On Retaining the States’ Veto-Power in the European Council: Sovereignty vs. Democracy

Both the filibuster in the U.S. Senate and the veto in the European Council reflect the act that the respective states were sovereign and retain a portion of that governmental sovereignty that has not been delegated to the respective Unions. But whereas the American filibuster is compatible with a federal system based on dual-sovereignty (states and union), the European veto is not; rather, each state having a veto is at home in a confederation, which is characterized by the states retaining their sovereignty rather than having given up some in becoming a state. In April 2026 shortly after Viktor Orbán had lost his bid for re-election in the E.U. state of Hungary, the E.U.’s foreign minister argued publicly that the states’ veto in the European Council (and the Council of Ministers) runs contrary to the democratic principle of majority rule. The prerogative of retained and residual governmental sovereignty was essentially being pitted against a fundamental principle of democracy.

Kaja Kallas, the E.U.’s foreign minister, castigated the requirement of unanimity in the European Council (in competencies, or enumerated powers, in which qualified majority voting does not apply) because the votes of 26 state governments can be hijacked by a single holdout. Her assumption is that majority-rule rather than the rule by one (holdout) is fundamental to democracy, whether direct or representative. Referring to the vetoes that had been exercised by the then-outgoing governor of the E.U. state of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, Kallas pointed out that the Council doing what only one state wants, “not what the 26 [others] want . . . is not really democracy.”[1] In fact, one-state rule can be thought of as autocratic rather than democratic. If so, then it follows that the remainder of sovereignty retained by the states as veto power is antithetical to democracy. Although both principles are valid in a federal system characterized by dual-sovereignty rather than all sovereignty being retained by the states, I contend that a sufficient recognition of the retained sovereignty of the states lies in the voting method by qualified majority, and furthermore, that such a method is not in conflict with democracy because even a super-majority is majority rule.

To be sure, the E.U.’s basic (constitutional, or government framework) law provides “a legal pathway to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting. However, . . . such a shift itself requires unanimous consent.”[2] Such a blatant “Catch 22” suggests that the state governments were exploiting a conflict of interest in devising and approving the pathway as if they were states in a confederation, which, unlike modern federalism, according to Kenneth Wheare’s Federal Government, involves no transfer of limited sovereignty (i.e., enumerated powers) to the federal level. That the hamstringing non-qualified-majority-vote policy and legislation at the federal level could easily have been foreseen indicates a proclivity to put the interests of their own states, and the states altogether, above federal initiatives for the good of the whole, which is more than merely the sum of the parts. In fact, the veto itself may imply that the whole is merely such a sum.

Qualified-majority voting enables sufficient unity at the level of the whole and enables the federal level to exercise its exclusive and shared competencies, or powers. Kallas said, “we need to be united and able to take decisions.”[3] So unity should not be so total that decisions cannot be taken and implemented at the federal level, which consists not only of the European Council (and the Council of Ministers), but also the Commission, Parliament, and supreme court (i.e., the ECJ), which are not so beholden to state-level interests that can differ from the interests of the whole, as represented by the Union.

The counter-argument made by Charles Michel (interestingly at the time of Kallas’s interview) in favor of keeping the veto in the Council that he had chaired from 2019 to 2024 is spurious. Firstly, he undercut his argument against the pressing need to shelve the veto mechanism by predicting that the European Council would be not be more unified on Ukraine following Orbán’s departure because other governors “share elements of his political stance, including on Ukraine.”[4] Slovakia, for instance, could easily step into Orbán’s shoes. This prediction makes Kallas’ point even more urgent!

Michel went on to claim that “the ‘European Dream’ depends on collective agreement among all 27 member states.”[5] Such would be the case were the E.U. a confederation of sovereign states, such as the Articles of Confederation were as the treaty made by the sovereign countries forming the U.S. until 1789, but the E.U.’s federal level enjoys exclusive and a shared-portion of competencies, or enumerated powers, and such sovereignty does not depend on unanimity at the state level because the states are not fully sovereign. The political-type category mistake in which a modern federal system of dual sovereignty is supposed to be a confederation was ultimately responsible for why Britain seceded from the Union; as prime minister, David Cameron mischaracterized the E.U. as but one of the “networks” of which Britain had joined. It is no wonder that a significant number of the Brits chaffed at even the limited governmental sovereignty that the E.U. itself enjoyed at the expense of full state sovereignty.

Michel’s “European dream” involves yet another problematic claim. “If you stop trying to involve every [state],” he said, “you risk weakening the EU’s weight on the international stage.”[6] This statement incorrectly assumes that any state on the losing end of a qualified-majority vote in the Council is not involved in the process, and that the E.U.’s very credibility on the world stage is not undercut when one state hinders federal action in foreign and defense affairs. Even as Russia continued to invade Ukraine for over four years, that the E.U. could not support Ukraine militarily made the Europeans look weak and unprincipled on such an obvious case of unprovoked military invasion.

Moreover, I dispute Michel’s utopian fantasy that 27 governors of states with differing interests, both economic and geopolitical, will nonetheless be unanimous enough on specific federal policy and legislative proposals for the principle of unanimity to be viable (i.e., workable enough) for the E.U. to exercise its own competencies that are subject to unanimity. Put another way, for the states to have delegated a significant amount of governmental sovereignty to the E.U. and yet selfishly, as per state-specific interests, to hold onto unanimity on many important matters being considered in the federal-level councils constitutes wanting to have one’s cake and eat it too. Such a capricious mentality does not deserve credibility on the world’s stage.

To be sure, Michel warned against governors misusing (to excess) the veto-power of their respective states in the Council, noting that the veto should only be used as it was intended to be used, “only when vital [state] interests are at stake.”[7] Given that the authority has been up to the governors themselves whether to use their power, however, an expansionist wielding of the vetoes should have been anticipated at Lisbon. Besides over-valuing even petty interests, as if they should outweigh the interests of the whole (Union), governors could easily invent such interests in solidarity with a foreign foe of the E.U. and thus undercut the Union itself on the world stage. I am referring here to Orbán’s relationship with Russia’s President Putin—Orbán even went to Moscow, undercutting President Von der Leyen’s policy against Putin’s militaristic aggression unprovoked in Ukraine.

The Von der Leyen administration was wise in looking outward to the credibility of the E.U. and its long-term functioning as a federal rather than state-centric system of governance, whereas Michel was entrenched in a status quo premised on fallacious arguments and even a category mistake. Ironically, for the need to expunge the veto-power from the federal-level councils after the departure of Orbán to still be felt as pressing, Michel’s prediction of no increase in cohesion among the governors was significant. Unfortunately, as an impetus to even needed political reform, the abstraction of a prediction pales in comparison to the actual use of vetoes, such as Orbán’s veto of the loan to Ukraine.

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro, “Orbán-Style Vetoes Undermind E.U. Democracy, Kaja Kallas Tells Euronews Hoping for Reset,” Euronews.com, 24 April 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Angela Skujins, “European Council Should “Think Carefully” before Removing Unanmity, Says Michel,” Euronews.com, 24 April, 2026.
5. Ibid.; italics added for emphasis.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.

Should the E.U. Pay Prospective States to Reform?

Should the European Union pay prospective, or “candidate,” states to undergo legislative, rule-of-law reforms prior to accession even though becoming a state is not assured? In April, 2026, Marta Kos, the Commission’s commissioner for enlargement warned the E.U.’s parliament that the Commission might “suspect €1.5 billion in E.U. funding for Serbia due to rule-of-law concerns and contentious judicial reforms” that had been introduced in Serbia’s legislature in January.”[1] I contend that the legislative or constitutional proposals should have been sufficient to freeze the very question of Serbia’s accession, and that the Commission should not pay candidate states to undergo reforms in the first place.

