Hungary can ‘no longer be considered a full democracy,’ says EU Parliament

[candide]

22 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

That's an opinion, not a fact.

 

Here is another opinion. 

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/30/italy-eu-face-big-risk-of-potential-far-right-victory-ex-pm

 

Personally I believe that Italy will try to renegotiate their terms with the EU. A bit like Britain did. We all know how that went.

 

 

I should have said far-right parties with a significant representation.

 

Which far-right party with a significant representation advocate leaving the EU? 

Not in France any more, not in Italy any more, not in Germany, not in Spain, not in Austria., maybe in the Netherlands (I haven't recently followed up)....

[RayC]

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Just because the removal of sovereignty is gradual, does not mean it is not occuring. Despite the EU's best efforts to pretend it wasn't happening, many of us could see the direction of travel and didn't like it one bit. Hence we voted to leave, and left.

 

True Democracy in action.

The EU can only act within the boundaries set by its' Treaties. Various Treaties over the past 50 years have increased its' scope of influence that is undeniable. However, Treaty change requires unanimous approval from each member state. When the UK was a member it could have vetoed any new Treaty.

 

EU legislation has to be approved by the European Parliament and the Council. Again, if the UK had disagreed with a proposal when it was a member, it could have voted against the measure. If the proposal was subject to majority voting and the UK was on the losing side then, yes, it would still have to implement the legislation. But why is that a problem? An agreed democratic process has been followed: Democracy in action.

[RayC]

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The Washington Post is a rag. It's the equivalent of quoting The Daily Star. But hey, if that's the only source you can find to back up your points...

Spot the difference:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/

[puchooay]

1 hour ago, candide said:

You wrote:

"The heat is off Hungary now.  

 

Time for the EU to concentrate on Italy. "

 

Wasn't it an insinuation that the reason why Hungary has been sanctioned was because it was right-wing, and that Italy would enjoy the same fate with a far right government? What did you mean exactly?

No. It wasn't. It was a comment suggesting the EU have a new issue to address.

 

It was you who insinuated.

[JonnyF]

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

EU legislation has to be approved by the European Parliament and the Council. Again, if the UK had disagreed with a proposal when it was a member, it could have voted against the measure. If the proposal was subject to majority voting and the UK was on the losing side then, yes, it would still have to implement the legislation. But why is that a problem? An agreed democratic process has been followed: Democracy in action.

It is a problem because as a UK citizen I do not care what French, German, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Polish MEPs vote for, and I do not want their votes affecting legislation being implemented in the UK.

 

Because I am a citizen of the UK. Not a citizen of Europe. I want legislation to be passed in the UK Parliament, not the European Parliament.  

 

It was supposed to be a trading bloc. Not the United States of Europe.

[candide]

27 minutes ago, puchooay said:

No. It wasn't. It was a comment suggesting the EU have a new issue to address.

 

It was you who insinuated.

Ok, I misunderstood then. Sorry.

[RayC]

27 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It is a problem because as a UK citizen I do not care what French, German, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Polish MEPs vote for, and I do not want their votes affecting legislation being implemented in the UK.

 

Because I am a citizen of the UK. Not a citizen of Europe. I want legislation to be passed in the UK Parliament, not the European Parliament.  

 

It was supposed to be a trading bloc. Not the United States of Europe.

Now that the UK is out of the EU and has 'regained' it's sovereignty, why are you so intent of seeing the EU's destruction? Why not respect their sovereignty and let them get on with it?

 

The Treaty of Rome included a clause about closer political union in Europe, so its' intended scope was always more than a simple trading bloc.

 

You think that the turmoil created by Brexit - which is likely to persist for the foreseeable future - is worth it: I don't. I doubt that we will convince the other to change our mind.

[nauseus]

11 hours ago, RayC said:

I assume that you mean that sovereignty was?

 

We've been here many times before. Between 1997 - 2016, the UK was forced to enact 3% of EU legislation which it had voted against.

 

So all this turmoil for what is, in effect, 3% more sovereignty. A price worth paying? Not imo.

Not sure where that very low number comes from.

[nauseus]

11 hours ago, RayC said:

The EU cannot expel a member state but member states are free to leave the EU.

