On Tuesday during a panel discussion at Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), President of the Polish conservative think tank Ordo Iuris Institute Jerzy Kwaśniewski and Head of the Center for European Studies at MCC Rodrigo Ballester presented a groundbreaking report on EU reform titled The Great Reset: Restoring Member State Sovereignty in the European Union. They were joined by Director General of the Center for Fundamental Rights Miklós Szánthó and political director of the Hungarian prime minister Balázs Orbán.

As Ballester described in an interview with Hungarian Conservative, the report urges a serious debate on the EU’s future. It presents two possible reform scenarios:

• The ‘Back to the Roots’ scenario — A moderate restructuring that restores the EU’s original function as a cooperation of sovereign states, similar to its pre-Maastricht Treaty structure. This would involve reducing the power of the Commission and the European Parliament while strengthening the role of national governments.
• The ‘New Beginning’ scenario — A complete dissolution of the EU in its current form, followed by a transition period of two to three years to establish a new political framework based on free markets and national sovereignty. This approach would involve repealing many EU regulations and allowing member states to voluntarily negotiate new forms of cooperation.

EU at Crossroads

In his keynote address, Balázs Orbán warned that the EU is at a crossroads, facing an identity crisis that threatens its long-term stability. He argued that the bloc has lost its way, failing to adapt to a changing world, and called for radical reform to prevent its disintegration.

Orbán outlined three major problems: excessive bureaucracy, centralization, and ideological dogmatism. He contended that the EU increasingly imposes policies that undermine national sovereignty, particularly in areas such as migration and progressive social reforms—values that many member states do not share. ‘If the EU is to survive into the next century, a radical change of direction is needed. The current course leads straight to disintegration,’ he stated, adding that reform discussions are gaining momentum across Europe.

Orbán proposed two possible solutions: a return to the EU’s founding principles of national sovereignty and economic cooperation or the adoption of new paradigms to restore balance. Both, he stated, require the participation of strong, culturally self-identified nation-states.

More Crisis, More Brussels

At the beginning of the panel discussion, Jerzy Kwaśniewski echoed Orbán’s concerns, calling for a ‘great reset’ of the European paradigm. He criticized the EU’s long-standing commitment to an ‘ever closer union’, which he argued has led to excessive power centralization within the European Commission. ‘Every crisis has been met with the same response: more power to the Commission, more authority to unelected bureaucrats. The financial crisis, the migration crisis, even the COVID crisis—each was used as an excuse to concentrate power in Brussels,’ he said. Kwaśniewski emphasized the need to return decision-making power to national governments, ensuring that elected officials—not EU institutions—have the final say.

Miklós Szánthó reinforced these points, arguing that the EU should serve its member states and citizens rather than function as an ideological instrument of the Brussels elite. He accused the EU of using legal and financial measures to pressure dissenting governments, citing Hungary and Poland as prime examples. ‘The EU would be a great project if it had not been hijacked by liberals and their ideological agenda,’ he said.

‘The Germans and the French built it, the liberals destroyed it, and the patriots are fixing it’

He criticized the erosion of national sovereignty in areas such as migration policy and gender ideology, which, he pointed out, are being imposed on member states without democratic consent. Szánthó, in a somewhat humorous yet serious remark, summarized the EU’s trajectory: ‘The Germans and the French built it, the liberals destroyed it, and the patriots are fixing it.’

Rodrigo Ballester also challenged the EU’s response to crises, asserting that ‘more Europe’ is not a viable solution. ‘Once Brussels gains power, it never gives it back. 25 years of common policies have shown that the EU is not on the right track,’ he opined. Ballester proposed shifting decision-making power back to the European Council, where national leaders have a stronger voice, and reducing EU officials’ salaries to better reflect public expectations. ‘No one in Brussels should earn more than €10,000 net per month. That’s not populism—it’s common sense,’ he remarked.

Back to Maastricht

Ballester also argued that the EU was originally less centralized and more focused on serving member states rather than dictating policies from Brussels. He suggested that reforms should aim to restore the pre-Maastricht Treaty model, when the EU better balanced national sovereignty with economic cooperation.

He highlighted that one of the biggest issues with the EU’s structure is that once powers are transferred to Brussels, they are never returned. He highlighted the European Court of Justice as an example, arguing that it acts beyond its mandate by imposing progressive ideology on member states. ‘The EU institutions despise unanimity, but in reality, it strengthens European cooperation by ensuring that no country is forced into decisions against its will,’ he stated.

‘The proposals presented in the report do not seek to destroy the EU but rather to prevent its disintegration’

Kwaśniewski clarified that the proposals presented in the report do not seek to destroy the EU but rather to prevent its disintegration. ‘If Brussels continues down its current path—pushing radical centralization and ideological conformity—, it will accelerate its own downfall,’ he warned.

Szánthó concluded by underscoring the broader cultural and ideological battle at the heart of the EU’s crisis:

‘At its core, this is a fight between globalists and sovereigntists. The EU has become an ideological machine rather than a political and economic cooperation framework. If this does not change, collapse is inevitable.’

Related articles: