Hungary’s EU vetoes: A clever move or a dangerous game?

In recent years, when it comes to vetoes in the European Union, Hungary’s name has come up time and again. The country has become one of the biggest challenges to the decision-making mechanism, with its government threatening or actually using vetoes on numerous occasions.

This was particularly the case in the EU’s foreign policy issues, where unanimity is the rule. However, the situation may not remain the same: more and more Member States are looking for ways to circumvent or limit the veto mechanism.

Viktor Orbán EU summit press conference
Photo: FB/Orbán

The European Union is fundamentally built on a culture of consensus: although in many areas, decisions can be taken by a qualified majority, in practice, Member States negotiate until everyone agrees. However, foreign policy is an exception, where unanimity is the rule. This gives each Member State the opportunity to use its veto power to advance its own interests, even at the expense of other countries.

Hungary has consciously and regularly used this option, often alone or together with a few other countries, to block unified action by the Union. This is particularly true on the issue of sanctions against Russia, where the Hungarian government has repeatedly delayed or jeopardised joint decisions – but has usually voted in favour of them in the end.

The dominance of Hungarian vetoes in the EU

According to ATV, there were 30 vetoes in the EU’s foreign policy between 2016 and 2022, and the Hungarian government was responsible for sixty percent of them. This means that Hungary has become a prominent player in the mechanism that blocks EU decision-making. However, vetoes are not only a legal instrument but also a political weapon that can be used for strategic purposes. In the case of the Hungarian government, it was mostly about strengthening its own negotiating position.

Orbán German carmaking industry
Photo: depositphotos.com

The Hungarian veto strategy is understandably not an unqualified success in the EU. In recent years, there have been several occasions when 26 countries have agreed on something, while Hungary, alone or with one or two others, has blocked the decision. This situation not only increases tensions between the Hungarian government and the EU institutions but also frustrates European partners.

The Hungarian government often describes these initiatives as “stealth legislation” and a tool for “imperial centralisation”, while other member states see the need to limit the veto precisely in order to ensure effective decision-making.

The end of unanimity?

In recent years, a growing number of countries have been calling for a move to qualified majority voting in EU foreign policy, which would reduce the role of the veto. The idea was mooted during the Czech and Polish EU presidencies, and there are now French and German initiatives to do so.

Many people think that abolishing unanimity would require an EU treaty amendment, which would also need to be adopted unanimously, a task that seems almost impossible. In reality, however, there is an EU legal loophole: a ‘bridging clause’ that allows the European Council to switch to qualified majority voting in certain foreign policy areas by unanimity. This means that the change can be phased in gradually, without having to change the whole EU decision-making system.

Qualified majority voting could already work in some areas. These include trade and customs policy issues, where the economic aspects of foreign policy decisions are also relevant. Some experts argue that even some of the sanctions against Russia could be classified as trade policy issues, so that unanimity would not be needed to adopt them. This could be particularly important in the future if the EU wants to take a stronger stance at the global level and does not want to be blocked by a single Member State from taking a united stance.

Read also:

Featured image: depositphotos.com

2 Comments

  1. Again. Imagine you have a member at your club or association, acting like Hungary does in the European Union?

    I´m sure you´d all marvel at the cleverness of this member and help them out without hesitation, when needed!

  2. again, imagine being a part of a club that once was there for the people, but now, is importing non-white rapists , giving money to terrorists and supporting nazism.
    One would start vetoing all the time in this case, but some people think dictatorship from the EU is the standard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *