In Favour of the Hungarian Council Presidency
On the 1 July 2024, Hungary will start its second EU Council Presidency. In light of Hungary’s continuous breaches of the rule of law, questions have been posed whether the Presidency could be postponed or cancelled (also here). The European Parliament already last year questioned the reasonableness of the Hungarian Presidency at this time. However, given the mere informal powers of the Presidency, I argue that the real damage is rather limited, especially because the Hungarian Presidency takes place just after the European elections. Finally, the Hungarian Presidency may even improve the connection of its citizens with the EU, since the main competence of the Presidency aims to bring the EU closer to its citizens and show the best version of itself to the other Member States.
The scope of the Council Presidency
The functions and thereby the importance of the Presidency in the structure of the EU have been constantly increasing since its introduction in 1957 (Article 203 TEC). The “Presidency over time developed from a mere organiser into an important initiator and promoter of political initiatives”. In 1979, the “Three wise men report” claimed that “breakdown in the Council performance under bad presidencies has shown that if Presidency does not do its job, there is no longer anyone else who can fill the breach”.
Since the Treaty of Lisbon, however, EU Council Presidency is no longer linked to the Presidency of the European Council, which has become the competence of the newly created office of President of the European Council. Likewise, the state which takes over the Council Presidency no longer chairs the Foreign Affairs Council, which is now within the area of responsibility of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
Despite all these changes, the Council Presidency still plays a role in managing and coordinating day-to-day European policy. The Council Presidency chairs the General Affairs Council, which is responsible for ensuring the coherence of the work of all Council formations. In addition, it is responsible for convening, preparing and chairing all meetings (Article 16 VI TEU) except of the Foreign Affairs Council.
However, the upcoming Hungarian Presidency would have less scope for action than a regular Presidency. It takes place less than a month after the European elections. History shows that these are usually the quietest presidencies, as selecting the new Commissioners and shaping the EU institutions takes up all the resources and attention.
Informal powers of the Presidency
The importance of the Presidency in the EU, especially after the Lisbon Treaty, is predominantly linked to its informal powers, to the responsibilities which are rarely mentioned in the Treaties. They include, for example, the ability to educate the population about the EU, to convince sceptical Member States about the idea of the EU, to make the idea of the EU known and to educate administrative officials about the EU. The golden rule of the Presidency is that it must remain neutral and not focus on national interests, but rather on the common good of the EU.
However, every Presidency focuses the EU’s attention on the issues that are important to the state holding it – due to geographical location or political past. The Presidency usually aims to promote its own country in the EU. It can be an agenda setter, as long as it does not violate the Presidency’s neutrality requirement too drastically. The scope of this function of the Presidency has not changed significantly as a result of the Lisbon Treaty and depends mainly on the ideas and determination of the individual states.
The country holding the Presidency organises events to bring the EU closer. The focus of the debates in the media often shifts from internal aspects to international, European ones (cf. the reports of recent presidencies, e.g. here, here and here). This helps the society to learn about the EU. For instance, during the first Polish EU Presidency in 2011, around 1000 artistic events were organised, including the Culture Congress in Wroclaw or the exhibition “Journey to the East” in Bialystok. The motto of this part of the Presidency was “Art for Social Change”. The various aspects of European integration were emphasized, and the role of the Eastern Partnership was also underlined. The opening ceremony of the Presidency took place in Warsaw. The ceremony had a symbolic dimension, since the main point of the ceremony was the Palace of Culture and Science, which was donated to the Poles by the Russians during the communist era. The Palace was at the center of the EU Opening Ceremony to emphasize the role of history but also to remember how much has changed in Poland in 20 years.
In the case of the Polish Presidency 2011, the politicians’ speeches also played an important role. The opening speech by Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister, in the European Parliament was received particularly well. Tusk emphasized the importance of unity in Europe and the strength that the EU has. The speech was a clear sign that during the Presidency Poland will not give in to the increasingly loud voices of Eurosceptics. The speech by the Polish Foreign Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, in Berlin was also widely and positively commented. He emphasized the role of a stronger Germany for the EU and called for greater integration. This mature and sensible speech has opened the discussion about the future of Europe and ensured Poland’s role in this discussion. Since it took place during the Presidency, it was listened to more carefully.
