Podcast Summary: EU Scream – Ep.115: A Real Nuclear Option for Orbán's Hungary

Date: April 30, 2025
Host: James Kanter
Guest: Tom Tones (Leiden University)
Main Theme:
A sharp discussion of the EU’s failure to deal with democratic backsliding, specifically Hungary under Viktor Orbán, and a provocative proposal: creating a realistic path to expel a member state.

Episode Overview

The episode tackles the European Union’s deepening crisis with illiberal member states—most notably Hungary under Viktor Orbán. James Kanter and Tom Tones dissect why the EU’s existing punitive mechanisms, especially Article 7 (the so-called nuclear option), have been ineffective at reining in autocratic governments. Tones lays out proposals from his book Protecting Democracy in Europe, including a thought experiment for mass coordinated withdrawal and “EU 2.0,” and robust measures to directly support democratic forces inside backsliding countries.

The conversation moves through the ethical, practical, and political problems with existing EU mechanisms, explores the historic roots of EU inaction, and ends with a call to rethink the limits of democracy within the Union.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Orban’s Hungary and the Precedent of Illiberalism

• Background: Hungary, led by Viktor Orbán and Fidesz for 15 years, systematically undermines democracy, brutalizes minorities, and threatens press and academic freedom ([00:02]).
• Hungary’s illiberalism has inspired far-right actors globally, normalizing kleptocratic governance in the EU.

2. Why Article 7 (the ‘Nuclear Option’) Fails

• Provisions: In theory, Article 7 can suspend a member’s voting rights. In practice, it’s been ineffective—a "damp squib" ([00:02]).

• Unanimity Requirement: Any single state’s opposition renders sanctions impossible, as Tones notes:

  “All Orban needs is one ally in the European Council... the sanctions procedures against him... become impossible.” ([09:04], Tom Tones)

• Paradox of Continued Membership: Article 7 strips voting rights but obliges the sanctioned state to EU law, creating an anti-democratic “suzerainty” ([10:02]).

3. A Three-Pronged Strategy for Defending EU Democracy ([04:07])

• Complicity by Omission: The EU is complicit if it fails to address democratic decline.

• Containment: Limit autocrat influence in EU decisions without betraying core EU values.

• Cultivate Pluralist Democracy:

  “Those that are harmed most by democratic backsliding in Hungary are Hungarian citizens themselves. So we should think about how to support pro democratic actors in Hungary…” ([04:07], Tom Tones)

• Direct Support for Democracy: More controversial—suggests direct EU funding for pro-democracy opposition parties, not by ideology, but by commitment to democracy ([06:10]).

4. Direct Funding for Political Parties: Risks and Ethics

• Rationale: When the playing field is fundamentally distorted by autocratic incumbents, direct partisan intervention is not only defensible but necessary.

  “In that context, partisan political interference, as long as it serves to redress that distortion, is justifiable and even desirable…” ([06:10], Tom Tones)

• Obstacles: Far-right and conservative actors in the EU seek to roll back such funding ([07:23]).

5. Expulsion: A Real (Not Just Theoretical) Nuclear Option

• No Treaty Provision: There’s currently no legal way to expel a member state.

• Article 50 as Creative Mechanism:
  Tones proposes a collective, coordinated withdrawal and immediate “re-founding” of the EU without autocratic members (“EU 2.0”), using Article 50—the same withdrawal clause as Brexit ([19:04]).

• Mass Exit as Leverage:

  “What that means is, at some point, if a member state of the European Union becomes frankly, autocratic, EU member states can also choose to disengage.” ([12:44], Tom Tones)

• Political Risks: Complex, fraught procedure requiring massive pre-coordination, and vulnerable to disruption by spoilers ([00:02]).

6. Timing and Criteria for Expulsion

• Political Judgment, Not Technocratic: Deciding to expel must be debated democratically, not left to experts ([15:31]).

• Empowerment vs. Fatalism: Keeping expulsion off the table only emboldens autocrats ([15:31]).

