The process of extending the European Union to fresh states is always controversial, but tension has reached a fresh level for Ukraine. In fresh weeks, Hungarian and Slovakian prime ministers Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico have powerfully criticised the anticipation of pushing Ukraine's membership without unanimous agreement from all 27 EU countries. In their opinion, this would be a step that could lead to the European Union's “dismantling”.
At a joint press conference in Bratislava, both leaders expressed strong opposition to weakening the function of the associate States in the EU decision-making process. Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico said without a doubt:
“I call on decision-makers in the European Union to perceive to us and not take any steps that could lead to the EU being destroyed. The abolition of veto law would be specified a step, and I am 100% convinced of it."
Viktor Orbán, on the another hand, warned against the consequences of abandoning the rule of unanimity, indicating that states could be forced to participate in the war against the will of their citizens.
“Brussels is not the guardian of democracy who tells us what it is. In fact, there are bureaucrats in Brussels. And bureaucrats are not friends of democracy, they are friends of bureaucracy," Orbán stressed.
Both Prime Ministers questioned the direction in which the European Union is heading, stressing the request for respect for national sovereignty and the rule of unanimity. They besides highlighted the economical and political risks associated with the adoption of Ukraine, a country in war chaos, unresolved border issues and serious interior problems.
Ukraine and its road to the European Union
Ukraine officially applied for membership of the European Union in February 2022 – only a fewer days after the Russian invasion. In June of the same year, she received candidate status. Although it was a symbolic step, showing the EU's solidarity with the affected country, it has started a process that continues to make utmost emotions among the members of the Community.
Ukraine has since started implementing reforms in the areas of the judiciary, the fight against corruption, media freedom and the alignment of EU acquis communautaire. The European Commission has repeatedly stressed “significant progress”, although at the same time pointing out that many key changes stay on paper or are in the first phase.
However, Ukraine's accession process besides has a geopolitical dimension. Many Western EU leaders, including Emmanuel Macron or Ursula von der Leyen, consider its acceleration as part of countering Russia's influence and confirming that the EU does not abandon its east neighbours in the face of war.
Veto and the rule of unanimity – EU foundations
Veta law, namely the request for unanimity in certain decisions of the European Council, has been 1 of the pillars of the EU since its inception. This rule was intended to defend the interests of smaller countries from the dominance of the largest – especially Germany and France. However, it is now increasingly criticised as a tool to block Community action.
Proposals to abolish or reduce veto are emerging increasingly – especially in the context of abroad policy and enlargement. Reformists argue that unanimity slows down EU decision-making, preventing effective action, for example against Russia. Opponents, specified as Orbán and Fico, answer that without unanimity the Union will cease to be a community of equal states.
– "The Union will be strong if it can scope agreement in diversity of views. It will be strong if it respects the sovereign positions of the associate States and returns to the value of democracy and the regulation of law - which is not always the case" Fico said.
Concerns of Slovakia and Hungary
The Hungarian and Slovakian Prime Ministers raised a number of concerns about both the way Ukraine membership was handled and the consequences of this process. First of all, they stressed the hazard of losing the sovereignty of associate States' political decisions if Brussels decides to circumvent the rule of unanimity.
Orbán spoke straight about the threat of bringing EU countries into conflict with Russia -
"If the rule of unanimity is abandoned, associate States may be drawn into war, even if citizens and their governments argue it. This is the elimination of sovereignty”.
Both Orbán and Fico argued against further military support for Ukraine, arguing that this prolongs the conflict. Their alternate is diplomacy and mediation, in the spirit of peace plans promoted, among others, by Donald Trump.
Economic consequences of Ukrainian membership
One of the most common arguments raised by Hungary and Slovakia against the adoption of Ukraine is the impact it would have on the EU's common agricultural policy. Ukraine has 41 million hectares of agricultural land – about a 4th of the EU's full resources. At the time of accession, it would automatically become the largest beneficiary of EU subsidies.
The Minister for EU Affairs of Hungary János Bóka warned that the subsidies that are presently being paid to farmers in countries specified as Hungary, France and Poland would be transferred to Ukraine.
– "This will ruin EU farmers. Products from Ukraine are cheaper, but their quality is questionable – it is about GMOs, deficiency of sanitary standards, inexpensive labour" He said.
Slovak farmers have akin concerns. inexpensive cereals from Ukraine are already destabilising the marketplace in east Europe and full beginning of borders would have serious consequences for local agricultural economies.
Corruption and instability – real threats
Ukraine has been struggling with endemic corruption for years. In the Transparency global ranking of 2024, the country ranked 104th (to 180), behind most EU countries. Although fresh reforms are noticeable, they do not guarantee that the problem is dealt with quickly.
The EU requires candidates not only to harmonise the law but besides to be able to enforce it. Meanwhile, in Ukraine there are inactive cases of political pressures on courts, trade in positions, or opaque links between business and politics. An additional problem is the instability of borders – the ongoing war in the east, the business of Crimea and the inability to show what the territory of an EU associate State will look like in practice. Integrating a country with an active armed conflict into EU structures would be unprecedented.
Arguments in favour of Ukraine
Supporters of Ukraine's accession say that its adoption is not only a question of solidarity, but besides a strategical strengthening of the Union. Kiev is seen as a barrier to Russian expansion. Ukraine has large economic, industrial and military potential, which, after the end of the war, can strengthen the Union.
Furthermore, Ukrainian society has a advanced pro-European determination. Support for EU membership exceeds 80%. A number of reforms that took decades in another countries have been implemented in a short time.
Polarisation in the Union – a dispute over the future of integration
The dispute surrounding Ukraine's membership reveals a deeper division within the Union – between supporters of further integration and those who advocate a Europe of sovereign nations. For countries specified as Hungary or Slovakia, the Union was to be an equal community, not a federation managed from Brussels.
The introduction of Ukraine into the EU against the opposition of any members may be perceived as an act of political coercion which undermines the fundamental principles of cooperation in the Union. This can besides give impetus to another Eurosceptic forces – from Scandinavia to the Balkans.
The debate on Ukraine's membership is not just method – it is simply a dispute over the future of the European Union. Will the EU go further into integration at the expense of sovereign states? Will he take the hazard of accepting a country at war?
If the accession process is forced without unanimity, there could be an organization crisis, and even a political divided within the Community. However, if it is blocked, the Union may lose credibility as a geopolitical project.
The Union is faced with a choice: to go further together – although not necessarily in agreement – whether to start to disperse.
