Unione Europea contro la Polonia. ‘Kaczynski has ignored Brussels’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-09.

Unione Europea che si sgretola. Un altro summit inconcludente.

Polonia. Da oggi riceve il gas naturale liquefatto degli Usa.

Unione Europea. Non stiamo arrivando. Siamo arrivati

Non solo Orban e Kaczynski: il populismo avanza a Est

Polonia. Acquista quattro unità Patriot.

Polonia. Nuove nomine dei giudici ed ira di Bruxelles.

Unione Europea in caotica disgregazione.

*

Di oggi 9 aprile la strepitosa vittoria di Mr Orban alle elezioni politiche in Ungheria.

Ungheria. Orban stravince e le sinistre straperdono.

Ungheria. Elezioni. La voce di Mr Soros contro il Presidente Orban.

«Fidesz, il partito di Orbán, è ancora il più votato con il 49% dei consensi, il che gli assicura nuovamente la maggioranza costituzionale dei due terzi nell’Assemblea nazionale, questa volta con 134 seggi su 199»

«Nonostante gli accordi di desistenza raggiunti dai partiti dell’opposizione in 29 collegi, Fidesz ha vinto ben 97 mandati diretti.»

I collegi sono 106. Gli accordi di desistenza tra partiti che non prendono voti lasciano il tempo che trovano. Si rassegnino i liberal: in Ungheria non contano più nulla. Non sono riusciti a far eleggere nemmeno un loro deputato: nessuno, manco uno per sbaglio. E più continuano a vantarsi di rappresentare la “società civile“, tutto il popolo, più si coprono di ridicolo: la gente li sberleffa. Li mette alla berlina.

*

Stiamo vivendo una realtà schizofrenica.

Da una parte vi sono i relitti di una dirigenza europea che non ha più maggioranza. È cambiata la composizione del Consiglio Europeo ed il prossimo anno si voterà per il rinnovo del parlamento europeo.

Se è vero che Frau Merkel è nuovamente cancelliera tedesca, sarebbe altrettanto vero il constatare che politicamente il suo peso è ai minimi storici per un governo tedesco.

Se è vero che i media sono ancora quasi tutti in mano ai liberal socialisti, è altrettanto vero che non contano più nulla: basti pensare alle elezioni tedesche del 24 settembre, quelle italiane del 4 marzo, ed ora a quelle ungheresi.

Possono starnazzare quanto vogliono, che tanto gli Elettori non li votano più. Gli Elettori dei liberal e dei socialisti non ne vogliono proprio più sapere.

È quindi solo logica conseguenza che questa Unione Europea che avrebbe voluto essere uno stato, liberal e socialista, si stia sgretolando.

* * * * * * *

Cerchiamo di riassumente a grandi linee i motivi della annosa lite tra Polonia e paesi del Visegrad, dell’ex Europa orientale in generale, con l’Unione Europea.

In primo luogo, chiariamo immediatamente come l’Unione Europea e la sua attuale dirigenza pro tempore siano due entità totalmente differenti. La attuale presidenza Juncker e Tusk ha perso la maggioranza in seno al Consiglio Europeo, ossia l’assise dei capi di stato o di governo dei ventotto paesi afferenti l’Unione. Con le tornate elettorali degli ultimi tempi, Mr Macron ha sostituito Mr Hollande, Herrr Sebastian Kurz ha sostituito il socialista Herr Christian Kern, la Frau Merkel dei nostri giorni è il fantasma di ciò che era in passato, ed a breve Mr Gentiloni sarà sostituito da un Di Maio oppure da un Salvini, che sembrerebbero manifestare idee diametralmente opposte.

Ad oggi, a meno di clamorosi cambi di campo, Mr Juncker non ha nemmeno la maggioranza qualificata dei 4/5, necessaria per prendere decisioni punizionali ne confronti di un qualche stato.

In secondo luogo, or è giusto un anno fa che Frau Merkel ed Mr Juncker avevano minacciato la Polonia che la avrebbero cacciata via dall’Unione Europea. Lungo l’elenco delle birbonate polacche.

– La Polonia non condivide l’idea di avere degli Stati Uniti di Europa, rinunciando alla propria sovranità. I media liberal denominano questa eresia “euroscetticismo”: essa si annida tra gli stati dell’ex est europeo, specie poi nei paesi del Visegrad.

