The Lisbon Treaty appeared to restrict the powers of the EU Council presidency in external affairs. But it might also have made the powers of a presidency more flexible. Kaja Kaźmierska describes how a reshuffling of leadership positions in the EU affected the role of the presidency
The rotating presidency of the EU Council has existed since the founding of the European Union. It is one of very few examples in which the EU treats member states' equality literally. Regardless of the size of the country, its population or when it joined the EU, each country presides over the Council for exactly six months. Countries rotate in a pre-established order so that each one holds the presidency every 13–14 years.
The 2007 Lisbon Treaty did not amend the formal features of the presidency. However, it did limit the presidency's political powers. In accordance with the Treaty, an office of the President of the European Council has been created, and the tasks of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security have broadened. This has reduced the external impact of the presidency’s role. The state holding the presidency no longer chairs the Foreign Affairs Council. This is now the responsibility of the High Representative.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, the High Representative gained the right of initiative in common foreign and security policy, including defence. The High Representative coordinates all EU external actions in the Council and the Commission, and ensures their coherence. They hold all the powers that were traditionally the responsibility of the presidency. They represent the EU in foreign and security policy matters, agree with the European Parliament on the main directions of this policy, and inform Parliament of the main developments.
The rotating presidency of the EU Council is one of very few examples in which the EU treats member states' equality literally
Yet, the presidency continues to play a central role in steering and coordinating day-to-day European policy. It chairs the General Affairs Council, which is responsible for ensuring the coherence of the work of all Council formations.
The Lisbon Treaty may have de jure reduced the competencies of the presidency in the area of external politics. But the extent to which the presidency de facto maintains these competencies may depend on the individual presidency and case-by-case arrangements.
The current Polish Presidency, and Hungary's preceding presidency, constitute an interesting case study. Hungary is the EU country most criticised for democratic backsliding. Poland, by contrast, is the poster child for returning to the values of rule of law. These days, the two countries could not be further from each other in their relationship with the EU. Interestingly, their presidencies also mirror the presidencies of 2011 on a personal level. Poland and Hungary both had the same PMs during their presidencies: Donald Tusk and Viktor Orbán respectively.
In 2011, Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski acted as the High Representative's deputy on ten occasions. Such delegations by the High Representative to the foreign ministers of the country holding the presidency were regulated during the Polish 2011 presidency.
Donald Tusk's 2011 'Europe is the answer' speech in the European Parliament attracted positive comments across Europe. Tusk stressed the importance of unity in Europe, and the strength of the EU. The speech gave a clear sign that during its presidency, Poland would not give in to Eurosceptics' increasingly loud voices. Sikorski gave a speech in Berlin emphasising the importance of a stronger Germany for the EU, and calling for greater integration.
Donald Tusk's 2011 speech in the European Parliament stressed the importance of unity. In 2025, he once again emphasised the need for a united Europe on a continent threatened by war
The thirteen years between the two Polish presidencies were politically turbulent, with the populist Law and Justice Party in power for most of it. The second Polish presidency is taking place under Donald Tusk’s new government. Once again, Tusk gave a momentous opening speech in the European Parliament. His motto for this Polish presidency, Security, Europe!, emphasised the necessity for a united Europe on a continent threatened by war. The Polish Foreign Minister – once again, Radosław Sikorski – has taken over multiple High Representative duties. He represented Kaja Kallas in the UN Security Council, joined talks with NATO’s Mark Rutte, and travelled to meetings in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Just before Poland's presidency, Sikorski suggested that the foreign minister of the country holding the presidency should become vice-High Representative. While this has not happened, the Polish Foreign Minister's prominent role suggests that the presidency has indeed retained some competencies in EU external affairs since the Lisbon Treaty.
The Hungarian presidency in 2024 was vastly different. In light of the country's democratic backsliding, many expected the EU to cancel or at least postpone it. The EU’s accomplishments from that period, such as opening the Schengen zone to Bulgaria and Romania, were not achieved as a result of Hungary's presidency. EU ministers cancelled official visits to Hungary; the European Commission also cancelled a planned session in the country. The role of the presidency in the EU was marginalised during Hungary's six-month tenure.
In light of Hungary's democratic backsliding, many expected the EU to cancel or at least postpone the country's 2024 European Council presidency
Interestingly, in external affairs, Viktor Orbán claimed to be representing the EU on behalf of the presidency. During his 'peace mission' to Moscow, he – controversially – used the EU presidency logo. EU institutions rushed to clarify that the presidency had no competencies in external relations and that Orbán, therefore, did not speak on behalf of the EU. Indeed, the High Representative, the European Council President, the European Commission president and many EU heads of state issued statements to that end.
The EU, during various presidencies, has sent contradictory signals concerning the position and competencies of the presidency. In theory, the presidency offers equality to member states. In practice, however, it distinguishes between them. The 'good students' are allowed to do more. This, I argue, makes the presidency an instrument in intra-EU power negotiations.
