be more efficient and have better services at the end.

[@briancops3798]

@@alganis3339 we can't choose what happens with our money. The decisions are made on higher levels. The Flemsih and Federal level preventing communities what they need in favor of the big cities as there are more votes to win in the cities.

[@alganis3339]

@@briancops3798 I'm not saying it would solve the problem you are talking about I'm just saying that it could help by allowing administration to be more efficient. I agree with you and we have similar problem in France.

[@briancops3798]

@@alganis3339 Okay, I see, I misunderstood your original comment. My apologies for that.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

You are making brexiters mistakes. Fact is, when brexited happened the regions who were mostly vocals saw their funds REDUCED. Meaning EU wasn't the problem

[@pedrovictor4002]

Man, I don't live in Europe and neither have any heritage from its countries, so i'm looking at it strictly as a outsider. And, as a outsider, i need to ask, how exactly you expect somethig like that to work when you have so much trouble agreeing in far less contentious issues?

[@markdickson3820]

I do wish you well if this is genuinely what most eu citizens want, but I’m more convinced & thankful than ever that where I live isn’t in. Of course the eu (& all gov’ts) want more power, it’s what they need it for that matters. Some of these ideas address the democratic deficit in the current eu setup, and that is welcomed of course, as is removing the veto for most things as it’s become a tool of blackmail. I am far less convinced by the arguments about needing to club together to compete with the US & China. Both of those have something the EU will never have - a common culture and language. The way the host talks about companies competing against a fellow eu company being bad is exactly the wrong way to look at it. Again, it’s the language & culture issue which means European companies take longer to grow but either way, trying to remove cut throat competition between companies stinks of the state dictating it’s commercial market and nothing good ever comes from that. I would ask what do the people who believe in this idea think they can accomplish that they currently cannot, if the eu became one huge country that can sit as equals with the US & China? I’m not at all convinced that is necessary, but more importantly I don’t believe it’s possible no matter how the eu is structured because its language & culture again. The eu is already able to pass a similar law as the US Ira (Americans think they’re being cute using that term), now it’s another question entirely whether it should commit all those billons in tax money. Let the Americans and Chinese fight it out, it’s not necessary to add another fist to that fight and regardless, most European countries found their way to democracy and market based economies with individual freedoms centuries ago, so the largest issues of that fight have been settled in this part of the world. I know there is a bit of a freak out going on in Germany with its economy and companies setting up factories elsewhere but I’d argue that a) isn’t because of the US Ira act (mostly), it’s because Germany bet on the wrong technology for their all important automotive sector and are now racing to catch up and b) the days of endless cheap gas to (relatively) cheaply run their factories are over. Germany is a unique case in that through clever engineering and gov’t support never moved past the industrialization phase - but it was never going to last forever and it’s long past time it let other countries with cheaper labour fill that sector and Germany move into r&d, tech etc at the top of the chain. We currently have a perfect illustration of why many of the points in this video may not be possible even with best intentions by true eu believers. All European economies rely on shipping passing Yemen and yet, even that simple and clear foreign policy issue that is relatively close cannot inspire a coordinated response, nor even action by most eu countries. Spain is pushing back on the idea it will help, Italy is being noncommittal even tho it has a military vessel near there, France has sent a ship but cannot stand the thought it’s tied to US so is playing its part down and Germany as usual is nowhere to be seen. How on earth will a federal Europe ever be able to act on any issue when it can’t even do something as straightforward as protect its own ships from attack off the coast of Yemen. That said, if this is what you want, I am rooting for you because it has to be up to eu citizens- that whole democracy thing again!

[@ab-ym3bf]

The only people going on and on about language are the ones that only speak english. No one in the EU has a problem with multiple languages, especially not in business. As for difference in culture, when one is good at international business this again is no problem. China and the USA are also not one big culture as most people seem to think, be it less different of course than EU countries. If one cannot handle culture differences, you will not succeed as a business exporting outside the comfort zone of your own "culture". That all sounds very medieval. What China and the USA, as the nations you speak of, have in common is an abundance of raw materials that EU nations lack, and the simple fact that both countries have been a united market for centuries, compared to the EU SM being in its infancy stage of about 30 years.

