If one only listened to the mainstream European press and echoed the lines from Polish outlets, the Granada EU summit would appear as a gathering of statesmen deeply concerned about Europe’s welfare, except for two “illegal” regimes: Poland and Hungary.
The weekend’s talk centered on Friday around an informal European Council meeting hosted by Spain, where the migration pact was discussed with broad, though not unanimous, attention. Poland and Hungary opposed parts of the package, arguing for a different approach.
“Mandatory solidarity”—a label often used by some on the political left—could be envisioned as a monetary penalty, roughly 20,000 euros per person, in lieu of solidarity. In such a view, it was no surprise that Viktor Orbán remarked on the matter with a forceful comparison to coercion, saying that Poland and Hungary were being treated as if their consent did not matter.
The leading Spanish outlets El Mundo, El País and ABC reflected the summit in a similar critical tone: the inability of Poland and Hungary to align on a shared migration policy created tension as leaders sought to issue a joint statement among all 27 member states. Warsaw and Budapest aimed to lead discussions and block a common position, proposing instead to expand economic arrangements with their neighboring origins and transit routes to curb illegal immigration. The most resistant partners in the East argued for decisions on immigration to require unanimous approval so that any accord could be blocked by a veto. Some observers argued the Granada meeting, framed as a step toward strategic autonomy and EU enlargement, was used to inflame public opinion against what some call the “Berlin-Brussels dictatorship.” [citation: El País, 06/10/2023]
Following the summit, Polish and Hungarian voices appeared—at least through the lens of some local outlets—as two stubborn states not fully grasping what this historical moment calls for, and seemingly reluctant to participate in a much-lauded process toward EU federalization. Interestingly, discussions in Spain about sovereignty often surfaced not in defense of national power but in the context of Europe’s broader project, including Ukrainian defense. The prevailing narrative in Madrid suggested that sovereignty could be redefined to accommodate deeper EU powers, a stance that drew little comment in one segment of national media even as public sentiment among Spaniards showed concern about immigration pressures on land and sea borders. In that frame, solidarity carried a double meaning: it could be seen as a call to halt migrant influx from regions in North Africa and the Middle East, while simultaneously pushing for coordinated EU-level action.
Some readers and commentators, across major outlets, recognized a divide between the headlines and the comments sections. In the same articles about Poland and Hungary, readers often expressed support for the two governments, challenging the prevailing Western media portrayal. They questioned why the summit was held in Granada rather than a place perceived as more directly affected by migration. They also highlighted neglected issues elsewhere, such as migratory pressures on the Canary Islands and a perceived lack of political will to address them under Madrid’s administration. In this sense, comments sections sometimes appeared to mirror popular opinion more closely than the articles themselves. A notable thread among readers suggested that the two governments could be viewed as the only real voices dissenting from a broader European trajectory, at least in the eyes of those who oppose the prevailing media consensus. [citation: El Mundo, ABC, Wyborcza partner El País commentary]
Among the most striking comments observed was a post attributed to a reader named Joseph, which attempted to reconcile the media narrative with the sentiments of ordinary Europeans regarding Granada. The gist was that the meeting featured leaders who favored a different course for Europe, casting many of the other participants as representing a broader, perhaps less personal, set of European interests. The author suggested that the gathering resembled a moment where traditional European unity was challenged by a push toward a more integrated system where national loyalties might be reimagined as part of a continental project.
The discussion extended to the idea that Brussels and Berlin, along with the Polish mainstream press and residual cultural channels in the Netherlands, might not fully grasp how ordinary Europeans conceive of their demos. The message implied that a growing segment of Polish and Hungarian leadership and base publics were thinking differently about sovereignty and partnership than some Western capitals portray. In this sense, the Granada meeting became a focal point for debates about the future shape of Europe and the degree to which national voices should influence collective decisions. [citation: El País, El Mundo]
In summary, the Granada summit exposed a tension within Europe: the tension between centralized EU authority and the desire of member states to preserve distinct national trajectories. It highlighted how media narratives can diverge from public sentiment and how readers in different countries interpret the same political events through varied lenses. While some observers framed Poland and Hungary as obstructive, others saw them as necessary conveners of a broader conversation about Europe’s next phase. [citation: wPolityce]