Belgium, the member state currently holding the EU presidency, does not even pretend that the Article 7 procedure against Hungary was about the rule of law anymore, and has begun lobbying for suspending the country’s voting rights in the European Council because it won’t fall in line behind the EU mainstream.
Article 7 of the EU Treaty allows for suspension of certain membership rights if a country “seriously and persistently breaches the principles on which the EU is founded”—while holding the country to all its membership obligations.
According to Brussels, Hungary’s predictable tendency to veto key EU policies cannot be allowed to continue. “We need to have the courage to make decisions,” Belgian Foreign Affairs Minister Hadja Lahbib said in an interview with Politico, published on Monday, June 3rd.
In order to eliminate the threat of further Hungarian vetoes, Lahbib urged the other member states in the European Council, which gathers representatives of the governments of member states, to “go right to the end” of the Article 7 procedure—opened against Hungary for its alleged rule of law shortcomings—and to take the so-called “nuclear option” which entails suspending “certain” membership rights, including the right to vote.
It’s no surprise that anti-Hungarian lobbying is increasing now. Hungary is set to take over the EU’s rotating presidency next month, and the prospect of Budapest setting the agenda for the next six months is sending mainstream lawmakers into panic mode.
What further complicates the issue is European Council President Charles Michel’s premature departure from the role in a few months, which would make Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán the acting EUCO president until Michel’s replacement is found—unless Budapest is not allowed to assume the presidency in the first place.
While the European Council is led by a permanent president–elected and appointed by members for 2.5 years, currently occupied by Charles Michel–the Council of the European Union is led by a different EU member state that changes every six months, on a rotational basis. Every country has its chance to shine every 13.5 years and Hungary’s term at the rotating presidency is set to start in July, just after the European elections.
While the treaties nowhere say that a member state with suspended voting rights cannot fulfill its six-month mandate as president, many on the Left are hoping to make this case once the ‘nuclear option’ is on the table.
“This is a moment of truth,” Lahbib said. “Either we face up to our responsibilities, which requires political courage and willpower. Or we put in place mechanisms that don’t work. And so we have to choose.”
Then, the Belgian foreign minister called for even the Article 7 procedure to be reformed in case the punitive action against Hungary doesn’t yield the expected results. “If we go all the way with this mechanism, it must work. If it doesn’t work, we have to reform it. That’s the future of the European Union.”
While it needs only a qualified majority of EU countries to trigger a vote on suspending membership rights, Budapest is not too worried.
“Hungary’s main concern now is to keep the EU out of the war in our neighborhood,” the country’s permanent representation replied to Lahbib’s lobbying. “If war reaches the EU, then Article 7 will be the least of our problems.”
Budapest’s pro-ceasefire position on the war in Ukraine—pushing for diplomatic de-escalation instead of endless arms shipments that might drag the whole of Europe into the conflict—is one of the primary reasons why the EU mainstream wants to take away the country’s veto powers.
“Today Europe is preparing for war,” PM Orbán told hundreds of thousands of his supporters during the largest-ever “Peace March” demonstration in Budapest over the last weekend. Orbán continued:
Every day another section of the road to hell is handed over. Every day we are besieged with the demand for hundreds of billions of euros for Ukraine, the deployment of nuclear weapons in the middle of Europe, and the conscription of our sons into a foreign army: into a NATO mission in Ukraine, into European military units sent to Ukraine. … It seems, the pro-war train has no brakes and the driver has gone mad.
We must prevent Europe from rushing into war, from rushing to its own destruction. … We must pull the emergency cord, so that at least those who want to get off can do so, and stay out of the war.
It’s clear that if Brussels wants to increase or even continue sending unlimited military support to Ukraine from the common EU budget, it must find ways to get around the Hungarian veto. Still, the idea of using the ‘nuclear option’—something that’s never been done before—is not something that most EU member states are comfortable with.
For one, stripping one country’s veto rights would set a dangerous precedent to use against other smaller member states that might want to defend their specific national interests against the majority decision. Large member states never need to resort to using their veto—if they don’t agree with something, that won’t even be put to vote in the first place.
Furthermore, it’s an open secret that several member states are secretly pleased for Hungary to occasionally drop a veto, because that means they won’t have to, and can avoid the bullying of the larger countries. If Hungary were to be taken out of the loop, many small countries would suddenly find themselves having to make uncomfortable decisions, on issues from migration to budget.
In the end, it’s unlikely that Lahbib’s lobbying will see any results in the remaining few weeks until Budapest takes the presidency, but that doesn’t mean that Hungary—and other conservative governments—will cease to have a target on their back. Perhaps the biggest objective of the proposed EU reforms that Brussels would like to complete by 2030 is eliminating all vetoes by ending unanimous voting in the Council.
