Conservative. Perverted. Ideological. Repressive.

Unacceptable.

These five words actually sum up most of the government’s actions in Poland. Not only in Poland, I am aware of that, but in this writing, I want to concentrate on Poland, since the discussion and the resolution on this week’s plenary overshadowed everything else.

I am referring here to the recent political ruling of the Polish illegitimate Constitutional Court. Political because the Prime Minister himself requested an assessment. And illegitimate because 11 of the 14 constitutional judges were appointed by the ruling right-wing populist party PiS. According to the judgment, certain provisions of the founding treaties of the EU, those adopted by Poland upon its accession to the EU, are unconstitutional.

In short, the judgment shook the legal foundations of the Union. Of course, this is a political game of the Polish ruling clique, as they do not want to consider the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European, which decided that their disciplinary regime for judges (the so-called “muzzle law”) is inconsistent with European law. Neither the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, ruling that the Constitutional Court was illegally constituted.

At yesterday’s EU summit, leaders from member states discussed the situation in Poland. After a 2-hour discussion, supposedly a calm one (whatever that means), they finally agreed that – you won’t believe this – dialogue is needed. Prime ministers of countries that actually support democracy and the rule of law should be stricter in upholding (their) principles.

What happened at the plenary a few days earlier? The President of the European Commission strongly opposed the actions of the Polish government in the hall of the European Parliament, and even (!) announced measures. Well… hopefully it won’t turn out the way it normally does – eternal warnings, eternal calls, eternal worries. There are several possibilities for action, although their effect may differ.

In the European Parliament, we have thus passed a resolution calling for several decisive measures at once:

• initiating infringement proceedings concerning legislation because of the Polish illegal court;
• finally launching the new regulation we adopted at the end of 2020 which is now in force, and links the disbursement of European money with the rule of law;
• finally moving the process of the famous Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union forward in the Council, which freezes a country’s voting rights if the rule of law is violated;
• not approving the Polish Recovery and Resilience Plan until these issues are resolved.

The last measure would be most effective. It’s also about the bigger picture. The resources of the European Union are those of all its citizens who do not want to fund a corrupt government in Poland that wants to consolidate its power with this money. If such authoritarian authorities do not respect fundamental values, they will have to understand why funds will be frozen.

As it should be understood, these parties – including the Slovene Democratic Party SDS in terms of politics and ideology – do not defend traditional values, they reject them. The goal? Subordination of society and all subsystems for arbitrary governance and exploitation of public funds. Autocracy merely leads to kleptocracy. The EU has tolerated authoritarian regimes for too long and hoped that the situation would be resolved through dialogue. It only got worse.

It is no secret that with the current government Slovenia is following the same path as Poland and Hungary. Unfortunately. Even in the most optimistic scenario, the consequences of the dismantling in both countries will remain for decades.

Those of us who are on the side of democracy and the rule of law must be aware of the conditions that have brought these policies to power. Not only social status and inequality, but also the spiritual emptiness and dehumanization of a system that does not provide what people are entitled to: a decent life and inclusion. It is therefore high time to take decisive steps. In the end, such policies must also always be thrown out of power in the elections. Once again, it is high time.

– Irena

Read a comprehensive interview with MEP Irena Joveva in the current issue of the Reporter magazine, in which she discusses the first half of her term, critically highlighting the challenges Europe will face, and comments on the current political and social situation in Slovenia. She also talks about the challenges of motherhood in the context of her political career, her goals for the second half of the term, and whether any journalistic questions throw her off track.

“Answers of people who think that no one can stop them and that they know everything throw me off track. Because of such people, some think that we are all the same. I always try to answer precisely what is asked, I don’t twist things and if I don’t know something, I say so. That does not mean I know nothing, it just means I won’t bluff. We don’t need more of that in our country.”

In response to a question about the media regarding the fact that “the center-right government is accused of disabling the STA (Slovenian Press Agency)”, Joveva pointed out that the current government cannot be described as center-right and that the accusations are not about disabling the STA but clear endeavours to subjugate or destroy it.

In the interview, a large part of the discussion revolves around the state of media freedom in Slovenia, from party funding of media that run propaganda aimed exclusively at discrediting political opponents, and the fact that the European Commission and the European Parliament’s working group are closely monitoring the situation.

It will visit Slovenia in a few days, which does not bode well for the country’s reputation, said Joveva: “It is also of no use for the current Prime Minister to show, in a rather bizarre speech at the hearing in the European Parliament, that he has no arguments for the controversial measures. My understanding is that the working group will interview various stakeholders and prepare a report. What comes next will be decided by the majority in Parliament.”