[@markdickson3820]

@@ab-ym3bf I actually have US citizenship, among 2 others and languages, so I understand the country very well. Obviously you can run a company, organization or government in many languages but it clearly slows things down and requires a lot of effort to translate everything between all the languages. It is often held up as a reason why European tech companies grow slower than their US counterparts because of language & culture. As for the raw materials comment, you already have that - in fact, as you surely know that was how the predecessor of the eu began so that isn’t a reason to hand more powers to Brussels. As for economy/market, the eu already sits with the US & China equally but politically, and militarily it doesn’t and the question is, can you & do you want to integrate completely and if so, why? Apart from inflating some ego’s, I’m not sure what it accomplishes and that’s if possible at all. A person in Spain and another in Estonia are not going to think the same on issues and so far, the eu has got around the democratic issue by being technocrats with a commissioner from each country with often made up useless ministries that are not permitted to act in coordination with their home countries, so they supposedly act on behalf of all eu people. If you want to get to a federal place, then first a common eu identity needs to be created. Like I said in last comment, if that is what a majority of your fellow citizens want, then I fully support the effort to get there.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

One culture? One language? China is anything but. And USA aren't that united either. Learning more than one language is enriching. And yes, EU can definitely stand on par with China, India and USA

[@ab-ym3bf]

@@markdickson3820 international companies do their business mostly in english (or French in dealing with African trade, or Spanish when dealing with the americas outside the USA) and certainly do not translate internally. And no, the EU does not have the natural resources like China and the USA have. The world is passed coal, the EU has no oil and gas to speak off, hardly any rich pockets of precious metals etc. There are numerous reasons sure, but to pile them all up under "language and culture" is absolute bollocks. As for one identity, no thanks. We in the EU are happy with the diverse nature of cultures and identities that form part of the union, it enriches us all. The European identity is the sum of all. You do not need to have one culture to come to a joint position, do you really think an Alaskan has the same opinion about a topic as a Texan or Newyorker? Same for all those different cultures within China. What is different is the way they are organized, with a federal government making decisions on certain fields like foreign policy. Again, that doesn't require 1 language and 1 culture.

[@ab-ym3bf]

@TeslaDaVinci-ey5hz it works in other countries like China and the USA, or do you think those are homogenous? Every eu memberstate has education where foreign languages are taught. There is not a country I visited where people didn't speak either English, German or French. And yes,luckily there are cultural differences, as there are everywhere, so we can enjoy them when visiting, and learn from each other to find the best possible solutions to problems. Or do you think a progressive Califórnia feels much in common with a bible belt hillbilly? It won't work? It already has been for a while now.

[@caver38]

The majority of EU citizens do not want a federal system, and any push towards a federal Europe will probably create a hostile environment with citizens demanding that their country leave the EU . The EU today is not a success for citizens , and politicians will pay the price .

[@Andy-dg1pj]

So you mean you are uneducated?

[@ominosentenzioso5100]

I think a better idea would be a regional veto. We should consider the ability of mutliple nations to oppose law proposals if they are actually harmful to a specific regions. For example, if Baltic nations consider a specific proposal harmful for their specific region, they should be able to stop it. But only if there is a clear majority of nations intrested in such, to avoid single nations to oppose a specific reform. Also this would help develop regional cooperation, since it would become vital to associate with the same region's nation to have a political weight. Another idea may be to put a veto treshold. For example, if a single nation wants to veto it, they shouldn't have a big weight into it. But if 5-7 different nations have problems with it, even if in different regions, they should be listened, because there must be several issues to cause such reaction.

