A recent European Council failed to adopt the next seven-year EU budget. It also failed to deliver the recovery fund of €760 billion. Poland and Hungary exercised their veto because they oppose the rule of law mechanism that had previously been passed with a qualified majority, which bypassed the Polish and Hungarian opposition.
Malta’s government must be rubbing its hands in secret glee, cowering behind the smokescreen offered by Poland and Hungary. All serious journalists abroad as well as reporters, pundits and government spokespersons always include Malta in the same breath when they report on the countries that will be affected by the rule of law mechanism, if and when this will come into operation.
The Polish foreign minister said the reason why they exercised the veto was that they were sure that, as soon as the budget and recovery fund would be adopted, the commission would block funds for them because it would implement the rule of law mechanism. The logic of the Poles is astonishing. They say they are not against the mechanism in principle but they are not prepared to make the necessary amendments to their laws, institutions and policies, to come in line with the rule of law.
What they want is to have no rules at all when EU funds are distributed. They are convinced that they are applying the rule of law and, yet, they know that they will lose their arguments should these be challenged in an EU court of law. So, instead of letting the budget and fund be adopted and then face up to the European Commission should the funds be blocked, they block the whole budget process for all the other EU countries that follow the rule of law.
Malta’s government must be rubbing its hands in secret glee, cowering behind the smokescreen offered by Poland and Hungary
Hungary also applied a veto and clearly stands up to be counted on this question.
But there are other countries hiding behind these two. Slovenia showed some sympathy to their cause. Malta, which has had several EU and Council of Europe commissions criticise its application of the rule of law, separation of powers, liberty of the press and transparency and accountability principles in their present form, hides clearly behind these front runners.
I find the veto most welcome because it will now force the other 23 members (Malta, Slovenia, Poland and Hungary being the four affected countries) to decide whether to give up the battle to enforce the rule of law or to choose the other way to create a budget and a recovery fund using a multilateral treaty route.
If the 23 decide to give in and withdraw or dilute the rule of law mechanism to satisfy the four rule of law breakers, this will mean the end of the EU of values as we know it. The EU parliament would block the budget and recovery fund and the risk of the end of the EU as we know it would be possible.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen repeatedly states that EU values are not for sale or for negotiation. Therefore, the only way to bypass the Poles and Hungarians would be to enter into an agreement by all the others that accept the rule of law mechanism, whereby sums equivalent to the same proportion as in the proposed budget and fund but excluding the shares of the two, three or four countries not joining the new treaty, would be pooled into a new fund and a new budget. This would be smaller than the budget of the 27 but the two, three or four countries not joining would be excluded from receiving any funds.
If such an arrangement actually takes place, it would be a welcome move by the honest member states and would show those who joined the EU only to take from it but not to abide by its rules that there is always a price to pay.
As long as a new multilateral arrangement contains the rule of law mechanism allowing the commission to manage its applications to all signatories, Malta would find itself in a real quandary.
Should Malta show their hand and decide to join the new treaty with the rule of law mechanism and risk having to pay for the system but having all funds blocked until the institutions are brought in line with the rule of law? Or should Malta decide to stay out of the agreement standing the same ground as Poland and Hungary and challenging the rule of law mechanism?
Time will tell.
My only hope is that the larger EU countries, like Spain and Italy, which really are in dire need of the recovery fund and the budget, and the northern countries, like the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany and France, which are very unhappy that recipient countries in the East and South of the union joined in 2004 without any real intention to abide by the rules, are shown by real costs that when you join the union you abide by the rules or else...
I welcome the showdown between the vetoists, the hidden cowards and the silent waiverers, and the founder members and rule of law purists in the other countries and the EU institutions.
How it will all end remains to be seen.
John Vassallo, ex ambassador to the EU