How a bold Hungarian-Polish proposal would reform the EU
Rodrigo Ballester: Hysterical reactions show the loss of ideological hegemony
The Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) in Hungary and the Polish Ordo Iuris Institute call for a drastic reform of the European Union and the strengthening of nation-states in a joint report that has garnered significant media attention. The comprehensive analysis and proposal package offer solutions to the dilemma between national sovereignty and the centralization of EU institutions, taking into account current political and economic challenges. We spoke to Rodrigo Ballester, head of the Center for European Studies at MCC and one of the document’s authors.
Ez az interjú magyarul is elérhető.
The report outlines two alternative reform scenarios for the EU. What are the main differences between them, and what specific measures do they propose to restore member state sovereignty?
The first scenario is a drastic reform of the current European Union, keeping the current institutions although radically changing their role and competences. The main point of this scenario is to turn Member states into the centre of gravity of the organisation, instead of the Commission and the Parliament. The second scenario is to end the current European Union and start from scratch a new cooperation among European nations on a new basis. A tabula rasa option. I do believe that the first scenario is more adequate, but we cannot exclude the second if the EU fails to accomplish the basic reforms it needs to tackled its current crisis.
How to restore sovereignty?
By stating loud and clear that national constitutions are legally superior to EU law, by giving the opportunity to Member states to opt out from a policy on the basis of its national interests and by giving to the European Council (the institutions gathering the Heads of States and Government) a prominence over all the other institutions. The national presidents and prime ministers should have the last word on most issues, no one else.
How do you envision curbing the principle of the „ever closer union,” and what mechanisms could ensure that EU institutions do not exceed their competences?
The best way to end with this very unfortunate expression is to delete it from the Treaties. It doesn’t make sense and, most importantly, it is antidemocratic because it forces the EU to go only in one direction whether European citizens agree with it or not. The problem of the EU going beyond its competence is for me the most important one. The current Treaty clearly says that „Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States”. Yet, this golden principle is largely ignored and it became usual for the EU to act without a mandate and steal national competences from the Member states. To remedy this situation we propose to create a „shield of national competences”, a list of topics that would never ever be affected by any decision of the European institutions, for example, anything related to education and families. It is a major scandal that the EU currently confiscates billions of euros to Hungary because of its law on the protection of minors: since when is the EU responsible for the sexual education of children? Who gave them a mandate to state that gender ideology is compulsory? With this shield, this situation will never ever happen. We also propose to extend unanimity, not to get rid of it. An EU where Member states can enforce their red lines based on national interests will be stronger.
The report criticizes the current functioning of the European Parliament and the dominance of political parties. What alternative solutions do you propose to enhance democratic accountability within EU institutions?
First, to deprive the Parliament of some of its legislative powers. Today, in the vast majority of cases, the Parliament has the same weight as the Member states, and we think this is an anomaly. Second, to change its composition: the European Parliament should be composed (at least partially) of national members of the Parliament. Those are much closer to the citizens and their presence would prevent what the European parliament became today: an assembly of party members under the influence of non-elected groups of interest, influence and pressure that are wrongly called „civil society”. Another option is to turn the European Parliament into an assembly without powers, as it used to be when it was created. Let me give you another example: today, only the European Parliament can force the President of the Commission to resign, we propose to give this power to the Heads of State and Prime Ministers. Mrs Von der Leyen should report and be accountable to them, not to the Parliament.
You advocate for limiting the powers of the European Court of Justice. How could this be achieved without undermining the stability of the EU’s legal framework?
We really think that the stability of the EU’s legal framework would be more stable if we limit the powers of the Court of Justice which, became a very controversial court! It goes beyond its competences, refuses to sign the European Convention of Human Rights, does judicial activism, is at odds with several national constitutional courts and their judges often incur into blatant conflict of interests. That’s why we propose to turn the European Court of justice into an administrative court that cannot impose financial sanctions to Member States, to create an assembly of national constitutional courts that will decide on conflicts of competences and to prohibit EU high rank civil servants from becoming European judges.
Do you see a realistic chance for these ideas to gain political support within the EU?
It is very likely that there will be a reform of the Treaties in the coming months or years. The Parliament started the procedure and now it is for the Heads of State and Government to decide whether to move on or not. Given the rise of political parties advocating for a European cooperation based on the sovereignty of its Member states and the major discontent of the majority of European citizens, I think the alternative solutions we propose already have and will gain additional political support. The times where more centralisation, more power to the EU was the only option for reform are over. And those are good news for democracy.
What is your opinion about the attacks and allegations you are receiving from the liberal media?
For too many people on the left, the EU is a cult and its unstoppable centralisation is a dogma. Hence, dissenting views are like blasphemy and that is why they react with outrage and postures instead of giving solid arguments. So, very happy to contradict those certainties and open a real debate. I also think that those hyperbolic reactions are a sign of nervousness, when you lose your hegemony, you become feverish about it. I would advise them to get ready to this new paradigm and to additional debates on the European Union, this is only the beginning!
