Pardon the ignorance but doesn't this go against the principles of the EU? Like, we made a system that is supposed to be democratic and that requires unanimosity and then we bypass it when the result isn't of our liking? This goes beyond the scope of the specific case of Ukraine, I side for Ukraine, but if we made a system that requires unanimosity in the name of democracy we must follow it, if it proved it doesn't work then it should have been made a majority based system from the get go, or at least changed a while back, not just bypassed because one voice didn't speak like the rest, it defeats the entire purpose of the system
What they're trying to do is a load of bs. You can't change the rules mid-game just because you don't like them.
And removing the unanimity rule is a problem that could lead to the end of the EU. Imagine most members decide to increase the EU budget but one or two contributors don't want to. Are you now going to force them to part with their money? They might decide to leave the union.
Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas and the rest of their lot are risking destroying the EU over a non-member state. Their behavior and of European leaders over this is ridiculous to say the least. They seem unable to realize Ukraine lost the war long ago and the sooner they sue for peace the better for everyone - including for Ukraine who keeps losing territory. Wishful thinking won't change that.
Also you said something very true about the situation in Ukraine, I remember I said that long ago and I was accused of being a russian bot (in the same message I said Russia is a shithole lol)
At this point I think the best move for Europe would just be to federalize: no more disjointed voices that can only do something is everyone agrees, we act as a single voice, united and independent from the USA or Russia or whoever wants to control us next
4
u/Mafla_2004 3d ago
Pardon the ignorance but doesn't this go against the principles of the EU? Like, we made a system that is supposed to be democratic and that requires unanimosity and then we bypass it when the result isn't of our liking? This goes beyond the scope of the specific case of Ukraine, I side for Ukraine, but if we made a system that requires unanimosity in the name of democracy we must follow it, if it proved it doesn't work then it should have been made a majority based system from the get go, or at least changed a while back, not just bypassed because one voice didn't speak like the rest, it defeats the entire purpose of the system