• misk@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The source they’re citing is a single person that’s not likely to be impartial.

      • misk@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do know about it. I don’t believe nobody would have covered for Orban.

        • letmesleep@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • rstein@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • misk@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

      • Vincent@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?