https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E...
this is how the spectacularly unpopular migrant relocation was forced through against Eastern Europe's objections
Some might argue that lessens small countries' power to streamline the decision making. Those would be the same that criticised the EU during the CETA negotiations and the whole Wallonia potential veto.
Nothing is black or white indeed.
Those countries themselves -- and any other state actor, that is not tied by a bureaucracy they don't control but Germany does.
>The lack of an existing legal framework agreed upon all actors would mean there's no deterrent for an escalation if, let's say, France or UK decided to side with their Eastern colleagues and get serious about it.
Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly).
Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
Even if Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain decided to vote together, the others can still win a vote against them. (Also, the EP is split according to political ideologies, not nationalities, so this scenario is unrealistic.)
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_...
Who's to blame? Hard to say, but no one's free of guilt here.
That doesn't answer the question, what are you on about?
That "bureaucracy" is an actual agreement between each of those countries, up to 27 members. A one sided aggression has no legal framework of defense and it gives full advantage to the bigger bullies.
> Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly).
So smaller countries have way more to lose than bigger countries.
> Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
You are able to push any agenda more effectively, with the "minor" detail that the agenda has to be agreed and voted by the representatives of 27 different countries.
Would you want to try again at answering my original question? If international law is not your forte (it's certainly not mine), do you mind just answering the example questions?:
> Do you think Germany wouldn't be able to throw its weight around to push Poland, Czechia or Slovakia to do whatever they want to? Who would legally put an opposition to that?
Of course I don't expect you to be able to explain it, because if anything the EU has given voice and veto power to small EU countries.