• Potential for Deterrence:

  “If we have a clear headed conversation about... expulsion... we actually disempower autocrats.” ([15:31], Tom Tones)

7. Sanctions and the Hungarian Public

• Sanctions disproportionately hurt regime opponents and ordinary citizens; the regime protects its own. This dilemma mirrors international sanctions debates ([11:43]).

8. Current Political Dynamics & Weak Workarounds

• Workarounds (Europe of 26): Increasingly, Hungary is bypassed on EU decisions, but often bought off with concessions.

  “We have this... situation where the Commission announces 10 billion euros of funds, which coincides perfectly with Orban leaving to allow a vote on support to Ukraine.” ([23:46], Tom Tones)

• Unsustainability: Relying on a veto player’s goodwill is insecure and corrosive for EU legitimacy ([24:39]).

9. Historical Lessons and Institutional Weakening

• The EU’s early (2000s) attempts to boycott Austria over far-right party government collapsed.

  “Concretely you can’t come to parties. We’re not going to invite you to bilateral diplomatic talks...” ([28:25], Tom Tones).

• Subsequent EU procedures were weakened to avoid future political crises, leading to a “process over enforcement” approach, as satirized by Dan Kellerman ([31:28]).

• Assessment Reports: Lack of meaningful differentiation between rule-of-law violators and compliant states; “completely insane” ([32:08], Tom Tones).

10. Urgency and the Logic of Backsliding

• The longer an autocracy consolidates, the harder it is to reverse:

  “What they are undermining, literally, is the possibility of their removal by flattening media freedom, by flattening opposition. And the result of that is if you do nothing, the situation just gets worse.” ([33:12], Tom Tones)

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On EU Complicity:

  “If you have a duty to respond to democratic backsliding in a member state, and you don’t do that, you’re also complicit by omission...”
  — Tom Tones ([04:07])

• On the Limits of Article 7:

  “Stripping someone of their right to vote and continuing to hold them subject to a political ... decision that’s made in a body that they have no influence in, it’s just a straightforwardly anti-democratic scenario.”
  — Tom Tones ([10:02])

• On Direct Interference:

  “In that context, partisan political interference, as long as it serves to redress that distortion, is justifiable and even desirable where the actors supported are pro-democratic.”
  — Tom Tones ([06:10])

• On Mass Exit as Expulsion:

  “Pro-rule of law member states [could] collectively withdraw from the Union ... as long as you have this robust majority in the Council, you can do what you want.”
  — Tom Tones ([19:04])

• On Institutional Weakening:

  “After the Austrian experience ... the lesson that was learned is that going outside of the EU institutions, going this bilateral route, is a mistake. Boycotts are a mistake. We have to go procedurally, we have to go legally, we have to go via EU procedures and EU law.”
  — Tom Tones ([29:46])

• On EU Reports:

  “They’re largely indistinguishable ... which is insane. Completely ignoring that there’s part of the building that’s burning down.”
  — Tom Tones ([32:08])

• On Urgency:

  “The logic of democratic backsliding is the longer it goes on, the more difficult it is to dislodge these authoritarian actors.”
  — Tom Tones ([33:12])

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Background on Hungary and the EU’s failing tools: [00:02–03:09]
• Three-pronged strategy for containing autocrats: [04:07–07:23]
• Support for pro-democracy actors & parties: [05:29–07:53]
• Why Article 7 fails and legal paradox: [08:11–10:02]
• On necessity and ethics of expulsion: [12:24–14:30]
• Testing and timing for expulsion decisions: [15:13–17:29]
• Use of Article 50 for expulsion/refounding EU: [19:04–20:26]
• Buying off Hungary, ‘Europe of 26’: [23:46–24:39]
• Lessons from Austria (2000) and institutional weakening: [25:22–29:37]
• On toothless democracy instruments: [31:28–32:39]
• Closing analysis and the urgency for action: [33:12–33:54]

Tone and Takeaways

The conversation is sober, methodical, and urgent. Tones and Kanter make clear the costs of dithering, and the depth of the EU’s political and institutional crisis. Tones insists that the mere conversation about expulsion would have real-world effects, reducing fatalism and providing leverage over autocrats. The episode is a warning—and a call for Europeans to confront how far their Union will go to defend democracy from its internal enemies.