I think there's some confusion about how the "veto" works. The EU uses many ways to reach decisions, and those ways are different depending on the type of topic. Some are decided by majority, some by unanimity.

The topics that require unanimity are the ones that would make no sense otherwise, since the EU doesn't have the ability to coerce a member state into doing things it doesn't want to do, beyond withholding funds and other soft measures like that.

This reevaluation will switch some things from the unanimity principle to qualified majority.

It's important to remember that the EU is a built on the willingness of its members to cooperate and participate. It tries to use the carrot almost exclusively, not the stick. So far this has worked out amazingly well considering the previous century for example. The countries that have joined the EU have cooperated and prospered. The ones that wanted to cooperate without outright joining have been able to do so (Norway, Switzerland, Greenland). The ones that changed their mind could leave (UK). The ones that couldn't bring themselves to agree with its values have never joined.

The veto existed from a time when the EU was much smaller (in both scope and scale). Having a member state veto today is approaching being as ludicrous as if each US state had a veto on national legislation - it allows small countries with extremist governments (of which there is always likely to be one in office somewhere) to clog up the gears of the entire union.

The European Council's well-established alternative to member state vetoes also still does plenty to respect member state interests - qualified majority voting. QMV means big changes aren't getting passed on a 51%-49% knife edge. QMV puts a two-step lock in place, requiring a) at least 55% of member states that also b) account for at least 65% of the EU's population, to vote in favour.

But this is all moot. Abolishing the member state veto will itself almost certainly be subject to multiple member state vetoes at the Council so this is going nowhere.

Can't someone veto getting rid of the veto?

It is also the only way to prevent the EU from collapsing under an almost byzantine but wholly impotent bureaucracy. Even if this causes the usual obstructionists to leave, the better off the union will be. Europe must become a true federal state, instead of institutionalized bickering and infighting.

While that may be true, I feel like you’re ignoring the fact that a foundational change to the core procedures that the EU operates by could absolutely drive more than a few member states to bail - and I’m not talking about Hungary or Poland.

Whenever you come across a “sword” solution to a Gordian knot of a situation like this, it’s crucial to consider how you’d feel if the shoe was on the other foot. This is, in fact, one of the core points of a democratic, rules-based system of government - the rules must be applied agnostically. If you’re making a rule that only “works” when you/your party are in power, it’s an objectively bad rule, and will be used in ways that you are guaranteed to not like.

Enlargement readiness. The portfolios of the commissioners are getting smaller and smaller with each new member, requiring more and more coordination to get anything done.

I don't know the intention, but I'd imagine those now in power will have more power and for longer.

We have a Commissioner for Promoting the European Way of Life. If I see it correctly something like four which are some version of commisioner for economics. Also three different ones for foreign affairs of some description. Also two for finance, but that nearly makes sense. I also somehow doubt we need a Comissioner for the Green Deal specifically.

Basicly bloat and it is better to have less, but with sensible job descriptions.

afaik removing the veto was 1 of the things that needed to change before france/germany/etc would allow expansion?

Maybe, but honestly, the last few years were a shitshow to look with all the crossed vetoes in everey decision

If the are intentionally rushing that way, then they perhaps want to do it while they can predict the outcome.