If they are existing members, they have already proven to fulfill the requirements. Hence it is theoretically easy for them to rejoin 🤷
Having a system where existing states can regress on vital criteria that were necessary to join with no real risk of expulsion just creates a system of impunity that enables veto abuse.
But clearly the problem isn’t the veto power, but that the system allows for such regression to happen in the first place.
Removing the veto power just enables for that impunity to fester and destroy the EU from within.
Nothing in the EU is easy, especially with the Veto power.
They will Veto anything that wants to remove them.
So the EU will literally have to disband to kick them out.
And if they wanted to rejoin, and the Veto was still in place, other countries would probably Veto them joining again.
I’m genuinely unsure if you have no idea what you’re talking about, or if you’re trolling or misguided, the Veto power is a big issue in the EU and is to a degree destroying it, because the EU can’t act unless literally everyone agrees.
You are literally quoting an article written by the pro-Orban and Orban allied oligarch owned Euronews that of course tries to sell the false narrative that Hungary can’t be kicked out.
genetic fallacy : judging a claim true or false based on where it came from rather than on its merits.
The video I linked you earlier is Anti-Orban, and says the same.
Wiki also confirms this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union
Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union is a procedure in the treaties of the European Union (EU) to suspend certain rights from a member state. While rights can be suspended, there is no mechanism to expel a state from the union.
You cannot easily join the union. Not can you divorce easily. That’s a many year process with significant changes and overhead. You need all commerce to adjust. You need travel to adjust. You need workers to adjust.
Leaving the EU was never baked in. Brexit was a Novum. As laws stand today you can only sanction them. And need all other countries to agree. This means if they have a single ally in another minor country this is not going to work.
Brexit was a novum sure, but mainly because they wanted to leave instead of being kicked out by the other members for which a process exists.
Edit: Partial correction: Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty existed since 2007 and makes provisions for voluntary withdraw from the EU. But it was afaik never applied before Brexit.
And in general, if you don’t want states to abuse their veto power you need to have something sufficiently painful for them as a consequence 🤷
Not really. One is a short term consequence, the other is a long term departure. The former doesn’t mean you gotta leave the euro, Schengen, etc. it just means EU funds are gonna get held up and participation may be paused.
Sure it is a bit ambiguous like most EU law, but it could be used for indefinite suspension and anyways, we should be rather discussing about how to make it easier to kick out members that no longer fulfill the membership requirements, rather than doctoring on symtoms by weakening the rights of smaller members states that still fully adhere to them.
They can easily rejoin when they get their act together and have strengthend their institutions to avoid this in the future.
Why should different standards count for existing members than those that want to join? That’s just hypocritical.
They can easily rejoin…
Brother what? You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, or you’re trolling.
If they are existing members, they have already proven to fulfill the requirements. Hence it is theoretically easy for them to rejoin 🤷
Having a system where existing states can regress on vital criteria that were necessary to join with no real risk of expulsion just creates a system of impunity that enables veto abuse.
But clearly the problem isn’t the veto power, but that the system allows for such regression to happen in the first place.
Removing the veto power just enables for that impunity to fester and destroy the EU from within.
“Theoretically easy” lol.
Nothing in the EU is easy, especially with the Veto power.
They will Veto anything that wants to remove them. So the EU will literally have to disband to kick them out.
And if they wanted to rejoin, and the Veto was still in place, other countries would probably Veto them joining again.
I’m genuinely unsure if you have no idea what you’re talking about, or if you’re trolling or misguided, the Veto power is a big issue in the EU and is to a degree destroying it, because the EU can’t act unless literally everyone agrees.
The corresponding EU treaty article explicitly says that the country affected can’t veto it. Anything else would be obviously stupid.
Brother, stop talking Bullshit
https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/08/member-states-can-leave-the-eu-but-can-the-bloc-kick-one-of-them-out
Member states can leave the EU, but can the bloc kick one of them out?
The short answer is: no. The long answer is: it would take years of haggling and then most probably fail.
The reason is quite simple: The EU simply never planned for that possibility.
"Legally speaking, we don’t have the apparatus to expel a member state
You are literally quoting an article written by the pro-Orban and Orban allied oligarch owned Euronews that of course tries to sell the false narrative that Hungary can’t be kicked out.
genetic fallacy : judging a claim true or false based on where it came from rather than on its merits.
The video I linked you earlier is Anti-Orban, and says the same.
Wiki also confirms this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union is a procedure in the treaties of the European Union (EU) to suspend certain rights from a member state. While rights can be suspended, there is no mechanism to expel a state from the union.
And no, suspension-of-rights is not expulsion.
Indefinite suspension is practically the same 🤷
You cannot easily join the union. Not can you divorce easily. That’s a many year process with significant changes and overhead. You need all commerce to adjust. You need travel to adjust. You need workers to adjust.
Leaving the EU was never baked in. Brexit was a Novum. As laws stand today you can only sanction them. And need all other countries to agree. This means if they have a single ally in another minor country this is not going to work.
Brexit was a novum sure, but mainly because they wanted to leave instead of being kicked out by the other members for which a process exists.
Edit: Partial correction: Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty existed since 2007 and makes provisions for voluntary withdraw from the EU. But it was afaik never applied before Brexit.
And in general, if you don’t want states to abuse their veto power you need to have something sufficiently painful for them as a consequence 🤷
https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/08/member-states-can-leave-the-eu-but-can-the-bloc-kick-one-of-them-out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union
There is no legislated way for expulsion I can find.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/suspension-clause-article-7-of-the-treaty-on-european-union.html
That’s not expulsion. That’s suspension.
Same thing different word 🤷
Not really. One is a short term consequence, the other is a long term departure. The former doesn’t mean you gotta leave the euro, Schengen, etc. it just means EU funds are gonna get held up and participation may be paused.
Sure it is a bit ambiguous like most EU law, but it could be used for indefinite suspension and anyways, we should be rather discussing about how to make it easier to kick out members that no longer fulfill the membership requirements, rather than doctoring on symtoms by weakening the rights of smaller members states that still fully adhere to them.
I don’t think it worth it arguing with them further, their knowledge of the EU seems to come from their imagination rather than facts
They tend to be rather radical and divisive in their posts. But voicing differing opinions can still be good. But thanks for looking out for me.