European Parliament to vote on resolution on stripping Hungary of EU voting rights

[Jimbuna]

And not a minute too early and throw them out of NATO whilst your at it.

The European Parliament will vote later this week on a resolution that calls for stripping Hungary of its voting rights at the European Council, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Petri Sarvamaa said on Jan. 16.

Earlier this month, Sarvamaa launched a petition to remove some of Budapest's membership rights, including voting, due to the country's "erosion of the rule of law" and obstructive behavior in the face of EU consensus building.

Hungary has been blocking a 50-billion-euro funding package for Ukraine just as Kyiv entered the third calendar year of an all-out war with Russia.

"Delivering on our promises: the final letter has now been sent to the President of the Parliament," Sarvamaa, a senior member of the parliament who sits on several committees, said on the social media platform X.
"On Thursday (Jan. 18), we will be voting on a joint motion resolution, negotiated this morning with five political groups in the parliament."

The resolution calls on the European Council to strip Hungary of its voting rights under Article 7.2 of the EU treaty, which stipulates the option to suspend a member's voting rights in case of a "serious and persistent breach."

The European Council must then decide unanimously whether the breach is still occurring, after which it votes by a qualified majority to suspend the rights of the accused country.

Most political groups in the European Parliament also want a probe into the EU Commission's decision to unfreeze around $11 billion in funds for Hungary shortly before the December summit, the Euractiv outlet wrote.

Many MEPs criticized the decision, saying that the executive arm was giving in to Hungary's blackmail.

The European Commission said that the decision was taken strictly due to procedural reasons, namely due to judicial reforms undertaken by Hungary.

Although Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban blocked the funding for Ukraine, he allowed other EU leaders to reach a consensus on accession talks with Kyiv by leaving the room during a key vote.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...0c638c87&ei=17

[Reece]

And not a minute too early and throw them out of NATO whilst your at it.

[Skybird]

Its a start. Scratching one leaves just 26 others to be disposed of.

[Kapitan]

But hold on I thought the EU was supposed to be about unity and democracy ?

[Dargo]

What is not democratic for the European Parliament to vote on a resolution (stripping Hungary of its veto on aid to Ukraine)? The EU parliament is united in a majority for support to Ukraine.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Frankly, I'm appalled, because this decision in effect shafts the right to vote. You can vote but you must in a certain direction or risk being kicked out is not a right to vote at all.

[Skybird]

^ Look back some years. When they were about the issue of an EU constitution. In some countries they had to ask the population, and in a few of these the people said "No". The immediate reaction was to repeat the vote and threaten people to have them repeating voting until they cast the vote that was officially wanted. In the end, the gave some briberies and icnentives, repeated the vote and got what they wanted.

Ialso rmeind of those famous words by Junckers: "We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." - It breathes the same underhanded spirit, it illustrates the same derogatory attitude. A feudal, aristocratic one.

Our democratic stage plays and rituals for the most are just formalities that give the impression of legitimisiung something. But its mostly just about creating a relief valve for public sentiments of the moment, an formal alibi for something that is "ordered" for anyway, something outside the reach of influence of the many, while not calling the command mode a command, but a "democratically made decision of the majority". Let this or that loarty win an election, usally the bigger game stays completely unchanged, usually it all makes no real difference.

We are already knees-deep in a feudal society again. Or a totalitarian one, if you prefer the modern word. Self-proclaimed aristocracy in disguise.

Or take Merkel. When for example an FDP (libertarian party) minister president was elected some years ago in a German federal state and he got also votes by the AfD, immediately Merkel said that she demands the vote to be "corrected", and they repeated it to "correct" it and they got the wanted result of the FDP (not AfD!) man not becoming minister president. When Brexit was voted for in the UK, Merkel demanded to repeated the vote, implying to repeat it several times if need be. And when one day some years ago a book critical of German politics was published, she demanded the book to be withdrawn, while at the same time admitting she had not red it. (Practically all key points that book said, since then have been proven true...). - Many politicians in Europe and likely in the US tick like Merkel. Freedom only as long as that freedom is used for results as demanded . Choice only as long as the wanted choice is being made. Else: defamation, nudging, intimidating, defaming, or threatening - or keep on repeating the election until he result is "right" and the result is as - non-verbally - commanded.

When I was a little boy, my grandparents sometimes gave me small ammounts of money as a gift - at the same time telling me I should not spend it and should not buy this or that with it, but should save it for later on. While for an adult that maybe makes perfect sense in his view, for little kids and their time horizon it does not. I HATED it. I once made a scene at such an opportunity and literally threw the 10 DM note at them. What did they epxect? A five year old understanding that savong those 10 DM woudl save his pension inb the future? I saw the sweets instead that I could buy but were demanded to not buy, or the little toy gadget.