[@bfedezl2018]

Uff that is really dangerous. Spain alone has 17 regions and two of them want to play country. You are bound to get the whole union stuck because of petty nationalism

[@depauwgerlings]

​@@bfedezl2018 Supranational regions not regions within countries

[@bohomazdesign725]

The "75% of member states, 80% of total population" proposal more or less means that the Baltics would need Poland and 3 more countries (for example Romania, Czechia, Hungary) on their side to block it which is a very possible scenario since the Baltics are anyway in a sort of development coalition (fund) called the 3 seas coalition with 13 member states (all EU countries - Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary).

[@MrToradragon]

IMHO veto threshold is better idea, but it should remain reasonably low, with 5 or 7 countries is already too high, I would say 3 or 4 should could be ideal.

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@MrToradragon 5

[@JMANE187]

I’ve been waiting for this video for awhile I tried doing self research to see what the results were in November

[@vasiliivanov9618]

Locely team EU made simple! Love your work

[@totema6205]

A united eu army where certain structures are shared between the coutrys and that not one must have them alone would free up massive amounts of euro.

[@didixtar2863]

I don’t understand this desire to form a gigantic superstate. If we look at the data smaller nations tend to perform better in per capita gdp than large ones, the one outlier been the US (but America is an outlier in many regards so …). I mean look at the wealthiest nations in Europe: The Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Luxembourg, they all have small populations. I just don’t see the upside to one giant eurosuperstate.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

You forget most of those countries do well because they are in the union. Paraguay bs Brazil: which country have the better economy? Nicaragua and Mexico?

[@NoName-hg6cc]

A Federation would allow Europeans to be among the superpowers and decide our own destiny instead of kneeling in front of China, India, USA

[@didixtar2863]

@@NoName-hg6cc then why would the smaller and richer countries would want to be a part of superstate? Why would they vote for it, so their riches can be redistributed among poorer countries? It doesn’t make any sense. A euro superstate would benefit the PIGS greatly because they’re the poorest and most irresponsible nations in the union, it would give France the critical mass they dream of to be a political and military superpower and to Germany to be an economic and industrial superpower, but there’s NOTHING in it for the smaller richer countries, they’re better off as a part of an economic union and NATO membership.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

@@didixtar2863 They would because their voice will be heard in the WORLD better than single nations. They would because they are protected and they may want to still have that protection, something that won't happen if EU collapse. Yeah, there are some issue. Dor example those small states might have to stop laundering money and getting money from other big countries, for example, Southern countries, because they are fiscal havens and issue questionable financial practices. Yes, France and Germany will need to curb excessive nationalism and work in the interest of all. But I think it's doable. Otherwise the economic union will break and those countries may find themselves in a worse economic situation

[@didixtar2863]

@@NoName-hg6cc their voices will be heard in the world as long as they’re a part of of the majority, which considering the economics of the superstate to be, they won’t be. As for protection they’re already protected as part of NATO, which is far more powerful and reliable than the EU, because make no mistake, the Germans and the French would surrender Poland and the Baltics to Rusia in order to protect themselves without a second thought (why do you think they’re so pro US and pro NATO, because they know that the EU can’t be trusted in a war scenario). Letting the French steer the wheel of this superpower to be, means that it will be inherently anti American, which could be a political dead end for Europe. Europe is an aging continent, with very little in the way of natural resources, hard power and cutting edge technology, this is not the time to play tough guys.

[@absolutezeronow7928]

QMV is never going to happen, a country would be dumb to give up veto power for little in return and countries are not going to let France and Germany become even more powerful. Incentives are for a continuation of the veto power.

[@Joan-kr1jo]

A federal EU would be cool to see, but with the QMV, if the EU qualified majority decides to do nothing against immigration, smaller countries can't anything about it.

[@jeckjeck3119]

Even big EU nations are souring on Middle East inflitrators/''ReFUUUgees.

[@VillaDish]

Is there a way to see which members of the eu parliament voted what on this report?

[@nenasiek]

I would like to see that too

[@Geshiko-GuP]

One small step for Europe One giant leap for Earth United in Diversity! And may this sentiment spread across the entire world!

