Unione Europea ignora il veto ungherese su Israele. Un vero golpe.
Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
2019-05-04.
L’Unione Europea ha meccanismi di governo farraginosamente complessi.
In linea generale, mentre il parlamento europeo è eletto su criteri proporzionali, il Consiglio Europeo è formato dai capi di stato e di governo. In questa sede anche gli stati poco popolosi hanno voce in capitolo, ed i Trattati consentono loro il diritto di veto. In linea di principio, si è ricalcato l’ordinamento statunitense, ove il Congresso è eletto su base grosso modo proporzionale, mentre il Senato è formato da due senatori per ogni stato: la poco popolosa Alaska conta ben poco in Congresso, ma al Senato ha lo stesso due senatori proprio come la popolosa California.
Il diritto di veto è la estrema ratio cui ricorrono gli stati che vedono come una delibera possa nuocere alla propria nazione.
*
L’attuale eurodirigenza si picca di essere il pilastro dello stato di diritto, the rule of law.
Poi, nella pratica, l’attuale eurodirigenza si comporta nei fatti ignorando il veto espresso da uno stato membro.
Ci si pensi sopra molto bene.
Questo è un vero e proprio colpo di stato volto ad imporre la tirannia: questa eurodirigenza prosegue imperterrita a fare ciò che le aggrada in totale spregio dei Trattati, delle leggi e dei regolamenti.
«The EU just de facto ignored Hungary’s veto on a statement on Israel»
*
«The Israel clashes come amid Hungary’s wider drift from EU norms – Hungarian leader Viktor Orban has boycotted EU decisions on migrants and faces an EU sanctions procedure for abuse of rule of law»
*
«The clashes also come amid a debate on deeper EU integration versus the power of national capitals»
*
«And they come amid infighting between old as well as newer EU members, with Italy recently vetoing an EU statement on Venezuela and threatening to block Russia sanctions.»
*
«EU foreign policy is meant to be agreed by consensus, but the European Commission has proposed to introduce majority voting to help it “speak with one voice”»
*
«The idea was anathema to Hungary and Poland, which has also boycotted EU migrant decisions»
*
Per fortuna l’Unione Europea non è dotata di forze armate: in tal caso i paesi “fratelli” avrebbero già invaso Polonia, Ungheria ed Italia. Questa eurodirigenza vorrebbe schiacciare chiunque non la pensasse secondo i propri desideri: ci fa rimpiangere quel sant’uomo di Gerone.
Dei politici accorti non portano mai le situazioni alla esasperazione che impone l’uso del veto: si tratta per raggiungere un comune accordo. E, sia ben chiaro, accordo non significa diktat.
*
The EU just de facto ignored Hungary’s veto on a statement on Israel, prompting questions on how it makes foreign policy decisions.
Hungary objected to the EU statement at the UN Security Council (UNSC) in New York at the last minute on Monday (29 April).
But Finland read it out anyway at the UNSC meeting, in a game of protocol niceties laced with irritation.
The Finnish ambassador to the UN, Kai Sauer, said: “I have the honour to speak on behalf of …” the 27 EU countries which he listed, omitting Hungary.
But his subsequent statement used language that effectively did away with Hungary’s opinion.
“The EU expresses serious concerns about the current trends … threatening the viability of the two-state solution,” it said.
It spoke of “the European Union’s position” on Israeli settlements and said “the European Union” was “alarmed” by Palestinian deaths.
It also spoke in the EU’s name on Israel’s use of live ammunition and to urge good treatment of a human rights activist called Omar Shakir.
Finland read out the statement on grounds that it will take over the rotating EU presidency from Romania in July.
Romania would normally have done it, a Finnish diplomat told EUobserver, but did not do so because the sitting EU presidency ought to speak on behalf of all 28 member states.
‘Hungarian intransigence’
The protocol games aside, the EU statement came out amid “irritation” with Hungary, diplomatic sources said.
Hungary raised its objection at the “very, very last minute” and did not give a reason why, an EU diplomat noted.
The final outcome was “a temporary pragmatic approach” due to “Hungarian intransigence”, a second EU diplomat said.
Hungary raised its objection at the “very, very last minute” and did not give a reason why, an EU diplomat noted.
The final outcome was “a temporary pragmatic approach” due to “Hungarian intransigence”, a second EU diplomat said.
Hungary’s ambassador also gave no reason for the veto at a follow-up meeting in the EU Council in Brussels on Tuesday, in what a third EU source described as “arrogant”.
And Hungary’s EU mission declined to comment when asked by EUobserver.
The UNSC veto marked the fifth time that Hungary torpedoed a public EU statement on Israel in the past two years.
It sometimes acted with pro-Israeli EU allies, such as the Czech Republic, and sometimes alone.
It also blocked, on nine occasions last year, internal EU adoption of a confidential report on East Jerusalem, forcing member states to bowdlerise the text.
Wider questions
The Israel clashes come amid Hungary’s wider drift from EU norms – Hungarian leader Viktor Orban has boycotted EU decisions on migrants and faces an EU sanctions procedure for abuse of rule of law.
The clashes also come amid a debate on deeper EU integration versus the power of national capitals.
And they come amid infighting between old as well as newer EU members, with Italy recently vetoing an EU statement on Venezuela and threatening to block Russia sanctions.
EU foreign policy is meant to be agreed by consensus, but the European Commission has proposed to introduce majority voting to help it “speak with one voice”.
The change could be made, the commission said last year, by invoking an obscure “passerelle” clause in the EU treaty – Article 31 (3), which lets the EU “further extend qualified majority voting in common foreign and security policy matters, if member states unanimously agree to do so”.
The idea was anathema to Hungary and Poland, which has also boycotted EU migrant decisions and is also under a sanctions procedure.
Diplomacy by vote
But the two most powerful EU states – France and Germany – backed the move.
Some medium-sized countries, such as Belgium and The Netherlands, also voiced a positive attitude.
The handling of the UNSC statement on Israel indicated that the EU majority is now moving in that direction.
The Finnish diplomat told EUobserver that Helsinki, for one, was open to “having a look at qualified majority voting [QMV] on foreign and security policy”.
“It [the UNSC fiasco] certainly brings to the fore the need to have a substantial discussion on QMV in the field of foreign policy,” another EU diplomat said.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento