This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

British Conservatives are under fire in Brussels after voting against triggering an EU sanction process against Hungary over violations of the rule of law under the prime minister, Viktor Orbán.

MEPs on the civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee voted to launch the EU’s disciplinary procedure against the country, a lengthy legal process that could lead to Hungary being stripped of EU voting rights.



But the Tories stood accused of trampling over their own legacy, after their MEP on the committee voted against the process, a decision described as “an exit from European values” by a leading politician from a rival party.

Hungary is very unlikely to lose its voting rights, but the unprecedented vote on Monday is a symbolic move against Orbán, who was re-elected for a third term in April, after a campaign that international observers said had clearly favoured the ruling coalition and was characterised by intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric.



Hungary election: OSCE monitors deliver damning verdict Read more

“This is a damning indictment of the state of British European policy and completely destroys any credibility the Tories might have left,” said Sophie in ’t Veld of the Dutch Democrats 66 party, who is on the committee.

“Even Conservative governments of the recent past were always promotors of democracy and the rule of law in central and eastern Europe, but in providing cover for Orbán’s descent into authoritarianism, they have trampled on this legacy.”

“Voting with Orbán is the true Tory Brexit: the exit from European values,” she said, adding that it was a sad day.

Conservative MEPs also voted against taking similar action against Poland, fuelling concerns about whether a Brexit-bound government would sideline democratic values to curry favour with autocratic governments.

Conservative home affairs spokesman Daniel Dalton said: “The extremely one-sided report I voted against today was an inappropriate attempt by the European parliament to insert itself into domestic political battles. Recent attempts to raise domestic controversies to a European level are both wrong and counterproductive, alienating many citizens who feel their countries are being unfairly targeted by the European institutions.”

The decision by MEPs throws down a gauntlet to Europe’s most powerful political alliance, the European People’s party (EPP), the group Angela Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker are a part of, which has been accused of legitimatising Orbán by keeping his Fidesz party in its ranks.

Josef Weidenholzer, an Austrian Social Democrat MEP, said the EU had to act. “Hungary is now in a situation – [where] we would call it it a facade democracy.”

The vote is only a first step; a final decision to launch the procedure requires a two-thirds majority in the European parliament.



If a majority of MEPs vote in September, ministers will be obliged to consider whether there is a serious and persistent breach of the EU’s basic democratic values in Hungary.



The Dutch Green MEP Judith Sargentini had spent 13 months drafting a report to prepare for the unprecedented procedure. It is based on the work of many international organisations and raises 12 key concerns about the erosion of democracy in Hungary.

The draft report highlights fears about the functioning of Hungary’s constitution, which has been amended six times since 2012. It also itemises concerns about the centralisation of justice, declining transparency over state funds and threats to freedom of expression and the right to equal treatment.

The report was completed before the Hungarian parliament passed widely criticised anti-immigrant laws last week that made it a criminal offence punishable by a jail term to help people lodge asylum claims.

The European commission is “now going to review the Hungarian legislation on migration to determine whether it is compatible with European rules”, a spokeswoman said last week.

Hungary’s response was made plain in a radio interview during which Orbán lashed out at the commission for “pestering, pressuring and attacking Poland” and “attacking Hungary”.

In a statement to Hungarian media, Orbán said the vote was a way of “apply[ing] pressure to Hungary so that it changes its standpoint with relation to migration. But in view of the fact that Hungarian voters have already decided on this issue, there is nothing more to talk about.”

He described Sargentini, as “one of George Soros’s people”, in a now familiar attack against the billionaire philanthropist, the EU and civil society groups. Orbán has long demonised the Hungarian-born Soros in a relentless campaign widely seen to have antisemitic overtones.

Orbán has long accused the EU of overreaching its powers, a charge he has stepped up in recent years with a “Stop Brussels” campaign. He said the anti-immigration legislation had been flagged up in the electoral campaign. “The people wanted this and the people voted for this,” Orbán told state radio last week. “Who would dare to criticise or condemn the 80 or 90% decision of a country’s legislature?”

The EU triggered the rule of law process for the first time in 2017, when it took action against Poland for changes to the judiciary that international experts say threaten the rule of law.



