Europe & Union
One thing that the opposing political circles largely agree on is that the European Union is in a crisis and that it is at a crossroads where a decision on which way to go forward must be made. Not least because if things do not change the political quagmire might lead to the dissolution of the European project.
We are launching a series of essays and analyses intended to show the current state of the European Union, which generated so many illusions we in Central Europe had to recently disabuse ourselves of. We will explore the nature of its crisis with particular attention to the shortfalls of the democratic operation of the Union, we will describe the opposing political forces and demonstrate the overwhelming advantages enjoyed by the central powers and liberal networks; we will examine necessary reforms. We consider it our duty to explore the past and present workings of the European Union not from the prevalent liberal perspective, but from a national, sovereignist viewpoint. To this end we will travel back in time to the earliest days and taking that as a starting point we will describe the past 68 years of the organization to expose the forces, currents of thought and ambitions that shaped the EU as well as the people that influenced its operation and its substantive core at its various stages. We will find that the idea of a European super-state was always present within this bickering, conflict-stricken Union. In fact, it was already present before the idea of European integration in its current form was conceived.
It is important to step beyond the bounds set by the liberal canon and to reinterpret the European Union, helping the Hungarian and European citizens to exercise their democratic rights with a view towards realism when it comes to the European Union.
The quote: “Everything must change for things to stay the same” is attributed to Metternich. Well, his wisdom is certainly not applicable to the current state of affairs in the European Union, as things staying the same is clearly the greatest danger. We would say, instead, that the Union can only survive if everything changes and nothing stays the same.
When it comes to the future of the European Union, two sharply different approaches have taken shape. According to one side, let us call them “Federalists”, the best response to the crisis is “ever more Europe”.
The 2019 European Parliament elections may not have delivered seismic change, but they certainly have set off a definite processes of change: new opportunities and new scenarios are clearly visible on the horizon.
When we approach the early years of the European organization that would from 1992 become the European Union, we must from the very beginning disabuse ourselves of a notion that has gained some prominence on the classical right, namely, that the creators of the Union, or the “founding fathers” as they are […]
A Super State or an Alliance of Sovereign States?
When it comes to the future of the European Union, two sharply different approaches have taken shape. According to one side, let us call them “Federalists”, the best response to the crisis is “ever more Europe”. In other words, this is the idea to build a Federation that resembles the United States of America in many ways, which is why the plan was given the name “The United States of Europe”. The other side, the “Sovereignists”, do not see the conditions for the creation of a central government or a federal center in the European Union and thus for the so called unification of nations – as the nation states are unwilling to surrender their centuries old independence, the spiritual, cultural and societal prerequisites of a federal union are absent. The EU becomes strong if the nations preserve their traditions, their unique ability, creativity, customs and their particular approaches to problem-solving, – these “skill sets” make Europe truly formidable.
We are convinced that the Union and Europe will only be saved by the sovereignist approach. But if that is so, why is it so and what specific institutional reform of the European Union is necessary in order to create a Europe of nations? We shall answer below.
Globalism vs Localism. Is There a New Political Coordinate System in the 21st Century?
A reinterpretation of the Right-Left divide, new fault lines.
The 2019 European Parliament elections may not have delivered seismic change, but they certainly have set off a definite processes of change: new opportunities and new scenarios are clearly visible on the horizon. New fault lines have appeared which in many aspects redraw the old ones – especially the traditional Right–Left divide which must be reinterpreted in a new light, along fresh dimensions. Therefore a new political coordinate system is called for where axes are reinterpreted along the Globalist-Localist and Federalist-Sovereignist front lines. In this new coordinate system, attitudes towards multiculturalism vs national identity as well as the liberal interpretation of democracy vs other interpretations will become decisive. These fault lines over political, trade, economic and geopolitical considerations will make a profound impact on how various sides view the future of the European Union – on the European Union where Hungary, as a member state, will assert its national interests in the coming decades.
The Age of the Founders: The Vison of a United States of Europe was Present from the Outset
When we approach the early years of the European organization that would from 1992 become the European Union, we must from the very beginning disabuse ourselves of a notion that has gained some prominence on the classical right, namely, that the creators of the Union, or the “founding fathers” as they are sometimes known, were trying to bring about a European community that based itself on national sovereignty and would be built up from below. This notion simply fails to describe reality, further, its opposite is rather closer to the truth. From the outset the aim was to unify Europe in a federal, supranational manner using the template of the United States of America.