Katarína Roth Neveďalová is a Member of the European Parliament for the governing Slovakian party Smer, led by Prime Minister Robert Fico. Smer won parliamentary elections held in Slovakia last autumn, with Fico returning for his fourth tenure as head of government. Just like his Hungarian counterpart Viktor Orbán, Fico has held opposing views to that of the mainstream on many issues that have dominated European politics in the past few years. He has criticised pro-migration policies, EU-federalisation attempts, transgenderism, woke culture, and sanctions against Russia, and has called for peace talks to end the war in Ukraine. His stance has caused outrage in the Western liberal world and the corridors of Brussels, and has led to strong criticism of Slovakia. EU institutions did not take long to follow up on their threats to punish Slovakia with action: the European Parliament adopted a resolution in January, and the European Commission has threatened to withhold EU funds from Slovakia.
Katarína Roth Neveďalová talked to The European Conservative about these issues.
Robert Fico’s government came into office in October but was very quickly hit by ‘rule-of-law violation’ allegations. The European Parliament adopted a resolution in January condemning Slovakia for modifying its criminal code. Why have EU institutions singled out Slovakia?
First of all, from our point of view, this is very much a political discussion generated by the Slovak opposition in the run-up to the European elections. So, this is basically the result of the work of the opposition. Second, the Slovak government is in constant contact with the European Commission, we are continuously explaining our decisions, and we are open to discussing the possible changes that are needed in order for our law to be in line with European law. However, it seems the Commission is not willing to negotiate. When they request something, and we send it to them, we simply don’t get a reply.
Many of their accusations were made even before the criminal code was modified. By the way, it is still not in force because an appeal has been lodged to the Constitutional Court by the president of the country. We believe the Commission has sided with the political opposition and is in a way helping them in their political fight at home. The Commission’s actions are not reasonable, and are politicised because it is coming to the end of its term.
In one of the previous statements you gave to the European Parliament, you mentioned that the EU had no problem with the previous Slovak government when it was prosecuting your party’s members, who were then in opposition. Do you believe that the current ‘rule-of-law violation’ allegations have in fact nothing to do with the law, but are purely political in nature?
Well, we can say that when my party was in opposition, the then-government was openly saying they would hunt down the opposition leaders. They prosecuted several opposition leaders for criminal activities, but nothing was proven, and one by one they were cleared by the courts. The special prosecutor’s office was politically biassed because its head was the former minister for justice, and this was his personal vendetta. We requested meetings with the Commission, with Commissioner Věra Jourová for example, who was in Slovakia for some official visits, but she laughed at us. Now she is badmouthing my government and Slovakia in general, without any proof, and the current opposition is being supported by the Commission.
This is not a good way to do politics, it is not right for the Commission to interfere in domestic politics, and for Věra Jourová to be so politically biassed, especially with the European elections coming up. We are a pro-European party, we want to be a part of the European Union, but what is happening now is not right and not lawful.
Why is your government being attacked? Is it because of its political stance towards such issues as Ukraine, migration, and sovereignty?
I believe so. It’s all of these things. At the beginning of the migration crisis, we were criticised for our stance that the borders should be protected and that migrants should be properly checked. Now the EU is taking the same position on the issue but nobody apologised to us. With regards to sovereignty: we are against changing the decision-making process in the EU and against abolishing the veto system, because it will harm the small member states. We shouldn’t take away the member states’ veto rights because of the fear that one of them will adopt a different position. Unanimous voting is vital so that we come to a consensus on important and sensitive topics in the field of foreign policy, enlargement, and other issues.
The discussion on the abolition of veto rights was brought up because of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. But you cannot change the rules just because you don’t like Orbán and his position. This is short-sightedness. We would like to stand up for our own opinion and discuss the different opinions that are on the table. That is the essence of the European Union. Third, the Ukraine issue is a very sensitive one. We have received tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees, we are helping Ukraine with humanitarian aid, but we oppose sending weapons and we want peace negotiations, a stance that is not liked by many people in Brussels. We are constantly accused of being pro-Russian which is not true. We just want the war and the killing to end. We cannot sacrifice the people of Slovakia for the good of Ukraine.