Hence, already during the first Presidencies after the big-bang enlargement, the informal powers of a Presidency were deemed particularly important due to the Euroscepticism significantly increasing. The Presidency can educate the average citizens about the EU and legitimising it in their eyes. The country holding the Presidency is also presented more widely and frequently than usual in the other EU Member States.
The political situation in Hungary can influence how the Presidency’s informal powers will be exercised. Yet, the Presidency can offer a platform to different political agents in Hungary. On the one hand, Victor Orban will surely try and use the Presidency as an opportunity to promote his vision of Europe and Hungary’s place in it. On the other hand, the Presidency will offer the chance to other actors to be more audible, as there will be more attention on them. For instance, to the pro-European politicians at the municipal level, such is for example the Mayor of Budapest, Mr. Gergely Karácsony, who can carry out the intended idea to connect the Hungarian citizens and the EU (although the support for the EU in Hungary remains rather high).
The Presidency is a great opportunity to make the state, once in every 13-14 years, better known. The Presidency can help to break down stereotypes and show how much the Member States have changed in the last decade, especially in the Eastern and Central Europe.
The first Hungarian Presidency
Hungary held its first Presidency in 2011, as the first of the new Member States after the Treaty of Lisbon. That was already Victor Orban’s Presidency, who came into power the year before and already started his controversial reforms. At this point, their full extent was not yet known, though, and nobody was calling for a postponement of this Presidency – it was not clear yet how Orban views the EU – as a foe or a friend.
The assessment of this Presidency was not particularly positive. Although some plans for the Danube region, pushed for by Hungary, were approved, overall, it was considered a “missed chance”.
The upcoming Presidency
13 years later, the situation in Hungary has changed considerably. Nobody has any illusions anymore concerning the anti-democratic character of Orban’s leadership – with Hungary no longer considered a democracy, e.g. by Freedom House.
Orban’s plan for the Presidency may seem ambitious, as it includes the reinforcement of the European defence policy, a consistent and merit-based enlargement policy, and stemming illegal migration. The first Hungarian Presidency had a similarly ambitious outlook, aiming at four main topics: growth and employment to preserve the European social model, stronger Europe, citizen friendly Union, and enlargement and neighbourhood policy (here especially the negotiations with Croatia and opening the Schengen zone to Bulgaria and Romania). However, as discussed above, the Lisbon Treaty has reduced the formal powers of the Presidency. Moreover, the Presidency now works in trio, together with two additional Member States, in this case Spanish and Belgian presidencies. A trio, or a group of three, is a format in which the presidencies are organised ever since 2007. Such a group, usually including older and newer member states from various geographical parts of Europe needs to prepare a common 18-month Presidency plan, which is then realised by each of the countries during their 6 months long presidencies. It improves the consistency of the subsequent presidencies and makes the policies of the presidencies more moderate.
Finally, the Hungarian Presidency starts just after the European elections, when the Member States are busy selecting the candidates for the various European offices and coming to terms with the European Parliament turning right. Even though the Presidency may try and use its powers to shape the institutions, using any influence it has for instance in the area of scheduling a time-table as the agenda setter, its impact in this field is rather limited. A big part of the process of shaping institutions takes place outside the scope of reach of the Presidency – for instance the commissioners hearings take place in the European Parliament. Equally, the effectiveness of the Presidency in performing such tasks on the European stage as the agenda setting depend on the position of the given member state in the EU, and Hungary is currently viewed rather as a problematic child than a responsible dialogue partner, due to the rule of law issues.
Hungary may be the EU Member State with the strongest threat to the rule of law in today’s EU, but it still is a full member of the EU: with its Commissioner in the Commission, judge in the CJEU, MEPs in the Parliament and the voting right in the Council. Stripping Hungary of its Presidency would set a dangerous precedent, introducing a de facto new type of sanction. None of the mechanisms introduced to discipline the Member States foresees removing a Member State’s Presidency as a punishment, hence it would be an action going beyond the scope of the Treaties. Moreover, doing so would take away the chance to bring the EU closer to Hungary and to familiarise the society with it via various informal events – which is where the Presidency should shine and which is where, in opposition to its official agenda, it could make a real difference.
