Jobbik MEP Gyöngyösi on eliminating social differences
Even critics of the European integration would concede to the argument that it has undisputedly contributed to an unprecedented era of reconciliation between hitherto hostile nation states.
According to Jobbik MEP Márton Gyöngyösi, many factors played a part in reaching a consensus on the continent.
The tragic common experience of horror and devastation on all sides in two subsequent world wars only partly explain the joint endeavour to build a European cooperation.
Read alsoJobbik MEP Gyöngyösi: Divided We Stand, United We Fall – Central-European Realities and Opportunities
Nothing ever was built on negation and negative experiences only. Creativity, goodwill, trust and vision are all necessary to construct a lasting mechanism. Without the cooperation and wisdom of a generation of like-minded political leaders, reigning in the Western hemisphere European integration could not have become reality.
The Western political elite of the time predominantly adherent to the Christian-Social school of thought understood that in the evolving bi-polar geopolitical reality the key to success is an integration based on a mutually beneficial economic cooperation with a strong element of solidarity and inclusive social dimension.
Gyöngyösi writes that in this process, the role of the US was critical at least in three significant areas. Firstly, learning the lessons of misguided policies after the First World War, Western leaders were wise not to humiliate Germany but help it get back on its feet. In a historic gesture of reconciliation, in 1953 the Truman-administration brokered the so-called London Debt Agreement to liberate Germany of its asphyxiating debt burden. Its Western creditors instantly wrote off over 70 percent of Germany’s pre-war debt. Furthermore, the US extended the largest financial assistance known in history to ailing European economies in the framework of the so-called Marshall Plan. Additionally, by forging a military alliance the US guaranteed the security of Europe at a time of nuclear threat in the Cold War era.
This act of solidarity, i.e. a combination of debt write-off and substantial financial impetus, as well as the guarantee to security, was key to launch the socio-economic upsurge of Europe with unprecedented decades of peace, welfare and stability to follow.
If the European Union wants to counter successfully economic, environmental, security, health and social challenges of our times it can only do so by leaning on the experiences of post-war Europe and work ever harder on strengthening social cohesion between its member states.
Read alsoJobbik MEP Gyöngyösi: A Recovery Plan for Europe
The greatest threat to social cohesion in the EU today is the enormous geographical imbalance persisting in income levels between the periphery and core of the EU.
Although an enticing perspective for any candidate country, with the benefit of hindsight it is fair to say that many member states joined the common market or indeed the common currency prematurely. It is a cliché of economic theory that economic integration and liberalization can only be successful if it is mutually beneficial and by definition it cannot be between unequals. In a common market with free movement of labour and capital, it is inevitable that the former will leave for higher salaries and the latter for higher returns. Equally, a common monetary policy is rarely suitable in the long run for countries with contrasting economic structures and fundamentals. Such a mechanism cannot result in a desired equilibrium, but more likely to bring about social disaster.
Today the EU is characterized by enormous geographical social differences with mass migration of labour from the periphery and an ever-increasing gap in welfare between East and West, North and South.
Cohesion funds, the EU’s official policy instrument for closing the development gap and furthering closer economic integration between members have rarely fulfilled their mission. It is a common responsibility of donors and recipients that cohesion funds, which represent European taxpayers’ contributions, are targeted efficiently, spent effectively, and not subject to corruption – explains Gyöngyösi.
To this day, cohesion funds have contributed more to the sustainment of corrupt political establishments, corporate interests across the EU than to closing the income gap by enhancing competitiveness.
Therefore, it is fair to say, that the cohesion policy of the EU that should contribute to establishing social cohesion across the continent cannot compare to the post-war arrangements that helped Western Europe to get back on its feet. Apart from the moral hazard of misusing great quantities of European taxpayers’ funds, persisting social inequalities will inevitably lead to the surge of right wing extremism, populism on the one hand, and overstretched extreme-left activism. Signs of both are abundantly visible, with less and less space and time for sensible and constructive dialogue to find solutions.
Source: www.gyongyosimarton.com
8 Comments
There are some points in this article I can agree with.
Europe has been more peaceful than previously, that is clear. However, I would not give all the credit to the “European Project.”
The evidence shows without question that two countries with democratic governments do not go to war.
The problem with EU in my opinion is that it is moving very fast towards a totalitarian organisation. The abuse heaped on certain countries like Poland and Hungary from the likes of France and Sweden just because they have different views is wrong.
Who can tell Poland and Hungary who they should allow to settle in their country?
