Loss of trust and a deepening rift: the Hungarian EU commissioner and his comment about idiots

"How many more idiots are there?"

– that's the clearly audible sentence on his microphone in the chamber of the European Parliament, which has put the Hungarian member of the European Commission under fire in the EP last week. But this is not the first conflict Olivér Várhelyi has had with MEPs, many of whom are calling for his resignation.

From EU matters to EU matters

According to his CV, Olivér Várhelyi has been working with EU issues in the Hungarian administration or in the European Commission itself for practically his entire career, starting as a trainee in 1995 at the Ministry of Industry and Trade and gradually working his way up the ranks. In 2001, before Hungary joined the EU, he became a legal adviser at the Hungarian Representation to the European Union, and returned to the Ministry of Justice in 2006 as Head of the Legal Department.

In 2008, he transferred to the European Commission, and in a spectacular way: he became Head of the Industrial Patents Unit in the Directorate-General for the Internal Market on a fixed-term contract, which, as the EUrologus blog wrote, is a very rare appointment and a credit to his expertise.

Orbán's apologist has been replaced by a mediator of his will

He switched to the Hungarian representation to the EU in 2011, first as its second-in-command and then in 2015 as its head. The role of an "EU embassy" is to represent the member state in the EU Council. Officially, it's the relevant ministers who vote in different configurations depending on the subject, but the preparation of the country's position and, on most of the less politically sensitive issues, the actual decision-making process is in practice done by the representations, with ministers often only having a formal approval role. The leader, especially if he or she has also held the post of deputy before, must have a basic understanding of almost everything the EU has competence in because of the division of competences between the two posts.

However, the 2015 change was part of a shift in emphasis on Hungarian EU policy. Várhelyi's predecessor, Péter Györkös, was a diplomatic leader with good relations with the international press, and along with him, according to a EUrologus article at the time, about a third of the representation was replaced. The then head of the Prime Minister's Office, János Lázár, who had taken over the supervision within the government a year earlier, indicated that Várhelyi and his staff had a big task ahead of them because they had to represent the Hungarian position firmly. According to 444, he justified the change by saying that the previous staff was "too professional in their approach" and "not combative enough".

One of the roots of the repeated criticisms of Várhelyi has been that, unlike Györkös, he has not so much explained Orbán as conveyed his will. The other objection was about how he has done this: according to 444, he was not going for deals, but for total victory, and in the negotiations, he sometimes spoke angrily, banged the table and was also prone to making personal remarks in the heat of a debate.

As a former member, he criticised the Commission, where he became a leader

Staff at the Permanent Representation of Hungary complained to Politico about his crude management style, which included shouting, yelling and swearing. One of them said he was "incredibly rude to his subordinates", while another cited swearing, shouting and "emotional terror". "He's not an easy man to deal with," one official described him, although, alongside sources cited as former employees in 2019, a then-embassy staffer called the criticisms exaggerated, while another described him as downright friendly. However, one source noted at the time that he was already speaking very negatively about the European Parliament and the Commission, even when officials from the latter were present.

So what Várhelyi said at a conference in Brussels in 2019 could be seen as self-characterisation: according to him, what is in the hearts of the people of Central Europe is in their mouths.

"We are not diplomats, we are blunt, but that's why we are the best partners for dialogue."

That year, he reached the peak of his professional career so far: he was nominated to replace László Trócsányi in the newly-formed European Commission. The former justice minister was caught up in a hearing in the European Parliament. MEPs cannot in principle vote out an individual Commissioner-designate, but they have to vote on the whole panel, before which the relevant committees hear the candidates. László Trócsányi was rejected because of a conflict of interest, so, as is customary, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asked Viktor Orbán for a new candidate.

The Hungarian prime minister chose Várhelyi, arguing that he could only delegate a "technocrat", not a political appointee. "At the time, I asked her to live with it."

The European Commission typically nominates politicians, such as ministers or even former heads of government, so they don't necessarily stand out for their expertise in a particular EU field (they can even nominate a shaman, for example, without further ado). Compared to them, a Hungarian Head of Representation, who has worked in public administration and has been trained in various EU fields, was a more neutral and prepared candidate. "The European Parliament can't really find fault with Olivér Várhelyi: he is a well-prepared professional with an outstanding intellect, who couldn't have had financial interests. What kind of person he is, is a different question" a source told EUrologus at the time of the nomination.

Orbán put a target on his back even before his appointment

But Várhelyi was in trouble before he was even made commissioner – and not through any fault of his own. Orbán promised Turkey and Azerbaijan at the 2019 meeting of the Turkic Council that if Várhelyi won the seat in charge of enlargement and neighbourhood policy, "we would be happy to be at your disposal to help your ambitions". Viktor Orbán's allies in the region, such as Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik and Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, were also delighted that the Hungarian government is providing the enlargement commissioner.

