Hungary and Poland won the battle, but the fight continues

By admin
6 Min Read

The Hungarian and Polish governments achieved a major victory at the EU summit in Brussels after standing up to liberals who were unfortunately joined by some from the center-right European People’s Party. Both Central European countries prevented the proposed rule-of-law mechanism from being used as a political bludgeon, political analyst Tamás Fricz writes in a column in daily Magyar Nemzet.
We may have won this very important battle, but the war is not over yet. The attacks on Hungary and Poland will continue, and they will take other forms through the rule-of-law mechanism. That is why it is important to clarify, in theory and in the long run, what the rule of law means and how it is consciously distorted by liberal circles.
We must make it clear at the outset what the European Union, and especially the European Commission and European Parliament, have done and intend to do with the rule of law, which is to abolish it and replace it with a liberal dictatorship of values.
The rule of law (Rechtsstaatlichkeit) was originally the expression that those currently in power should be subject to the rule of law, thus protecting citizens against the arbitrariness of an absolute ruler. The rule of law is a liberal principle, the starting point of which is that all people have equal rights, which can be summed up as human and civil rights. In a state governed by the rule of law, individuals, parties, and governments that have gained power are also subject to rights, which prevents the establishment of arbitrary power, dictatorship, and the abuse of the majority’s dominance over the minority by a democratically elected government.
The latter already demonstrates that the principles of the rule of law and democracy, although close to each other, are still not the same. While democracy focuses on popular sovereignty, popular will, and general elections, the rule of law protects citizens from the potential dictatorial aspirations of majority-acquired power and the arbitrariness of the majority.
Based on these principles, we must also assume that the Union, although not a state in the traditional sense but a specific association of states with institutions (commission, parliament, and a court), also starts from the criteria of the rule of law for itself. If this is the case — and we have hoped so far that neither the Commission nor the Parliament imagines itself to be an absolute power above rights — then two very important conclusions follow:
One is that the EU cannot abuse its majority power because, as we have seen, this is one of the fundamental criteria of the rule of law. It cannot be abused in the same way as specific governments within nation-states, which cannot ban opposition parties, imprison people arbitrarily, discriminate between groups of people, and prohibit elections. In nation states, the basic unit is the individual. In the Union — and not an absolute empire — the basic unit is the member state, and they all have equal rights. The EU was created on the basis of the equality and equal voting rights of the member states, it is not the Soviet Union or the Habsburg Monarchy.
In short, the majority wanted to introduce new rule of law requirements in an anti-rule of law manner, as opposed to the EU treaties. But let us not be surprised at this (although we have every reason to be surprised), as their aim was obviously and still is to make a real change in the EU’s operating mechanisms by abolishing the veto and extending majority decisions, towards super-federalism, which may eventually lead to the end of the rule of law in the European Union.
And this is no small paradox.
One of the elements of this is the acceptance of migration as a fundamental human right, which consequently leads to the organization and facilitation of migration, along with the reception, support and integration of migrants. The key word here is solidarity , which is fundamentally a false value chanted by the liberal mainstream, in this case, which is increasingly being imposed on the member states as a “common EU value”, and which is expected to be included in a broad system of rule of law to make it a condition to offer financial support based on the formula presented by billionaire George Soros.
At least as dangerous is gender theory, which advocates gender acceptance, and hence the requirement for special support for LGBTQ+ groups. A left-wing MEP named Helena Dalli has already submitted her proposal to make this law in the EU.
In summary, the liberals wanted to deprive another concept of its original meaning, as they did with the word liberalism itself. So, we had to fight, and fight not just a political battle, but a linguistic battle as well. Make no mistake, they are working to making rule of law equal a dictatorship of values.
And dictatorships must be fought against.

Share This Article