Pasternalism is the death of liberalism. And most of modenr demcoreacy in my percption and reaosnign is not half as free and democratic anymore as is constantly implied.

Also, free choice only makes sense if you can choose between different alternatives that indeed are different in substance and not just by name.

Its all tricks and lies. The current German government involuntarily teaches us many lessons on this principle again. Its just that many people again seem to refuse to learn them. A choice between CDU and SPD, Greens and FDP? No really. Its all the same brownish olive-greeen. thats the colour you get when you throw all colours of paint into oine pot and stir long enough, you alway end up with this one final colour, a certain olive green, sometimes a bit darker, sometimes a bit brighter.

[Dargo]

Indeed, we live in a time when liberal democracies are under pressure. They have lost some of their legitimacy, especially in the eyes of young people, who feel that politics is not acting decisively enough on the big issues of our time, such as climate. Whereas, if you look around, we still live in the world's least lousy societies. Nobody tells me that life is better in authoritarian China or Russia. That we live in freedom and can bonk out bad leaders and sometimes even good leaders is invaluable.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dargo

That we live in freedom and can bonk out bad leaders and sometimes even good leaders

Can we...?


I think we just get led around by our noses. And I think so since all my life.

I saw SPD led governments come and go, and CDU led governments come and go. The difference? Dont ask me, the outcome, the general course, to me is the same one course that there has been since my late teen years when i started to look at the world with more open eyes.

Names, office holders come and go. The rigged game stays the same. So are the private interests in the background that finance politics. These are the financiers of this stage play everybody is so excited about.

Its not really important. If it were, they would not leave you the "choice".

Says the pessimist: "Argh, worse it cannot get, deeper we cannot fall." Says the optimist: "Oh no-no-no-no-no, we very much can fall much deeper!"


"We are batteries, Neo."

[Dargo]

That you do not like the parties that form governments is not proof that the system is rigged, maybe the populations are fools or misled the way of democracy has not changed it has after WWII resulted in our enormous wealth far more than your parents and grandparents had. I do not see any liberty in Russia where they live in the cold because of a systematic bad corrupt authoritarian led system I am glad I live here and not in those authoritarian systems where I must be afraid of what I think and say. If you want change you have to do something about it and that is also your freedom in a democratic system, but you have to doit "The best helmsmen stand on shore".

[Skybird]

The only major difference I see is the ammount of obvious physical violence being applied by the "state". "There", it is more physical, "here" it is more subtle, intricate. In both systems the state (or "here" the EU) forces me to be at its disposal, subjugate to his rules (that state itself designs as desired and even breaks without being sanctioned), and makes policy against what I want (and many others want), and for the purpose of extending its own power over the individual human being. Both use violence.

I refer to Roland Baader, Hans Herrmann Hoppe, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, etc. Their criticism of the nature of state itself is essential, and crushing.

Worse, in the words of former German president Richard von Weizsäcker: "The political parties have made the state their prey." And he spoke these already in the 80s.

[Dargo]

States basically prohibit the use of force by their citizens and residents, and place the right to use force with institutions such as the police and armed forces, to maintain order. The state is an organization that manages to retain the exclusive right to use, threaten or authorize the use of physical force on residents of its territory. The ability to maintain this monopoly is an important measure of a state's legitimacy and stability (Max Weber). This is not new, this is the way for centuries and in the past that violence was far worse than nowadays I rather have the democratic monopoly on violence than a Russian monopoly on violence posting here would in Russia give you about 20 year of state violence. You are old enough to know why for one reason the RAF was grounded we do not see that violence today your countries has had large demonstrations for the last years without that kinda violence so democracy works in your country in Russia only participation saying nothing showing a blank piece of paper would mean imprisonment and forced mobilisation.

[Skybird]

Obviously I disagree with most in that (except that many othe rnations show their brutality much mor eobvious than ours, but ours is not any less supprerssiuve, it does acchieve that just by other means that are "soft skills", so to speak, and not blood-dripping rubber sticks or smokng machine guns), and so do/did the mentioned men I named. And any one of them would read you the riot act.

