This rhetorical question dating back from the 1960s, joking on the credibility of President Nixon in the midst of Watergate, springs to mind when one notes that Hungarian President Orban is about to become the President of the Council of the European Union as of July 1 of this year.
Don’t be fooled , this is not a pro-forma appointment; quite the opposite. In that capacity the Hungarian President will be responsible for managing most of the day-to-day work of the Council of the Union at a time when the highest offices of the European institutions will be appointed, the first decisions in the political, legislative and budgetary spheres of the beginning of the legislature will be made, and, in the background, a decisive phase of the Ukraine crisis will be entered and a presidential elections will take place in the United States.
Now, Mr Orban is the President of a Country which is, since six years, under an EU’s surveillance procedure (Art 7.1 TEU) for risk of serious violation of the values on which the European Union is founded, and for which the transfer of European funds has been frozen for violation of the principle of the rule of law. Above all, we are talking of a country whose government daily puts spokes in the wheels of the European Union by using or threatening its right of veto on decisions such as those for sanctions on Russia or aid to Ukraine (so much so that some EU countries evoked earlier this year the possibility of suspending its right to vote-Article 7.2 TEU).
In a “normal” European Union, a Country with this profile should not be in charge of coordinating other member Countries, and it to would be sensible to postpone the Presidency, at least to a time when the surveillance procedure has been successful closed.
Quite surprisingly, until now, the European Council has not considered sensible to postpone the Hungarian Presidency even if should not be seen as a “sanction” against Hungary but, more, as a simple precautionary measure in the interest of the proper functioning of the Union. Moreover, postponing Council Presidencies is not uncommon and this kind of decision has been taken at qualified majority because of less important reasons (by the way such move would be less courageous and controversial than the one that President Michel’s father took twenty-four years ago, as Belgian foreign minister in the Haider affair…).
At the end of the Day, the obligation of promoting the respect for the values of the Union is binding not only for the EU countries but also for the institutions themselves and the Council should be aware that under the Hungarian Presidency it is more than likely that It may encounter problems in the pursuit of this goal. When EU fundamental values may be at stake precautionary measures are more than needed (as the EP proved when, because of Mr Buttiglione declarations on Homosexuality did’nt approved its Candidature as EU Commissioner for anti-discriminatory policies).
Postponing the Council Presidency was already suggested by the Meijer’s Committee in 2023 and, more recently, by the European Parliament with two resolutions on January 18 and on April 24 has denounced the many persistent Hungarian violations of European law. Will the EP President of the European Parliament, Metsola raise this issue before the European Council meeting already at its next June 17/18th (before the formal Institutional Meeting on June 27/28th )?
The EP resolutions are even more justified by the fact that according to the treaties legislative and budgetary powers are a joint responsibility of the Parliament and the Council (Art.14.1 and 16.1 TEU) and, as it was the EP which triggered the art.7.1 Procedure against Hungary there is a clear risk of interinstitutional tensions in a delicate phase of the EU life, to say the least. The fact remains that a formal proposal to revise the 2009 European Council Decision on Council Presidencies may be made not only by the European Council Presidency but also by the President of the Commission and/or the current (Belgian) Council Presidency or following a request to the Presidency by any COEUR Member.
As simple Citizen I am puzzled by the fact that Hungarian open challenge to EU values has been condemned not only leftist political forces but also by liberal and EPP forces. What is the point of these repeated public statements in favor of the values of the Union if at the moment of being consistent with our own words we forget them?
In a way is like condemning someone of being drunk and giving him at the same time the keys of your car so that he can drive you home.
European Area of Freedom Security & Justice 