We were severely hit by the energy crisis. The sanctions against Russia are hitting our economy quite hard. We opened our borders to Ukrainian grain and other agricultural products that are not produced in line with EU regulations and not up to EU standards—yet they are now on our territory and harming our markets and our farmers. We have been complaining for two years, but only now—now that farmers in Germany, France and other countries are protesting—is the issue being taken more seriously. This is not a good way to help Ukraine.
French President Emmanuel Macron said he wouldn’t rule out sending troops to Ukraine. The Polish Foreign Minister and the Baltic countries welcomed this proposal. Is this a worrying sign for Europe that the military situation is escalating?
Very much so, because the countries you mentioned are all part of NATO. We should make a clear distinction between the European and the NATO approach. But I would say that the moment we enter Ukraine with soldiers, Russia could attack us because it will feel threatened by NATO. This is a very sensitive, very difficult situation we don’t want to end up in. It is even more important to talk about peace than ever before, because nobody, really, none of us wants to be in open war with Russia, a nuclear power. I hope that Macron’s words are part of the election campaign, a message to the people in France, a way to portray him as a great leader. But his statement is nonetheless very dangerous, because it could mean a lot of things, and we don’t know what Russia will read into it.
Your position and the Slovak government’s stance on these issues is very similar to that of Viktor Orbán. Both Robert Fico and Viktor Orbán talk about the need to protect member states’ sovereignty. How is the EU threatening your sovereignty?
By imposing regulations on us which are not good for everybody. We are hit with cheap products from Ukraine, which, we are told, are for the greater good. But they are not for the greater good. Another example is the Green Deal, which is creating more structural problems and imposing additional requirements for the different types of economies and agricultural sectors in Europe. The decision about the Green Deal was made in Brussels, and though it is simply not working, the EU is still pushing it through, with the justification that we have to be environmentally sustainable and responsible. Everybody wants clean water, clean air, a liveable environment, but the price is currently too high for the consumers, for the people who need to live with the consequences of these decisions.
The European Union is a great project, but it needs some kind of a revision. We need a discussion on how many national competences we can transfer to the European level. What Fico and Orbán are both saying is that we are not against the EU, we just want to have a say in what is done and how it is done, not just blindly follow what bureaucrats are telling us to do. We have to have a deep conversation about the future, because I don’t believe that the people of Europe want to have a European Federation or more integration without being part of the decision-making process.
How do you think the European elections will impact the way the EU institutions work in the next couple of years?
I believe that the European Parliament will be more radical, and there will be a big dividing line between the different blocks: one much more conservative and moving further to the Right, the other much more liberal and green. It will be even tougher to cooperate than it is now. I also think that the President of the European Commission will be someone other than Ursula von der Leyen. The election of the president could be like last time, when von der Leyen was nobody’s candidate but still popped up at the last minute. Whoever does become the president should be a person who is a true leader and can propose a programme that represents the will of the citizens.
Where will your party, Smer, be placed within these two emerging blocks? Smer’s membership was suspended by the S&D group, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, in October, which means you and your colleagues are currently non-inscrits, not part of any political grouping within the European Parliament. Which group is ideologically closest to Smer currently?
We hope to be a member of the S&D group again, this is what we are planning to discuss after the European elections. We are social democrats, but we think that social democracy is not about the Green Deal, but about the rights of the workers, about the trade unions, about decent jobs, and about going back to the roots and not inventing new types of policies that can be represented by any other political group. This is where we stand, and this is what we are putting into practice with our current government: better pensions, improving education and healthcare. We will try to represent these types of policies, the social democratic policies which are the core values of Social Democrats.
