Hacker News Reader

Comment by gostsamo | Hacker News Reader

That's how EU politics works. There is no sense of officially voting on something if it is clear from previous negotiations that it will not pass. With only 27 members, the counting usually is done well in advance and the final vote is showing that agreement has been reached. If someone votes against, it is for pr purposes, because if they are really against it, they have a veto right.

View on HN

> There is no sense of officially voting on something if it is clear from previous negotiations that it will not pass.

This means that it was implicitly voted upon and rejected by the people, therefore it should not be put up for a vote again.

No, it means that those who want it did not manage to trade enough compromises on other topics to those who don't want it or do not oppose it at least. If let's say a french economy sector benefits from policy A while a polish sector might lose from it, and Romania is neutral. In such a situation France might promise Poland their support for policy B which is beneficial for the pols, and they might promise a smaller favor to Romania to make them form the majority. If the pols are unhappy with the trade, they will bid for Romania's support against policy A. The show is funnier with 27 participants and fields that span through dozens of policies and over decades.

There is no veto right anymore. Most decisions are taken by simple majority. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/

The veto right was effectively removed once certain countries started abusing it.

It's always funny to see how these simple things play out in the obvious way.

That's why we cannot have nice things. The stuff that worked with a dozen members didn't work as well with twice the participants (some of them with little respect for compromise - which is effectively the founding value the whole Union apparatus is based on). Removing veto powers in the Council was the only way to ensure things could keep getting done.

Note this was done through treaty amendments, which were agreed by all participants.

> how EU politics works

It's how any sovereign body must work. Putting something to a vote and failing demonstrates weakness, so it's avoided. And the body cannot be bound in deliberation. (Else it's not sovereign, but a vassal of whoever sets the agenda.)

Mostly agree, but often parliaments are a place to make a point to the observing voters and some things are proposed with the full knowledge that they will be rejected. The proposer though turns to the public and says: "I made a promise and I deliver, but the other side is stopping us from implementing it. So, please, vote for me next time in grater numbers to give me the ability to pass it the second time." Also, when you have a bigger assembly, last minute twists happen for unexpected reasons like a coalition partner deciding to screw their partners and ruin their agenda.

> some things are proposed with the full knowledge that they will be rejected

Sure, these are messaging bills [1]. If you're clearly out of power, they're an effective tactic.

If you're in power, a good way to lose it is by embracing messaging bills.

[1] https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article2...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com