Five facts you should now about Hungary’s veto on the EU Budget
Hungary and Poland are once again the black sheep of the European Union because we insist on keeping to the original agreement on the EU budget and recovery fund, delivered by the European Council this past July.
After Hungary and Poland consistently stood up for their nations’ interests, mainstream liberal media turned against them (again), George Soros is trying to force his plan on member states to flood Europe with migrants (again), and the EU is using political retribution against member states who are not willing to submit to the concept of federalization at the expense of member state sovereignty.
(Read Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s response to George Soros, here.)
But the truth is, the veto of the European Union budget and recovery fund was not caused by Hungary but by those who created the conditions leading to it. So, instead of ideological and elusive claptrap, let’s take a look at the facts surrounding the veto:
1. The conclusion adopted by the special meeting of the European Council on July 21 clearly avoids tying EU monies to rule of law conditions. Moreover, German Chancellor Angela Merkel affirmed that a rule of law mechanism would require the consent of all member states as well as an amendment of the EU treaties.
2. On September 24, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, met the V4 leaders with an updated migration strategy on the agenda. The leaders refused the new package, saying, “Even if you repackage it, the quota will still be a quota.” Nevertheless, as Prime Minister Viktor Orbán wrote in his statement, “In Brussels today, they only view countries which let migrants in as those governed by the rule of law. Those who protect their borders cannot qualify as countries where rule of law prevails.”
3. Despite the July conclusion, on November 5, EP negotiators went behind the back of the European Council to strike an agreement with the Council Presidency on legislation establishing a mechanism that would allow the suspension of budget payments to a member state deemed in violation of the rule of law.
4. Being consistent and loyal to their citizens and voters, Hungary and Poland exercised their right to veto the adoption of the 2021-2027 EU budget and recovery fund, as it included an arbitrary “rule of law” conditionality.
5. And finally, there is the article proving yet again that behind the curtains stands a speculator-billionaire, who carries no democratic mandate from European voters but attempts to force his open-society ideology on the Continent. George Soros, in his piece entitled “Europe Must Stand Up to Hungary and Poland”, proposes a way for the EU’s left-liberal majority to “circumvent” the Hungarian-Polish veto. This makes it sadly clear that the rule of law mechanism would be nothing but political and financial blackmail, allowing the pro-migration lobby to force millions of illegal migrants into our country, which firmly rejected such a plan in Hungary’s national consultation back in 2015.
Following Hungary’s and Poland’s veto, a chorus of critics cried disingenuously, “But if they truly value the rule of law, then why do they oppose the inclusion of rule-of-law criteria?” The answer is not that Hungary and Poland do not value of law. The answer is clear to anyone who bothered to read the Commission’s recent report on rule of law and its utter lack of clearly defined criteria and reliance on a woefully imbalanced set of sources. The answer is clear to anyone who follows European affairs closely and knows that events in other countries that would raise genuine rule of law concerns are completely ignored. And ultimately, this is not the kind of thing that can be cobbled hastily into place through backroom deals but requires a revision of the treaties based on agreement by all member states.