If The Swedish and French are happy to have their cities as no go areas for police, if they are happy to find millions of foreigners who do not want to work,that is up to them.
EU can only work if all countries accept that others may have different views.
Indeed, some Eastern countries seem to be in a situation quite reminding of the one after ww2, main difference being back then Russia came with means of military and ideological force, today Russia returns with means of money and resources. Back then, Eastern countries were forced to accept it as part of post-war logics, today they seem happy to accept it since they are electing national leaders whose major goal is to become Putin’s vassals.
Sooner or later, time will come when Visegrad countries will have to decide: with the EU or with Russia? And since Putin’s project is, and always was, to undermine the EU, if V.O.&co. choose Russia, the EU should stop feeding them and wish them good luck with the Zar.
Their has been a slow mission creep of what the European Union was founded upon. It was intended to be a common market for trading among the European members. It was NEVER INTENDED to become The United States of Europe. Brussels should only be the office location for the E.U. NOT the place were unelected bureaucrats DICTATE to members HOW they should think and act in regards to each members internal affairs. That is pretty much what the former Soviet Union did to its members. The E.U. needs to have its mission reeled back in and let the sovereign nations manage their own internal affairs.
Poor Mario can see no evil in Brussels but can see all sorts of evil in Moscow.
As a non Hungarian I am not qualified to talk about feelings towards Russia.
But Mario, can you not see how disillusioned the peoples of Europe are?
France, once a strong country almost on equal terms with Germany is now weak and on fire every day.
The UK has walked away from EU.
When Italy has its next election there is a big chance Salvini will win comfortably. What then for EU?
Can you not see that the actions of EU have been mostly responsible for this unrest?
And if Russia wishes to expand its empire all it will need to do is to sit back and wait. EU will destroy itself!!
Bruce, I see no evil in Russia at all but you obviously see only the negative side of the EU and pretend to ignore the great achievements of it, many of which i am sure you too as a foreigner take or took advantage of. About Russia…Russia is a great country and I am against the embargo, I believe the EU should maintain friendly and cooperative relations with Russia like with all other countries/entities. The problem is not Russia, the problem is that Orban’s Hungary is steadily shifting eastwards and since Putin has no interest in having a strong EU on his western borders, on the contrary he just wants it to be weaker and weaker, his political project, and consequently Orban’s project, goes against the EU. So, since there is no way small fishes like Hungary, Czechia etc. can survive alone in an ocean where giant voracious fishes such as Usa, Russia, China swim, the options are two: stay with the EU or go with Putin. Simple. As a European, i do not want any Trojan horse, and that is precisely what Hungary has become. If almost all EU members regard Hungary as a problem, is it realistic that only Orban is right and all the others are wrong?
Mario fails to understand that what other European governments want does NOT often times equate to what the everyday citizens of the other European nations want. MANY politicians are in the pocket of special interest.
Honestly most Hungarians want to see Hungary remain a nation whom is able to stand on its on 2 legs and think for itself. They don’t want to be in a marriage with Russia nor do the want to be puppets of Brussels. It is for that reason Hungary will eventually have no choice but to be part of an independent alliance of the Visegrad nations if it wants it culture and family values to survive. Just because a majority of E.U. governments want Hungary to cave on its values does not give Mario and his globalist (communist) friends the right to force people to be accepted in Hungary that will NEVER bring anything to the table except crime and an outstretched hand for free stuff.
Jack Russell, there is no way Hungary or any other European country ( except, maybe, Germany ) can stand on its own legs in the 21st C world. The good days of European ” powers ” are long gone, that is why the EU is the only way for European states to survive without being swallowed by China or other giants. I am not a globalist, but this is the world we live in, not the mythical ” golden age ” of 120 years ago too many Hungarians naively dream of ( golden age for the few privileged ones, by the way, i.e. a few Budapest people and the fat landowners of the countryside ) … and I am not a communist either, although i must inform you that under socialism crime rate was much lower than today.
Visegrad…. good idea on regional.scale, quite weak on a global.scale.
P.s. according to several surveys conducted in recent years, approx. 80 % of Hu people does not want a “Huxit “. Maybe an exaggerated figure, but i doubt a Huxit referendum would be pro-exit.
MARIO, good and reasonable comments, taking into account various perspectives. Agree with you regarding “the World we live in”. To my mind there is no way to survive independently in terms of economics and politics for almost all EU countries (with a very few exceptions such as Germany and France).