The EU thread

[Syt]

Well, Austrian chancellor Nehammer seems quite happy to see Tusk.

https://packaged-media.redd.it/c06rr4bp5a6c1/pb/m2-res_720p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1702641600&s=d854789a74bbe3b8daaf67da7cd67afedce9acee#t=0

[Tamas]

Well, now we also know what 10 billion euros do NOT buy: from Orban's Twitter account:

Summary of the nightshift:
🚫 veto for the extra money to Ukraine,
🚫 veto for the MFF review.
We will come back to the issue next year in the #EUCO after proper preparation.

[The Brain]

We can't kick Hungary out of the EU, but what we CAN do is recognize a Hungarian government-in-exile as the legitimate representative of Hungary, given the flagrant asshattery of the clearly illegal squatter in Budapest.

[Tamas]

I guess the fact that he has the Liberum Veto had really dawned on Orban. Bulgaria announced last month to introduce a punitive tax on Russian gas flowing through them which would have meant about a 25% hike for Hungary.

But the Hungarian "foreign minister" announced today that Bulgaria had withdrawn this bill. It's understood this is because Orban threatened to block their Schengen membership if they didn't.

[Tamas]

Big deal on new immigration framework reached, details are peppered in here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/dec/20/eu-reaches-deal-on-migration-and-asylum-pact-live

To me it sounds significantly more strict, I think there are two provisions which will serve as fig leaf for turning almost everyone back: not letting asylum seekers (free access?) into EU territory until their applications are processed (Orban's mini concentration camps right on the Serbian border say hi) and having to process an application in 7 days or it is rejected automatically.

It also has more provisions for sharing the load, though.

So a much stricter framework. Needless to say, Hungary Orban opposed it but had no chance to veto it. Which just again shows that he is not anti-migration, he is anti-stability.

Which reminds me, I have seen reports that the unusual pressure from illegal border crossing of migrants into Slovakia in the weeks/months before the election has subsided significantly since Fico won. Orban can be a useful ally I guess.

[Sheilbh]

Separately in Poland:

Alexandra von Nahmen
@AlexandravonNah
New Polish government sacks the heads of Polish state media. TVP info website is off, the channel apparently not broadcasting any more.

Strikes me as one of the Popper-ish challenges. I'm not sure how politicised Polish state media was pre-PiS, I feel like it was a bit but not as much. But restoring the status quo before PiS/illiberal democrats, means using the same tools and asking people to believe that this is de-politicisation/restoring institutions or norms rather than just politicisation by the other side. Not sure there's an easy way out of it.

My instinct is one solution would be, as with policing, say, that you split out the operational from the strategic. Allow more politicisation of the strategic (with fixed terms and term limits for, say, directors/presidents of these bodies) but try to get all sides to agree on operational independence (subject to that strategic leadership).

It's the same with the courts - I don't know how you make changes that you need to without further politicising the judiciary.

[Admiral Yi]

Surely you judge by the results.  If state TV never airs criticism of the government, or the courts always rule in their favor, then it looks like one set of yes men replaced by another.

[Sheilbh]

Surely you judge by the results.  If state TV never airs criticism of the government, or the courts always rule in their favor, then it looks like one set of yes men replaced by another.

Sure at an abstract and as an outsider - I have no doubt this is being done for different ends than it was by PiS.

But the means or process are the same. And I'm not sure that necessarily helps build legitimacy within Poland or, to an extent, legitimacy around process/input legitimacy.

I'm also not sure how, say, you justify a different position from the EU on rule of law. It would be right but the objection was in part around firing judges and court packing which you now need to do in order to unwind what PiS did.

[Tamas]

What other choice do you have though, Sheilbh? Leave the absolutely, ridiculously pro-PiS crew in place and continue financing their efforts to subvert democracy with taxes?

[Sheilbh]

What other choice do you have though, Sheilbh? Leave the absolutely, ridiculously pro-PiS crew in place and continue financing their efforts to subvert democracy with taxes?

No, I basically agree. I'm not sure there is an alternative or a way out - it is, as I say, a bit Popper-ish.

The best I can offer is possibly to try and start a new principle that allows politicisation to some extent - strategic board v operational. Possibly try to set out a legislative framework based on primary law that goes through parliament rather than using the exact same executive/administrative tools. Try to build a new settlement in one way or other because there's a fruit of the poisonous tree issue?

But I think it's also the real risk around democracy and "institutions" is that so much depends on people's belief. Once the belief goes even, and perhaps particularly if, for good reason it seems really difficult/possibly impossible to recover/recreate. It's part of the reason cynicism can be corrosive in a democratic society.

It's the thing I always wonder about the US and I don't know how you get back.