However, members of the European Commission cannot take instructions from the national government that nominates them, they must represent the EU as a whole. The EU's Quasi Constitution states that "Member States shall respect their independence and shall not seek to influence them". If they break the rules on independence, they can be removed by the European Court of Justice at the request of a member state or the European Commission, but the European Parliament can only remove the whole body, not individual members – at least not directly. It can, however, threaten to replace the whole European Commission if it does not remove someone.

Along with his time as a militantly pro-Orbán leader of the representation, he has already been a target in the EP. After his EP hearing, Várhelyi had to answer supplementary questions, which are usually asked of candidates who are weak on the issues. Unsurprisingly, given his professional record, it was not so much his preparation that was the problem: the first question was about his independence, and the next two were about the rule of law – foreshadowing that MEPs fear that standards would be lowered in these areas with the EU accession and neighbourhood policy under Várhelyi's leadership.

Politico: Várhelyi and his cabinet softened the report on Serbia

This suspicion did not die during his work as Commissioner. In 2021, in an interview to Politico, an EU diplomat called Várhelyi

"the Voldemort of EU enlargement"

who follows the script of his bosses in Budapest, "keeps in with authoritarian leaders" and does not deal with rule of law issues. Several MEPs voiced similar criticism to the newspaper, which quoted Commission sources as saying that Várhelyi's cabinet had given a facelift to the rule of law part of the country report on Serbia.

The European Commission publishes an annual assessment of the candidate countries to summarise their progress towards accession. The 2021 report was negatively assessed by the European Commission's Directorate General for Legal Affairs, and a report from Várhelyi and his cabinet on Serbia had to be hardened by others, according to the paper.

Várhelyi and his cabinet also took issue with a report by the EU's Court of Auditors, which described the state of the rule of law in Serbia as "grim". A commission official said there was a lot of pressure on them to make it possible for Serbia to open new accession chapters and that the staff was being asked to "cut corners" (to join the EU, candidates have to receive the EU legal documentation, which is divided into chapters by subject, all of which have to be opened and then closed when the work is done.)

They also complained to the paper that the Commissioner seemed to be biased in the other direction on the North Macedonia issue. The country was led by Nikola Gruevski between 2006 and 2016, until he was ousted after a wiretapping scandal. His escape was assisted by the Hungarian government and he was granted asylum in Hungary, while he was convicted in several proceedings in his home country. In 2019, the new leadership changed the country's name to accommodate the Greeks, who had blocked its accession, after which Bulgaria vetoed the move.

A source complained to Politico that Várhelyi had made "unhelpful" proposals to Bulgaria that had already been rejected by other member states, and that he had proposed opening accession negotiations with Albania without Northern Macedonia. Both had met the conditions, but this two-speed solution would have been "punishing North Macedonia", said German MEP Romeo Franz.

According to a member of the Directorate-General for Enlargement, Várhelyi also avoided criticism of NGOs and the media in Turkey. The newspaper obtained several documents from which passages criticising the treatment of the media and the LGBTQ community had been extracted.

In July 2022, Deutsche Welle wrote about "Orbán's man in Brussels", and in the article, the Commissioner's colleagues complained that

"critical sentences about, for example, Serbian media freedom were taken out of our reports, and bad assessments were changed for the better".

They asked for an investigation in vain

The European Parliament finally called for an inquiry into the Hungarian commissioner in January this year (the motion for an inquiry was passed with 357 votes in favour, 180 against and 95 abstentions) because, according to the body, he "deliberately seeks to circumvent and undermine the central importance of democratic and rule of law reforms in the EU accession countries". Petitioner Thijs Reuten told Hungarian daily Népszava that he wanted to see clearly whether the Hungarian EU commissioner was "doing his job independently of any political influence and taking into account the general interests of the EU". The Dutch socialist MEP said that Várhelyi is careful to say what is expected of him in public, "but in practice, some of his statements are extremely worrying".

The chair of the Fidesz delegation to the European Parliament called the request for an investigation an undeserved political attack. According to Kinga Gál, Várhelyi's professional performance is outstanding, and his statements represent the official position of the EU, and the hysteria can also serve as a distraction from the corruption scandal in Brussels. She considered the criticism of the Hungarian commissioner as unprecedented and unfair because according to her, the Hungarian commissioner

"plays a key role in giving the EU's enlargement policy renewed impetus".

She said that the "anti-enlargement" left's "accusations without factual evidence are a serious risk for the future of the European Union" because "they could even be a serious obstacle to enlargement".

