For the rest of the Europeans, Orbán’s presidency of the EU seems to be over, before it has even begun. How much autonomy can a “rotating” president have?

“Viktor Orbán visits Budapest” could be the short joke of the days. Since assuming the rotating presidency of the EU for the second half of 2024, the Hungarian prime minister has engaged in a “crescendo” of international diplomacy, being constantly on the fly. It may boost his personal profile, but it falls short of the expectations of the “27” he is supposed to represent.

First Putin’s “peace mission” to Russia, then the meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, a little later the smiles with Donald Trump. The symbolism of the support from the -supposed- EU president to the Republican candidate is obvious, and in fact just before the Milwaukee conference, where Trump was officially anointed. Orbán’s “sidesteps” were also discussed in Brussels on Monday by EU foreign ministers. Of course, without reaching a common line, as Slovakia openly supports Hungary, the Baltic countries insist on a punitive stance, Germany drops the “ball” to the informal European MFA. Josep Borrell and the others are in no hurry to open a new front.

The institution of the rotating presidency

“But doesn’t the president have the right to set his priorities?” some will wonder. It’s not that simple. First of all, the rotating presidency does not have the weight it had in the past. The initial proposal for the European Constitution (which was ultimately rejected), but also for the Treaty of Lisbon (which was finally approved) was to be abolished as unnecessary, since the institution of the President of the European Council is being established.

Many had reacted at the time, resulting in a compromise. The rotating presidency was maintained, but with the obligation to coordinate both with the institution of the European Council and with the rotating presidency that precedes or follows it. In addition, the summit traditionally held in the country holding the presidency has been abolished (for example the summit in Athens in 1983 or in Corfu in 1994) and all official meetings are now held in Brussels, although the country holding the presidency may organize informal sessions. It can also shake up issues that interest it (for Greece, the Western Balkans, for Spain, relations with Latin America, etc.), but always in consultation with the European “mechanisms”.

Orbán does not only seek consensus in his diplomatic initiatives. That is why it seems that the proposal to take away his presidency has been seriously discussed in Brussels. But the legal framework – not to mention the complicated political background – is not clear.

“Green” MEP Daniel Freud tells German media that the Treaties allow a “removal” of the president, if a relevant decision is taken by a majority of 20 governments representing 65% of the total European population. In contrast, outgoing centre-right MEP Ottmar Karas tells Austrian TV (ORF) that the European Council has considered the impeachment scenario, but considers it “not feasible”.

A little more patience…

So what are the rest of the Europeans waiting for? Quite simply, come January and pass the “baton” of the presidency to Donald Tusk’s now pro-European Poland. Until then, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will abstain from informal meetings on Hungarian soil and, as it sounds, at least five governments are seriously considering following her example. But until there.

Perhaps it is due to a sense of historical debt that the Juvenile patience displayed by most Europeans towards Budapest. They remember that the first breach in the “Iron Curtain” was not the fall of the Wall in Berlin, but the dismantling of the fence on the Hungarian-Austrian border in 1989, as a result of which tens of thousands of East German “tourists” fled to the West. As early as 1987, Hungary allowed its citizens to travel to the West, at a time when most socialist countries forbade any association with “capitalists”.