According to information obtained by \u201cK,\u201d Berlin has raised the issue of possible \u201ceconomic consequences\u201d for Budapest following Hungary\u2019s decision to block the EU Council Conclusions on Enlargement at the General Affairs Council (GAC) meeting on December 16.<\/p>\n
As \u201cK\u201d understands, the meeting was marked by an unprecedented clash between Germany and Hungary, a dispute that will now be inherited, de facto, by the Cypriot Presidency of the Council of the EU. Cyprus will be called on to manage a significant part of the Enlargement policy dossier, in close coordination with the European Commission.<\/p>\n
Three diplomatic sources told \u201cK\u201d that during the GAC meeting, Hungary adopted what they described as a \u201cvertically negative\u201d stance toward Ukraine\u2019s accession prospects. Budapest made it clear to the other 26 member states, including the outgoing Danish Presidency, that its position was final, irreversible, and not open to discussion.<\/p>\n
Because the draft conclusions were uniform for all candidate countries, Hungary did not hesitate to impose a horizontal veto, blocking not only references to Ukraine but also to all candidate countries.<\/p>\n
Germany\u2019s reaction, the same sources said, was unprecedented.<\/p>\n
Berlin argued that Hungary\u2019s veto does not only undermine the EU\u2019s Enlargement policy but also risks being interpreted by Moscow as a failure by the EU to send a clear and united message of determination, particularly regarding Ukraine\u2019s European perspective.<\/p>\n
More significantly, according to \u201cK,\u201d Germany argued that Hungary should face \u201ceconomic consequences,\u201d specifically within the framework of Cohesion Policy. Berlin even raised the possibility of depriving Hungary of certain rights until it ceases blocking EU decisions.<\/p>\n
Germany\u2019s position was backed by a broad group of member states, including the Baltic countries. Hungary\u2019s stance was sharply criticized by Sweden and Poland. Lithuania largely aligned itself with Berlin, explicitly linking Hungary\u2019s level of EU funding to its compliance with rule-of-law standards. Latvia accused Budapest of exhausting its political leverage through repeated vetoes, while Estonia argued that Hungary blocks EU decisions at every opportunity, even on matters of fundamental importance to the Union\u2019s future.<\/p>\n
Hungary, however, escalated the confrontation. According to \u201cK,\u201d Budapest responded in a firm tone during the meeting, rejecting any attempt to link its stance on enlargement with EU financing or access to community funds.<\/p>\n
A European source in Brussels said recently that \u201cthe Hungary issue is giving both the Council and the Commission a headache,\u201d noting that its management will fall not only to Brussels but also to the incoming Cypriot Presidency. The same source pointed to growing pressure from Berlin and several member states \u201cfor Budapest to face the consequences of its reckless use of the veto.\u201d<\/p>\n
Spain calls for lifting the veto<\/strong><\/p>\n As expected, Hungary\u2019s stance at the GAC has reignited debate over replacing unanimous decision-making with a qualified majority system. According to \u201cK,\u201d Spain argued during the meeting that Budapest\u2019s behavior underscores the need to expand enhanced qualified majority voting to areas of EU foreign policy.<\/p>\n Similar proposals have previously been submitted by Germany and Slovenia. As \u201cK\u201d has reported, the issue was raised again last July by European Council President Ant\u00f3nio Costa as part of informal consultations with member states, focusing on replacing unanimity with enhanced qualified majority voting when opening thematic negotiating chapters, or \u201cclusters.\u201d<\/p>\n The European Commission is also pushing in the same direction, albeit through technical means. It has promoted the examination of accession chapters for candidate countries without their formal opening, effectively bypassing the veto, though not abolishing it. Under the Commission\u2019s approach, candidate countries can align with EU rules in thematic areas, while the official opening of chapters would take place later, when political conditions allow.<\/p>\n From \u201c27\u201d to \u201c26\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Following Hungary\u2019s veto, the outgoing Danish Presidency found itself in a deadlock and expressed disappointment at the failure to adopt unanimous conclusions by all 27 member states. In an effort to sidestep the blockade, Denmark proceeded in an anti-institutional manner, issuing its own declaration, framed as Conclusions, with the backing of 26 countries. The text was published on the Council of the EU\u2019s website with full formality.<\/p>\n Unlike unanimous conclusions adopted by all 27, however, this declaration by the \u201c26\u201d carries no political or legal weight and cannot bind either the EU or its member states.<\/p>\n As a result, no conclusions were adopted for any candidate country, including Turkey. This is despite public statements by President Nikos Christodoulides and his office\u2019s press director, Victoras Papadopoulos, who referred to and even commented on conclusions that were never officially adopted nor unanimously approved due to the Hungarian veto.<\/p>\n It follows that all references included in the draft Conclusions on Turkey, concerning the Cyprus issue, the appointment of Johannes Hahn, and Ankara\u2019s obligations toward Cyprus, were never unanimously approved and therefore do not constitute a common EU position.<\/p>\n Reducing a declaration by 26 member states to official EU conclusions, particularly by the President of the Republic himself, carries risks. Turkey has long sought to weaken the Cypriot veto, precisely through tactics similar to those employed by the Danish Presidency to bypass Hungary\u2019s veto, with the cooperation of all other member states, including Cyprus.<\/p>\n Notably, Cyprus already has before it a warning document from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs cautioning that decisions taken by \u201c26-member state formations\u201d could lead the Republic down \u201cdangerous paths.\u201d<\/p>\n