The European Commission (EC) has approved the application of Article 7 of the EU Lisbon Agreement in relation to Poland. This will make it possible to introduce sanctions for violations by the Polish authorities of the principle of independence of justice.

Vice-President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans recalled that over the past two years, Poland's ruling Law and Justice party has adopted 13 laws allowing the government to “systematically intervene in the processes of formation, management and functioning” of the judicial system.

How Poland angered the EU

On December 15, the Polish Senate approved the final version of the laws on the Supreme Court and the National Judicial Council, proposed by the country's President Andrzej Duda. They imply the possibility of filing complaints against a court decision at any level with the Supreme Court. In addition, the law provides for the establishment retirement age for judges at the age of 65 with the possibility of extending the term of office upon application to the president.

The conflict between Brussels and Warsaw over judicial reform in Poland has been dragging on for two years now, since Warsaw began making changes to judicial legislation in early 2016.

Article 7: what does this mean for Warsaw

Article 7 of the Lisbon EU Agreement provides for the imposition of internal sanctions against a country that “seriously violates European values.” These values ​​are listed in Article 2 of the same document: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities. In the case of Poland, the basis of the EU's claims was precisely the non-compliance with the principle of the “rule of law”.

If Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty is nevertheless activated, Poland could be deprived of its voting rights in the Council of Europe.

But first, the EU member states must consider the European Commission’s recommendation to apply Article 7 of the Lisbon Agreement. To launch the sanctions mechanism, the votes of at least 22 of the 27 EU member states are required.

It all depends on whether so many EU members will support the activation of the article - according to Sergei Utkin, head of the strategic assessment sector at IMEMO RAS, this may not happen. “It is likely that, despite a certain concern with which a number of EU countries are observing transformations Polish politics“, a formal condemnation of Poland with the subsequent application of sanctions against it simply will not get the required number of votes,” the expert believes.

Polish political scientist Jakub Koreyba, in a conversation with Gazeta.Ru, emphasized that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban had already publicly promised Kaczynski (the head of the ruling Law and Justice party) that he would veto the entry into force of Article 7: “So this is a PR campaign “, the political scientist is sure. “The Commission is trying to set a precedent and seize more powers, while Germany and France are traditionally testing the limits of their informal influence.”

Associate Professor of the Department of Political History at MGIMO Kirill Koktysh admits that the EU will still apply sanctions against Warsaw, but emphasizes that this will not cause significant damage to the interests of Poland. “The Council of Europe is not a body that makes decisions, it is a platform for discussions - deprivation of the right to vote in the Council of Europe will not cause any particular damage to Poland, and besides this, nothing threatens Poland yet,” he recalled.

In a sense, these sanctions are even beneficial for Warsaw, since they justify its right not to pay European obligations and not to follow orders from Brussels that are inconvenient for it, Koktysh believes.

“The use of sanctions will be politically offensive, but ineffective. For Brussels, this is a situation where the carrots are over and the stick is missing,” the expert concluded.

Why should Warsaw quarrel with Brussels?

Warsaw is escalating the situation because it understands that this will add popularity to the authorities, says Jakub Koreyba. “Instead of a city on a hill, the EU has become a black man: in the eyes of the Polish people it has become a source of threats, not hopes, and the government positions itself as a protector ordinary people from a transnational oligarchy,” the expert emphasizes.

Law and Justice relies on a Eurosceptic voter base that generally supports the government's intention not to follow Brussels' lead. That is, from the point of view of the voter, the country’s sovereignty is strengthened, and from the point of view of the ruling group, its own positions are strengthened.

Warsaw’s desire to “quarrel” with Brussels may also be due to the fact that starting next year the European Union will significantly reduce subsidies for all countries of Eastern Europe, including Poland.

The country will find itself in a situation where privileges end, but responsibilities remain. “Therefore, Poland quite consciously went into confrontation with Brussels,” says Kirill Koktysh from MGIMO.

In light of Warsaw’s disagreements with the EU, the question of the prospects for the development of relations between Poland and Russia is especially interesting. Director of the Institute for Strategic Assessments Sergei Oznobishchev believes that the processes observed in Poland give hope for improving their relations with Russia against the backdrop of disappointment in the “purely Western” path. “We can hope that Russia will take advantage of this to improve relations with Warsaw - something similar has already happened with Hungary and the Czech Republic, apparently, now it’s Poland’s turn,” the expert said in an interview with Gazeta.Ru.

