© unknownBrandenburg Gate
Two things happened in mid-December that can help us understand what the EU's "Rule of Law" debate is all about.
A much-celebrated deal was reached regarding the EU's suspension of funds for Hungary. In essence, it kept the door open for Hungary to receive all the money it is entitled to, if it continues to implement a number of reforms in order to "strengthen the Rule of Law".
But that was not really what the deal was about. The vote in the EU council on Hungary's funds was purposefully combined with a vote on two other subjects: A global minimum tax on company profits, and an 18 billion Euro aid package for Ukraine. Both aimed at deepening supranational political dependency structures rather than solving a real problem.
There was no need for a common EU loan in order to mobilize those 18 billion Euro for Ukraine. That money can be contributed by the member states themselves. In fact, Hungary succeeded in negotiating a solution that avoided further EU common debt (the Ukraine aid will not be paid from the EU budget). The only reason the EU commission wanted more common debt in the first place was to install a culture of common EU borrowing. So far, they succeeded only once, to finance the socalled Covid relief package. And that was politically "sold" as a "one-off" exception, never to be repeated. Since then, though, the commission keeps trying to repeat it.
Comment: Hungary stands its ground. Corruption of human rights, redefinition of society and monetary manipulation are not on Orbán's agenda.