That would definitely be a step in the right direction, but I doubt that all the member states will agree to that.

It's so hard to change things in the EU without unanimous consensus between all the different governments, it's so frustrating. At times I feel like all the pro-EU states should just exit together and establish a new union, without all of these barriers. It would also be fun to see the euroskeptic Eastern European countries trying to defend the current EU.

i think its foolish to try to be on the same level, these huge, united national states will always be one step above a bunch of 28

i would love to see a representative poll on how many europeans actually would want decisions "being made by one body instead of 28"
i am rather sure the majority is against it



yep and as weird as it may sound, this one is by far the worst

p.s: its the second time, you should update your history knowledge my friend



commonplace and getting worse as we speak

either you don't know what that word means or you're lying - again...

A single country being able to block everything is indeed a problem. But 50%+x (with x <10) of the votes constantly making decisions against the will and the interests of the other 50%-x would be horrible as well, nothing would give eurosceptic parties a bigger boost than such an EU.

So imho, there should be a 67% threshold -> if those in the EU who want to do something outnumber those who are opposed by a factor of 2 or more, then it is justifiable to talk about "consensus" and act against the opinion of the minority.

But certainly not in a scenario where it's 52:48 like with the Brexit referendum, to name just one example.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 13 2019 05:54pm

Europe is a rich, productive and developed continent, and the EU has more population than the US and Russia combined. It's a huge lack of ambition and self respect to accept a role of mediocrity and submission to other superpowers when you have all the required ingredients to be a superpower yourself.



Well that's a start and better than what we have, that's for sure.

And also, a bicameral EU could work. The parliament with legislative powers representing Europe as a whole, with every state getting a number of seats proportional to their population. A Senate created to represent the territorial interests of the different states, and where every state is allocated an equal number of seats. Some decisions could require a simple 51% approval from the senate, while other more important ones could be a 67%.

Leaving the territorial decision to the heads of government is a problem, because they are conditioned by their national elections. If there was a senate election every 5 years, we'd have people with greater political freedom making these decisions.

This post was edited by zarkadon on Feb 13 2019 06:09pm

Totally agree and add to that, that times are changing. We've had a single super power for over 70 years. Times have been great without much competition. Right now, other super powers are rising (which is great -> world inequality is dropping fast). But it also means that we're not gonna be able to have a lot of influence as singular small countries anymore.. To be able to negotiate on par with China, and being able to reply to Russian threats with a mandate (I'll even add addressing the Iranian assassinations in Europe), a governing system without a mandate for the EU as a whole, just will not do.

This post was edited by Knoppie on Feb 14 2019 02:03pm

again: speaking with one voice on "outside" issues does not necessarily have to imply that all "intra-EU" issues have to be decided in Brussels. why shouldnt a "European Trade and Defense Union" without a common currency, without fiscal integration, without an integrated banking system, without a joint unemployment insurance, without communized debts work just as well?

since forced harmonization of divergent cultures and interests is politically highly toxic in these fields, I would even say that such a European Union would work smoother than the current, pathetic attempts at introducing "United States of Europe" through the backdoor against the will of a very significant share of the european people.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 14 2019 02:47pm

Totally agree. The world is shifting towards a multipolar geopolitical environment, and we need to adapt to it.

They probably wont work just as well in the new world.. But variations are welcome to come to a more broadly agreeable future vision... Thinking about it, we actually can get the United states of Europe through the backdoor of a referendum. Adding only those who want to be a part of it. Giving an exit to the others.

gl with that, you wont find too many members i think and even if you do there is a high risk that the existing "united states" are some kind of rag rug on the map

sorry, but i cant understand how people can still support this utopia despite everything history should teach us and more open questions than most can even think of
Black XistenZ is right, nobody needs such a gigantic circus to have europe speak with one voice