The year’s last European Council Summit (EUCO) in Brussels began on Thursday, December 14th, but what was originally planned as a two-day meeting is expected to go way over time as consensus will be hard, if even possible, to reach on the two most important issues on the agenda: €50 billion military support and the start of accession talks with Ukraine. Despite the enormous pressure, Hungary remains adamant in its position to represent the interests of Hungarians first.
Mainstream media would have you believe that the only obstacle standing between Ukraine and fast-tracked EU membership is Hungary’s PM Viktor Orbán, who will veto the next step of Kyiv’s accession process because he’s secretly working for Putin—or he’s Putin himself.
Principles, not business
However, Orbán laid out his arguments for opposing Ukraine’s rushed membership quite clearly countless times, including in an interview on Tuesday.
For one, Budapest believes Ukraine’s EU accession would have enormous economic consequences for Europe that have not yet been assessed thoroughly enough and need a deeper look before they can proceed any further—a case that others have also put forward.
Moreover, EU enlargement used to be a rigorous, merit-based process, but now Brussels is pushing for a political, geostrategic decision despite Ukraine’s clear lack of readiness in terms of the reforms necessary to go forward.
This was also the main issue identified by Orbán on Thursday morning as he entered the Council’s headquarters:
Enlargement is not a theoretical issue, but a merit-based, legally detailed issue with clear conditions … set by the Commission, not Hungary.
Three out of seven pre-conditions—according to the Commission’s own evaluation—are not yet fulfilled [by Ukraine], so there is nothing to discuss yet.
Instead, Orbán suggested a “strategic partnership” as a sign of the EU’s support for Kyiv, and returning to accession negotiations when both the EU and Ukraine are properly prepared.
On the topic of military assistance, Budapest has already indicated that it could be open for compromise if Brussels were to release the entirety of Hungary’s €32 billion worth of EU funds it froze years ago. According to Orbán, both of those are financial issues and therefore can be interlinked.
Ukraine’s EU membership, however, is completely different. When asked by reporters whether there was a price for Hungary’s support for Ukraine’s accession, Orbán underlined:
We’re not here to make business; it’s not about bargains or deals. We represent our principles.
Not much optimism
Other leaders arriving in Brussels spent most of their doorstep interviews discussing enlargement and Orbán, but despite the big words and grand commitments, the general atmosphere was rather pessimistic regarding the chances of finding common ground.
According to Estonian PM Kaja Kallas, it is time to manage expectations towards Ukraine. If necessary, she said, the Council will keep on negotiating “until Christmas,” but she was still “not optimistic” they would succeed in persuading Orbán to support opening the accession talks.
Others were also bracing for a long fight. “We’ll stay until Sunday if we have to,” Irish PM Leo Varadkar promised, while Finland’s Petteri Orpo said he’s “packed many shirts” for the overnight battle.
Right after leaving the opening session, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola was also asked whether she saw a chance for a breakthrough in the chamber. “I am realistic, but I’m not pessimistic,” Metsola replied after a brief pause, even though her face said otherwise. “Let’s wait and see. There are many people who are very good at persuading inside that room.”
‘Ukraine delivered’
Being familiar with Orbán’s main concern, the phrase “Ukraine delivered” on the accession requirements was thrown around quite a lot—including by Metsola and Foreign Affairs chief Josep Borrell—even though no leader went into details or addressed the three indeed missing pre-conditions, referenced by the Hungarian prime minister.
Not even the Commission’s recent enlargement report (the one that recommended opening accession talks) mentions fulfillment of the criteria that are normally prerequisites of this next step. Instead, it only says Ukraine is “making substantial progress on meeting the 7 steps,” while at the very end warns that “the accession process remains based on established criteria”—including the seven pre-conditions and then the 35 additional criteria of the Acquis Communautaire, which should open up only after the first set is fulfilled and negotiations have begun.
Not that it matters in the case of Ukraine, since this decision—if there will be one—would be completely political. Were it not for the war, no leader would consider Ukraine’s membership seriously for another decade or so. But since there is a war in Ukraine, things are different.
‘Bazaar mindset’
There was not much enthusiasm about the idea of releasing Hungary’s frozen funds in exchange for Orbán’s support for the €50 billion military package either. Some—like Belgian PM Alexander De Croo—rejected any such negotiations, denouncing it as a “bazaar mindset” that does not belong in the Council.
“We cannot accept any blackmailing, … we cannot compromise on the rule of law,” said Finnish PM Petteri Orpo despite Hungary having already fulfilled every rule-of-law reform criteria set by the Commission, which should unlock the funds regardless of the outcome of this summit.
Time for a treaty change?
Several leaders were quick to use Orbán’s opposition as the main argument for fundamentally changing the EU’s decision-making process by transitioning from unanimous to qualified majority voting, which would only require the support of half the member states, representing 65% of the EU’s population, to pass strategic decisions—an initiative that was shamelessly approved by the European Parliament recently, although carrying little weight unless the Council is on board too.
To welcome Ukraine and other potential candidates, “we must also be ready ourselves, ready to reform,” Metsola remarked on Thursday, calling for the Council to “accelerate the discussion” on how the EU will function and “how we’ll make decisions” in the future.
“If we spoil or abuse the unanimity principle, there will be more and more voices asking why we still make decisions on unanimity,” said Lithuania’s Gitanas Nauseda, which sounded more like a threat than a genuine concern for democratic decision-making.
The only one to make a more balanced statement was Irish PM Leo Varadkar. The Taoiseach said Europe will need to rethink unanimity before admitting new members, but it must also be aware that small countries, like Ireland, will end up on the wrong side of certain votes, unable to veto them. Giving up veto power might be a sacrifice too big for even him to make, he implied cautiously.
Besides, with sovereigntist parties rapidly gaining support all across Europe, there’s a great chance of several governments standing in the way of this undemocratic power grab in a year or two. Until then, we have Viktor Orbán to remind us why unanimity is important.
