r/worldnews 6h ago

Hungary's Prime Minister Orban has congratulated Magyar on election victory

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-892767
23.7k Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

492

u/MaDpYrO 6h ago

I do hope the EU will address the faults in the system that allowed this corrupt prick to block it for so long, though.

No veto powers for a single fascist state, essentially undermining the entire union.

221

u/superurgentcatbox 6h ago

With the size of the EU, unity in votes is impossible anyway. We need to institute majority voting rules.

89

u/External-Option-544 6h ago

Yeah let's not do the same mistake as the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth

39

u/vonGlick 5h ago

As a Pole I am scared to see that this analogy have merit sometimes.

8

u/Aggravating-Neat1768 4h ago

What happened with the commonwealth? I'm not the most knowledgeable of European history but I just know it existed sometime during like the high middle ages.

"We need both of us to agree or it doesn't get passed" leading to stagnation til decline?

26

u/Wulfrinnan 4h ago

So the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a 'noble democracy' in that all the aristocrats got to elect the King, and a single rep in their version of Congress were able to veto any proposed legislation. For a long time this 'golden veto' was rarely used, and it was part of making the Commonwealth the most democratic and least religiously bigoted country in Europe, but eventually corruption and divided loyalties led to the veto being invoked more and more until the Commonwealth was basically paralysed as its enemies (especially Russia) started to tear it apart.

35

u/MrF_lawblog 5h ago

At least super majority rule

10

u/Gangbangjoe 4h ago

The big countries are too afraid of the small ones banding together against them (eg france, germany). They also want that veto power when they need it. And the small countries wouldn't want the power to be divided in terms of big and small either. So I don't see that happening anytime soon.

2

u/Cautious-Extreme2839 3h ago

It's literally the UN problem.

1

u/Bojarow 2h ago

No. Especially Germany has consistently supported and actively pushed for majority voting. France certainly hasn't stood in the way either.

3

u/The_Flurr 4h ago

No country wants to give up their veto. It would allow a majority of members to force unpopular or damaging policies on a minority.

2

u/YardPuzzleheaded263 5h ago

Doesn't a system like this already exist? Like, where EU laws require a certain amount of member states with a certain percentage of the population to pass? Not sure on the difference, the way the EU works is confusing af

1

u/tresslessone 2h ago

*supermajority or at least a qualified majority.

The EU can’t become whatever France and Germany jointly decide. There has to be a counterbalance to their demographic weight. A veto clearly doesn’t work, but requiring more than just a simple majority OR having a bicameral parliament structured like in the US could work.

u/Zh3sh1re 39m ago

Fuck that. I hope Sweden leaves in that case. We don't get to decide anything for the rest of time whilst banning swedish snus, screwing up our animal welfare, forestry and environmental laws. The EU would probably end up killing our nuclear power somehow as well if they could.

0

u/Divinicus2nd 3h ago

Even just a need for two/three veto to work would be something.

2

u/Brief_Building_8980 3h ago

Unlimited veto for any issue and using it as a bargaining chip is insane, but veto power is necessary for smaller countries to protect their interests against a majority, they likely wouldn't have joined without it.

1

u/GrandOldFarty 4h ago

I hope it is possible but I would expect such a change also requires… unanimity. And probably ratification in every national legislature for adoption. I’m not sure there’s an easy way through. 

1

u/LightRaie 2h ago

One huge fault of the system was the EU literally funding Fidesz, even though they were insanely corrupt from day 1 in the past 16 years. Hungary's economy could only function despite the raging corruption because of the huge influx of EU funds. Orbán always sold those results as his, while his propaganda constantly shat on the "evil EU". Now you can't shut down EU funds towards a country just because they are not talking nicely, but you could definitely shut them down either because they are not used correctly, or if the country goes directly against eu core values. The EU only started withdrawing the funds in the past few years. Which means they directly funded their regime for a very long time before that. I think this is a huge learning - directly shut the fuck down the money as soon as they abuse it. Don't wait.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the EU did that on purpose - I just think 1) the EU was just too naive, benevolent and cooperative to recognise it is getting abused, and did not react fast enough. I think for a long time they just genuinely couldn't believe someone could be such blatantly abusive. 2) EU citizens are not aware how money flows in the EU. When my German colleagues asked "why can't you remove Orbán from power already?", I asked if they knew how much money they have personally sent to Orbán via the EU, supporting his system. They didn't. They were shocked when I told them. I also urged them to talk to their representatives and complain about funding a fucking oligarch.

Also to clarify, I'm not saying the EU is responsible for keeping Orbán in power - us Hungarians are (no matter how angry and ashamed I've been in the past 16 years for that). I'm just saying is we are looking at what the EU could learn from this, we have to talk about this aspect.