May I know why exactly these two countries should not be allowed to join EU? Because they cause issues? I mean, every country causes some issues. In the current context Germany and its former government lobbying for Russian gas causes issues of perhaps much larger scale. Tell me about corruption.
Both Hungary and Poland have been consistently undermining the rule of law for years. Hungary has also started going after freedom of expression and minority rights and let’s not talk about the anti-gay laws for which the European Commission is suing them. The only reason they haven’t been stripped of their voting rights in the EU (the harshest sanction available) is that the unanimity of the other members is required and they shield each other. It’s a disgrace.
The current ruling party's conservative coalition from 2005 collapsed under its own weight in two years.
You're judging the whole situation through the lens of the actions of a single political party, which came into power only because as liberal as liberals might be, they were sort of okay with having a sizeable disenfranchised minority in the country.
Joining the EU shouldn't only be about getting free money to rebuild your decrepit infrastructure and fund your local mafias. Lots of countries were accepted for purely strategic reason (ie. we prefer them with US than with Russia or China)
>they refused to join the Istanbul Convention
Ukraine has joined the Istanbul Convention.
>because it violates their Christian values
Outside Poland the social conservatism in Eastern Europe has very little to do with religion. Russia and Hungary are full of irreligious/atheist people with some rather controversial views on minorities and LGBT people.
I don’t think so, no.
> Ukraine has joined the Istanbul Convention.
I missed that they finally ratified it _the 18th of July 2022_. It’s not like they had a choice. It was a prerequisite to them getting candidate status for the EU adhesion. I’m glade this is starting to bring positive change to the country.
> Outside Poland the social conservatism in Eastern Europe has very little to do with religion.
The majority in the Rada refused to ratify in 2016 because they thought the use of the world gender and the way sexual orientation was presented went against the country Christian values. See this Euractiv article at the time for more details: https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/ukraine-...
It is not necessary to travel to Poland or Hungary to be aware that the populist governments of these countries have embraced conspiratorialism, anti-semitism, anti-ziganism, revisionism, homophobia, while openly disregarding liberal institutions such as the separation of church and state, independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression, pluralism. You can simply listen to what people from those countries who do embrace the liberal values associated with the EU project have said about their home countries.
They are incredibly closed and conservative (in their own ways) societies, against any form of integration and modernisation, while at the same time leeching off any benefits the host states provide them (healthcare, benefits, infrastructure) while not only providing nothing in return, but a negative effect.
https://www.saos.org.pl/judgments/392058
"since they got married according to the law and tradition of their community, and then undertook voluntary sexual intercourse, which is even an element, which the Court also knows ex officio, confirming the effectiveness of the marriage"
It was ok to have sex with 14 year old child, because thats how you assert (illegal) marriage in this culture ...
However, there is a big difference between a government which is trying to resolve social problems and lead the population towards a better settlement, and one which takes advantage of divisions to create fear and appeal to the worse sentiments of the majority.
Would you throw them under the bus just to keep the populists out of the Union?
Also now that apparently Sweden is going to have a populist right-wing government, should they leave the EU?
To be clear: I'm asking these questions to highlight the ridiculousness of looking at a whole country through the lens of their (temporary) government.
Governments are elected. It’s not stupid to look at what a country is actually doing. Hungary even gave Fidesz a second term.
Countries which cross the EU red lines should be excluded no question.
How is that constructive discussion. What is the point of comments like that?
There is indeed an intense propaganda campaign, but it's coming from Russia and unfortunately you seem to be repeating their talking points.
Joining the EU improves and aligns countries, so what if they currently have issues, they will in time improve.
We are stronger together.
> so what if they currently have issues, they will in time improve
Or they'll take EU cohesion funds to fuel cronyism and populism as their neighbours did.
> Ukraine is extremely far from EU accession standards. It was very nearly a failed state in the early 2010s.