[@FruitLoops_]

One thousand years we all fought to ensure our own independence, all of us, most earning the right of tainting our flags red in honor of the blood we spilled to do so. Now, we voluntarily relinquish our independence and national identity in order to make more money. Dear Orwell... It is hard for me ti even say I'm Portuguese, for my people is not that of Portugal, but that of the Azores, and now you want me to not even call myself Portuguese? Europe must remain a Union. Not a political monopoly. We must remain countries. Not mere states as the likes of New Jersey or California. That is not the European way. That's the dumb American way. America makes money, not Peace. America makes money, not Culture. America makes money, not Justice.

[@Misshonkster]

a more stable EU >>> A broader & wider EU.

[@quentinp45]

a wider EU is the inverse of stability, but it could lead to many economical/political opportunities

[@the11382]

​@@quentinp45I'm not convinced adding more states makes a significant difference.

[@quentinp45]

​@@the11382 You're right on the short term it will even be badder (economically). However integrate, for instance, Ukraine will make the community and the market bigger (+40 millions people) & with out Ukraine Russia can't have any imperialist views BUT it will also create a huge social dumping + they will flood the single market with their wheat...

[@dererik9070]

​@@quentinp45I would say the opposite a stable EU would lead to it expanding without veto powers we could start excepting small members like albaina

[@quentinp45]

​@@dererik9070 but we dont want to have albania into EU

[@garethbrown9191]

What happens if one country doesn't sign a new treaty that removes its veto rights? Ot if it's rejected in a referendum, will the EU do it by the back door like they did with Lisbon

[@miquelcanosasanteularia1678]

Of all the things, I am quite sad on not passing the proposal of EU wide referendums

[@Zomerset]

Referendums cause division. Us Brits are still arguing about Brexit.

[@attilaabonyi8879]

I know right? Like i can understand fiscal policy being shot down in this propasal but why in the hell shooting down referendums would be good idea? Seems like a pretty anti democratic move.

[@vault13dweller15]

@@Zomerset For us in Slovenia referendums have saved us many times in the past. For example: the previous far right government tried to make law that would allow privatization of water sources and the law passed through parliament. Luckily enough signatures were collected so there was referendum in which 75% voted against with more than 70% of population voting in referendum. Referendums are a good things because they remind politicians that people are truly in charge of the country.

[@miquelcanosasanteularia1678]

. @Zomerset but it is democracy at its purest form. Furthermore, countries like switzerland do it all the time and it works well

[@NoName-hg6cc]

​@@miquelcanosasanteularia1678 Democracy in its highest form...is it? Or it is easy for populist to make you believe that?

[@bobjohnson3940]

I'm an American and I'd def like to see a strong unified Europe

[@jeckjeck3119]

But the government wouldn't. Euro is the only currency capable of replacing the dollar.

[@Bjonnet55]

@@jeckjeck3119euro can’t replace the dollar never as long as the USA remains number one, and the eu is not the new world of innovation and technology that remains in America

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@Bjonnet55 Not anytime soon, yes, but if clowns in BRICS ever want to de-dollarize, it can only be thru Euro.

[@Darian___]

I agree the veto should go but the treshhold of QMV should definitely increase...55% representing 65% is not enough imo. Welp I was to fast you just mentioned it yourself 😂

[@eclipsenow5431]

So the Convention hammers out final details - and then Ratification. But where does Ratification happen?

[@nicolaspoveda3675]

I’m agree with the proposed changes 🇪🇺🇪🇺

[@bastiaan7777777]

But why....?

[@danielwhite9515]

Screw the EU.😊

[@BeYourselfMan]

Replacing the veto to QMW is the biggest change needed. The end of blackmailing and progress is the biggest problem in the EU. Countries like Hungary and Poland constantly blackmailing the EU must end. Not so much Poland as they finally elected a democratic leader but Hungary, laughing at our faces and using their veto to blackmail the EU for funds has to end.