Speaking to the elected representatives in the federal parliament, “Kos said she was particularly concerned about legal amendments that introduce major changes, creating a flawed form of autonomy for Serbia’s anti-corruption prosecution and weakening the independence of the judiciary.”[2] That those constituted major changes are were on the scale of amendments rather than mere statutes could have alerted President Von der Leyen as to whether Serbia was in any condition to become a state in a political union in which rule of law (i.e., an autonomous judiciary, and democratically-valid multi-party elections) is assumed rather than even subject to debate. In other words, rule-of-law, as enforced by a judiciary independent of whatever party happens to be in power in the legislative and executive branches of a government, is so fundamental in the E.U. that major changes even being proposed in a prospective state should be a huge red flag. Accordingly, the question goes beyond whether to suspend paying money to such a state to undergo reforms that should be done anyway.

That Serbia’s political culture, at least with respect to its government, was worsening appreciably is clear from Kos’s statement, “We are increasingly worried about what is happening in Serbia. From laws that undermine the independence of the judiciary to crackdowns on protesters and recurrent meddling in independent media.”[3] Such crackdowns and meddling go beyond rendering a judiciary subservient to a governing political group, and thus render Serbia unfit at least for the time being for joining the E.U. as a state. At the very least, in other words, Serbia should not be “eligible for E.U. funding to support its required internal reforms.”[4] If prospective states want to join the E.U., then they should be willing to pay for their reforms themselves. Why, in other words, should the E.U. feel obliged to pay? I contend that joining the E.U. is of such value to any outside state-level republic that the E.U. should not in principle pay for candidate states to get themselves into shape from a democratic standpoint.

Even on policy grounds, the accession of Serbia was risky for the E.U., given the military aggressiveness of Russia in Ukraine. That the E.U.’s parliament had “adopted a resolution criticizing Serbia’s failure to align with E.U. foreign policy” against Russia in 2025[5] should have been a wake-up call for the E.U., given Viktor Orbán’s intentional undermining of E.U. foreign policy with regard to Russia. Did the E.U. administration want another Hungary wielding its veto in the European Council and the Council of Ministers in favor of Russia even as that country was still invading one of its neighbors?

Therefore, Kos’s statement, “We will continue to support Serbia on its E.U. path,”[6] can and arguably should be subject to formidable critique. After all, the E.U. was not so weak at the time, even given its refusal to expunge the veto-power from states in the European Council, that the Commission should have been so desperate to take in even marginal states. The greatness of the E.U. depended more in making internal reforms at the federal level in line with the fact that the member-states were semi-sovereign, than in enlarging. Just because Orbán had just been voted out of office in Hungary does not mean that the intransigence of one state in the European Council and the Council of Ministers could not again hamstring federal foreign and military policy even in the face of the Russian bear invading one of its neighbors on President Putin’s utterly fallacious supposition that the old Russian empire should rise again.

1. Eleonora Vasques, “E.U. Considers Freezing Serbia’s €1.5 billion in E.U. Funds Amid Rule of Law Scrutiny,” Euronews.com, April 20, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.

Hungary Blocks €90 billion E.U. Loan for Ukraine: Holding the E.U. Hostage

It is one thing for a dog’s tail to lead; even worse is the situation in which the tail refuses to let the dog walk or run. The staying power of the principle of unanimity in the European Council and the Council of the E.U. enables any one of the state governments to block federal policy and law. Such a blockage makes the tyranny of a minority look tame. In contrast, qualified-majority voting ensures that enough of a majority—a “super-majority”—is in place that the resulting minority should lose. The notion that every state government must be “on board” for the E.U. to enact a policy or law is misplaced because governmental sovereignty in that Union is “dual” because both the E.U.’s federal level and the state governments have at least some sovereignty. The same is true of American federalism. Neither the E.U. nor the U.S. is a confederation of sovereign states; only in such a federation does the principle of unanimity fit.

Facing an uphill electoral contest in two months, Hungary’s sitting prime minister, Viktor Orbán, had one of his ministers, Peter Szijártó, announce on 20 February, 2026, “We are blocking the €90 billion EU loan for Ukraine until oil transit to Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline resumes.”[1] This is an obvious example of a part putting its own interest ahead of the whole, which includes not only the E.U. but also the entire world-order, given Russia’s non-provoked aggression in Ukraine for years with impunity. Regarding the E.U., the implication that a federal program should be in the particular interests of each state in order to go forward reduces the E.U. to a mere aggregation in which every part must be satisfied and thus federal action is severely constrained even at the expense of the E.U. itself, meaning the collective interest that goes beyond the aggregate of the particular interests of the states.

Besides the systemic problem in allowing each of 27 states to block federal action and even statements, Hungary’s use of its veto to block the loan demonstrates that the governor of an E.U. state is perfectly capable of wielding the veto power immaturely and irrationally. Szijjártó claimed “Ukraine is blackmailing Hungary by halting oil transit in coordination with Brussels and the Hungarian opposition to create supply disruptions in Hungary and push fuel prices higher before the elections.”[2] In other words, the E.U. state was blaming Ukraine. The problem with that narrative is that the “Druzhba pipeline, which dates back to the Soviet Union, was damaged after it was hit by a Russian strike and that has impacted transit.”[3] That the strike had been unprovoked and Ukraine was in the midst of massive power outages due to other Russian strikes seem not to have registered in Budapest. Ukraine was “in the midst of a difficult winter, with gruelling temperatures below zero. Russia’s constant pounding with missiles and drones means a large part of [Ukraine’s] energy infrastructure has been destroyed and cannot cope with the heating needs of civilians.”[4] Was Ukraine to drop everything to fix the pipeline that Russia had damaged? Rather than make this claim, the governor of Hungary could have weened his state off Russian oil. The rationale for the veto is thus dubious at best, and this in turn raises the question of whether the governors of the E.U. states are capable of having a veto at the federal level, especially as one of the rationales for the E.U. is to forestall war from breaking out between states or between a state and a foreign country. This rationale is but one of ways in which the interests of the whole—the European Union—are not mere aggregates of the particular interests of the states, for none of the states has a mandate to look out for peace throughout the E.U.

That Hungary even has a veto over the loan is a stretch because the E.U. states of Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic had successfully been granted federal exemptions from contributing financially to the €90 billion loan. It was “subject to unanimity” nonetheless “because it amends the E.U. budget rules to allow borrowing” for a foreign country.[5] That the E.U. allowed exempted states to vote nonetheless is, I submit, yet another indication that the E.U. was still too wedded to the principle of unanimity and the states were too unwilling to give up that power. That Hungary’s use of that power in this instance was so wrong-headed, for Russia rather than Ukraine was responsible for the non-functioning pipeline, adds urgency to the point that the E.U. should finally confront the question of whether to reform itself by expunging the confederation-fitting principle of unanimity.

---

1. Maria Tadeo and Jorge Liboreiro, “Hungary Blocks €90 Billion Loan for Ukraine over Damaged Pipeline as Tensions Escalate,” Euronews.com, 20 February, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

Is the E.U. in the U.S.'s Strategic Interest?

