Hello and welcome back to Talking Europe.
I'm at the European Parliament,
where a committee of MEPs has just voted to sue
the European Commission for unfreezing billions of euros in funding
for Hungary late last year.
They say it's time to protect European taxpayers money from
misuse.
Meanwhile, Warsaw and the European Commission have unveiled an action
plan which involves legal reforms in Poland and ending the
E us infringement procedures against the country,
which date back to the previous Conservative government.
Well, I'm joined by two MEPs with very different approaches
to the issue of the rule of law.
Cataline Chair is a Hungarian,
is a Hungarian politician and vice chair of the Renew
Europe group here.
And she says that the challenge of her generation is
to turn democratic backsliding around and to fight for a
European Hungary Welcome to you.
I'm also very pleased to welcome Dominic Tarchinsky,
a Polish politician. He's a member of the Bureau of
the European Conservatives and Reformists and he believes in a
Europe of sovereign nations which are treated with respect.
Welcome to you as well.
Thank you for having me.
So let's start with all the turbulent events in Poland
over the last
couple of months. And Catherine,
Che, I I I imagine you're quite pleased that
Poland is now more closer to your type of politics.
Well, I am not a Polish citizen,
but from what I gather is that indeed the Polish
citizens chose a different path for their country,
a path where women's rights are more respected,
where the European identity is felt more closely when European
rules
are adhered to because of the joint advancement of this
community.
This was the choice of the Polish people,
and I'm really hoping that Hungarian people will choose the
same path very shortly.
Doning Turchinsky, you obviously don't take the same view on
what's happening in Poland.
Well, first of all, very,
very basic fact. We have won
Law and Justice, won election in Poland.
We are the first party in the free Poland since
I would say 70 years,
not including war times. The coalition,
the opposition coalition had a bigger share.
That is correct, but very important.
It's worth to notice that we are the first in
the recent history of Poland
to win three times in a row.
We have won on the way.
We have won European elections,
presidential elections. We have won again this time.
But Donald Tusk was able to create and build the
coalition against winning party.
That's very important for our viewers.
So he he managed to build this coalition.
He was building his coalition on
love, language, good relations with with EU,
being able to get money from EU to do whatever
Brussels expect him to do.
Now we are waiting for the fruits of his politics.
Well, maybe to to do what his
Civic Platform programme said he was going to do.
Well, like all the legal changes and all of that.
Important to let our viewers know Civic Platform was second
in in our elections and other four parties voted against
Donald Tusk and against Law and Justice.
These people who are in a coalition with Donald Tusk
did not vote for him and I do think they
do have a coalition agreement though.
So. Well, coalition agreement is between the political leaders
but not the voters. That's very important.
So the most of the nation did not vote for
this government that did not vote for Donald Tusk.
He's trying to present himself as Alexander the Great who
has won with the Law and Justice.
You lost Donald Tusk. But isn't this like a little
bit of an interesting take on elections?
Because usually governments are formed based on majorities.
And if the majority of the voters who coalesce behind
parties that share similar agendas,
similar enough for a college agreement,
then I think that is a perfectly fine and legitimate
way to move forward.
I do agree. I do agree that it's always based
on coalition.
But when you see the clashes between the left
and Donald Tusk, at the moment,
it's been only three months.
After three months, they have official clashes on a Twitter,
fighting and calling themselves names.
So it's not a coalition of many policies.
It's not going to last four years.
I can take a bet.
Catalina, you're ready to take a bet?
Absolutely. No, you're not. Sorry.
So please, let's think about you.
Of course. So there is a bet for Belgian chocolates
that this government will not last four years.
Are you ready? I'm totally up for that.
Donate. You know that? I bet?
Chocolate. Chocolate. Belgian chocolate. But the latest opinion polls are
still pretty good for Civic Platform.
Actually. Well, for Civic Platform,
but not for the coalition.
That is the difference anyways.
OK, they're thinking the important thing.
You haven't bet any money.
No, no, no, no. I bet.
I'm perfectly happy to bet Belgian chocolates.
And I'm also happy to add,
but that important important thing is that he took responsibility
for what is going on in Poland and eastern part,
central, eastern part of Europe.
We are talking about Ukraine.
He took responsibility for, for what is going to,
what is going to happen in our relations with Ukraine
and with Russia.
This is, this is the real threat.
Yeah, there's no jokes about it.
So our approach was completely different.
His approach is completely different.
OK, let's come on. Because we haven't talked too much
about Hungary.
Catalan Chair. What about this move to to
take a a stronger stance on
the rule of law and this move in the European
Parliament I mentioned in the introduction,
you've said that Europe is at,
is at a turning point on the rule of law,
both in terms of upholding standards in the EU and
in the candidate countries for enlargement.