According to the MEP, with its moves the current government wants to completely transform Slovenia into an illiberal democracy. This is why we are losing a good part of our respect. In spite of this, it is still clear to all who is responsible for this. Meanwhile, Slovenia’s presidency of the EU Council was described as politically unsuccessful. However, it was successful where the government did not play a major role; that is at the technical level, where diplomats and experts worked within the presidency.

The biggest threat to the EU, which, according to the MEP, comes from within:

“Populists are cynically provoking fear, exploiting historical traumas, and deliberately dividing a nation without basic decency, just for their own power and authority. Despite what might appear to be exaggeration, the EU is facing a serious test because of authorities in Hungary and Poland, and somewhat less so in our country and Bulgaria. Now that the European Commission has finally responded to the persistent pressure from the European Parliament and has taken a stronger stance against breaches of the rule of law, tensions have only increased. Of course, these regimes seek to present this as a defence of Christian Europe, their own sovereignty, family values, but that is just shifting attention. It is not about conservative versus liberal values. It is simply about authoritarianism versus liberal democracy.”

The MEP also answered clearly, whether true liberals still exist “given that MEPs from liberal groups have become more intolerant towards dissidents”.

“You have probably confused the notion of intolerance by disagreeing and pointing out the infringement of fundamental rights and the violation of the rule of law. Liberal groups by nature include dissidents. Economically, many in Renew Europe are very much on the right, while others are more on the left. But we share the same views on fundamental freedoms and rights and the rule of law. It is not that we are intolerant towards conservative people, but we are speaking out against the usurpation of countries by corrupt leaders driven by hatred. /… / The biggest trick of these populist parties is that they present themselves as defenders of traditional values, when in reality, they reject them with all their cynicism.”

The MEP also discussed her activities in the first half of her term and future plans. She participated in more than a dozen reports and in a narrow focus group, where proposals for the European Parliament reforms were prepared on a proposal from President David Sassoli. He is currently focusing on the media, culture, environment, health and youth issues, focusing on meeting people’s expectations.

Within the Committee on Culture, she will strive to “participate fully in the act of media freedom, which is imperative if we want the European Commission to stop responding to situations like the STA only with eternal concerns and unheeded calls.”

Among other things, Joveva expressed satisfaction that, also through her own work, she managed to ensure that more funds will be allocated to youth programmes in the coming years. As for the Conference on the Future of Europe, she expressed hope that the project would bring about the changes desired, but that the idea of bringing the EU closer to the people seemed to have dissipated too often for her to predict anything.

“I do not understand how 75-year-olds or older can give their views about the future of our country. With all due respect, but if we are speaking about the future, it should be logical who should have the main say.”

Do you also just love sponsored ads that come up repeatedly by online platforms and you feel you are being followed by you with targeted advertising? I am probably not the only one who is extremely annoyed by this. In the following post, I will explain what I did to get this field regulated. 

But let’s take it step by step. I will start with the numbers…

1373. At this year’s Committee on Culture, we voted on many amendments.

1374. There were so many in the Digital Services Act.

1375.  And so many in the Digital Markets Act.

The reason I bring these figures up is that we have never voted on so many amendments at once in this term, as well as the fact that I was directly involved in drafting the aforementioned 773, and especially since these two Acts are extremely important.

For both reports, I was the shadow reporter. That means I monitored the report for my group Renew Europe, introduced amendments, gave voting indications and negotiated with reporters of other groups for the final text in the form of joint compromise amendments.

Other committees are collaborating to create legislative proposals, which will then be merged into the European Parliament’s common position. Meanwhile, Member States are seeking a separate common position in the Council. The two positions, the amendments to the original proposal of the European Commission, will be combined in trialogues into a law that will be binding at the level of the entire Union.

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) will define and set the so-called gatekeepers who, due to their size (read Google, Amazon, Apple), often act as an entry point for a wide variety of companies for the entire digital economy. They offer different services and at the same time use online and business users data from one or more segments of the platform for a competitive advantage in their other product or service offer (Amazon, Google, Apple – think of search engines) or have a monopoly/duopoly for small companies accessing users (Googleplay, Apple AppStore).

The Digital Services Act (DSA) establishes rules for online service providers, protects the fundamental rights of users, allows the same level of conditions of competition in the complex structure of platform obligations, user empowerment, transparency of algorithms and adjustment of parameters for online content dissemination, and above all advertising transparency and rules to remove illegal content.

Let me get to the point: what is it about? Basically, it is about radically changing the rules online. The Digital Services and Markets Acts are highly technical and rather complex, so I will not describe what they each cover in detail, but I will present the key points of our committee in conjunction with my amendments.

