Pavlos Xanthoulis
According to information obtained by “K,” Berlin has raised the issue of possible “economic consequences” for Budapest following Hungary’s decision to block the EU Council Conclusions on Enlargement at the General Affairs Council (GAC) meeting on December 16.
As “K” 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.
Three diplomatic sources told “K” that during the GAC meeting, Hungary adopted what they described as a “vertically negative” stance toward Ukraine’s 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.
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.
Germany’s reaction, the same sources said, was unprecedented.
Berlin argued that Hungary’s veto does not only undermine the EU’s 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’s European perspective.
More significantly, according to “K,” Germany argued that Hungary should face “economic consequences,” specifically within the framework of Cohesion Policy. Berlin even raised the possibility of depriving Hungary of certain rights until it ceases blocking EU decisions.
Germany’s position was backed by a broad group of member states, including the Baltic countries. Hungary’s stance was sharply criticized by Sweden and Poland. Lithuania largely aligned itself with Berlin, explicitly linking Hungary’s 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’s future.
Hungary, however, escalated the confrontation. According to “K,” 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.
A European source in Brussels said recently that “the Hungary issue is giving both the Council and the Commission a headache,” 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 “for Budapest to face the consequences of its reckless use of the veto.”
Spain calls for lifting the veto
As expected, Hungary’s stance at the GAC has reignited debate over replacing unanimous decision-making with a qualified majority system. According to “K,” Spain argued during the meeting that Budapest’s behavior underscores the need to expand enhanced qualified majority voting to areas of EU foreign policy.
Similar proposals have previously been submitted by Germany and Slovenia. As “K” has reported, the issue was raised again last July by European Council President António Costa as part of informal consultations with member states, focusing on replacing unanimity with enhanced qualified majority voting when opening thematic negotiating chapters, or “clusters.”
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’s 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.
From “27” to “26”
Following Hungary’s 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’s website with full formality.
Unlike unanimous conclusions adopted by all 27, however, this declaration by the “26” carries no political or legal weight and cannot bind either the EU or its member states.
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’s 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.
It follows that all references included in the draft Conclusions on Turkey, concerning the Cyprus issue, the appointment of Johannes Hahn, and Ankara’s obligations toward Cyprus, were never unanimously approved and therefore do not constitute a common EU position.
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’s veto, with the cooperation of all other member states, including Cyprus.
Notably, Cyprus already has before it a warning document from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs cautioning that decisions taken by “26-member state formations” could lead the Republic down “dangerous paths.”
*Read the original Greek version here.
