The fact that EU membership doesn’t just automatically confer schengen membership is so stupid
Like sit down Austria and Switzerland, you chose this lack of input for everything that isn’t just being racist
No but they’re in Schengen, the fact that they chose that arrangement was my point, countries that refuse EU membership shouldn’t be able to block EU member states from further integrating with the EU.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Governments in Austria, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Italy and Denmark have invoked this provision to cope with a continued rise in migration flows.
An affiliate of the conservative People’s Party (ÖVP), Karner defends a hard-line position on migration and has touted the possibility of striking a deal with a non-EU country to outsource the processing of asylum applications.
Spain had previously said the gathering on 5 December would feature a binding vote on the Schengen applications of Romania and Bulgaria, two countries that have been waiting to join the passport-free area since they entered the EU in 2007.
But upon seeing the vote was bound to fail, as was the case in December last year, Spanish officials opted instead to have a “state of play” on the joint bids and the overall situation across the passport-free area.
Fernando Grande-Marlaska, Spain’s home affairs minister, told reporters his country would continue to work “very hard” on the topic “until the end of our presidency,” a remark that appeared to suggest the applications could be put to a vote sometime later this month.
A fact-finding mission recently sent to Bulgaria has brought back “really successful” results about the country’s preparation to join the passport-free area, said Ylva Johansson, the European Commissioner for Home Affairs.
The original article contains 654 words, the summary contains 212 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Playing Hungary?
Shame on Austria
EU needs to abandon unanimity in decision making - it’s not even the veto of one “country”, but of one party in one country. Same for UN. Pure consensus is not working.
Yup, ruling party ÖVP is already afraid of next years election and trying to get some votes with stupid actions like this.
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.
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).
