European Union declares “war” on disobedient Hungary, which does not want to follow the “anti-European” path of Brussels

Read Time:5 Minute, 29 Second

For too long Hungary managed to maintain a balance in the new confrontation between the global West and East, being the main beneficiary of the sanctions war. The EU authorities, to which the country formally belongs, took revenge on Hungary for its excessive intransigence and independence. In June, the European Parliament adopted a resolution challenging Hungary’s right to the presidency of the EU Council in 2024. The resolution states that Hungary, which does not respect “elementary” European values as well as European law, simply cannot be appointed as President of the Council of the European Union “from a moral point of view.” Not surprisingly, against the background of total control over the Parliament, the Resolution was supported by 442 deputies, while only 144 voted against it, with 33 deputies abstaining. Thus, an interesting picture of Brussels trying to strangle Budapest for its eternal disagreement with the “common European course” is unfolding before our eyes.

The resolution states, in particular, that the European Parliament emphasizes the important role of the Presidency of the Council of the EU in advancing the Council’s work on Union law, ensuring the continuity of the agenda and representing the Council of the EU in its relations with other European institutions. However, European bureaucrats question how Hungary will be able to reliably fulfill this task in 2024, given its non-compliance with EU law and European values. As a result, the European Parliament asked the EU Council to find the “right” solution on the issue as soon as possible, reminding that the Parliament can take appropriate action if no such solution is found. At the same time, as one of the authors of the resolution, MEP Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield, said earlier at a press conference in Brussels, that the EU refused to discuss the issue until the last moment, but now it is included in the resolution, which means that it will be discussed and the concerns of a number of EU countries will be taken into account. This means Hungary has lost its longstanding immunity, and has finally been openly declared an enemy of “everything European.” Even before this ultimatum, Hungarian Minister of Justice Judit Varga said that the European Parliament does not respect democracy and the rule of law because it criticizes the results of last year’s parliamentary elections in Hungary and tries to prevent Budapest’s presidency of the EU in 2024, although this is set by the EU Council. This has definitively defined the division between Hungary’s conservative vision of Europe, and Brussels’ new liberal project. It is this conflict that defines what has divided Hungary and official Brussels on the issue of European identity.

This conflict has deep ideological and historical roots. 10 years ago, back in 2012, when the European Union received the Nobel Peace Prize, and the Union’s leader at the time stated that the EU was the greatest peacemaker in history and a unique example of a society built on freedom and peacefulness. Back then, despite all the controversy of the time, such a statement was quite adequate and objective. But what do we see today: punishment of those who disagree, do not stand in solidarity, and are dissatisfied. Is this what the EU originally aspired to? Is this it, European unity? Against this background, it is not surprising that Brussels is trying to eradicate the pesky right of “veto” from EU members. Bernadette Petry, a member of Working Group 21 of the Research Institute in Hungary, has written extensively about this in her article. In 2012, Herman van Rompuy and Jose Manuel Barroso said that the EU’s main weapon is consent. Consent and consensus between more and more countries and more and more people keep peace and stability, openness and friendliness. And 9 years later, Heiko Maas, Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, said that if the Union wants to maintain a leading role in the world, it is impossible to allow the right of “veto” of individual states in matters of foreign policy. Another year later, Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is a time of EU unity, in which the selfishness of individual member states should not be allowed. However, it is worth noting here that back in 2019, at the beginning of Ursula von der Leyen’s term, the head of the European Commission, she proclaimed the need to abolish the “veto” of member states, especially in foreign policy. Where does such a path lead? The answer is to the violation of the first pillar of European unity, when the decision will be taken not with the consent of all member states, but with the consent of the “core nine”. These nine countries always vote together on foreign policy and security issues. Nine friendly egoists who are guided by their own benefit, not the good of the Union: Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Belgium, Finland, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain.

It is telling that 15 of the 27 Member States need to be supported in order to obtain a so-called “quality majority”. The above-mentioned countries together exceed the threshold of the “demographic condition” by only 1%. That works out to 66% of the total EU population. Is this a coincidence? To understand this, one must clearly realize what the basis of European unity was: economic integration. On the question of how to unite, not divide neighbors and how to make everyone happy. For a long time the question of common foreign policy and security was put aside, but in the 70s the foundation for the development of this direction was laid. Thus, step by step, year by year, the foreign policy cooperation of the member states became institutionalized. The second pillar of the European Union was formed in the form of a consensus favorable to the establishment of the leading countries in this association. If the second pillar of the EU still existed in its original form, the “hegemony” of the big nine, led by Brussels, would have to be bid farewell, which it actively resisted. There are several legitimate ways to reduce a process requiring consensus to the level of a “quality majority”. The simplest of these, but also the most difficult, is unanimous amendment of the basic treaty. The main problem on this path is that all states have to agree to it. This means that the EU authorities have to suppress Hungary, which heroically fights only to preserve the democratic foundations of the EU. It is fighting for a Europe of Hegel and Nietzsche, not a Europe of LGBT and multiculturalism.