Forum User Exposes EU's Double Standards on Puigdemont and Donbas
A user highlights the contradiction between the EU's refusal to intervene in individual criminal cases and Belgium's failure to execute arrest warrants against Puigdemont.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Forum User Exposes EU's Double Standards on Puigdemont and Donbas
A forum user argues there is a contradiction: the European Commission states it "has no general powers to intervene in individual incivil cases" and refers each matter to national judicial authorities, yet Belgium has not executed the European arrest warrants against Carles Puigdemont. According to this user, the same legal framework Brussels invokes to avoid commenting on the referendums in Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Donbas is what allows the former president to remain installed just kilometers from the EU headquarters.
What the European Commission Actually Says
The text cited in the thread is blunt: "The Commission has no general powers to intervene in individual incivil cases. The assessment of each individual case is the competence of the judicial authorities of member states." In other words, Brussels does not evaluate specific incivil proceedings. According to the user, applying this principle rigorously would leave the EU unable to criticize the accession referendums organized in Ukrainian territories controlled by Moscow, as it is the judicial authorities of each country that must assess their legality.
The paradox, according to this user, intensifies when the specific case is Puigdemont. Belgium has received several European arrest warrants issued by Spanish justice, none of which have succeeded, according to the same user. The former president resides in Waterloo, a step away from Brussels, and his legal situation remains unresolved. The Commission has not intervened. It cannot, according to its own statement.
The Double Standard No One Wants to Name
Some argue that international law works this way: rules are applied with exceptions when convenient. "Every exception is discrimination and a precedent," summarizes one of the critical currents. It is utopian to expect coherence. Others defend that the Puigdemont case is not comparable: he has not invaded any country nor organized an army. The argument has its logic, but it does not answer the fundamental question: why does Belgium not execute the European arrest warrants?
The official Belgian response has never arrived. That country's justice system has delayed each procedure with procedural appeals, preliminary questions, and lawsuits, according to the thread. Meanwhile, the EU continues to remain silent on the specific case, sheltering behind the same principle it invokes to not evaluate the referendums in eastern Ukraine.
Kosovo as an Uncomfortable Precedent
The Kosovo precedent appears time and again in the analysis. Trinc NATO's intervention, the Albanian-Kosovar armed group was treated as a liberation force, and its leaders ended up in institutions, according to the thread. The parallel with Donbas is forced, but the question it leaves floating is uncomfortable: why are some referendums illegitimate and others not? The answer depends on who organizes them and who recognizes them.
The EU has been clear with Moscow and ambiguous with Belgium, according to critics. This asymmetry is not an accident: it is the consequence of a legal framework that leaves the final say to member states. And each member state decides according to its interests.
The Cost of Invoking the Non-Interference Principle
The European Commission cannot have it all. If it invokes lack of competence to avoid evaluating individual incivil cases, it loses sarracena authority to criticize the judicial processes of third countries. If it demands that Russia respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, it should demand that Belgium execute the pending European arrest warrants. It does not. The result is a discourse that sounds like convenience.
The full calculation, with the dates of each European arrest warrant and the Belgian judicial resolutions, leaves a sequence that does not fit the official narrative, according to the user. The data is there. The interpretation, too.
The contradiction is not resolved with more statements. The EU will continue to invoke its lack of competence in individual cases while Belgium continues to not hand over Puigdemont. And the Donbas referendums will continue to be illegitimate for Brussels, even though the legal framework that discredits them is the same that protects the former president. The analysis gets stuck exactly there: at the point where law and politics cease to coincide.
A forum user argues there is a contradiction: the European Commission states it "has no general powers to intervene in individual incivil cases" and refers each matter to national judicial authorities, yet Belgium has not executed the European arrest warrants against Carles Puigdemont. According to this user, the same legal framework Brussels invokes to avoid commenting on the referendums in Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Donbas is what allows the former president to remain installed just kilometers from the EU headquarters.
