Unless the Council blocks Hungary and Poland from assuming its rotating presidency somehow, the European Parliament will make sure to strip them of all opportunities and reduce inter-institutional cooperation “to the bare minimum,” the MEPs representing the heavily left-leaning EP coalition underlined at a press conference on Wednesday, May 31st, expressing their commitment to side-tracking the two conservative governments’ upcoming terms.
The press briefing was held by the five co-authors of the parliamentary resolution meant to urge the Council and the Commission to use their powers to bar Hungary (and later Poland)—both accused of not adhering to the EU’s democratic standards enough—from assuming the EU Council’s rotating presidency, which—in theory—should give every member state an equal opportunity to more or less symbolically lead the bloc for six months every 13.5 years.
Parliament’s ploy to get the undesirable conservative governments out of the way also coincides with two hearings in the Council a day before, on Tuesday, after which Věra Jourová, the Commission’s Vice-President for Values and Transparency said that “there are some positive developments” in the case of both countries, “but overall, serious concerns remain” in matters related to rule of law.
Hungary cannot be “the face of the EU”
The parliamentary resolution will be voted on in the plenary on Thursday, June 1st, but not before a parliamentary debate late Wednesday. The MEPs—representing all leftist European parties, as well as the center-right EPP—therefore took the stage to explain their position ahead of the debate.
In the resolution, “we ask [the Council and Commission] for recommendations, we ask again for keeping the funds frozen … and [also] to have a debate started on the Hungarian presidency, [which would begin on] the 1st of July, 2024, when the Parliament will be renewed and the Commission mandate will start,” MEP Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield (Greens/France) explained in her opening speech.
While leftist parties are trying to bar both countries from assuming the leadership position, Hungary’s case is the more urgent, because it is scheduled to hold the presidency earlier, while Poland would take up the mantle immediately after Budapest’s term ended, in January 2025.
And even if Hungary’s term would be the first (half a year after the next year’s EU elections), meaning no important legislation would be on the table, the MEPs think it’s still an important period, because “it’s the presidency where you start putting in place what will be the [next] five years of the European Union,” Delbos-Corfield said.
As expected, the potential damage this unprecedented initiative could cause in the functioning of the Council matters not to the MEPs. In fact, Ms. Delbos-Corfield was even gleeful about it. “We heard rumors that in the Council, some member states and some governments are indeed very concerned with this, which is very good news,” the Green MEP said, adding that “at least now things cannot be put on the side.”
Moving on to the EPP, Isabel Wiseler-Lima talked about the symbolic and representative importance of the Council presidency, saying that the EP simply cannot let Prime Minister Viktor Orbán “be the face of the European Union.” However, the center-right MEP was also the most moderate in the room, even noting that as parliamentarians, it’s not their job to tell the EU Council how to perform its own duties. The other MEPs in the room were quick to go on the offensive.
“The Council should actually understand the seriousness of what’s happening here, [because] Hungary is no longer a democracy,” the Dutch Thijs Reuten (S&D) chipped in, rather emotionally. “We urge the Council to take action. I am sick and tired of hearing back from the Council that they had a good discussion … that helped them to understand the problems. We are way beyond that point, we should act now.”
Big words, little substance
However, the MEPs appeared to not have the slightest clue as to what exactly the EU Council should do to prevent the two countries from fulfilling their obligations specified in the EU treaties. They even admitted that there’s no available precedent and no legal instrument in any of the treaties that would allow the Council to skip a member’s rightful term.
“So, we need to invent [a solution],” Ms. Delbos-Corfield said, adding that “but that’s also what we’ve been doing on Article 7 procedures from the very first day”—which almost seems like admitting that the entire rule of law mechanism was not triggered entirely by the book.
The one thing they could come up with is to recommend the Council “to have a stiff talk with Mr. Orbán and convince him to skip his term,” the liberal Sophia in ‘t Veld (Renew) said, with a completely straight face, apparently unaware how far-fetched the idea sounds.
If the Council fails to achieve that and Hungary does assume the presidency next summer, she continued, then Parliament will have no other option but to reduce all cooperation with the Council and its presidency, going as far as to absent themselves from trilogue negotiations, the most important inter-institutional platforms for discussing EU legislation.
Second, “we should strip this presidency of all glitter and glamor,” the MEP underlined, meaning no photo ops, no hearings, and no conferences co-organized by Parliament. “Rather than giving an exclusive podium to Mr. Orbán and his sidekicks, we should give the podium to those who have been silenced in Hungary,” she said, adding that whenever some protocol forces them to have a Hungarian speaking in the EP, they should make sure invite a (leftist) journalist, academic, or NGO from Hungary as well.
In short, if the Commission or the Council won’t take away the right of Hungary (and later Poland) to exercise their obligations under the EU treaties, Parliament will step in to “strip the [Hungarian] presidency of all opportunities … and reduce cooperation to a bare minimum,” Ms. In t’ Veld concluded.
Meanwhile, in reality
Of course, not everyone is convinced that this plan is even feasible. Although a research paper detailing three vaguely described options for how a member state’s term could be theoretically skipped was published a few days ago, experts—even on the Left—do not entertain much hope of seeing it happen.
“From a legal point of view, it is not clear how it is possible or feasible to discard … [an EU member country] from the sequence of rotating presidencies,” MEP López Aguilar (S&D), chair of the Civil Liberties committee said. Although, he added, this does not mean Parliament should not endorse it.
With varying opinions, some of the most important member states also joined the drama unfolding in Brussels. While the German Europe Minister, Anna Lührmann said she was also having doubts about Hungary’s fitness to lead the Council, Paris took a much more realistic approach.
“Hungary should already be working with Spain,” the French European Affairs Minister Laurence Boone said, referring to Spain assuming the presidency from July 1st as the first leg of the next “trio” of presidencies, whose members usually cooperate more closely over 1.5 years. “We expect neutrality and impartiality” in the matter, the minister added.
Understandably, Hungarian Justice Minister Judit Varga was also unimpressed by Parliament’s meddling in Council affairs, calling the initiative “nonsense” and damaging for European democracies. As she said on Tuesday:
The European Parliament does not respect European values; nor democracy, nor rule of law. First they are constantly attacking the free elections of Hungary and they don’t accept the result that the Hungarian citizens, in the name of democracy, chose as a government.
Secondly, they don’t respect rule of law, because here the European Parliament has no role to play [here]. There is a unanimous resolution of the Council, [and has been for] many years, which makes the order of presidencies, [not] the European Parliament.
And actually, to hold the presidency is a great honor and an obligation, it’s not a right.
