The decisive defeat of Hungarian leader and EU veto-er-in-chief Viktor Orbán presents the EU with an opportunity to move forward on several key foreign policy issues. But was he the problem? Or is unanimity holding the EU back from defending itself on the world stage?
After 16 years in power, Viktor Orbán's tenure as Hungarian prime minister and global disruptor has come to an end.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Hungarian leader has long been a thorn in the EU’s side, repeatedly using his country’s veto to stall decision-making on key issues.
Hungary has exercised the veto more than any other member state: of the 48 vetoes cast by EU countries, 21 came from Budapest.
Most recently, in March, Orbán blocked a previously agreed €90 billion loan for Ukraine amid a dispute over the Druzhba oil pipeline, which transports Russian oil to several European countries, including Hungary.
The question now is whether this change in government will be enough to unblock the EU — or whether deeper reforms are needed to prevent a single member state from paralysing the bloc again.
The incoming government led by Péter Magyar, following a landslide victory in Sunday’s parliamentary elections, is expected to adopt a more pragmatic and cooperative approach.
At his first press conference since the vote, Magyar said he had already begun talks with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to restore relations.
His immediate priority, however, is to secure the release of €17 billion in EU funds allocated to Hungary but frozen by the Commission over concerns democratic backsliding. Access to these funds will depend on his government implementing rule-of-law reforms by August.
In a shift welcomed in Brussels, Magyar also expressed support for Ukraine and is expected to lift Hungary’s veto on the €90 billion EU loan to Kyiv, as well as backing further sanctions on Russia.
However, expectations should be tempered. Magyar has indicated that Hungary will continue purchasing Russian energy and remains opposed to the EU’s migration pact, as well as any fast-tracking of Ukraine’s accession to the bloc.
What is the veto and how does it work?
The veto dates back to the founding of the European Economic Community in the 1950s, designed to safeguard national sovereignty — particularly for smaller states.
It allows member states to block decisions on sensitive issues such as foreign policy, defence and taxation, where EU treaties require unanimity rather than a majority.
The mechanism is most commonly used in the Council of the European Union — one of the bloc’s two legislative bodies — although it can also apply at the level of the European Council, which brings together national leaders to set the EU’s political direction.
Around 80% of EU legislation is adopted through qualified majority voting, leaving a limited but crucial set of policy areas subject to unanimity.
In these cases, all 27 member states must agree. A single veto is enough to halt a decision entirely, effectively paralysing the process.
Reform on the horizon?
There are signs that EU leaders may be rethinking the system. Speaking on Monday, von der Leyen told Euronews: “Moving to qualified majority voting in foreign policy is an important way to avoid systemic blockages, as we have seen in the past. We should use the current momentum to move forward on this.”
This is not a new debate. In 2022, French President Emmanuel Macron called for extending qualified majority voting to remaining policy areas following the Conference on the Future of Europe. “We must reform the treaties,” he said, arguing this would simplify decision-making and strengthen EU action.
More recently, von der Leyen told leaders at a February retreat: “We cannot move at the speed of the slowest,” as they discussed ways to boost the bloc’s competitiveness.
However, concerns remain, particularly among smaller member states. Dutch MEP Sander Smit has warned that abandoning unanimity could leave countries vulnerable to decisions that run counter to their national interests, arguing that “sustainable EU decision-making cannot rely on bypassing national democracy.”
Others, such as German MEP Daniel Freund, take a different view. He argues it is unrealistic to expect unanimity, noting that the European Parliament — like all parliaments — operates by majority vote. He has described unanimity as “a security risk for Europe”, calling instead for “more democracy, more European security and less blackmail by autocrats”.
Should the European Parliament play a greater role in foreign policy? Tune in tonight at 20:30 CET for the latest episode of The Ring, Euronews’ weekly debate programme featuring MEPs Daniel Freund and Sander Smit.