alt Hacker News> and this veto thing is really crippling the EUs ability to act.
That's the point of it. As it is, there's no reasonable assurance that acts approved by the majority won't sacrifice some of the existential interests of members deemed expendable - "for the greater good". We all know that there's no connection between what politicians promise and what they do - until that changes, having the ability to cripple their actions will continue to be indispensable.
> What is tariffs affect one country more than the others, should it be allowed to veto a tariff decision?
I don't know if individual EU members are allowed to impose additional, national tariffs on non-EU products but why not - a lot of issues can be resolved by giving members more freedom and more say in decision making rather than more coercion.
> What if a majority wants to alter the deal?
They can alter it only for themselves in the way I described above.
It's disingenuous to call the EU dysfunctional and blame that dysfunction on lack of coercive powers. Maybe the EU is functional exactly as much as its levels of development and integration allow, maybe pushing for more creates unacceptable political risks, there's a lot to consider here looking at the excessively bloody and inadequately smart history of Europe - it was a power keg and it still is. Removing veto power won't make it better, it can actually make it go off again, risk is what really tips the scales here.
No, the point of it is not cripping EU.
The point of it _was_ to get more countries on board, because at the time, they had no clue how the EU would act and needed insurances.
Now, if a majority does not want this veto anymore, it should be removed. But the minority vetoing it, will hold the majority hostage.
> having the ability to cripple their actions will continue to be indispensable
No, it’s crippling, not indispensable. EU cannot do anything and hence becomes irrelevant internationally, which in turns negates all the benefits of being a member of the EU and countries just leave.
I suggest the other way around: Remove veto, anyone that doesn’t like it leaves and the remaining ones hopefully get a better EU out of it. But it will be painful to get there.
I think you are not getting the problem: If all decisions are vetoed, what happens?
> They can alter it only for themselves in the way I described above.
You are suggesting they leave the EU and create EUv2.
I suggest that if they are the majority, they change EU, and the minority that doesn’t like it leaves (and create another EU if they want).
> looking at the excessively bloody and inadequately smart history of Europe
yeah, and it is getting bloody again and the veto is preventing the EU to have a sound strategy. Just wait, do nothing, watch…
And quoing “I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." is very misleading. Members of the EU can leave. Leaving the Empire was not really an option.