Andrew Tettenborn

Is the EU’s crackdown on Hungary a bluff?

Ursula von der Leyen (Credit: Getty images)

Brussels appeared to be finally getting serious with a rogue member state this week. A couple of days ago it announced that it would use its power – which it obtained last year – to withhold €7.5 billion (approximately £6.4 billion) from Hungary unless Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz government cleaned up its act on corruption.

The EU, it is fair to say, has a point. Like a number of other eastern European countries, Hungary is not known for the trustworthiness of its officials, or for its scrupulous avoidance of nepotism and favouritism in awarding state contracts. Nevertheless, as is often the case with EU affairs, outward appearances can be misleading. The reality is a good deal murkier. But it is also rather more interesting.

The first peculiarity in this situation is that the EU’s conditions for releasing the €7.5 billion are surprisingly narrow. When it comes to rule of law, Brussels’s issues with Budapest are wide-ranging, and encompass much more than just corruption. It includes not only graft but issues of judicial independence, media freedom and its allegedly LGBT-unfriendly family policy. Nevertheless, at least for the moment these have been sidelined: the EU has, it seems, tacitly accepted that funds will flow once the problem of corruption is dealt with.

Whatever its internal misgivings, Brussels has every reason to avoid a confrontation at this stage

The second is that, regarding the issue of corruption, the EU’s demands are curiously meagre. The measures required are largely technical: the introduction of an integrity authority and anti-corruption task force. Brussels is also seeking the modification of detailed criminal and public procurement law, the application of EU risk scoring software, and so on. The problem is that laws and measures of this sort are only as effective as the officials operating them. Although the Commission has said that it will need proof that these schemes will work, it is hard to see this as anything other than a matter of highly subjective judgment.

Already a subscriber? Log in

Keep reading with a free trial

Subscribe and get your first month of online and app access for free. After that it’s just £1 a week.

There’s no commitment, you can cancel any time.

Or

Unlock more articles

REGISTER

Comments

Don't miss out

Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.

Already a subscriber? Log in