Lomnici Jr.: Abolishing the right of veto would actually negate the fundamentals of the operation of the European Union

Olaf Scholz said in a presentation the other day that "even the European treaties are not set in stone, they can be changed in a very short time if necessary." Would that really be easy to do? asked the question of 888.hu jr. To Zoltán Lomnici.

There are basically two types of methods available for amending EU treaties - began jr. Zoltán Lomnici. An ordinary revision procedure is applicable if the amendment is of particular importance, as well as in cases which expand the EU's powers, as this can only be carried out by intergovernmental consensus, while the simplified amendment can be considered in the case of "less important" issues, however, it is important to add that only in such cases which do not affect the powers assigned to the Union, so it actually serves to adjust the internal activities of the EU.

Complicated procedural rules surround both, for example, an ordinary review can be initiated by the government of a member state, the EP, or the Commission. Then the Council of Europe will hold consultations with the Parliament and the Commission, and then decide on its discussion with a simple majority, in which case it will convene a convention consisting of representatives of the national parliaments, the EP and the Commission, as well as the heads of state and government of the member states, on the basis of Article 48 (3) of the EUSZ - the legal expert of Századvég continued in his answer.

If the case is of "minor" importance, the convention can be omitted, the Council, with the consent of the European Parliament, decides to omit the convention within the framework of a simple majority and determines the mandate of the conference to be held with the participation of the representatives of the governments of the member states.

The simplified amendment procedure can also be used to amend the basic treaties of the European Union, with the proviso that the amendment cannot expand the powers conferred on the Union, and cannot be applied in the case of military or defense-related decisions. In vain is the passerelle clause introduced in 2009, which further simplifies the simplified procedure, according to which in some cases unanimous decision-making can be changed to qualified majority decision-making, since the European Council must first notify the national parliaments of this initiative, who can raise objections to the decision-making within six months of notification. against changing the method and in the event of an objection, the obligation of unanimous decision-making exists again.

Given the stipulation of the simplified procedure that the Union cannot expand its powers, on the one hand, we can safely disregard Mr. Scholz's statement, however, knowing the political direction of the strong majority ruling in Brussels, it is not excluded that they may even try the instrument of the ordinary review - concluded his answer. Zoltán Lomnici.

To 888.hu's question: How can the termination of the right of veto be reconciled with the basic contracts? Zoltán Lomnici Jr. gave the following answer:

This would not be the first time that the authority of the veto would be narrowed, as most recently, for example, in 2009, with the Treaty of Lisbon, which increased the number of policy cases in which the Council's decision-making by qualified majority voting may apply, the right of veto also means a weakening. Considering the countless examples of the veto, and the rule of law that the EU constantly places at the center, as well as the democratic values ​​closely related to it, it can be said that the complete elimination of the veto is at least an interesting idea from the political group who see the establishment of a dictatorship in every provision of the Hungarian Government - started jr. Zoltán Lomnici.

Despite the fact that the founding Treaty of Rome expanded the number of decisions that can be made by qualified majority, thereby taking steps towards reducing the veto power of nations, completely abolishing the right of veto would raise problems of sovereignty on the one hand, and problems of rationality on the other.

888.hu also asked jr. From Zoltán Lomnici, what effect would the abolition of the veto have on Hungary?

Abolishing the right of veto would actually neglect the fundamentals of the functioning of the European Union and at the same time would become meaningless - the constitutional lawyer began in his answer. If the interests of any member state could be ignored without providing any opportunity, it would make less and less sense to stay in the European Union, since membership would strictly only entail obligations and increasingly marginalized rights.

- concluded his answer jr. Zoltán Lomnici.

The original article HERE .

Cover photo: Zoltán Lomnici Jr. (Photo: MTI/Csaba Krizsán)