[Sheilbh]

@Sheilbh: You should not compare the ultra vires jurisdiction the German court claims with a state supreme court in the US.

In the US, the union is ultimately sovereign and the states are only sovereign within the limits of the US constitution, but not on their own. The ACW clarified that.

In the EU it is not that easy. The member states are still sovereign on their own, independent of the union. See Brexit. If they are sovereign, they obviously only transfer some of their sovereignty to the union. If the union institutions exceed the extent of that transferred sovereignty you get into the territory of the ultra vires review.

Now you know I am in favour of a real sovereign EU, but as it is, I see reason in ultra vires reviews.

Incidentally on this fair to mention that literally today I just read something by Lord Sumption (former Supreme Court justice) arguing that fundamentally the British courts' approach were the same as the German Constitutional Courts (since at least 1974). I'm not entirely convinced and think it's a creative reading of the UK courts' approach but he is vastly cleverer than me and has forgotten more about this than I'll ever know.

But seemed worth flagging.

[Sheilbh]

On Poland and the Popper problem:

Polish culture minister says he will put state media into liquidation
By Alan Charlish
December 28, 20238:41 AM GMTUpdated 5 days ago

WARSAW, Dec 27 (Reuters) - Poland's culture minister has decided to put its state television, radio and news agency into liquidation, he said on Wednesday, deepening a dispute over the future of publicly- owned media after a momentous change in government.

A pro-European Union coalition headed by Donald Tusk took power in Poland this month and started an overhaul of state media institutions which critics say had become propaganda outlets during the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party's eight years in power.

The changes have drawn strong opposition from PiS, which says the new government has circumvented normal parliamentary procedure in implementing them.

Wednesday's move follows a decision by President Andrzej Duda, a PiS ally, to veto the new government's spending proposals for public media financing.

"Due to the decision of the President of the Republic of Poland to suspend financing of public media, I decided to put into liquidation the companies Telewizja Polska SA, Polskie Radio SA and Polska Agencja Prasowa SA," Bartlomiej Sienkiewicz said in a statement posted on social media platform X.

"In the current situation, such action will ensure the continued operation of these companies, carry out the necessary restructuring and prevent layoffs of employees in the above-mentioned companies."

He said that the state of liquidation could be withdrawn at any time by the companies' owner, which is the state.

PiS lawmaker Joanna Lichocka said in a post on X that "Tusk's government is destroying the Polish media".

"This is an act which damages the state," she added.

'TYPICAL AGGRESSOR '

Earlier in December the new government had taken state news channel TVP Info off air and dismissed executives from state media in what it said was a move designed to restore impartiality.

Media analysts and free speech activists say that under PiS, TVP did not act as the neutral news provider its charter says it should be but as a government mouthpiece.

However, PiS says that the new government's changes damage pluralism in the media by removing a conservative voice and that the means by which the changes were implemented, without a bill going through parliament, were not legal. Tusk's government rejects these claims.

On Saturday, Duda said that he was vetoing a bill which included 3 billion zlotys ($771 million) in financing for state media in light of the government's moves regarding public broadcasters.

The head of Duda's office on Wednesday accused Sienkiewicz of behaving like "a typical aggressor".

"This is proof of the complete powerlessness of the authorities, who have not found any legal way to change the authorities in these companies," Marcin Mastalerek wrote on X.

On Tuesday a body dominated by PiS designated a new television boss despite the current administration having appointed somebody else to the role.

I think it shows the challenge for Tusk. The President is still PiS and has veto power and PiS are still the largest party in the Sejm so the government doesn't have a large enough majority to override a veto. So going through parliamentary procedure and passing legislation to unwind the things PiS did or to re-found institutions is going to be challenging. Which means Tusk's government will probably do it through powers the state/executive has, like this.

It's worth noting that it's not just PiS raising issues with this. From my understanding the legal issue is that basically the government is using corporate law to do what it's doing with the state media companies because they are state owned companies, so they're just treating them like a company with the state as the owner. Basically because they can't make the changes they want to them either quickly enough (by changing personnel) or through legislation changing the laws that establish these media companies.

The Helsinki Foundation has put out saying it raises serious legal doubts. I saw a lawyer for the Stefan Batory Foundation (civil society group) say that while the current state media is impossible to defend that it's not clear how much of this is legal and that the comms have been bad so even if the "legal actions are dubious then at least a good narrative with a clear vision should have been prepared". The Prague Civil Society Center has also said it's raising many concerns. The Left who support the coalition (though aren't part of the coalition agreement or in government) have also said they're not sure this is legal - obviously from their perspective you don't just want the state using normal corporate law to make decisions about state corporations established by legislation.

