February 20, 2016

The Story of David Cameron’s “National Veto” That Isn’t

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The machinery of the EU is awesomely trifling. I was reading earlier today about David Cameron finally reaching an agreement that allows Britain some special privileges designed to keep them from exiting the union. But it was odd. One of the concessions he won appeared to give Britain “a national veto over EU legislation,” and yet every news report treated this like a minor afterthought. So I got curious and tried to figure out what was going on. Here’s the provision Cameron got:

  • If the EU proposes a new law, it is required to send out a draft to all member countries for a 12-week review.
  • If 55 percent of the member countries object, the Council will “discontinue the consideration of the draft legislative act in question” unless they choose to amend it.

OK. That’s something, I guess. So what was the rule before? Feast on this:

  • If a third of the member countries object to a new law, it will be reviewed. But that’s it. No action is required.
  • If half of the member countries object, the new law will not only be reviewed, but the EU Commission will have to explain why it thinks the law is OK.
  • After that, the Council and the European Parliament are required before the first reading to “consider whether the legislative proposal is compatible with the principle of subsidiarity.”
  • If 55 percent of the Council Members (or a majority of the European Parliament) believe the proposed law is incompatible with subsidiarity, it will be shelved.

So under the old rules, if half the member countries object to a proposed law and 55 percent of the Council subsequently agrees, it’s shelved. Under the new rules, if 55 percent of the member countries object, it will be shelved immediately.

It would take a high-power microscope to see the difference here. The new rules eliminate the Council vote, but that would only rarely make a difference. You have to figure that if 55 percent of the member countries object, they’re also going to vote against it in Council—and no law can pass with only 45 percent approval anyway. You’ve needed 55 percent for the past couple of years. I suppose that eliminating the Council vote eliminates time to pressure folks into changing their minds, but that’s about it.

It is stuff like this that greases the gears of the EU. Veteran EU watchers will snicker at me for being captivated by this, but captivated I am.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate