Basic disagreements within ruling coalition regarding EU pandemic recovery fund

Basic disagreements within ruling coalition regarding EU pandemic recovery fund

Politics Poland: Some basic disagreements within the ruling coalition regarding the EU pandemic recovery fund…but they are essential and revolve around the growth of the EU.

The ruling United Right coalition is dominated by Law and Justice (PiS) with two smaller parties. One of those, United Poland, is balking at agreeing to boost the EU’s borrowing levels and is upset that the fund would have to be repaid by all EU countries jointly.

Obviously, this is an internal issue to be worked out by the coalition, but it’s a thorny issue. If this coalition breaks (which we think is unlikely), it could open the door in Poland to something far worse, Donald Tusk and the opposition.

On the other hand, United Poland has a vital point that we have voiced on many occasions: does this recovery fund (including the entire bloated budget, even after the loss of the UK) represent another step towards a federal EU?
PM Morawiecki likes the funds allocated to Poland but does this come with a price tag of expanding the scope and powers of Brussels?
United Poland thinks it does:

“We consistently say no to the EU’s common debt [and] to the federalization of the EU, that is to the creation of a single [European] state,” United Poland’s Michał Wójcik, a minister in the prime minister’s office, adding that he has “doubts” whether the EU is legally allowed to borrow funds at all.

United Poland’s MEP Patryk Jaki went further, saying that “there was no possibility that United Poland will support the Recovery Fund. If PiS demands it, there won’t be room for our party in the coalition.”
He called the project “a bad deal for Poland. This isn’t about the money, it’s about systemic issues. Poland will get the money one way or another, but joint debt means Poland would be responsible for the debts of Greece or Spain in the long term. I feel that’s dangerous.”
The party is also concerned over the possible long-term implications involved with the demand that recipient countries follow the EU’s rule of law principles to get the money.

Indeed, these items tend to morph over time into more EU control over the internal affairs of the nation-state. Even if this rule of law issue is put off for a couple of years, where does this lead to over the next 5-10 years? It’s a slippery slope.
We have always maintained that in order to downsize Brussels (less EU), one must also limit its funding capabilities, instead of increasing its budget.

Others, including many in the V4 states, disagree and believe in bigger budgets (more EU), and we certainly understand their position.
However, one has to be careful when calling for more sovereignty to the nation-states while voting for larger EU budgets (this one is massive) that take another step towards a federal EU.
For example, countries must first gain EU approval to receive the funds. Countries have until April 30 to submit a final version of their plans, after which the Commission has two months to evaluate them and pass them on to the Council, which has one month to approve disbursements.

This sounds like more Brussels. We just don’t see how Brussels can be tamed by increasing its budget.
It could come down to the reality of politics versus principle…in the end, the EU just keeps expanding its scope.
What is next?