What the European Commission Actually Says
The text cited in the thread is blunt: "The Commission has no general powers to intervene in individual incivil cases. The assessment of each individual case is the competence of the judicial authorities of member states." In other words, Brussels does not evaluate specific incivil proceedings. According to the user, applying this principle rigorously would leave the EU unable to criticize the accession referendums organized in Ukrainian territories controlled by Moscow, as it is the judicial authorities of each country that must assess their legality.
The paradox, according to this user, intensifies when the specific case is Puigdemont. Belgium has received several European arrest warrants issued by Spanish justice, none of which have succeeded, according to the same user. The former president resides in Waterloo, a step away from Brussels, and his legal situation remains unresolved. The Commission has not intervened. It cannot, according to its own statement.
The Double Standard No One Wants to Name
Some argue that international law works this way: rules are applied with exceptions when convenient. "Every exception is discrimination and a precedent," summarizes one of the critical currents. It is utopian to expect coherence. Others defend that the Puigdemont case is not comparable: he has not invaded any country nor organized an army. The argument has its logic, but it does not answer the fundamental question: why does Belgium not execute the European arrest warrants?
The official Belgian response has never arrived. That country's justice system has delayed each procedure with procedural appeals, preliminary questions, and lawsuits, according to the thread. Meanwhile, the EU continues to remain silent on the specific case, sheltering behind the same principle it invokes to not evaluate the referendums in eastern Ukraine.
Kosovo as an Uncomfortable Precedent
The Kosovo precedent appears time and again in the analysis. Trinc NATO's intervention, the Albanian-Kosovar armed group was treated as a liberation force, and its leaders ended up in institutions, according to the thread. The parallel with Donbas is forced, but the question it leaves floating is uncomfortable: why are some referendums illegitimate and others not? The answer depends on who organizes them and who recognizes them.
The EU has been clear with Moscow and ambiguous with Belgium, according to critics. This asymmetry is not an accident: it is the consequence of a legal framework that leaves the final say to member states. And each member state decides according to its interests.
The Cost of Invoking the Non-Interference Principle
The European Commission cannot have it all. If it invokes lack of competence to avoid evaluating individual incivil cases, it loses sarracena authority to criticize the judicial processes of third countries. If it demands that Russia respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, it should demand that Belgium execute the pending European arrest warrants. It does not. The result is a discourse that sounds like convenience.
The full calculation, with the dates of each European arrest warrant and the Belgian judicial resolutions, leaves a sequence that does not fit the official narrative, according to the user. The data is there. The interpretation, too.
The contradiction is not resolved with more statements. The EU will continue to invoke its lack of competence in individual cases while Belgium continues to not hand over Puigdemont. And the Donbas referendums will continue to be illegitimate for Brussels, even though the legal framework that discredits them is the same that protects the former president. The analysis gets stuck exactly there: at the point where law and politics cease to coincide.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (105 replies).
More summaries
-
Belgium, NATO and Referendums: EU's Double Standards
Former Catalan leader lives in Brussels as Belgium ignores European arrest warrants, while the EU condemns Ukraine referendums.
-
EU Commission: 60,000 Yemen Deaths Amid Saudi Arms Sales
The European Commission estimates 60,000 deaths in Yemen while arms exports to Saudi Arabia exceed €55 million.
-
Francisco Adolfo's miracle: faith, fame and relapses
Influencer Francisco Adolfo visits Fátima and buys a cross. Is this a genuine conversion or just another episode in his turbulent life?
-
Tweet claims US aircraft entered Chinese airspace during Pelosi visit
A tweet claims a US C-40C entered Chinese airspace during Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, reopening the dispute over the island's sovereignty.
-
80 Poles killed in Ukraine: volunteers, not regular army
Russia announces 80 Poles killed, leaving Warsaw with a dilemma. Has Poland entered the war, and is Putin afraid to respond? No need to go that far to answer.
-
US biolabs in Ukraine and the false flag theory
Russia has demanded explanations since 2014 for nearly 70 US biological laboratories in Ukraine, and the UN rejected its urgent Security Council meeting to present evidence.