PM Viktor Orban wants to fight against free media in Hungary

Do you beat your wife, but argue that you are such a nice person outside your home that nobody should take you to task?

Which countries do most readily reject criticism of human rights violations as interference in their internal affairs?

***

Prime minister Viktor Orban presented the programme of the Hungarian presidency of the Council of the European Union at the European Parliament plenary in Strasbourg. He was adamant about the illiberal media law:

Finally, Mr Orbán asked MEPs not to confuse the current EU Presidency with Hungary’s internal affairs, whatever their opinions may be. “I am ready to fight”, said the Hungarian prime minister, warning that if the distinction was not made, it would harm the whole of the EU, rather than just Hungary.

Orban's interpretation of ”respect and humility” was in marked contrast with the views of group leaders Martin Schulz (S&D), Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE) and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Greens/EFA) regarding the fundamental value of freedom of information.

Some might see a message to the Hungarian EU Council presidency from the outgoing Belgian presidency, in the words of prime minister Yves Leterme a day earlier:

As much as about peace, the Union is about liberty, about democracy, about civil rights, about the rule of law, as well for our citizens as for our immigrants. We believe in the right of each person to human dignity, which means to the right to live on their feet and not on their knees, the right to think and speak and worship freely.

According to commissioner Neelie Kroes, the Commission is examining the implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMS) in Hungary (and other member states). In addition to these narrow legal grounds, president José Manuel Barroso called the freedom of the press a sacred principle, and he called for Orban to understand the political implications.

Andrew Willis on EUobserver noted that PM Orban was met by strong criticism from many members of the European Parliament:

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban met with an unprecedentedly hostile welcome for an incoming EU presidency in the European Parliament on Wednesday (19 January), with MEPs venting strong criticism against Budapest's new media law.

However, PM Orban remained as pugnacious as ever.

Gulf Stream Blues noted Orban's combative mood as well as the timing of the new law:

The only explanations for the timing of this law are that Orban's administration is either extremely naïve or extremely belligerent. Neither bodes well for the potential of the Hungarian presidency to navigate the EU through the next six months of crisis.

Even if PM Orban is impervious to the founding values of the European Union and no EU institution seems to be prepared to enforce them as such, Hungary is party to the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including Article 10 on the Freedom of expression.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. On Verfassungsblog the lawyer, journalist and author Max Steinbeis combines his talents to explain the rulings of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), in constant interplay with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Recommended reading.

P.S. 2: You can follow me on Facebook and on Twitter @RalfGrahn.

Deserted by EP majority: EU citizens lead lives of quiet desperation (Updated)

”The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” Henry David Thoreau, the author of Walden, is back in the European Union, including the European Parliament.

The International Relations and Security Network (ISN) published a background picture by Jeremy Druker of the repressive Hungarian law and other controversial legislation on its way: Hungary's Media Law – Tip of the Iceberg (18 January 2011).

Druker quoted professor and OSCE observer Miklos Haratszi saying:

Still, whatever the outrage in the West, few see that the media package is just the tip of the iceberg of Orban's very far-reaching illiberal, counter-revolution.

The French Brussels based journalist Jean-Sébastien Lefebvre, @jslefebvre on Twitter, has covered various aspects of the Hungarian presidency of the Council of the European Union on his blog, L'expérience européenne.

On the European Union as the last hope for Hungarian media with regard to the new law: Journaliste en Hongrie: ” notre dernier espoir, c'est l'Union européenne ” (29 December 2010).

A broad canvas about the Hungarian EU Council presidency and the history and neighbours of Hungary: La Présidence hongroise, son Histoire et ses voisins (15 January 2011).

The revealing quality of answers from the Hungarian presidency regarding a few of the controversial government measures: L'argumentaire de la Présidence hongroise (18 January 2011).

On Coulisses de Bruxelles, UE, the French journalist and blogger Jean Quatremer, @quatremer on Twitter, speaks about the lost honour of the European Socialists, the second largest group in the European Parliament: Tunisie, Hongrie, l'honneur perdu des socialistes européens (18 January 2011).