I'd say you'll probably at some point (possibly out of the challenges to these actions) have a similar confrontation with the judiciary where there'll be a similar problem. It'll be difficult to unwind PiS' changes while Duda is President and it'll take a long time to actually make the change through personnel. It's like the challenge in the US with SCOTUS.

Maybe all of this is fine if you think PiS will never win an election again - but after the last election, they're still the largest party so it seems pretty likely to me they'll win and even if there's an anti-PiS President they'll have whatever happens now as precedent. And I always think in politics that it's worth considering how you'd feel if the boot was on the other foot because whatever is fair game for your side to do will be done by the other side too. The other particular challenge for Tusk is that I think he promised to fix the media in one day which was probably never possible, but that also reflects, I think, the impatience of his supporters/anti-PiS voters to see something happen (again can't help but think of Trump) - you can either meet that demand and make things happen quickly through dubious leglity, or follow normal procedure (change personnel over time, win the Presidential election in 2025) which will disappoint your base.

But as I say I think it's the wider Popper challenge of how do you defend (or in this case, to an extent, restore) a liberal order against its opponents without resorting to illiberal means that they could use against you (especially as, bad as PiS are, they're not inter-war fascist or communist bad).

[Tamas]

As before, I don't care what the armchair legalising people are concerned with here. As tbe presidents veto of the TV budget shows, PiS has no intention to play fair and they likely are willing to do what I have no doubt Orban would be ready to do if election defeat was still a possibility for him:burn the country down to collapse the government. Tusk I am sure needs to move and move fast to dismantle the anti-democratic power base before it dismantles him.

[Barrister]

edit: nevermind, didn't realize how old the post I was responding to was.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting piece in Politico on Delors' death that it marks the lack of a European "demos" - in European terms it's hard to think of a statesman who would be more deserving of state funeral etc. There have been articles everywhere (including the UK*) but he has been mourned really as a French figure, with a state funeral today. Slightly surprised that there was no EU flag at all. He is by some distance, still the most consequential Commission President and to a very large extent, even after Lisbon, the EU is still what he shaped in that decade. And still the Commission President all his successors are measured against.

*On the UK I think he's possibly the most important politician in the history of Britain's relationship with the EU. His speech at the TUC calling for the British left to support Europe and outlining the vision of a social Europe was seismic. The trade unions were traditionally the most Euro-sceptic bit of the left and that was already shifting, but by the end of his speech he had the delegates on their feet and singing "frere Jacques". He returned to address them agin in 1992. But to an extent that also shifted the approach of the left to the EU - as European law is supreme, it was a tool (and arguably the only one) for embedding change that no Tory parliament could undo with a simple majority.

It also transformed the right. Until then the EU had its strongest supporters on the right and Thatcher had just triumphed with the single market which was her - and their - vision of Europe as primarily an economic policy area (while Delors was a committed federalist and from the French Socialists). Thatcher responded within a fortnight with her (in)famous Bruges speech at the College of Europe which became the touchstone of the Eurosceptic right - against a social Europe (not pushed back the boundaries of the state at home to have them re-imposed by Europe), against any furthere integration, against any European "sovereignty" (or anything beyond NATO). Strikingly though, in a way, she had arguably a more ambitious pitch than Delors as she had a big (now very anachronistic section) talking about European civilisation and urging her audience not to focus on themselves and forget Europeans in Warsaw, Prague, Budapest ("great European cities").

Obviously he also proudly advocated federalism in a way I don't think any other big politician has - which made him a bit of a hate figure in the tabloid press (after Bruges and then, especially, after Thatcher was deposed primarily over Europe). Famously there was the Sun headline "Up Yours Delors" which he took well, saying very politely that he might not agree with the sentiment or tone but thought it was good that the UK had a grassroots debate on Europe which France didn't which was exceptionally diplomatic. And according to the rumours he was ultimately in favour of Brexit as he had thought but became, reportedly, more convinced of the need for a multi-speed Europe with a core that was fully committed to ever greater union and (he is French, after all) European sovereignty but with separate looser membership options for countries that weren't all in on that.

Ultimately though I suspect he will have ended slightly disheartened, in 1989 he said that "if we do not succeed with political union...then the historic decline of Europe which began with the First World War will resume". I think it is touching that he thought the historic decline of Europe had paused as opposed to precipitously continued - especially during the Cold War when we were divided (although this may point to the Delors-Thatcher contrast; he was very much a man of the Franco-German engine which defined his Europe, she was a Cold Warrior). But I don't think the political union has really advanced that significantly since the breakthroughs in his presidency - and even on his term, it's fair to say Europe's decline has resumed