[@Murmilone]

Who is a "democratic leader"? Someone who agrees with the concept of the EUSSR?

[@BeYourselfMan]

Someone who doesn't change it's national courts to favour his views ultimately making it undemocratic. Sort of like what Trump did to the Supreme court or other authoritarian leaders like Putin or Xi. Understood?@@Murmilone

[@groovytau]

the QMV sounds good but the population part should be erased, that's because any country with a large population can influence the votes even though more than 55% of nations vote for a thing. I would go for the Swiss example in this case and have every country represent a vote after internal voting has been done, just like cantons do. and If you have over 51% in favor then the law is passed. There might be downsides to these as well but I cannot see any at this time.

[@themarcel508]

what started as liberal initiative became a State Anti-democratic initiative. EU just think how get more power from nacional states, even in USA a state have more autonomy to say no to federal law, than EU members has.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

Really? In USA there are laws USA state CANNOT refuse. Also, a federal budget. EU is more like America pre 1779

[@garybarr1045]

I have been impatiently waiting for the EU to unify as a single continental nation. I wish them success in this endeavor. They can then rise to the top of the world power structure politically, environmentally, and economically. It is time to counter the loser America as the world leader. I am an American and I do not feel America is any longer a reputable leader for freedom and democracy. Trumpism is proof of America's failings. The EU can construct a very progressive constitution that will bind all countries in unified principles of freedom and democracy which can put America to shame with its presently crippled and failing efforts at constitutional government. Good luck. You deserve to be the world's next leader.

[@asmodeus7705]

Very informative video nice work! I myself would love to see a Federal Europe at some point. However as a citizen of a small EU country (Denmark) I really think it's going to be hard to remove the VETO, I kinda do not want them to remove it as it is now. We are a super small country so In some way removing the VETO would feel like being ruled by Germany, Italy and France. And even though we are from the same continent our culture, law and policies are so fundamentally different. For example taxes, we have some of the highest taxes in the world along with a 25% VAT and basically hidden taxes on all kinda goods (Sugar tax, fuel tax and most notoriously a 150% car tax ) this has ofc made us rather rich as a nation. I know that if we where to remove the VETO and then decided to redistribute the wealth around EU in some form. It would be such a hard pill to swollow for the normal Dane. It kinda allready happened back when corona was rampaging. Where EU decided to start sending money to the countries that was hit the hardest. But without any conditions set. Even though it was a tough time for all countries and as an EU citizen we know we have to help eachother. I'm sure It left a rather sour taste in alot of danes mouths given we had to send so much money to a country with lower tax, lower pension age and higher corruption (unacountable money). So if we ever are to remove the VETO right, I personally think that EU have to handle the big laws and policies such as tax percentage and pension age. I just don't see that happening sadly.

[@miroperinich2495]

European peoples are very different and it is a good thing that they are united by interests. Something that is normal in Denmark, for example in my country, it is not like that. Diversity should be respected, but we must always agree on something common, and there is no compromise. If we haven't grown up enough as people, then it's better that we don't exist. I am from Croatia.

[@mattia8327]

Most of the money sent in the corona recovery was loans. It will have to be laid back. Also I am assuming you are referring to Italy. Which currently has a pension age of 67, and about the same tax amount.

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@mattia8327 Should be 70

[@wkon3]

If it ever gets enforced, I hope Poland will leave the EU.

[@jeckjeck3119]

UK is richer, and even it couldn't survive out of EU.

[@MAXIMUSLOK]

Plus if a third western nation wishes to join you are welcomed to do so... By Canada to new Zealand Actually a United western world Union federation

[@gonfer457]

Australia too

[@thewingedhussar4188]

Europe becoming federal does sound good. The Europeans really should read US, Canadian, and Gran Colombian history to learn what to avoid.

[@jeckjeck3119]

EU need more power than it has now, or would you rather it to take years for anything to be done when the crisis comes? Even if this all passes, EU would still be less federal than US.