Poland’s EU affairs minister will appear before his 27 counterparts from the other member states at a hearing on Tuesday, where he will seek to counter the charge of a “systemic threat” to Polish democracy.</s>The European parliament could vote to trigger an EU sanction process against Hungary over violations of the rule of law under the prime minister, Viktor Orbán.

MEPs on the civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee will vote on whether to open the EU’s disciplinary procedure against the country, a lengthy legal process that could lead to Hungary being stripped of voting rights.



While that outcome is very unlikely, the unprecedented vote on Monday is a symbolic move against Orbán, who was re-elected for a third term in April, after a campaign that international observers said had clearly favoured the ruling coalition and was characterised by intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric.



If the MEPs take the first step on the rule of law process, they will throw down a gauntlet to Europe’s most powerful political alliance, the European People’s party (EPP), the group of Angela Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker, which has been accused of legitimatising Orbán by keeping his Fidesz party in its ranks.

The European parliament has the power to trigger the EU’s little-used rule of law mechanism, known as article 7, but this will be the first time it has attempted to do so.



Josef Weidenholzer, an Austrian Social Democrat MEP, said the EU had to act. “Hungary is now in a situation – [where] we would call it it a facade democracy.”

He predicted the committee would vote to trigger the rule of law mechanism. “There will be a majority, but democracy is about surprises,” he said, adding that the biggest uncertainty was the stance of the EPP. On Monday morning, EPP MEPs held a free vote, an indication of the acute divisions within the bloc.



A second parliamentary source also predicted the decision would pass, but said the final outcome was much more uncertain. The vote is only a first step and a final decision to launch the procedure requires a two-thirds majority in the European parliament.



If a majority of MEPs vote in September, ministers will be obliged to consider whether there is a serious and persistent breach of the EU’s basic democratic values in Hungary.



The Dutch Green MEP Judith Sargentini has spent 13 months drafting a report to prepare for the unprecedented procedure. It is based on the work of many international organisations and raises a dozen key concerns about the erosion of democracy in Hungary.

The draft report highlights fears about the functioning of Hungary’s constitution, which has been amended six times since 2012. It also itemises concerns about the centralisation of justice, declining transparency over state funds and threats to freedom of expression and the right to equal treatment.

“Close friends do not shy away from telling each other the unpleasant truth,” the report states. “Based on the process sketched above, your rapporteur sees the need to request the council to come forward with appropriate measures to restore inclusive democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights in Hungary.”



The report was completed before the Hungarian parliament last week passed widely criticised anti-immigrant laws that make it a criminal offence punishable by a jail term to help people lodge asylum claims.



The European commission is “now going to review the Hungarian legislation on migration to determine whether it is compatible with European rules”, a spokeswoman said last week.

Hungary’s response was made plain in a radio interview where Orbán lashed out at the commission for “pestering, pressuring and attacking Poland” and “attacking Hungary”.

Orbán has long accused the commission of overreaching its powers, a charge he has stepped up in recent years with a “Stop Brussels” campaign.

He said the anti-immigration legislation had been flagged up in the electoral campaign. “The people wanted this and the people voted for this,” Orbán told state radio last week. “Who would dare to criticise or condemn the 80 or 90% decision of a country’s legislature?”

The EU triggered the rule of law process for the first time in 2017, when it took action against Poland for changes to the judiciary that international experts say threaten the rule of law.



Poland’s EU affairs minister will appear before his 27 counterparts from the other member states at a hearing on Tuesday, where he will seek to counter the charge of a “systemic threat” to Polish democracy.</s>EU lawmakers vote for rule of law action against Hungary

BRUSSELS (AP) — European Union lawmakers have voted for launching action against Hungary over allegations that Prime Minister Viktor Orban's government is breaching the bloc's fundamental values.

The European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee voted Monday for a report that recommends triggering an "Article 7 procedure" amid concerns about judicial independence, media freedoms and the harsh treatment of migrants in Hungary. The full assembly must still endorse the move for it to happen.

The procedure could result in Hungary losing EU voting rights, although this is unlikely because Poland, which is also facing Article 7 action launched by the EU's executive Commission, would probably veto it.

