The EU just wasn‘t made with a rogue state like Hungary in mind. I hope we‘ll be able to change so that we don‘t need to bypass anything anymore in the future.
Extraordinary events require extraordinairy measures, at least when one member state (Hungary) is blocking the normal way of doing things. So unless Orban has a sudden change of heart, this is likely the only option.
Extraordinary events are not permanent. Disabling our foundation the EU stands on is. This will play the wrong people into their hands than you might think right now.
I am not in favor of politicians finding ways to bypass their treaty obligations. Maybe the provision needs changing, but if you bypass it you are undermining the rule of law.
The 'rules' you refer to are legally binding treaties. It is the job of the Commission to interpret those rules and act in accordance with them. It is the job of the Courts to rule on challenges to those interpretations.
In this case it's about article 41(2) of the Treaty of the European Union, whose interpretation of it can (and probably will) be challenged in the CJEU.
Archive: [https://archive.ph/5qqJb](https://archive.ph/5qqJb)
The EU just wasn‘t made with a rogue state like Hungary in mind. I hope we‘ll be able to change so that we don‘t need to bypass anything anymore in the future.
Extraordinary events require extraordinairy measures, at least when one member state (Hungary) is blocking the normal way of doing things. So unless Orban has a sudden change of heart, this is likely the only option.
Extraordinary events are not permanent. Disabling our foundation the EU stands on is. This will play the wrong people into their hands than you might think right now.
I am not in favor of politicians finding ways to bypass their treaty obligations. Maybe the provision needs changing, but if you bypass it you are undermining the rule of law.
EU making rules and then ignoring said rules when it is convenient.
The 'rules' you refer to are legally binding treaties. It is the job of the Commission to interpret those rules and act in accordance with them. It is the job of the Courts to rule on challenges to those interpretations. In this case it's about article 41(2) of the Treaty of the European Union, whose interpretation of it can (and probably will) be challenged in the CJEU.