As expected, the Hungarian leader was the protagonist of the European Council. Initially, Viktor Orbán resorted to abstention in order not to pose an obstacle to the decision of the remaining 26 European leaders to open negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova on the future integration of these countries into the EU, but hours later he vetoed the multi-year financial agreement. framework and the financial reserve for Kiev.
For years, the Hungarian government has been condemned by European courts in violation of democratic values and the rule of law and as a result no longer has access to European funds such as the PRR. The unanimity needed to make these decisions provided Orbán with the weapon he needed to obtain concessions from Brussels. European enlargement requires internal reforms and the end of the veto is one of the measures included in the revision of the treaties, as approved three weeks ago in the European Parliament, but the European Council that ended this Friday did not take into account the proposals of the Members of the European Parliament. initiative.
After all, Viktor Orbán carried out a small charm operation, was rewarded with the release of money and retains his negotiating power. In the end, he was happy with the result and even revealed that the other leaders had confided that the Hungarian had nothing to lose as he could continue to torpedo Ukrainian intentions in the future. “If necessary, we will stop the process,” he said.
The consensus of 27 countries – and with more countries in the future – is increasingly becoming a mirage. Unanimity has long ceased to be the rule, and the Treaty of Lisbon in particular allows decisions by qualified majority in various areas, in addition to the introduction of the so-called bridging clause, which allows exceptions to unanimity in some areas. However, consensus is needed on issues considered sensitive, such as the accession of new Member States, taxation, social security, common foreign and security policy and police cooperation.
The reform process began in 2021, with the launch of the Conference on the Future of Europe, whose final report included dozens of proposals among the thousands gathered in panels on a special platform. After the European Parliament adopted a resolution in June last year asking the Council to convene a convention – the format for amending treaties – a group of MEPs from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs decided to move forward with a report to review the issues discussed to revise. It was approved in October with 19 votes in favor and six against.
Social Democrat Paulo Rangel was part of the group that rejected the report in its original version, but ultimately voted in favor after it was amended in the chamber about a month later, on November 22. The vice-president of the European People’s Party regrets that the process was led by “voluntarists who want to transform the EU into a European super state”.
The report, written by Belgian Guy Verhofstadt and four Germans, contained ‘bad things’, such as the change from unanimity to a qualified majority of 50% plus one, the end of unanimity in budgetary policy, or the reduction of the number of commissioners . without guaranteeing the principle of rotation – and therefore not guaranteeing the presence of leaders from small and medium-sized countries in the European executive.
The final text ultimately underwent many changes. The report calls for more common powers at environmental level, and shared powers in the areas of public health, civil protection, industry and education, areas that are now the exclusive competence of Member States. Delegates argue that shared powers should continue in the sectors of energy, foreign affairs, external security and defence, external border policy and cross-border infrastructure.
The report was approved by a deeply divided chamber: 305 votes in favor and 276 votes against, and the resolution that accompanied it received even less support. MEPs urged EU leaders to convene the above-mentioned convention (consisting of representatives of the parliaments of each Member State, heads of state or government and members of the European Parliament and the Commission). However, the Council conclusions do not mention the report of the Members of the European Parliament. “The European Council will discuss internal reforms at its next meetings with a view to adopting conclusions on a roadmap for future work by summer 2024,” the statement read.
“This process carried out by the European Parliament did not go as expected because it was not surgical. It received less support than expected, putting little pressure on the Council to act.” Paulo Rangel
For Rangel, this was a missed opportunity. First of all, through timing elected just over six months before the European elections. And then he thinks it is ‘strategically wrong not to be a concrete and surgical proposal’. In other words: the Council may not take any initiative before the summer of 2024.
Use and abuse in the United Nations
The United Nations Security Council is the international body in which the use and abuse of the veto – reserved for the five members with permanent seats – has often led to an inability to act (see the recent cases of Ukraine and Israel-Hamas) and the resulting discrediting of the organization itself and, by extension, of the United Nations.
The USSR/Russian Federation is the champion of the use of the veto (126 times, including Portugal’s accession to the UN), followed by the US (84), the United Kingdom (29), China (18) and France ( 16). A formula is planned to circumvent the Security Council’s inaction, through resolution 377, which gives the UN General Assembly the power to hold emergency sessions, but the outcome of the latter (on Ukraine) was only symbolic.
Source: DN
