Can a Parliament collectively lose its mind? After the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs voted to take the Commission to court for releasing €10 billion to Hungary, this is a necessary question. What some are depicting as a bold move to defend the rule of law is actually a grotesque step to trample all over it. It is an initiative that highlights the fanaticism of the hegemonic Frankenstein coalition (an everything-but-right-wing-parties patchwork) which has ruled the European Parliament for decades.
First, let’s shed some light on the frivolity and fanaticism of this legal action. According to the widespread narrative, the Commission committed the sin of surrendering to Hungarian blackmail when it released one third of the frozen EU funds earmarked for Hungary. It would be a compelling story, if only it were true. In reality, by releasing those funds, the Commission did the bare legal and political minimum. And despite the deafening noise around the deal, the one question that should raise our eyebrows is why Hungary only received €10 billion out of the €28 billion owed in total.
In brief, the EU confiscated funding to Hungary for several reasons (rule of law, migration, the prohibition of gender propaganda for minors) and under different legal pretexts. At the same time, it imposed 27 “super milestones” upon Budapest—requirements that include adopting fund-management IT tools, setting up a new anti-corruption agency, and modifying the functioning of its Supreme Court. A few of those conditions might make sense, but most of them go far beyond the EU’s remit of competences and were probably designed under the expectation they would never be met. However, to the EU’s surprise, Hungary largely delivered. Indeed, so much so that the more Hungary delivered, the more the Commission added new conditions and took advantage of its position to claim that what had been done was never enough. All of this took place under the fierce and enduring political pressure of the European Parliament, which insisted that Budapest can and must be punished whatever it takes. This is the same modus operandi of immobilism and arbitrariness that the EU blithely replicates to exclude Hungarian universities from Erasmus and Horizon.
In other words, the EU’s conduct constituted blackmail and abuse of power that would never have stopped unless Hungary used a perfectly legal mechanism from the Treaties called unanimity. It did so not to blackmail the EU, but simply to force it to play by its own rules. But this ‘checkmate’ move infuriated the European Parliament, which took the step of suing the Commission for one reason only: for not blackmailing Hungary enough. Blinded by wrath and arrogance, the assembly ended up explicitly admitting that the EU’s rule of law is nothing but a euphemism for political punishment, an instrument to financially starve nonconforming countries, and a crapshoot where the dice are loaded so that Hungary can only loose. And should Hungary ever achieve some sort of minor victory, then another scapegoat must pay for that bug in the system. This time, it is the Commission’s turn to take the blame for being forced to play by its own abusive rules.
An important conclusion from this episode is that, as the European Parliament has admitted, the rule of law is not only about the “rule of law” as such; rather, it is a political process meant to address political nonconformity. In its resolution of 16 January, in which it announced its legal action against the Commission, the EU Parliament declared,
[The EU Parliament] strongly condemns the actions of the Prime Minister of Hungary, who decided to block the decision on the essential MFF revision, including the Ukraine aid package, in full disrespect and violation of the EU’s strategic interests … such actions are in violation of the principle of sincere cooperation, as enshrined in the Treaties.
This raises the question of whether the conditionality of EU funds is about Ukraine, the rule of law, or any political concern against Hungary.
If more evidence is needed, there is the case of Poland. For years, the EU denounced “systemic” infringements of the rule of law in Poland, and it confiscated €137 billion, only to release them shortly after a like-minded government was. Will the Parliament sue the Commission for neglecting to enforce all the conditions it once imposed on Poland? Will it check against Poland delivering on every single reform, as it does with Hungary?
We have known that unanimity is a reasonable legal mechanism established to protect national interests. Now, we also know that it is the last resort against arbitrariness and political extortion. It should therefore be defended, maintained and, extended to other fields, should a reform of the treaties be on the table in the next five years.
This grotesque and abusive legal proceeding against the Commission is the very portrait of the arrogance and the demented ideological fanaticism of the Frankenstein coalition of EPP, Socialists, Liberals, Greens, and Communists. This hegemonic federalist-progressivist cartel, this patchwork of parties that are at odds at national level, smoothly run the political show in a comfortable echo-chamber of NGOs and lobbies, advancing a pensée unique at odds with millions of European citizens. After decades of such rule, it is time to bring some fresh air, next June—if only for the sake of diversity, as they say. But also, to preserve EU institutions, by preventing the European Parliament becoming still more of a mock assembly.
