A majority in the House of Representatives supports the agreements that Prime Minister Mark Rutte made with his EU colleagues in Brussels last summer to set up a recovery fund of 750 billion euros against the corona crisis. Many questions remain about the effect of the so-called emergency brake in case Member States do not keep to the agreements.
“Is there an emergency brake or not?”, ChristenUnie MP Eppo Bruins asked Rutte on Wednesday evening, halfway through the debate about the recovery fund.
“When you think of an emergency brake, you think of a passenger pulling the brake, which stops the whole train. But I have the feeling here that there is an alarm bell. Then the train will not stop”, says Bruins. “The train will stop”, Rutte swore.
The discussion revolves around a mechanism in the recovery fund that can block payments to Member States. After all, in exchange for gifts there must be reforms. Immediately after the EU summit in July, there were already question marks about its legal hardness.
European Commission is given a lot of power
The assessment of the plans and the payment from the fund is in the hands of the European Commission, which means that the organization has a crucial role. Member States can temporarily block a disbursement along the way if they feel that they are not getting along with the promised reforms. The emergency brake.
Strictly speaking, however, the Commission can still approve and remit a payment against the will of a Member State. “They can do that legally and the Netherlands then has a leg to stand on,” concluded CDA MP Pieter Omtzigt.
Rutte does not expect anything to come to that. Although firm guarantees are lacking, political agreements have been made with the Commission. If those agreements are nevertheless broken in the worst case, “then everyone will understand that we have a political crisis,” said Rutte.
Much criticism from opposition
There was also a broader criticism of the emergency fund. The PVV and FVD saw nothing in any part that could appeal to the parties. Rutte should never have agreed to donations or any form of debt sharing, said Geert Wilders (PVV) and Thierry Baudet (FVD). The SP, 50PLUS and SGP were also critical.
Other opposition parties PvdA and GroenLinks would have preferred a somewhat less frugal attitude from Rutte, but also showed clearly that they could live with the agreement.
D66 was full of praise for Rutte. “The prime minister has jumped over his own shadow. That deserves a compliment, because the agreement was desperately needed,” said MP Sjoerd Sjoerdsma. The VVD concluded with satisfaction that Rutte had not agreed to European taxes.
Disappointment about Poland and Hungary
Many parties would have liked to see firm agreements about the importance of democracy and the rule of law. Brussels has long criticized Poland and Hungary on these points.
In the agreement, the EU heads of government did not go beyond stressing “the importance of respecting the rule of law”. That was the maximum achievable, Rutte acknowledged.
“Otherwise the case would have come to a standstill. We have reached the maximum pain threshold here,” said the prime minister.
– .
