Black-and-white fallacy
The black-and-white fallacy is a logical error that happens when an argument presents only two extreme choices as the only possible options, while ignoring other valid alternatives.
Obviously we don’t want what the US has, this is not that.
Freedom of association explicitly allows Hungary to be kicked out.
Freedom of association encompasses both an individual’s right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. It can be described as the right of a person coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests.[1]
Freedom of association is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Organization also ensures these rights.
the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.
Freedom of association is both an individual right and a collective right
But clearly your understanding of political theory is lacking, so arguing beyond this is pointless.
Well, that’s certainly a novel interpretation of the ECHR. It’s especially novel since states aren’t people, and the ECHR harshly restricts any limits on freedom of association. The ECHR also specifically binds the signatory countries, and not the EU or its organs.
It’s also quite funny to see this rake, since literally the entire EU is convinced there is no mechanism to remove a country, but you, some rando on Lemmy, thinks they have found the loophole.
The ECHR isn’t what grants EU nations FfA. But the fact the ECHR protects it shows that it’s a fundamental European value.
The EU is not convinced of anything, it’s politically convenient to not threaten the stability of what is still regarded as the European experiment.
This is no loophole, but a fundamental value of liberalism and democracy. Perhaps you should read more than just the first few sentences of a Wikipedia article before arguing politics in future.
That is a false narrative. There was always the option to kick Hungary out (the process exists, despite some people claiming it doesn’t). But Germany didn’t want that because the German car industry is using Hungary for cheap assembly of parts.
You’d have to disband and reform the EU to do that.
This same channel did a video on how it would work if the EU wanted to kick them out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WADDH_g-95Q
Anyway, we didn’t want to kick them out, they stayed and it looks like it’s working out great now having them in, we don’t want people to think the EU will just ditch them if it gets tough.
This is simply nonsense. Politicians from larger countries (especially Germany) are pushing the idea that expulsion/suspension isn’t possible because they see it as an convenient argument to consolidate their power (and Orban’s labour supression politics to provide cheap labour to German car companies was also popular with them).
Do you have any source to back this up, this sounds like hogwash to me.
The fact that you said you could just kick them out, or even said it would be easy for them to rejoin, which is blatantly false. Makes it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about or acting in bad faith.
Sources for Hungary having very low wages and lots of German companies outsourcing there as a result are easy to find. Asking for sources for something like that is arguing in bad faith…
And article 7 clearly spells out the suspension of membership rights, which is when taken to their logical conclusion practically the same as expulsion, but it is obviously also possible to reverse that. Arguing purely over semantics like you seem to be doing here is clearly in bad faith.
Suspension of rights under Article 7 requires unanimous approval of all 720 members of the European Parliament. It’s pretty much impossible to actually apply.
Edit: 698, obviously hungary is excluded.
Sanctions require only a 2/3s majority, and that’s proven to be incredibly difficult, as plenty of MEPs will see that one country being punished for their actions might lead to them being punished too.
This is not how I understand the requirements. As by a direct quote from an official EU website:
Article 354 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union lays down the voting procedures to be used by the main EU institutions when a Member State faces the application of Article 7. The country in question does not take part in the vote. It is not included in the calculation of the one third of countries required for the proposal or the four fifths required for the majority. Parliament’s consent requires a two-thirds majority.
The 4/5th super majority referrs to the concil and the 2/3rd to the parliarment. These are high requirements, but that seems reasonable given the severity of the result.
That’s for the “preventative measures” clause, article 7(1). The sanctions under 7(2), require more, but it seems unanimity is only required in the Council:
The procedure starts with a proposal made by one third of EU member states or by the Commission. The European Council then obtains the European Parliament’s consent. Provided the European Council’s members agree unanimously, the European Council may then determine that a member state is seriously and persistently breaching the values of the EU.
If that happens, the Council can decide to suspend some of the rights that derive from application of the treaties to the member state in question, including its voting rights. That decision is taken by a qualified majority.
So, if Hungary was still under Orban, such a vote likely wouldn’t pass today, since Czechia is also in the Council under PfE.
But you’re right, it’s less ridiculous than I thought.
