The European Commission has issued its first report on the state of the rule of law in the EU.
The document did not bring any sensation. As expected, the two Eastern European countries that have long provided headaches for Brussels – Hungary and Poland – have become the main targets of criticism. The usual accusations of condoning corruption, infringement of freedom of speech and lack of independent courts have been brought against them.
Warsaw and Budapest were ready for this turn of events. A couple of days earlier, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the two countries had announced the creation of an institution that would deal with exactly the same subject matter of the report – monitoring the rule of law in the European Union.
The Hungarian leader sent a letter demanding the resignation of one of the co-authors of the report – Deputy Head of the European Commission on Values and Transparency Vera Jurova – for anti-Hungarian statements. In particular, she called Hungary, under the leadership of Viktor Orbán, “a sick democracy”.
It is well known that Poland and Hungary have managed to take a very advantageous position in the European Union. On the one hand, they receive financial support from it, which their neighbours in the region can only envy. On the other hand, the level of sovereignty of their policies is beyond the reach of most even the old Union members. In general, both countries do what they see fit, send Brussels far away with its claims, while shamelessly demanding that it continue its banquet in the form of generous donations.
Many observers are bewildered by this state of affairs: why does the EU, which has long and harshly criticized these states for their non-compliance with European democratic standards, nevertheless not take effective measures to change the situation, for example, not punish renegades with the ruble, or rather the euro?
The answer is simple: there are no such instruments. In theory, they do, but the procedures are so complex and require such a high level of internal consensus that it is virtually impossible to apply them in practice.
But now Budapest and Warsaw have a reason to be nervous about this. In fact, their sharp movements of the last few days suggest that the two capitals are well aware of the unfavourable situation that is unfolding for them.
Europe will soon have to allocate funds from the aid fund to help rebuild national economies affected by the pandemic. An emergency EU budget summit was held in July, at which it was agreed, among other things, that payments would be linked to the standards of a state based on the rule of law and basic European values.
The other day, Germany, which currently holds the presidency of the EU Council, prepared a draft decree on economic sanctions against EU Member States for violating the rule of law. An important detail is that violations must be confirmed “fairly directly”. It must be assumed that the Commission’s public report will be seen as sufficiently direct evidence of such violations.
In general, Poland and Hungary are in danger of losing a significant proportion of the subsidies they receive – and therefore the question of their response to such developments automatically arises.
However, the harshness of their latest statements, including their promises to teach Europe about the rule of law and democracy, hints at what they are likely to be like: the chances of Warsaw and Budapest bending under pressure do not look too high. Far more likely is the exact opposite outcome – literally their outcome from the European Union.
If, just recently, the loss of one of its members by the European Union seemed completely unthinkable, then in a short time everything has changed dramatically – politically, economically and ideologically.
The economies of Hungary and Poland are among the most successful not only in Eastern Europe, but also in Europe as a whole. Both countries have made good use of the opportunities and financial assistance provided by Brussels for a decade and a half. They have reason to believe that they will not disappear without it. On the other hand, the idea of remaining within the EU without the usual injections in this scenario is rapidly losing its appeal.
Of course, the European Union will have many opportunities to make Warsaw and Budapest financially hurt for apostasy. But in the end, the UK has not stopped it. And Brexit, among many other things, has removed a purely psychological taboo from the very idea of exit from the EU, showing the world that this is quite possible and that the sky does not fall to the ground at all.
Politically, the situation is also pushing Poles and Hungarians towards escalation.
The world’s political system is rapidly deteriorating, and ambitious powers are fighting for a place in the sun and raising their status. Poland and Hungary are already involved in these processes, even if they are using very different strategies – this, by the way, results in many of their problems with a united Europe.
The result is, of course, unpredictable, but the option of “doing and possibly regretting” for the current leadership of both countries undoubtedly looks preferable to throw everything away, lay down your legs and agree to become an obedient vassal of senior comrades from Western European capitals, having capitulated in advance in the geopolitical race that has begun.
And the EU cannot allow the two cheeky Eastern European capitals to continue to undermine their authority with impunity – and is already obliged to punish them sensitively in order to demonstrate its authority. Except that the very likely loss of two more members of the union will hit unified Europe, its weight, opportunities and prestige hard with a boomerang.
So who will regret it more in the end is a big question.
Irina Alksnis, RIA