Is a more perfect Union in Europe in America’s national interest? On the American holiday in 2026 that principally honors George Washington, whose eight-year commitment as the military commander-in-chief to the cause of freedom for the 13 new sovereign republics that had been members of the British Empire (and would forge a comparable political Union[1]) was decisive, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited the E.U. state of Hungary to deliver “a message of support from the Trump administration to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán,” who was behind in the polls in his re-election campaign.[2] At their press conference, Orbán and Rubio “signed an agreement on energy cooperation and hailed what they described as a ‘golden age’ of bilateral relations.”[3] E.U. officials were nowhere in sight; it was as if Hungary were still a sovereign state rather than a semi-sovereign E.U. state. An implicit question untreated by the media in the E.U. or U.S. is whether bilateral relations between the U.S. and individual E.U. states, as if the E.U. were nonexistent, was still in the U.S. national interest, especially in the context of Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

The full essay is at "Is the E.U. in the U.S.'s Strategic Interest?"

---

1. Skip Worden, British Colonies Forge an American Empire: A Basis for Trans-Atlantic Comparisons (Seattle: Amazon Books, 2017).
2. Sandor Zsiros, “’We Want You to Continue’: Rubio Delivers Trump’s Campaign Message to Orbán in Budapest,” Euronews.com, 16 February, 2026.
3. Ibid.

The ECJ Castigates the Commission for Paying Off Hungary

In an opinion submitted to the European Court of Justice, which tends to follow the legal opinions the 11 Advocates General, Tamara Capeta recommended in February, 2026 to the Court that it “should annul the European Commission’s 2023 decision to disburse €10.2 billion” to the E.U. state of Hungary.[1] Capeta found that the state government had not sufficiently addressed “concerns over systemic corruption and rule of law violations” to qualify for the payment.[2] That the Commission released the payment nonetheless points to corruption at the federal level—in its executive branch in particular—and this charge against the Von der Leyen administration renders the charge against the Hungarian government rather ironic. Rule of law should apply (and be respected!) at both the federal and state levels for the E.U. to continue to be viable. This applies especially to the Commission, as it is tasked with enforcing E.U. laws, directives, and regulations as well as treaty obligations that the EU, including its state governments, have to other countries, whether they are federal unions (e.g., the U.S.) or independent states.  

The Commission’s decision to reverse itself on the payment “came just days before a crucial December 2023 EU summit, where Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán threatened to veto a €50 billion aid package for Ukraine and block the start of EU accession with Kyiv.”[3] At the European Council’s meeting, “Orbán left the room for a coffee break, allowing the other 26 E.U. [states] to approve the accession talks.”[4] At “an extraordinary” Council session in February 2024, “Hungary lifted its veto on the €50 billion Ukraine support package.”[5] Some representatives in the E.U.’s parliament “suspected the E.U. [had] struck a deal with Hungary, trading unfrozen funds for Orbán’s withdrawal of his veto” even though the Commission “denied any such agreement was made.”[6] Given Orbán’s twice reversal after his state government had just received the suddenly unfrozen funds from the Commission, its denial strains credulity at best, and more realistically actually confirms the charge of sordid dealings in the Commission at the expense of E.U. law.

It is harmful enough to the federal union when a state government violates E.U. law, especially with impunity; for a federal-level governmental institution to shirk federal law says in effect that the E.U. does not respect its own law (so why then should state officials respect it?). Presumably either the Commission and/or one or more of the states could have made a deal with Orbán that did not involve violating E.U. rule-of-law.

Moreover, occasioning the unlawful deal is the staying power of the principle of unanimity in the European Council and the Council of the EU. A minimum of nine states was at the time sufficient for the federal program of “enhanced cooperation” to be invoked, in which case blocs of states could move forward in being subject to a federal law or regulation even though one or more state would still be in opposition but not to be subject to the law. Of course, this program could not apply to votes on whether to annex another state to the Union, and to decisions on whether to spend E.U. funds on other countries, including Ukraine because on such matters, the E.U. itself must either act as one or not act. So a so-called “multiple-speed” E.U. is not a complete answer to the basic problem of applying the principle of unanimity to 27 (and potentially more!) states.

Rather than relying primarily on its state governments for defense and even foreign policy, the E.U. could look to the U.S., which has both a federal military and state armies (called militias). That the federal president can temporarily call upon such armies even if their respective state presidents refuse does not mean that those armies are federal. Such an arrangement, which the E.U. did not have at least as of 2026, is consistent with the underlying dual-sovereignty of both the federal and state governments (or, for the ideologically squeamish, governmental institutions). The augmented federal powers would need to be decided by qualified-majority voting in the Councils that represent the state governments at the federal level; otherwise, no such partial transfer of governmental sovereignty could take place. Being politically unwilling to “step up to the (baseball) plate and bat,” federal and state officials should not collude in deal-making in ways that violate federal laws, lest the Union itself head down a slope wherein federal law has no force. This is especially of value in a world in which military aggressors such as Russia and Israel were wantonly violating international law with impunity; E.U. and U.S. jurisprudence, which is not international, and the corresponding duties at both federal and state levels of government, is not as self-evidently strong as Europeans and Americans may have been assuming in as invasions and genocides elsewhere were going on with impunity internationally.

On a visit to Florida at the time, I was shocked at the extent of brazen refusals by police employees of at least two cities to enforce criminal law—some employees even denying the existence of whole statutes, and the subordinates’ respective managers refused to hold those employees accountable. I was so stunned by the sheer brazenness of the lies that I decided not to move to that U.S. state. The rule of law cannot be assumed as though it castigates sordid personal discretion automatically; rather, law depends on humans to enforce it with integrity. This is why the international “laws” that Putin and Netanyahu were able to violate with such violence for years may not even count as law, for the enforcement-mechanism was entirely lacking de jure et de facto. “Law” without this cannot be counted as law.

The obligation of government officials to recognize and enforce rather than deny the very existence statutory law should be a given. It follows that federal officials in the Commission should not have been permitted to ignore the relevant federal law when it became an obstacle to making political deals with Hungarian state officials. If getting those state officials on board with a political priority of the Commission was so important, then the Commission could alternatively have pressured the states to reduce or end outright the application of the principle of unanimity in the two federal councils that represent state officials directly at the federal level, at least with respect to foreign policy and defense and even on the matter of “enlargement” (i.e., annexing future states). If qualified-majority is too low, then perhaps 75% of the states could be used as a benchmark for such very important policy decisions. The QMV-unanimity distinction is a false dichotomy, given the daylight available between the two voting methods. If one state can hold an entire Union back, then something is wrong with that federal system, and violating federal law to get around that problem is at best a short-sighted, expedient solution. In other words, the E.U.’s federal system has been suffering, at least as of 2026, from a much more serious problem than (collusive) corruption in the Commission and the Hungarian government.

---

1. Sandor Zsiros, “E.U. Court Challenges Controversial €10.2bn Payment to Hungary,” Euronews.com, February 12, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.

