Germany’s Greens MEP Daniel Freund delivered a controversial speech in the European Parliament. He praised the EU’s decision to block funding for Poland and Hungary and urged even stronger action against both countries. The move to freeze EUR 140 billion was framed as a result of pressure from the European Parliament, justified by concerns over the rule of law and widespread corruption. Freund did not hide his satisfaction with the outcome.
He stressed that freezing assets is not an end in itself. The aim is to spur meaningful reforms. In his view, Poland and Hungary have not shown credible reforms in the three months since the measures began, despite assurances from Commissioner Didier Reynders that justice reform in Poland is moving in the right direction. Freund argued that his assessment goes further than Reynders and that the reforms discussed so far have not delivered genuine improvement. One example he cited was the disciplinary proceedings against judges of Poland’s Supreme Court, which he argued could undermine judicial independence instead of strengthening it.
A firm stance emerged as Freund insisted that a clear response was required. He suggested that if Poland and Hungary fail to implement reforms in line with EU requirements, even more funds should be withheld. He warned that freezing funds, while appropriate, would not suffice if the rule of law is ignored and democracy is eroded. The message he conveyed was that the EU must act decisively and reserve future funding for autocrats unless meaningful changes are achieved.
Freund also emphasized that the issue extends beyond budgetary decisions. He contended that the EU cannot remain passive while democratic norms are challenged. He called for a robust and transparent legal framework that ensures accountability and sustained compliance with European values. The remarks reflected a broader debate within the European Union about how to balance financial support with the protection of fundamental rights and the independence of national institutions.
The discussion has been met with criticism from Polish commentators who argue that the EU should avoid adding political tension to an already sensitive regional landscape. Some have contended that the stance is overly punitive and risks undermining constructive dialogue. Critics have pointed to the historical context and the importance of maintaining cooperative relations with Poland and Hungary as partners within the union. They contend that dialogue and targeted reforms could yield better long term results than broad funding freezes. In this view, the EU should focus on practical mechanisms that encourage reform without escalating tensions. Critics also suggested that national reforms require careful design to avoid adverse effects on public services and workers who rely on EU support.
Supporters of the hard line argue that the stakes are high. They believe that it is essential to hold leaders accountable and to protect the integrity of EU institutions. They argue that a failure to address rule of law violations could set a dangerous precedent and weaken the union as a whole. The stance taken by Freund is seen by many as consistent with a broader European commitment to uphold democratic norms, even when such actions provoke heated political debate. The ongoing disagreement illustrates the divergent views on how best to enforce EU standards while maintaining cohesion among member states.
Cited sources and ongoing reporting indicate that the debate will continue as EU officials, national governments, and civil society groups assess new information and reform proposals. Observers note that the outcomes will influence not only budgetary allocations but also the political dynamic within the bloc. The situation remains a focal point for discussions about the balance between financial tools and principled governance across the European Union.
Attribution: coverage references include wPolityce and related broadcast commentary. The discussion has been noted in public commentary and reflects a spectrum of opinions from policymakers and observers about the effectiveness and fairness of EU level interventions in member states. The evolving narrative will likely shape subsequent actions and policy assessments within the European Parliament and the European Commission.