– La Polonia non condivide la scala valoriale liberal di Frau Merkel e di Mr Juncker.

“Poland doesn’t adhere to the basic principles of the rule of law”

Fatto si è che l’Unione Europea non è dotata di una Costituzione, anzi, quella proposta fu a suo tempo bocciata da referendum popolari. Restano così indefiniti i “basic principles”, che molto modestamente Frau Merkel e Mr Juncker asseriscano debbano essere i loro. L’Unione Europea è così quel simpaticissimo posto che si è dotato di una Corte Costituzionale che applica una costituzione che non esiste: ‘interpreta‘ i desideri di Mr Juncker e di Frau Merkel.. Ed i polacchi ancora avrebbero di che ridire.

In terzo luogo, in Polonia le elezioni politiche sono state vinte dal partito PiS, che non condivide la Weltanschauung liberal e nemmeno quella socialdemocratica: Frau Merkel, Herr Juncker, Herr Tusk e tutta la stampa liberal bolla coralmente un simile partito di essere “populista“. Nella terminologia liberal questo termine è una dei peggiori insulti possibili, secondo solo a quello di “omofobo“.

– In quarto luogo, la Polonia è fiera ed orgogliosa del proprio retaggio religioso cattolico, storico, culturale e sociale: essa sostiene in pratica tutto l’opposto di quanto sostenuto dai liberal socialisti.

* * * * * * *

«the question focuses on whether the European Union will continue to pay subsidies to the country if Poland doesn’t adhere to the basic principles of the rule of law»

*

«Ultimately, there is a lot at stake for Poland and other Eastern European countries: Namely, what the next EU budget will look like and how much those countries will receive in subsidies.»

*

«The situation is even more difficult this time around because even though the EU wants to spend more money on issues like protecting its external borders, the integration of immigrants and pan-European scientific research, it will have less cash at its disposal following Brexit and the departure of one of its financially strongest member states.»

*

«In response to the governing Law and Justice (PiS) party’s controversial recent judicial reforms, which have the potential to make the country’s judges compliant to the government, the European Commission implemented legal proceedings under Article 7 of the EU treaty. The proceedings could ultimately strip Poland of its voting rights in EU bodies, at least in theory»

*

«But so far, Poland’s most powerful man, PiS party head Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has simply ignored Brussels»

* * * * * * * * * * *

A questo punto sarebbe necessaria una considerazione finale.

La dirigenza dell’Unione Europea ha scagliato contro la Polonia ogni sorta di insulti ed improperi possibili: la ha minacciata di ogni sorta di ritorsione, fino al punto da spaventarla a morte ventilando l’applicazione dell’art 7.

«Officials in Brussels are tired of transferring billions of euros each year to Eastern Europe only for the recipients to cause headache after headache. The four Visegrad Group countries — Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary — alone have received around 150 billion euros in net subsidies from the EU budget since 2007. But when it comes to taking in refugees or adhering to rulings made by the European Court of Justice, they show the EU the cold shoulder.»

*

«It is an approach, say officials in Brussels, that is particularly helpful to right-wing populist parties. And the complaint is increasingly being adopted by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government as well.»

*

«Officials in Brussels»:

questo è il nodo della questione.

I funzionari di Bruxelles si diano una regolata: non distribuiscono denari propri, bensì quelli messi a disposizione dal Consiglio Europeo, dal popolo sovrano.

Poi, se ne diano una ragione, il Consiglio Europeo è cambiato e con le elezioni dell’anno prossimo cambierà il parlamento europeo: questi funzionari se ne torneranno a casina loro, trotterellando dietro a Mr Juncker.

«Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has simply ignored Brussels»

---

→ Spiegel. 2018-04-05. EU Considers Funding Cuts for Eastern Europe

The European Commission is considering linking member-state subsidies to adherence to the rule of law, a step aimed at bringing a handful of Eastern European countries back into line. But the proposal also threatens to deepen the current rift in Europe.

*

When Günther Oettinger enters the Polish parliament, the Sjem, dozens of cameras immediately turn toward him. A journalist calls out a question to him in German, demanding to know if he hopes to change anything in terms of “regional subsidies.” The question is rather technically formulated, but no matter how Oettinger responds, his answer is guaranteed to be big news here in Poland. After all, the question focuses on whether the European Union will continue to pay subsidies to the country if Poland doesn’t adhere to the basic principles of the rule of law. And during this visit to Warsaw on March 26, it is a question that follows Oettinger throughout the day.

