Against Visegrad

Within the European Union there is an area that wants to escape the rules of Brussels, while retaining all the benefits that Europe unites. This zone consists of four states, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and it is summarized in the name of the Pact of Visegrad. This association of states was born to develop the co-operation of the then three nations, which then became four and favored a sort of unitary integration within the European Union. If this was the main purpose, the group, understood as a form of cooperation between foreign states, had to have exhausted its tasks and would no longer have the right to exist. However, this was not and the reason for being of the existence of the group has changed its reference, becoming an aggregation of states that, within a supranational union, fights to maintain some autonomy through rejection, posteriorly, Of previously accepted rules. To foster this cohesion, there is a strong political proximity of the executives, which little bear the fundamental rules of accession to Brussels and take measures that undermine civil rights, such as the reduction of the right to criticism, by limiting the freedom of the press or the Direct government control over the judiciary. This is very much the case with violations of what I have signed up to enter Europe, which Brussels seems to tolerate too lightly, with the risk of triggering dangerous precedents, capable of altering the founding principles of the Union. Moreover, the attitude of the governments of these countries seems arrogant and incompatible with the normal rules of coexistence between European states. The perception is that the countries of the Visegrad Pact have no convincing participation in the Union, and the feelings of their peoples live Europe as a sort of loss of sovereignty and not an opportunity for development towards democratic values ​​and the European project . The only thing that is considered positively is the economic aspect, as these countries receive from Europe more funding than their contributions, fines, which have enabled economic growth in all these countries. Brussels' intent was to allow democratic growth through a better economic condition, a project that appears to have failed. The exasperation and the annoyance with which the Visegrad covenant welcomes European demands is to show that what has developed is a difficult relationship that can be recovered. The question of the division of immigrant quotas and their attitude are eloquent examples of the incompatibility between the countries that belonged to the Soviet bloc with the other members of the Union. The obvious risk of keeping these countries within the European perimeter is that the Visegrad pact becomes a sort of attraction for other countries to skepticism towards Europe. The example of Austria is obvious. For some Europe, some or no members convinced of the founding values ​​of the Union, they are very negative in their own right, and it would be preferable to initiate a process of reflection, capable of reaching drastic solutions, which might require a revision of the accession agreements, Through severe sanction rules for those who do not adhere to the principles and general needs. If the United Kingdom has come out, even if alone, Europe can withstand the possible withdrawal of the Visegrad group, eliminating member countries who no longer have or have not ever had the characteristics to remain within a Supranational union that has to demand consonant behavior, both within its common borders, and within the boundaries of the individual state. Without this application of standards, which are, however, underscored, the efforts for European unity are vanishing and its existence is endangered. To take the road of severity beyond budget constraints, it is more important to safeguard democratic values ​​and to share the general needs if you really want to go in a common sense, on the contrary it is better that within Europe not rest Countries that aim to gain one-way benefits.