A.P.
Chekhov once remarked: "If in the first act you hung a gun on the wall, then in the last act it should fire."
This principle has since been called "Chekhov's gun".
The great, mighty European Union, created by the will of the peoples, hung not even one gun on the wall, but an entire arsenal, as a result of which the shooting seemed inevitable.
The principle of liberum veto, that is, mandatory unanimity on important issues, in particular on the budget, has become a gun of the largest caliber.
In 1957, when the Rome Treaty establishing the European Economic Community was signed, it included six countries: France, Italy, Germany (as the heirs of Charlemagne's empire) and Benelux, who joined them.
Obviously, a collegium consisting of only six subjects (and in fact from three: the Benelux countries were sitting quietly and did not fuss) can afford liberum veto.
Moreover, initially the EEC included countries that were more or less similar in economic and cultural terms, and the subject of general regulation was expanded very carefully, without the later Brussels dizziness of success.
It was relatively easy to achieve unanimity.
Today the EU includes 27 countries - four and a half times as many.
Even purely mathematically, the risk of disagreement grows exponentially.
Cultural and economic homogeneity in the current EU did not even spend the night.
The difference between Austria and Bulgaria is hardly less than between the Estonian and Tajik SSR - and in the case of the latter, it is known how it all ended.
And at the same time, the ambitions of the Brussels regional committee are only growing.
Isn't it a gun on the wall?
Which is exactly what happened.
Poland and Hungary, dissatisfied with the EU budget plan for 2021-2027, vetoed the project.
Partly because, from the point of view of the two dissident countries, the allocations allocated to them are too small - the time for freebies is over.
But mainly because it was decided in Brussels to continue to strictly link alms from the Union budget to the so-called rule of law, which means strict observance of the general political requirements of the center.
Such as: the rights of minorities (same-sex marriages, gay pride parades, etc.), the principles of the judiciary (inadmissibility of the executive's interference in the formation of judicial collegiums), the rights of multicultural refugees, which should be encouraged in every possible way, no matter what (which in Hungary and Poland is completely is not observed: "the border is locked", etc.).
That is, the EU has clearly declared itself as an ideocratic entity.
Whoever does not like the ideological principles of the EU, we will cut off the oxygen for a start, and then, if the dissidents persist, we will think of something else.
The irony of history is that half a century ago, the same Hungary and Poland fought for the title of the funniest barrack in the socialist camp.
If Bulgaria, the GDR and Czechoslovakia showed ideological firmness (today's EU authorities would like it), then the Magyars and Lyakh demonstrated (within the limits of the possible, of course, it was scary to ask for fraternal help quite frankly) opposition and connivance.
Another thing is that the Soviet ideocracy was then already strongly on the decline and in Moscow - not like now in Brussels - they turned a blind eye to many things.
Do not go over to the side of the geopolitical enemy - and all right.
It is difficult to say how the current episode will end.
Still, the history of the European community is rich in compromises.
Although compromises are compromises, and the UK is no longer in the EU.
Opportunism and blurring the issue also have a limit.
Moreover, both for the Magyar with Lyakh and for the Brussels regional committee, the issue of gay pride parades and multicultural refugees has acquired a fundamental character.
To give in would be a loss of honor.
Well, we, remembering the fate of the great and mighty socialist community, can only express our wish: "And for me, please, a cup of coffee."
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.