So keep them in EU but take away their veto rights π€ Didnβt knew there was an option like that.
Europe
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
Article 7 suspends their voting rights. Requires unanimity of all other EU members.
It's the closest EU charter allows to evicting a member state. It effectively suspends the state's membership.
Quite frankly the should have. Orban is a blatantly corrupt Putin lapdog who has been siphoning EU funds for years into his own pocket and that of his cronies.
Hungary used to have a mutual defence pact with PiS-era Poland that scuppered any attempts by the EU to discipline either country. Not that PiS are no longer in power in Poland, hasnβt Ficoβs Slovakia stepped into the role?
Nope, because Orban's party denies the legitimacy of Slovakia as an independent state via their grievance culture over the Treaty of Trianon
Fico and other similar politicians are still great friends with orban. Even the Slovak National Party, which is ironic because they were incredibly anti-hungrian bck in the day. But sharing dream of totalitarian country unites.
I bet Putin would lovento get us back into Russian sphere of influence as well and yet Fico and co. still lick his boots.
Have we ever been that close to taking them? I'm assuming he was warned and informed that next time it will happen.
No, but until now, Poland and Hungary protected each other. Things might change now.
Slovakia and The Netherlands are the new wild cards. Weβll see how things shake out.
Slovakia, I don't know, but the Netherlands not really. The one party that might want to veto it, while the biggest in parliament, only ("only") got 20% of the votes. If they get to govern (which is not set in stone yet), they'll have to do so in a coalition with other parties who would not let that happen.
And Italy, why are we left out? π€π€π€ Italy is part of the "family" too, with the Nederlands, Slovakia, Hungary.. and the UK of course!
The UK isn't in any EU discussions any more...
My impression of Meloni is that she values the EU?
Edit: not melon lol
She does, she isn't doing anything like that.
Yeah, I get that people outside Italy were worried when she was elected (I was too) but I've not seen any real controversial EU policy from her government. That's from outside though.
She immediately reassured european partners, also stood with Ukraine since day one: not obviois on that side of the parliament. So yeah, could have been worse..
Why not making it simpler, and NOT keeping them in EU? Feels like we wouldn't miss much.
The source they're citing is a single person that's not likely to be impartial.
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
I do know about it. I don't believe nobody would have covered for Orban.
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.
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?