[ad_1]
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has spent years turning Hungary into an autocracy, under the gaze of the other EU member states. But now at least a part of Europe wants to stop this development and, if necessary, cut EU funds for those who violate the rule of law.
There is currently a fight in Brussels over how binding this so-called rule of law mechanism should be. If Orbán prevails, as it currently appears, the regulation could remain largely inconsequential. Above all, the European Parliament is opposed to it. A debate has arisen that could even delay the adoption of the EU budget.
SPIEGEL: Ms. Barley, how would you describe the rule of law in Hungary?
Katarina barley: Viktor Orbán has been working for ten years to dismantle the rule of law little by little. Unfortunately, it has come a long way. His party friends in the conservative European People’s Party of the CDU and the CSU watched without taking any action. Orbán restricts freedom of the press and the independence of the judiciary. Silence critical parliamentarians and cultural workers. Nobel laureate Imre Kertész was withdrawn from the school’s curriculum and replaced by the teachings of a nationalist convicted of a war criminal.
SPIEGEL: The EU has long thought about how to stop Orbán. Now there is a proposal for the so-called rule of law mechanism. The Commission should be able to cancel EU funds from member states if deficits are identified. The proposal is a compromise. It was developed by the German government, which currently holds the Presidency of the Council. You are critical of the proposal. Why?
Barley: The Council’s proposal is too ineffective. First, the EU Commission could only cut EU funds from countries like Hungary or Poland if the violations of the rule of law were to the detriment of the EU budget. So if the justice system is rebuilt, it would have no consequences. Second, sanctions should originally only be avoided by a qualified majority in the Council. However, under the new proposal, a qualified majority is required to approve sanctions. Third, states could delay sanctions by allowing heads of state and government to discuss them again.
SPIEGEL: So in your opinion, the mechanism would have no effect?
Barley: At least one could act against flagrant corruption, for example in Hungary or Bulgaria. But not against many other shortcomings.
SPIEGEL: What kind of corruption are you referring to exactly?
Barley: These are cases where EU funds are awarded to government informants with questionable tenders. In Hungary, for example, a multi-million dollar order for public lighting that went to Orbán’s son-in-law. This harms the population of the affected countries more, because the money does not reach the recipients it is intended for. The EU anti-fraud office investigates such misconduct, but ultimately the responsibility lies with the national authorities, who, especially in the case of Hungary, let the investigation go to waste. Not surprisingly, Hungary refused to join the new European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which in future will be able to process such cases itself.
SPIEGEL: The EU Parliament is now threatening to block the budget to enforce an effective rule of law mechanism. Do you really think that Parliament can maintain this position?
Barley: The four major groups, including the conservatives, have made it clear that they will not accept an ineffective rule of law mechanism. Our success also depends on the prevailing public impression. If the EU Parliament is now a spoiler, torpedoing a compromise already concluded, it will be difficult. But it’s not like that. We cannot help with the delay; we put forward a proposal a long time ago to link EU funds to core values. Time pressure is the Council’s tactic. It should force parliament to give in.
SPIEGEL: If the budget is not approved, neither will the 750 billion crown aid be paid. Countries like Spain and Italy in particular need the money.
Barley: Orbán would also lose seven billion euros if he blocked the negotiations. Now we have a lever, then no more, because then the EU budget was decided for another seven years. My Spanish colleagues understand it too. If we don’t do it now, the EU would be seriously damaged. Otherwise, citizens of countries traditionally friendly to the EU will also lose faith in the European project. They are no longer willing to pour their tax money into Orbán’s corrupt pockets. They don’t want to fund governments that trample on our core values.
SPIEGEL: Negotiations become a “chicken game”. Whoever gives in first loses.
Barley: Exactly, we threaten to disagree with the budget. And Orbán threatens not to agree, because the current proposal goes too far for him. The important thing is that the Council’s decision is not the EU’s decision. The town hall always looks a bit like the bazaar. It’s a give and take. This gives a state like Hungary the opportunity to blackmail other states. That is why Orbán is trying to keep everything that affects the rule of law in the Council. Only there can this advantage play. However, the rule of law should not become a matter of negotiation. You can discuss anything, but not the basic values. Our values are universal and enshrined in the EU treaties. They are only interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
SPIEGEL: Ironically, the German federal government has softened the proposal on the rule of law mechanism in the Council to allow a compromise. The SPD is part of the federal government, why didn’t it shout beforehand?
Barley: Germany holds the Presidency of the Council and must ensure that there is a compromise there. I know many of the people involved, such as Michael Roth, the Minister of State for Europe in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They are declared constitutionalists. The problem lies in the structure of the Council. In the end, a head of government can always hold their breath until they get away with it to some degree. That is why it is so important that we stand firm now in the EU Parliament.
SPIEGEL: In an interview a few days ago, you asked Orbán to go financially hungry. Then it was attacked in Hungary and Poland. The Hungarian government spokesperson moved you in the vicinity of the Nazis.
Barley: Of course, Fidesz tries to discredit the critics by all means. Our aim is to withdraw EU funding from the corrupt Orbán system, not from the Hungarian or Polish people, on the contrary: we want the money to reach the citizens, and not to Orbán and his son-in-law. Our proposal, therefore, is not to cut funds, but to distribute them in such a way that they do not pass through Orbán’s sticky hands, but rather reach those who are going to be financed directly.
SPIEGEL: You are not the first to be personally attacked by Orbán. He once created a good mood with anti-Juncker posters. After Commission Vice President Vera Jourová recently criticized Orbán at SPIEGEL, she demanded his resignation.
Barley: Orbán is an icy strategist, he has only one goal: to ensure his own power. He builds enemy images abroad and wants to close ranks behind him. It is a very old tactic. I don’t know if it will work out in the end. Because in this way he also draws attention to my statements and they are things that Orbán does not like to hear. For example, he built a football stadium in the garden of his country house with lawns and heated bleachers. And that he had a railway line laid in this town with EU money. It cost the EU a seven-figure sum. Or that your old friend from school, a plumber, is now one of the richest men in Hungary.
SPIEGEL: Some observers fear that after Orbán’s decade in Hungary it is too late. He has long controlled the media landscape.
Barley: Only citizens themselves can reverse current development. In Bulgaria, people have been protesting against their corrupt government for weeks. Orbán also suffered a heavy defeat in the last regional elections. It lost in almost all the big cities, although the opposition was practically unable to campaign. Nothing is set in stone. In the long run, democracy will always win.
[ad_2]
