The European Union needs member states to take a firm stance in favour of both their national interests and the European interests they believe to be right. In pursuing these practical policies of common sense, Hungary is leading the way.
Twenty years ago, Hungarians decided in a referendum to join the European Union. This year, Hungary will hold its fifth European Parliament elections; and it will assume the presidency of the Council of the EU for the second time. As far as the institutional framework is concerned, one could say that everything is in order: Hungarian membership in the EU, and its participation in common affairs, are both running smoothly.
However, this is not the case. There are obvious signs of a general political crisis concerning the functioning of the European Union. This problem is highlighted in the case of Hungary. When it comes to crucial issues, the Hungarian government does not shy away from confrontation.
The crux of the problem is that there is currently a desire to create an over-centralised political union—a federalised ‘United States of Europe’—without the conditions for this being in place. On the one hand, there is no such thing as a united European people; there is no European demos. On the other hand, such a step forward in European cooperation cannot be deduced from the EU treaties in force. This is compounded by the fact that the EU institutions in Brussels are showing typical signs of the proliferation of bureaucratic attitudes.
Instead of reasonable political and economic cooperation, there is a growing tendency toward self-serving centralisation and an aggressive, stigmatising stance against traditional conservative views. This is fundamentally at odds with the interests of the member states that make up the Union and, above all, of European citizens—and this trend now threatens the very functioning of the Union.
The creation of a ‘United States of Europe’ was an unrealistic and ill-conceived idea from the moment it was first presented; and, a century later, it has not become any more realistic. We have to face the fact that Europe is diverse and made up of different nations and different cultural traditions. The way in which different parts of the continent envision their future may also vary significantly.
If, for example, some western European nations feel that, instead of focusing on self-preservation and self-defence, it is more desirable to integrate into a new, multicultural mix, then we believe they have the right to make such a decision. However, they cannot impose that path on anyone else. We are the only ones who can decide our own country’s future, and we Hungarians will not give in to external pressure.
It is a well-known fact that every bureaucratic institution is increasingly focused on maintaining itself, unless strict rules and regular external control prevent it from doing so. The history of the Union has been marked by the constant efforts of both the European Commission and the European Parliament to extend their powers. However, the Commission has now distanced itself from all the characteristics defined by the treaties: it has become a partisan, ideologically biassed actor rather than an impartial guardian of the treaties. Reading the Commission’s proposals and draft regulations, we are slowly getting used to the fact that Brussels’ initiatives both regularly infringe upon member states’ sovereignty, and also pursue EU legislation on issues that do not fall under the EU’s competence.
These are increasingly sensitive issues, often affecting the constitutional identity and moral values of member states. Among these are the neo-Marxist woke ideology; the promotion of LGBTQ ideology that is now reaching the point of absurdity; matters concerning marriage, family, and child-rearing; and the push to accept unrestrained migration as a means to change Europe’s ethno-cultural identity.
In addition, the functioning of the EU is characterised by a complacent, moralising attitude, especially in its external relations. This is, in fact, the latest version of colonialism: this time, western Europe wants to impose its own increasingly radicalised neo-leftist ideology on the whole world. Not a parliamentary session goes by in Strasbourg without the European Parliament lecturing a distant country on political correctness. It goes without saying that the EU has no competency in these matters, the European Parliament even less so. Nevertheless, they push through these completely unnecessary and counterproductive declarations. Worse still, the role of the European ‘morality police’ became truly absurd when the details of the Brussels corruption scandal (Qatargate) were exposed.
What are the implications in terms of Hungarian political advocacy? And how should Hungary respond? Given the dismal state of affairs, many people think that it is time to leave the EU and stop fighting a war that often seems hopeless. Another question thus arises: “If the British have succeeded, why can’t we?”
First of all, the Hungarian Szoboszlai Dominik may be in the UK’s Premier League, butas a country we are not playing ball in the same league as the British. Brexit is therefore simply not a good analogy—neither in terms of our economic strength and potential, nor in terms of our political room for manoeuvring, nor in terms of our fundamental national interests.
As a central European nation, with a significant number of our compatriots outside our current borders, we have a clear interest in close European cooperation. Being able easily to cross borders is a huge advantage for us, which is why it is important to complete enlargement in the western Balkans as soon as possible, instead of pushing for the accession of Ukraine, which is clearly not eligible for membership at the moment.
We also need to take joint action to protect the EU’s external borders, because free movement within the Schengen Area can only be maintained if we put an end to the increasingly serious challenge of illegal immigration.
The creation of the common market, educational and cultural cooperation, the common agricultural policy (CAP), cohesion policy—these are all obvious EU achievements. They must be protected; they must continue to function. Political witch hunts cannot be a sustainable model in the long term, as ever more member states and democratic political forces recognise.
We need to uphold the EU treaties currently in force, and we need to find allies to bring Europe back to politics based on common sense. Millions of Europeans across the continent are waiting for this, and it is good to know that Viktor Orbán’s policies are gaining support among Europeans.
