And so it begins. POLITICO, a mouthpiece of Brussels liberals, published an article on Wednesday titled: ‘Slovakia: the EU’s next rule of law headache.’ The article highlights serious concerns within Brussels regarding the actions of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico’s government, which could soon result in a freeze on EU funds for Slovakia, similar to what happened in Hungary.
The article then proceeds to enumerate, on a par with Hungary, the continuously reiterated, almost weary left-wing accusations that Fico is preparing to entirely control the media, dismantle the rule of law, erode the independence of the judiciary, and basically attempt to construct a dictatorship in the heart of Central Europe.
POLITICO reminds that the European Commission is under particular pressure now, having unblocked €10.2 billion of EU funds destined for Hungary last December, which had previously been frozen. The left-wing majority in the European Parliament is about to file a lawsuit against the Commission regarding the issue. Martin Hojsík, Vice President of the European Parliament and a member of the opposition Progressive Slovakia party, believes that
the Commission will take the situation in Slovakia seriously.
‘The Commission is way more inclined to not repeat the mistakes that happened in Hungary about a situation that was tolerated for way too long and Orbán was allowed to escalate,’ he told POLITICO.
The liberals’ primary concern currently revolves around the abolition of a special prosecutor’s office, which handled high-level corruption cases among other matters, as part of Fico’s reform of the criminal code. Fico is accused of seeking to eliminate this prosecutor’s office due to ongoing investigations involving several politicians and businessmen associated with him. The Slovak prime minister has previously justified the decision by stating that the institution had significantly contributed to violations of human rights.
However, we must seek the true causes elsewhere. With Robert Fico’s election victory last September, another Central European country has embraced sovereigntist politics, prioritizing national interests. Fico, a close ally of Viktor Orbán, shares a similar stance with the Hungarian government—which, incidentally, aligns with the views of the Slovak people—on key issues such as support for Ukraine. One of the main messages of the Slovak prime minister’s campaign was that arms deliveries to Kyiv should be stopped, a position he has consistently maintained since then.
Consequently, it became evident that Slovakia would face similar left-wing criticisms as Hungary, and it was anticipated that Brussels would soon wield its most potent weapon against Bratislava: the rule of law procedure.
The ideological war appears to have begun, with POLITICO laying the groundwork for a protracted struggle between Slovakia and Brussels concerning billions of euros.
The situation in Poland serves as a prime example of Member States being distinctly categorized on ideological principles. For a considerable period, Hungary and Poland stood united against progressives in Brussels, and akin to Hungary, the Commission also froze Polish EU funds. Then, in October 2023, the Law and Justice (PiS) party, which had governed for two terms, failed to form a government and was succeeded by an opposition coalition led by Donald Tusk.
Subsequently, the Tusk government initiated a comprehensive political purge, involving the arrest of two members of the previous PiS government and an assault on the public media.
All these actions were carried out with the tacit approval of Brussels.
It didn’t take long for the Tusk government’s unwavering allegiance to Brussels and foreign interests to be rewarded, leading the Commission to consider the release of funds due to Poland. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced at the end of February, during a visit to Poland, that the Commission was preparing to unblock at least €135 billion due to the ‘reforms’ implemented by the Tusk government.
Therefore, the Brussels recipe appears crystal clear by now: if a Member State adopts a sovereigntist policy that prioritizes national interests, thereby conflicting with globalist interests, the Commission will cut off funding under questionable pretexts. Conversely, if a government follows the opposite approach, it seemingly has free rein to act as it pleases, including dismantling the rule of law and undermining media independence, without facing any retaliation.
Related articles:
