Consensus Building is the Greatest Challenge

Interview with Enikő Győri, Minister of State for EU Affairs
In: Európai Tükör 2010/11-12

– After Slovenia and the Czech Republic, Hungary is the third of the new member states, which will hold the rotating Presidency of the EU, and will thus be truly “initiated” in the EU. There are great expectations concerning the Hungarian Presidency as the previous Presidency held by a new member state, the Czech Presidency, was not widely acclaimed. Moreover in the second half of 2011 Hungary will pass on the torch to Poland, a country with regional middle power ambitions, which may overshadow Hungary. Somehow as was Slovenia’s case in 2008 with the French coming after them. According to you, what could be the value added that may make the Hungarian Presidency different?

– I think that it is a great opportunity for Central Europe that in 2011 two countries of the region may hold the rotating EU Council Presidency successively. We cooperate closely with our Polish friends, as the approach of both the Hungarian and the Polish government is oriented at making the Presidency useful primarily from the point of view of the EU, and of the development of European integration. This is so as the success of any Presidency may be measured primarily by the number of inherited and arising agenda issues it can achieve progress in or it can solve, close. From this point of view, neither Slovenia, which held the Presidency first among the new member states, nor the Czech Republic, which took the torch in a delicate domestic policy situation, shall be ashamed. The activity of both states verified the old experience that the performance of a Presidency does not depend on the size of the given member state. Following the track beaten by Ljubljana and Prague, we consider building compromise and consensus our most important task, to seek and represent the common interests of all 27 member states, while not forgetting completely about our own interests either. Fortunately, the fact that we live in a historic moment, when the main goals of the member states coincide – from the strengthening of economic governance, through crisis management, eventually to the fight against climate change – facilitates our task greatly. The Hungarian concept to make the human factor the guiding principle of the Presidency programme, to attempt to re-establish the balance between the economic and the human aspect of European integration, will obviously meet broad support. The human orientation of EU policies may be strengthened if we call problems what they represent, and if we do not get scared of difficult affairs, if we do not consider it a taboo to talk about issues like the relations between demographic processes and competitiveness, or about family policy, or linguistic and cultural diversity.

– Hungary is a member of the first Trio Presidency, which operates in the new institutional context that came about with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. In the midst of the economic and financial crisis also affecting Europe, both the Spanish and the Belgian Presidency – for different reasons – have let the first permanent President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy, have a greater role. However this was disapproved by a part of the member states. How visible will the Hungarian Presidency be? Does Hungary intend to rearrange the institutional balance of power prevailing in 2010?

– In the course of our Presidency, we do not intend to have neither more, nor less power than what the Treaty allows. On the one hand, we have to accept that the Lisbon Treaty has restricted somewhat the scope of action of the rotating Presidency. On the other hand, the Treaty does not regulate in detail the scope of authority and the division of labour between the Council, the permanent President of the European Council, and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. These complex relations are formed in many respects by life, by the evolving practice. In a way, all three institutions are trying to find their place in the new system, the balances are changing. On the basis of the experiences of the Spanish and the Belgian Presidency, a part of the member states supports a change that would give a greater role to the rotating Presidency in the preparation of the sessions of the European Council and in the monitoring the implementation of its conclusions. This is not contradictory to our ideas. The most important, however, is that there be close cooperation and thinking between the Council, the permanent President of the European Council, and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. I think that the cooperation that has developed between the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Hungary is very instructive. Upon Catherine Ashton’s request, in June, Foreign Minister János Martonyi represented the EU in Hanoi, at the ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference and Regional Forum. This was the first case in which, nearing the Hungarian EU Presidency, a Hungarian politician negotiated in the name of the EU. And at the end of October, High Representative Ashton requested the Hungarian Foreign Minister to perform, from the part of the EU, the duties of the Co-chairman at the sessions of the EU-Tajikistan and EU-Uzbekistan Association Council. These two examples also show that the Lisbon institutional framework has sufficient flexibility for the rotating Presidency to manage affairs keeping in view the interests of the EU and to the satisfaction of all the member states.

– While we are at institutional questions: could it not cause problems in the work of the Presidency that the Hungarian governmental and ministerial structure has been rearranged lately, and is not completely consistent with the Council formations, a part of the sessions of which will not be chaired by ministerial level leaders?

