The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), which is reputed for being dominated by MEPs with radical left-leaning worldviews, has adopted the so-called “In ‘t Veld-Report” on a new “Rule-of-Law-Mechanism”.
Seasoned observers of the EP will anticipate that a report to which Sophie in ‘t Veld, a prominent Dutch Feminist-Abortion-Sodomy-Radical with a profound hatred of Europe’s cultural heritage and identity, gives her name must be one with a singularly bizarre content. And indeed, the draft matches this expectation: what it proposes is a new mechanism that would give extraordinary new powers to the European Commission, the Parliament, and a group of hand-picked “legal experts” to censure Member States’ governments, and liberally hand out financial and legal sanctions against them, on the basis of anonymous and unspecified accusations of “rule-of-law-violations”, which may include anything that falls out of line with Sophie’s opinions on how this world should be governed.
Deluded as many of them are, it is no wonder that a majority of the LIBE Committee have raised their hands in favour of this nonsensical, but fortunately not legally binding, document – and we may expect the same from the EP’s plenary and the Commission. People inside the EU Institutions always tend to be in favour of any proposal that would aggrandize their importance and power.
But the proposal is stillborn and will never become reality. Its implementation would require a re-negotiation of the EU’s foundational treaties to which every Member State must give its assent – and it is fairly obvious that no Member State in its right mind would ever agree to a mechanism such as this. This is the time when the EU struggles to keep all its Member States in the fold, so perhaps this is not the moment for a new mechanism that would allow unelected bureaucrats to harass elected governments. But obviously, having spent too many years in the Brussels bulb, Sophie and friends must be totally unaware of the opinions of ordinary citizens.
For ourselves, the defenders of reason in this EU going somewhat insane, the question arises whether we should make any effort to actively fight against the compound of nonsense that Mrs. In ‘t Veld is proposing. But probably it is not worth the effort. The idea stands absolutely no chance of being adopted in Council, so maybe it will be sufficient to sit on the fence and watch it dying.
Some MEPs, however, seem to find it necessary to make a frank assessment. We draw your attention to the minority opinion issued pursuant to Rule 56(3) of the Rules of Procedure by German MEP Beatrix von Storch, who aptly summarizes the report as follows:
“This report is intended to overcome the opposition of many Member States to the EU’s regulation of values and norms. It therefore represents a new form of political dominance of the EU over the Member States. In future, it is intended that it should be possible for them to be pilloried by ‘independent experts’ if their people seek to protect themselves against decisions of the EU Institutions in particularly sensitive areas by means of referendums or amendments to the Constitution. Yet the Union is required to respect the national identities of the Member States ‘inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government’ (Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union). Mr Timmermans and Ms Jourova admitted several times in plenary that they themselves had been unable to detect any infringement of fundamental rights even in the cases of Hungary and Poland, which had been subject to substantial political manipulation and had been depicted luridly in the media. The EU itself is constantly breaking rules, yet does not bring proceedings against itself: it breaks rules on stability and budgets and in the context of measures to save the euro or the migration crisis, but the penalties for which the Treaties provide are never imposed. Yet ‘independent experts’ are now to take decisions on politically defined fundamental rights – or judges from Turkey, Azerbaijan or Morocco if the EU were to accede to the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Human Rights. I reject this report. It serves only to enable professional Eurocrats to manipulate national governments.”