MEP GYÖRGY HÖLVÉNYI: OUR COUNTRY IS AT THE CENTER OF A GLOBAL IDEOLOGICAL DEBATE

The European Union is not only in crisis but also at a crossroads. Szemlelek.net discussed the possible continuation of international cooperation with EPP MEP György Hölvényi.

There is a special spring behind us. If anyone had previously thought that we would put political battles aside during the months of the emergency so that society could devote all of its energies to defense, we now know that this did not happen. How did you experience this situation?

April and May of this year were one of the most absurd periods of my life. Being an MEP, more than a thousand kilometers away from my workplace and my colleagues, not having the opportunity to debate in the usual way has been a huge challenge. Instead of a substantive debate, the term wrestling would be more appropriate for the virtual events of recent months. The European Parliament has experienced a huge deficit during this period. Despite all attempts and great respect for those who tried to make this technically possible, it is not possible to create a long-term budget properly, for example. The fact is that we do not know when the epidemic will end completely; we are only guessing as to its economic effects, and we are still just beginning to face its consequences, which only adds to the challenge. Seeing this, I also formulated a routine for myself: to deal only with things that are important.

Couldn’t it have been said that everyone should go home, governments will solve the problems caused by the epidemic on a national level, and you will continue work when normal meetings could be held again?

In reality, this is practically almost what happened. As a result, some decision-makers in Brussels embarked on a course of empty action. Of course, there has been no experience with this so far, but it has now become clear that cooperation at a European level simply does not work in such a situation. The nation-states were in constant consultation with each other and then made separate decisions, the results of which are now emerging. There is a Swedish model that was proudly undertaken at first and then quietly failed; then there was the incomprehensibly tragic Italian situation… But Central European countries have simply responded well. The first wave of the pandemic was managed successfully. Hungary was able to make decisive and appropriate decisions in time. That is a fact, not a matter of party politics; with so many uncertainties, this has been achieved in only a few countries. Something else happened in Western Europe, but that is not the real problem. The problem is that EU leaders have engaged themselves in empty actions instead of focusing on what matters, the pandemic and its consequences. One element of this was the shocking attack on Hungary. Clearly, this was not about the Coronavirus Protection Act. After a well-thought-out attack on the Hungarian Government, it will not be easy to increase Hungarians’ faith in European institutions, or to restore it at all.

There were other attacks during the epidemic. Donald Tusk, a former EU politician who was previously considered a friend, was quite critical of the Hungarian prime minister.

I read the full statement, and I was shocked. Again, it is worth evaluating what happened within the given context. At the time of the epidemic, to compare Viktor Orbán to a well-known person who supported Nazis in a German newspaper is disrespectful. By the way, Donald Tusk has been in a dispute with the Hungarian Prime Minister for a long time. I am convinced that this is partly due to envy, as he and his own party are constantly being pushed out of leadership in Polish politics, while the president of Fidesz has been winning elections one after another, and his influence in Europe is growing. The president of the EPP has made a big mistake that will be difficult to correct.

We are talking more and more about the future of Europe. Many have stated in recent weeks that it would be better not to continue where we left off before the epidemic. Is there a positive trend in this area, a little hope for the Union to learn from its mistakes?

I am wary of topics like this because we don’t know enough about the economic consequences. We can make guesses as to how we see things, but we don’t know how it will develop. It is clear that we have faced new phenomena from an economic, environmental and educational point of view. Despite all the difficulties in online education, it holds tremendous opportunities. It is expected that the priority of environmental awareness will also be strengthened. But this should not become an ideological fight, but a national, pan-European and even global cooperation. Whether it will succeed is still a question. More importantly, we should do what we can in terms of job creation and other economic aspects. But real change will not be initiated by European institutions, not by Brussels, but by the decision-makers of individual countries and nation states; and I should add that well-functioning states with national sovereignty can work well together.

From what point of view?

Whether it is in regard to security policy or development policy for the third world, weak states put their own unresolved problems together. The European Union is based on nation states, and everyone is primarily responsible for themselves. This is the best part of the EU. The loosening of this culture makes Europe weak and vulnerable. We must first get our own family, our environment and our nation in order. It is not possible to save what’s necessary by leapfrogging. The pandemic has highlighted that things must have an order. This also means that anyone who, during the quarantine period and while worried about losing their job, has been able to handle learning with their kids on four to five computers, cooking, and doing housekeeping, can feel free to apply for larger tasks as well. Harder trials than this do not really exist except for doctors and healthcare workers.