The Commission says it is also scrutinizing laws passed in Hungary last week allowing jail sentences for people convicted of aiding asylum seekers, and which ban homelessness.</s>The European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee voted Monday for launching action against Hungary over allegations that Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government is breaching the EU’s fundamental values. The committee voted Monday for a report that recommends triggering an “Article 7 procedure” amid concerns about judicial independence, media freedoms and the harsh treatment of migrants in Hungary, AP said. The full assembly must still endorse the move for it to happen. The procedure could result in Hungary losing EU voting rights. However, this is unlikely because Poland, which is also facing Article 7 action launched by the EU’s executive Commission, would probably veto it.</s>MEPs belonging to the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs voted to launch disciplinary action against Hungary – which would eventually lead to the country being stripped of voting rights within the EU. But the Conservative Party has been accused of derailing their own legacy after its MEP in the committee voted against kickstarting the procedures. The Guardian reports that the decision was described as “an exit from European values” by a leading politician from a rival party. Meanwhile, Hungary's Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto was in London, speaking to delegates at Chatham House about Hungary's stance on the bloc's open migration policy and commended Italy's "game changing" policy on the EU's open migrant policy.

The vote on Monday was seen as a symbolic move against Mr Orbán. The contested leader was re-elected for a third term in April – with international commentators saying his party's campaign was characterised by intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric. But a vote is the first step in stripping Hungary of its rights. A final decision to launch proceedings against Hungary required a two-thirds majority in the European parliament. If a majority of MEPs vote in September, ministers will be obliged to consider whether there is a serious and persistent breach of the EU’s basic democratic values in Hungary.

Sophie in ’t Veld of the Dutch Democrats 66 party, who is on the committee, said: “This is a damning indictment of the state of British European policy and completely destroys any credibility the Tories might have left. “Even Conservative governments of the recent past were always promotors of democracy and the rule of law in central and eastern Europe, but in providing cover for Orbán’s descent into authoritarianism, they have trampled on this legacy. “Voting with Orbán is the true Tory Brexit: the exit from European values." Conservative home affairs spokesman Daniel Dalton told the Guardian: “The extremely one-sided report I voted against today was an inappropriate attempt by the European parliament to insert itself into domestic political battles."

In the same session, Conservative MEPs also voted against similar action against Poland – which fuelled concerns over a Brexit government sidelining democratic value to gain favour with autocratic governments. Mr Dalton said: "Recent attempts to raise domestic controversies to a European level are both wrong and counterproductive, alienating many citizens who feel their countries are being unfairly targeted by the European institutions.” At 6pm BST on Monday, Mr Szijjarto delivered a speech in London outlining the challenges arising from foreign policy in the EU bloc, including security, migration and transatlantic relationships. Mr Szijjarto told how Hungary – much like Italy - is opposed to the EU's open migration policy, saying: "There are countries that act that migration is the best answer regarding a better market.

"We respect that. But please, don’t put that on us. We don’t think the same in Hungary." He continued to point at the security risks posed by the "phenomenon of migration" throughout Europe, claiming that the Hungarian Government obligation of protecting borders "is something we should fufil". He told the conference: "We look at migration as an issue with a huge security component. "Sometimes, someone has to answer the question: how was it possible to let one million come to the European Union without knowing who they are, without knowing their plans, without knowing their affiliations that could threaten Europe?"</s>A key committee in the European Parliament voted by a large majority in favor of triggering the EU’s so-called Article 7 process against Hungary, which could ultimately lead to EU sanctions for failing to uphold the bloc’s core values.

MEPs from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee voted by 37 votes to 19 to back a resolution, drafted by Dutch Green MEP Judith Sargentini, which says the situation in Hungary exposes “a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaties” and calls on the Article 7(1) procedure.

Sargentini’s text highlights concerns about the independence of the judiciary, academic freedom, corruption, freedom of expression, and the rights of migrants in Hungary, among other issues.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government has been accused by critics at home and abroad of putting Hungary on the road to autocracy and reintroducing undemocratic practices. Earlier this month, the Hungarian parliament passed controversial legislation banning anyone from assisting or providing information to migrants and asylum-seekers.