This is a strawman, also
Black-and-white fallacy
The black-and-white fallacy is a logical error that happens when an argument presents only two extreme choices as the only possible options, while ignoring other valid alternatives.
Obviously we don’t want what the US has, this is not that.
It makes it possible, while right now it isn’t. That alone should give people some pause to think about why the EU was designed like it is.
The way the EU is designed right now, One country like Hungary, can hold the whole EU hostage.
The proposed change isn’t perfect, that’s impossible, but it’s far better than what we’re stuck with now.
Now who’s using the black and white fallacy.
Freedom of association explicitly allows Hungary to be kicked out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
That wiki page is about Human’s Freedom-of-association, it doesn’t apply to the EU.
You can’t apply human rights to say, Hungary.
One is a person, the other is a country…
But clearly your understanding of political theory is lacking, so arguing beyond this is pointless.
It does not apply in this category. If it was that easy it would have been at the very least a discussion point in the media, it is not.
Well, that’s certainly a novel interpretation of the ECHR. It’s especially novel since states aren’t people, and the ECHR harshly restricts any limits on freedom of association. The ECHR also specifically binds the signatory countries, and not the EU or its organs.
It’s also quite funny to see this rake, since literally the entire EU is convinced there is no mechanism to remove a country, but you, some rando on Lemmy, thinks they have found the loophole.
The ECHR isn’t what grants EU nations FfA. But the fact the ECHR protects it shows that it’s a fundamental European value.
The EU is not convinced of anything, it’s politically convenient to not threaten the stability of what is still regarded as the European experiment.
This is no loophole, but a fundamental value of liberalism and democracy. Perhaps you should read more than just the first few sentences of a Wikipedia article before arguing politics in future.
You see Hungarians are afraid of being kicked out of the EU, and because of that they can’t be kicked out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_from_fear
That is a false narrative. There was always the option to kick Hungary out (the process exists, despite some people claiming it doesn’t). But Germany didn’t want that because the German car industry is using Hungary for cheap assembly of parts.
No you can’t just kick out Hungary that easily.
You’d have to disband and reform the EU to do that. This same channel did a video on how it would work if the EU wanted to kick them out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WADDH_g-95Q
Anyway, we didn’t want to kick them out, they stayed and it looks like it’s working out great now having them in, we don’t want people to think the EU will just ditch them if it gets tough.
This is simply nonsense. Politicians from larger countries (especially Germany) are pushing the idea that expulsion/suspension isn’t possible because they see it as an convenient argument to consolidate their power (and Orban’s labour supression politics to provide cheap labour to German car companies was also popular with them).
Do you have any source to back this up, this sounds like hogwash to me.
The fact that you said you could just kick them out, or even said it would be easy for them to rejoin, which is blatantly false. Makes it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about or acting in bad faith.
Sources for Hungary having very low wages and lots of German companies outsourcing there as a result are easy to find. Asking for sources for something like that is arguing in bad faith…
And article 7 clearly spells out the suspension of membership rights, which is when taken to their logical conclusion practically the same as expulsion, but it is obviously also possible to reverse that. Arguing purely over semantics like you seem to be doing here is clearly in bad faith.
Suspension of rights under Article 7 requires unanimous approval of all
720members of the European Parliament. It’s pretty much impossible to actually apply.Edit: 698, obviously hungary is excluded.
Sanctions require only a 2/3s majority, and that’s proven to be incredibly difficult, as plenty of MEPs will see that one country being punished for their actions might lead to them being punished too.
This is not how I understand the requirements. As by a direct quote from an official EU website:
The 4/5th super majority referrs to the concil and the 2/3rd to the parliarment. These are high requirements, but that seems reasonable given the severity of the result.
That’s for the “preventative measures” clause, article 7(1). The sanctions under 7(2), require more, but it seems unanimity is only required in the Council:
So, if Hungary was still under Orban, such a vote likely wouldn’t pass today, since Czechia is also in the Council under PfE.
But you’re right, it’s less ridiculous than I thought.
They would have vetoed against being kicked out, probably …
The relevant article of the EU treaty explicity forbids that.