Immobilizing E.U. Holdings of Russian Assets

By invoking Article 122 of the E.U.’s basic law, a clause that had been used most significantly during the Coronavirus pandemic and in the 2022 energy crisis, the E.U. in December, 2025 finally circumvented the twice-threatened veto by the state of Hungary and indefinitely froze €210 billion of assets of the Russian Central Bank that had been within the E.U.’s territory since Russia began its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine nearly four years earlier. I contend that the European Court of Justice, the E.U.’s supreme court, could apply a rational basis in a judicial review of the triggering of the emergency-conditioned article, especially because the Commission invoked the article in order to obviate Hungary’s threatened veto. Because every E.U. state except for Belgium and Hungary were for freezing the assets until Russia such time as Russia ends its militaristic aggression and compensates Ukraine financially for damages the Belgian and Hungarian state governments were violating the informal norm of consensus in the European Council and the Council of Ministers. Like the U.S. Senate, the European Council, which also represents the states, is like a club of sorts. The problem facing the Commission is that violating a norm is not a legal basis for obviating a threatened state-veto by invoking an emergency clause of the E.U.’s basic law, especially if no emergency actually exists after nearly four years of the invasion. Even though I am personally in favor of the E.U. obviating Hungary’s serial obstructionism that may be, at least in part, retaliation against President Von der Leyen’s Commission for having penalized the Hungarian government financially for having violated E.U. law, legal reasoning should not succumb to the gravity of the “black hole” of personal opinion.  There may be nothing so much like a god as a general on a battlefield, with power over life and death, but neither the European Commission nor myself is a general. In short, the Commission’s legal justification in invoking Article 122 is tenuous at best, even though countering Hungary’s Viktor Orbán’s abuse of his state’s veto-power in the European Council and the Council of Ministers was needed for the E.U. to be able to function within its enumerated competencies (i.e., powers).

The reason for indefinitely holding the Russian central bank’s financial assets that have been in the E.U. since the beginning of the invasion is so the E.U. could use those assets as a basis for making loans to Ukraine to bolster the sovereign state’s military position without the E.U. having to issue its own debt. “We are sending a strong signal to Russia that as long as this brutal war of aggression continues, Russia’s costs will continue to rise,” President Von der Leyen said.[1] The objective was to “make sure that our brave neighbour beomes even stronger on the battlefield and at the negotiating table.”[2] According to Euronews, the E.U. was able to shore up “its mightiest leverage,” push back against “external interference” and insulate “the money from the Kremlin’s war machine—all at once.”[3] The external interference was not really external, as this refers to the financially self-interested objection of the state of Belgium and the pro-Russian objection of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Obviating self-interested states whose governors are willing to go against the other 25 states in the Council is laudable even though this objective can be traced back to the E.U.’s federal system, which must be taken as a given to the ECJ. To be sure, finding a way to do it by invoking an article of the E.U.’s basic law was not an easy task for the Commission.

“At first, the Commission suggested activating Article 31.2 . . . to switch the [6 months] renewal of sanctions from unanimity to qualified majority.”[4] The sanctions include holding the Russian financial assets. The article is vaguely, and thus problematically from the standpoint of constitutional language, based on “strategic interests and objectives.”[5] This wording could potentially enable the E.U., by qualified majority voting, to encroach excessively on governmental sovereignty retained by the states. That any state government could invoke “vital and stated reasons” of “policy”—again too vague—to veto any such bills that are in the strategic interests and objectives of the E.U. as a whole meant that the governor of Hungary could easily invoke its ties to Russia as vital reasons to veto the proposal to freeze the Russian assets indefinitely.

So, the Commission turned to Article 122, which applies qualified-majority voting rather than unanimity in the European Council (and the Council of Ministers) “in a spirit of solidarity . . . appropriate to the economic situation.”[6] Here too, the constitutional language is too vague. Hungary’s Orbán had been fragrantly violating the spirit of solidarity for years, and “economic situation” is so vague that the article could potentially be used to expunge unanimity from the federal level.

Furthermore, that Article 122 “bypasses the European Parliament” is also problematic because that democratically elected legislative chamber, the “lower house,” could otherwise act as a check on the Commission and the councils exploiting the article to rid the E.U. of the need for unanimity in the councils. Also, requiring a qualified majority vote in the Parliament would not in itself give the state governments the power to use their respective vetoes in the councils. One of the principal benefits of federalism, as distinct from confederalism, is the mechanism of state-federal checks-and-balances. Considering the American history of consolidation at the expense of the governmental sovereignty retained by the states, the vague constitutional language of Article 122 could be exploited. This is not to say that retaining the state-veto mechanism in the councils is at all healthy for the European federal system. Other means, such as requiring a qualified majority in the European Parliament, are consistent with federalism.

Such a check would be of value in terms of the indefinite freezing of Russian financial assets because the Commission interpreted “appropriate to the economic situation” to be invokable due to a “serious economic impact,” including in “supply disruptions, higher uncertainty, increased risk premia, lower investment and consumer spending,” as well as “non-economic drone incursions, sabotage and disinformation.”[7] Again, higher uncertainty and lower investment and consumer spending provide the Commission with virtually a wide-open door to obviate unanimity in the councils.

Earlier in 2025, the Commission had invoked Article 122 “to set up SAFE which allows member states to directly approve a Commission proposal [by qualified majority rather than unanimously] ‘if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain produces’ or if a member state is ‘seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control’.”[8] Tellingly, it was the Parliament rather than a state government that objected, which is a telling indication that the Parliament should not have been excluded from the procedure to be followed according to the article.

With regard to the “emergency” said by the Commission to justify invoking Article 122 to indefinitely freeze the Russian financial assets in the E.U., the governor of Belgium, Bart De Wever, “questioned the existence of any EU-wide emergency,” as Russia’s invasion was nearing its fourth anniversary.[9] For instance, only 10% of energy in the E.U. was by that time from Russia.[10] Even though the E.U.’s evident economic woes, coupled with the vague wording of Article 122 and its limited jurisprudence, gave the Commission enough leeway to forge ahead,” using even “the economic situation” to invoke the article is highly problematic, especially as the obvious intent was to undercut the state-veto mechanism, which under the E.U.’s basic law at the time, was valid even though Hungary and Belgium were, for self-interested political and financial reasons, respectively, abusing the mechanism given the norm of consensus in the councils.

The upshot is that the E.U. could do better in tightening its constitutional, or basic-law, language, enlarging the coverage of the Parliament (especially as a check on the Commission). In the meantime, the ECJ should take a look at the Commission’s invoking of Article 122, especially on the Commission’s interpretation that “economic situation” really means “economic emergency,” which actually makes sense so to avoid the article from being invoked for virtually anything, and that an emergency was still the case almost four years after the commencement of the Russian invasion, which does not seem to be a valid claim. In the background is the consolidation by the U.S. of power at the expense of that of the member-states, and the related switch from the state governments appointing U.S. senators to them being elected by the citizens of the states. Citizens of a state may not vote so to protect the remaining governmental sovereignty held by their state, whereas senators appointed by state governors and/or legislatures would naturally have an incentive to keep an eye on the federal division of governmental sovereignty. Nevertheless, the veto power of the E.U.’s state governments, especially as there were 27 at the time of the invocation of Article 122 to freeze Russian assets, is arguably excessive and thus harmful to the E.U. level as well as the federal system itself, which should allow for federal oversight “with teeth” on abuses by state governments, especially in infringing on democracy and liberty.

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro, “By Locking in Russian Assets for Good, the EU Is Finally Playing Hardball,” Euronews.com, 13 December 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.

The E.U. without Enlargement: An Oxymoron?

The political debates concerning the accession of candidate states such as Texas, California, Alaska and even Hawaii into the U.S. were long past when the issue of enlargement became salient for the E.U. due to Russia’s unilateral, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. In the American case, surely no one was arguing that the U.S. without being enlarged would cease to be credible, yet in 2025, a government official of the candidate state of Montenegro said as much of the European Union. Even if Filip Ivanovic was merely using rhetoric during an interview on October 4, 2025, even that should at least make sense. Making matters worse, his comments can be interpreted as ultimatums for the E.U. even though nothing binds the E.U. to annexing any future state. In fact, given the veto-power of state officials at the federal level in the E.U., enlargement should arguably come only after internal reform of the E.U.’s basic law concerning the power of the states at the federal level.