The government has repeatedly dismissed such criticism as overblown and unwarranted meddling in Hungary’s domestic affairs.

If the full Parliament votes in favor on Sargentini’s resolution at a plenary session in September, the assembly will formally ask the Council to trigger the first of a three-step process that could lead to Hungary being stripped of its voting rights in the Council.

Although the final step of sanctions is unlikely — as all other EU member countries would have to vote in favor — a decision to begin the process could damage Hungary’s international standing.

A breakdown of Monday’s vote showed that eight members of the European People’s Party, the center-right grouping that includes Orbán’s Fidesz party, voted in favor of Sargentini’s resolution.

The EPP has been criticized for keeping Fidesz in its ranks, though many EPP members argue that this has helped the group to keep Orbán in check, temper some of his impulses and avoid a problem that could be much more serious. Orbán himself said in a recent speech that he wanted to stay in the EPP and try to reform it.

The vote could add fuel to already strained West-East relations in the EU, just days before EU leaders gather in Brussels for a European Council summit to discuss, among other topics, the sensitive issue of migration. Orbán has been among the strongest critics of EU migration policies.

Péter Szijjártó, Hungary’s foreign affairs minister, played down the importance of Monday’s vote. In an official statement on the ministry’s website, he said Brussels was “playing to Georges Soros’ tune,” while “in Hungary, we look at the interests of the Hungarian people.”

Orbán has often accused Soros, an American-Hungarian businessman and philanthropist, of undermining Hungary’s national interests — a charge Soros rejects.

Read this next: Former NATO chief denied visa waiver for US entry</s>The European Parliamentʼs Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) on Monday approved a report that notes the “existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded.” The report calls for the launch of an Article 7 procedure against Hungary.

The report calls for the launch of the Article 7 procedure against Hungary - popularly known as the “nuclear option” to bring an offending state into line - and was approved with a vote of 37 for and 19 against, Hungarian news agency MTI reported.

Article 7 is invoked with the aim of suspending certain rights from a member state, if that state is deemed to have persistently breached the EUʼs founding values, defined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union as “respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.”

The Article 7 procedure could ultimately strip Hungary of its EU voting rights. However, MTI noted, that would require a unanimous vote by all other member states, which analysts say is unlikely. The report, for which MEP Judith Sargentini is rapporteur, is expected to come before the European Parliament in the fall.

Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó said the vote on the report had been a “political ruling” and called the procedure a “show trial,” according to official government website kormany.hu.

“Unfortunately we remember many similar conceptual procedures from Hungarian history, when the verdict had already been written long before the trial took place,” the minister added.

There is a major dispute between Brussels and Hungary with relation to migration, Szijjártó pointed out, noting that in Brussels “they view migration and the replacement of the European population being realized via migration as a value.”

“In Brussels they are playing according to George Soros’s music and representing his views and values, while in Hungary we focus on the interests of the Hungarian people,” the minister continued, adding that the Hungarian government sees “security, the family, the defense of Christian culture and respect for work as the kind of European values which must be held, represented and defended.”

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán told journalists after the vote on the report - which he dubbed, not for the first time, the “Soros Report” - that Hungary is being pressured to change its stand on the issue of immigration.

“But in view of the fact that Hungarian voters have already decided on this issue, there is nothing more to talk about,” he added.</s>There’s a good deal of sympathy in the City for the cause of the UK remaining in the European Union. Brexit is causing anguish, distraction, taking huge amounts of management time, and threatens to disrupt the very foundations of European capital markets. There are a few Leave sympathisers, but they usually stay quiet. Remaining is seen as the sensible, pro-market choice.

But spare a thought for the poor finance industry lobbyists. Remain sympathies run strong with them — the shambles of the UK preparations for Brexit can hardly fail to solicit contempt for leaving — but their day job is still grinding through page after page of poorly drafted European rules.

The wave of post-crisis regulation in the European Union has been replete with potentially market-killing moves, some of which were well-intentioned attempts to solve problems, some of which were outright mistakes.

While each mistake might be an accident or an oversight, the system that creates them is poorly designed. Level one regulation emanates from the European Commission, in the first instance — a well-intentioned civil service body, with no particular financial markets expertise, but a great deal of power.

