4 ms·

It's funny that the EU pretends not to be a sovereign entity or a state in its own right, but then sets up legal frameworks like this. Even in the US, you can'

• dmitrygr 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  • matthewmacleod 7mo ago
    That obviously makes no sense. A club isn’t a sovereign entity just because it has rules. Hungary is free to leave the EU and set a border policy that conflict with EU law if it wishes - but if it wants to remain part of that organisation, particularly one that has open borders thorough The Schengen area, then of course it needs to follow the rules.
    • dmitrygr 7mo ago
      As UK showed, leaving EU is hard and EU will fight you on it as well as seek to penalize you
      • deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
      • dlahoda 7mo ago
        Sounds like EU deliberately evil?
      • okanat 7mo ago
        EU didn't fight UK. UK fought EU to not lose their exorbitantly privileged status and benefits while leaving the club itself. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. When they realized and decided that they will get none of the benefits, the finalization of the exit took merely weeks. EU is a huge privilege / opportunity for smaller countries. EU-6 doesn't need the other ones to be the second biggest market. If Hungarians want out, it can be done by the end of 2026 and you can enjoy being a proper vassal to neo-Soviets by 2027.
        • joe_mamba 7mo ago
          >EU-6 doesn't need the other ones to be the second biggest market. That's where you're wrong. Where would German industry be today without the labor, suppliers, export market and cheap energy imports from the other non-EU-6 members? Especially after they denuclearized and derussified their energy sector and nuked their birthrates, and so rely on importing energy and workers from everyone to stay afloat. You can't claim you don't need them while you're importing their energy, labor, resources, doctors, etc. You can't treat your country like an economic zone, while ignoring all the economic transactions.
          • okanat 7mo ago
            Germany had its biggest boom when there was no Schengen agreement. Most of the German labor came from Turkey, not from the smaller and less developed EU countries. Its immigration policy was targetted and more selective even. Germany doesn't import much energy from less developed EU countries either: https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/energy-mix#where-does-germany-get-its-energy https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/energy-mix#where-does-... most of them come from EU-6 and UK which makes sense since those countries have technology and resources to produce extra capacity. It's the same deal with France with its former and current colonies. They truly do not need to be in a union with the less developed countries to get those benefits. Same for Canada, Canada doesn't need to enter a union with a less developed country to get lots of immigration. I'm not saying that Germany (or other EU-6) doesn't need immigration. I'm an immigrant in Germany and I do support it for qualified and even non-qualified jobs. However, it is not a clear cut benefit to be in a union with emigrant source countries either. The current setup of EU is a toxic relationship for both sides though, it is a benevolent colonization setup. Allowing smaller post-Soviet countries without significantly investing and improving their economies and industries and their political stability before ascension, ended up very badly for the other ones. EU-6 siphoned out all the labor, younger population and educated classes of post-Soviet countries, so now their populations are mostly old, resented people, the biggest businesses owned by EU-6 for only cheap labor. Those populations are really susceptible to authoritarian overtakes and the authoritarian governments like Hungary and Slovakia of today and Poland of past can block significant decisions with the veto right. EU is very beneficial for smaller countries however at a significant cost for both sides in a bad way. It worked best when the candidate / new member nation was already a significantly developed and industrialized part of Soviet Union like Baltics or Poland (for the most part, they are not 100% clear yet).
      • Rexxar 7mo ago
        It was only hard because UK wanted to stop immediately to participate to budget while continuing to benefit from already agreed multi-years policies.
      • surgical_fire 7mo ago
        How, exactly, did the EU penalize the UK for leaving? Please, elaborate, I'll be waiting.
      • gman83 7mo ago
        The EU will fight you? If Texas tried to secede from the US, the government would send in the military. The EU "fought" them by not giving them a sweetheart trade deal on their way out the door?
      • matthewmacleod 7mo ago
        Of course leaving the EU is hard. Membership has a significant effect on regulation and governance. The fact that something is hard also doesn’t mean you aren’t free to do it. It being “fought” or countries being “penalised” is a matter of opinion but not one I share.
      • victorbjorklund 7mo ago
        It was super easy for UK to leave EU? No one tried to stop them. The ”hard” part was that they wanted to keep some benefits of the membership after canceling the membership.
      • Yizahi 7mo ago
        That is incorrect. Leaving EU is super easy. Leaving written accords with USA is hard, and that's what UK tried to pull off. Since the oligarchs pushing for EU exit to hide their black money were dumb, they forgot they have an agreement with USA making a UK-Ireland border transparent. And they basically spent 4 years trying to either tear down a USA deal or EU law, without having any leverage for either, since they are dumb. Since there no such things in other EU countries, their leave can happen much faster.
    • joe_mamba 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      • surgical_fire 7mo ago
        Are you really conflating the idea of Schegen with "keeping unlocked doors to your house"? Very quick way to show you are not willing to engage in ideas in good faith.
