The EU requires unanimity among its existing members in order to add a new member. It’s not impossible, but getting Orban to agree to it is, I think, a much bigger stumbling block than the article implies. Any “concessions” Orban demands to accept Canada would themselves have to be unanimously agreed to by existing members.
Not an expert on this, but if Orban is really stubborn about it - and flaunts EU rules generally - couldn’t the suspension clause be used on Hungary? If I’m understanding it right, once voting rights are suspended, they’d no longer have a say in objecting to Canada’s accession during the duration of the suspension.
It already probably would have been for all the other nefarious shit they do, except they’ve had a sympathetic fashy government somewhere else in the EU to block it. It was Poland, now it’s IIRC Slovakia.
Orban has to vote for Canada. Why? His regime will be over in 14 days if he does not get the EU money. Orban’s biggest rival is in first place according to the latest polls. If he wants to be re-elected, he cannot sabotage EU policy.
My understanding is no - but a long term suspension might be better anyways, since the effect seems to be that the member state is still forced to comply with EU rules without getting any of the benefits like voting.
That being said, I wonder if they could suspend Hungary, then have the rest vote and approve an amendment to allow expulsion - which would pass unamiously since Hungary can’t vote against it as it’s suspended, and then they expel Hungary under the new amendment…?
It may not be an issue anymore (I don’t recall hearing about it in a while, but I’m not sure how long), but it used to be the case that there were two countries that were often regarded as EU troublemakers, and by working together, even though they didn’t agree much of the time, they could veto any attempts to undermine each other. I think the other troublemaker was Poland, and I think it may have been before their last election, but that’s a lot of unsurity.
Suspension, fwiw, requires unanimity apart from the country in question, so one single dissenter can prevent it.
The EU requires unanimity among its existing members in order to add a new member. It’s not impossible, but getting Orban to agree to it is, I think, a much bigger stumbling block than the article implies. Any “concessions” Orban demands to accept Canada would themselves have to be unanimously agreed to by existing members.
We should just create EU 2.0 without them, with proper rules to handle that bullshit in the future, and… I don’t know, Blackjack maybe.
Not an expert on this, but if Orban is really stubborn about it - and flaunts EU rules generally - couldn’t the suspension clause be used on Hungary? If I’m understanding it right, once voting rights are suspended, they’d no longer have a say in objecting to Canada’s accession during the duration of the suspension.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/suspension-clause-article-7-of-the-treaty-on-european-union.html
It already probably would have been for all the other nefarious shit they do, except they’ve had a sympathetic fashy government somewhere else in the EU to block it. It was Poland, now it’s IIRC Slovakia.
I have no clue, but I hope they figure it out soon. This is extremely annoying.
I mean, we’re already talking about a NATO 2.0, aren’t we?
Of course, that’s their decision to ultimately make.
With blackjack and hookers
With blackjack and Canadian hookers
They are all bearded lumberjacks.
Forgot to add this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRdur8GLBM
Orban has to vote for Canada. Why? His regime will be over in 14 days if he does not get the EU money. Orban’s biggest rival is in first place according to the latest polls. If he wants to be re-elected, he cannot sabotage EU policy.
Can the EU expel member states?
My understanding is no - but a long term suspension might be better anyways, since the effect seems to be that the member state is still forced to comply with EU rules without getting any of the benefits like voting.
That being said, I wonder if they could suspend Hungary, then have the rest vote and approve an amendment to allow expulsion - which would pass unamiously since Hungary can’t vote against it as it’s suspended, and then they expel Hungary under the new amendment…?
Thanks so much. Food for thought. Latent consequences to be searched out and explored.
It may not be an issue anymore (I don’t recall hearing about it in a while, but I’m not sure how long), but it used to be the case that there were two countries that were often regarded as EU troublemakers, and by working together, even though they didn’t agree much of the time, they could veto any attempts to undermine each other. I think the other troublemaker was Poland, and I think it may have been before their last election, but that’s a lot of unsurity.
Suspension, fwiw, requires unanimity apart from the country in question, so one single dissenter can prevent it.
Wow, that’s a rule that doesn’t scale well. Especially since apparently expelling a country requires unanimity too.