During the interview with Euronews, the deputy prime-minister of the candidate state said, “If enlargement does not happen . . . then the very concept of the European Union loses its credibility: It’s not European, and it’s not a union anymore.”[1] I demur. That E.U. territory did not at the time extend to the entire continent of Europe does not mean that the E.U. was not European. No one would seriously contend that any of the E.U. states were not European, so it follows that the E.U. itself, consisting of those states and a federal system, was not European. As for the E.U. not being a union unless it enlarged under the pressure of Putin’s militaristic aggression in Ukraine, the E.U.’s own constitutional or basic law at the time put any such claim to rest as ludicrous. It was the deputy prime-minister’s credibility that was actually on the line from his statement.

At the time, nine possible states were officially designated by the Commission as candidates for statehood, with Montenegro being “the most advanced in implementing the constitutional, judicial and economic reforms” that are required.[2] But Montenegro being at an advanced stage does not mean that the E.U. was therefore duty-bound to annex the territory of the state as being within the Union. Even so, Ivanovic said the government of Montenegro “cannot accept” the refusal of the E.U. to extend statehood to Montenegro because the other possible states “would understand that whatever they do is in vain.”[3] Whether the government of Montenegro could or could not accept a negative decision should be irrelevant to the E.U. as it decides on whether, and by how much, and when to enlarge its territory by extending offers of statehood. Asking for something and then stating that unless it is given, the decision will be unacceptable is not the way to ask for something if the expectation is that the request will be granted.

Viktor Orban of the E.U. state of Hungary had been using the state’s veto in the European Council on proposals concerning enlargement and foreign policy. As a result of Orban’s siding with Putin rather than with the majority of other states in the Union, the Union was being back from within in being able to adequately help Ukraine to resist Russia’s invasion even though Putin’s militarism was not justified even by historical arguments because might does not itself make right. Enlarging the Union such that even more states would be able to wield a veto to styme the Union would be recipe for paralysis at the federal level, and so this consideration alone is credible in deciding when it would be best to admit new states. It is not as though taking account of the risk of being held up by a single state forestalling action on the federal level before taking up the matter of enlargement would lack in credibility. Rather, moderating the power of the individual veto, similar to how the U.S. Senate has moderated the power of the filibuster (which is based on the fact that the states retain some governmental sovereignty just as the E.U. states do), would be prudent as requisite to enlarging. Whether or not this strategy was acceptable to Montenegro is irrelevant.

---

1. Mared Gwyn Jones, “EU Risks ‘Losing Credibility’ If It Fails to Enlarge, Montenegro’s Deputy PM Warns,” Euronews.com, 6 October 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

Exploiting the E.U.’s Vulnerability to Enable an Atrocity Abroad

On April 3, 2025, Viktor Orban, prime minister of the E.U. state of Hungary, ignored not only the arrest warrant on Ben Netanyahu, the sitting prime minister of Israel, but also the E.U. law in the Rome Statute that requires the E.U. states to act on such warrants issued by the ICC (the International Criminal Court) by arresting people wanted by the Court. The provision in the Rome Statute of the E.U. requires all state governments to arrest people who are wanted by the ICC.  Orban doubtless knew that he could exploit union’s vulnerability with impunity because, like the U.S. in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the E.U. relied so much on the state governments to abide by and implement federal law and regulations. By ignoring the Rome Statute, he put the E.U. itself at risk.

To put Orban’s defiance in perspective, Israel’s military had just killed fifty people in Gaza, including children who could not possibly have been culpable in the attack on civilians in Israel on October 7, 2023 even though the president of Israel declared after that attack that every resident in Gaza was guilty and thus deserved to pay the price in suffering and even wholesale death.[1] “At least 27 Palestinians [were] killed in an Israeli air strike on a school in northern Gaza that was serving as a shelter for displaced families,” and the killing of another 97 people in Israeli attacks over the previous 24 hours” occurred as Israel’s “ground offensive was expanding to seize large parts of the Palestinian territory.”[2] These killings of innocent people took place in the context of “Israel’s cutoff of food, fuel, medicine and other supplies to Gaza’s 2 million people” that had been put into effect only months earlier in order to strengthen Israel’s negotiating position.[3] That a commission at the UN reported to the General Assembly in March that there was substantial evidence that Netanyahu was committing the crime against humanity of exterminating the Palestinian people in Gaza only validates what common sense alone readily realizes. Bombings, the destruction of hospitals, intentional starvation, or mass re-location had been documented and evaluated by the UN as constituting the crime against humanity of extermination of a people.

Also on April 3, 2025, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders vociferously called on his colleagues to vote to block more than $8.8 billion in upcoming arms-sales to Israel, which the Senate overwhelmingly voted not to ban. “What we are talking about is a mass atrocity, and what makes it even worse,” Sanders said in his floor-speech, “is that we as Americans are deeply complicit in all that is happening in Gaza.”[4] Apparently, political donations from defense contractors mean a lot to U.S. Senators, though loyalty to Israel could be held to be unconditional, ethically speaking, to some Senators, for both explanations are likely in play given the sheer number of senators who voted against banning the very type of bombs that Israel’s military had been using against even civilian homes, hospitals, and even fertility clinics.

Viktor Orban ignored the warning that the E.U.’s executive branch, the Commission, had directed to him in 2024, when he invited Netanyahu to Hungary.[5] Not even six months later, Orban welcomed the alleged war criminal to Budapest anyway, and even gave him a full state-ceremony. Much of the attention on the state visit was on the fact that Orban was ignoring the ICC’s arrest warrant even though Hungary was still a signatory as agreeing to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Because ignoring that international court and even the United Nations had by 2025 become part of the international status quo, as evinced by the Russian and Israeli governments, Orban’s willful disregard of his duty to have the alleged war criminal arrested could be greeted with a yawn.

The European Union is different because governmental sovereignty was divided in the founding between the state governments and the Union’s governmental branches, which includes the European Commission. Whereas in the U.S., the sovereignty assigned to the Union is referred to as enumerated powers, the delegated areas of governmental sovereignty of the Union are called competencies. Even the voting mechanism of qualified majority rule, which applies to some of the competencies, means that the E.U. state governments are not sovereign states. Just as when the U.S. was young, the E.U. even as of 2025 still vested most governmental sovereignty as retained by the states. Doing so risks dissolution of the union, as the U.S. discovered in 1861.

Even back in 1831, the government of the U.S.  member-state of South Carolina passed the Nullification Acts, whereby that state’s government could unilaterally invalidate any federal law or regulation within that state's borders. I submit that the E.U. state of Hungary did likewise in 2025 when Israel’s sitting prime minister landed in Hungary without being arrested. For as stipulated by the Rome Statute, and a statute is something more than a mere international agreement, the E.U. states are required to arrest individuals wanted by the International Court of Justice if they enter the territories of the respective states. That the obligation is part of the international legal framework on which the ICC relies is qualitatively different than the status of a federal statute of a union in which sovereignty is split (and shared). 

Just as U.S. President Andrew Jackson did not let South Carolina’s nullification law stand, E.U. President Ursula von der Leyen faced the necessity of seeing that state governments do not get away with ignoring E.U. law. For if such dismissiveness were to become the norm, the E.U. itself would eventually fall apart, especially given the imbalance of governmental sovereignty. Even just to commit the category mistake of treating a federal system of dual sovereignty as if it were of the same genus as international organizations is to undercut and even belie the former. I submit that Viktor Orban was guilty of this too.

