“When discussing foreign interference, we must be consistent and apply the same principles to everyone. We cannot talk about protecting democracy while simultaneously turning a blind eye to interference coming from the European institutions themselves,” Bulgarian MEP Peter Volgin said at a meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET).
MEPs discussed a report on how to respond to foreign interference in countries neighbouring the European Union. Foreign interference has been defined as hybrid threats – cyberattacks, strategic dependencies, economic coercion, election manipulation, migration waves and more.
According to Peter Volgin, a representative of the “Europe of Sovereign Nations” and the Bulgarian party “Vazrazhdane”, the report under discussion contains a number of contradictions.
“It is truly very strange,” Volgin pointed out, “when the heads of all kinds of European institutions start claiming that they are concerned because there has allegedly been unacceptable foreign interference in countries neighbouring the EU. And then they start looking for enemies and devising measures to stop these enemies. The measures in question usually involve the creation of new commissions to combat the so-called external threats, which in the vast majority of cases are fabricated.”
There is interference in the internal affairs of countries neighbouring the EU, and it is quite crude. There is also interference in EU countries, Volgin pointed out. But no new commissions and no additional fact-checkers are needed for this interference to be noticed. Because this interference does not come from Beijing, Moscow or Tehran. It comes primarily from Brussels.
Here is how the Bulgarian MEP, who has the strongest personal and rhetorical presence, continued his statement:
“It is precisely the European Commission that interferes in an unacceptable manner in the internal affairs of the EU member states. It does everything possible to ensure that elections in these countries are won by parties and candidates who unfailingly follow the instructions issued by Brussels. If there is a conflict between institutions in a given country, Brussels always sides with those who consistently carry out its will.
In Poland, the executive decided to replace the president of the Constitutional Court, who did not want to follow the government’s orders. And, of course, without giving it much thought, the EU leaders sided with Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
When amendments to the Education Act were adopted in Bulgaria two years ago to stop LGBT propaganda in classrooms, the European Commission threatened that it could take measures against our country. Many more such examples could be given, showing that Brussels has arrogated to itself the right to control what happens not only in the political sphere, but also in the cultural sphere of the member states.”
At the conclusion of his statement, Peter Volgin stressed that it is precisely this kind of interference that the EU member states must oppose. He also said that it is high time for the European Commission to stop interfering in the decisions made by countries regarding their future.