[ad_1]
IIn the dispute over the rule of law, Hungary and Poland have gained an ally: Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Janša. The national conservative politician wrote a four-page letter to EU leaders and all heads of government on Tuesday. In it he supported the arguments in Budapest and Warsaw without even threatening to veto the EU’s 1.8 trillion euro financial package.
Thomas gutschker
Political correspondent for the European Union, NATO and the Benelux countries based in Brussels.
When heads of government first spoke about this crisis in a video conference that evening, only Jana, Viktor Orbán and Mateusz Morawiecki spoke alongside Council President Charles Michel and Chancellor Angela Merkel. After a quarter of an hour, the issue was resolved. “A video conference is not the right format to talk about such a complicated topic,” said an EU official.
In his letter, Janša directly attacked the German Presidency of the Council. The compromise he negotiated with the European Parliament, linking payments from the EU’s coffers to the rule of law, undermines the agreement reached by heads of state and government in July. Because now there is an “arbitrary mechanism”, “which is not based on an independent evaluation, but on criteria of political motivation and does not deserve the name of ‘rule of law’”. The EU Treaty does not allow “discriminatory measures to be imposed on a state at the request of another state or an EU institution”.
These statements are particularly important because Slovenia will hold the presidency of the EU Council for six months from mid-2021 and is already part of the so-called trio of presidencies with Germany and Portugal. In essence, however, the allegations are confusing and misleading. Nor do they correspond to the position that Slovenia has taken so far in Council bodies.
Depending on the negotiated compromise, a state or the EU Commission can initiate a procedure “to protect the Union budget”. However, a qualified majority of states is required to impose sanctions. There are currently 15 countries with at least 65 percent of the EU population, in practice this is a major obstacle. Janša goes on to say that only independent courts should rule on the rule of law, not “a political majority”. However, the heads of government made an explicit decision in July after four days of fighting: the Commission “will propose measures in case of violations that will be adopted by the Council by qualified majority,” it says in the conclusions.
He goes on to say that the European Council “will address the matter quickly.” Hungary and Poland deduce from this that a unanimous decision should then be taken, that is, they would have a veto. However, the European Council can only advise and issue guidelines, not decide for itself. This is left to the Council according to majority procedure. By the way, Parliament plays no role in this. Unlike the rule of law control under Article 7 of the EU Treaty, you cannot initiate any procedure. Janša gives this erroneous impression by specifically accusing MPs of bias.