To me the only legitimation a state has is to defend the borders. Which our states are not capable of anymore, and my state quite exactly rejects to even want. Everythign else a state claims in monopoles of powers could be done without a state, in form of private companies and private treaties, from crime protection and law enforcement and jurisdiction over education and health care to insurrances and maintaining infrastructure. It could also all be done without taxes, with regional/local business caring for that and adding the costs to the prices of their services and goods they sell, prices that would in return have no VAT and other taxes. The state is the worstentrepreneur, offering the lousiest service for the highest cost, wastign money and not caring for that. And if he breaks his contract with society, - well, try to hold it accountable, you will fail. This rule giver breaks his own rules, or excludes himself form them but enforces them on others. Unacceptable.

Especially damaging for liberalism and the common good is the state's minting monopoly, which is completely unneeded. It led once again to the corruption of the fiscal system, the introduction of the FIAT money system, the desastrous and criminal fractional reserve banking and the tyranny of debts in the modern present. The money system we now have is a textbook illustration for why the existence of a realised conception named "state" is unacceptable. Not the only reason, but one of the most obvious importance.

The concept I aim at is called "Privatrechtegesellschaft" in German. Singapore for example goes a bit into this direction. Services provided not as a state monopole, but as an ordered object of a contract. Violations can be sued against, or compensated for. The legal system needed for that - also could be completely run commercially by according firms and companies.

This way, the locally generated wealth stays where it belongs, in the region that created it. I want a competition again between small self-administred regions. Not big central states that all sooner or later fall to corruption and prevent competition by regulation and protectionism.

From police over fire brigades to teachers and health practicioners - I see no need why anything of this needs to be run by a state, or could only be run by a state, on the grounds of a tax system. It could all be run as services that people order and pay for . There could be competition, with lousy service providers dropping out of the market due to the competitors doing better. A company doing a bad service, also could be sued, for damage compensation. A state cannot be sued for bad schools or dysfucntional polcie systems. It can fail big time and leave citizens robbed of taxes and lost behind - and still live on and say "its my law and you have to comply unconditonally". Unacceptable.

States are a system for predatory mades that live of the fat of the many, and powerhungry narcissists wanting to pose and command. Unacceptable.

States also simply are way too big. TOO BIG. As Jared Diamond argued in his briliant book "Collapse", you cannot have political participation and transparency, in other words: democracy, if the communal system is so big that the individual cannot overlook it and thus see the consequences of his own wishes and deeds and thoughts for the whole and every other member of the community, and vice versa. Also, we see our political elites constantly dodging their accountability, but also excluding themselves from the rules they make for everybody else. This is unforgivable.

We have seen how states can lose inhibitions during Corna policies beign enforced. Being corruopted by monopolized businesses. Much if niot all what is beign voice dion captialism, in fatc is not true for capitalism, but is valid criticism of monopolism. Monopolies must be prevented.

For an introduction I recommend "Freie Privatstädte. Mehr Wettbewerb im wichtigsten Wettbewerb der Welt." by Titus Gebel, which meanwhile also has been translated into English:
https://www.amazon.de/Free-Private-C...ps%2C79&sr=8-2

A relevant historical example that also points at the direction I aim at, is the Hanse.

States are for plunderers and mades. They are far more harm than good. Since always. The bigger the playfield of a politician or mad king, the worse the consequences and the farther their reach when he has again messed it up. The government of a small place messing up affects just the inhabitants of that place. A structure like the EU messing up or erring on thigns fundamentally negatively affects the lives of half a billion people. If politicians again and again have illustrated one thing, then that they cannot be trusted to have such ammounts of power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And you cannot vote a failing system out, it replaces just a name, and then continues. It makes no difference.

The only thing where super-regional cooperation is needed, is defence. This is too big as if only single small actors can shoulder it and survive if being attacked. Thats why in past years, longer time ago, I said we shoud have a free market in Europe like the original EEC wanted to be, AND NOT MORE, and we should have a military union which we have in form of NATO. No FIAT toy money we should have. No continental currency. No "growing together". No EU.

And in case you never noticed it: the numerically most prominent cause of war is the existence of governments of nations declaring them and pushing two people/tribes against each other that otherwise maybe would have had no interest at all to go after each others throats. The existence of the structures of states are why single individuals at the top, or delusional and very small self-perceived "elites", can push nations into desaster and force or lure people to fall into wars that the ordinary people for the most never wanted.

Save me from the states. I am done with them. All of them. Mine, yours and theirs.

Further recommended readings:
Hans Herrmann Hoppe: "Democracy: The God That Failed",
Jason Brennan: "Against Democracy",
Friedrich Hayek: "The Road To Serfdom"
Jared Diamond: "Collapse"
David Engels: "Le Déclin. La crise de l'Union européenne et la chute de la république romaine - analogies historique" (also available in German and Spanish, but not in English, which is a damn shame).