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.
Ok, but I don’t think we should kick out Ireland. And I think we need to do something effective against double irish and similar schemes. The one country enriching itself likely will protest.
If expulsion becomes a credible threat, it is easier to negotiate a policy change by the respective offending country.
I find it anyways not very convincing what an abolishion of veto rights would achive in such cases. The individual member state can’t really be forced to implement a majority decision either, unless the other member states implement what practically boils down to an expulsion (or send occupying troops?).
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.
Ok, but I don’t think we should kick out Ireland. And I think we need to do something effective against double irish and similar schemes. The one country enriching itself likely will protest.
If expulsion becomes a credible threat, it is easier to negotiate a policy change by the respective offending country.
I find it anyways not very convincing what an abolishion of veto rights would achive in such cases. The individual member state can’t really be forced to implement a majority decision either, unless the other member states implement what practically boils down to an expulsion (or send occupying troops?).