[ad_1]
“Orban is getting bolder” – In EU poker, relying on Merkel again
| Reading time: 4 minutes
That means the blockade of Poland and Hungary for the EU
EU heads of state and government are again discussing how to deal with the consequences of the corona pandemic in a video summit. Poland and Hungary are blocking the adoption of the next EU budget and thus also the disbursement of billions in support funds.
EU heads of state and government discussed on Thursday how to deal with the blockade of Poland and Hungary. Because the help of the crown and the budget must be decided quickly. What counts at the summit and how can the conflict be resolved? An overview.
reThe governments of the EU are in crisis. Poland and Hungary are blocking the billions in economic aid from the Crown for individual member states and the long-term EU budget. They are about 1.8 billion euros. Warsaw and Budapest want to prevent EU funds from being cut if the rule of law is violated. On Thursday, the EU heads of government will meet for a joint video conference. There will be a first confrontation. The most important questions:
Because it is?
In Brussels, Hungary and Poland are blocking legislation for the EU budget for the next seven years, the so-called Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the 750 billion euros in budget-linked crown aid. At the June marathon summit, Merkel, Macron and the other 25 EU heads of government also decided to implement a powerful mechanism for the first time to uphold the rule of law in member states. It stipulates that Brussels will cut EU funds in the future if governments violate constitutional principles such as the independence of the courts or freedom of the press.
How does Brussels enforce the rule of law?
The procedure agreed by the Member States and the European Parliament should be much faster and more promising than the previous procedures with which Brussels punishes the shortcomings of the rule of law in the Member States. Until now, there has been a procedure against violations of the principles of the rule of law under Article 7 of the EU treaties, according to which states could lose their voting rights if the rule of law is poor. However, since unanimity is required at a certain stage of the procedure, this procedure is still a toothless tiger.
The new rule of law mechanism now states that member states can now adopt sanctions if 15 of the 27 member states, representing 65 percent of the EU’s population, agree. That qualified majority is easier to organize. Furthermore, Member States would have to decide on sanctions within a maximum period of three months after the Commission has started the procedure; the procedure could no longer remain in effect for years.
Furthermore, preventive sanctions should already be possible, if only there is a risk that EU funds will flow to the wrong people. According to the current Brussels interpretation, this is already the case when the judiciary is not independent or freedom of the press is not guaranteed.
What role does Chancellor Merkel play?
She is the most important figure in poker. His word has more weight among the heads of state and government. In addition, Germany currently chairs the 27 member countries and therefore has a special management responsibility. In recent days, Merkel has ensured that Italy and Spain, as the main beneficiaries of the Corona billions, do not publicly denounce the blockade of Hungary and Warsaw.
On the other hand, Merkel is one of the few politicians in the EU who has a relatively good relationship with Poland’s strongman, the leader of the PiS party, Kaczynski. Merkel is now trying to change the opinion of Poland and isolate Hungary. He makes a lot of phone calls and does everything he can to make sure the public conflict doesn’t escalate. Merkel’s motto in this case is: keep calm. You can also be playing to buy time. Because Poland and Hungary also urgently need the billions of Brussels Crown to stimulate the economy.
How can the conflict be resolved?
There should be no agreement at Thursday’s video summit. One compromise could be to drop the two ongoing Article 7 proceedings against Hungary and Poland. It would be a symbolic success for Budapest and Warsaw. The European Parliament would probably oppose this step: “Member states have held out their little finger to Orbán for ten years, but he is getting bolder and bolder,” said Green MP Daniel Freund. “Now Europe has to stand firm.” A memorandum to the act would bring both governments a similar symbolic success: the European Commission could declare that it respects the independence of member states and adheres to EU treaties. However, it is doubtful that such a semi-mandatory declaration is sufficient for Budapest and Warsaw.
There is also a debate in Brussels about the exclusion of Hungary and Poland from Corona aid and the organization of the Corona fund outside the EU, that is, as a contract between the other 25 countries. The ESM’s euro rescue package, for example, is structured in this way. The legal services of the institutions are currently reviewing this version; it should be the most promising to put pressure on Hungary and Poland. After all, both countries expect a lot of money from Corona’s help. But it is also associated with legal and political imponderables, and it makes Europe look bad.
Budapest and Warsaw could apparently live with an early compromise proposal from the German Council Presidency that is less stringent than the current proposal. However, the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries, which have pushed for a more powerful rule of law mechanism, are unlikely to go far enough with this first version to deny consent. This also applies to the European Parliament, which has won the tightening in several rounds of negotiations.
What are the consequences of the blockade for the EU?
The image of the EU as a club of egotists is solidifying. The payment of the urgently needed Corona billions is delayed, hitting Italy and Spain especially hard. Next year, the EU will have to work first with an emergency budget, which will significantly reduce planning capacity and the amount of spending, at the expense of structurally weak regions, research, farmers and companies.