Quatremer presents the scene in his opening phrases:

Le groupe socialiste du Parlement européen, présidé par Martin Schulz, a joint ses voix au groupe conservateur du PPE pour bloquer toute résolution sur la révolution tunisienne et sur la suppression de la liberté de la presse en Hongrie à la consternation des Verts, de la GUE (gauche non socialiste) et des… libéraux et démocrates. Ces deux groupes ayant la majorité à eux deux, l’Europarlement restera donc muet, lui qui est si prompt à condamner la moindre atteinte aux droits de l’homme à condition qu’elle ait lieu à l’extérieur de la zone d’influence de l’Union…

Quatremer's conclusions about the group of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) in the EP is not rosy for those who hope to see a principled defence of the founding values of the European Union and the liberties of all EU citizens:

Sur la Hongrie, le groupe S&D (Alliance progressiste des socialistes européens) est encore plus vaseux si cela est possible : il veut attendre que la Commission européenne dise en quoi la loi sur les médias adoptée par le parlement hongrois est contraire au droit européen, comme si cela n’était pas évident.

Démocratie, liberté de la presse : les socialistes européens ne semblent vraiment plus savoir ce que sont les valeurs européennes qui fondent l’Union et doivent être défendues tant à l’intérieur qu’à l’extérieur. Après cela, étonnez-vous que la gauche soit en perte de vitesse dans l’Union. Au moins la droite est-elle conséquente en condamnant Cuba et en soutenant la Tunisie de Ben Ali…

Quatremer's text was so damning that I felt the need to check the S&D newsroom, where I found a press release from group leader Martin Schulz (in French). Even if Schulz mentions European values, his statement reduces the issue to an assessment by the Commission of compatibility with EU law:

Le Premier ministre Hongrois, Monsieur Viktor Orban, devrait s'assurer de la modification de cette loi si l'incompatibilité avec le droit européen est avérée, et pour cela, la Commission européenne doit agir en jouant pleinement son rôle qui découle du Traité a conclu Martin Schulz.

Update 19 January 2011: Added link to S&D press release Martin Schulz.

Update 2, 20 January 2011: S&D group leader Martin Schulz has written to the Coulisses de Bruxelles, and Jean Quatremer has commented.

***

In this instance I understand why Quatremer was somewhat hesitant about the position of the Liberals and Democrats, as reflected in the ALDE press release, leaving the field to the Greens and the Left.

This morning in Strasbourg the European Parliament is going to discuss the programme of activities of the Hungarian presidency of the EU Council. By the looks of it, in the terms of practical action neither the Hungarian government nor the EP majority seems to put the founding values of the European Union first.

Is there any alternative to despair?



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Franco-German blog vasistas? battles for the freedom of EU citizens on the Internet, so there is little risk of running out of challenges to discuss any time soon. @vasistas_blog is also worth following on Twitter.


P.S. 2: You can follow me on Facebook and on Twitter @RalfGrahn.

Painful reading for an EU citizen: Hungarian media law in EP

After the discussion about the importance of EU founding values – for the citizens of the European Union and for the EU in the wider world – it was painful to read the press summary from the European Parliament: Hungarian media law sparks controversy at the European Parliament (18 January 2011).

Instead of putting European founding values and citizens first, the representatives of the European People's Party (EPP) persisted in legal sophistry and in belittling the issues at stake.

I had hoped that the unfortunate early comments from EPP leaders such as group leader Joseph Daul and EPP president Wilfried Martens would – on reflection – have been scrapped in favour of a principled approach from the strongest political group in the EP, the other EU institutions and the member states.

I was wrong, painfully wrong.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. After a week of technical problems, the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu is again online, bringing you the posts from 732 Euroblogs. European political awareness is needed more than ever.

Domestic legislation as an embarrassment for the EU (Hungarian media law)

Politically, already serious discussion about the commencement of proceedings is an embarrassment for a wayward government, despite the slender risk of condemnation, I said in my comment regarding the founding values of the European Union in Article 2 TEU and the possible sanctions for serious breaches foreseen in Article 7 TEU: Are EU founding values effective? (Hungarian media law)(11 January 2011).