European Parliament in Free Fall
Photo by Christian Lue on Unsplash
Can a Parliament collectively lose its mind? After the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs voted to take the Commission to court for releasing €10 billion to Hungary, this is a necessary question. What some are depicting as a bold move to defend the rule of law is actually a grotesque step to trample all over it. It is an initiative that highlights the fanaticism of the hegemonic Frankenstein coalition (an everything-but-right-wing-parties patchwork) which has ruled the European Parliament for decades.
First, let’s shed some light on the frivolity and fanaticism of this legal action. According to the widespread narrative, the Commission committed the sin of surrendering to Hungarian blackmail when it released one third of the frozen EU funds earmarked for Hungary. It would be a compelling story, if only it were true. In reality, by releasing those funds, the Commission did the bare legal and political minimum. And despite the deafening noise around the deal, the one question that should raise our eyebrows is why Hungary only received €10 billion out of the €28 billion owed in total.
In brief, the EU confiscated funding to Hungary for several reasons (rule of law, migration, the prohibition of gender propaganda for minors) and under different legal pretexts. At the same time, it imposed 27 “super milestones” upon Budapest—requirements that include adopting fund-management IT tools, setting up a new anti-corruption agency, and modifying the functioning of its Supreme Court. A few of those conditions might make sense, but most of them go far beyond the EU’s remit of competences and were probably designed under the expectation they would never be met. However, to the EU’s surprise, Hungary largely delivered. Indeed, so much so that the more Hungary delivered, the more the Commission added new conditions and took advantage of its position to claim that what had been done was never enough. All of this took place under the fierce and enduring political pressure of the European Parliament, which insisted that Budapest can and must be punished whatever it takes. This is the same modus operandi of immobilism and arbitrariness that the EU blithely replicates to exclude Hungarian universities from Erasmus and Horizon.
In other words, the EU’s conduct constituted blackmail and abuse of power that would never have stopped unless Hungary used a perfectly legal mechanism from the Treaties called unanimity. It did so not to blackmail the EU, but simply to force it to play by its own rules. But this ‘checkmate’ move infuriated the European Parliament, which took the step of suing the Commission for one reason only: for not blackmailing Hungary enough. Blinded by wrath and arrogance, the assembly ended up explicitly admitting that the EU’s rule of law is nothing but a euphemism for political punishment, an instrument to financially starve nonconforming countries, and a crapshoot where the dice are loaded so that Hungary can only loose. And should Hungary ever achieve some sort of minor victory, then another scapegoat must pay for that bug in the system. This time, it is the Commission’s turn to take the blame for being forced to play by its own abusive rules.
An important conclusion from this episode is that, as the European Parliament has admitted, the rule of law is not only about the “rule of law” as such; rather, it is a political process meant to address political nonconformity. In its resolution of 16 January, in which it announced its legal action against the Commission, the EU Parliament declared,
This raises the question of whether the conditionality of EU funds is about Ukraine, the rule of law, or any political concern against Hungary.
If more evidence is needed, there is the case of Poland. For years, the EU denounced “systemic” infringements of the rule of law in Poland, and it confiscated €137 billion, only to release them shortly after a like-minded government was. Will the Parliament sue the Commission for neglecting to enforce all the conditions it once imposed on Poland? Will it check against Poland delivering on every single reform, as it does with Hungary?
We have known that unanimity is a reasonable legal mechanism established to protect national interests. Now, we also know that it is the last resort against arbitrariness and political extortion. It should therefore be defended, maintained and, extended to other fields, should a reform of the treaties be on the table in the next five years.
This grotesque and abusive legal proceeding against the Commission is the very portrait of the arrogance and the demented ideological fanaticism of the Frankenstein coalition of EPP, Socialists, Liberals, Greens, and Communists. This hegemonic federalist-progressivist cartel, this patchwork of parties that are at odds at national level, smoothly run the political show in a comfortable echo-chamber of NGOs and lobbies, advancing a pensée unique at odds with millions of European citizens. After decades of such rule, it is time to bring some fresh air, next June—if only for the sake of diversity, as they say. But also, to preserve EU institutions, by preventing the European Parliament becoming still more of a mock assembly.
READ NEXT
The Enterprise State
Play the Ball, not the Man: Cancel Culture’s Attempt To Capture Hungarian Academia
Starmer’s War on Farmers: a New Low for Client Politics