Oettinger is the European Union budget commissioner. It is hardly the most glamorous of posts, but he is nonetheless treated like an official state guest in Warsaw, and both Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and his foreign minister took time out of their schedules to meet with the Brussels officials. Ultimately, there is a lot at stake for Poland and other Eastern European countries: Namely, what the next EU budget will look like and how much those countries will receive in subsidies.

It possible there will be significantly less money from subsidies than in the past — and the blame for that lies with the government in Warsaw. In response to the governing Law and Justice (PiS) party’s controversial recent judicial reforms, which have the potential to make the country’s judges compliant to the government, the European Commission implemented legal proceedings under Article 7 of the EU treaty. The proceedings could ultimately strip Poland of its voting rights in EU bodies, at least in theory. But so far, Poland’s most powerful man, PiS party head Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has simply ignored Brussels. Now, however, the EU is mulling new leverage the efficacy of which is undisputed. Oettinger’s EU budget plans for the period from 2021 to 2027 could finally convince Warsaw to budge.

Negotiations in the EU are never as tough as when money is at stake — particularly when 1 trillion euros are to be divvied up. The last negotiations between the net payers and the net beneficiaries took over 29 months. The situation is even more difficult this time around because even though the EU wants to spend more money on issues like protecting its external borders, the integration of immigrants and pan-European scientific research, it will have less cash at its disposal following Brexit and the departure of one of its financially strongest member states.

Showing Brussels the Cold Shoulder

Add to that the question being raised by Oettinger in Warsaw: Should the EU also use the budget to discipline intractable EU member states? The Commission hasn’t made a final decision, but Oettinger’s own position is clear. And at a Commission meeting last Wednesday, he received broad support for his idea.

The situation at the moment is potentially explosive. Officials in Brussels are tired of transferring billions of euros each year to Eastern Europe only for the recipients to cause headache after headache. The four Visegrad Group countries — Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary — alone have received around 150 billion euros in net subsidies from the EU budget since 2007. But when it comes to taking in refugees or adhering to rulings made by the European Court of Justice, they show the EU the cold shoulder. It is an approach, say officials in Brussels, that is particularly helpful to right-wing populist parties. And the complaint is increasingly being adopted by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government as well.

“The EU is a community of values, not just a single market,” says Michael Roth of Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is Merkel’s junior coalition partner. Roth is the senior official responsible for EU policy in the Foreign Ministry in Berlin. “But that also then needs to be reflected in the EU budget,” Roth continues. He says that all member states are obligated to adhere to the principles of the rule of law. “If that doesn’t happen, then it also has to have an effect on the allotment of EU funds.”

The development threatens to further widen the rift between east and west at a time when unity needs to be shown in the wake of the nerve gas attack in Salisbury and the threat of a trade war made by U.S. President Donald Trump. “A fight pitting migration against cohesion and agricultural subsidies against funds for a mutual defense force would divide the EU,” Oettinger warned in the Polish parliament. And EU Agricultural Commissioner Phil Hogan also lamented that the rivalry between the east and west is “creeping into the debate.”

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also expressed concern during a recent trip to Warsaw made immediately after he was sworn in to his new post. The issue of rule of law was one of the items discussed in a meeting with his Polish counterpart Jacek Czaputowicz. “I hope we don’t get into a situation where structural funds play any kind of role,” Maas said.

Support in Berlin

But behind closed doors, he leaves no doubt that the German government backs the European Commission’s plan to link money and values. The argumentation is simple: If Germany is going to pay more into the EU budget in the future as it has already said it would, then Berlin also wants to have a say in how that money is spent.

Oettinger has happily taken up the issue. “We can only apply our budgetary resources in places where we know that the courts are independent,” he told Polish business leaders in Warsaw.

The commissioner is also fully aware of the strength of his threat given that the transfers from Brussels are already calculated into national budgets in the east. For the budget period between 2014 and 2020, EU subsidies comprise 2.6 percent of Hungary’s gross domestic product, 2. 4 percent in Poland, 1.8 percent in the Czech Republic and 2.3 percent in Slovakia.

