Would you let one or two cities have veto power over the policy of an entire country? If not then what's the difference here? If yes do you think that would work?

Of course the important thing is to decide what should be handled at the city, region, nation and EU level. There's a tradeoff. Decisions made at lower levels are generally better for accountability and give better adaptability to local circumstances but on the other hand they often lose leverage.

A city wouldn't be able to talk as an equal to large companies like Apple and Google for example, even many countries can't. But the EU can. Replace Apple / Google by Russia / China / US and it's even worse.

First, Hungary is not a "a bit of a flip flop in terms of democracy". They are just not fully democratic country anymore, full stop. The system there did not changed, judiciary, media and the rest of the country are as much in the hands of a leader and easy to be abused as yesterday. The person on top of it changed. He did promised reforms, it remains to be seen whether they happen or not.

But second, regardless of Hungary, anyone can veto is dysfunctional system.

> unless you want to create a group where everyone thinks the same.

Everyone has veto is literally a system where everyone must think the same, else nothing will happen.

> Removing veto power probably makes it more likely that the next Orban pulls them out of the EU entirely which might not be in the interest of the alliance.

That would be bad for Hungary, but good for the rest of Europe. Hungary presence in EU was damaging to EU for years now.