Governments in the European Union (and beyond) want to be seen as respectable, even when their actions are not. The Hungarian Fidesz government of Viktor Orban moved from angry denial to more conciliatory language in order to defuse the problem, but the embarrassment must be felt by their political friends, such as Wilfried Martens, the president of the European People's Party, who endorsed the Hungarian media law, and EPP group leader Joseph Daul, who belittled and procrastinated instead of taking a principled stand for the rights of EU citizens. .

I have no special desire to see the EPP leadership with egg on its face, but the freedoms and rights of EU citizens are more important to me than misplaced consideration for blatant political misjudgments.

In summary, even when national political leaders think that they can act with impunity domestically, they can cause serious political damage to their country and their ”friends” at the European level.


International repercussions

The potential damage is not limited to intra-European affairs. Internationally the European Union portrays itself as the champion of the universal values of human rights. The foreign, security, defence and trade policy (external action) of the European Union is not based on interests alone, but on acting in accordance with and promoting the founding values of the EU.

This is (or should be) more than wishful thinking, since Title V of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), General provisions on the Union's external action and specific provisions on the foreign and security policy, opens by stating the value based character of all EU action on the world stage, in Article 21(1) TEU:

GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE UNION’S EXTERNAL ACTION

Article 21 TEU

1. The Union’s action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The Union shall seek to develop relations and build partnerships with third countries, and international, regional or global organisations which share the principles referred to in the first subparagraph. It shall promote multilateral solutions to common problems, in particular in the framework of the United Nations.

Evidently, if the European Union, even by individual member states, slips at home, it loses credibility abroad. In other words, a domestic embarrassment becomes a global shame.

Dictators and authoritarian rulers are quick enough to praise their rule(s), if a ”fifth column” inside the EU passes the ammunition.

On the website of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) and in the Social Europe Journal, Susi Dennison made the point about double standards and welcomed a debate at European level (7 January 2011):

... it has to be a positive development that a political conversation has finally started about these matters at a European level. A Union that has in its founding treaties respect for democracy, rule of law and human rights cannot credibly turn a blind eye to potential breaches of these principles by constituent states.

Member states and Europarties

In the eyes of EU citizens and the wider world, the acts of national governments can seriously undermine the purposes and credibility of the European Union. The member states who ”own” the union and the Europarties who are supposed to contribute to forming European political awareness and to express the will of the citizens of the union have special responsibilities, including robust peer pressure on bad apples.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Thoughtful analysis, reasoned arguments, European perspectives … already as an undergraduate Conor Slowey aka Eurocentric wrote one of star blogs of the Euroblogosphere, The European Citizen. Now a graduate student in Leiden, he is a generous contributor on Facebook and on Twitter as @EuropeanCitizen. Highly recommended.

Are EU founding values effective? (Hungarian media law)

In the Social Europe Journal, Gabor Gyori explained that the tribulations of democracy in Hungary could not be framed in the terms of dictatorship or its opposite. There were many other problems besides the new media law. For the sake of Hungary and the whole EU, the union must start taking democracy and the rule of law as seriously as economic issues: For Hungary, the Issue is not Dictatorship but the Quality of Democracy (10 January 2011).

The 47 member states of the pan-European Council of Europe have committed themselves to the European values enshrined in many treaties, most notably the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).

There are at least three lines of defence. First, the member states are supposed to live up to their promises voluntarily. Second, the CoE officials and intergovernmental bodies try to deal with emerging problems politically. Third, ultimately the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rules on applications ”after all domestic remedies have been exhausted”, so it is a slow and laborious road, but the member states have undertaken to abide by the final judgment of the Court. Abidance is monitored by the CoE.

As I tried to explain yesterday, there are pan-European values, common to all CoE members, not Western European, Central European or Eastern European values and norms designed to give people in Central or Eastern Europe less protection than their more fortunate counterparts in the older CoE members in the West: European values and Hungarian media law: ECHR (10 January 2011).


European Union values

The European Union (EU) is a tight and deep political union, as opposed to the intergovernmental Council of Europe, so it would be natural to expect the EU to be better equipped to deal with deviant behaviour against the freedoms and rights of its citizens.

