The Orbán von der Leyen Showdown: A European Telenovela
Ah, Europe! A land of fine cheeses, questionable directions, and politicians who could turn a tea party into a blood feud. Last Wednesday, we were treated to the latest episode of the European Parliament drama, featuring Viktor Orbán and Ursula von der Leyen. Grab your popcorn, folks—this one’s a doozy!
A Clash of Titans (Sort of)
In one corner, we have Viktor Orbán, the rotating president of the EU Council. Not quite a title you’d want on your business card, but here we are. And in the other corner, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission. This pair decided to throw the usual diplomatic niceties out the window in favor of a good old-fashioned brawl over European politics.
Now, instead of giving us a riveting presentation about Hungary’s six-month EU presidency—cue the wild applause—Orbán chose to act like the ultimate opposition leader. He had complaints lined up like they were on sale! His main target? The EU’s support of Ukraine against good ol’ Putin, which he deemed a “failure.” Yes, because who needs unity and solidarity when you can bask in the warm glow of *nationalism*?
Orbán: “Support for Ukraine? Poorly planned!” Sounds like someone didn’t read the manual for international diplomacy!
Orbán’s Bold (But Questionable) Stance
Orbán went on to suggest that the EU should cozy up to Russia, claiming that being friendly with military aggressors is the way forward. Because what could possibly go wrong with that approach? He even kept his 15-year Gazprom contract warm and fuzzy. I mean, who needs morally sound decisions when you’ve got a warm home heating system?
Turning to domestic policy, Orbán launched an attack against the Green Deal, calling it “suffocating” and a route to the de-industrialization of Europe. He wants to decentralize decisions about industrial policy—because we all know how well that worked in medieval times! No wonder he omitted any real alternatives to the current policies he berated.
The Counterattack: A Lesson in Diplomacy
Now enters von der Leyen, armed with clarity and a sharp one-liner or two. She pointed out, rather wonderfully, that blaming victims (Zelensky) for being invaded is a solid strategy… for getting booted out of polite society! Her quip about condemning Hungarians for the Soviet invasion was particularly delicious, and maybe even a tad bit savage on her part!
She marked Russia as a sworn enemy of peace, and laid out that cooperation with China isn’t all sunshine and rainbows—there’s a bit of rivalry in the air! If Orbán’s views scream “let’s all be friends with our competing adversaries,” von der Leyen simply interjected with a spirited “not today!”
She served up a reminder that a competitive European economy needs coordination, not decentralization. Take notes, Orbán!
Orbán vs. von der Leyen: Does Anyone Have Alternatives?
But here’s the rub, folks. Orbán may be throwing verbal grenades left and right, but he’s not exactly offering a buffet of viable alternatives. He shoots down the support for Ukraine without suggesting a peaceful resolution—like a middle schooler throwing a tantrum without proposing a solution to the homework he missed!
And let’s not forget his cozy relationship with businesses linked to his government while criticizing EU institutions that prop up the single market. Curious, isn’t it? A bit like critiquing a lifeguard while you’re busy holding your breath at the bottom of the pool!
What’s Next for Giorgia Meloni?
As the dust settles, what’s in store for Giorgia Meloni and her merry band of European Conservatives? Will she cozy up to Orbán’s hardline nationalism, or will she opt for a more moderate stance with von der Leyen and her crew? In these heated times, Italy—and the rest of Europe—will soon find out where allegiances lie!
In this increasingly polarized Europe, it looks like one thing’s for certain: it’s time to pick a side. But hey, I’ll still offer a cup of tea and a biscuit to whichever politician needs a moment of clarity between shouting matches. After all, it’s a small EU. Let’s keep the drama on the silver screen!