It is interesting that so much can occur on the same day—that even though not causal in nature, combines to furnish an ethical and political meaning that is like a snapshot of the underlying dynamics stretching over continents. The sheer impunity of both Netanyahu and Orban, respecting international law and E.U. federal law, respectively, is, I submit, a red-flag pointing to the decadence of the post-1945 world order. That the U.N. itself was largely relegated as impotent to the sidelines with respect not only to Israel, but also Putin in Russia, can be taken as reason enough for a new world order. Unfortunately, the tyranny of the status quo has various levers at its disposal to keep political development from occurring even as fires rage on the ground.

---

1. Gavin Blackburn, “At Least 50 People Killed in Overnight Israeli Air Strikes Across Gaza, Hospital Officials Say,” Euronews.com, April 4, 2025.
2. David Gritten, “Israeli Strike on Gaza City School Kills 27, Health Ministry Says,” BBC.com, April 3, 2025.
3. Julia Frankel and Samy Magdy, “Israel’s Cutoff of Supplies to Gaza Sends Prices Soaring as Aid Stockpiles Dwindle,” The Associated Press (apnews.com), March 5, 2025.
4. Sanjana Karanth, “Bernie Sanders Condemns ‘Deeply Complicit’ Congress Before Vote On Weapons Sales to Israel,” The Huffington Post, April 3, 2025.
5. Shona Murray and Jorge Liboreiro, “Brussels Warns Orban over Netanyahu Visit: It’s Your Duty to Comply with ICC Warrants,” Euronews, November 11, 2024.

Hungary’s Delusion of Sovereignty

On October 3, 2024, The European Commission, the E.U.’s executive branch, filed a legal complaint against the E.U. state of Hungary with the E.U.’s judicial branch—the high court of which being the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Commission had won a case against the state and recently subtracted the amount of fine issued by the court from the federal money set to go to the state because the Hungarian government was refusing to recognize the verdict. Like Britain before it had seceded from the Union, Hungary was operating under the incorrect premise that it still enjoyed full sovereignty even though every state delegates some of its governmental sovereignty to the Union in becoming a state thereof. In the case of Hungary, the state law at issue in 2024 had in its very name the fundamental problem out of which the state’s disputes with the E.U. were emanating.

 In its written statement, the Commission describes Hungary’s “contentious act,” which “establishes the so-called Sovereignty Protection Office (SPO) to investigate people and organizations suspected of undermining the country’s ‘national sovereignty’ and ‘constitutional identity.’”[1] Assisted by the state’s secret police, the SPO could legally “collect information on individuals or groups that receive funding from abroad and are perceived to influence the democratic debate and electoral processes ‘in the interest of another state’ or ‘foreign organ,’ meaning a non-state actor.[2] Undue political influence from outside the E.U. state could presumably come from another state in the Union or from outside of it. Treating both the same involves making the dubious claim that for one state or people therein to buy political advertising or contribute to a political campaign in another state is anti-democratic.

Furthermore, that such interstate political influence somehow violates Hungary’s sovereignty ignores the fact that every state in the Union has given up some governmental sovereignty even just for qualified majority voting to be allowed at the federal level in the Parliament, the European Council, and the Council of the European Union. Only if every E.U. law, directive, and regulation required the unanimous consent of the state governments, which could legally ignore rulings by the ECJ would the Union be composed of sovereign states, such as the U.S. was under its initial Articles of Confederation from 1777 to 1789.

The claim of Hungary’s government that its sovereignty is violated by political influence from elsewhere in the Union can be answered by pointing out that the state is no longer in fact sovereign anyway because it is in a Union whose federal system rests on dual-sovereignty. Put another way, the states have consolidated politically to an extent for their common good, which includes being able to have more political weight in the world, so interstate political influence can be viewed as part of that intermingling that is actually a good thing for such a federal system. If states are too heterogenous (i.e., different), then achieving united action at the federal level is very difficult. The combined sovereignties that instantiate federal sovereignty is actually partly Hungary’s, so interstate influence does not necessarily violate Hungary’s sovereignty.

Back in February of 2024, the Commission cited “the principle of democracy, the right to private life, the protection of personal data, freedom of expression, information and association, and the presumption of innocence, among others,” as being violated by the state of Hungary presumably because they threaten the state government’s sovereignty.[3] More accurately, they may have been a threat to Viktor Orbán’s party remaining in power in Hungary. The principles of liberty and democracy that the Commission was arguing that the Hungarian government was violating can be viewed as competencies, or domains of authority, that both federal and state governmental institutions could legally act on. Put another way, the Commission was well within its rights to protect democracy at the state level. In the U.S., the executive branch had acted to protect democracy at the state level, as in enforcing civil rights with regard to the access of Black people to schools and voting. Alabama could hardly say that its sovereignty was being violated because the federal institutions had the authority to enforce democracy in the United States.

The very name of Hungary’s Sovereignty Protection Office is wrong, for the state had delegated some of its sovereignty when it joined the European Union. Just days after the Commission announced that it was taking the state of Hungary to court at the federal level (i.e., at the ECJ), the Hungarian trade minister voted no in a vote taken at the Council of the EU on whether the EU should put tarriffs on Chinese electric vehicles. Had the measure passed the Council, Hungary would have had to recognize the tarriffs as valid within the state. This alone means that Hungary had given up some governmental sovereignty when it acceded to the E.U. as a state.  As it happened, too many votes were abstentions, so there was no final vote either way. So the Commission used its exclusive authority, or competency, in commercial law and policy to enact the tarriffs.  So it is not just qualified majority voting in which the E.U.'s state governments were no longer fully sovereign states. That the E.U. has shared and exclusive competencies, or domains in which it can enact laws and regulations, means that the state governments no longer were fully sovereign. Hungary's "National Sovereignty Law" was thus not only contrary to a basic EU value (and norm), but also a misnomer that gives people the wrong idea concerning Hungary in the E.U. 

To pretend to be sovereign still, such as by ignoring a negative verdict by the ECJ, undermines the sovereignty that Hungary and the other states delegated to the Union, and thus in a way their own sovereignty too because the state governments play a significant role at the federal level not only in the European Council and the Council of the E.U., but also in nominating commissioners for the College in the Commission. In this respect, the state government of Hungary was compromising a part of its sovereignty—that which had been combined with parts of the respective sovereignties of the other states. By making interstate political influence illegal in Hungary, Orbán failed to recognize that the sovereignty at the federal-level has a legitimate interest in there being at least some interstate harmonization, and legally includes protection of the basic values of the Union, such as democracy and liberty. If as I suspect he believed that Hungary was still fully sovereign as a country, then it had no business being a state in the European Union. Britain seceded for this reason—David Cameron, as prime minister, had said that the E.U. was just one of the networks that the UK was in. Similarly, Orbán’s Sovereignty Protection Office explicitly belies or undermines Hungary’s claim to be a state in the Union of states. The Union would be better off without that internal contradiction.