In addition, the Lisbon Treaty was marketed as an improvement for citizens in many respects: more democratic, fundamental rights, citizens' initiative etc.


EU founding values

Let us look at the bright side of life. In my view, the founding values of the European Union are admirable (OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83/17):

Article 2 TEU

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

(You can notice the inclusion among the founding values of ”the rights of persons belonging to minorities”, treasured by a Hungary solicitous about 3.5 million ethnic Hungarians outside its borders.)


Outsiders

As long as states remain candidates for EU accession, they have to convince all the member states that they respect these founding values and that they are committed to promoting them (Article 49 TEU).


Insiders

Once inside, a member state is less at risk legally, because the hurdles against sanctions are still quite high. According to Article 7 TEU, the Council needs to determine by a four fifths majority that there is a ”clear risk of a serious breach” of the founding values by a member state.

The process can be initiated by a third of the member states, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission. The procedure can lead to recommendations.

Real legal sanctions are possible only when a unanimous European Council determines a ”serious and persistent breach” by a member state.

Legally, we have a blunt weapon, not especially well adapted to minor but important infringements by member states' governments.

Politically, already serious discussion about the commencement of proceedings is an embarrassment for a wayward government, despite the slender risk of condemnation.

However, it requires a degree of moral courage from the institutional players involved to get even a principled discussion going.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Daniel Mason writes The Endless Track, a British Euroblog refreshingly interested in actual EU policies and the place of South Yorkshire within the European Union. You can follow @danmason21 on Twitter when he hopefully returns with new tweets.

EPP president Wilfried Martens versus Free Press for Hungary

A short while ago 2,129 persons had already joined the new Facebook group Free Press For Hungary. International Version.

Established earlier, the Hungarian version had attracted 54,834 supporters against the authoritarian media law of the government of Viktor Orban.

There are many convincing media reports and blog posts about the essentials of the Hungarian censorship law, but translations into English and other EU languages would be most welcome for those who want to study the legislation in detail.


EPP ”dominant position”

The European People's Party likes to remind editors of its importance:

The EPP is the largest and most influential European-level political party of the centre-right, which currently includes 73 member-parties from 39 countries, the Presidents of the Commission, Council, and Parliament, 14 EU and 6 non-EU heads of state and government, 13 members of the European Commission and the largest Group in the European Parliament.

Update 2, 5 January 2011: Actually even this note is too modest. If the president of the Council means the rotating presidency, now held by EPP member party Fidesz in the Hungarian government of Viktor Orban, the text forgets to mention the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy.


From EU competition law and policy we know the concept ”abuse of a dominant position”.

We have seen all too many examples of cronyism, turning a blind eye and abdication of responsiblity from the EPP in various situations.

This is why we have to ask: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Top down reform

The real low water mark internationally was recorded by the EPP chairman Wilfried Martens who actively lauded the Hungarian media (censorship) law as an improvement ”with the aim to strengthen the freedom of the press, the culture of respect, the protection of minors and human dignity”.

I would like to see the biggest Europarty, the European People's Party, taking the greatest responsibility for our basic values, but instead I realise the need for a crash course from the top down concerning the European Convention on Human Rigths (ECHR), the founding values of the European Union (Article 2 TEU), the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rigths of the European Union (Article 6 TEU) and the process to start determining a serious breach of the founding values (Article 7 TEU).

They are the cornerstones of European integration and for the citizens of the European Union, and they should be for the EPP (otherwise it is ineligible for Europarty funds).

Perhaps EU citizens could tweet @MartensEPP before his Europarty has become even more discredited.

I am not against the European People's Party. On the contrary, I want a better EPP and a better EU for voters, citizens and businesses of the European Union. Taking a principled approach is the only salvation from the current morass.


Update 5 January 2011: Thanks to Andreas Müllerleile who pointed out an English translation of the Hungarian Act on Media Services and Mass Media (about 200 pages).



Ralf Grahn


P.S. Despite the diminished stature of the presidency of the Council of the European Union, the government of Hungary has deservedly gained an astonishing amount of visibility in a few days, as seen on the front page of Bloggingportal.eu, the multiligual aggregator of 729 Euroblogs. Should we congratulate PM Orban on the achievement?

