The actuality of the huxite I raised for the first time in 2021 looks quite different today

In August 2021, I wrote an article on these columns entitled Time to talk about Huxit. The article blew many people's minds, even though in that article I only raised the possibility of leaving the EU and stated that we should stay inside as long as possible, but there can be such a situation - as in all organizations, workplaces, relationships, etc. – when breaking up is a better option than staying together. I was talking about a possibility, not a suggestion.

Nevertheless, my article was noticed not only by the majority of the left-wing opposition in Hungary, including Klára Dobrev, to whom I was forced to write a response article stating that I do not represent the official position of Fidesz, as she was kind enough to imagine. I drew your attention to the fact that Fidesz is not DK, that intellectuals, analysts, and researchers who sympathize with Fidesz have and can have their own, individual opinions, for which they bear the responsibility.

In addition, my article had an unexpected foreign response, it was mentioned in the media of several countries - from Italy to Germany to India - Russia TV, ARTE and others wanted to interview me, which I did not accept, knowing and understanding that the processes could move in the wrong direction , I can create unnecessary and groundless emotions.

And slowly the "miracle" passed, the people involved, both at home and abroad, took my article on the agenda. Why am I mentioning all this now? It is by no means to beat my chest that I was one of the first to raise the principle possibility or topic of huxit. It's about something else.

About the fact that the dice have turned in a big way in the last two years:

In February 2022, the Russian-Ukrainian war began, to which the European Union and the Brussels elite again gave incredibly bad answers, just like before the economic crisis, the influx of migrants starting in 2015, the pandemic with a suspicious environment in 2020, Brexit and so on . The leadership of the union - more precisely, the European Commission, which autonomously appointed itself the government of the union - always sided with it, and it slowly became more and more clear that the committee "led" by Ursula von der Leyen was not in control of itself.  

The decisions that are made do not represent the interests of the European people, but these decisions are "sent from elsewhere", mostly from the United States (the Democrats), the global financial and economic elite (the World Economic Forum), the Soros network, and from super-rich transnational companies and financial institutions, among which we can highlight BlackRock, which has trillions of dollars and a large number of companies.

Therefore, when many people are currently asking why Brussels insists on the early admission of Ukraine to the European Union and the start of the accession negotiations, while it does not serve the interests of any of the 27 member states, then we have to look beyond the formal declarations to give the answer. We simply have to ask: Cui prodest? In other words: in whose interest is Ukraine's continuous funding and admission to the union?

To give the answer, we have to start from the fact that this is certainly not in Europe's interest

such a huge, poor, war-torn, incomprehensible, infinitely corrupt country would join the union, the reconstruction of which would consume huge sums of money from the countries' budgets, and almost everyone would become a net contributor. This would hit the poorer member states of Central and Eastern Europe particularly hard.

But then why does Brussels want this anyway? Because Brussels does not really control the union, Ursula von de Leyen, Charles Michel and the others have left the union at the mercy of other, much more influential great power factors. Hence the cui prodest? the answer to his question is to be found outside, in external forces.

It is in the interest of two forces that Ukraine remains standing and enters the union. One is, of course, the United States, which at least exerts a decisive influence on Brussels. The important people and thinkers of the USA have stated several times that the biggest danger for them is if the huge continent, Eurasia, joins forces, primarily through German technology and Russian energy sources. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski already wrote about this clearly in his work The Big Chessboard, and Hungarian-born George Friedman, the founder of the Stratfor Institute, also spoke about it in a 2015 lecture. They both explained that

 for the United States, Ukraine is a very important buffer zone that prevents Russia and Europe from getting too close to each other. That is why they provoked the war between Russia and Ukraine, trusting that the Russians could be defeated with the last drop of Ukrainian blood and, of course, with their military help, thus getting rid of the old enemy.

This is not how things turned out, Ukraine will obviously lose in this war and will probably have to give up territories in a future peace treaty. But the USA wants to save what can be saved: with the help of the weak and stupid leaders of the European Union, it wants to drag the remaining part of Ukraine into the union, which will be so kind and somehow maintain Ukraine economically at its own expense. Not to mention that the Americans have essentially appropriated Ukraine both economically and politically.

The other actor whose interest it is for Ukraine to become an EU member is none other than the global economic and financial elite, that is, the transnational giant companies and financial institutions. Why? Because they are already present with their investments in Ukraine, even to a brutal extent, especially with regard to agriculture, the IT industry and the energy industry.  

The approximately 1,600 (!) gigacompanies connected to the WEF have no interest in Ukraine collapsing, the union is needed for that. On the other hand, let's also think of BlackRock, which signed a contract with Zelensky in December of last year that they and their companies will manage the reconstruction of the country. All of this would come to naught if Ukraine were to remain alone and the Russians continued to dictate.

Why did I write all this? To make it clear: the actuality of the huxite I raised for the first time in 2021 looks completely different today than it did two years ago. Since then, the European Union has actually been in a huge crisis, it has lost its independence and sovereignty. As a result, one of the ways out of the crisis today may be to carry out a radical transformation of the union, but not in the direction of federalism, but the opposite.

The European Parliament elections in June are therefore important: if the sovereignist forces could strengthen significantly and markedly, then it could not happen again that an Ursula von der Leyen, subject to the WEF and Klaus Schwab, the Americans and the Soros network a puppet figure to be the head of the European Commission, for example, while of course the European Commission's wishful thinking that it can become the government of the union must be smashed to pieces as soon as possible.

All this may give hope to save the union, but there is no question that this will be an easy match. All the more so because the anti-federalist forces are doing everything in order to create a super-federal union, in which there would be a government above all member states, headed by a head of government, there would be ministers and secretaries of state, as in a nation-state, but their cruelest goal is to abolish the 1966 in , the principle of consensual decision defended by De Gaulle from the attack of Walter Hallstein, the president of the commission at the time, which says that if a decision is not in the interest of a member state, it cannot be forced upon it - which, even if it is not called that, still functions as a right of veto to the present day. But how much longer? This is the real question, this is what the fierce struggle between federalists and sovereignists is about.

In other words, in such a crisis situation, it is now possible to succeed in creating a new union based on the sovereignty of the member states and their decisions, in contrast to the spirit of founding fathers such as Jean Monnet, Altiero Spinelli, Paul-Henri Spaak, after whom halls and buildings are named in Brussels.
That's why it's worth fighting for in the coming months. And why? Precisely to avoid the possibility or necessity of huxit. Because that

 it is a completely different matter if we lose this battle and the supporters of the super-federal European state win and transfer their will to the member states. In that case, you have to rethink everything. Don't be this. But if they were to eliminate the institution of consensus decision with hundreds of tricks, I would consider it a clear red line, for example.

What did Viktor Orbán say before 2004, when the issue was entry? That - then - it is more important to enter than to stay outside. And what did he say to the Swiss leaders? Think twice before joining the union…

In other words, an impossible situation that completely eliminates our sovereignty cannot be accepted or allowed for a country with such a past as ours, and this should have consequences.

Source: Hungarian Nation

Cover image: vasarnap.hu