[@thewingedhussar4188]

@@jeckjeck3119 but that is the thing, the US Federal system as it is today came about gradually and because of crisises. The US civil war occurred because the south feared the federal government would prevent the expansion of slavery. The US became a power at the expense of the Spanish empire. Plus sadly the EU does have its idiots who will want to leave like the UK did. All in the name of nationalism or long gone dream of empire like Russia. Does the EU need to be reformed, absolutely. But it needs some reforms quicker then others. Like making votes required to pass things like 70 to 80% is needed very badly. I also believe the voting of EU citizens needs to change to better represent them and give voters more a say on who gets elected. That we will need fixed eventually. An finally the EU needs to get better at adding new members.

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@thewingedhussar4188 Points well made. Also, reef-ungees should not be allowed to vote. Up to 3 generations, even.

[@DukeOfTheYard]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions". You cannot have a EU state until you have a European conciousness. Anything other than that will be perceived by many (possibly most) people as a form of conquest. An empire. And that would be a ticking bomb. At this point in time, anyone who claims that the Dutch see the Greeks, or the Austrians see the Romanians, for example, as their fellow European brothers is either deluding himself or lieing.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

I think most of Europeans do already

[@DukeOfTheYard]

@@NoName-hg6cc Most Europeans do what? Identify primarily as Europeans and have a sense/feeling of brotherhood with the other Europeans? Not even close! There is plenty of proof that this is not the case, from the way Italy was basically abandoned at the start of the Covid pandemic, to the manner in which Eastern Europeans are referred to in the Western press.

[@zaazee5584]

Maybe the other way round. A real EU State, representing european values and interests in the world, could become a strong focal point for a european unification process in the minds of the people.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

@@DukeOfTheYard "Identifies primarily" nobody does that not even at national level, region or city come first usually. They do however feel European. The Next Generation show perfectly the mutual assistance of Europeans countries

[@DukeOfTheYard]

@@NoName-hg6cc Actually in my country (Romania) most people identify as Romanians first, local allegiances are a very distant second (I am referring to ethnic Romanians, of course). And it is the same in Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria or Greece, to name but a few. I know that there are some countries (Italy comes to mind) where local identity is very important, but that does not exist everywhere. Pressing this matter is just foolish. If a European identity will appear in time, that's a different matter, but for the moment it does not exist.

[@9_9876]

I always really like your SQMV proposal, sadly I don't see it being discussed, I don't know if it's a thing from the channel only

[@Lukas-lw4eg]

because it creatues opposite problem that this channel is ignoring. Instead of any small country being able to block legislation, it would create a space where Germany alone could block any legislation because it would always have those 20% of population. Would just make EU into fourth German reich

[@9_9876]

@@Lukas-lw4eg SQMV requires 75% of EU population I think. QMV requires 65%. It's the opposite of what you say. Germany is more benefited the less europeans need to be in favor

[@Lukas-lw4eg]

@@9_9876 it requires 80% and yes, while it would be harder for Germany to push legislation, it would be far easier for Germany to block any. They alone have those 20% so even if all countries would agree, if Germany and perhaps one more country would be against, there would be nothing to do. I think it would be more fair to have higher number of countries to agree with lower threshold on population.

[@9_9876]

@@Lukas-lw4eg okay I see now your point. Then mahbe 70% or 65% is fine

[@nenasiek]

This is my nightmare, no federalisation. If needed ill vote for a party that are for leaving the e.u

[@NoName-hg6cc]

I wonder what country are you from. Well, if you hate it so much and your countrymen share your sentiment it will be a goodbye

[@nenasiek]

​@@NoName-hg6ccim swedish and all for working together but im not for it being forced on everyone, the single market is a good idea and we should work on security (military and civilian) but I wanna stay independent.

[@ogerpinata1703]

The best candidate wins. I'm German but if I like the Latvian candidate best, my vote will go to him. Regardless of nationality.