EU can no longer afford national vetoes on foreign policy, says Germany's Scholz : worldnews

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Unanimity simply doesn't scale well. It might work for a small number of votes, but it risks decision paralysis. I remember Occupy Portland was trying to work by consensus. For all of their decisions, there was always at least someone who blocked it. At a certain point, they were unable to make internal decisions and fell apart. Tyranny of the majority is a thing, but so is tyranny of the minority.

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There are different ways to see it. Consensus decision making might be slower, but it avoids many issues down the road.

In the case of the EU, they should just stop their monolithic thinking. Not everyone has to follow everything (see EURO) and if some member is constantly blocking decisions there should be just a clear pathway to kick them out.

[–] AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

but it avoids many issues down the road.

If you mean it avoids parties being salty that something is going through and doesn't want to participate and/or try to undermine it, not really. People and their opinions change, people make not well thought out decisions that sound good only on paper, people get coerced or threatened into agreeing. So you'll get disagreements even from a uninamous system.

I really don't think that it's worth the significant efficiency hit that such a system brings about. A good governing organisation needs to get shit done that benefits as many people as possible, not twiddle their thumbs in deadlock. When the government is in deadlock, the people, namely the poor and vulrnable in society, almost invariably suffers while there are no consequences to the rich elite and especially the people responsible. At the end of the day, a philosophically pure system that doesn't produce results is useless.

Example: US vs China. The US has more checks and balances that in theory is intended that a larger consensus is required to make a decision than China has (whether that actually works as intended is a whole other story). But the US also takes literally decades to pass even the most basic of laws, or sometimes not at all (see codifying Roe v Wade, they had half a century). Meanwhile, China has been on a reform rampage in recent years, and the changes have been massively beneficial to their people.

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The problem is that other systems risk constantly overruling the minority opinion which IMHO if often a bigger systemic risk than adding some additional consultations.

Neither the US nor China are particularly good examples as they are not a relatively recently created loose umbrella construct like the EU.

[–] AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You could also do strategies like preferential voting, issue-based weighted voting, or two thirds majority instead of one more than half, if minority opinion is still important in a case while still mitigating the deadlock issues of absolute consensus.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This will be the end of EU, as the economic and energy situations continues to spiral out of control, countries will be faced with the choice of either leaving EU or committing economic suicide. The government in Italy is about to fall, war mongers in France suffered a huge defeat in legislative elections, and German government will likely fall next. This will be the pattern we'll see across Europe going forward. Governments that continue to support this war will find themselves increasingly isolated and will collapse in short order.

[–] thervingi@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The government in Italy is about to fall

Yes, but it's Italy :)

It's news when Italy has a stable and functioning gıvernment.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sure, Italy is highly volatile, but we're also seeing problems across Europe. Bojo is out in UK, Macron's party failed in parliamentary elections. Estonian government collapsed. These are just a few examples. Given what's projected economically for Europe going forward, I'd be shocked if social and political unrest didn't spread across Europe as a whole.

[–] thervingi@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you'll allow me to object again, BoJo out is probably good for Europe and the West in general.

But agree on the general premise. Europe made a big mistake by following America to war.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I certainly do think Bojo was an utter clown, but there isn't anybody likely to replace him who'd do anything different going forward. Corbyn was the only sane voice and he was ultimately sidelined.

Europe needs politicians that prioritize the interests of the people in Europe as opposed to being subservient to US geopolitical machinations.

[–] zksmk@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The government in Italy is about to fall,

Happens every other Tuesday.

war mongers in France suffered a huge defeat

That's a good thing then?

German government will likely fall next

Based on what?

Why are you always such a western doomer?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

Happens every other Tuesday.

The government in Italy is very much about to fall. I'll bet you anything it will collapse within a month.

That’s a good thing then?

Absolutely, the left coalition that won the parliament is the best thing to happen to France. There is finally a path towards getting rid of neoliberals in the government.

Based on what?

Based on the fact that German economy is collapsing.

Why are you always such a western doomer?

Because I'm minimally informed about what's happening in the world? So far everything I've said will happen is happening.

[–] Liwott@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

I am very eager for the day where the countries just lose their sovereignty within a true European nation. But before that, we need more democratic European institutions. National vetoes would be a problem if they were directed to decisions of the European people, but not so much to when they are directed to ones of the French or German government.

[–] thervingi@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Translation: we are having difficulty convincing everyone to be America's laptog.

