Former Hungarian President János Áder has voiced strong criticism of the European Parliament (EP), claiming that, in its current form, it is unnecessary due to its inefficiency. Speaking at an event hosted by Károli Gáspár University in Budapest, Áder, who now chairs the Blue Planet Foundation, reflected on his political career and the state of governance in both Hungary and the EU.
During a discussion led by rector of Károli Gáspár University László Trócsányi, Áder remarked that his perspective on the European Parliament changed significantly after serving as an MEP. He initially expected a more refined level of debate but found that the discourse was even less civil than in the Hungarian Parliament. In his view, the situation has since deteriorated further. Áder dismissed concerns about the EU’s popularity, stating that the real issue is not its image but its effectiveness. He described current trends as ‘alarming’ and criticized the European Parliament’s lack of tangible results. As an example, he recalled the institution’s failure to enforce a resolution banning cyanide-based mining techniques after the Tisza cyanide spill disaster. Despite the EP passing the resolution, the European Commission never acted on it, highlighting what Áder sees as a fundamental flaw in the EU’s decision-making processes.
Reflecting on his own political career, Áder explained why he chose to become Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament in 1998 instead of accepting a ministerial position. He noted that at the time, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was heavily occupied with government responsibilities, leaving little room for party management. Áder believed that the ruling Fidesz party needed strong organizational leadership to avoid the fate of the Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF), which lost political influence after diverting all experienced personnel into government roles.
Discussing his time as President of Hungary, Áder addressed his approach to vetoing legislation. Over his two terms he rejected 45 bills, stating that he had always been transparent about his criteria: if a law aligned with the Constitution and legal standards, he would sign it; if it did not, he would return it. He emphasized that his decisions were based solely on legal principles, not political considerations. Discussing presidential pardons, Áder argued that every case should be assessed individually, as legal correctness does not always account for personal, health-related, or social circumstances. He revealed that during his tenure, he reviewed around 6,000 clemency requests, some of which required lengthy discussions before reaching a decision.
Turning to environmental issues, Áder criticized the effectiveness of the United Nations climate summits (COP conferences). He dismissed them as ‘political tourism’, suggesting that they serve more as symbolic gatherings than as platforms for real progress. Instead, he proposed that the world’s most influential economies, particularly the G7 nations, should take the lead in forging binding environmental agreements.
In his closing remarks, Áder expanded his environmental concerns beyond air, water, and soil pollution to what he termed ‘intellectual pollution’. He warned against the degradation of public discourse, arguing that maintaining a high standard of debate is as crucial as protecting natural resources.
Related articles:
