A vote for the Hungarian EU Council Presidency

The European Parliament is trying to block the Hungarian EU Council Presidency, which begins on 1 July. This, argues Kaja Kazmierskais not necessary. Any “real damage” that the Hungarian presidency can cause is limited. In fact, Viktor Orbán’s presidency could have a positive impact on the Hungarian people and bring them closer to the EU.

On July 1, 2024, Hungary will take up its second EU Council Presidency, a six-month term during which it shares responsibility for leading the EU. However, Hungary has continuously violated the rule of law, and observers are wondering whether the presidency should be postponed or cancelled. Last year, the European Parliament even expressed doubts about the merits of a Hungarian presidency.

Limited room for manoeuvre for the Hungarian presidency

According to the Treaty of Lisbon, an EU presidency still rotates between member states, but no longer automatically means the presidency of the European Council. This is now the responsibility of the newly created office of President of the European Council. Likewise, the state that takes over the Council presidency no longer holds the presidency of the Foreign Affairs Council. Responsibility for foreign affairs now lies with the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Despite all these changes, the Council Presidency still plays a role in steering and coordinating day-to-day European policy. The State holding the Presidency chairs the General Affairs Council, which is responsible for ensuring that all Council configurations work coherently. In addition, the State holding the Presidency is responsible for convening, preparing and chairing all meetings under Article 16 VI TEU, with the exception of the Foreign Affairs Council.

The upcoming Hungarian presidency would have less room for maneuver than a regular presidency

But even in these areas, the upcoming Hungarian presidency would have less room for maneuver than a regular presidency. First of all, it begins less than a month after the European elections. History shows that these are usually the quietest presidencies. The selection of the new commissioners and the design of the EU institutions take up all the resources and attention of politicians.

An opportunity in the informal powers of the EU Presidency

The importance of the Presidency in the EU, especially after the Treaty of Lisbon, is mainly linked to informal tasks that are not mentioned in either the Treaty on European Union or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. These include, for example, the ability to educate the population about the EU, to convince sceptical Member States that the EU is a force for good and, in particular, to explain the purpose of the EU to administrative officials. The Presidency must remain neutral and focus on the common good of the EU rather than on national interests.

The Presidency must remain neutral and must not focus on national interests but on the common good of the EU

However, every presidency succeeds in drawing the EU’s attention to issues that are important to the respective state. This may be due to the geographical location or the political past of a country. Presidencies promote their own country in the EU and can set the agenda as long as they do not violate the presidency’s neutrality requirement too drastically. This function of the presidency has not changed much since the Treaty of Lisbon. Rather, it depends above all on the ideas and determination of the individual states.

Bringing the EU closer together

The country holding the Presidency organises events to bring the EU closer. The focus of media debates in these countries often shifts from internal issues to international, European ones. This was the case during recent Presidencies, such as those of Spain and Belgium, when media debates helped people in these countries learn more about the EU.

When the EU underwent its “Big Bang” enlargement in 2004, the power of a presidency was already considered important because it could prevent the rapid rise of Euroscepticism. The presidency can make the EU better known to the average citizen and legitimise it in their eyes. The country holding the presidency is also presented to the general public more often in the media than other EU member states.

Holding the EU Presidency every 13-14 years is a great opportunity to make your country better known to other EU member states. The Presidency can also help break down stereotypes. Especially for the Eastern and Central European member states, the EU Presidency can show how much has changed in the last decades.

The first Hungarian presidency

Hungary had its first presidency in 2011, the first of the new member states to join after the Treaty of Lisbon. Orbán had come to power the year before. Even at that early stage, he had begun his controversial reforms. But the extent of these reforms was not yet known, and no one was calling for a postponement of his presidency. It was not yet clear whether Orbán viewed the EU as a friend or foe.

The outcome of the first Hungarian presidency was not particularly positive. Hungary did receive approval for some plans, such as the Danube Region Strategy, which aims at the sustainable development of the Danube macro-region. Overall, however, observers viewed the Hungarian presidency as a missed opportunity. Orbán’s eurosceptic approach was already conspicuous before. Instead of holding his presidential events in the Hungarian capital Budapest, Orbán chose a city 30 kilometers away, justifying his decision by saying that he needed to “avoid traffic jams.”

The upcoming EU Presidency

Thirteen years later, the situation in Hungary has changed. No one has any illusions about the anti-democratic nature of Orbán’s leadership. Many organizations, including Freedom House, no longer consider Hungary a democracy.

Orbán’s new plan for the presidency may seem ambitious, as was his first plan. However, we must not forget the limitations discussed above, nor the fact that it is not only Hungary that determines the Hungarian presidency. In fact, Hungary is part of a trio, together with the Spanish and Belgian presidencies.

Hungary may be the biggest threat to the rule of law, but it is still a full member of the EU. It has a Commissioner in the Commission, a judge at the ECJ, members of parliament and voting rights in the Council. Depriving Hungary of the presidency would set a dangerous precedent. It would also negate the opportunity to bring the EU closer to Hungary and to give ordinary Hungarians a positive image of the European project. This is where the presidency should shine.