Help EPP group leader Joseph Daul defend media freedom

The leader of the European People's Party group in the European Parliament had this to say on Facebook with regard to fundamental rights of EU citizens, especially the Hungarian media law:

Let's see what the Commission says after it has examined the law. You remember the Roma case ? The Commission concluded that there was no breach of Eau law. But very few reported about that decision. So if this law contains dispositions contrary to EU law or international conventions, it will be changed. Let's see. But don't be naive: it is not purely because of their preoccupation for the rights of the media that socialists, liberals and greens atrack an EPP government.

Selective memory

Despite the conspicuous lack of support for the Commission, with regard to the Roma issue, Daul forgot to mention that the European Commission dropped the threat of infringement procedures after the French government submitted detailed documentation to the Commission, including draft legislative measures and a credible calendar for putting the procedural safeguards required under the EU's Free Movement Directive into French legislation by early 2011. When the demolition instruction to target Roma camps had leaked, the government had hastened to change it. France is still under Commission scrutiny.


Party political arguments - whose?

Scores of media reports and blog posts about the contents of the Hungarian gag law have seemed unequivocal enough to allow for clear condemnation long before now.

How much is still unclear after an article such as Slugger O'Toole ”Draconian press laws in the EU's new Presidency” (1 January 2011)?

Is it possible, in good faith, to avoid the impression that Daul is procrastinating or worse?

I feel offended when Daul equates criticism of the Hungarian censorship law with party political schemes to discredit an EPP government. I try to base my evaluation of the actions of the EU institutions and political actors on principles, primarily the interests of the citizens of the EU.

If various Europarties come out differently, it is not necessarily my fault.

I hope that I could see the EPP as an active protagonist for free speech, but I wonder if Daul's argument can be seen to be exempt from party political bias and cronyism. (Various Hungarian government representatives have dismissed criticism as party politically motivated.)

For me the European Convention on Human Rigths (ECHR), the founding values of the European Union (Article 2 TEU), the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rigths of the European Union (Article 6 TEU) and the process to determine a serious breach of the founding values (Article 7 TEU) are the cornerstones of European integration and for the citizens of the European Union.

I would like to see the biggest Europarty, the EPP, taking the greatest responsibility for our basic values.

Dear readers, even if we are aware of the troubled history of the rule of law in France regarding freedom from political interference, please enlighten EPP group leader Joseph Daul about founding principles, non-discrimination and fundamental rights, as if the EU was intended to serve its citizens first.


Non-discrimination

Since the Treaty of Rome (1957), any discrimination on grounds of nationality is prohibited (now Article 18 TFEU).

Time enough for the basic principle of non-discrimination to sink in, methinks.

The Hungarian government of Viktor Orban is under fire for a number of controversial policies, including Commission scrutiny for alleged discrimination. According to the Wall Street Journal, thirteen large companies from France (Daul's country of origin, a founding member of the EEC), Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic complained to the EU Commission, saying Hungary is targeting "select sectors and foreign companies in particular, to balance the state budget."

You can comment on this blog, tweet @JosephDaul or comment on Daul's new year wishes on Facebook for 2011 to become a better year.



Ralf Grahn


P.S. The Swedish MEP Gunnar Hökmark has shown that high profile EPP members can take a principled approach, as he has done in his blog posts ”Det blev ett nytt år – om Ungern, Estland och Sarkozy” with regard to the media law and ”Dåliga signaler från EU:s ordförandeland” concerning discrimination. Respect.

Roma expulsions: France versus Europe

It was not like jumping a few red lights, but more like recklessly racing on the wrong side of the road, trying to bulldoze every approaching vehicle off the tarmac. The European commissioner for justice, Viviane Reding, was left with no choice. She finally issued a sharp statement on the French government’s targeted mass expulsion of Roma.



It is not as if the French authorities had not received warning on their muscular evictions, from the Commission, the European Parliament, EU member states, Europarties, mainstream media and EU citizens. You can look at the blog posts tagged France on Bloggingportal.eu. You can look at #Roma and other hashtags on Twitter.