– I do not think that the transformation of the governmental structure should cause a problem. In July, a government decision has stipulated the order of chairing the individual Council formations in the course of the Hungarian Presidency. In this we determined exactly for what each minister and state secretary would be responsible. Every member state holding the Presidency shall decide on its own, on the basis of its own governmental structures, what officers of what rank it will delegate to the chairing positions of the formations; there is no uniform EU regulation for that. It also occurs in the practice of other countries that state secretaries, and not ministers, chair certain Council sessions, as this comes from the structure of their public administration. Just think of the French Presidency. France has large, concentrated ministries, with several state secretaries working under the direction of each minister. What really counts from the point of view of the evaluation of the Presidency is the expertise and competence of the ministers and state secretaries chairing the Council formations.

– As it was the case with the previous presidencies, the Hungarian Presidency will also be concerned considerably with crisis management. Firstly, it will be the task of Hungary to initiate the EU’s new, ten-year economic and social programme, the Europe 2020 Strategy. Secondly, the so called “European Semester” system will also make its debut during the Hungarian Presidency. All this is a great challenge for the Hungarian public administration. How satisfied are you with the preparedness of the Presidency staff?

– Coming from the political agenda of the EU for the first half of 2011, the bulk of the Presidency’s work will indeed be focused on the Economic and Financial Affairs Council. I am perhaps not exaggerating if I say that in the course of a half a year we shall accomplish about two years’ work, which will obviously test the efficiency of our whole public administration and will impose a great burden on the ministries participating in the organisation of the Presidency, and on the members of the Presidency’s staff. With highly concentrated work we have fortunately succeeded in making up arrears of work accumulated in the period before the change of government. The team preparing for the Presidency, consisting of several hundred persons – many-many young experts among them – is giving evidence of a very high level of commitment and competence.

– With a staff and a public administration as competent as they may be, the question still arises concerning how credible the Hungarian Presidency can be when it comes to fiscal consolidation, fiscal discipline, debt reduction, structural reforms, as Hungary is the member state against which the excessive deficit procedure has been implemented for the longest time by now. Furthermore, the economic policy of the new Hungarian government is not necessarily “trendy” from all aspects, if we just think about the crisis taxes or the mixed reception of the regulations related to the private pension funds.

– Unfortunately, Hungary overspent while more prudent countries accumulated savings and thus had reserves for crisis management. In spite of this, the new Hungarian government clearly committed itself to meeting the budget deficit target set at 3.8 percent of the GDP, by which we are in the frontline – in fifth place – among the EU member states in fiscal discipline. Thus, I do not think that anyone would question Hungary’s credibility when the country speaks from the position of the rotating President in economic and financial matters. Our EU partners know well what kind of serious measures we have taken, among others to make the distribution of the burdens imposed on the society and the economic actors more proportionate.

– The European Commission has recently made public its proposal on the revision of the EU’s effective multiannual financial perspective, stating somewhat beforehand its ideas concerning the possible directions of the next financial perspective. If we consider that the debate about the perspective traditionally intensifies the clash of interests between the member states, how much is it in Hungary’s interest to have this debate begin already in the first half of 2011?

– As I have mentioned, the Hungarian Presidency strives to reach the greatest progress possible in all policies, in all dossiers. This is what the European people, the member states expect from us. The case of the financial perspective is no different. However, it is important to see that this is a long story, and the Hungarian Presidency will only play the very first part of it. The issue is traditionally very sensitive and demands extreme caution and tact. We would like to see the debate to start in an adequate, constructive channel. Member states should not have very stiff positions formed already at the beginning, from which later on they may find it very difficult to depart without losing face.

– What is the Hungarian position concerning the case of the two most important chapters within the expenditures in the financial perspective, concerning cohesion and agricultural policy? Several member states urge the redistribution of the scarce community resources to the benefit of programmes improving the competitiveness of the EU.

– Hungary is interested in a strong cohesion and agricultural policy. These policies have great traditions among the policies of the European integration. It would, however, be a mistake to regard them as if they have had their time. I believe that it is not right to oppose neither the agricultural nor the cohesion policy to the requirement of competitiveness. We feel that it is more and more broadly recognised in the EU that the agricultural and the cohesion policy are not for themselves, but are an important means of improving European competitiveness, and as such, they shall not be given up. Cohesion between the member states corresponds to social cohesion within the member states: the EU’s competitiveness can only be built on solidarity, as in the long run the individual member states cannot be competitive without social cohesion. This, of course, does not exclude, moreover, it presupposes the revision and – if needed – the reform of both the cohesion and the agricultural policy. However, we must adhere to certain principles. Such are adequate financing, the strengthening of a result oriented approach, the respecting of the principle of equal treatment among the member states, the simplification of procedures, and, most important, as far as agricultural policy is concerned, the avoidance of renationalisation; just to mention a few.