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro, “Brussels Takes Hungary to Court over Its Controversial ‘National Sovereignty’ Law,” Euronews.com, October 3, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

The €35 Billion E.U. Loan to Ukraine: One E.U. State as a Destabilizer

On September 20, 2024, it was announced that the E.U. would “raise a €35 billion loan to support the Ukrainian economy and military.”[1] At a press conference next to Ukraine’s president Zelenskyy, the E.U.’s president said, “Russia keeps targeting your civilian energy infrastructure in a blatant and vicious way to try to plunge your country in the dark.”[2] So the loan stood to impact the Ukrainian people directly and significantly. It would be a shame if the principle of unanimity in the European Council would stand in the way of the Ukrainian people being warm during the upcoming winter. This is a very tangible way for people to grasp just how real the costs are of state governments having vetoes over a significant number of E.U. competencies (i.e., enumerated powers). “The European Union is here to help you in this challenge to keep the lights on, to keep your people warm as winter is just around the corner, and to keep your economy going as you fight for survival,” Von der Leyen said at the news conference.[3] Hungary’s Viktor Orbán stood in the way, however, to securing the collateral for a long enough period to render the loan (an any from the U.S. based on the collateral) secure.

The loan uses Russia’s immobilized assets as collateral, and E.U. sanctions on the assets had to be renewed every six months by unanimity. The concern was that Hungary would use its veto because it is the “most Russia-friendly” E.U. state.[4] Before the announcement, the Commission had proposed alternative asset renewal periods ranging from 36 months to five years. Tellingly, one state government announced that it would wait until after the upcoming U.S. election before considering the options. This made it difficult for the E.U. to give the U.S. legal assurance that the Russian assets in the E.U. would remain frozen—that the collateral would remain under the control of the E.U. rather than go back to Russia. Because the collateral could not be assured going forward, the U.S. Congress would have to approve funding for any American loan to Ukraine secured by the collateral in Europe. Of course, the E.U.’s own loan depended on the collateral too, so the possibility that one state government would veto an extension of the assets being frozen meant that the E.U. risked being “on the hook” should Ukraine fail to pay back the E.U.’s loan.

Incredibly, Andrew Moravcsik of Princeton University spoke at Harvard on the same day as the announcement of the E.U. loan that even though right-wing state governments in the E.U. have a loud bark, their bite is muted, meaning that in terms of government policy the impact is nil. He argued that they had to appease moderates to get enough support to have any impact on actual policy. Yet Hungary’s refusal to consider any of the longer periods to keep the Russian assets frozen in the E.U. meant that the E.U. and U.S. had to assume more risk in lending to Ukraine. One need only point to the refusal of Orbán’s government to pay the €200 million fine levied by the European Court of Justice, the E.U.’s supreme court, because the Hungarian government had violated E.U. law, and to the violation itself, plus Hungary’s threat to bus migrants to the E.U. capital, to know that the ideology of Orbán’s party was indeed having an impact in policy. This had hardly escaped the notice of the Commission and the ECJ. The implication is that the E.U. could ill-afford the principle of unanimity for any E.U. competency; Euro-skeptic ideology could indeed impact policy at the federal level—and, yes, the E.U. had a federal system even in 2024 of dual-sovereignty (hence the union was not an international organization or a “bloc”). Too much sovereignty remained with the state governments in the form of the veto that they could wield in the Council, and the harm can be seen in the possibility that Ukrainians would not have enough heat during the upcoming winter. Is collective action really so bad? Should one state be able to thwart it on ideological grounds?

I submit that the E.U.’s effort is laudatory but that the E.U. itself contains its own obstacle in continuing with the principle of unanimity in the Council that represents the states. Just imagine the impact on U.S. policies if one state could defeat a measure in the U.S. Senate. Even though the E.U. had fewer states at the time, there were too many for unanimity to be at all realistic on most matters. Empire-scale unions inevitably have states that differ from each other culturally and ideologically. Majority voting and qualified majority voting accommodate this fact, whereas the principle of unanimity does not.

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro, “EU to Raise €35 Billion Loan for Ukraine Using Russia’s Frozen Assets, Von der Leyen Says,” Euronews.com, September 20, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

Hungary and Texas: Busing Immigrants

Two years after the government of Texas in the U.S. began transferring migrants to other states and to Washington D.C., the government of Hungary announced that it too would bus migrants, but rather than transporting them to other states, the destination would be Brussels exclusively. Although the respective political strategies differ, the two policies both represent the same pressure point in federal systems. The cost of united action at the federal level on public policy is that the states are not as free as otherwise to manifest their respective ideological and cultural views in public policy at the state level. That federal policy or law is often a compromise between the preferences of the states means that political pressure exists not only between states, but between a given state and federal law. This is inherent to federalism because it provides benefits from united action and some ability of states to enact legislation reflecting their respective distinct dominant ideology. Enabling both is one of federalism’s best features, yet it comes with a cost in terms of political tension that is endemic rather than merely episodic. Simply put, no system of government is without drawbacks or downsides. The trick is perhaps in how to manage them so they don’t get so out of control that the federal system itself collapses. In 2024, Viktor Orbán, governor of the E.U. state of Hungary, was testing the limits much more than was Greg Abbott, governor of the U.S. state of Texas, even as Orbán was using Abbott’s playbook.

In June, 2024, the E.U.’s supreme court, the European Court of Justice, handed down a ruling ordering the E.U. state of Hungary to pay a fine of €200 million for breaking federal laws on asylum plus an additional €1 million per day until the state government passes a law conforming with the federal law.[1] Hungary’s requirement that people seeking asylum must first apply for and be granted travel permits violated the federal law requiring that all of the states have the same procedures for granting asylum. Setting up a confrontation with the high court, essentially challenging its very legitimacy, the Hungarian government “missed the first September deadline for paying the €200 million fine.[2] In fact, the state “also demanded compensation for the billions it says it has spent on border protection, including constructing fences protected by razor wire on its southern borders with Serbia and Croatia.”[3] In other word, the state government wanted to be reimbursed by the E.U. for costs incurred by the state to protect the E.U. border that runs along an edge of the state. Thus situated, Hungary is like Texas. Ideologically too, Hungary’s governor was quite similar to the governor of Texas at the time, Greg Abbott.

In fact, Vicktor Orbán likely got his idea to send illegal immigrants from his state to Brussels from Greg Abbott, who had spent more than $148 as of February 21, 2024 in putting more than 102,000 illegal immigrants on buses bound for other states and Washington, D.C.[4] Texas also spent $10 billion on law enforcement and constructing physical barriers at the U.S. border that runs along the edge of Texas, though reimbursement by the U.S. was not demanded.[5] At a news conference at the state capital Budapest, Hungary’s State Secretary Bence Rétvári accused the E.U. in 2024 of wanting to force the state to allow illegal immigrants into the state, and announced that the state government would “offer these illegal migrants, voluntarily, free of charge, one-way travel to Brussels.”[6] He made the announcement in front of a row of passenger buses that would be bound for the E.U. “headquarters in Belgium.”[7] He said, “If Brussels wants illegal migrants, Brussels can have them.”[8] Interestingly, Texas could have had the same strategy: instead of sending buses to lax states as well as to Washington, D.C., all of the buses could have dropped off their passengers at the Washington Mall—at the U.S. headquarters—as Abbott had been so critical of U.S. immigration policy.

Both cases—that of Hungary and Texas—demonstrate what can happen when state governments in a union differ on a matter of public policy not only with each other, but also from a federal policy or law. The degree of unity that is necessary for a union to continue to exist and function viably comes at the expense of ideological differences between states. This tension is endemic to federalism, as that system of government allows for cultural or ideological diversity between states and benefits to the whole that the combined forces of an empire-scale union can provide. In the E.U., the Hungarian government was quite critical in 2024 of Germany’s more lenient practice in allowing migrants to enter the state, yet at the same time the united force of the E.U. was able to give Europeans more power in resisting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  In the U.S., the Texan government was critical of California’s “sanctuary cities” in which illegal aliens were not arrested by state police, yet at the same time the united force of the U.S. was also able to stand up to Russia’s president’s militaristic foray into Ukraine. Both cases demonstrate federal systems that are “living and breathing,” allowing for differences between states, such as on abortion in the U.S. and social policy in the E.U., while enabling both unions to have a significant impact internationally.

