• letmesleep@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Same for UN.

    Not really sure it would work. The security council legitimizes actual wars. In that case I’m okay with there being too much safeguards. The same goes for the EU. If we actually decide to invade a country, I’d prefer it that all 27 member states are unanimous. If everyone from Hungary to Ireland decides that a county needs bombing, then I believe it.

    Apart from such things I do agree with you. For most policies (e.g. sanctions) we shouldn’t need unanimity. Though in some cases a bigger qualified majority (like 75% of population and states) might be better.

    • Ben Matthews
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Within EU there are proposals to move to QMV for most topics (spanish presidency still pushing this), problem is vetos block such reform. EU doesn’t have any power to invade (yet?). Regarding UN, most processes, like UNFCCC and even IPCC, operate by consensus - this dilutes many outcomes, it’s a pity. As for UN-SC, its record of helping is not great, just legitimizes old power, maybe should be abolished. I’d rather see a weighted GA vote (maybe excluding parties to a conflict).