The much-anticipated debate in the European Parliament took place yesterday. It offered an opportunity for everyone to voice their own narrative, to offer ideas, a vision, and perhaps a solution for Europe. Unfortunately, no one took this opportunity. 

Author: Szilárd Szélpál

The debate was supposed to be about the EU Presidency programme, presented by the Hungarian Prime Minister, Mr. Viktor Orbán, who holds the rotating presidency. The discussion was not about that. MEPs felt that the time had come to finally unite and attack Mr Orbán for his misguided EU policies, highly questionable loyalty to the EU and NATO, completely incomprehensible foreign policy, and virtually total dismantling of the rule of law. This could also be seen as a shift or a step forward from the ultimately unsuccessful political pressure on Mr Orbán in Brussels, one element of which was the launch of the Article 7 procedure against Hungary. Still, I think that everyone has missed the point here. They missed the target because they did not correctly assess which league, using a football analogy, they were playing in and on which pitch. 

Photo credit: https://www.belganewsagency.eu/

The problem with the representatives was not what or how they said it. In terms of content, the speakers all highlighted legitimate and factual issues, regardless of political side or party affiliation. Still, these were not the correct times or places to make these points. The People’s Party, Viktor Orbán’s former party family, even went so far as to campaign for the leader of the Hungarian member party that was newly included in the party family. Never before has a party at the European level and its leadership been involved in the internal political struggles of a Member State in the public eye. This is not possible since these party families are legally umbrella organisations on the European political scene, and their member parties have to carry out actual political activity in the Member States.

Europe is facing severe challenges. In his speech, Mr Orbán mentioned some of these (loss of competitiveness, decline of the EU economy, high corporate tax burden, migration crisis, demographic crisis, regional development problems, geopolitical challenges and lack of standard military capabilities). He made concrete proposals for these, such as the organisation and establishment of a permanent Schengen Summit, which would allow the reform of the EU’s border protection capabilities and the discussion of issues aimed at developing and strengthening them. However, it also expects concrete steps to increase the EU’s military capabilities by creating a common and effective defence industry and force development programme by further developing and centralising existing EU regulations on joint military procurement. 

The Hungarian Prime Minister listed several issues which are natural and severe problems for the EU and to which a unified and common response must be found without delay and, if possible, in the shortest possible time. PM Viktor Orbán has perfectly understood that this is the forum where he must now focus on these issues because if he speaks about them, he will project the image of a European head of state. At the same time, MEPs engage in cheap political wars of words with each other in a race to see who can tell Mr Orbán what to do the loudest. In this way, he has made domestic political capital out of him, as he has done so far, by having everyone attack him and his country politically. In addition, I believe that he has also been able to forge foreign policy capital for himself and his Patriotic Party family because he wanted to use the means of dialogue to raise real EU problems. These problems interest many European voters, and he has attacked them exclusively with provincial problems and local Hungarian issues. In doing so, it perfectly managed to maximise the support of its partners, the Patriots, in the other member states. The Netherlands and Austria have already shown this year that voters are dissatisfied with the current establishment and do not accept their proposals for solutions to the EU’s problems. In France, Le Pen’s party won the elections and, having gained a powerful influence in the French National Assembly, has become an inescapable political factor in the functioning of the minority government. 

The list goes on and on with other Member States where nationalist-populist political forces have gained strength and have increased their political presence in their own countries. How much of this was due to their talent and how much to the illiberal political tendencies of Viktor Orbán, possibly Russian political-economic forces, is only relevant now, as voters across Europe have had enough of migrants and increased living costs, and have had enough of the inflationary problems caused by the apparently ‘ill-considered’, though more likely too rapid, green transition and the economic downturn caused by the Covid epidemic. 

The fact is that Viktor Orbán has wholly dismantled the rule of law in Hungary, there is no freedom of the press, state-funded propaganda is flourishing, the separation of powers is an illusion, there is an emergency government, and legislation has been passed to restrict the rights of minorities in the country. All true and reprehensible for Mr. Orbán and his 14 years of government. But not here and not now. Here, now, it should have been about Europe, about the future of Europe, about Europe’s global position, about the direction in which the answers to these pressing questions will take the economy in the coming years, about the weight and role of the EU vis-à-vis its global partners, and so on. But we do not know because yesterday’s debate was not about the programme of the rotating presidency, not even about Europe, but solely about Mr. Orbán and the Hungarian domestic political situation, Hungarian social problems, and disintegrating Hungarian state infrastructures and services. Europe has missed an opportunity to consider these issues that will determine the future of Europe in the current rotating presidency programme. 

Europe has failed to show its electorate that it is a great power, that its ambitions as a great power have not waned, and that it has the natural strength and ability to be a force to be reckoned with by its competitors on the global stage. It has failed to project the image of a united and organised Union that works well. It has been unable to present the image of a united state. In return, yesterday’s debate and the statements made by the various parties in the discussion have perfectly highlighted the fact of why it was so important to define the institutional reform plan for the socially agreed Conference of Future of Europe, why it was necessary to talk about the most important thing, the institutional reforms and the new institutional structure, before all the problems facing the EU, and to bring it into force as soon as possible. He highlighted that the current institutional structure encodes a loss of competitiveness, slowness and a weightless decision-making mechanism. And the emergence of new Viktor Orbáns, with their adverse effects, is also coded in. 

In my view, yesterday’s debate should have been about Europe, solidarity, reforms, competitiveness, increasing military capabilities, a unified foreign policy, and everything that can put Europe on the map in the 21st century as the origin of the developed world, with its advanced democratic system and efficient organisation. It should have been about how these issues could be addressed by a rotating presidency whose leader openly criticises and disrupts EU unity. It should have been about how, in the existing structure, such a state leadership can and should be required to represent the EU effectively and lead it bureaucratically, how it can be required to adhere to the standard foreign and security policy and to adhere to the common security and defence policy. Perhaps next time, this will also be the case…

Cover photo credit: https://www.belganewsagency.eu/

Szilárd Szélpál served as an environmental expert in the European Parliament from 2014, where he utilized his expertise to influence policy-making and promote sustainable practices across Europe. In addition to his environmental work, Szilárd has a deep understanding of foreign affairs, offering strategic advice and contributing to the development of policy initiatives in this field.