The legislative documents are complementary. With DMA, the majority of the competences will remain at EU level, although Member States will have the option to suggest which platform should be designated as the gatekeeper. The competences of the DSA, on the other hand, will be in the domain of the Member States through the so-called Digital Coordinator; an independent agency responsible for overseeing the performance of online giants in their practices.

Since online platforms have long before become public spaces, it is essential to introduce clear rules, which is what we are doing with the Acts. What should be different after the amendments concerning advertising I (successfully!) added to the text?

Platforms must disclose the users, who are shown advertising, why you received this ad, why exactly this ad was sent to you, and – most importantly – that you should not be targeted for advertising by default unless you consent to it in advance. It was also important for me that one could choose which data they shared and to set the parameters of the algorithms. In other words, you can actually choose how the world is ‘presented to you’.

In presenting the world, it is, of course, important to distinguish between legal, illegal and harmful content. Legal content must not be removed, and companies cannot be held responsible for that at all. However, there are currently only three types of illegal content: child pornography, terrorist content and copyright. We have separate legislation for all three, and the DSA will provide horizontal rules for all.

Due to my strong opposition to having this content checked exclusively by automated systems, algorithms or artificial intelligence, I emphasized throughout the text (in the end successfully) that the very blocking of this content must be human controlled. I also added that web giants must take into account the language of the Member State itself and employ moderators who can speak the language of that country, such as Slovene in our case. They can afford it with no doubt.

The texts contain some other very good decisions. Unfortunately, there are also some, which are unacceptable to me. That is why I abstained from voting in the end. One of the decisions is that platforms should remove all copies of some illegal content and prevent it from appearing again. In turn, this would mean that platforms would have to monitor all publications. This would consequently result in the use of artificial intelligence, which could lead to censorship due to errors. The second decision addresses the issue of preventing blocked users from registering, which is technically almost impossible, but if it were, it would mean the end of online anonymity.

I have, of course, supported other good proposals and I will continue to do so in the future as well. For example, we wanted to ensure that media that are regulated or self-regulated do not have their content removed, as they are editorially responsible. Although I was concerned that groups with bad intentions (such as foreign Chinese or Russian interests or EU media houses subordinated to politics) could be hiding behind this exception, the good overweighted the bad. Platforms often download content from independent media due to abuses of their reporting systems, which jeopardizes public debate and access to information. We prefer solving the common rules regarding the media in the upcoming legislation in this field.

As for the timeline: Expect that legislation at European level will be adopted next year, and I hope that it will be implemented into national legislation shortly after.

The initial proposal of the European Commission, which we want to change or supplement with our position, was good, but it was necessary to supplement enough grandfathering provisions to prevent abuse. My biggest concern is with countries where there are no independent agencies and judiciary; where/since they are subject to political parties that could abuse good regulation – to their advantage, of course. I hope we can resolve this by the time the regulation is adopted.

Response of MEPs Irena Joveva and Klemen Grošelj (Renew Europe/LMŠ) to today’s speech by the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen on the situation in the European Union:

“Today we heard a lot that has already been said in previous speeches. Certainly, the most important messages relate to stepping up efforts in global vaccination against COVID-19, in which the EU has an important, if not a key role. Despite some initial challenges, a common European approach to vaccination of EU citizens is one of the major success stories of the EU and shows that together we can achieve a lot.

The Commission’s President also emphasized the start of the implementation of the HERA programme or readiness for future unforeseen health challenges, but did not specify how the new project of EUR 50 billion will be financed by 2027.

An important announcement is also the start of strengthening European autonomy in the production of semiconductors, one of the major stumbling blocks to economic recovery and progress. In addition, we support the announced legislative framework on minimum corporate taxing, since we believe we must all contribute equally to society’s development and the current state of tax evasion is unacceptable. It is not clear from the speech itself is how this will be implemented practically (in addition to the definition of the minimum tax rate) in order to be efficient, fair and, above all, to achieve the desired public finance effects.

Von der Leyn’s main message concerns a ban on goods produced with forced labour in the common European market. We completely agree with her statement that human rights cannot be sold at any price.

The President declared the year 2022 to be the European Year of Youth, which will be strengthened by the new ALMA programme, the main goals of which will be to reinforce the mobility and employment of young people in the European labour market. We hope that this long-awaited initiative will not only increase employment for young people, but also improve their competences and competitiveness in the economy, while contributing to a greater flow of ideas within the EU and strengthening the affiliation of young people with the EU.

As many EU citizens face high energy prices or the risk of energy poverty, the idea of the Climate Social Fund also comes at the right time, and we expect that this fund will also serve as a mechanism to accelerate the transition to non-fossil energy sources. This also includes doubling funding for biodiversity.

