What’s happening within the European Union lately is quite perplexing. The recurrent displays of unease in Brussels are truly bewildering. Charles Michel’s decision to withdraw his candidacy for MEP, seemingly to prevent Viktor Orbán from chairing meetings alone, and the Financial Times publication revealing the EU’s plan to undermine Hungary indicate a noticeable state of tension in Brussels.
At first glance, the level of hostility is surprising. When, except for Russia post its war with Ukraine, has the EU been willing to jeopardize a country’s economy by causing turmoil in the financial markets? Have such measures been considered against nations like Iran, Cuba, or the Palestinian Authority? Has the EU ever ventured to utilize European funds to compel the forced returns of illegal migrants? The sudden resort to financial warfare against one of its own member states, and consequently, millions of European citizens, appears an unusual means of punishing a government for employing a perfectly legal mechanism known as unanimity.
Join us on Telegram: https://t.me/tfiglobal
However, upon closer examination, the clumsiness of this plan becomes apparent, making it susceptible to backfiring.
At a time when thousands of farmers are protesting and discontent with elites is rising across the continent, one might question if this is truly the optimal moment for the EU to present itself as a blackmailer.
Furthermore, does the EU genuinely wield the capability to undermine Hungary’s economy, as it asserts? In reality, Hungary only started receiving EU funding a couple of weeks ago. Additionally, two-thirds of the allocated funds remain frozen, yet Hungary’s economy shows no signs of imminent collapse. Notably, Hungary attracted a groundbreaking €13 billion in foreign investments in 2023. So, where is the elusive red button that Brussels is so eager to push? If Hungary were part of the Eurozone, an improvised troika might have pressured Budapest. However, since Hungary maintains its own currency, the Eurocrats can only threaten to disrupt financial markets without elucidating how they would avoid detrimental repercussions.
Nevertheless, the most significant revelation from this awkward leak is the compelling evidence that the rule of law is either dead or never existed as a fair, non-political instrument. Since Poland and Hungary had their funds withheld in 2021, critics have consistently highlighted the legal inconsistencies and arbitrariness inherent in procedures built on vague legal concepts, subject to the Commission’s absolute discretion, all under the continuous scrutiny of the European Parliament. The exclusion of Hungarian universities from Erasmus and Horizon, based on purely hypothetical infractions, suggested little hope for both the legality of the proceedings and the EU’s good faith.
Certainly, it was always evident that prohibiting gender ideology among minors and establishing national asylum legislation could serve as ample grounds for the EU to withhold funds, even if some idealistic minds clung to the notion of protection under the rule of law. Thanks to the leak, we now have explicit confirmation that the financial situation is not fundamentally about the rule of law; it is currently centered around Ukraine and could potentially shift to other issues in the future. If the EU lacks a legal basis to freeze funds for political reasons, it appears to do so regardless. Feel free to label it as blackmail, but the term may not capture the full complexity of the situation.
Read More: Ursula Von Der Leyen CAN lose her job
So, who is engaging in blackmail? For months, Viktor Orbán has been portrayed as a skilled blackmailer exploiting the unanimity rule, with the EU cast in the role of a vulnerable victim. Behind the scenes, the reality has been quite the opposite: Brussels imposed stringent conditions (the well-known 27 milestones) on Budapest. When Hungary adhered to the rules and implemented reforms that surpassed the EU’s entitlements, the Commission, aligning with the fervent outcry of the European Parliament, continued to withhold funds. Without Orbán’s veto in December 2023, Hungary might not have received the €10 billion it did. Despite this rather routine compromise in which Budapest adhered to the rules, the EU Parliament plans to sue the Commission for granting one-third of its due to Orbán. It’s hard to find a more telling example of political blackmail.
The deadlock surrounding Ukraine has evolved into a significant political dispute, with Budapest’s potential veto causing frustration among other EU members. Historically, the EU navigated numerous vetoes, including those related to Treaty reforms, through negotiations and compromises. However, on the brink of crucial European elections, the EU seems to have abandoned its usual approach, opting for blatant coercion instead. This abrupt display of authoritarianism is politically equivalent to harakiri.
Why this heightened tension? Firstly, after years of strained relations, a notable faction of European elites has embarked on a personal crusade against Orbán, seeking his removal. Secondly, Brussels is apprehensive about political diversity, displaying a ‘diversophobia’ in its own language, unwilling to tolerate dissenting perspectives on Europe’s trajectory and form. Thirdly, and most significantly, with the European elections looming, a rising wave of discontent against Brussels’ globalist policies is becoming undeniable. Fear has set in.
Riding on the shoulders of the farmers’ protest, the EU’s top-down consensus is facing serious scrutiny, and the upcoming ballots could trigger a profound shift in the EU’s trajectory. Hence the nervousness, hence the misstep of attempting to blackmail Hungary, hence the inclination to use Budapest as an example for its opposition. The underlying thought is that by discrediting one government, they might nullify the will of hundreds of millions of European voters. Consider: Who is engaging in blackmail here? Can the EU maintain composure? Will it permit Europe to express its voice through the ballot?
Furthermore, the situation surrounding Ukraine and Hungary’s stance on it is a major source of tension, with the EU’s punitive actions against Hungary being framed partially as a response to Hungary’s potential veto against EU policies regarding Ukraine. For instance, in a recent scenario where the EU aimed to extend 50 billion euros ($54 billion) of new financial aid to Ukraine and replenish a fund for arming Kyiv, Hungary was in the spotlight. Diplomats and officials were skeptical about Hungary’s possible obstruction of the measures.
Despite the rest of the bloc seeking to isolate Moscow over the war, Viktor Orban consistently boasts about his ties with the Kremlin. Hungary had already vetoed aid to Kyiv last month and expressed criticism regarding military assistance. The unanimity requirement among the EU’s 27 national leaders in Brussels to approve aid to Ukraine from their shared budget has heightened pressure on Orban. However, as the summit approached, sources in the EU hub Brussels expressed uncertainty about whether Budapest would align with the determination of the other 26 member countries.
Read More: Ursula Von Der Leyen dug a deep hole. Sunak Jumped right into it
The EU’s intolerance is evident in Hungary’s opposition to further aid for Ukraine and its embrace of different political viewpoints. However, it’s crucial for the EU to recognize the potential consequences of its stance. Hungary might choose to exit the EU, and such a move could trigger a domino effect. The prospect of Hungary opting to leave the EU could set off a chain reaction. As a key player in Eastern Europe, Hungary’s choice may exert influence on countries such as Poland, Moldova, Czechia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia, potentially leading them to reassess their EU membership. If Hungary transforms from an indirect partner to a direct ally of Russia, it might offer a base and intelligence to Moscow, inflicting damage on the EU. Clearly, in this scenario it would be the European Union facing substantial losses.