Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Since Monday, the EU has found itself in the curious, not to say embarrassing position of being represented by a country that is under fire from a majority of its partners for undermining the bloc’s core values. For the next six months, Hungary will hold the EU’s rotating presidency, whose job includes chairing meetings and advancing policies common to all 27 member governments. Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s premier, promises a constructive presidency. But for his critics, it looks suspiciously like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
Hungary’s presidency is hardly the only problem on the EU’s plate. It is not even the most daunting. The first-round legislative election victory of France’s far-right Rassemblement National and the sagging fortunes of Germany’s squabbling three-party ruling coalition cast darker clouds over the EU’s future.
Franco-German co-operation is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a well-functioning EU. Now domestic political trends in both countries are damaging their governments’ authority and causing disputes at the European level. Our eyes should be on Paris and Berlin at least as much as on Budapest.
Yet just as Greece’s debt crisis in 2010-15 was never in itself likely to destroy the Eurozone, so Hungary’s six-month spell in charge of some EU dossiers should not lead to disaster. The danger in the Greek crisis was potential contagion to larger economies, above all Italy. But as time passed, the EU brought the risks under control.
In Hungary’s case, we can expect a professional approach to the presidency from officials in Budapest who take pride in their country’s EU membership. Any damage will be limited because, since the 2009 Lisbon treaty, much important business is steered by the head of the European Council, the body that brings together national leaders, and by the EU’s foreign policy chief.
Already the EU has found a legal procedure to circumvent Hungary’s opposition to weapons supplies for Ukraine bought with profits generated by frozen Russian assets. Earlier this year, some critics of Orbán suggested the EU should strip Hungary of its voting rights, but this seems far-fetched. Other governments are reluctant to set a precedent that could one day be used against them.
Even so, we should not be complacent about the potentially harmful effects of Hungary’s six months in the limelight. There are various ways in which trouble may flare up. Because the job entails setting agendas for areas such as agriculture, the environment, migration and EU enlargement, its holder can wield influence by promoting its pet themes. A glance at Hungary’s published programme for its presidency indicates where controversies are lurking.
On enlargement, the EU has just opened entry talks with Moldova and Ukraine. Hungary’s programme vows “to pay particular attention whether the rights of persons belonging to national minorities in the candidate countries are respected and enforced”. This language could apply to many would-be members, but Budapest has in mind what it views as discrimination against ethnic Hungarians in western Ukraine.
On a trip this week to Kyiv, however, Orbán adopted a less confrontational tone. This indicates one way in which Hungary’s presidency may play out — a subdued approach in EU forums and on the international stage, but a more aggressive, Eurosceptical line for Orbán’s domestic audience.
A good example is the contentious area of migration. After years of laborious talks, the EU in May adopted a new asylum and migration policy. Orbán, however, opposes it. A longtime demoniser of George Soros, the Hungarian-born US financier and philanthropist, Orbán last month lashed out: “The Brussels bubble is full of Soros people. Soros has a plan to bring a million migrants into Europe every year and create a mixed continent.”
That intemperate remark preceded Hungary’s announcement of its seven presidential priorities. They include “stemming illegal migration” and “addressing demographic challenges”. In six months, no government can transform EU policy in a matter as complex as demography. Any discussions of the topic could however be unproductive and divisive, depending on how Hungary frames them.
For the EU, Hungary’s presidency is less of a problem than the fact that hard-right parties of various types are already in power, or are edging closer to it, in other member states. Just when Europe most needs the collective will to confront serious security threats and economic challenges, the hard right’s advance threatens to hamstring the EU. If that happens, Orbán will bear some of the responsibility — but by no means all.