However, Kirill Koktysh warns that the process of rapprochement between Poland and Russia will not be quick. “For Poland, rapprochement with Russia will be speculative in order to frighten Brussels,” he explained.

President of the European Council Donald Tusk said that Poland may leave the European Union. According to the European leader, the current leadership of the country is kept in the EU only by financial subsidies. At the same time, Tusk accused the Polish authorities of “hidden support Russian exchange rate to undermine liberal democratic and Western values.” RT found out for what purpose the politician started talking about Poland’s exit from the EU and whether Warsaw’s Euroscepticism contributes to the normalization of relations with Moscow.

Former Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who has headed the EU's supreme body, the European Council, since 2014, said in an interview with the Polish publication Tygodnik Powszechny that Warsaw may raise the question of leaving the EU if the country turns from a recipient of European subsidies into a donor.

“I can easily imagine a situation where Poland is among the net donors, then the Polish government may decide that it is time to ask the Poles whether they want Poland to continue to remain in the EU,” the politician said.

According to him, the current leadership of Poland “at least does not perceive with enthusiasm” the country’s membership in the European Union.

Poland annually receives subsidies from European funds in the amount of up to €10 billion, but after the UK leaves the EU, which is planned for 2019, everything may change. After the EU loses one of the most powerful economies in Europe, all contributions to European funds that the United Kingdom previously made will fall on the shoulders of other EU member countries, including Poland. In addition, the EU plans to reduce spending between 2020 and 2027. This means that Poland will pay more to the EU budget than it receives from it.

“For Law and Justice (PiS, the ruling party in Poland - RT), the benefits of EU membership come down only to the balance of payments,” says Tusk. “They completely ignore other benefits, such as the single market, rule of law, security guarantees and the like. Until we become a pure donor, the game is worth the candle for them.”

He noted that the conflict between him and the leader of the Law and Justice party, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, is a question about the foundations of Polish politics and “a dispute not about what Europe should be, but about whether Poland should be part of it.”

Exit prospects

“There are some real reasons behind this statement, because the current Polish people are largely disappointed with the European Union and the way its governance system is structured. The issue of values ​​is especially important for Polish society. Current liberal European values ​​do not suit Polish society and cause quite strong rejection,” Oleg Nemensky, a leading researcher at RISI, noted in a conversation with RT.

In Brexit for Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic Tigers

After Brexit, people started talking about the fact that Britain’s departure from the European Union has not only a negative political component, but also an economic one. Indeed, the United Kingdom is one of the main donors to the European integration project.

EU members are divided into net recipients and net donors. “Net” - because each country puts money into a common treasury and takes from it. Of course, not on her own and not as much as she pleases. The EU budget is filled by states, the Council is responsible for its formation European Union, European Commission and European Parliament. The European Court of Auditors, established in 1975, closely monitors the filling and expenditure of the budget.

If a country takes more than it gives, it is a net recipient. And vice versa, if he gives more than he takes, he is a net donor.

This is what the map of Europe looks like if it is colored with the colors of subsidized countries (red-yellow shades) and donors (yellow-green).

The European Union has a seven-year budget planning system. The previous seven-year period was 2007 - 2013, which included the crisis of 2008 - 2009. The current one began in 2014 and will end in 2020. It will involve both the looming global crisis and a narrowly European one—Brexit. Which, however, will certainly affect the rest of the world.

Based on data from the European Commission, I compiled several tables.

As we can see, there are ten net donors in the European Union. The table is ranked by the column with data for 2014. It is easy to see that the main donor is Germany. Great Britain is only in third place, after France and before little Holland.

There are almost twice as many net recipients.

This also requires some clarification. EU members are lined up, again, according to 2014 data. As we see, Malta, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Ireland are in borderline state, in some years they were even donors or close to them. Croatia is new, having joined the EU on July 1, 2013. It is clear that she is unlikely to refuse subsidies in the future. But it is not yet clear what place it will take.

It is clearly seen that the largest expenses of the European Union are not in Greece, but in Poland. Europeans know better who deserves the freebie more, of course. It would make sense.

The signs below are more correct. The undecided countries listed above were not included because they create confusion.

