In the middle of May, while strolling along Marsham Street in central London, the catchy melody of Talking Heads’ iconic track titled ‘Road to Nowhere’ could often be heard from the entrance of the Emmanuel Centre. Inside, the National Conservatism Conference was underway.
On the second day of the conference, as I returned from a coffee break, I unexpectedly encountered Steve Bray, a prominent figure in the anti-Brexit movement. Curious about my intentions, he inquired why I was entering the building, cautioning me about the perceived malevolence—‘the evil’ in fact—within. ‘The gathering inside involves consultations on family, national identity, and the future of a post-Brexit UK, particularly from the perspective of the Conservatives,’ I responded.
Eventually, we started talking, and the conclusion of our ‘intra-conference’ was that family and national identity are certainly to be loved and protected, and Brexit is a regrettable development. As a Hungarian, my opinion is that
the European Union must be reformed from the inside, not from the outside, and in this reform process, Hungary lost a serious ally when the British people voted to exit.
Now, let’s turn the wheel of time forward, all the way to Orbán’s speech in Tusnádfürdő. Within a few hours of the Prime Minister concluding his speech the Hungarian media was flooded with commentaries. One of the most compelling among those was a report on Telex—a harsh critic of the government—entitled ‘The Resounding Silence Between Orbán’s Words’ (‘A harsogó csönd Orbán szavai közt‘).
The article was centred around a specific moment of PM Orbán’s speech, the context of which is as follows:
‘Well, we have to say that Europe today has created its own political class, which is no longer accountable and no longer has any Christian or democratic convictions. And we have to say that federalist governance in Europe has led to an unaccountable empire. We have no other choice.’
The author of the article felt palpable tension at this juncture as the audience ‘held their breath’. According to him, the question lingering in the air was whether the Hungarian Prime Minister was about to declare Hungary’s intention to emulate the United Kingdom and exit the European Union.
However, the speech went on differently: ‘For all our love of Europe, for all that it is ours, we must fight…We shall not back down. In Europe we shall insist on our rights.’
At this point the Telex journalist apparently felt a wave of relief, also implying that many others might have shared the same sentiment. In his article, he arrived at the conclusion that Viktor Orbán’s ‘number one’ political legacy lies in his ability to generate tension in 2023 simply by suggesting during his speech that Hungary might ‘ultimately consider opting out of the Western federal system.’
On the one hand, however,
it is not the Hungarian Prime Minister who fosters uncertainty about a ‘Huxit’ scenario, but rather the EU bureaucrats.
This stems from the EU’s adoption of a quasi-sanctions approach toward Hungary, based on a one-sided interpretation of the rule of law while giving other countries a pass for various vague political reasons.
On the other hand—although this has received minimal attention in the international media preoccupied with criticising Hungary—the Hungarian government possesses a well-defined mandate from the Hungarian parliament regarding its reform proposals for the future of the European Union. The opposition’s narrative is binary: one either fully embraces Eurofederalism or advocates for an immediate exit, whereas both options are seen as unacceptable by a Hungarian conservative like me.
A little over a year ago, in a decision of the Hungarian National Assembly, MPs granted the government the authority and obligation to advocate for the political and ideological neutrality of the European Commission, for the democratic reform of the European Parliament, and for financial responsibility across generations. Just to be clear: there is no provision in this mandate suggesting that if the Hungarian government finds these objectives unattainable, it should contemplate leaving the EU. Such a move would be seen as taking the easy way out.
Based on what Steven Bray told me about Brexit, however, my conclusion is that the path for the British is no easier. Even the ‘Leave’ party tends to agree with this. That road leads to an uncertain future—just like the one member states, busy grappling with each other and the EU bureaucracy, are going down on, by the way. Nonetheless, the founding treaties of the EU emphasise the principle of equality among member states at the negotiating table, where their leaders come together for consultations multiple times a year.
And that is an all-time Ace of Spades. And that is why it is not surprising that Eurofederalists advocate for the abolition or at least the partial bypassing of unanimous voting.
So, the task is to put up the fight and enforce the prevailing contractual provisions. The Prime Minister did not say anything different; indeed, he couldn’t have.
