Hungary’s blocking behaviour risks derailing Ukraine’s fragile pro-European momentum. If not addressed, it could fuel Euroscepticism, embolden authoritarian spoilers, and hollow out the EU’s enlargement promise. Tyyne Karjalainen explores what options are on the table to restore credibility to the accession process
Authoritarian forces have hijacked the EU’s enlargement project. Russia’s imperial war is not the only obstacle to Ukraine’s European path. Now Budapest’s veto threatens to make a merit-based process meaningless. Under the EU treaties, every member state holds the right to block enlargement. Calls to sanction Hungary for its obstruction have clashed with the Union’s own norms, which guarantee democratic states a seat at the table.
Yet the EU adopted those norms before the new era of autocratisation in Europe. Authoritarian actors within and beyond its borders now exploit the EU’s internal vulnerabilities. While Russia wages war to stop its neighbours integrating with the EU, Hungary manipulates democratic decision-making procedures to serve illiberal ends.
Can the EU defend its democratic enlargement model from being weaponised against itself? Old principles must adapt to a harsher reality. Overcoming Hungary’s veto is more than a test of institutional resolve — it is a test of whether the EU can still deliver on its promise of membership to those risking everything for it.
The clash between democracy and authoritarianism now converges in the EU’s enlargement process. Enlargement was once the Union’s most powerful tool to spread democracy. Today, Hungary’s increasingly authoritarian leadership is holding that promise hostage. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s recent 'referendum' paves the way for long-term objection to Ukraine’s EU accession.
Enlargement was once the Union’s most powerful tool to spread democracy. Hungary's authoritarian leadership is holding that promise hostage
At the same time, EU accession is no longer an irresistible draw for every candidate. Moldova’s fragile pro-European policy and Georgia’s abrupt anti-European turn reveal how vulnerable the membership perspective has become in the increasingly contested neighbourhood. After decades of stalemates, the Western Balkans are also losing confidence that accession will ever materialise. The old belief in inevitable democratic progress can no longer shape EU policy.
Ukraine is the starkest test yet. The country now fields Europe’s largest and most battle-hardened armed forces — but remains governed by a hybrid regime whose democratic progress is far from assured. If disillusioned, Kyiv could easily drift towards euroscepticism or anti-Western politics. Securing Ukraine’s European path is therefore a matter of security, not just solidarity. Membership remains the EU’s strongest lever for democratisation — but only if the process can be rescued from an authoritarian veto.
The question is how. Several options are now on the table to break Hungary’s grip.
A number of proposals have emerged to suspend Hungary’s voting rights in the Council. Most focus on Article 7 — the EU’s so-called 'nuclear option' for addressing breaches of core values (not 'wrong' policy stances; see Juha Jokela's contribution to the TEPSA debrief). Activating the Article, however, is famously difficult. It requires unanimity, and Hungary’s ideological allies — first Poland, now Slovakia — can block any move.
Some suggest more creative legal routes. One idea is to invoke Article 10, arguing that Hungary’s democratic accountability has eroded to the point of violating the Union’s foundational principles. Others point to the 'duty of solidarity' in Article 2: if Hungary’s veto undermines that duty, the argument goes, it should be invalid.
Should the EU openly debate Hungary's expulsion? Signalling that exit is indeed a possibility could deter further backsliding
A more radical line of thinking is also gaining traction: that the EU should openly debate expulsion as a credible last resort. While legally fraught, simply signalling that exit is not unthinkable could deter further backsliding. In parallel, calls are growing to shift more Council decisions to qualified majority voting to limit the damage from any single spoiler state. However, rule changes also require unanimity.
Ultimately, Hungary’s voting rights fight goes far beyond Ukraine’s accession. The EU is already watching Hungary’s 2026 elections closely. How it handles Budapest’s veto power will send a powerful message to Hungarian citizens — but also to other would-be blockers — about whether the EU is serious about defending its strategic interests over illiberal obstruction. Keeping Hungary 'in' at any cost risks undermining the very foreign policy goals enlargement was meant to serve.
Freezing EU funds has been one way to pressure Budapest on rule of law breaches — but it may require different tools to break the deadlock on enlargement. We often underestimate the power of coordinated political pressure. Hungary’s constructive abstention from the 2023 European Council decision on accession talks with Ukraine shows what is possible when key member states push back forcefully against an obstructive veto.
Still, political pressure alone is not a sustainable fix. Vetoes must be sidestepped again and again throughout the lengthy accession process. And too often, a single state’s veto masks a wider reluctance among member states to move forward. If tacit support exists for blocking enlargement, it deserves open debate.
Ukrainian media recently reported on a plan for parallel talks between Brussels and Kyiv that would bypass Hungary. This could only advance Ukraine politically
Unconventional workarounds have also surfaced. Ukrainian media recently reported on a supposed Plan B for parallel talks between Brussels and Kyiv that would bypass Hungary. Even if real, such a track could only advance Ukraine politically: the legal step of joining the EU still requires a treaty-based process. Candidate countries have good reason to be wary. Past alternatives, like the European Political Community floated by France in 2022, were widely seen as substitutes for real accession — and met with suspicion across the region.
While countering Russia’s efforts to block Ukraine’s European integration necessitates military measures, addressing blocking behaviour — especially when the Union’s core values are at stake — requires equally extraordinary solutions. The challenge of political vetoes is not only an obstacle to enlargement – it is also a vulnerability of EU decision making that is expected to deepen after enlargement.
The EU does not lack options for addressing the problem; while none are without challenges, policymaking in the EU is ultimately about balancing competing policy goals. Framed clearly, this is not just about procedure: allowing Hungary’s veto to stand turns democratic norms into weapons for authoritarian ends.