[–] guojing@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh yes, lets get rid of the last bits of democracy. Just do what Germany says, so that all of Europe can freeze in winter.

[–] Tiuku@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I fail to see how having no veto equals submitting to Germany.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You're right, it's not submitting to Germany, it's submitting to an unelected bureaucracy that runs EU and does not represent the interests of the people of the member countries. This bureaucracy is subservient to US interests and is now driving EU off the clifft. Economic collapse in Europe will serve to boost US economy because there will be capital flight to US which is seen as more stable, and US will now get to sell commodities to Europe that used to be sourced from Russia.

[–] zksmk@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

submitting to an unelected bureaucracy that runs EU

Let me guess, you think China is democratic even tho it has a very pyramidal electoral system, hierarchical electoral system, where only local People's Congresses are directly elected and everything after that (many layers) are elected pyramid-ally, through layers of representatives, with the added bonus it's not only bottom->top votes there, but also top->bottom screening/vetoing.

In the EU people vote directly (in many countries by politician name/not lists) on their city level, county level, the province level, the state level, the country level, and also for the EU parliament, the EU level.

The thing that's not quite as democratic and is bureaucratic is the European Commission (only one part of the EU "government"), the president of it is suggested by country leaders essentially, and is then voted/approved/reject by the EU Parliament, and then the Commission members themselves get suggested by the various respective countries' ministers and then voted on by the EU Parliament. The rest of the EU "government" are the ministers of the various countries themselves (Council of the European Union). And honestly, as much a minister is indirectly appointed in literally any country, so is a member of the EU "government", essentially.

Btw, the "head of state" of the EU is the European Council - the "heads of state/government" of the various countries.

The biggest problem is the Parliament can't suggest legislature, only vote on it, but that's in the process of being changed as we speak. Also, there's also the Spitzenkandidat, whereby even the Commission president could be directly elected theoretically.

I feel like, due to your dislike of unrestrained capitalism in North America, and the US attempted hegemony and imperialism (I say attempted because they haven't really succeeded), which is understandable on its own and totally fine, you're blinded into a state where you dislike anything "western" without any objectivity.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Let me guess, you think China is democratic even tho it has a very pyramidal electoral system, hierarchical electoral system, where only local People’s Congresses are directly elected and everything after that (many layers) are elected pyramid-ally, through layers of representatives, with the added bonus it’s not only bottom->top votes there, but also top->bottom screening/vetoing.

The problem isn't with having many layers. Any complex organization will have layers. The problem is with accountability. The government in China consistently acts in the interest of its constituents because it depends on social stability to stay in power. The EU bureaucracy does not have this relationship with the people living in the countries that are part of the EU and the results speak for themselves here.

[–] zksmk@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The government in China ... depends on social stability to stay in power.

The EU bureaucracy does not have this relationship with the people...

I don't follow.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In China, the stability of central government is directly dependent on social and economic stability in China. In EU that's not the case as far as I can see.

[–] zksmk@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I don't like replying in memes, because it feels a bit rude, but this is just: https://pics.me.me/you-can-tell-that-its-an-aspen-tree-because-of-2666368.png

:P

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you can't see the difference in the outcomes between the governance in EU and China, I really don't know what else to tell you. I guess that's what happens when your world view can be summed up using memes.

[–] Tiuku@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Memes aside, your reasoning seems cyclic indeed. If you wanted to prove your point, you should explain how this is achieved in China, and compare that to EU.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not sure what you're claiming to be cyclical in my argument. I've explained that there is a fundamental difference in structure and accountability of the Chinese government and EU bureaucracy.

To expand on that, the structure of CPC is inherently bottom up, while EU is top down. CPC is also composed of regular working class people, and has huge membership. Conversely, EU bureaucracy is composed of capitalists with practically no working class representation. Finally, Chinese elections are a selection process based on demonstrated competence with people showing ability at lower levels competing for positions at higher level. This is not the case with EU where no demonstrated competence is required.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

[–] liwott@nerdica.net 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not saying whether it is good or bad, but I think it can definitely not be called a democracy when to enter ther decision process you have to

join one of the 9 ruling parties
be in the top 2% students at an exam

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Democracy is fundamentally about having a government that works in the interest of the public. In China, the decision making process is based directly on public surveys of what people want to see happening going forward.

Voting for what you perceive to be the biggest problems and what you want improved makes sense. Voting on how to solve these problems does not. Conflating these things is one of the fundamental problems in western implementation of democracy.

