Eurobarometer: Support for EU at record high, 60% of Hungarians back membership
There is clear and growing support for the European Union in member states, with 68 percent of respondents considering their country’s membership to be worthwhile, Eurobarometer said on Wednesday, adding that this is the highest favourable rating in the past 35 years.
In Hungary, fully 60 percent of respondents were positive about the EU.
Altogether 79 percent of Hungarians thought the country’s membership brought with it advantages as against 72 percent last year.
Based on a representative survey carried out in 28 member states, 68 percent of Europeans believe their country has benefited from EU membership, a four percentage point increase since April and the highest reading since 1983.
Meanwhile, 62 percent of respondents not only regarded membership as useful but they also thought it to be good for the country.
Source: MTI
Support for EU at record high. 60% of Hungarians back membership. Is this really true? Please read the following and made up your mind:
The last thing we need is a voluntary reduction. National sovereignty, as it is sworn by many in politics, is an illusion in the 21st century. At least for European states. Every European state is a small state in world terms. No one less than the Austrian president Van der Bellen said during a meeting in Vienna, organized by the Austrian Association for European Politics. The Presidents of Germany and Slovakia were also present. That the words of Van der Bellen mean a monstrosity and an insult to the sovereign Austrian state and its people do not need to be explained. When a head of state calls the sovereignty of states an illusion – is not he, as the highest organ of the state, also an illusion? In the psychological jargon, the illusion is also defined as denial of reality. One has to wonder whether someone with such an institution, which is very clearly based on denials, in any case, however, on personal misinterpretations of the definitions of a state, of the duties of his function and of his duties in general, anyway. can be president? But let’s get to the foundation: the motivation and the political goals of der Bellen have long been known. The creation of the European Community state (the United States of Europe) has always been a desire of him. He sees the future of Europe only in a complete union of all EU states with all the consequences. When he speaks of ‘reduction’, he means despicably the various nations who want to look into the future and want to develop themselves. Even if it does not suit the head of a sovereign state and basically attacks its destination, one can of course represent these political goals. However, this must also be tested: it is not an intellectually righteous behavior by criticizing ‘nationalism’ on the one hand and by promoting the superstate of Europe on the other. For what would the United States of Europe be different from one huge nation that would possess, and should almost possess, all the characteristics of a nationally-oriented superpower? Europe as a fully united colossus must have a clear identity policy, it must have a decisive army, it must conduct a joint economic policy and it must have closed borders that are also defended. The supernation called the United States of Europe should represent its interests globally and have to compete with the big players USA, China and Russia – and certainly in conflict. After all, nobody can seriously believe that a ‘Nation Europe’ could become a globally proclaimed state construction that is generally approached in a friendly manner. The United States of Europe would be considered foreign politics as a nation and a power factor. These results do not tell anyone of the Europafans when they speak with sublime words about the entire association. Furthermore, post-Trotskyist ideologists such as Van der Bellen conceal that the union of Europe can only succeed with suppression and the wearing off of different cultures of our continent. After all, in the case of the total union and disassembly of our various forms of political sovereignty, we must place such different nations as Finns and Italians or Swedes and Hungarians under a common yoke. Ultimately, that can only happen with pressure and a certain amount of violence. It thus appears that those who are so modern of internationalism and association are in reality the worst ultra-nationalists when they speak of the ‘common and boundless Europe’. Their nationalistic framework is simply only much larger and more powerful than the diverse patriotism that the different peoples and nations of Europe regard as their natural right and their meaningful political task. Pan-European nationalism, which is hidden in the form of the ‘association’, must therefore be strictly denied and opposed because of its potential and anti-democratic effects destroying the independence of the countries.