It’s then agreed with the Council of EU or European Council (yes, they’re different bodies — didn’t you know?), representing the interests of 28 different member states, and the European Parliament.

Neither body sees a great deal of scrutiny — outside specialist EU newswires, nobody reports on the deliberations of obscure EU committees, and for the casual observer, even navigating the websites is difficult.

Lobbyists learn to navigate this world, and can usually gain access to individual European Parliament members fairly easily — they like the attention, given that the glamourous end of politics is universally in national bodies — but the sheer volume of regulatory detail that’s had to pass through a small number of Parliamentary offices means details and nuance are inevitably lost.

The European Parliament that ran from 2009-2014 had to pass CRD III, CRD IV / CRR, three different credit rating agency rules, Solvency II, and EMIR — and then rushed to finish off MiFID/MiFIR before it was voted out. The following Parliament had to digest Capital Markets Union, the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive, the components of Banking Union, a full overhaul of CRR, now a positively ancient five years old, and must now contemplate rules on NPLs as well.

Once all three agree on a single text, then, and only then, will European regulation be passed to the actual experts in banking, finance, or markets — the European Banking Authority, European Securities and Markets Authority, and the European Insurance and Operational Pensions Authority (together, the ESAs).

When this system produces potentially market-destroying mistakes — the mandatory buy-in rules in the Central Securities Depositories Regulation, or the ban of self-certified mortgages in securitizations, or the original non-equity transparency rules in MiFIR, for example — there’s an unseemly scramble to fix the problem, using the “level 2” rules, which fill in the blanks left by the higher level texts.

These level 2 rules are drafted by the ESAs themselves, then bounced back to the Commission for confirmation — in its own sweet time.

Often the ESAs are well aware they’re about to implement something disastrous, and do their best to paper over the cracks. But they have very little latitude to do so.

But unlike in the United States, there’s no “no-action letter” concept allowed — the regulatory agencies have no legal mechanism to simply suspend enforcement of rules until lawmakers have sorted out the problem.

They can do this informally — ESMA has essentially suspended any MiFID-related enforcement, since the scramble to get ready for the rules at the beginning of their year was so last-minute that details need to be ironed out — but it’s contrary to European Union rules.

The ESAs are rather good at consulting the market — particularly the EBA, which almost always accompanies its consultations with a public hearing. Many of the senior staff at the ESAs are avid conference-goers, speaking to the market on panels, and informally, hearing market feedback, and taking seriously their market intelligence responsibilities.

With a few honourable exceptions, this is not the case for the European Commission or the European Parliament. Members are interested in grandstanding for their constituents, and protecting cherished local idiosyncrasies of their markets.

So the system is upside down. The most important rules are set by the least informed, creating binding constraints within which specialists must cobble together something that does function.

It also takes an extraordinarily long time. A big piece of legislation, like MiFID/MiFIR or Solvency II, can take more than five years, creating huge uncertainty for markets.

The EU has a review process built in — all regulation must be reviewed within five years — but this, too, does more harm than good. Because the lead times can be so long, the review can begin almost before the original regulation is in effect.

That means less incentive to get rules right in the first place, and then, instead of incremental improvement based on real experience, a new Parliament, with a new Commission keen to make its mark, can reopen the whole can of worms. The process moves inexorably forward, with ever more detail filled in — but no mechanism at all to correct any errors that arose near the beginning.

It’s an ugly business. Bismarck’s misattributed maxim about never watching how laws or sausages are made applies in abundance.

But the saving grace of the whole mess lies in comparison.

The right comparison for the European Union’s messy process is not the US, or Japan, or China, but a hypothetical world with no European Union, but 28 European countries fighting with each other bilaterally, trying to add capital markets and financial consistency through a thicket of bilateral treaties.