People know what their problems are and what they want improved. However, they're generally not qualified to figure out solutions.

For example, I think my city has a big problem with traffic. However, I'm not a city planner, and I have no expertise in solving this problem. I don't know whether it's better to add more buses, build more subway lines, add LRT, or perhaps a combination of these options. Without having knowledge of the domain subject, I can't meaningfully vote on what the solution to this problem would be. Yet, this is precisely what I'm expected to do when politicians float one solution or another.

I think the ideal system would be to vote on the problems, then have expert committees work on potential solutions. The committees would compile lists of pros and cons for each, then you'd have a second vote on what solution the majority prefers, and then to make it binding.

China doesn't have a vote on what the solutions would be, but at least the solution is decided by experts and there is long term commitment to implementing it.

[–] zksmk@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

< selection process based on demonstrated competence

All I see here is a potential for a benevolent dictatorship and a malevolent dictatorship. Benevolent dictatorships are cool. Until they turn malevolent. That's the big problem.

In liberal democracies you have a choice. There's been plenty of random movements and parties that exploded in size, like that five star movement in Italy, or the Greens in Germany, or whatever. Just like there's been random politicians that came out of nowhere, no capitalist background, like the Finnish PM, Sanna Marin, or whatever.

I'm not touching the US's essentially two party system (due to "first past the point" voting) with a ten foot pole here. Or the UK. Or the Anglosphere in general.

< regular working class people

The CCP has plenty of working class "foot soldiers”, just like western democracies' parties do too in their ranks, I see no difference.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

All I see here is a potential for a benevolent dictatorship and a malevolent dictatorship. Benevolent dictatorships are cool. Until they turn malevolent. That’s the big problem.

If you actually get around to reading the links I provided, they clearly explain that Chinese system is not a dictatorship in any way or form. You're speaking out of sheer ignorance here.

In liberal democracies you have a choice.

You have a choice of candidates put up by the ruling class which is the capitalist class. Entire books have been written on the subject. Countless studies have been conducted on the subject as well that show that liberal democracies operate as oligarchies in practice. Here is what a recent study analyzing decades of US policy found:

The systems in Europe aren't all that different from US in practice. Every one of these systems is created by the rich and for the rich.

The CCP has plenty of working class "foot soldiers”, just like western democracies’ parties do too in their ranks, I see no difference.

I don't know what CCP is, but the Communist Party of China has working class people operating at all levels of the party. You don't see the difference because you have an incredibly superficial understanding of how the system works in China. Maybe spend some time educating yourself instead of arguing about a topic you're not versed in?

[–] zksmk@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

< not a dictatorship in any way or form

I said potential for in that specific part of the process, and corruption is a thing, was there a need to put an emphasis on that? What if the fish starts rotting from the head in a system like that? Believe it or not, western democracies also have a potential for dictatorships, particularly when the press isn't free. There's already semi-dictatorships in Europe, like Hungary, for example.

Your links, which I most definitely read, all the way back when this stuff was posted like a year ago, literally say, that to start your climb in the political institutions you need a college degree. That's interesting, but so much for accessible for anyone. And to climb, you will also need approval from the higher ups. You don't see potential for corruption there?

I never even claimed the Chinese system is a horrible system, why are you getting so worked up? You're the one that keeps insisting it's obviously superior.

< The systems in Europe aren't all that different from US

That's why we have stuff like this?

And to be fair, I'm a bit saddened you're bringing the discussion to the level you're bringing it, with the typo remark, and the other remark you made about being educated, while simultaneously showcasing a lack of awareness where the EU's notorious democratic deficit was (somewhere in these discussion comments), and flip-flopping on it, so, as I feel this discussion is no longer in good faith, and your emotions are getting the best of you right now, Imma bail out.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I said potential for in that specific part of the process, and corruption is a thing, was there a need to put an emphasis on that?

If you look at how the system structured, it's clear that such potential is not there. People in positions of power have clearly defined responsibilities. There are checks and balances, and ability for recall. If anything, I'd argue there's less potential for a dictatorship than in western democracies here.

Your links, which I most definitely read, all the way back when this stuff was posted like a year ago, literally say, that to start your climb in the political institutions you need a college degree. That’s interesting, but so much for accessible for anyone. And to climb, you will also need approval from the higher ups. You don’t see potential for corruption there?

This is only a problem when education isn't available to everyone. When education is free then it's accessible to everyone who has the capability to study.