Well, I I absolutely think this
regulation, what we have that is called the rule of
law conditionality,
is an absolute landmark legislation for the future of the
European Union.
It has to be a very credible barrier against democratic
backsliding,
against corruption, and the European Commission should only disburse money
at the point when every single condition is complied with.
This is clearly not the case with Hungary,
and this is really pushing the entire European Community into
a dangerous discussion.
And you're you're very right in
bringing Ukraine into the discussion,
for instance, because we are really at a historic moment
where democracies clash with autocracies and we need to be
a strong democracy within the EU so that we can
work together with other democratic partners.
Are you talking about the level of corruption in Ukraine?
I'm talking about the level of corruption in Hungary.
Gotcha. Also. So why Why then European money went to
to Bulgaria when EPP
man of of honor was the Prime Minister with the
highest level of corruption and there was no problem at
all.
Then Poland is the lowest when it's the lowest official
data from from Eurostat and we've been called corrupted country
when we have the lowest level of corruption,
that's official data. Who called Poland the corrupted country and
left politicians from the left side and liberals,
this is what we can hear in the chamber.
The rule of conditionality mechanism is not applied against Poland.
It is only applied against the Hungarian government.
But as we have this law in place,
if you have a report about other countries,
Bulgaria for instance, I'm hopeful that the Commission will look
into it.
It's an entirety because that's why we have this law
problem.
That is the problem. That is the problem,
that the whole rule of law thing is used as
a political tool.
If Orban is not obedient,
if Kaczynski is not obedient,
let's use the rule of law.
No, no, no, not important.
Can I just jump in?
You say it's political, but it was the European Court
of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights judges
who decided to take those proceedings against the previous Polish
government talking about. Are you talking about the corruption scandal?
No, no, no. I'm just talking about infringement procedures that
were decided by the ECJ and the ECHR against Poland
in the last few years.
The same time we could hear the judges having being
a part of of the hunting with the lobbyists and
no one cares.
Are you talking about those judges?
Be serious. I mean, when we hear about the biggest
corruption scandals like cattle gate,
then then judges having a having a a hunting run
with lobbyists and no one cares,
nothing's happening. The credibility, we're mixing a lot of things
in the same in the same basket than that
when a prime minister's son-in-law or their friend who is
a former gospel are becoming the richest man of a
European country based on European taxpayers,
money is a donation that was supposed to go elsewhere.
This is the problem in Hungary.
Who can prove that? So if you're going to prove
that,
if you're going to prove that go to court,
so are you. But then then the judge will be
just back from his hunting run.
I don't know if he's going to be the analysis
of Hola,
for instance. No, what I'm saying,
what what I'm saying is that this the EU anti
corruption watchdog,
the EU was anti corruption.
What I'm what I'm trying to say is
this temple of democracy is full of hypocrisy.
That is the problem. The problem is that the majority
of left and liberals trying to politically fight with the
conservatives using rule of law,
judiciary and this beautiful idea of perfect world which does
not exist.
Especially when you see judges having a hunting run with
love beasts.
And
the hunting run doesn't apply to every single decision that
ECHR and ECJ judges have ever made.
It's you who brought this,
this, this. You're using one hunting story to
to apply to everything the judges have ever done.
Story is the biggest scandal in the history of this
of this court.
That's number one. The same thing with the Carter Gate.
The the the biggest corruption scandal where resolutions were
basically bought to attack or or or or make a
great PR
is what is is individual individuals behaving?
No it's not individuals be able.
It's individual Vice President of the of the parliament individual
and what are you talking about?
It is absolutely vice President or I agree with you.
But This is why had this House has has pushed
for and has to continue pushing for more stricter accountability
reforms and more stricter scrutiny.
We have done that. We have started it.
We have to do it with ourselves just as well
with other member states who still and those who have
paid political money for their own purposes and those who
who are who are under the threat of the jail
just left the jails.
I'm I'm talking about Qatar gay stars and they are
in the plenary just now as we talk.
That's what it is. I don't think that there is
a debate about
the problems and the trouble the entire no way scandal
pushed the our European incident.
When you're trying to just one more sentence,
when you're trying to point your finger at someone about
the corruption,
look at the plenaries like
2020 meters from here. But this does not exclude to
step up against oligarchs who use European taxpayers money to
make their family rich.
Then you have to prove it,
just you have to go to the court.
Final point. But you know you can't just come to
the studio and say he's corrupted.
We have people who were arrested.
Not only there's a European
Court judgment that this mechanism can be a fight against.
You want me to go back to the judges?
Come on. OK. OK. Let's stop there.
Let's end it there. We've run out of time but
to be continued,
I think. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much to Cataline Chair and to Dominic
Turchinski.
That's all for this edition of Talking Europe.
Thank you. Thank you.