Hungary does not have to worry about losing EU funds due to the veto, Hungarian Justice Minister Judit Varga told Magyar Nemzet in an interview . She said it is no longer a secret in the European Union that they would force the majority position on those states that do not join their ranks.
The justice minister also spoke that seizing power is more important to the Hungarian opposition parties than patriotism, and shows the moral crisis of the left and proof that leftist rule would not be good for the country.
“EU legislation allows for what we have proposed, and there may be such a plan in the committee’s drawers, just in case. Our proposed solution is legally feasible, there have been examples of similar constructions in the history of integration,” Varga said. “Of course, it may also dawn on decision-makers that if two countries do not participate in the fund, others may also back out. But this is not our problem. We did not put Europe in this situation. We only maintain the status quo.”
There have been several cases in the history of the EU where, due to the resistance of a member state, there was no unanimity for decision-making, Varga said.
“The French and Dutch, for example, rejected the EU constitution in a referendum. A veto is an option provided for in the treaties,” she said. “We have had our written proposal to regulate financial discipline since August, in line with the agreement reached by the heads of state and government in July. According to this, it would be possible to sanction member states in specific cases. That agreement does not contain vaguely worded principles.”
She also said that the rule-of-law criteria are poorly defined, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions.
“To take a simple example: the penal code does not consist of a single sentence for everyone to be a law-abiding person, but — in order for the principle of legal certainty to apply _ it regulates in precisely defined paragraphs what is punishable,” Varga said. “The rule of law varies from country to country. It would be difficult to define in general the language of the rule of law in order to prove that someone has violated the rule of law in general.”
“Therefore, the EU proposal for the rule of law mechanism is legally nonsensical,” Varga said. “The European Union already has Article 7 proceedings to deal with breaches of the rule of law. If member states do not like this, intergovernmental conferences can be held in an attempt to define the indefinable. What is independent of this, however, is the existence of an EU budget with appropriate rules on how member states can spend it.”
Varga added that it was also agreed at the July EU summit that a mechanism can be set up in the event of corruption regarding the spending of money. The current debate, however, is in the context of an abstract constitutional dialogue that should not be linked to a practical question. Despite the current issues, Varga thinks European Union member states should maintain mutual trust.
“We must never allow mutual trust to erode,” she said. “Unfortunately, what we are seeing now is not a legal problem, but an ideological war, which already had a legal form in infringement proceedings.”
Title image: Hungarian Justice Minister Judit Varga. (Magyar Nemzet/Zoltán Havran)
