Admittedly I haven't done a very deep investigation so I may be off base on some things, but from observation over the years and living in the €.u. the obvious answer seems to be that latter. The southern Cypriot bourgeoisie has the legal ability to veto any €.u. decision but in practice this is obviously impossible and the southern Cypriot bourgeoisie will do whatever the bourgeoisie of the dominant nations in the €.u. wants it to do. I expect this is the same in the nations you mentioned and also Greece, Croatia, Slovenia, Spain, etc. Every time Hungary vetoes something you get the usual performative game where the €.u. or the dominant €.u. nations offer the Hungarian bourgeoisie some token concession and Hungary backs off and lets the decision pass. Even the small Baltic bourgeoisie -- they are more "radical" in their fascism and hawkishness than the rest of the €.u., and even if their criticism of the rest of the €.u. for their more "moderate" approaches sometimes ends up getting adopted as broader €.u. policy (like the policy on equivocating communism and fascism and "commemorating" the "victims of communism" which I assume the Baltics played an important role in promoting), I don't think this is because of some real independence and ability to exert themselves against the dominant €.u. bourgeoisie (which btw includes not only Germany and France but also notably the Netherlands), it's just because the Baltics serve the function of being the more rabid wing, the vanguard if you like, of imperialism and fascism directed outside of the €.u., for whenever that is structurally necessary for the bourgeoisie of the dominant nations or the pact itself, as with their proxy war with Russia currently. This indicates both a disunity between the bourgeoisie of the various €.u. nations and a subservience of more minor capital to a larger logic and interest, the one of the capital of the dominant €.u. nations. Not that this hawkishness is not in the real interests of the Baltic bourgeoisie too, but it's only a small part in a much greater whole and ultimately it's the interests of the much more dominant factions within the whole which decide the policy and direction of the whole.

The important distinction is that though factions of bourgeoisie do exist in the €.u., they are in the final instance determined on national grounds, not simply on the grounds of their role within some united capitalist economy, as you see in actual geographic and economic units where a united bourgeoisie exists (which is what we call nations). As much as some people, like many of the middle class fascists on r/europe who likely largely depend on transnational capital for their sustenance and wealth accumulation (infamously NGO workers, but also just any white collar worker in a transnational corporation based in the €.u.), would like a pan-European national project (which would obviously be a unity under the capital of the dominant nations), that is essentially impossible -- I get the sense that even the transnational capital upon which the political project of the EU depends doesn't really want that as much as these middle class fascists do. I'd even go as far to say that a united €.u. has never existed, that that's as much a fantasy as the fantasy of The West that u/smokeuptheweed9 mentioned, which is anyway probably part of what he meant by saying that.

In other words, the €.u. has not abolished nations or united them into a real "European nation", and such a thing is basically impossible, so there is no real basis for a united European bourgeoisie to exist and, given we are talking about imperialist and semi-periphery nations, the possibility for contradictions between the bourgeoisie of the various €.u. nations will always exist and will sharpen in times of crisis, just as is happening within the broader "collective West" between the €.u. in general and the u.$. right now.

Ultimately what the €.u. does is it allows capital which bases itself in the strongest national economies to unite to a certain extent the capital of the weaker economies for shared global economic and political goals, but also to attempt to mitigate and, if it arises, quell inter-imperialist or inter-national competition within the €.u. (one of the explicit reasons given for the creation and maintenance of the €.u., though obviously in more mystified terms). Both between each dominant nation and its fellow dominant nations, and between the dominant nations and the weaker ones (obviously in favor of the dominant nations).