Intransigent Member States
I thought I had heard it all. But apparently not.
Belgian foreign minister Karel de Gucht said on Tuesday in Warsaw that treaty changes should be agreed by a qualified majority of member states, rather than by unanimity, AFP reports. He said member states' current veto on treaty revisions is "a recipe for immobility."Immobility in EU parlance being a crime worse than tyranny of course.
What he is actually suggesting is that countries should no longer have the right to decide which treaties to sign. He pretends otherwise:
"Countries belonging to the rejecting minority would, of course, have the right to opt out."
Nice. The EU constitution contained within it the voting structure for future. Tell me exactly how a country opts out of the voting structure agreed by the others?
Doesn't work does it.
3 comments:
Simple - when a (qualified) majority of countries decides to make changes, each country has the right to reconsider its membership.
If they don't like the new rules the majority agrees upon, they should decide to leave the club.
So basically, everytime a government baulks at a new extension to the EU project, they risk being thrown out?
Nice.
Funny how those peace loving Europhiles are always wanting to throw their weight around.
If you mean we could not opt out of the constitution's voting system i.e. not adopt it and other countries do, then sure. That would have to be agreed by all states. By the way the new proposed voting system is more logical than the previous one.
The constution also allowed for groups of countries to go ahead with projects on their own without all members. I think this person is proposing something along those lines. Again, I think both eurosceptics and pro-euro groups should like this. For example, the UK could opt out of something it really didn't want, and those who did want it could get it. Win-win no?
Post a Comment