---

1. Angela Skujins, “’We Never Let Them In’: Hungary’s PM Viktor Orbán Demands New Laws Tackling Migration,” Euronews.com, September 6, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Sergio Martinez-Beltran, “Texas Has Spent More than $148 Million Busing Migrants to Other Parts of the Country,” The Texas Tribune, February 21, 2024.
5. Ibid.
6. Angela Skujins, “’We Never Let Them In’: Hungary’s PM Viktor Orbán Demands New Laws Tackling Migration,” Euronews.com, September 6, 2024.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.

The E.U. on Hungary: Beyond Symbolic Measures

Any federal system of government must function fundamentally as a unit even though the states are semi-sovereign, as is the federal level. The Nullification Crisis in the U.S. during the nineteenth century highlighted the plight a federal union would face were state governments able to ignore federal law unilaterally. Fortunately, President Jackson was able to get South Carolina to stand down on this point. In 2024, the E.U.'s federal officials were having trouble getting the state of Hungary not only to apply a federal directive within the state, but also to stop contradicting the E.U.'s foreign policy against Putin's Russia in Ukraine by engaging in diplomatic trips of appeasement. A federal system that lacks the means procedurally or substantively to protect federal prerogatives against the contradictory actions of wayward states is not viable in the long term.

Every E.U. state government is bound by Article 24.3 of the E.U.’s basic law, which mandates that those governments must support the union’s foreign policy “actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity.”[1] It is not often that a E.U. official mentions the obligation of loyalty in reference to the states toward the union, but the normative glue should not be ignored or even trivialized, especially given the preponderance of residual sovereignty that the state governments enjoy in the E.U.’s federal system. Josep Borell, the E.U.’s foreign minister, was referring to Viktor Orbán of the state of Hungary, whose “peace mission” to Moscow and Beijing coincided with the state of Hungary’s six-month presidency of the Council of the E.U. in early July, 2024. “Any so-called ‘peace mission’ that ignores” that Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine “is, at the end of the day, only benefitting Putin and will not bring peace.”[2] Borell was referring back to Orbán’s previous characterization of the union’s supplies of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine as a “pro-war policy.”[3] “The only one who’s pro-war is Putin,” Borell stated.[4] Referring to Orbán’s statement as belonging “to the realm of a lack of loyal cooperation,” Borell said, “We have to send a signal, even if it’s a symbolic signal, that being against the foreign policy of the European Union and disqualifying the policy of the European Union as the ‘party of war’ has to have consequences.”[5] The informal meeting of the foreign ministers of the states, known as Gymnich, would take place in Brussels rather than in Hungary’s state capital, Budapest. This move is indeed symbolic, for the official meetings are not subject to the 6-month rotating presidencies of the states.

The question is thus whether Borell’s use of the symbolic was sufficient to enforce Article 24.3 on the loyalty that the state governments owe to the union with respect to its foreign policy. I submit that a symbolic gesture, at best a “slap on the wrist,” is not sufficient to forestall undercutting moves by the governors of the state governments, for the political interests of the latter may differ from that of the union as a whole, and symbol is no match for real politic.

As Borell himself admitted, Orbán’s continued veto of military assistance for Ukraine was ongoing, and it was totally legal under E.U. basic law. Moving an informal meeting to Brussels would not change Orbán’s use of his state’s veto in the European Council. Nor would the states sending lower-level civil servants to an informal meeting of state interior/justice officials in Budapest. Arnoldas Abramavicius, Lithuania’s Deputy Minister of the Interior, refused to call sending lower level politicians a boycott; he would not even state that Orbán’s diplomatic trips to Moscow and Beijing violate the E.U. foreign policy against Russia. “I think this is a reaction towards Hungary’s external activity maybe sometimes not adjusted to the European framework,” he said at the meeting.[6] The diplomatic trips designed to negotiate with an aggressor with whom the E.U. would not negotiate is worse than merely not being coordinated or adjusted with the federal policy, which, by the way, is not a framework.

In fact, Borell undercut his argument and the E.U. itself by how he put the matter of the states’ foreign policy power. “Each member state is sovereign on its foreign policy—true. But as far as they’re members of this club, they have to obey the treaties.”[7] Given Article 24.3, however, each state’s foreign policy was not sovereign, for it could not contradict the union’s foreign policy. Moreover, the E.U. itself was not a club even as of 2024. The European Court of Justice had repeatedly ruled that federal laws, regulations, and directives are binding on the states, and the ECJ’s decisions are binding on the state courts as well as the state governments. Furthermore, clubs do not have a directly elected legislature such as the European Parliament, and, moreover, all three branches of government. Given the preponderance of governmental sovereignty residing with the states in 2024, the E.U. could ill afford being rhetorically diminished by one of its own officials, especially in the midst of a struggle between the union and a sitting governor.

A letter signed by over 63 state lawmakers addressed to the top three E.U. officials insists that Hungary’s Orbán had “caused significant damage” by his two diplomatic trips, so it was not merely a matter of not being adjusted to the E.U.’s foreign policy in which Putin is squarely the aggressor in the war.[8] Appropriately, the state officials called on the union “to suspend Hungary’s voting rights in the European Council” because “mere verbal condemnation” of the wayward state government has “no effect.”[9] Nor does merely moving the location of an informal meeting and sending lower-level officials.

That the European Council had not already suspended Hungary’s voting rights not only due to Orbán’s efforts to appease (Von der Leyen’s word) Putin but also the European Court of Justice’s ruling that Hungary had refused to implement a federal directive suggests that the union is vulnerable to defections by state governments with all but symbolic impunity. To apply anything close to unanimity for the voting rights of a state in the European Council to be stripped is itself not only foolhardy, but undercutting as well. An amendment applying qualified majority voting to sanctioning a violating state in the European Council would improve the coherence and functioning of the union at the federal level in line with the rule of law, while a state government deprived of its voting rights could still appeal to the European Court of Justice concerning the fairness of the mechanism and how it is being applied.

It bears noting that the Titanic could not avoid the iceberg in part because the ship’s rudder was too small, given the size of the ship. Or, if an analogy of several ships is preferred, a line spoken by a European in the film, The Godfather, Part III, applies: “Our ships must all sail in the same direction.” For one ship to sail not only apart from the others, but then into them must surely not be permitted. Appeasing or even just negotiating separately with Putin while referring to the E.U. foreign policy as pro-war even while vetoing military assistance to Ukraine should have been met with more than a symbolic response by E.U. federal officials, and the fact that it was not is an indication that the federal system contains a significant vulnerability, or weakness, that should be redressed especially before additional states are permitted to join the union.

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro, “Borrell Accuses Orbán of Disloyalty and Joins Boycott Against Hungary’s E.U. Presidency,” Euronews, July 22, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Caitlin Danaher, “E.U. Moves High-Level Meetings Out of Budapest to Protest Orbán’s Ukraine War Stance,” CNN, July 22, 2024.
7. Jorge Liboreiro, “Borrell Accuses Orbán of Disloyalty and Joins Boycott Against Hungary’s E.U. Presidency,” Euronews, July 22, 2024.
8. Caitlin Danaher, “E.U. Moves High-Level Meetings Out of Budapest to Protest Orbán’s Ukraine War Stance,” CNN, July 22, 2024.
9. Ibid.