The European Union is based on common values and rules. France, as one of the founding members should know – and behave accordingly – although some of the statements from the French government make me wonder at the depth of ignorance and the height of arrogance they have displayed.

I am happy to see how many French men and women have shown strong support for shared European values and adherence to our common rules. They bear no part of the shame.




Ralf Grahn

European Union values

One of the good things about the Lisbon Treaty is its statement on the founding values, in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union:


“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.”


***


Organisations built by humans seldom attain perfection, but if the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, the actions of the European Union are going to be measured against these founding values.


One more reason to put the Lisbon Treaty into practice.



Ralf Grahn

European elections: Am I a revisionist?

The European Parliament has published Graphical material promoting the European elections.



You find e-Banners in 23 languages, logos and postcards. There is a Logo Manual for the technically inclined. New material is promised.

***

Founding values – political correctness

Downloading the materials is free, but comes attached with conditions of use.



Why do I feel less enthusiastic after reading the conditions?

I freely admit that I am in sympathy with the principles evoked in the Preambles of the treaties forming the Treaty of Lisbon and the founding values in Article 2 of the amended Treaty on European Union (although the EU is far from the effective and democratic union I believe is in the interest of its citizens and the world):

Article 2 TEU

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.


***

But then I read the variations and elaborations on the theme, and I get a quesy feeling of enforced political correctness:


Use of these communication products is authorised provided that:
• such use is related to the context of the European elections,
• such use is not linked directly or indirectly to a commercial purpose,
• such use is in no way associated with data or information that is of a racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, revisionist, defamatory, insulting, obscene, pornographic or paedophile nature or tending to incite violence, especially racial violence; likely by its vary nature to undermine respect for the dignity of the human being, equal rights of women and men and the protection of children and adolescents; inviting minors to commit illicit or dangerous acts; encouraging others to commit crimes or offences or to consume prohibited substances; inciting suicide; inciting discrimination or hatred of a person or a group of persons on grounds of their origin, membership or non-membership of an ethnic group, a nation, a group, or a specific race or religion; excusing certain crimes (in particular, murder, rape, war crimes and crimes against humanity); contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality;


***

Revisionism?

When I grew up, I read about the Central Committee of Communist Party of the Soviet Union hurling accusations of ‘revisionism’ at people deviating from the path of scientific socialism and its correct implementation.

Is the European Parliament about to prohibit such deviations, or has it concocted its own definition of what constitutes the ‘crime’ of revisionism?

As long as I don’t know, I have to count myself among the suspects.


Ralf Grahn

European Council & Lisbon Treaty: Serious breach

Under the EU’s Treaty of Lisbon the European Council ─ arguably the most important EU body already ─ officially becomes an institution (Article 13 TEU).

In a number of posts we are going to look at the European Council under the Treaty of Lisbon.

***

Disappearing Council configuration

The special Council configuration ─ the Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government ─ would disappear, when the European Council becomes an institution.

Compare the existing and amended Article 7 TEU on a serious breach of the European Union’s founding values (with the voting arrangements detailed in Article 354 TFEU).

***

Serious breach of founding values

Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) lays down the procedure if a member state is suspected of breaching the founding values of the European Union (human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities; Article 2 TEU).

The Council determines if there is a clear risk of a serious breach (warning).

The European Council ─ acting unanimously ─ determines the existence of a serious and persistent breach; grounds for sanctions by Council decision (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/19─20):

Article 7 TEU
(ex Article 7 TEU)

1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure.

The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made continue to apply.

2. The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2, after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.

3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons.

The obligations of the Member State in question under this Treaty shall in any case continue to be binding on that State.

4. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide subsequently to vary or revoke measures taken under paragraph 3 in response to changes in the situation which led to their being imposed.

5. The voting arrangements applying to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council for the purposes of this Article are laid down in Article 354 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


***

Unanimity minus one

According to Article 354 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) the member of the European Council representing the Member State in question shall not take part in the vote.

Even a proposal to consider a breach of one or more founding values has negative consequences for the image of a member state, but if more than one member were to be targeted, they would be able to frustrate the imposition of sanctions by supporting each other in the European Council.


Ralf Grahn