MiFID might not be pretty, but at least it’s a standard. Passporting beats the hell out of securing a separate securities license everywhere from Stockholm to Slovakia. And so, with heavy hearts, even those who see the worst sides of the EU will mostly carry on supporting it. They may even have marched.</s>Some European lawmakers urged the EU on Monday to consider stripping Hungary of its voting rights to punish it for weakening democracy and the rule of law, a move which prompted a swift rebuke from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. The European Parliament’s Civil Liberties committee (LIBE) voted in favour of triggering a formal punitive procedure, citing concerns about the independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression, the rights of minorities, and treatment of migrants and refugees in Hungary.

The European Parliament as a whole is expected to endorse the proposal in September but it is unlikely to lead to any swift action against Hungary as that would require all other EU states to back the idea. But the LIBE move highlighted a widening rift between the liberal EU founders and Hungary – part of a grouping of newer, eastern member states which are now run by nationalist eurosceptics and have resisted an EU push to host asylum seekers.

Orban dismissed the committee’s vote as an attempt to pressure Hungary to change its policies on migration, state news agency MTI reported. “But, given that Hungarian voters have already made their decision about this issue, there is nothing to discuss,” he said, according to MTI. Orban’s Fidesz party won by a landslide in elections last April, partly on a wave of support for his hardline migration policies, including a refusal to take in anyone from the new arrivals from the Middle East and North Africa.

During his eight years in power, Orban has increasingly put pressure on courts, media and non-government groups. Though the EU has often protested, it has largely failed to stop him in what his critics denounce as a growing authoritarian drive.

Orban’s other nationalist, eurosceptic ally Poland would most likely shield Budapest from any sanctions even if the Article 7 punitive procedure was launched against Hungary. Orban has made clear he would block any such move against Warsaw, which has been at odds with the bloc for more than two years over its own judicial reforms that critics say weaken courts and the rule of law in the largest ex-communist EU state.

Twenty eight EU ministers will discuss their concerns about Poland again on Tuesday at a session in Luxembourg. EU leaders are preparing to discuss immigration policy in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, seeking to heal a deep division in a bloc already badly shaken by Brexit.

For all the latest World News, download Indian Express App</s>The alleged Russian conspiracy which is supposed to be helping populists win elections worldwide has now been blamed for a fall in EU nation state support for European renewable energy policies.

How A Populist Europe In Thrall To Russia Threatens Climate Change Action

“We are in a really dangerous moment.”

As a growing number of European countries tip toward the far right politically, attempts to curb climate change are coming under pressure. The region’s race to cut planet-warming greenhouse gases is generating friction, and some Members of European Parliament and experts point the finger of blame at Russian big energy interests and populist governments in thrall to them.

This month, a bid to raise the European Union’s supply of renewable energy to 35 percent of the electricity mix by 2030 was stymied by a bloc of EU states led by populist governments in the Visegrad countries ― Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia ― even though it had the support of the European Parliament and European Commission.

The same bloc of countries helped whittle down proposals for a binding 40 percent energy conservation target, despite signs of accelerating climate change from the Antarctic to the African savannah.

“We see a pattern of populist governments clearly opposing ambitious climate and energy regulations, which is in line with the primary Russian economic interest: exporting fossil fuels and nuclear technology,” Benedek Jávor, the vice-chair of the European parliament’s environment committee and a Hungarian Green MEP, told HuffPost.

Russia supplies more than a third of Europe’s gas but this could be reduced to nothing by an ambitious energy saving target, according to analyses by several think tanks and consultancies.

Hungary, for example, which is becoming an increasingly authoritarian government under far-right leader Viktor Orbán, is a valued advocate for Russian gas infrastructure and is also building a Russian-financed €10 billion ($11.5 billion) nuclear reactor outside Budapest.

Russia’s energy agenda plays to a wider audience than extreme nationalists. Gas and nuclear are both seen as relatively lower carbon options than coal, which could “bridge” the path to a mid-century world powered solely by renewables. However, some climate studies suggest that, where gas is concerned, the bridge could also burn the chances of limiting global warming to no more than a 2 C temperature rise above pre-Industrial levels ― the target the majority of scientists say cannot be exceeded if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Several academic papers have found that investment in gas could crowd out desperately needed funds for renewable energy while providing few emissions-cutting benefits.
Members of the European Parliament vote to activate the European Union's disciplinary process against Hungary, citing alleged discrepancies administering the rule of law in the country under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.