However, it is also a possible scenario that the European Union moves toward differentiated integration. In this case, there may be policies and areas where a certain number of member states do not cooperate, while in other areas they do. Such an ‘opt-out’ mechanism already exists today and may play a more important role in the future functioning of the EU. Although not an end in itself from a Hungarian perspective, it may offer a solution to counteract the current centralisation that is generating serious internal tensions and fragmentation.
At the same time, all efforts to eliminate unanimous decision-making in key areas must be firmly rejected; these have become increasingly pronounced in recent years. The EU is based on the equality of member states, and the possibility of a veto guarantees this when a fundamental national interest is affected by a particular decision. This safeguard protects all member states, but perhaps it is the most important for smaller member states, as it ensures that their fundamental interests cannot be ignored by those states with a larger geographical size and population.
The EU’s policy on the Russia-Ukraine war is telling evidence of the EU’s weakness. Loud declarations from Brussels cannot hide the fundamental fact that the EU is virtually incapable of making rational decisions that are in line with its own long-term interests. Rather, it is acting as a subservient, compliant handmaiden in a global geopolitical struggle. The misguided sanctions policy—and the push for continuing what is now a stalemate, instead of seeking a ceasefire and a peace deal—show a lack of independent foreign policy thinking. Objectively speaking, the EU is struggling with the Ukraine issue: it is promising support without a clear objective, without a timeframe, without financial limits, and without consulting the citizens of the EU on this crucial issue.
The admission of Ukraine to the European Union would mean the end of the Union in its current form, including key EU policies such as trade, agriculture, the green transition, and so on. EU leaders are either unaware of this (demonstrating that they are intellectually incapable of leading Europe), or they are well aware and simply do not mean what they say (demonstrating their moral cowardice and political cynicism).
Whichever reading is true, it is vital for Hungary both to maintain its national sovereignty and protect its autonomy in key issues affecting constitutional identity, while also maintaining EU cooperation. What we need is a firm stance in favour of both national interests and the European interests we believe to be right. And this must always be in accordance with the treaties; even if they try to circumvent them for the hundredth time, we will stick to them for the hundred-and-first time.
Many of our western European partners share this kind of sober and realistic Hungarian position. We are actively working in European politics to strengthen these ties, and this year’s European Parliament elections will give us the opportunity to reinforce that goal. It will be a tough fight, and the election results in Hungary will—as has increasingly been the case—have a far greater significance than would be normally expected for a country of our size.
For us in Brussels, Hungary has and will always come first. Let us make sure there are as many of us as possible at the ballot box in June!
Quo vadis, Europa?
The European Union needs member states to take a firm stance in favour of both their national interests and the European interests they believe to be right. In pursuing these practical policies of common sense, Hungary is leading the way.
Twenty years ago, Hungarians decided in a referendum to join the European Union. This year, Hungary will hold its fifth European Parliament elections; and it will assume the presidency of the Council of the EU for the second time. As far as the institutional framework is concerned, one could say that everything is in order: Hungarian membership in the EU, and its participation in common affairs, are both running smoothly.
However, this is not the case. There are obvious signs of a general political crisis concerning the functioning of the European Union. This problem is highlighted in the case of Hungary. When it comes to crucial issues, the Hungarian government does not shy away from confrontation.
The crux of the problem is that there is currently a desire to create an over-centralised political union—a federalised ‘United States of Europe’—without the conditions for this being in place. On the one hand, there is no such thing as a united European people; there is no European demos. On the other hand, such a step forward in European cooperation cannot be deduced from the EU treaties in force. This is compounded by the fact that the EU institutions in Brussels are showing typical signs of the proliferation of bureaucratic attitudes.
Instead of reasonable political and economic cooperation, there is a growing tendency toward self-serving centralisation and an aggressive, stigmatising stance against traditional conservative views. This is fundamentally at odds with the interests of the member states that make up the Union and, above all, of European citizens—and this trend now threatens the very functioning of the Union.
The creation of a ‘United States of Europe’ was an unrealistic and ill-conceived idea from the moment it was first presented; and, a century later, it has not become any more realistic. We have to face the fact that Europe is diverse and made up of different nations and different cultural traditions. The way in which different parts of the continent envision their future may also vary significantly.
If, for example, some western European nations feel that, instead of focusing on self-preservation and self-defence, it is more desirable to integrate into a new, multicultural mix, then we believe they have the right to make such a decision. However, they cannot impose that path on anyone else. We are the only ones who can decide our own country’s future, and we Hungarians will not give in to external pressure.
It is a well-known fact that every bureaucratic institution is increasingly focused on maintaining itself, unless strict rules and regular external control prevent it from doing so. The history of the Union has been marked by the constant efforts of both the European Commission and the European Parliament to extend their powers. However, the Commission has now distanced itself from all the characteristics defined by the treaties: it has become a partisan, ideologically biassed actor rather than an impartial guardian of the treaties. Reading the Commission’s proposals and draft regulations, we are slowly getting used to the fact that Brussels’ initiatives both regularly infringe upon member states’ sovereignty, and also pursue EU legislation on issues that do not fall under the EU’s competence.
