Can the European Union exclude its anti-democratic members?

A certain lack of democracy in the Union’s function can be faulted, but its position on democracy is clear: the treaty of Lisbon places democracy and the respect of Human Rights in its fundamental principles, specifying that these values “are common to all member States”, and are a membership requirement. It is therefore possible to prevent a State from entering the EU if it does not respect the Human Rights or is not democratic. But what credibility can a Union that rejects such States, while letting authoritarian derives develop within its community have?

That is when the exclusion of a State that does not respect democracy appears not only as a possibility anymore, but as a necessity. Is it conceivable at the moment? What would the consequences for the EU be?

The economic aspect

When looking at the States that are frequently pointed out, namely Poland and Hungary, the question of an expulsion must take into account the potential economic aspects of such a decision. From a pragmatic as well as a cynical point of view, the exit of the Polish and Hungarian States would be neither financially nor economically damaging to the EU. In 2014, neither Poland nor Hungary where contributing members of the EU: this is to say that they received far more from the Union than they contributed with. In that context, Poland received 13 481 million euros, while Hungary received 5 624 million. These subventions, as well as the contributions are assigned according to the country’s economy. The less strong the economy is, the more subventions it will receive from the Unions’ and the less it will contribute to the EU’s budget.

From an economic point of view, extremely cold and inhuman, the European Union can exclude both Poland and Hungary without too many economic damages. Cold and inhuman, because these countries do not receive such sums haphazardly: they are there to help the countries’ economies. But the fact is: an exclusion is possible from this aspect.

The European Unions’ credibility

Nevertheless, if we were to imagine that Hungary and Poland were among the strongest economies of Europe, would an exclusion still be conceivable? What would the consequences be on the EUs influence? Clearly, there would be some harmful impacts: an exclusion would create a dangerous precedent, an example of the EUs domination on the States’ will, Hungary and Poland having entered the Union by their own will.

However, the negative effects of a conciliation with such antidemocratic derives would probably be even more damaging: the EUs diplomatic position would see itself grandly diminished. In fact, what credibility can an organization have on negotiations on Human Rights, if she allows drifts on her own territory? What legitimacy can she claim when she blames authoritarian regimes, if she closes her eyes on some of her member States that reduce democracy within her?

With such a rise in the heart of the EU, it’s the status of her power that is threatened: by denying its own ideals of democracy and human rights, the EU runs the risk of marginalizing itself on the international scene because of this indecision. Also, even though it isn’t without consequences, there has to be action against these antidemocratic drifts: and if the future possible admonitions and sanctions are not sufficient, an exclusion will not be only an option, but a must.