I never even claimed the Chinese system is a horrible system, why are you getting so worked up? You’re the one that keeps insisting it’s obviously superior.

I'm not sure why you're claiming I'm getting worked up about anything. I'm simply pointing out that you're mischaracterizing the way the system works, and making superficial comparisons with western systems.

That’s why we have stuff like this?

Carbon tax has not resulted in any meaningful action however. It's really more of a performative measure that creates illusion of action. If the tax worked then Europe would've been transitioning off fossils a long time ago and wouldn't find itself in the situation it's currently in.

Now contrast that with China where there is a comprehensive plan for moving off fossils that's being implemented at scale right now. China is now leading the world in both renewables and nuclear power by a wide margin as a result.

And thanks for your psychoanalysis there, but the only one who appears to be getting emotional here is you. I've stated my position and backed it up with sources. You haven't provided any counter argument that I can see here. So, yeah don't really see the point of continuing this either.

[–] Tiuku@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That's rather far fetched. The Parliament of EU is very much elected, and the whole organization employs rather sound democracy.
Would you prefer smaller legistlative bodies for some reason?

[–] guojing@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

True, but the parliament has effectively zero power.

[–] Tiuku@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years ago

Please elaborate.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The parliament is not represent the interests of the people of any individual countries, nor is it accountable to them. It would obviously be preferable to have sovereign governments that act in the interests of their electorate and can be held accountable by their electorate. This is not the case with EU bureaucracy.

[–] Tiuku@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "accountable". They represent the voters, that is, the citizens of EU. Is the "country" somehow more important layer of organization than the individual?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Accountable means that the public has leverage over the officials and is able to get rid of them when they don't act in their interest. The EU bureaucracy is very clearly not acting in the interests of the citizens of the EU which is pretty clear when you look at the current state of things in the eurozone. Individuals in the EU do not have any power over EU bureaucracy.

[–] Tiuku@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So it's not enough "accountability" to vote differently in the next elections?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Of course not, but that's the best that western parliamentary democracies offer. EU removes even this last vestige of accountability.

[–] Tiuku@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Okay, well how would your accountable democracy work then?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The way it functions in China, Vietnam, and Cuba where the government consistently works in the interest of the majority. Go read up on how political/economic systems work in these countries.

[–] w_ortiz@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I agree that the accountability of western democracies is an illusion.

But you're not answering the question at all regarding China, Cuba and Vietnam. Basically you are just saying : They're accountable because they are.

Show us what actual political mechanism exist for the people to reclaim from the state when it's not working as intended there.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I gave a more detailed answer here https://lemmy.ml/post/372982/comment/232381

And of course, we can look at the tangible results of the systems in Cuba, China, and Vietnam where quality of life continues to improve and poverty is being eliminated. I'll give a few examples from China here.

Chinese government practically eliminated poverty

If we take just one country, China, out of the global poverty equation, then even under the $1.90 poverty standard we find that the extreme poverty headcount is the exact same as it was in 1981.

The $1.90/day (2011 PPP) line is not an adequate or in any way satisfactory level of consumption; it is explicitly an extreme measure. Some analysts suggest that around $7.40/day is the minimum necessary to achieve good nutrition and normal life expectancy, while others propose we use the US poverty line, which is $15.

China also massively invests in infrastructure having used more concrete in 3 years than US in all of 20th century, they built 27,000km of high speed rail in a decade.

90% of families in the country own their home, giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans.

Real wage (i.e. the wage adjusted for the prices you pay) has gone up 4x in the past 25 years, more than any other country. This is staggering considering it's the most populous country on the planet. NYT also points out social mobility is higher in China than in US.

And then there's the handling of the pandemic where it's all but eliminated in China with life getting back to normal and the economy growing, while we anxiously look at our fourth wave where our government left people out to dry to protect business interests.

[–] peeonyou@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But is this a function of the government being more accountable to the citizenry or is it just a phase where the government's highest interest is in building up a flourishing middle class? At any point if the government changed direction what recourse do the citizenry have over it?

I've been reading some threads you're in and everyone keeps asking the same question but you have yet to answer it.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

The answer is that only time will tell. Nobody has a crystal ball to tell them what the future will be, we have to base our assessments on what we can observe and measure. Using these criteria Chinese government is acting in the interest of the public, and has been doing so since its inception. That seems like a pretty good track record to me.

