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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
The government in Italy is about to fall
Yes, but it’s Italy :)
It’s news when Italy has a stable and functioning gıvernment.
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.
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.
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.
The government in Italy is about to fall,
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?
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.
Translation: we are having difficulty convincing everyone to be America’s laptog.
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.
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.
I fail to see how having no veto equals submitting to Germany.
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.
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.
Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions_of_the_European_Union
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?True, but the parliament has effectively zero power.
Please elaborate.
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.
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?
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.
So it’s not enough “accountability” to vote differently in the next elections?
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".
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.
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.
