[ad_1]
The preferred scenario in Brussels would be the approval of the “set of proposals”, although there are other scenarios “to be studied”. In the case of a persistent rejection, the European Union could function in twelfths, but “it would be a bad option”, says the rapporteur of the MEP for the proposal rejected by Poland and Hungary, the social democrat José Manuel Fernandes, who also sees “problems” as the separation of files.
“The Multiannual Financial Framework may be approved separately, without a green light for new equity,” but this “is not a good option either,” he says. The issue of twelfths “would not arise”, but Brussels is unable to organize the joint debt issuance, to finance the 750,000 million of the so-called European monetary bazooka.
A third option would continue to be, through an intergovernmental agreement, within a framework of enhanced cooperation, with which they would circumvent the veto of Poland and Hungary. But that “would be the end of everything,” says José Manuel Fernandes to the DN, considering that “the European Union itself” would be in question.
If both keep the farm and make a third confirmation of the veto, at the summit, the hot potato will finally be left to the Portuguese government, which will have to continue the negotiations started by the German Chancellor, with the two governments, and close the agreement. . .
The “hope” lies for the moment in the negotiating capacity of Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, who until the end of the year assumes the rotating presidency of the European Union, who may even choose a fourth way, through a declaration of compliance with the mechanism or rule of law, which would link the two countries to a roadmap to implement the basic principles of the functioning of democracy, and would leave the matter resolved at the summit.
Availability for an appointment?
In the European Parliament, the rapporteur for the Multiannual Financial Framework, the socialist Margarida Marques, hopes that “there is indeed a will to reach a compromise”. The MEP expresses his expectation that the problem will be overcome even before the summit and identifies “two important political issues”.
“One of them is when a mechanism is created for 27 member states and two do not accept that this mechanism applies to them and it is a mechanism for the defense of the principles of the European Union, it is not understood how these member states can reject this mechanism. The second is in fact the urgency of the situation, ”he told DN.
Margarida Marques argues that the step to be taken must be between governments, since the Council “reached a political agreement” with Parliament, and highlights one of the statements by the Polish and Hungarian leaders, when they affirm that “they remain open to contribute to a solution to the situation. “
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán received the head of the Polish government in Budapest this week, Mateusz Morawiecki, to agree on a position, but at the end of the meeting they confirmed the veto. Orbán said that “the current proposal is not acceptable to Hungary”, and is in line with “the primacy of the majority and not of the law.”
They both believe that the so-called instrument of the rule of law is contrary to European law and believe that this issue must be separated from the EU budget and the recovery package, for the deadlock on the issue to be resolved.
In an interview with the German newspaper TimeViktor Orbán admitted that if “countries in need want money quickly, we will allow it. But others want new regulations of the rule of law, we can talk about it.” But, he also stressed that “the first issue must be dealt with immediately, the second can wait.”
The topic was this week’s plenary debate in Brussels. Speaking in the European Parliament, the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, suggested to the two governments that if “they have doubts about the application of Community law, they should go to the Court of Justice of the European Union”.
“It is there where the community rules are evaluated, it is not at the cost of the economy of millions of Europeans,” said the president, in the debate in which MEPs made it clear that they are not available to change the proposal that links compliance with the Rule of law. disbursement of community funds.