The funds are used in an effort to raise the standard of living in Eastern Europe closer to that enjoyed in the west. It’s a success story that the EU’s general director for regional policies sought to convey to budget controllers last Tuesday. But what his PowerPoint presentation did not mention is something that is also a part of everyday European life: Controllers frequently find instances of misuse of funding.

The primary reason, says Inge Grässle, the chair of the European Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee, is that the EU does not have the capacity to monitor the use of funds, meaning the benficiary countries must do so themselves. Grässle, who like Oettinger is a member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union party, says it is unsurprising that countries aren’t particularly eager about exposing abuses back home.

Lack of Cooperation

Last September, for example, Grässle and her team traveled to Budapest, where, in addition to talks with the government, the visit included a ride on a narrow-gauge railway. The train didn’t have many passengers, but it did travel through an area near Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s hometown, a circumstance that raised suspicion among controllers.

Problems began cropping up even during the trip’s planning stages. “The preparation and organization of the mission was rendered difficult by the initial lack of cooperation from the Hungarian Authorities,” a later parliamentary report on the visit states. The report was also devastating in its conclusion that “public spending in Hungary suffers from a lack of transparency and corruption risk in public decision making is perceived to be high.”

Now, a new multi-billion-euro corruption scandal has created additional pressure for Orbán. The daily newspaper Magyar Nemzet recently reported on a Hungarian man who is in the FBI’s witness protection program in the United States. The witness reportedly told the FBI about a massive money laundering operation in which up to 4 billion euros in EU subsidies were smuggled out of the country. According to the story, the money trail reaches into the upper echelons of Orbán’s political party Fidesz.

The situation is even tenser in Slovakia, particularly after the murder of journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée. Kuciak had learned through his reporting that EU money was apparently seeping into mafia channels. A hastily organized European Parliament delegation visited the country in early March on the search for answers to a long list of questions. But the Slovakian government did not appear particularly eager to clear things up. On one occasion, there was no simultaneous interpreter on hand, and on another, according to the report on the trip, the Slovakians tried to prevent all of the delegation from being present at talks.

Stronger Instruments

As such, Grässle’s conclusions aren’t all that surprising. “I would like to see stronger instruments in the next multiannual financial framework, and a link to the issue of rule of law is appropriate,” she says.

Oettinger has been hard at work on the issue for quite some time and last Wednesday, he presented initial details at an internal Commission meeting. The idea isn’t free of controversy given the fears some have that such a move could backfire if the citizens of the countries in question ultimately paid the price of any punitive action taken by Brussels.

In order to get around that problem, it appears Oettinger wants to take advantage of tendering procedures. Normally, EU member states pay the costs of EU-financed projects up front and they are later reimbursed by Brussels. But this repayment in the future would be capped if rule-of-law violations are found in a country.

The threat is already having a certain effect, as the procedures currently underway against Poland have shown. For months, Poland had stonewalled the European Commission, but more recently, the Poles have, for the first time, indicated that they would be prepared to make some changes to the judicial reform. They submitted three proposals to Brussels. One would entail equalizing the minimum retirement age for men and women after the EU had rebuked the Polish government on this point, saying the rules in place were discriminatory.

A First Step?

The assessment in Brussels is that this doesn’t go nearly far enough in meeting the EU’s demands, but many believe that the suggestions for improvement are only a preliminary signal. “Others will follow,” said one EU diplomat.

One reason could be because the incentive for the Polish government to fall back into line might be greater than previously thought. If Poland relents, Oettinger told a small group in Warsaw, then he could refrain from including a rule-of-law clause in his budget framework or drop it at a later date. Officially, the Commission is denying such a link, but diplomats with knowledge of the issue confirmed to DER SPIEGEL that such a correlation has, in fact, been established.

It would be a deal where everyone emerged victorious: the EU, because it ultimately lacks the votes to issue sanctions against Poland (given that Hungary has already announced it would use its veto); the Polish government, because it would return to the EU’s good graces; and Foreign Minister Maas, who would be freed from the uncomfortable position of having to maneuver between Brussels and Warsaw.

Berlin is encouraged. Although Warsaw has so far only raised the prospect of cosmetic changes to the judicial reforms, the German government is nevertheless saying that the discussion of the next EU budget framework is producing the first results. “Our talks,” says senior Foreign Ministry official Roth, “are having an impact.”

