this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
122 points (95.5% liked)

Europe

8324 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] letmesleep@feddit.de 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That doesn't change that the option is on the table and has been for years. It's it the EU's de-facto constitution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union

[โ€“] misk@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I do know about it. I don't believe nobody would have covered for Orban.

[โ€“] letmesleep@feddit.de 5 points 11 months ago

I guess that depends on what the other leaders said. Even outside EU rules states can exert quite a bit of pressure on other states hence I don't believe that a small country like Slovakia, despite it's Russian-friendly government, would dare to become the target of the ire of the countries making up 97% of the EU's population and 98% of its GDP.

[โ€“] Vincent@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

Identifying the breach requires unanimity (excluding the state concerned), but sanctions require only a qualified majority.

Wait, how does this work? Can sanctions be instated without identifying a country as being in breach? Or is unanimity first required, and only after that, the majority can decide what the sanction is?