At the end of the long process envisaged by art. 7 of the EU Treaty in case of violation of the rule of law and human rights, nothing will happen to Orbàn's Hungary, even if more than two thirds of the European Parliament have condemned it. There is a simple reason to prevent the sanctions from being applied: the unanimity of the states is needed. And since the same procedure has also been initiated against Poland, if it ever comes to a vote, the two governments will have each other's backs.
It is therefore not certain whether what happened in Strasbourg is more a victory for liberal democracies or rather the umpteenth proof of Europe's inability to enforce the rules that all the member states have signed up to. Which of the two factors will prevail, we will see in the European elections next spring on the basis of the results of the sovereign parties.
Meanwhile we have a strong indication - not to say proof - that the art. 7 contains sound principles but also ineffective procedures. Yet admitting that a State violates the Treaty and at the same time enjoys the benefits of the Union – in the case of Hungary, among other things, we are dealing with net transfers of 3,5 billion euros – is inadmissible according to logic and justice.
The lesson to be learned is that it cannot be a political body that issues the final judgment: it is as if in Italy it was not the Consulta but the Parliament itself that judged the constitutionality of a law.
Judging must be an independent body, through more expedited procedures. Bloomberg's editorial board suggests that this body is the Fundamental Rights Agency, which also has the advantage of already existing. Sounds like a good idea, but will Member States want to step back?