These are increasingly sensitive issues, often affecting the constitutional identity and moral values of member states. Among these are the neo-Marxist woke ideology; the promotion of LGBTQ ideology that is now reaching the point of absurdity; matters concerning marriage, family, and child-rearing; and the push to accept unrestrained migration as a means to change Europe’s ethno-cultural identity.
In addition, the functioning of the EU is characterised by a complacent, moralising attitude, especially in its external relations. This is, in fact, the latest version of colonialism: this time, western Europe wants to impose its own increasingly radicalised neo-leftist ideology on the whole world. Not a parliamentary session goes by in Strasbourg without the European Parliament lecturing a distant country on political correctness. It goes without saying that the EU has no competency in these matters, the European Parliament even less so. Nevertheless, they push through these completely unnecessary and counterproductive declarations. Worse still, the role of the European ‘morality police’ became truly absurd when the details of the Brussels corruption scandal (Qatargate) were exposed.
What are the implications in terms of Hungarian political advocacy? And how should Hungary respond? Given the dismal state of affairs, many people think that it is time to leave the EU and stop fighting a war that often seems hopeless. Another question thus arises: “If the British have succeeded, why can’t we?”
First of all, the Hungarian Szoboszlai Dominik may be in the UK’s Premier League, butas a country we are not playing ball in the same league as the British. Brexit is therefore simply not a good analogy—neither in terms of our economic strength and potential, nor in terms of our political room for manoeuvring, nor in terms of our fundamental national interests.
As a central European nation, with a significant number of our compatriots outside our current borders, we have a clear interest in close European cooperation. Being able easily to cross borders is a huge advantage for us, which is why it is important to complete enlargement in the western Balkans as soon as possible, instead of pushing for the accession of Ukraine, which is clearly not eligible for membership at the moment.
We also need to take joint action to protect the EU’s external borders, because free movement within the Schengen Area can only be maintained if we put an end to the increasingly serious challenge of illegal immigration.
The creation of the common market, educational and cultural cooperation, the common agricultural policy (CAP), cohesion policy—these are all obvious EU achievements. They must be protected; they must continue to function. Political witch hunts cannot be a sustainable model in the long term, as ever more member states and democratic political forces recognise.
We need to uphold the EU treaties currently in force, and we need to find allies to bring Europe back to politics based on common sense. Millions of Europeans across the continent are waiting for this, and it is good to know that Viktor Orbán’s policies are gaining support among Europeans.
However, it is also a possible scenario that the European Union moves toward differentiated integration. In this case, there may be policies and areas where a certain number of member states do not cooperate, while in other areas they do. Such an ‘opt-out’ mechanism already exists today and may play a more important role in the future functioning of the EU. Although not an end in itself from a Hungarian perspective, it may offer a solution to counteract the current centralisation that is generating serious internal tensions and fragmentation.
At the same time, all efforts to eliminate unanimous decision-making in key areas must be firmly rejected; these have become increasingly pronounced in recent years. The EU is based on the equality of member states, and the possibility of a veto guarantees this when a fundamental national interest is affected by a particular decision. This safeguard protects all member states, but perhaps it is the most important for smaller member states, as it ensures that their fundamental interests cannot be ignored by those states with a larger geographical size and population.
The EU’s policy on the Russia-Ukraine war is telling evidence of the EU’s weakness. Loud declarations from Brussels cannot hide the fundamental fact that the EU is virtually incapable of making rational decisions that are in line with its own long-term interests. Rather, it is acting as a subservient, compliant handmaiden in a global geopolitical struggle. The misguided sanctions policy—and the push for continuing what is now a stalemate, instead of seeking a ceasefire and a peace deal—show a lack of independent foreign policy thinking. Objectively speaking, the EU is struggling with the Ukraine issue: it is promising support without a clear objective, without a timeframe, without financial limits, and without consulting the citizens of the EU on this crucial issue.
The admission of Ukraine to the European Union would mean the end of the Union in its current form, including key EU policies such as trade, agriculture, the green transition, and so on. EU leaders are either unaware of this (demonstrating that they are intellectually incapable of leading Europe), or they are well aware and simply do not mean what they say (demonstrating their moral cowardice and political cynicism).
Whichever reading is true, it is vital for Hungary both to maintain its national sovereignty and protect its autonomy in key issues affecting constitutional identity, while also maintaining EU cooperation. What we need is a firm stance in favour of both national interests and the European interests we believe to be right. And this must always be in accordance with the treaties; even if they try to circumvent them for the hundredth time, we will stick to them for the hundred-and-first time.
Many of our western European partners share this kind of sober and realistic Hungarian position. We are actively working in European politics to strengthen these ties, and this year’s European Parliament elections will give us the opportunity to reinforce that goal. It will be a tough fight, and the election results in Hungary will—as has increasingly been the case—have a far greater significance than would be normally expected for a country of our size.
For us in Brussels, Hungary has and will always come first. Let us make sure there are as many of us as possible at the ballot box in June!
READ NEXT
Putting Down Our Parent Civilisation: Do We Live in the West, or Euthan-Asia?
Trump’s Triumph—a Turning Point for Europe?
Pan-Conservativi: A New Global Conservative Reality