I hope other organisations with a director from Oracle are taking note.
In the EU the same is happening. Poland and Hungary have found a loophole allowing them to ignore EU rules and sanctions while still profiting from subsidies and market access.
All sanctions against a member state require unanimous-1 (all states except the sanctioned member) votes and Poland is vetoing all sanctions against Hungary, and Hungary all sanctions against Poland.
The Netherlands always vetos Romania's application to enter the Schengen zone as Romania's harbors to the Black Sea will provide cheaper alternatives for import of goods to the Dutch ones.
[0] http://business-review.eu/news/pm-ciolos-future-of-constanta...
However, the endemic corruption could be the real reason.
And it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Romanian coastal surveillance system was conveniently down when cocaine started to shop up on the beaches.
AFAIK this was tit-for-tat: HU & PL closed/sold-off their industry in favor of WEU in exchange for subsidies. Removing these subsidies for any reason would violate the main economic agreement between them and EU. Mind you, there is no significant locally grown industry in those countries anymore (outside of a few state-owned industries), WEU profited from this enormously, especially Germany. As economic potential of this arrangement has been exhausted after 25 years already, incorporating UA is the next move to give EU (primarily DE/FR/NL) some nice economy boost for the next 10 years. EU is essentially playing Sim City.
Edit: Ukraine.
After some time Poland found some niches for itself, e.g. Polish transportation companies dominate EU market in truck freight. What was the EU response to that? They recently passed change in labor laws, that would make this business unprofitable.
So: common EU market is fine as long as Western countries benefit from it, but Poland or other Eastern countries making money from business in the West is against the rules :)
Basically the law change is this:
Now, if you are Polish truck driver employed in Poland, you are subject to Polish tax and labor codes, including things like tax rate, minimum wage, etc. What France wants (and what was passed, but is not in effect yet) is that if said truck driver crosses the border of another country (say, France) he should be subject to that country tax and labor code. Which is riddiculous, because the driver does not change his tax residence, he just enters France for a few days it takes to make a delivery, and then comes back to Poland.
It would be ridiculous, because the factory worker would be working at a company domiciled in the other country. That is because, a company in one country can not just open a factory in another country without having an entity in the latter country.
Consider an alternative situation: Franz is employed in Hungary as a writer of fiction, but crosses into Austria many days and uses wifi to work there. Should Franz be paid Austrian minimum wage?
All kinds of other local laws apply just by entering a country.
Local laws do apply, but generally one can not just enter another country and work there. Very often one is specifically prohibited from working in another country without a visa.
But that's not really the situation here: it's a business providing services for customers in another country. You send a driver abroad for a few days, that should not make him subject for local tax and labor laws. If you can prove that said worker spent significant period of time there (most tax treaties use 183 days as a rule of thumb) then that's a different matter.
Are you talking about those labor laws, which require truckers driving in Germany to be paid German minimum wage? Totally unprofitable.
Not sure what they were thinking with such a policy. Unanimity is something you can have at the village level.
If a EU state refuses to do a thing, that's basically it.
https://piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/france...
If anything, few people mention the dutch trade surplus (I presume because the "netherland is evil!!" narrative is not as common as "german is evil!!").
What I remember from history lessons in school agrees with Wikipedia's description, so I'll just quote:
"Many historians hold that the liberum veto was a major cause of the deterioration of the Commonwealth political system, particularly in the 18th century, when foreign powers bribed Sejm members to paralyze its proceedings, and the Commonwealth's eventual destruction in the partitions of Poland and foreign occupation, dominance and manipulation of Poland for the next 200 years or so. Piotr Stefan Wandycz wrote that the "liberum veto had become the sinister symbol of old Polish anarchy". In the period of 1573–1763, about 150 sejms were held, about a third failing to pass any legislation, mostly because of the liberum veto."
"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. Congress, from the nonattendance of a few States, have been frequently in the situation of a Polish diet, where a single VOTE has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode Island, has several times been able to oppose an entire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.
It is not difficult to discover, that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption, as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed. The mistake has proceeded from not attending with due care to the mischiefs that may be occasioned by obstructing the progress of government at certain critical seasons. When the concurrence of a large number is required by the Constitution to the doing of any national act, we are apt to rest satisfied that all is safe, because nothing improper will be likely TO BE DONE, but we forget how much good may be prevented, and how much ill may be produced, by the power of hindering the doing what may be necessary, and of keeping affairs in the same unfavorable posture in which they may happen to stand at particular periods."
All of the countries that could - and would (given the right kind of existential threat posed by another) kill a few _hundred million_ people in even a limited exchange are on the council.
There are other, non-nuclear states that could cause similar (<10m) deathcounts if they had a conflict. What we don’t want to do is frame the security council as “the nuclear club” which allows them to dictate global security - that would give states like DPRK and Hussein’s Iraq even more motivation to pursue a nuclear weapons programme.
To an extent it does come down to sincerity - I’m not concerned about India being a nuclear power despite it bordering Pakistan and PRC: I have faith in India’s democracy and stability to use their power responsibly (Kashmir is another discussion) - but I don’t extend that to DPRK who are clearly using it to avoid a Libya-type situation but who may end up using it anyway given the inherent instability of autocratic dynasties.
It's more an economic issue than a nuclear issue IMO. And, I think the veto should be done away with.
I'm imagining whether China might veto this...
;)
Take for example the Italian government's decision to run a deficit higher than what is allowed under EU rules (2% per year if I recall correctly). The EU tried to put a brave face on it: they held negotiations with the Italian government and announced a compromise, but it was pretty obvious to people who follow EU politics that the EU had no effective means to enforce the rule on Italy.
And this cap on deficit spending by governments of member nations is no minor rule. Many had stated over the years since the introduction of the Euro that the rule is necessary for the single currency to work.