I’m speaking with a 37-year-old Green Party member of the European Parliament, Daniel Freund. He came on my radar after arguing that the European Union’s infringement proceedings against Poland don’t go far enough. We talked about everything from democratic backsliding in Europe to corruption. Here’s what he had to say about how the European Union can put its house in order.
This interview was originally published on January 16, 2022, in Lazo Magazine’s weekly newsletter. It’s a conversation between Lazo Magazine’s founder and Editor-In-Chief, Cristina Maza, and Daniel Freund.
Cristina: You are a relatively new MEP. How long have you been involved in politics, and what made you decide to get involved at the European level?
Daniel: I have always been a political person. Fighting for the things that I believe in: justice, a sustainable future, and the European Union. I joined the Green Party in 2005 while at university as I was deeply impressed by Joschka Fischer’s vision for further European integration.
I come from a border area myself, Aachen, the city of Charlemagne. I went to kindergarten in Belgium, to school in Germany, and met my wife on an Erasmus exchange in Paris. When the European project, which had given me so much, came increasingly under attack by Brexiteers like [former UK Independence Party leader Nigel] Farage and illiberal politicians like [Hungarian Prime Minister] Viktor Orbán, I decided it was time for me to do something. I ran in the European elections in 2019 and was elected to the parliament.
Cristina: When it comes to the European Union’s crackdown on democratic backsliding in member states like Hungary and Poland, you have argued that infringement proceedings don’t go far enough. Why is that, and what measures would you like to see in their place?
Daniel: The European Union is in a severe crisis. There are several member states where the EU’s treaties are called into question, where independent judges are attacked, where independent journalism almost doesn’t exist anymore, where NGOs and universities are thrown out of the country, and where corruption by the political elites is rampant. Poland and Hungary are the most evident examples. But elements of this exist in several more member states, and the crisis is spreading.
The EU’s answer to this crisis was too little too late. The Commission only launched a so-called Article 7 procedure – for violations of the fundamental values of the Union – when the crisis had reached two countries. But Poland and Hungary promised each other mutual protection, thereby making Article 7 useless because it requires unanimity to work.
Infringements are an important tool to ensure that all member states respect the rules that were jointly agreed upon and that EU law is applied in the same way across the Union. But infringements alone are not going to solve the rule of law crisis. First, Hungary and Poland have over 100 ongoing infringement procedures between them. It’s doubtful that a few more will stop these governments from attacking democracy and the rule of law.
Second, infringements are often too slow. When Hungary kicked out the Central European University, the university went to the European Court of Justice. Two years later, it won on all accounts. Hungary’s actions violated the treaties. But the university had already left Hungary. Infringement was too slow.
The language that is understood by the Polish and Hungarian governments is money. The two countries are the biggest recipients of EU funds. Almost all public investment in new roads or fast Internet is co-funded by the EU. Those who do not play by the rules should not receive EU funds.
The Commission should use the rule of law conditionality and cut EU funds to both countries.
In the regions in Poland that declared themselves “LGBTI free,” we saw that just the threat of withdrawing EU funds made them retract their declarations.
Cristina: Tell me about your plans for the European Parliament’s Anti-Corruption Intergroup. What are its goals, and how will it function?
Daniel: Before I was elected to parliament, I led the EU work of the organization Transparency International. I have a lot of experience in the fight against corruption. So I knew that fighting corruption only works when it is coordinated across party lines and borders.
When I came to the parliament, I founded the anti-corruption intergroup. There are now 130 members from 6 political groups working together. It has been very successful in coordinating better legislation, and it is very helpful to hear from colleagues about their experiences and best practices from different member states.
The Biden administration made clear that the fight against corruption and kleptocracy would be one of their priorities. We have already seen Magnitsky sanctions against Bulgarian individuals, for example.
That’s why we’ve decided to join ranks with U.S. politicians in an alliance against kleptocracy. International cooperation and coordination are absolutely crucial in the fight against corruption.
Cristina: What kind of laws would you like to see in place to clamp down on corruption within EU institutions – including problems surrounding revolving door issues – and boost transparency in lobbying and consultancy in the Brussels bubble?
Daniel: The European Union actually has reasonably good laws to deal with different aspects of corruption. Also, with political corruption and lobbying. I would say that we should start by implementing those rules and using the tools we already have.
There are rules for revolving doors, which is when European Commissioners become lobbyists after leaving office. There is a two-year cooling-off period. At least on paper, because the Commission ignores the rules in practice.
We need independent oversight of the existing rules on lobbying, conflicts of interest, and revolving doors. And sanctions if the rules are broken. That is why I have proposed an independent EU ethics body, and a large majority in parliament has supported my proposal.
We also have a rule of law mechanism to deal with corruption and rule of law violations, but the Commission refuses to use it, despite being sued by the Parliament. We need to use all tools to fight corruption.
We also need to ensure that institutions that fight fraud, corruption, and mismanagement: the court of auditors, the European prosecutors, and the anti-fraud office, are well-funded and well-staffed.
And we should finally be able to know where EU money is being spent and who gets it.
It might sound bizarre, but the EU spends 160bn euros per year and we don’t know who gets it. We do not know, for example, who the biggest recipient of EU funds is in each member state. That makes it very difficult to track corruption and conflicts of interest.
Cristina: And how do you think MEPs can most effectively combat euro skepticism in their home countries?
Daniel: Transparency and communication are really important. Always showing and explaining to citizens that we are stronger together. The big challenges of our time are climate change, large companies not paying their taxes, and corruption. No country can face them alone. Our only chance is to work together in the European Union.
In my own work, I sometimes expose corruption and mismanagement in the EU institutions. Some might say that could fuel euro-skepticism. But I firmly believe that we need to keep our own house in order.
The EU should lead by example. I think that builds citizens’ trust in the EU.