The commissioner was also defended by the European Commission. In response to Népszava, they said that at the beginning of his mandate, Várhelyi presented a revised enlargement methodology, which puts democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights even more at the heart of the accession process. "Progress towards accession will continue to be determined by the pace of reforms in the area of the rule of law." In the end, the body did not open an inquiry.

The Hungarian commissioner would not have much chance to change the European Commission's position on his own, simply because the body decides jointly. As previous examples have shown, country reports are drafted jointly by several Commission directorates-general (quasi-secretariats), so they can improve on the wide divergences – although there is no doubt that Várhelyi is best placed to influence EU enlargement policy.

He regrets – not the statement, but the misunderstanding

It was in this situation that Várhelyi's remark on idiots exploded. He was taking part in a routine debate in the European Parliament, where he was answering Croatian MEP Tomislav Sokol on what he was doing about Serbia interfering in the internal affairs of other Balkan countries and being on good terms with the Russians. Immediately after his reply in English, he sat down to give his opinion in Hungarian into the microphone, which was still on.

Sokol thinks that his question may have angered the Commissioner, but Várhelyi was not talking about MEPs, according to his explanation a day later. He defended his comment by saying that it was part of an ongoing private conversation with his chief of staff on a completely different matter, which was taken out of context, and that he regretted – not the statement, but the fact that it had been misunderstood.

As to the background of the sentence and the reasons behind its interpretation, it is also worth knowing that there is a rift between the MEPs and the national experts in the Commission, as it has become clear after some of our previous background discussions. For example, the latter are recruited on a highly competitive basis, from a waiting list, and a good number of these experts consider elected MEPs and their assistants, often from the communications field, who are often on friendly terms with them because of their position of trust, to be less prepared.

The explanation was not enough for everyone. "Frankly, there are very, very few people who believe him," said opposition party Momentum's MEP Katalin Cseh in an EP speech. Socialist Delara Burkhardt called the apology a joke. Another MEP of Hungarian opposition party DK, Sándor Rónai called for his resignation, "especially because his fake apology shifted the responsibility to our parliament".

According to Politico, his DK party colleague Csaba Molnár sent a circular to MEPs on Tuesday demanding the commissioner's resignation. Guy Verhofstadt, the former Liberal leader said he would have the Hungarian commissioner sacked by his boss, Ursula von der Leyen, "otherwise he risks losing the confidence of the entire European Parliament".

Removing him could backfire

The threat is not entirely empty. The European Parliament can ask the Commission President to have a commissioner resign, who must consider this and, if he or she refuses, an explanation must be given to the MEPs. But the EP cannot directly force a single member to resign.

Ultimately, he or she could even have the entire European Commission resign, putting pressure on the body by this threat – if it doesn't consider it a bluff. In the first round, a signature of at least a tenth of the 705 MEPs would be needed, but a two-thirds majority would be needed for the subsequent vote. Signatures to replace the Ursula von der Leyen-led body were collected once before, following the adopting of the Polish recovery plan, and the Hungarian government says there was a similar initiative to replace it because of the controversy over EU subsidies to Hungary, but none of the attempts even got as far as calling a vote.

Even if the majority for such a drastic move could be found, it is doubtful that the biggest centre-right European People's Party would agree to dissolve the European Commission led by one of its members, and the leftists can hardly scrape together a two-thirds majority without them, unless they join forces with Eurosceptics and anti-EU groups.

The board would be up for re-election in about a year and a half anyway, but even if Várhelyi resigns before then, it would still be up to the Hungarian government to nominate a successor.

This process – unlike the 'normal' full replacement of the Commission – would not even need a single vote of consent from the European Parliament, only a 'consultation', meaning that Viktor Orbán could push a candidate who irritates the EP much more into the body.

In the past, there has been an example of the entire European Commission resigning. In 1999, several members of the Commission led by Jacques Santer were accused of corruption and, under pressure from the EP, the whole Commission decided to resign. The resignation of some of the commissioners would not be unprecedented either, although most often they resigned in order to move to the European Parliament or perhaps to other organisations. In 2012, John Dalli resigned from his commission post due to corruption allegations and an investigation by the EU's anti-corruption body. In 2020, the downfall of Trade Commissioner John Hogan was caused by a golf party in the middle of the lockdowns due to the coronavirus outbreak.

The Commission accepted Várhelyi's explanation

European Commission spokesman Eric Mamer stressed on Wednesday that the Commission President expects the Commissioners to show the utmost respect for the EU institutions and their members and that the Commissioners should refrain from any comments that could be interpreted as insulting. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen acknowledged Várhelyi's apology and explanation and said that no investigation against him is planned, despite the January call to do so.

Even if the European Parliament wanted to, it is unlikely that it could expel Várhelyi from the Commission in the face of its unified position, but it is difficult to imagine what a routine question-and-answer session with MEPs like the one in February would look like after this.