It’s not democracy if the majority can compel the minority to go against their will. Germany and France will become the dominant powers even more so than they already are which will ultimately result in the slow erosion and downfall of the EU being what it claims to stand for. Vetoes and consensus democracy were founding ideas for a reason.
It’s convenient to hold up Hungary as the evil example of misused vetoes but the solution to that is to move to suspend countries as a member, for acting in bad faith repeatedly. Using freedom from association. Not to destroy your democracy from within by making it less democratic.
It’s not democracy if the majority can compel the minority to go against their will.
That’s… Exactly what democracy is though. Like Brexit is a great example of this. The majority forced the minority against their will.
I take the rest of your point though and agree. We just need to get past the “one or two arseholes” issue. I’d be happy with some kind of supermajority decision making process.
It’s not democracy if the majority can compel the minority to go against their will.
That’s… Exactly what democracy is though
Only to some extent. Modern democracy typically includes some forms of minority protection to reduce the risk of a “Tyranny of the majority”.
That said, the EUs qualified majority system already has some such measures, like giving smaller countries more votes in parliament relative to population.
Also every country has an equal vote in the council.
Nah, the expression has merit in political science, it has only recently been profaned by the US reich wing, because they like to couch their bigotry in the language of science, sociology and intellectual rigor. Because by misusing and coopting those terns, they get to redefine them in the public eye and weaken arguments against their position that rely on those terms.
Your perception of the term “tyranny of the majority”, a term originally coined to point out the conservative overreach against and suppression of minorities, is a great example of how they colonize language.
Aye, you’re right in that democracy isn’t just one singular concept, there are various forms.
But think on what the idea of democracy is supposed to represent. It’s supposed to be rule by the people. If 48% of the people are having their authority to rule superceded by the 52% then how can you say it’s rule by the people? It’s rule only by the majority. Democracy only in colloquial common parlance.
The word democracy has been bastardised even since its very conception so it’s difficult to define without arguments. The EU however have already defined their democracy at the highest state level on similar principles that anarchists do, of consensus. All countries are equal, all countries can say no. This will throw that away in favour of less democracy, less equality, less say in how the continent functions, in tyranny of the majority.
It will be the beginning of the end for the European project. And I’m not saying that lightly or as hyperbole.
You are making the mistake to believe the EU can only compete by becoming what it despises. This will have the opposite effect in reality, with the EU breaking apart.
The US was at most very briefly a confederacy, and the US civil war had little to do with that despite one side calling itself such.
The EU is an obvious successful modern example, and if you want historical examples, then the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations lasted a millenium and despite sometimes nominally having an emporer it was practically a confederation.
And besides, ask some person living in a Democrat majority US state how they feel about the current Trump administration of their federal government interfering with their life and sending a militarized police occupation force into their cities?
It’s not 1960 anymore. Sure, early on the EU (well its predecessors) were just France and Germany. But today? The combined population of Germany and France is 150 million. The EU population is 450 million. The most populace country, Germany, represents just 19% of the EU’s total population.
For a comparison, in the US, California represents about 12% of the total population, so not that different. And historically, when the US was founded, Virginia contained about 19% of the total US population.
The EU has grown immensely, but its governmental structure reflects an earlier era. Veto powers made sense when everything in the EU other then Germany and France was a rounding error. But the EU has grown so much that France and Germany now occupy a similar position to any number of most-populated states and provinces in countries around the world. One province having 19% of the population is not unusual. Hell, the largest German state has 21% of the German population, and they don’t run an internal veto system.
The veto system made sense when Germany and France truly controlled the EU and dominated its population. But as the block has grown, these countries now look more like the most populated provinces or states you find in every country. And their relative influence will only decline further as the EU continues to expand. The EU has grown and matured, and it’s time for its government to do so as well.
You’re absolutely right and I do agree. At the same time what this is about is not about many smaller countries getting dominated by big countries. This is about prohibiting foreign powers to bribe their way into power in EU via puppets in a single EU country.
As a citizen in a small country I have no concerns that our neighbours in also smaller countries will not agree on certain political decisions where Germany and France may have a different persuasion. If so I naturally would expect a diplomatic consensus would be found.
It’s not democracy if the majority can compel the minority to go against their will. Germany and France will become the dominant powers even more so than they already are which will ultimately result in the slow erosion and downfall of the EU being what it claims to stand for. Vetoes and consensus democracy were founding ideas for a reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy
It’s convenient to hold up Hungary as the evil example of misused vetoes but the solution to that is to move to suspend countries as a member, for acting in bad faith repeatedly. Using freedom from association. Not to destroy your democracy from within by making it less democratic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
That’s… Exactly what democracy is though. Like Brexit is a great example of this. The majority forced the minority against their will.
