The Europe à la carte approach : the cases of Hungary and Poland

Abstract

This dissertation evaluates the concept of the "Europe à la carte" model of EU integration applied in Hungary and Poland. The study examines if and how soft Euroscepticism in these nations has resulted in selective participation in EU frameworks through a comparative analysis based on qualitative research, thematic, and secondary data analysis. The dissertation positions Hungary and Poland as representative of a larger conflict inside the EU between unity and national sovereignty, while engaging with the ideas of Europeanisation, flexible integration models, and Euroscepticism. Hungary and Poland have recently taken more confrontational positions on important EU policies, especially those pertaining to migration, LGBTQ+ rights, and the rule of law, even though their respective populations are generally in favour of EU membership, especially due to the economic advantages that it brings with it. Hungary’s confrontational approach kicked off in 2010 and started to intensify in 2015 up till now (Gulácsi and Kerényi, 2023). Poland’s conflicting approach with the EU meanwhile started to loom in 2015, upon the election of the Law and Justice Party in government and became evident in 2017 with the implementation of extensive reforms that reorganised the judicial system, shortened the tenures of existing judges, and giving out high posts to people close to the governing party, up until a change of government took place in 2023 (Liboreiro, 2024). These differences reflect a strategic embrace of the EU's advantages combined with opposition to perceived intrusions on national values and identity, rather than outright animosity toward the EU, as defined by hard Euroscepticism. The "Europe à la carte" strategy, in which member states only back EU initiatives that further their own domestic agendas, is consistent with this type of selective engagement (Brandi & Wohlgemuth, 2006). The research finds a pattern in both nations where the Law and Justice (PiS) party in Poland and Fidesz in Hungary adopt anti-EU rhetoric while still desire the advantages of EU funding and economic integration. The paradox is supported by public opinion data, which shows that strong hostility to several EU regulations coexists with high levels of popular support for EU membership. According to the findings, the "Europe à la carte" approach is used as a political narrative and a governance model to balance between the economic benefits of EU membership while preserving perceived national interests. This dissertation concludes that the EU's unity, solidarity, and legal consistency are at risk by the continued selective integration of influential member states. If left unchecked, it could legitimise a divided Europe that jeopardises the fundamental tenets of mutual accountability and collaborative governance.