Listen to the audio version of the article
Personality has something to do with it, but above all politics. Last Wednesday, in the European Parliament, Viktor Orbán, rotating president of the Council of Ministers of the European Union (EU), and Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, openly clashed over European politics, making waste of consensual tradition of the latter. Orbán spoke as the leader of the Patriots for Europe (the parliamentary grouping of the nationalist right which includes Matteo Salvini’s League and the National Gathering of Marine Le Pen) and von der Leyen as the leader of the parliamentary majority. The EU is becoming politicised. What are the implications?
Instead of presenting the program of the Hungarian six-month presidency, Viktor Orbán spoke as the leader of the opposition, questioning the main choices made by the previous (2019-2024) European Commission led by Ursula von der Leyen.
In the field of foreign policy, he criticized the unequivocal support given to the Ukrainian government committed to defending itself from Russian aggression. For Orbán, that support turned out to be a failure because it was “poorly planned and worse still implemented”. Having refused to negotiate with Putin, Zelensky has led his country into a dead end, still having to accept Russian territorial claims, despite the immense human losses his country has suffered. For Orban, the EU should promote relations of collaboration, and not of confrontation, with Russia, given the latter’s military and economic strength (and its geographical location). That’s why Hungary opposed the energy embargo against Russia, preserving its 15-year contract with Gazprom. This also applies to the relationship with China, a great power worth keeping as friends. Thus, the Hungarian government recently opened its borders to Russian and Belarusian workers, as well as Chinese security officials. For Orbán, the EU’s internal policies have also proven to be a failure. In particular, the policies of Green Deal that “they are suffocating” businesses, imposing constraints that will lead to the de-industrialization of Europe. For Orbán, European competitiveness, proposed by the Draghi Report, will have to be achieved through both the de-bureaucratization of regulatory policies and the national decentralization of industrial policy decisions. Furthermore, for him, the EU’s migration policy is a prisoner of ideological prejudices, as that policy considers immigrants a resource and not a problem. Hence, his support for the policies of offshoringwith immigrants placed in hot spots outside the EU where their requests can be examined.
Von der Leyen’s response did not lack clarity. On foreign policy, the division with Orbán and the Patriots is clear. «How is it possible – said von der Leyen – to condemn those who were invaded and not those who invaded? It would be like condemning the Hungarians for the Soviet invasion of their country in 1956 or the Czechoslovakians for the Soviet repression of 1968.” For von der Leyen, Putin’s Russia is an enemy of peace and stability, a country with imperial ambitions that are incompatible with the principles of international and European law. Thus, the relationship with China, for von der Leyen, must be placed in a context of geostrategic rivalry, and not just cooperation. Also because China does not respect the rules of international trade, subsidizing its high-tech companies which are conquering European markets. As regards competitiveness, von der Leyen argued that it requires greater coordination between member states, not a decentralization of economic choices. And if the Green Deal it will have to be implemented pragmatically, helping businesses and families in the transition process, however it cannot be thought of defending it the state in which in a context of radical change. There is a risk of technological dependence on China and America in the coming years. Finally, von der Leyen did not declare herself against the offshoring in migration policy, but has shown itself to be aware of the legal and humanitarian risks that they imply.
Viktor Orbán’s merit was to openly challenge the majority that supports von der Leyen. Its demerit is that it does not offer alternatives to the policies pursued by the European Commission. Orbán is against supporting Ukraine, but does not say how to achieve an acceptable peace with Russia. It is against the Green Dealbut it doesn’t say what to replace it with. He wants a competitive European economy, but then favors, in his country, a small group of companies linked to him. He criticizes the institutions that make the single market work, but then defends the policy of the structural funds which would be unthinkable without the role of those institutions. In any case, Orbán is verticalizing the relationship between the parliamentary majority and opposition, reducing the political space for the parliamentary grouping of Giorgia Meloni’s European Conservatives. In fact, the latter are part of the nationalist right but do not share the pro-Russia and anti-European Commission radicalism of Orbán and the Patriots. What will Giorgia Meloni do, will she converge towards the majority or will she remain in the opposition? In a politicized Europe, we must choose.