Interestingly, the answer began with economic considerations, while Pope Francis – and perhaps not just him – is calling for us to try to focus more on the person. Already in his encyclical beginning with Laudato’ si, he called for ecological conversion, which does not view man primarily as a human resource.

I couldn’t agree more with the Pope. I had the opportunity to hold a conference on this encyclical in both the European Parliament and the Hungarian Parliament. However, this does not mean that we shouldn’t also address the economy. Rather, the message is that the economy is not for itself but that it’s supposed to be people-centered. However, this requires local units and roots; we have to start with these. This cannot be achieved by a large, global think tank. Think of African societies where poverty does not allow for any development. There is a need for economic assistance, which is not about GDP, but about work and livelihood. So the economy should not be a goal but a tool.

When I pointed to a positive trend, I was thinking about what the President of the European Commission did. Ursula von der Leyen said about the first weeks of dealing with the epidemic that “we should admit that we made a mistake, we did not react properly.” Apology, self-criticism; a rare political style.

Admitting, apologizing, I think, is a sign of strength. This culture can and must be strengthened. Ursula von der Leyen’s move was sympathetic to me too; however, I would add, it was justified. At the same time, the big question for me is how we Hungarian EU politicians, who were attacked from a distance, how we will be able to work with those who accused us unjustly when we go back to Brussels. I think it is important to define – while we have reached the limits of cooperation in the current situation – what we really need to work on together.

At other times, too, apologies could be justified; however, this is very rare. Can we say that the European Union is in crisis currently?

The Union is in crisis, but more importantly, it has reached a crossroads. What is commonly referred to as the United States of Europe is wrong. Rather, cooperation based on a foundation of nation states should be strengthened. And again, this does not mean alienation, but the recognition that we can develop together if we are strong individually. I think the next period will be about this, whether it is accepted or rejected. I am completely in favor of cooperation because individually we have no chance in the world. That would be the essence of the European Union. We are closely followed by Russia, China and India as competitors; this is not a game anymore.

What if the interest of the left-wing bloc outweighs the crossroads?

On the one hand, this issue will not be decided in the European Parliament, but at the level of the nation states. That is what gives me hope. On the other hand, we could also say that if the coronavirus had not been enough, such a globalist ideology would have been the next blow. I am convinced it will not work. I find it so alien to reality that I can’t even imagine its existence.

A decisive part of EU politicians, “Brussels,” is attacking us because in their mind, everyone is on a highway and the Hungarians are facing traffic. Is there a chance that we can ever go in the same direction?

In 2015, Viktor Orbán and Hungary itself were cursed for their take on migration. Today, roughly 80 percent of Europe is doing what was then defined as the direction of the Hungarian prime minister in terms of security, border control and illegal migration, including the idea that problems should not be brought here but that help should be brought to where there the problems are. Yet, I don’t think everyone will adapt to us. However, one thing is for sure: If the Prime Minister’s advice is followed, we would go far. But there is already a 21st-century European path that many of us believe in. We largely agree on the issue of the sovereignty of nation states, the autonomy of decision-making. Meanwhile, I feel and trust that a sober majority is slowly forming. A community that transcends the boundaries of current parties. As a Christian Democratic politician, I am working to have this sober majority in the middle because there lies the greatest room for maneuvering. Europe does not have to be invented, but the manner of cooperation must be adapted to today’s age, redesigned from this aspect.

I wonder what the reader, the voter, the everyday man can do to turn the wheel of Europe in a good direction?

As I have already mentioned, everyone has to keep order primarily in their own family, in their own environment. It is worthwhile to work in value-based communities, such as schools, environmental or sports associations, church communities. And what I think is very important is to stay informed. This is not easy at all, but it greatly reduces vulnerability. If you are informed, you are sovereign! From our individual sovereignty comes our family sovereignty; and from such a foundation, built from the bottom up, national sovereignty can emerge.