It turns out that the Greeks and the Baltic tigers receive the most. But this, in my opinion, does not help them much - the population is leaving all three countries.

Now let's look at the average per capita subsidies paid by donor countries.

There is also a small surprise here - it turns out that the most hard-working (or compassionate) in Europe are not the Germans at all, but the Danes. The British are trailing behind. That is, the subjects of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second are unlikely to ever experience a significant increase in living standards after Brexit. But, as far as I understand, they are more worried not about money, but about migrants.

Some more statistics: 330 million people live in donor countries, 206 in the rest. Any conclusions can be drawn. For me, every resident of old Europe can easily feed one or two Young Europeans - this is obvious. You just need to do a better job.

Jokes aside, hard times are coming for our former neighbors in the socialist camp. The freebie is clearly ending, the Baltic tigers are being driven out of warm cages with guaranteed food to freely graze - to boost the economy of their proud countries. As, indeed, the rest of the inhabitants of Eastern Europe. It's time to tighten your belts - true independence is inexorably coming.

It is difficult to predict what will happen in Ukraine. More precisely, it all depends on your imagination. One thing is clear: Europe was already running out of money, and then the British got in with their referendum. My heart knows that Ukrainians will want to be friends with us again. And quite soon.

____________________

Data for tables

The departure of Great Britain from the European Union has not only a negative political component, but also an economic one, especially for Eastern Europe. After all, the United Kingdom is one of the main financial donors of the European integration project.

Editor LJ Media

EU members are divided into net recipients and net donors. “Net” - because each country puts money into a common piggy bank and takes from it. Of course, not on her own and not as much as she pleases. The EU budget is filled by states; the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the European Parliament are responsible for its formation. The European Court of Auditors, established in 1975, closely monitors the filling and expenditure of the budget.

If a country takes more than it gives, it is a net recipient. And vice versa, if he gives more than he takes, he is a net donor. This is what the map of Europe looks like if it is colored with the colors of subsidized countries (red-yellow shades) and donors (yellow-green).

2016

The European Union has a seven-year budget planning system. The previous seven-year period was 2007 - 2013, which included the crisis of 2008 - 2009. The current one began in 2014 and will end in 2020. It will involve both the looming global crisis and the narrowly European one - Brexit. Which, however, will certainly affect the rest of the world.

Based on data from the European Commission, I compiled several tables.

As we see, there are ten net donors in the European Union. The table is ranked by the column with data for 2014. It is easy to see that the main donor is Germany. Great Britain is only in third place, after France and before little Holland.

There are almost twice as many net recipients.

This also requires some clarification. EU members are lined up, again, according to 2014 data. As we can see, Malta, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Ireland are in a borderline state, in some years they were even donors or close to them. Croatia is new, having joined the EU on July 1, 2013. It is clear that she is unlikely to refuse subsidies in the future. But it is not yet clear what place it will take.

It is clearly seen that the largest expenses of the European Union are not in Greece, but in Poland. Europeans know better who deserves the freebie more, of course. It would make sense.

The signs below are more correct. The undecided countries listed above were not included because they create confusion.

It turns out that Lithuanians and the Baltic tigers in general receive the most. But this, in my opinion, does not help them much - the population is leaving all three countries.

Now let's look at the average per capita subsidies paid by donor countries.

There is also a small surprise here - it turns out that the most hard-working (or compassionate) in Europe are not the Germans at all, but the Danes. The British are trailing behind. That is, the subjects of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second are unlikely to ever experience a significant increase in living standards after Brexit. But, as far as I understand, they are more worried not about money, but about migrants.

Some more statistics: 330 million people live in donor countries, 206 in the rest. Any conclusions can be drawn. For me, every resident of old Europe can easily feed one or two Young Europeans - this is obvious. You just need to do a better job.

Jokes aside, hard times are coming for our former neighbors in the socialist camp. The freebie is clearly ending, the Baltic tigers are being driven out of warm cages with guaranteed food to freely graze - to boost the economy of their proud countries. As, indeed, the rest of the inhabitants of Eastern Europe. It's time to tighten your belts - true independence is inexorably coming.

It is difficult to predict what will happen in Ukraine. More precisely, it all depends on your imagination. One thing is clear: Europe was already running out of money, and then the British got in with their referendum. My heart knows that Ukrainians will want to be friends with us again. And quite soon.