        • joe_mamba 7mo ago
          [flagged]
          • deleted 7mo ago
            [deleted]
    • TacticalCoder 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      • jnurmine 7mo ago
        No, EU is not the root of the problem, whatever the problem is. For example, countries are stronger, more resilient and business is more effective together than everyone trying to do it alone. And of course the EU is not perfect and there is room for improvement. In my experience, one concrete problem is that so many people misunderstand or are unaware of basic things about the EU and why EU even exists. With the former I mean things like how the EU Parliament is put together, the relation of the EU Commission to the EU Parliament, how is the President of the EU Commission chosen (no, it's not "undemocratic"), what does Schengen mean, what is the Euro and WHY does it exist, why was there legislation which mentioned the curvature of cucumbers, and so on. As there is no big picture, or it is rejected due to ideological reasons, the lack of knowledge and misunderstandings then manifest as fear of the unknown (=the EU). At this point, these people become against everything in EU: whatever new things are proposed from the EU side, it is somehow "lousy", "bad", "failing", "won't work anyway", and so forth. Any EU company has "bottom-barrel products" and "can't succeed", euro cannot work between countries, Europe is "weak" and "gay" and "collapsing". Also, some people look at an individual member state and confuse it with the whole EU. For example, the nuclear power stance of Germany is seen as an EU-mandated position and then the whole EU is seen to be against nuclear power. This can also work in reverse: Poland sends generators to Ukraine, well done Poland and why is the weak and failing EU doing nothing (except the generators were from RescEU stores, and one such store was located in Poland, so EU was sending them). When people understand what the EU is and know the basics, of course they might still disagree with things, that's normal, but at least the arguments are more factual.
        • pyuser583 7mo ago
          It sounds like a system with little democratic buy-in.
          • jnurmine 7mo ago
  • surgical_fire 7mo ago
    Hungary can leave the EU if it wants. Article 50 exists for this. If it wants to stay in the EU it has to adhere to the bloc rules. It is not forced to stay in the EU (and, in fact, getting rid of Orban would not be such a bad idea). Hungexit when?
    • RobotToaster 7mo ago
      Why leave when you can just keep breaking the rules and wait for the EU to kick you out?
    • maartenh 7mo ago
      Elections are happening soon (April). It's not clear at all Orban will win this round of elections, see e.g. https://apnews.com/article/hungary-orban-magyar-rival-rallies-election-d9802379bae4d314463d9b80dacea950 https://apnews.com/article/hungary-orban-magyar-rival-rallie...
    • joe_mamba 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      • dosinga 7mo ago
        Employers and landlords do that sort of thing all the time. Rent goes up, job descriptions change, return to office is suddenly required. And yeah, you can get a different job or a different home if you don't like it.
      • victorbjorklund 7mo ago
        You are free to leave EU just like any other agreement.
      • layer8 7mo ago
        States joining the EU agree to transfer some of their competences to the EU, in exchange for the benefits that being a member brings. They participate democratically in the EU decisions like every other member state. They even have veto powers in some cases. If they feel that it isn’t worth it anymore, they are free to leave.
• layer8 7mo ago
  It’s a mix, some competences lie more with the EU, some remain more, or exclusively, with the member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competences_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competences_of_the_European_Un.... Importantly, foreign policy and defense lies more with the member states. In addition, proposals by the European Commission must be approved by the Council (consisting of executives of all member states) in a qualified majority (at least 55% of member states and representing at least 65% of the total EU population) or in some cases unanimously.
• mrtksn 7mo ago
  EU is not a sovereign entity or a state but it needs to be and this is one step in that direction. EU eurocrats worked with the people affected of this and put together a proposal and the elected officials of each member state will vote on this. Anyway, I don't know about the exact wiring of this but an alternative can be to create a virtual country with its own law, sign a trade agreement with the country to give it full access to the EU market and even some special rights and achieve the same effect of getting rid of the regulations and bureaucracy. These arrangements can be very interesting, like the City of London which is like a country inside London that is actually a corporation. Very weird things are possible.
• riffraff 7mo ago
  You could setup a European company (SE) for 20 years or so, this is a new kind that solves some of the issues that one had. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societas_Europaea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societas_Europaea
• oytis 7mo ago
  You can easily hire a person from Ohio to work for your company incorporated in California without having a separate legal entity in Ohio. Not the case in EU.
  • pyuser583 7mo ago
    True but you do have to register with the state of Ohio, and jump through some hoops. It’s possible to be registered in a state you’ve never been to - how many people have actually been to Delaware or Wyoming - and employ nobody at. Some countries play this game too - after the Cayman Islands enacted anti money laundering laws, they tried to keep companies with privacy and efficient dispute resolution.
• skissane 7mo ago
  > Even in the US, you can't set up a corporation at the federal level: This is only because the drafters of the US constitution didn’t think to list corporations law as an enumerated power of Congress - I don’t think they omitted it out of an ideological conviction, simply because nobody thought of it at the time. That said, given SCOTUS’ expansive reading of the interstate commerce clause, there’s a decent chance SCOTUS would let them get away with a federal corporations law, but they’ve never had the political will to attempt a general federal incorporation law The drafters of the Australian constitution did list corporations law as a power of the federal government-but they were working over a century later, and they studied the US system intently to try to identify what worked and what mistakes to avoid. However, it took until 1989 for a federal corporations law to be enacted, and then the High Court ruled in 1990 that the new federal corporations law was unconstitutional, because the corporations power in the constitution only authorised federal regulation of existing domestic corporations, not the act of incorporating them - however, this was fixed by a federal-state agreement voluntarily ceding corporations law power to the Commonwealth (this is another innovation the Australian constitution has compared to the US - the ability of the federal level to gain new enumerated powers without constitutional amendment, by the states voluntarily agreeing to cede them)
• pyuser583 7mo ago
  Yes, but you can incorporate in any state you want (provided the state allows that). That means there’s no barrier to movement. It’d also possible to reincorporate relatively easily.