Olha Stefanishyna, Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukraine, claims that 26 EU member states were considering depriving Hungary of its right to veto had it blocked the decision to start negotiations with Ukraine.
I guess that depends on what the other leaders said. Even outside EU rules states can exert quite a bit of pressure on other states hence I don’t believe that a small country like Slovakia, despite it’s Russian-friendly government, would dare to become the target of the ire of the countries making up 97% of the EU’s population and 98% of its GDP.
I think there are countries that realize that there are many consequences to Hungary being suspended. For now they can hide behind Hungary which will veto things they disapprove of but doing so publically would get scrutinized. We’ve seen something like this when Netherlands has been blocking new Schengen members on their own for years but in reality Austria (and probably some other countries) was against it too.
Poland would have under PiS, but not anymore. Unless Slovakia steps up, who would? All others see Orban as a criminal, who siphons money off and ruins his country.
Prime suspects would be Slovakia and Austria in this case. My point was slightly different though: this is just one thing where Hungary might have seemed isolated but I’m pretty sure there are other matters where threat of Hungary veto stopped some initiatives before they could be considered in full.
Imagine EU directive making all member states need to recognize same sex civil unions. Hungary would obviously veto it so why would you bother but there’s still Bulgaria, Romania and Poland that could say nothing and hide behind Hungary.
Identifying the breach requires unanimity (excluding the state concerned), but sanctions require only a qualified majority.
Wait, how does this work? Can sanctions be instated without identifying a country as being in breach? Or is unanimity first required, and only after that, the majority can decide what the sanction is?
The source they’re citing is a single person that’s not likely to be impartial.
That doesn’t change that the option is on the table and has been for years. It’s it the EU’s de-facto constitution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union
I do know about it. I don’t believe nobody would have covered for Orban.
I guess that depends on what the other leaders said. Even outside EU rules states can exert quite a bit of pressure on other states hence I don’t believe that a small country like Slovakia, despite it’s Russian-friendly government, would dare to become the target of the ire of the countries making up 97% of the EU’s population and 98% of its GDP.
I think there are countries that realize that there are many consequences to Hungary being suspended. For now they can hide behind Hungary which will veto things they disapprove of but doing so publically would get scrutinized. We’ve seen something like this when Netherlands has been blocking new Schengen members on their own for years but in reality Austria (and probably some other countries) was against it too.
Poland would have under PiS, but not anymore. Unless Slovakia steps up, who would? All others see Orban as a criminal, who siphons money off and ruins his country.
Prime suspects would be Slovakia and Austria in this case. My point was slightly different though: this is just one thing where Hungary might have seemed isolated but I’m pretty sure there are other matters where threat of Hungary veto stopped some initiatives before they could be considered in full.
Imagine EU directive making all member states need to recognize same sex civil unions. Hungary would obviously veto it so why would you bother but there’s still Bulgaria, Romania and Poland that could say nothing and hide behind Hungary.
Wait, how does this work? Can sanctions be instated without identifying a country as being in breach? Or is unanimity first required, and only after that, the majority can decide what the sanction is?