50
The Clever Plan to Kill The EU Veto
(www.youtube.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2026
50 points (96.3% liked)
Europe
12119 readers
354 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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 ~~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:
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.