 

How does that make the EU, "the Klingon Empire"?

 

Try Hotel California then.

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

So you're focusing on ranking rather than the net contribution? Really? So apparently, to your way of thinking the rank is more important than the actual net contribution? 

Also, this ranking is by nation and takes no account of population. Naturally the UK will have contributed more than the Netherland on a gross basis. It was the 2nd most populous country in the EU. But on a per capita basis?

The UK was second highest net contributor for many years because of the preset and enormous farming rebates afforded to the French since the start. 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

The EU can only act within the boundaries set by its' Treaties. Various Treaties over the past 50 years have increased its' scope of influence that is undeniable. However, Treaty change requires unanimous approval from each member state. When the UK was a member it could have vetoed any new Treaty.

 

EU legislation has to be approved by the European Parliament and the Council. Again, if the UK had disagreed with a proposal when it was a member, it could have voted against the measure. If the proposal was subject to majority voting and the UK was on the losing side then, yes, it would still have to implement the legislation. But why is that a problem? An agreed democratic process has been followed: Democracy in action.

The number and power of vetoes has been systematically reduced over time, while QMV has become more widespread. Decisions of high importance can now be made that would favour a majority of EU countries but which might be unacceptable to the minority. This trend was liable to continue and it was one of the big reasons to leave. 

[candide]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The UK was second highest net contributor for many years because of the preset and enormous farming rebates afforded to the French since the start. 

Maintaining a large share of agricultural self-sufficiency in Europe has been consistently denigrated over time, in particular in UK. The recent history (Covid and post-Covid) has shown it was not a stupid idea.

[RayC]

19 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not sure where that very low number comes from.

I have supplied the link twice previously, once in a reply to you. The fact that you don't like the contents doesn't make it any less true.

 

However, my previous post was incorrect. I erroneously stated that the UK was outvoted 3% of the time, not 2%. My apologies. I was confusing 'No' votes with abstentions.

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

[RayC]

29 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Try Hotel California then.

This analogy doesn't work either. The UK checked out and has left. That's what you Brexiters tell us anyway????

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Now that the UK is out of the EU and has 'regained' it's sovereignty, why are you so intent of seeing the EU's destruction? Why not respect their sovereignty and let them get on with it?

 

The Treaty of Rome included a clause about closer political union in Europe, so its' intended scope was always more than a simple trading bloc.

 

You think that the turmoil created by Brexit - which is likely to persist for the foreseeable future - is worth it: I don't. I doubt that we will convince the other to change our mind.

Yes, "ever closer union". Before the UK joined in 1973, the EEC - European Economic Community - was generally called The Common Market, indicating it to be an economic association, and this is how most UK politicians tried to sell it. The problem is that this "intended scope" was not limited within the treaty, which was not easily accessible by the public for reading and evaluation. The treaty certainly wasn't limited to trade and economics either! 

 

By 2016 there were plenty signs that the aim of a single European state was indeed real and that's a big reason why there was a leave vote.

 

 

[nauseus]

26 minutes ago, candide said:

Maintaining a large share of agricultural self-sufficiency in Europe has been consistently denigrated over time, in particular in UK. The recent history (Covid and post-Covid) has shown it was not a stupid idea.

Explain a bit please.

[nauseus]

21 minutes ago, RayC said:

This analogy doesn't work either. The UK checked out and has left. That's what you Brexiters tell us anyway????

Four years to check out and we still have to pay the Klingons! Great.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Italy is a net contributor.

 

Meaning they put in more than they get out. I've already provided links to show this. Unless by support, you actually mean regulations banning them from acting autonomously...

 

The Washington Post is a rag. It's the equivalent of quoting The Daily Star. But hey, if that's the only source you can find to back up your points...