That's what long term russian ocupation, constant russian meddling after 89 and now invasion does... see moldova, belarus too.
EDIT: regarding your edit - yep, Ukraine is currently a very backwards and crappy country, basically no better than Russia. While Russia is propped up by infinite monies flowing from the ground, Ukraine doesn't have it, so it's much more dilapidated. It's a small miracle that it didn't collapse economically and became Putin's client, just as Belarus had before. However, the one huge difference is that Ukraine doesn't have centuries of imperialistic and autocractic traditions that define Russia - so, it's population is not excited about subjugating other nations, and is ok with democracy as a form of government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LG...
Considering the rest of your comment picturing Ukraine as some backwater (post)soviet hell hole: You've never been there. You've never even talked to someone from there.
It's a very strange country, what its lack of respect for freedom of speech etcetera. It's been formalizing its authoritarian excesses and made them normal, and I get the impression that the British have gotten used to it and accept it as the way things should be.
I can't read Hungarian or Polish, so maybe I don't see these things, but I don't feel that Poles or Hungarians have internalized a view that they can't say what they mean in the way that I feel that the Brits have, so while you may be intending some kind of irony in your remark, Britain may in fact be the most backwards country, socially, in Europe.
The Brits seem to feel that punishment of people who are in the way, or inconvenient, or challenging the state is legitimate.
Probably time to go and touch some grass
* apparently the op has gone back to edit this out of their original comment
As long as the Poles and Hungarians aren't arresting people willy-nilly for protesting or writing things on the internet then they're not even in the same league as the Brits when it comes to social regression.
a) No, that's pretty arbitrary. Every country has limits on freedom of speech and expression, and they all draw the line in different places.
b) It is 100% not illegal to express an opinion that Charles isn't fit to be king, that the monarchy should be abolished and so on. No end of people saying just that on the radio, on the TV, in print, etc
c) Protest remains legal; there was a large protest about the shooting of Chris Kaba this weekend
d) Picketing funerals is considered a breach of the peace, and a public order offense
To use point D to claim the UK is the most socially backward country in Europe is to have spent faaaar too long online.
Without freedom of speech, we don't a free formation of ideas in society, so there can be no legitimate elections. Without freedom to protest and to have political gatherings we don't have freedom to communicate ideas to people who don't see them, and then again, we don't have prerequisites for a functioning democracy
I think a) is very dubious-- even things like the 'crying fire in a crowded theater' are associated with suppression of speech that afterwards could be seen to be deeply illegitimate, so even the US assurances concerning free speech are likely to be much too weak.
With regard to b) people have despite this been arrested in the context of remarks such as 'fuck imperialism', similarly with regard to c), perfectly nonviolent protesters have been arrested, even charged.
d) is not relevant, for the context of at least these arrests and charges has been the proclamation of Charles as King and if the proclamation is mixed with the funeral, such an mixing of the ceremonies is outside of the control of those who wish to protest the proclamation.
Every country on earth has forms of expression that aren't protected. I'm sorry you don't like that, but it doesn't make it any less true.
People have not been arrested because they said "fuck imperialism". Here, I'll say it now. Fuck Imperialism! There is zero chance I will get in any legal issue in the UK for this, and I also believe that you know this full well. Once more with feeling, fuck imperialism!
In the UK, as in almost every country, violence isn't the sole determinant of whether or not a protest is legal. In the US for example, the degree to which you obstruct traffic is important to the legality of your protest.
That some countries go further than the UK does not change how to view what has been aid.
People have been arrested because of a placard where the offensive element was the word 'fuck' in the sentence 'Fuck imperialism' near an event relating to the proclamation of Charles as King. It has been a major story and has been decried as illegitimate by the British press. Indeed, there is a case of a lawyer being threatened with arrest after expressing the intent to write 'Not my King' on it (https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/13/man-threatened-with-arrest-if...).
Your last remark is not relevant, because such things have not been alleged in any of these cases.