– It so happened that the Roma question got a high-ranking position in the agenda of the Hungarian Presidency. What kind of plans does the Hungarian government have in this domain? Does Budapest feel that it has enough support from the side of the member states, the European Commission and the European Parliament?

– The debate that broke out concerning the mass expulsion of Roma from France did in fact boost the timeliness of the issue. At the same time, the intention to take concrete measures aimed at the actual improvement of the situation of the Roma became more accentuated in European institutions as well. Together with its Spanish and Belgian partners, Hungary has already expressed its commitment to Roma inclusion in the programme of the Trio Presidency. As a result of all this, the European Commission is planning to accept two important documents: firstly, a report will be prepared until the end of 2010 on the utilisation by the member states of the EU financial resources accessible for the promotion of the social and economic inclusion of the Roma; secondly, by April 2011, the Commission will work out the European framework document for the member states’ strategy concerning Roma inclusion, which will expectedly be accompanied by a plan for concrete measures. Neither does the European Parliament sit idly: it is also working on a report on the social inclusion of Roma, the conclusions of which, we hope, can be channelled into our work. When holding the Presidency, Hungary will initiate the discussion of the documents to be prepared by the Commission in the competent specialised ministerial formations. The rapporteur of the report is Lívia Járóka (Fidesz), who is sitting in the faction of the European People’s Party, and who has been working hard for years on the promotion of this issue. We intend to present the results of this work at the session of the European Council in June 2011, which may accept conclusions on this issue. We know that this is a delicate question for numerous member states, however, it has to be seen that the social inclusion of the Roma reaches beyond the borders of the member states, and that this process can only be helped by complex measures related to employment, housing, education and health care. Our initiatives bear the support of both the European Commission and the European Parliament. And we have to win the support of the EU member states to form an efficient framework at the level of the EU, naturally without questioning the principle of subsidiarity.

– According to the original plans, Bulgaria and Romania may join the Schengen Area in the first half of 2011. What can the Hungarian Presidency do to pave the way for these two countries?

– Joining the Schengen Area is not optional: new member states not only may join, but they have to join, and the other member states have to accept them, if they are ready and able to implement the Schengen acquis. This is provided for by the Treaties and by EU law. Though Schengen enlargement is undoubtedly not very popular in Western Europe, we would definitely like to have it take place during the Hungarian Presidency. The decision of the Council on the joining of Romania and Bulgaria to the Schengen Area will be taken by the member states by unanimous vote. This will be preceded by a process of technical evaluation at expert level, where the evaluating groups consisting of experts of the member states examine the preparedness of the candidate countries in the course of subsequent visits and inspection on the spot. Once these evaluations are successfully finished, and in February 2011 the Justice and Home Affairs Council approves them, border controls may be terminated on the internal EU borders of the two countries on the planned date, in March 2011. The evaluations made until now in the domains of police cooperation, data protection, external border control and visa issuing have brought favourable results, while the indicated deficiencies are being continually corrected by the Romanian and the Bulgarian authorities. However, it is extremely important that the last evaluation related to the SIS chapter, due in December, close with a sufficient result. I emphasise that though this decision will be based on a technical evaluation process, the decision on Romania and Bulgaria’s Schengen accession will ultimately be a political decision. The creation of the consensus necessary for this will be our task. This is not so simple, as there are member states which would delay the process. Let us remember: in Summer 2010, at the time of the liquidation of the Roma camps in France, the French made it clear that Romania shall take concrete steps in the domain Roma inclusion; otherwise it could not rightly claim Schengen accession. Germany, at an expert level, has presented several times the reasoning according to which it would not be right to speak about the Schengen accession of neither Romania, nor Bulgaria before the satisfying closing of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), which is supposed to monitor the implementation of the fight against corruption and the judicial reform in the two candidate countries. The Hungarian Presidency will be of the position that Schengen enlargement shall not be linked with other politically debated affairs, neither with the lack of settlement of Roma inclusion, nor with the CVM. Thus, if Romania and Bulgaria’s results are sufficient, that is if the Schengen requirements are fulfilled, then no objections shall impede enlargement at the previously set date.

– The closing of accession talks and, in an optimal case, the signing of the accession treaty with Croatia could be one of the symbolic results of the EU Presidency. What steps does the EU Presidency intend to take to enhance the process? According to you, will Croatian accession be rather helped or rather delayed by the circumstance that the member states are preparing to amend the treaty on the operation of the EU?