[–] zksmk@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It would obviously be preferable to have sovereign governments that act in the interests

Most complaints about the lack of EU institutions' democracy and high "bureaucracy-ness" is the exact opposite, that the people can't directly vote on things like the Commission president and Commission members, and that the EU-wide parliament has limited powers. As is, they are basically chosen by the various countries' politicians, hence the " bureaucracy-ness".

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Whether the people vote directly or not is a tangential problem. The question is what fuels the decision making process in a particular bureaucracy. It seems pretty clear that EU is not acting in the interests of the people of Europe given how EU economy is doing, and how it's likely to be doing going forward.

The only country that's benefiting from all this is the US. EU is already starting to import commodities from US at a huge markup, and it will become further economically dependent on US going forward. We'll see capital flight from EU to US, and mass austerity programs for the Europeans as a result of the economic shock. All of this will help buffer US economy directly at the expense of the people of Europe. As a long term benefit, EU has been cleaved away from the east which has been the main geopolitical concern for US.

[–] zksmk@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It seems pretty clear that EU is not acting in the interests of the people of Europe given how EU economy is doing,

Is it impossible that the people of the EU are okay with tanking the hit, for now, if it's necessary in order to stand up to a bully, in their opinion, Putin's Russia?

Nobody's denying the US will profit of this, that's tangential.

Who sent all that military equipment to Ukraine: the governments of Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, France, Germany, etc... or the EU?

How is any of this an argument for the EU institutions' democratic deficit, which is what we've been discussing here. The EU seems aligned with the wishes of most of the countries.

If you want to claim liberal democracies themselves are undemocratic, you'll be moving the goal post then, because that's not what you've been claiming so far.

And here, I'll move it for you too. So, liberal democracies are just democracy for the capitalist bourgeoisie, more so than in China. If that's true, why are they choosing to ruin their economy, they're the first ones that want their businesses to do well, no, and for the economy to not stagnate? Are you claiming all of Europe's capitalists are somehow directly bought out by US money, to the extent that it's more so than what they lose by the economy going down? I don't think that's even mathematically possible.

Maybe it's an economically bad move to support Ukraine's fight, and it might end up having more instability as a consequence, but I'm pretty sure it was Europe's wish, as much as it can be.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

Is it impossible that the people of the EU are okay with tanking the hit, for now, if it’s necessary in order to stand up to a bully, in their opinion, Putin’s Russia?

The people in EU were not informed on the effects of the policy EU is taking, and now that they're finding that out they're increasingly unhappy with the policy.

Nobody’s denying the US will profit of this, that’s tangential.

Far from being tangential, this is central to why the conflict was provoked.

Who sent all that military equipment to Ukraine: the governments of Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, France, Germany, etc… or the EU?

All of western weapons stockpiles are being depleted at an alarming rate right now. Meanwhile, British military think tank found that the west lacks industrial capacity to produce weapons and ammunition at scale. What that means that the weapons sent to Ukraine cannot be easily replaced now making Europe much more vulnerable than before. Not sure how that's in the interest of the people in Europe either.

How is any of this an argument for the EU institutions’ democratic deficit, which is what we’ve been discussing here. The EU seems aligned with the wishes of most of the countries.

What we've been discussing here is the economic war that EU got itself involved in and that's destroying European economies at the moment.

If you want to claim liberal democracies themselves are undemocratic, you’ll be moving the goal post then, because that’s not what you’ve been claiming so far.

I would absolutely say that, but that's not central to the point I was making earlier.

If that’s true, why are they choosing to ruin their economy, they’re the first ones that want their businesses to do well, no, and for the economy to not stagnate?

Simple answer, it's because bourgeoisie are international. They're not the ones who are going to take the brunt of the damage from all this. The capital will move to other countries, largely to US, and then when European economy crashes these capitalists will buy everything up for pennies on the dollar. What we'll see will be a huge wealth transfer to the top, which is precisely what happens during every economic crisis.

The financial economy has no inherent value to it, it's tangible things like land, housing, factories, and so on that have value. When Europe crashes, people who anticipated the crash and weren't directly harmed by it will see a huge boon.

Maybe it’s an economically bad move to support Ukraine’s fight, and it might end up having more instability as a consequence, but I’m pretty sure it was Europe’s wish, as much as it can be.

Many people in Europe have certainly been manipulated into supporting this conflict without being told all the facts. Now they're seeing the consequences, and that is already creating political blow back for the instigators.

World News

Rules: