BRUSSELS – European Union (EU) leaders on Thursday seized the bloc’s budget and stimulus package from Poland and Hungary, leading to difficult negotiations to break the veto, as the two nations sought to avoid watching if they could snatch EU funding. Domestic democratic institutions at home.
The controversy – which threatens 1.8 trillion euros or $ 2.2 trillion, including the much-needed money to recover from the epidemic – has intensified the ambiguity among member states and forced European leaders to consider the very nature of the group.
Compromise filling Germany, brokers by Germany – which has a rotating president of the bloc – will raise funds to comply with the norms of the law, the victory of most member countries.
But the legally binding measure will still be watered down. Ahead of the leaders’ scheduled meeting, officials and diplomats were briefed that the deal would issue a statement to Hungary and Poland limiting the group’s ability to scrutinize EU funds. Members will also challenge the ruling in the European Court of Justice.
In typical EU fashion, such a compromise would allow the leaders of Hungary and Poland to save face at home or claim victory. But it will also end the standoff that has delayed the stimulus funding.
A draft statement seen by the New York Times on Thursday said the European Commission would determine how the rule of law would work, noting that it would not be used to discriminate against a member state or encroach on its sovereignty.
The draft will allow member countries to challenge the mechanism in court before it is used. The details make for a lengthy process, postponing any actual proceedings for years if not months. That would benefit Hungary’s natural prime minister, Viktor Orban, as he faces elections in 2022.
Legal experts were quick to criticize the emerging settlement.
“The draft is unprecedented and it is legally doubtful that the European Commission will implement the new regulation until it has the opportunity to sue Hungary and Poland in an attempt to overturn it by the European Court of Justice.” Daniel Caleman, professor of political science and law at Rutgers University.
The face-off has pushed the building poison between the two countries and the rest of the group to the heart of Brussels, with a 750 billion post-coronavirus stimulus package, as well as a haphazard plan for a regular multi-budget. Further delays will prevent nations from getting the funding they desperately need, halting the recovery of temporary economic recovery from the worst recession in bloc history.
But the fight has also revealed the depth of the fault lines, at a time when the European Union is trying to band together to fight the epidemic and show a united front in the wake of Britain’s exit.
Hungary and Poland have long pursued the abolition of their legally important institutions by the European Commission, the executive branch of the bloc. The Supreme Court in the EU, the European Court of Justice, has declared some of these policies illegal, but the backsliding continues. Hungarian and Polish leaders argue that institutional changes are their national bias, and accuse the Commission of applying double standards to Eastern European states, calling the rule-of-law provisions arbitrary and political.
Many are concerned that the damage being done to democracy in Poland and Hungary is not only difficult, but also detrimental to the entire European Union, the world’s richest group of democracies.
“Europe was established as a community of like-minded states, and in its DNA, there is no awareness that the foundations of the rule of law within the EU could be violated,” said Wojciech Sadurski, a Polish and Australian Australian. Expert in constitutional law, a leading critic of the Polish government.
On the ground in Hungary and Poland, the impact of these policies is deeply felt.
In Hungary, Mr. Urban and his colleagues have led the rule of law to slow, systematic erosion. They adopted the new constitution and changed the election laws in their favor. The Constitutional Court has been stacked with loyalists as high-ranking posts include the public media, the Prosecutor General, Hungary and the National Bank.
This consolidation of power has sharply reduced the meaningful scrutiny: elections are free, but they are not fair; Most news media are controlled by allies of the ruling party; Opposition in Parliament is small and has no practical power.
Poland’s judicial compliance has also been criticized by the European Commission for interfering with judicial independence, under pressure to expel remnants of the communist-era system.
The fight against the rule of law has been shaken by a rise in coronavirus cases in Poland, as well as a growing protest movement for women’s rights.
Lure Rent Pech, a professor of European law at Middlesex University in London, said the two countries “adhere to the same blueprint to undermine the balance of power and balance.”
“It begins with the capture of the constitutional court, then takes control of the public media, the prosecutor’s service and the police, usually ending with an amendment to the Electoral Code.”
As a result, Mr Pech said, Hungary is now an “electoral democracy” with Poland, where the ruling party faces more resistance, not later.
Since coming to power, Poland’s nationalist government has taken over the constitutional tribunal, placed the prosecutor’s office under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice, and established a new disciplinary regime for judges.
The European Court of Justice has ordered the suspension of that disciplined body, but in recent months it has stripped immunity and slashed the salaries of two judges criticizing the government.
The European Commission has brought a number of cases against both Hungary and Poland, mostly related to the study and management of the judiciary. But the process is slow, requiring dozens of people to be devoted to a case for several months. In some cases, court decisions come too late.
Poland and Hungary have further cases against the Commission and Parliament for serious violations of EU values. The final penalty is to remove voting rights, but in both cases no progress has been made.
A key node in this process is associated with a group of member state leaders known as the European Council, where Mr. Orban and Polish Prime Minister Matthew Moravieski are occasional allies, the main one being German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
In some richer and more mature democracies, mistrust between citizens and governments is a new threat to the unity of the bloc. The so-called frugal nations, which are net contributors to the budget, are taking the lead in pushing for the skirt verification of Poland and Hungary.
Recent research suggests that citizens of Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden are not bothered by their nations ’large contribution to EU spending, but some of the recipient countries seem to lack the necessary scrutiny and balance to ensure sound costs. The second poll found that more than 100 percent of EU citizens, including Poland and Hungary, examine the rules and regulations for the distribution of funds.
That pressure is strongest in the Netherlands, the most vocal critic of the Polish and Hungarian situation, where Prime Minister Mark Rutte faces elections in March.
And while serious issues are in Poland and Hungary, many other states have fewer rule-of-law problems, which has raised concerns that appeasing Russia and Budapest could lead to more violations elsewhere.
“You can understand the importance of the rule of law when it’s gone,” Mr. Peach said. “When you have, it’s harder to value.”
Matina Stevis-Gridneff and Monica Pronkzuk from Brussels, and Benjamin Novak from Budapest.
