[ad_1]
Prime Minister António Costa clarified this Friday that compliance with the rule of law is a red line for the Portuguese Government and that it agrees with the conditionality imposed on European funds. The leader of the Socialist Executive denied being aligned with Hungary and Poland and argued that countries that do not comply with the rule of law “cannot be part of the European Union (EU).”
In a preparatory debate in Parliament on the European Council scheduled for the 11th, António Costa began by referring to the alleged alignment of Portugal with Hungary and Poland in his criticism of the rule of law as a conditionality mechanism for accessing EU funds , like “the elephant that is not on the agenda but is obviously in the room.”
This is because, in an investigation published by the newspaper “Public”, the Polish Foreign Minister, Witold Waszczykowski, affirms that Portugal was “very critical”, in the preparatory meetings of the European Council (whose minutes are not disclosed) in relation to the mechanism to safeguard the rule of law.
When asked about this issue during the preliminary debate of the European Council, António Costa was quick to deny the Polish ruler. “What we want is not just that there is a Budget. It is also that the rule of law is applied and guaranteed in all member states. In Portugal, I hope there will be no doubt about what our country’s position is in this regard ”, he stressed.
“What I say here in the Council and I said in Budapest is that the Copenhagen criteria, which serve to adhere to the European Union and which are reflected in the fundamental values contained in Article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty and are not mere requirements for access community funds; they are requirements to be a member of the EU ”, he said, underlining that“ a country that does not comply with the values established in article 2 cannot be part of the EU ”.
António Costa also defended that the provisions of the European treaties should be applied “as long as there is any suspicion that a member state violates the principles of the rule of law or any other of the fundamental values of the EU.” On violations of the rule of law in the EU, he also said that “there are two cases that are open” and “it is time to stop being detained and be subject to a decision.”
“If someone does not program for fear that there will not be a necessary majority, we must also assume that political consequence. Now, it is not possible what is not possible is this game of mirrors, in which one does not want to solve problems head-on. The securities are not subject to commercialization ”, he emphasized.
He also stressed that what prompted Portugal to request EU membership “was not the single currency, which at that time did not even exist, nor was it incorporated into an internal market, which did not exist either.” “What determined Portugal’s application for membership in 1977 were the values. It was to consolidate our democracy and our freedom, ”he explained.
The funds must (even) be approved at the next European Council
António Costa stressed that the agreement “really has to be reached” at the next European Council and acknowledged that, due to the impasse, the meeting may take several days. “But there has to be an agreement,” he stressed, explaining that “what is at stake is not just the Recovery and Resilience Program.” “What is at stake is the EU budget that must come into force at 00:00 on January 1 next year,” he said.
“The mechanisms of the EU are not as dramatic as the US closure, but they are quite dramatic. There will only be payments in the first pillar of the CAP, for the functioning of the European institutions, but payments from cohesion funds will practically not exist ”, he added.
Without an agreement, António Costa said that there will be no bazooka and “not even the shotgun” that Portugal already has and the rest of the European countries “will no longer work.” “It makes no sense to postpone what really needs to be resolved,” he said, recalling that the principles of the agreement were already approved in June and that “accepting to reopen any agreement is to accept opening the door to a stranger that we do not intend to open.”
“These mechanisms have been created, are approved and should not be changed. You can work on them, but you can’t work on reviewing the established mechanisms ”, he reiterated.
[ad_2]