I take the rest of your point though and agree. We just need to get past the “one or two arseholes” issue. I’d be happy with some kind of supermajority decision making process.
Only to some extent. Modern democracy typically includes some forms of minority protection to reduce the risk of a “Tyranny of the majority”.
That said, the EUs qualified majority system already has some such measures, like giving smaller countries more votes in parliament relative to population.
Also every country has an equal vote in the council.
“Tyranny of the majority” is a MAGA euphemism for “we’re not the majority.”
Dude, that expression is soooo much older than Maga. 1835 is not a year suspect of the right wing assholery of today.
Doesn’t make it any less worthless of an expression.
The majority having a different opinion doesn’t mean they are tyrants for going through with it.
Are there instances where it was the case? Sure. Look at slavery.
But the great majority of the cases it is a worthless expression made by people who can’t stand they are in the minority.
Nah, the expression has merit in political science, it has only recently been profaned by the US reich wing, because they like to couch their bigotry in the language of science, sociology and intellectual rigor. Because by misusing and coopting those terns, they get to redefine them in the public eye and weaken arguments against their position that rely on those terms.
Your perception of the term “tyranny of the majority”, a term originally coined to point out the conservative overreach against and suppression of minorities, is a great example of how they colonize language.
Are saying, the French Alexis de Tocqueville who died in 1859 was a Trump follower?
Aye, you’re right in that democracy isn’t just one singular concept, there are various forms.
But think on what the idea of democracy is supposed to represent. It’s supposed to be rule by the people. If 48% of the people are having their authority to rule superceded by the 52% then how can you say it’s rule by the people? It’s rule only by the majority. Democracy only in colloquial common parlance.
The word democracy has been bastardised even since its very conception so it’s difficult to define without arguments. The EU however have already defined their democracy at the highest state level on similar principles that anarchists do, of consensus. All countries are equal, all countries can say no. This will throw that away in favour of less democracy, less equality, less say in how the continent functions, in tyranny of the majority.
It will be the beginning of the end for the European project. And I’m not saying that lightly or as hyperbole.
deleted by creator
You are making the mistake to believe the EU can only compete by becoming what it despises. This will have the opposite effect in reality, with the EU breaking apart.
deleted by creator
[citation needed]
(And they often break apart after briefly becoming more centralized, in an misguided attempt to force unity where there isn’t any anylonger)
deleted by creator
The US was at most very briefly a confederacy, and the US civil war had little to do with that despite one side calling itself such.
The EU is an obvious successful modern example, and if you want historical examples, then the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations lasted a millenium and despite sometimes nominally having an emporer it was practically a confederation.
And besides, ask some person living in a Democrat majority US state how they feel about the current Trump administration of their federal government interfering with their life and sending a militarized police occupation force into their cities?
you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means
Qualified majority makes sure that even without veto France and Germany don’t become dominant.
It’s not 1960 anymore. Sure, early on the EU (well its predecessors) were just France and Germany. But today? The combined population of Germany and France is 150 million. The EU population is 450 million. The most populace country, Germany, represents just 19% of the EU’s total population.
For a comparison, in the US, California represents about 12% of the total population, so not that different. And historically, when the US was founded, Virginia contained about 19% of the total US population.
The EU has grown immensely, but its governmental structure reflects an earlier era. Veto powers made sense when everything in the EU other then Germany and France was a rounding error. But the EU has grown so much that France and Germany now occupy a similar position to any number of most-populated states and provinces in countries around the world. One province having 19% of the population is not unusual. Hell, the largest German state has 21% of the German population, and they don’t run an internal veto system.
The veto system made sense when Germany and France truly controlled the EU and dominated its population. But as the block has grown, these countries now look more like the most populated provinces or states you find in every country. And their relative influence will only decline further as the EU continues to expand. The EU has grown and matured, and it’s time for its government to do so as well.
You’re absolutely right and I do agree. At the same time what this is about is not about many smaller countries getting dominated by big countries. This is about prohibiting foreign powers to bribe their way into power in EU via puppets in a single EU country. As a citizen in a small country I have no concerns that our neighbours in also smaller countries will not agree on certain political decisions where Germany and France may have a different persuasion. If so I naturally would expect a diplomatic consensus would be found.