Hungarian official: Brexit would be loss for EU
Brexit would represent a political and economic loss for the European Union, and the task now is to minimise any damage caused as a result, a government official said at a conference on the EU’s future held in Budapest on Friday.
Szabolcs Takács, state secretary for EU affairs, at the roundtable entitled “Brexit and After Brexit”, said that it was in the interest of the UK and EU that EU citizens residing in Britain and British citizens in the EU should be given reassurance regarding their status. “It would also be mutually beneficial to create ever closer cooperation in the economy and trade, as well as in defence and security,” he said.
The UK’s divorce from the bloc is inseparable from the ongoing debate on the EU’s future, Takács said. Brexit has prodded the EU to start a period of “self-reflection” to determine which elements should be discarded and which are worth preserving, he said. These issues concern future forms of cooperation between member states. Hungary’s government believes those outcomes that create integration — the reasons that inspired most countries to join the EU — must be preserved at all costs. The European Council should play a leading role in this, given the weight of the matters involved, he said.
The Hungarian government sees the single market, a functional Schengen area and policies on cohesion and accession as the values that “turned the EU into a success story”, Takács said.
Hungary wants an EU capable of effective answers to the challenges facing it, he said.
Iain Lindsay, Britain’s ambassador to Hungary, said the UK wanted to strengthen bilateral relations with EU member states, including Hungary. Both the EU and the UK seem to be committed to a deal beneficial to citizens of the bloc and Britain alike, he said. Britain will comply with all its financial obligations and will be an important partner of the EU, he said.
Many Hungarians live in the UK, Lindsay noted. The British government strives to “put their minds at ease” as to their post-Brexit positions, he said.
Source: MTI
Do the British worry about the Brexit? A British correspondent explains what, among other things, the British who voted for a Brexit to do so and the recent developments in Brussels and London ensures that in Theresia May’s party there are voices that if a Brexit comes, this will be a ‘hard’ exit Last weekend, the European Commission of Jean-Claude Juncker(Mr. Whisky) spoke on the agenda for a stronger and united Europe. According to the plans in a document entitled ‘The future of Europe’ the EU will have its own president and will be able to implement structural reforms in the budgets of individual EU Member States.
The document also calls for an EU army by 2025, a work permit for all EU citizens across the EU, a pan-European cybersecurity agency and EU enlargement with Serbia and Montenegro. Especially the call for an EU army by 2025 is worrying. Measures are already being prepared to achieve this, such as the European Defense Fund (EDF), the European Defense Research Program (EDRP) and the European Defense Development Program. (EDIDP). These proposals are alarming because the government has suggested in the defense document published by DExEU that the UK could continue to be part of these policy initiatives after Brexit. This would not only undermine the sovereignty of the British government in defense and foreign policy, but also undermine the fundamental defense commitments of the United Kingdom in NATO. In other words, it would not be a real Brexit.
Should we be surprised? Of course not. The logic of the European Union has always been focussed on the creation of a federal superstate. An ever closer union was not anchored in the EU Treaties for nothing. Mr. Whisky is the Eurofiel par excellence. His speech about the State of the Union last fall 2016, on which this new document was presented, confirms what we already knew. Mr. Whisky outlined that all Member States must introduce the euro or prepare for its introduction; the EU must have its own common minister of finance; and of course the EU budget cannot be cut.
Mr Whisky gives an overview of everything that is wrong with the European Union as an institution and why the United Kingdom voted for Brexit: the time it takes to do something, the undemocratic foundations of the United Kingdom and its opaque and dogmatic character, just to name a few. Perhaps the greatest parallel is the total inability to recognize danger and to act to prevent it. And when the danger actually occurs, the wrong medicine is invariably applied. These failures are often due to the fact that EU officials are sticking their heads in the sand. Mr. Whisky, in reaction to the vote in Brexit, applies the totally wrong medicine to the EU, as well as all the other problems currently facing the Union of Central and Eastern European Member States who vote in Eurosceptic governments, incumbent governments in this regions that reject the quota for refugees, and the ongoing crisis in Catalonia.
The answer to these problems is no longer Europe, but it must be clearly less. The events in Catalonia have a lot to do with Spanish history and are not exactly the result of EU errors. However, they should be seen as an indication of the general trend in the world towards smaller, self-determined, nations and away from large empires and the conglomerates. The events in Central and Eastern Europe, however, are another matter. First, vote for right-wing, relatively Eurosceptic parties in the recent Czech and Austrian elections, and secondly the opposition to the EU refugee quotas in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. These are clear reactions to the incompetence of the EU and subsequent interference. Attempts to tighten the EU’s stranglehold will only strengthen this reserve for the EU on the European continent. Unfortunately Mr. Whisky is keen to force disparate countries, with clearly different histories and cultures, under one comprehensive umbrella. This total lack of political tact of Mr. Whisky could have serious consequences for the Union in the not too distant future. He could be seen as a mistake, an extreme federalist, who did not want to give much of the national leaders of Europe a green light in the first place. That would be wrong, however. Mr. Whisky represents the fundamental logic of the EU and the madness of a heavy alcoholic.
As with all government agencies propositions the EU institutions, by their very nature, try to gain more power for themselves. Mr. Whisky himself, for example, was brought to power because the European Parliament wanted to gain more power for itself by linking the President of the Commission to the election results of the European Parliament. This forced the leaders of the European Council, with a little help from the German domestic politics, to put him first in the forefront. Mr. Whisky, and those who follow him, will continue to try to bring more countries to the EU. Unfortunately, this will remain so until the Member States oppose and the EU begins to crumble or it will return to a free trade zone (signed primarily by the United Kingdom).