– Ever since its accession, Hungary has belonged to the group of member states, which consider enlargement as one of the most successful policies of the EU. This is one of the reasons why the promotion of the enlargement process figures among the priorities of the Hungarian rotating Presidency. Accession talks with Croatia have arrived to their final stage: of the 35 acquis chapters 34 have been opened and 22 have been closed, and the wording of the accession treaty has begun already in December 2009. We shall maintain our support for the Croatian accession talks all the way until Croatia becomes a full fledged member of the EU. We shall represent this in our capacity as Council Presidency – because of several considerations. Firstly, the exemplary Croatian accession process strengthens the credit of the European perspective and the EU in the whole of the Western Balkans region, and is, therefore, in the interest of the whole EU. Secondly, Croatia is our strategic partner: a Central European country, which as a future member state may be our ally concerning numerous issues, which are fundamental from the point of view of the future of the EU and our region. While holding the rotating Presidency, we may promote this process by the timely, coordinated and calculable technical organisation of the talks, and by the keeping up of the political interest and commitment of the member states. However, a lot depends on Croatia, as the complete fulfilment of the remaining tasks is indispensable for accession. The level of the preparedness of Croatia, the plans of the Belgian Presidency and the support given by the member states shall together clear the way for the completion and closing of Croatia’s accession talks in the first half of 2011, by the decision of the heads of state and government, which shall be a milestone in the integration process of the Western Balkans region. As far as the demand for the amendment of the Treaty is concerned, which was put on the agenda concerning the issue of economic governance, we believe that this shall not affect the outcome of the ratification of the Croatian accession treaty. Just as at the time of the ratification of the contractual regulation of the Irish and the Czech guarantees, this time as well, we can only accept a simultaneous but not interrelated process of ratification.

– Similarly to the EU integration of the countries of the Western Balkans, the issue of the establishment of the common energy policy is also crucial for Hungary. What kind of hopes do Hungarians attach to the session of the European Council due in February concerning energy matters? Can real progress be expected?

– I would like to clear up a misunderstanding. Reference to the common energy policy is an inaccurate rhetorical expression, which is not realistic, neither on the basis of the founding treaties, nor at the level of political action. A common energy policy, comparable with the common agricultural policy, with the EU deciding on all of its substantial elements, and with the member states not retaining any regulative and financial scope of authority, does not exist, and will not exist in a clear form. The purpose of the Hungarian Presidency – and this coincides with the interest of several member states – is to have EU regulation, joint external action, and a certain extent of EU financing in some basic questions of energy policy, that is to establish a highly coordinated common policy, with competencies divided between the EU and the member states. The interests of Hungary and other Central and Eastern European member states coincide greatly, while there are also significant geographical and technological ruptures between the countries in the whole of the EU. Hungary’s main interests are related mostly to energy security. We urge the establishment of an operating Central European energy market, the creating of the market regulations necessary for this, and, most important, the establishment of the missing parts of the infrastructure, first of all of the North-South two-way gas transport corridor. However, here we are trapped in a sort of a “catch 22” situation: as there is no market, the connections will not be built, but until the connections are not created, there will not be any market either. Consequently, it would be indispensable for the EU as well to put money into the projects. Coordinated action on the external markets is no less important if we speak about purchasing gas from the East, as now, for example, Germany receives Russian gas 30 percent cheaper than Estonia. It is a great step forward that the energy summit in February will review all these questions. I would, however, caution against too high expectations, as the differences between the interests of the Northern and Western European countries, treating green technology innovation as a priority, and our region, troubling with the development of the basic infrastructure, are indeed great.

– One of the Hungarian Presidency’s outstanding programmes will be the Eastern Partnership Summit due in May. What new accents does Hungary intend to give to the EU’s Eastern Partnership?

– The second Eastern Partnership Summit falls into the period of the Hungarian Presidency; its planned date is in May. Moreover, it shall take place at a Hungarian site, so this will be the only meeting organised in Hungary by the Hungary Presidency at the level of heads of state and government, thus in a way it will be one of the highlights of our Presidency. If we look at it from the content side, we have a clear political interest in that the six affected countries converge to the values and policies of the EU, similarly to the Western Balkans, but without granting a membership perspective. Thus, we intend to strengthen the unified political context. However, Eastern Partnership has to be able to receive and support projects which will address the necessities of the six partner countries in a differentiated way. We would like to present really concrete programmes, for example in the domains of civil relations, the protection of intellectual property or in early warning systems for the prevention of energy supply crises.

