An eternal dilemma for Europe is the extent to which the member states must surrender their national sovereignty in order to achieve a common policy.
The vetoone is a problem. In 1986, the member states of the EU (then the EC) agreed to adopt actis with qualified majority, ie two thirds of the countries. Under the Maastricht Treaty and subsequent treaty changes received The European Parliament co-determination in the fields where the member states had waived their right of veto – as a form of democratic corrective action.
But in several important political areas, each country still has a veto and thus the opportunity to block a common European position, policy and regulations. Many want to introduce majority provisions in the areas of health policy, tax and foreign and defense policy, while others believe it is going too far.
Director at Fridtjof Nansen's department, Iver Neumann, gives us a refreshing realpolitik perspective when he claims that Brexit has changed the rules of the game, and opens up the idea of throwing out countries that do not respect these: «Brexit sets an important precedent, namely that member states can leave the EU. This is an important lesson when the EU has to deal with countries that for a long time – such as Hungary, or in periods Poland and Slovenia – oppose the EU's democratic constitutional principles. . .
To continue reading, create a new free reader account with your email,
or logg inn if you have done it before. (click on forgotten password if you have not received it by email already).
Select if necessary Subscription (69kr)