Again, the speech lacked a clear framework for financing all these initiatives, as the part of it tied to the so-called own resources, which several Member States oppose or are hesitant about, was very vague and unclear.

Meanwhile, we welcome the announced Media Freedom Act and expect a lot from it, since – as we have seen in many Member States, unfortunately also Slovenia – media freedom is not a given.

Unfortunately, we find that the President was very vague in the part of her speech on the rule of law, the use of the conditionality mechanism and on the attitude of the Member States toward the rule of law in general, as she has been with her actions so far. It is clear that this task, despite some big words in the speech, will be left to the European Parliament.

Besides reiterating the familiar standpoints on enlargement to the Western Balkans, Ursula von der Leyen unfortunately did not say anything dramatically new. She was also surprisingly unclear about a common European defence. However, in a way it is very significant that the French Presidency will take on the initiative for a European Defence Union.

In regard to Slovenia, it is important to note that in the introduction the President also pointed out the connection, if not the very conditionality between the funds from the framework of the Recovery and Resilience Plan and the implementation of the pension reform. It would be interesting to know what other structural reforms the current government has committed itself to within the framework of this plan, as these are, after all, crucial, if not fatal commitments to the future of Slovenia.

There were only two options. Either validate digital covid certificates… or allow Member States to (continue to) establish (each) their own restrictions separately and arbitrarily. I honestly believe, both options are bad but at the same time I am convinced that the second one is much worse and also more dangerous. That is the only reason why I voted in favour of introducing these certificates.

So… not because we will “return to normalcy” with these certificates, at least when traveling. I do not share this opinion. We will get back to “normalcy” when none of this is required anymore.

And even less because the certificate “will not be discriminating”. I do not share this opinion either. For the unvaccinated and those who have not recovered from the disease yet, the tests will not (necessarily) be free of charge, which is of course pure discrimination. However, do you know who is to blame for the fact that this condition – and another one that we unsuccessfully requested – is not in the regulation on the introduction of certificates? In this particular case, the European Parliament is not. It is the fault of the Member States (= governments).

It is therefore fair from me to explain in more detail why the introduction of certificates, in my view, is a lesser evil than the “solution” that would prevail otherwise.

In the European Parliament, in addition to free tests, we requested standardized and common criteria. We requested additional protection of personal data. We requested that the Member States should not add any (other) restrictions on the free movement of people at their national level. We requested a time limit of certificates to a maximum of one year. We requested a comprehensive report of the European Commission on the implementation of the system every three months.

What happened? We succeeded with some requirements (for example with common criteria, with protection, the time limit), but unfortunately not with the key ones, as the Council (= Member States) was not ready to give in to these negotiations: in free tests AT LEAST to obtain a certificate and in the PROHIBITION of imposing additional requirements or restrictions. Namely, the Council’s negotiators threatened the Parliament’s negotiators with the end of discussions and the consequent introduction of a separate system. Since this would have bypassed us and – I am sure – a much worse deal than the current one would be accepted, a compromise had to be reached. The negotiators have reached it by stating that testing must be “affordable”, by announcing that the European Commission will provide at least 100 million euros for it, and by an unfortunately non-binding assurance that countries should refrain from additional restrictions.

How the system will work in practice is currently not clear. I have quite a few doubts; simply because the situation is not the same across countries. Some, for example, already have testing free of charge, while others have higher prices for it than third parties, while fourth countries allow only PCR tests, and fifths also fast test. At this point, it should be emphasized that in the cases of the latter, these are not the wonderful and super useful tests that we have in Slovenia thanks to our ‘crypto boys’.

There is (still) a lot of illogicality, as well as ambiguity, but it is already clear at this point that the regulation does not take into account all the concerns. Although the majority of the responsibility lies with the Member States, I must clear up that in the European Parliament we are also partly responsible for the “result”, because we voted in favour of the regulation under an urgent procedure in March. I myself voted against at the time, as we took away the possibility of improving the regulation, we rejected a more thorough procedure that would allow an appropriate debate at parliamentary level. I wrote back then that these certificates would eventually become reality, and if we already knew they would, then we would at least form them in a way they would not deprive anybody’s rights.

I conclude that such and other comments will pour under this record. I have nothing against dignified expression of opinion but I have much against manipulation, misinformation, and ignorance, misuse of facts and distortion of the truth. That is why I will not engage in controversy and “persuading the convinced”. However, I will conclude exactly as I concluded in the note from March: The effectiveness of these certificates will depend on the confidence of citizens in it. The less there is trust, the less there will be a sense of responsibility and awareness, without which it simply will not go: no matter how we travel, in the end each of us will be the one to decide how to act. Wise or unwise. With or without certificates.

Irena Joveva