Nehammer and Edtstadler answer questions from MEPs ahead of the European Council meeting
Vienna (PK) – From the Multiannual Financial Framework to EU enlargement and the role of Hungary to the situation in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, the EU Main Committee addressed a wide range of topics in its meeting today. Chancellor Karl Nehammer and EU Minister Karoline Edtstadler answered questions from MPs ahead of an extraordinary meeting of the European Council.
The EU’s multiannual financial framework in particular caused debate. While Nehammer pointed to savings for Austria amounting to €1.4 billion, the SPÖ criticized Austria’s “frugal” attitude, which stands in the way of an active European policy. For the FPÖ, however, the contribution to be made by Austria is still too high. As in the previous meeting of the EU Main Committee, the Freedom Party spoke out in a request for a statement in favor of an Austrian veto against increasing the multiannual financial framework, including the planned facility for the “war party Ukraine”. The motion once again remained in the minority.
Nehammer: Plus €10 billion to combat illegal migration bears Austria’s signature
Regarding the EU’s multiannual financial framework, Chancellor Nehammer was pleased that Austria and other countries had managed to reduce its amount from the originally estimated €67 billion to €21 billion. For Austria, this means savings of €1.4 billion. This was achieved in particular through reallocations and changing priorities. The financial framework now includes the continuation of support for Ukraine and around €10 billion more for combating illegal migration, as Nehammer Reinhold Lopatka (ÖVP) replied. The latter shift bears the “clear signature of Austria”, which has also been able to convince many other countries of the need for further measures, particularly in external border protection. Funds have already flowed to Bulgaria for this purpose, but not yet to the extent that Nehammer would like. Nehammer explained that it is now necessary to implement accelerated asylum procedures at the EU’s external borders and conclude return agreements with third countries such as Tunisia and Egypt, as well as to increase funding for local assistance, for example in Jordan and Lebanon, in order to reduce migration pressure.
Christoph Matznetter (SPÖ), for whom Austria’s “frugal” approach stands in the way of active European policy, was less pleased about the reduction in the multiannual financial framework. Matznetter’s parliamentary group colleague, Muna Duzdar, was also critical of the budget reallocation approach, as it would neglect European health programs, employee protection and foreign policy. This is not desirable, especially in times of multiple – especially foreign policy – crises. Duzdar suggested Austria’s initiative towards a financial transaction tax in order to increase the EU’s own resources. FPÖ MP Petra Steger, however, denied Nehammer’s credibility regarding the savings because he had previously announced “not a cent more for the EU”. Nehammer “fell over while lying down” during the negotiations.
Debate about Hungary’s role within the EU
Regarding voting within the EU, MEPs were particularly interested in Hungary’s role in these processes. While Christoph Matznetter (SPÖ), Michel Reimon (Greens) and Helmut Brandstätter (NEOS) accused the Hungarian government of “blackmailing” the EU with a blockade stance, Petra Steger (FPÖ), referring to relevant media articles, stated the opposite case – the EU prepare for economic war against Hungary in order to persuade its government to vote in a certain way. Chancellor Nehammer did not represent either position and spoke of a “marketing strategy” by Hungary and its Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. He would act “martially” on some issues and ultimately agree to the EU course.
When asked by Helmut Brandstätter, EU Minister Karoline Edtstadler also made it clear that Article 7 proceedings to protect the EU’s fundamental values were already underway against Hungary. The so-called conditional mechanism, which also includes the possibility of suspending payments in the event of violations of the rule of law, is already bringing about improvements.
Edtstadler on the EU enlargement process
MEPs were also interested in the status of the EU enlargement process. Austria continues to ensure that there should be no “fast track” procedure for Ukraine, replied Edtstadler Andreas Minnich (ÖVP). The same rules should apply to everyone and the Western Balkans in particular, for which Austria is specifically committed, should not be neglected for political reasons. The European Commission is currently in the process of carrying out a screening for Ukraine, for which the path to the EU will be a “hard process”. Ukraine will “probably” not be able to complete this in the next ten years, said Edtstadler. From their point of view, it is also impossible for a country to join the EU in a state of war.
Regarding Serbia, Edtstadler made it clear to Christoph Matznetter (SPÖ) and Helmut Brandstätter (NEOS) that it had to decide “which chair it wanted to sit on”: that of the EU or Russia. She condemned the attacks on election observers there as “reprehensible”. There must also be movement regarding the status of Bosnia, as “nothing has progressed” there for 20 years and there is already “depression” in the region with regard to an EU perspective. Elsewhere, the enlargement process is already gaining momentum, Edtstadler reported on the accession negotiations with the Republic of Moldova and Georgia’s candidate status.
Nehammer on dealing with the situation in Ukraine and the Middle East
In almost two years of war, Ukraine has demonstrated “massive resilience,” stated Chancellor Nehammer. Austria remains committed to full solidarity and will also participate in aid as long as it is in line with neutrality. The financial support is intended to maintain the functionality of the Ukrainian state and should not be used for military equipment. Cases of abuse would be punished and the European Commission would ensure that resources were used properly, Nehammer replied to Christoph Matznetter (SPÖ) and Petra Steger (FPÖ). This is controlled by a separate committee for the peace facility, in which the Austrian Ministry of Defense is also involved. Nehammer was critical of the access to Russian assets and the resulting interest income mentioned by Helmut Brandstätter (NEOS), as such measures require a “clear constitutional basis”. The European Commission is currently dealing with this issue.
The Austrian position towards the war in the Gaza Strip remains unchanged, Nehammer explained when asked by Carina Reiter (ÖVP) and Eva Ernst-Dziedzics (Greens): Austria recognizes Israel’s right to self-defense in accordance with international law. Freeing the hostages from Hamas remains the top priority. At the same time, Austria is in favor of increasing aid deliveries to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip, as long as these are not misused by the terrorist organization Hamas. Nehammer also condemned violence by Israeli settlers “in the strongest possible terms” and emphasized that there was no way around a two-state solution. In response to Christoph Matznetter’s (SPÖ) criticism of Austria’s voting behavior against a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip at the UN General Assembly, Nehammer referred to Austria’s special historical responsibility towards Israel. He described it as “remarkable” and “sad” that the international community did not come up with a resolution in which “terror is also called terror.” (End) wit
Questions & Contact:
Press service of the Parliamentary Directorate
Parliamentary correspondence
Tel. +43 1 40110/2272
press service@parlament.gv.at
http://www.parlament.gv.at
www.facebook.com/OeParl
www.twitter.com/oeparl