Unione Europea. Visegrad ha rotto il giocattolo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2016-07-02.

 

I paesi del Gruppo Visegrad hanno preso una forte posizione contro l’attuale amministrazione dell’Unione Europea.

Lo hanno fatto per voce del Presidente della Slovakia Fico.

*

«The EU’s future cannot be decided by just two or three powerful Western members»

*

«Crucial decisions about the future of Europe cannot be defined by two, three member states, or the founding states of the EU»

*

«The future of the EU can no longer be defined without active involvement of the states that joined after 2004»

*

«There’s a feeling among member states that sometimes they agree something and then the Commission comes up with proposals that don’t reflect that»

*

«If our citizens understand less and less what the EU is doing, its because there is too much institutions and too little member states»

*

«The British people have reacted to European policy»

*

«No one has the right to be angry with the British voters»

*

«There are policies of the EU that need to be labeled as failed ones quite clearly»

*

«The vast majority of EU citizens fully disagree with the current state of migration policies in the EU»

*

«We cannot accept a situation that when some of the founding countries have their views, it’s called ‘positions’, and when some of the new members have their views, it’s called a ‘problem’»

* * * * * * *

Sono parole chiare, sulle quali ci sarebbe ben poco da commentare.

Se pochi hanno motivazioni sostanziali contro l’Unione Europea di per sé stessa, al contrario sono molti che non ne condividono per nulla decisioni prese e modo di conduzione.

Un sistema che non difende le minoranze non è democrazia.

Ma ad azioni e piani falliti dovrebbero corrispondere le dimissioni.

Il grande merito del Brexit sta proprio nell’aver reso lampante ciò che già si sarebbe potuto vedere da lunga pezza.

 

---

→ Reuters. 2016-06-30. Slovakia says western members can’t dictate EU future after Brexit

The EU’s future cannot be decided by just two or three powerful Western members, Slovakia’s prime minister said on Thursday, in a dig at France and Germany and a plea for more involvement by the bloc’s newer ex-communist members.

Prime Minister Robert Fico was speaking on the eve of taking over the rotating presidency of the European Union, which has been shaken to its core by Britain’s shock vote to leave. The other 27 EU leaders will meet in Bratislava in September to ponder the future.

“Crucial decisions about the future of Europe cannot be defined by two, three member states, or the founding states of the EU,” Fico told reporters.

Germany, France and Italy held three-way talks on Monday to consider the ‘Brexit’ vote. Two days earlier, the EU’s six founding members, also including Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, had held a meeting of foreign ministers.

“The future of the EU can no longer be defined without active involvement of the states that joined after 2004,” Fico said. The bulk of the post-2004 entrants are former communist nations from central and eastern Europe.

Slovakia and the other so-called Visegrad states – Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic – are calling for more powers to be returned to EU capitals and a reduction in the role of the executive European Commission in Brussels.

“There’s a feeling among member states that sometimes they agree something and then the Commission comes up with proposals that don’t reflect that,” Fico’s foreign minister, Miroslav Lajcak, said. “If our citizens understand less and less what the EU is doing, its because there is too much institutions and too little member states.”

Lajcak said he would agree to any measure that might reverse the Brexit vote, but Fico acknowledged it was the reality. “The British people have reacted to European policy,” he said. “No one has the right to be angry with the British voters.”

MIGRATION STAND-OFF

The Visegrad four defied the Commission, and the bloc’s top power Germany, by refusing to take in refugees who arrived in Europe last year in an influx of some 1.3 million people.

“There are policies of the EU that need to be labeled as failed ones quite clearly,” said Fico. “The vast majority of EU citizens fully disagree with the current state of migration policies in the EU.”

Western EU states have accused the Visegrad group of showing no solidarity in the migration crisis, and seeking to benefit from the bloc’s joint budget without being willing to accept shared responsibilities.

Lajcak said Slovakia’s concerns on migration should be heard by Berlin and Brussels, adding that Bratislava was ready to help alleviate the migration crisis in other ways.

“We cannot accept a situation that when some of the founding countries have their views, it’s called ‘positions’, and when some of the new members have their views, it’s called a ‘problem’,” Lajcak said.