Does anyone else find the Hungary problem very interesting?
On the one side you don’t want to support a government that goes against almost all of the values held by the union.
On the other hand, if you push them further out you push the country and its citizens even further away from those values, potentially encouraging the values you wish to dissuade in neighbouring countries.
Feels like the “right” line to walk is a very very wobbly right rope.
I’m not sure I follow your “on the other hand”.
The eu is a club, it has rules for members to follow. If you don’t follow the rules, you get your membership privileges suspended. How is this a difficult problem?
The right way to handle this is to stop being a bitch ass punching bag and make sure everyone holds up their end of the deal. If they want to be a totalitarian shithole they can do that on their own.
If Hungary would be thrown out of the EU, it’d become a Russian puppet state like Belarus. This would mean Russian military equipment being stationed right in the middle of the EU.
As someone living in Austria, that’s especially worrysome, since that’d mean no buffer zone to Russia and not even protection by NATO. My parents live 10 minutes away from the Hungarian border by foot.
If Hungary would be thrown out of the EU, it’d become a Russian puppet state like Belarus.
Good thing I neither typed nor intended to type anything like that.
The problem is that since Hungary knows that it won’t be thrown out, how can the EU bargain? They’ve tried withholding funding, but every time there needs to be an unanimous decision, Hungary demands funds to be released in exchange.
There are provisions that allow majority decisions to be made. Not everything is decided unanimously.
AFAIK, unanimity is required for the most important decisions. The provision here is: suspend voting privileges for offending country and then vote… tadaa… unanimous.
This is difficult and not taken lightly but it is possible. How this has not happened to Hungary is beyond me. But then Poland under the PiS party also was sanctioned for their meddling with the judges.
Feels like you chose not to follow it.
Sure, let them be a totalitarian shithole, then watch the (EU) countries around them be influenced by this, and risk them following the same path.
This is the problem I describe. You’re welcome to ignore it but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
There may be some other reason this isn’t a problem too, but I don’t believe “just chop the arm off” is going to remove the gangrene in this case.
I’m not suggesting anything close to “chopping off the arm”. Just politely tell the member at the door that he’s welcome to play squash all he wants, but only after he has settled the membership dues.
The contagion bit is a real risk, but I’m not sure it gets better if we don’t deal with the problem. If there are no consequences for breaking the rules, why should Hungary or any the other members follow them?
Just look at Brexit. There were mumblings all over the EU-27 about leaving the EU. After Brexit, after we showed them that yes, we would let them leave and that they would be totally screwed, it’s become a crackpot fringe position in the entire EU.
Actions must have consequences. This is the largest economic block on the planet. Play by the rules or go sit on the corner.
If there are no consequences for breaking the rules, why should Hungary or any the other members follow them?
I agree, this is the interesting problem as I see it. And invoking those consequences may push them further, which may allow that idea to take more of a foothold in surrounding countries. Maybe it was even encouraged in Hungary due to other totalitarian states nearby.
I see your point about Brexit, and hope that the outcome would be the same for Hungary. My other concern here would be that it’s another domino fallen from the expanse of the EU.
it’s just an interesting problem that has issues with each solution.
How would it influence neighbouring countries?
Politics across borders are often very different. Also there is clear rules. Enforcing those rules is a sign of stability and encourages other governments to abide by the rules and consider how far they can go in rhetoric and action. Not enforcing those rules on the contrary encourages more governments to act opportunistically against the organization as a whole. This threatens the entire organization.
Or to take a real life example. Do you know anyone that went speeding extra much and leaving the country because a friend of them got a speeding ticket?
I’d say there’s a lot going on in eastern Europe right now which is affecting each country.
Hell, all of the west is currently being influenced by each others politics imo.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The text, approved on Thursday afternoon with 345 votes in favour, 104 against and 29 abstentions, comes a month after the Commission unblocked €10.2 billion in cohesion funds for Hungary, allowing the country to request reimbursements of that sum.
The Commission is still withholding €11.5 billion from Hungary’s allocated share of cohesion funds and most of its €10.4-billion recovery and resilience plan, a situation that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has denounced as “financial blackmail.”
Still, the move to partially release the frozen funds infuriated the Parliament, as made clear in lawmakers’ scorching resolution, which raises the possibility of suing Ursula von der Leyen’s executive if further cash is unblocked.
The Parliament will “use any of the legal and political measures at its disposal if the Commission releases funding without the criteria being fulfilled or if it fails to ensure the full implementation of the relevant legislation, considering its responsibility to act as the guardian of the Treaties and to protect the EU’s financial interests,” the text reads.
Von der Leyen’s plea was not enough to dilute the content of the resolution, which portrays her Commission as overly lenient and careless regarding Orbán’s “deliberate, continuous and systematic efforts” to undermine the bloc’s fundamental values.
MEPs also saved some ammunition to lambast member states, deploring the Council’s inability to curtail the “abuse” of veto power and the failure to advance the Article 7 procedure, known as the nuclear option.
The original article contains 970 words, the summary contains 233 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