– Macro-regional Danube Strategy was often mentioned during the preparation for the Presidency. However, commentaries usually missed a vision, the coherency within the forming Hungarian position and, at the same time, pointed out that there are serious collisions of interest in certain details between the affected countries. Don’t you fear that the whole Danube Strategy will seem more than it really is?

– We would like to have the European Council accept the Danube Strategy in a most solemn way in June 2011, as one of the outstanding events of our Presidency. If you mean that there are no EU funds allocated to the Strategy, then you may call it doubtful. Still it is a significant step forward. The new Strategy orients attention to Central Europe, and makes the EU more conscious of the fact that Europe has two great rivers, with the other one, besides the Rhine, being the Danube. The Danube Strategy catalyses not only good-neighbourly relations in the region, but also promotes the European integration of the Western Balkans. The Strategy is the first EU initiative for a long time, which brings the EU closer to the citizens and also promotes cooperation with third countries. The member states participating in the Strategy were especially severely affected by the economic crisis. The Danube Strategy may contribute to sustainable economic growth in the region. Its importance is also to be recognised concerning multiculturalism: the Danube basin has been, for centuries, the home of many peoples, nationalities, which have formed a special Danube identity. The Danube Strategy is considered a success even before its creation: there are member states, which would establish a similar macro region for example in the Adriatic and the Ionian Sea region.

– In the domains of environment protection and sustainable development, Hungary also intends to give a new impetus to the revision and rethinking of the EU’s water management policy. To what phase would we like to advance this dossier during the Presidency?

– The revision of the prevailing water management policy, based on the so called Water Framework Directive accepted in 2000, is being performed by the European Commission, which will publish the result of this in the form of a statement that will appear expectedly in 2012. The aim of the Hungarian Presidency is for the Council to be able to contribute substantially to the work of the Commission. Therefore we first organise a great scientific and water management specialised conference in Budapest in March 2011, and then, based on this, the ministers of environment, at their informal Council session in June 2011, shall phrase the specialised guidelines, which the member states find important to communicate to the Commission concerning the future of European water management policy.

– “Focusing on the human factor” might well be the motto of the Hungarian Presidency. Job creation, social inclusion, the fight against child poverty, family policy, the protection of multiculturalism; these all belong here. What kind of concrete presentable proposals, initiatives does the Hungarian Presidency have in these domains?

– It devolves on the Hungarian Presidency to accept the horizontal programmes of outstanding importance of the Europe 2020 Strategy, called “flagship initiatives” in the EU jargon, related to the domains of employment and social policy. Within this, it seems especially important to deal together with the examination of the possibilities of job creation; the questions of child poverty and the social inclusion of the Roma; the discussion of the demographic trends; and the challenges facing modern health care (for example the mobility of health workers and patients, the sustainability of technological development and national health care systems). The harmony between the EU level common goals and the political programme of the Hungarian government is perhaps nowhere as obvious as in the field of job creation: the creation of the one million new jobs that figure in the Hungarian government’s programme corresponds to the number of jobs received if we break down for Hungary the 75 percent rate of employment targeted by the Europe 2020 Strategy. To reach these goals, the Hungarian Presidency proposes to discuss the aspects of job creation, to be able to reveal the economic and employment areas, which, if developed in a coordinated way, result in a considerable increase of jobs. Concerning the protection of multiculturalism, the confusion is great: we are not proposing the establishment of a new EU level policy, but would like to find possibilities within the existing policies for supporting such civil programmes, ideas, which embrace the specific, non-material elements of the European cultural heritage. If EU sources can be found for the renovation of old buildings, why would it not be possible to support from similar sources the conservation of a language, a dialect or a popular tradition of a community? The “European Platform Against Poverty” will be one of the “flagship initiatives” of the Europe 2020 Strategy, and will pay special attention to the promotion of child welfare. At the time of the Belgian Presidency, a conference was organised concerning this, and the Commission is preparing a recommendation for 2011. As the member state holding the Presidency, it is our aim to support, enhance these common efforts, to help the issuing of the Commission’s recommendation and the elaboration of the monitoring system involved therein, and, finally, the acceptation of Council conclusions related to the recommendation. The programme of the Spanish-Belgian-Hungarian eighteen-month Presidency involves the theme of equal opportunity: child poverty is perhaps the gravest form of inequality; doing away with it would be a crucial step in the direction of the establishment of social justice.