EU affairs ministers in the European Council are discussing a proposal that, if voted into law, would tie the disbursement of EU funds to the implementation of rule of law “milestone” reforms by default. This would normalize the case-by-case punishment of countries that break the arbitrary norms (“European values”) agreed upon by the Brussels liberal mainstream. A strengthened Article 7 procedure—the suspension of a state’s voting rights, to date deployed exclusively against sovereigntist conservative governments—would still be used to further threaten and punish alleged miscreants.
The German non-paper, submitted to the Council by Berlin’s Green EU affairs chief Anna Lührmann, and obtained by Politico, argues that the process to systematically reform the EU in anticipation of the next wave of enlargement provides the perfect opportunity to also update Brussels’ instruments for preventing violations of the rule of law.
“The EU needs a credible toolbox for gradually applicable measures, including sanctions,” the paper reads, for situations where a member state “seems incapable to preserve the rule of law on its own.”
In the “Financial measures” section, in a similarly condescending manner, the paper notes that previous examples (Hungary and Poland) show that financial conditionality—i.e. freezing cohesion and other funds—“has proved to be the most effective incentive” to make countries address their rule-of-law “shortcomings.”
Since the existing instruments can only be applied to specific goals identified separately in each case, Lührmann suggests a more comprehensive framework. Just like in the case of the pandemic recovery funds, payments could be tied to implementing “a set of minimum rule of law standards” by default, as a prerequisite for accessing all EU funds.
The long years of dealing with Poland and Hungary—and persecuting them for having different positions on migration and gender to the liberal mainstream—seem to have prompted Brussels to shift strategy entirely, especially since a lot more sovereigntist governments may emerge in the coming years. There’s no need to freeze anyone’s funds if they are not entitled to that money in the first place, after all.
Some form of a “general rule of law instrument”—in other words, the further institutionalization of Brussels’ favored ideological blackmail tactic—is also backed by the European Commission. It was mentioned by Budget Commissioner Johannes Hahn on Monday in his keynote speech at the annual EU budget conference. Hahn hinted that a very similar system could enter into force as soon as the beginning of the next budgetary period, starting in January 2028.
But even if this proves too difficult to push through in the years ahead, there are still other options to consider. The German paper argues that at the very least, imposing the conditionality mechanism should be much easier, suggesting a “reversed qualified majority” system. Normally, the Council votes to sanction a country and then the Commission moves to execute that mandate. Under a “reversed” order, the Commission can impose sanctions on its own, unless the Council votes against it within a specified period of time.
Furthermore, the paper adds that Article 7—the EU’s “nuclear option” against the alleged violators of the rule of law—should be expanded to allow additional punitive measures, separate from financial sanctions and suspension of membership rights. The process should be streamlined with a “prescribed timeframe” to avoid dragging each case for too long; while reforms in the Council’s voting rules are required to “eliminate possible blockages,” meaning vetoes where unanimity is still required, as in the case of suspending voting rights, for instance.
Of course, adopting these reforms would be near impossible with the current Council configuration, but the proposals signal the general trajectory of the rule-of-law debate in Brussels—where the liberal mainstream usually gets what it wants after a few years—unless Europe votes to replace it.