The notion that the Washington Post would sanction lying about something so easy to disprove is just nuts. Such a belief says a lot about its critics but very little about reality. Anyway, I took a wild crazy chance and googled "Italy gets access to almost $200 billion"  

Against all odds these turned up:

 

"Meloni has repeatedly sought to calm fears she would challenge European Union rules designed to keep deficits in check, or jeopardize almost 200 billion euros ($196 billion) in recovery funds from the bloc by seeking to renegotiate some of the terms. Any change in Italy’s pro-EU stance could exacerbate fears about the country’s colossal debt burden."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-25/far-right-leader-is-in-box-seat-to-succeed-mario-draghi-in-italy

 

"Meloni has long been a Euroskeptic — and in the past has talked about taking Italy out of the common currency, the euro, and even of leaving the European Union. But she has repeatedly promised she'll work with the EU and can be trusted to manage the 200 billion euros ($194 billion) Italy has received in European pandemic recovery funds."

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/24/1124685476/giorgia-meloni-italy-election

 

"Italy’s next government cannot expect Brussels to renegotiate the fundamentals of a €200bn EU-funded Covid-19 recovery plan and must stick firmly to the reform pledges that Rome has made, the EU’s economic commissioner has warned. Paolo Gentiloni said it was in Italy’s interests to press ahead with reforms to reboot its underperforming economy, no matter who won snap elections in September after the collapse of prime minister Mario Draghi’s government. “You know the Latin pacta sunt servanda — agreements must be kept,” Gentiloni, a former Italian prime minister, said in an interview."

https://www.ft.com/content/a0d78778-2d10-47e6-88a9-6fc70356fa9d

 

"Italy has huge amounts of EU money on the line. It is awaiting nearly €200 billion in EU cash and loans as part of the country’s massive share of the bloc’s coronavirus recovery stimulus package.

In order to secure each instalment, the government must deliver on a long list of commitments to reform and cut back spending made by previous administrations."

https://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/eu-sees-trouble-but-no-breakdown-with-italy-far-right-in-power/

 

Enough?

[candide]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Explain a bit please.

I mean one of the aim of the agricultural subsidies was to maintain a certain level of self-sufficiency or independence. In times of crisis, it may be useful.

[nauseus]

30 minutes ago, RayC said:

I have supplied the link twice previously, once in a reply to you. The fact that you don't like the contents doesn't make it any less true.

 

However, my previous post was incorrect. I erroneously stated that the UK was outvoted 3% of the time, not 2%. My apologies. I was confusing 'No' votes with abstentions.

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

Don't expect me to remember when and where you post your links.

 

And your fact check lot even admit they can't check some of the stuff they are talking about:

 

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

I mean one of the aim of the agricultural subsidies was to maintain a certain level of self-sufficiency or independence. In times of crisis, it may be useful.

Oh I agree with the self-sufficiency bit. But I don't agree with the rebate imbalances .

[nauseus]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The notion that the Washington Post would sanction lying about something so easy to disprove is just nuts. Such a belief says a lot about its critics but very little about reality. Anyway, I took a wild crazy chance and googled "Italy gets access to almost $200 billion"  

Against all odds these turned up:

 

"Meloni has repeatedly sought to calm fears she would challenge European Union rules designed to keep deficits in check, or jeopardize almost 200 billion euros ($196 billion) in recovery funds from the bloc by seeking to renegotiate some of the terms. Any change in Italy’s pro-EU stance could exacerbate fears about the country’s colossal debt burden."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-25/far-right-leader-is-in-box-seat-to-succeed-mario-draghi-in-italy

 

"Meloni has long been a Euroskeptic — and in the past has talked about taking Italy out of the common currency, the euro, and even of leaving the European Union. But she has repeatedly promised she'll work with the EU and can be trusted to manage the 200 billion euros ($194 billion) Italy has received in European pandemic recovery funds."

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/24/1124685476/giorgia-meloni-italy-election

 

"Italy’s next government cannot expect Brussels to renegotiate the fundamentals of a €200bn EU-funded Covid-19 recovery plan and must stick firmly to the reform pledges that Rome has made, the EU’s economic commissioner has warned. Paolo Gentiloni said it was in Italy’s interests to press ahead with reforms to reboot its underperforming economy, no matter who won snap elections in September after the collapse of prime minister Mario Draghi’s government. “You know the Latin pacta sunt servanda — agreements must be kept,” Gentiloni, a former Italian prime minister, said in an interview."

https://www.ft.com/content/a0d78778-2d10-47e6-88a9-6fc70356fa9d

 

"Italy has huge amounts of EU money on the line. It is awaiting nearly €200 billion in EU cash and loans as part of the country’s massive share of the bloc’s coronavirus recovery stimulus package.

