Rainbow Flags and a European Crossroads
(Associated Press)
The rainbow flags that filled Munich’s Allianz Arena during the European Championships soccer game between Germany and Hungary on June 23, 2021, signaled the approach of a new storm cloud over the European Union. A week prior, Hungary’s pseudo-autocratic ruling party Fidesz and its prime minister, Viktor Orban, passed a law banning the depiction of LGBTQ content in schools or for anyone under 18 years old. The justification given was typical for the Hungarian government, which sees itself as a bulwark against anti-Christian forces within Europe. Its aim is to prevent children from “confus[ing] their developing moral values or their image of themselves or the world.” In so many words, to ensure children are not given information about identities that conflict with the conservative Catholicism desired by the state.
Munich’s mayor hastened to react to the law, vowing to light the exterior of Allianz Arena in rainbow colors as a display of inclusion and as a rebuke to the law. UEFA, European soccer’s governing body, stepped in next, banning the display because of its “political nature” since it, unlike the rainbow captain’s armband worn by German goalkeeper Manuel Neuer, directly replied to the events in Hungary and was not a pre-approved symbol of “inclusion.” UEFA’s actions were widely condemned throughout Germany. Many German soccer clubs lit their own stadiums up in support of LGBTQ rights, and German midfielder Leon Goretzka made a heart with his fingers in the direction of Hungary supporters after scoring a decisive goal that sent Germany to the next round of the tournament.
The drama didn’t end there. At the semi-annual EU summit at the end of June, Hungary’s new anti-LGTBQ law was front and center. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte strongly made his opinion known, saying that Hungary “has no business being in the European Union any more.” German chancellor Angela Merkel, who allowed the German Parliament to vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage despite voting against it herself just four years ago, said, “I think this law is wrong and also not compatible with my ideas.”
The Hungarian law was just the latest episode in a growing conflict between three Eastern European states, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia, and the European Union, and it begs the question: what does the European Union actually stand for?
The EU lists six values as inherent to the “European way of life:” Human Dignity, Freedom, Democracy, Equality, Rule of Law, and Human Rights. The Hungarian law flatly contradicts the stated commitment of EU member states to human rights and the EU Charter explicitly bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. And yet, will the EU take action?
The difficulty of actually sanctioning EU member states for transgressions derives from an unfortunate fact: despite forfeiting some aspects of sovereignty to the European project in return for collective gains, particularly over monetary policy, member states remain sovereign. And, like the framework of international law, much is reliant upon voluntary respect for agreed upon rules and regulations. The EU has repeatedly run into this issue when trying to sanction Poland for politicizing its judiciary, which flatly contravenes the Rule of Law value. The EU can demand that Poland change, but Poland acquiescing is another matter. Yes, Article 7 of the EU treaty exists, which is intended to suspend the rights of states which have committed a serious breach with the values or policies of the EU. And yes, it has, in fact, been triggered against both Hungary and Poland. But virtually nothing has happened since then, and how exactly an Article 7 process would play out remains unknown. Furthermore, no mechanism to remove member states from the EU exists, ruling out Dutch PM Rutte’s desired outcome.
The EU is not simply based on social values, however. Instead, its major accomplishment has been the creation of the Common Market uniting European economies, underscored by the use of most member states of the Euro. In so doing, member states forfeited portions of their economic sovereignty to the EU. And, as part of this economic framework, each country pays a small percentage of its gross domestic product to fund the EU budget, some of which is returned to member countries as part of development payments. Poorer countries receive much more money than do richer governments, as, once the money is in EU coffers, it is distributed based on need.
Many Eastern European countries are net recipients of EU funding, and Poland and Hungary received the first and fourth most money from the EU in 2017, respectively. Poland and Hungary jealously guard these payments. Despite rejecting the social values of the EU, they demand full economic rights and take umbrage at the idea that these, especially their cherished EU payments, could be revoked.
Thus, the EU must decide: is it primarily an economic union with accompanying social values that, while held in the majority of European democracies, are essentially voluntary? Or is it now a social union with a hugely important economic component? These are questions that the EU must grapple with if it wants to maintain any semblance of internal coherence.
If the EU decides to relegate social values to second position behind economic development, the future will likely look similar to the present. Poland and Hungary, and to a lesser extent Slovenia, will remain out of step with the civic cultures of the other member states unless elections sweep the ruling parties out of power, a possibility in both Hungary and Slovenia in 2022. Tensions will continue to simmer, particularly over LGBTQ rights but also over issues, such as abortion, that unite conservative Catholic and political leadership. Lacking the political means to oust the wayward states, however, an unhappy equilibrium would likely emerge.
Alternatively, the EU could decide that they prefer a more cohesive union based on social values. In this case, Hungary and Poland, barring electoral change, would be removed from the EU in a procedure of questionable legality. To give a short rap sheet for the pair: in 2021, Poland introduced a near-total abortion ban, while it is very difficult to obtain one in Hungary; politicization of the judiciary in Poland; and the anti-LGBTQ law in Hungary, to mention just a few. Their removal would send a message to other member states: the economic benefits of membership do not come with no strings attached. This would be a difficult process, especially for Poland, who is also a member of the currency union. Furthermore, it could have negative consequences for persecuted groups within those countries who currently have at least the specter of EU support.
For the author, the answer is clear. The EU must not allow member states to drift towards authoritarianism while still reaping the economic benefits of EU membership. Without economic support from the EU, Poland and Hungary’s hyper-conservative ruling parties would face real pressure to change course.
Article 7 proceedings against Poland and Hungary must resume.
For obvious reasons, the EU cannot mandate an ideological disposition of member governments, nor would that necessarily be desirable. But member states must respect the values of the EU, values which they affirmed when joining the bloc and which they have repeatedly reaffirmed during numerous EU treaty updates. Should they not, they need to face consequences, beginning with the revocation of the aforementioned development payments—payments that have propped up economic growth in states like Hungary and Poland.
The European Union will likely never become a true federal state like the United States, as some once dreamed. This lessens its ability to take decisive action on issues of internal concern, but it cannot close its eyes to the blatant transgressions of its member states. It cannot remove member states, but it must act with the leverage it has.
The recent backlash to the Hungarian LGBTQ law shows that Europe possesses a moral compass, even if it chooses to ignore it at times. It’s not enough on the part of European heads of state to merely pay lip service to the illiberal policies of Hungary and Poland. Political risks will have to be taken, and much could depend upon the elections in Germany and France in this and next year, respectively. The time is now, however, to turn outrage into action. By choosing economic ties over human dignity, the EU would be making a rational choice in a global market economy, but not a moral one. It must not economically support countries who turn around and persecute their own people. As we look to the future and experience the consequences of centuries of economic growth at the expense of all other considerations, we must begin asking not just if something makes economic sense, but if it is a moral choice to make. This would be a huge reorientation for policymakers the world over, but it’s a change that becomes more essential every day. Not every politician may be as bold as Mark Rutte, but an accepting, open, inclusive European project is a concept worth fighting for.