Hungarian Conservative

‘‘‘More power to Brussels! Down with the nations!’’ is the motto that best describes what the Commission and the EP agree on. As for the differences in opinion, they are only rooted in the question of where exactly in Brussels the power that has been taken from the Member States should be concentrated.’

The European Union’s migration and asylum policy is an area that is the focus of major political debates on a daily basis…This is particularly the case when national authorities seek guidance in individual cases from the ECJ, which has the binding power to fundamentally determine or change legislative practice—often leading to new political debates or new layers of political debate.

Despite climate and clean energy transition targets, the current energy crisis has forced many countries to increase coal-based power generation. The question is: can we expect a turn in coal use in the shorter or longer term, and closely related to this, is there any other reason for the rise in coal use for energy than the energy crisis itself?

Hungary’s voting rights in the EU could be suspended if it does not vote in favour of a proposal to amend the EU’s multiannual budget to give Ukraine €50 billion in aid from the common European budget over the next five years.

The 22.4 percentage point reduction in child poverty between 2014 and 2021 in Hungary, which is also an EU record, is clearly due to employment growth, and primarily to the growth of the employment of women with children.

As the European Commission’s politicization takes place without real democratic political legitimacy, serious dilemmas arise: what exactly are the interests of the President of the European Commission, and whom does she represent when she gives her annual State of the Union Address?

The European Parliament’s new campaign proposal would not only end the foreign affairs veto by amending the EU treaties but would also give the EU more power in the area of the rule of law and migration. As part of that overreach attempt, it would also suspend Hungary’s right to hold the EU presidency.

According to Professor Durodié, the EU is a fundamentally anti-democratic set of institutions that excludes the voice of the people. It is a project that lost its sense of history and therefore does no longer know where it is going to.

It seems that the majority of MEPs are aware of the legal and political limitations of the options for action outlined in the Meijers Committee’s analysis, but are committed to continuing to exert political pressure on Hungary and Poland in the coming months.

It is important to remember that, compared to the stable period of 2017–2018, some 80 per cent of the rise in inflation in Hungary could be attributed to external circumstances, and only 20 per cent to strictly domestic reasons. Taking into account the ambivalent effects of the war situation and the ensuing sanctions, these rates are likely to remain important determinants of inflation developments in 2023.

The sincerity of the concerns of Belgian politicians about Hungary’s Child Protection Act is cast into doubt by the fact that, according to statistics published by the Belgian police, forced marriages involving minors and illegal child marriages have been an unresolved problem for more than a decade in Belgium.

Given the country profile of Hungary, it is a refreshing achievement that it has moved up a league to Moderate Innovators, even though its performance is 70.4 per cent of the EU average, below the category average, and its performance growth is also slower than the EU average.

The current system involves separate national elections with varying rules and representation. The proposed changes aim to create a single European election, but critics argue that it would diminish the role of member states and distance voters from politicians. The majority of member states oppose the reforms.

It appears that the European Commission and the European Court of Justice work hand in hand to move the union in the direction of a federal state. In fact, rarely does the Court rule in favour of a member state when the Commission initiates a lawsuit against it in connection with the exercise of powers affecting national sovereignty.