In order to secure each instalment, the government must deliver on a long list of commitments to reform and cut back spending made by previous administrations."

https://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/eu-sees-trouble-but-no-breakdown-with-italy-far-right-in-power/

 

Enough?

Who mentioned lying?

[RayC]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The number and power of vetoes has been systematically reduced over time, while QMV has become more widespread.

A veto is a veto. Its' power now is the same as it's always been. If a member state vetoes a piece of proposed legislation it will not become law.

 

The number of areas, where a veto can be used, has been reduced. This change formed part of the Lisbon Treaty. If one member state had objected so strongly to the change, it could have vetoed the Treaty. No one did so, presumably, all member states were happy with the proposal. Where/ What's the problem?

 

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Decisions of high importance can now be made that would favour a majority of EU countries but which might be unacceptable to the minority. This trend was liable to continue and it was one of the big reasons to leave. 

Any examples of these "Decisions of high importance"?

 

It could be argued that QMV is anti-democratic but not for the reasons you infer. QMV in the EU requires that for a vote to be passed, at least, 55% of member states covering 65% of the EU population is needed.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Who mentioned lying?

When someone challenges a source by writing this: "The Washington Post is a rag. It's the equivalent of quoting The Daily Star. " what other interpretation can be rationally offered?

[RayC]

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Four years to check out and we still have to pay the Klingons! Great.

You think it unfair that entities pay for their commitments?

[nauseus]

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

A veto is a veto. Its' power now is the same as it's always been. If a member state vetoes a piece of proposed legislation it will not become law.

 

The number of areas, where a veto can be used, has been reduced. This change formed part of the Lisbon Treaty. If one member state had objected so strongly to the change, it could have vetoed the Treaty. No one did so, presumably, all member states were happy with the proposal. Where/ What's the problem?

 

Any examples of these "Decisions of high importance"?

 

It could be argued that QMV is anti-democratic but not for the reasons you infer. QMV in the EU requires that for a vote to be passed, at least, 55% of member states covering 65% of the EU population is needed.

Less vetoes = less control. Any state vetoing a treaty might risk its EU membership.

 

I've already explained that what might be ok for the majority might not be so for the minority.

[nauseus]

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

You think it unfair that entities pay for their commitments?

Nah. 

[RayC]

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Don't expect me to remember when and where you post your links.

If I pose a question and someone goes to the trouble of supplying a link which addresses the issue, I read it and try to digest its' contents. If I then think that the answer is flawed, I may pose a supplementary.

 

What I don't do is simply dismiss the answer as inconsequential and/or false and instantly forget about it because I don't like it's contents. But hey, each to their own 

 

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

And your fact check lot even admit they can't check some of the stuff they are talking about:

If you don't think that these facts are correct please provide evidence to support this claim. Otherwise, it's just another  example of  "I know what I know" and "shoot the messenger".

 

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

[RayC]

48 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes, "ever closer union". Before the UK joined in 1973, the EEC - European Economic Community - was generally called The Common Market, indicating it to be an economic association, and this is how most UK politicians tried to sell it. The problem is that this "intended scope" was not limited within the treaty, which was not easily accessible by the public for reading and evaluation. The treaty certainly wasn't limited to trade and economics either! 

 

By 2016 there were plenty signs that the aim of a single European state was indeed real and that's a big reason why there was a leave vote.

 

 

There are those (mainly in Brussels) who would welcome a federal Europe, however, it is a small minority. No EU member state supports it.

 

'Vote Leave' were very successful in planting the idea of a federal Europe in people's minds.

[RayC]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 Any state vetoing a treaty might risk its EU membership.

Unbelievable! Absolute tosh. A complete falsehood. You are now reduced to simply making up things to fit your narrative.

 

The EU cannot expel a member state. This was discussed within this thread. Surely you can recall that?

 

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I've already explained that what might be ok for the majority might not be so for the minority.

... and now deviation. I asked you for examples of "High Decisions" which might be affected by QMV and you have offered nothing.