orbán fidesz immigration
Photo: MTI

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on Friday outlined his Fidesz party’s programme aimed at stopping immigration.

The first part of the proposal calls for stripping “Brussels bureaucrats” of their power to manage the migration issue and giving that competency back to the European Union’s member states.

He said no country should be forced to take in migrants against its will and no one should be admitted to the EU without valid documents.

The EU should also stop issuing prepaid debit cards and “migrant visas” to migrants, Orbán said. Neither should the bloc give any more money to organisations linked to US financier George Soros, which the prime minister said promoted immigration. Instead, he said, these groups should pay for member states’ border protection measures.

Further, no one should face discrimination for identifying as a Christian, Orbán said, adding that EU institutions should have anti-migration leaders.

The prime minister said these measures were crucial for stopping immigration and preserving Christian culture, and asked voters to back his party’s programme.

Our Christian civilisation is at stake in the upcoming European parliamentary election,” Orbán said.

The election will decide if the EU has “pro-migration or anti-migration” leaders in future, whether “Europe continues to belong to the Europeans or to masses from another civilisation; whether we can save our Christian, European culture or give up the ground for multiculturalism,” the prime minister said.

Orbán added that “discontent with Europe’s elite is mostly rooted in their treatment of migration”. What Europe is facing is not just a migration crisis but a migration of peoples in the historical sense, he suggested. Europe, he went on to say, could stop mass migration “but it has not even made an attempt; the European Union’s incumbent leaders support and encourage migration.”

Orbán criticised Brussels for not focusing enough on family policy, pointing out that at the same time the EU regularly emphasises the importance of legal migration. He said the EU’s programme of legal migration was actually a “front” for replacing Europe’s population with immigrants.

“We Hungarians have lived here in the Carpathian Basin for a thousand years  and we want to remain here and preserve our borders for at least another one thousand years,” the prime minister said. “We want the next generations, our children and our grandchildren, to be just as free to make decisions about their lives as we are.”

Orbán also touched on the relationship between Fidesz and the European People’s Party, saying that “we will decide on our own future, not the European People’s Party.” Fidesz will wait and see which direction the EPP will go in after the elections, he said, adding that right now it appeared to be heading “left, in a liberal direction towards liberal European empire-building and in the direction of the Europe of immigrants”. If this is the direction the EPP is headed, he said, “you can be sure Fidesz won’t follow it.”

As regards the outgoing European Commission president, Orbán called Jean-Claude Juncker an “authentic socialist” who bore heavy responsibility for Brexit, “the migrant invasion” and the “growing conflict” between central and western Europe.

“There is an error in the appliance of the Brussels elite,” Orbán said, adding that there was a “bubble”, or “virtual world” in Brussels that refused to accept reality. This was why, Orbán said, it was possible for EPP group leader and spitzenkandidat Manfred Weber, who he noted was a Roman Catholic Bavarian, to “insult” the Hungarian people. He said this was not unusual from a “Bavarian from Brussels”, adding, however, that a “Bavarian from Munich would never do such a thing”.

Orbán noted that Hungary has been at odds with Brussels on various issues for nine years now, adding that these disputes were always about the Hungarian government’s refusal to “do as Brussels dictates” if it believes that something would be against the interests of the Hungarian people.

The prime minister summed up the achievements of the Juncker commission saying “the British are leaving and the immigrants have come in”.

Concerning the future of the bloc, Orbán criticised the concept of the “united states of Europe”, which he said was a power ambition of the “Brussels elite” against nation states.

“The European dream is broken,” he said, citing a recent study by the Századvég Foundation, which found that EU citizens no longer believe that future generations will be better off than the current one. Orbán said western Europeans tended to be more pessimistic about the future of the bloc. The majority of Europeans also believe in preserving the continent’s Christian culture and traditions, Orbán said, pointing out that 80 percent of Hungarians shared this view.

Europeans oppose immigration, Orbán said, adding that European Commission First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, the lead candidate of the European Socialists, on the other hand, was in favour of it. “It’s understandable that Juncker and Timmermans are together all the time,” Orbán said.

“The only question is how the EPP’s Manfred Weber can come together with someone like this.”

The prime minister called on voters to “show Brussels” in the election that it was the European people, and not the “Soros-affiliated NGOs and Brussels bureaucrats” that had the final say in the EU’s affairs.

Featured image: MTI

Source: MTI

  1. The EU has created a big problem for many people in Europe (with brains). Especially now when the democratic ‘representatives’ of EVP under the leading or clown Verhofstadt have suggested to delete Fidesz from their group. Holland seems to have become a barrel full of feelings of superiority, loss of decorum, black-and-white thinking and a good dose of hypocrisy. Since the enormous provincial election victory of Forum for Democracy (FvD), considerable cracks have appeared in the apparently waterthin layer of glaze over Holland. In addition, nuancing that all people in this country do not do better or worse as a group than in countries elsewhere in the world. Man is simply hypocritical. At least many are (un) consciously cultivated hypocritically. Which also means that we have the choice to change this. The fact that we are not doing better in this country than elsewhere makes certain statements about other countries quite messy. Ask any passerby if he can be trusted and the majority will agree. As soon as you ask if the neighbor can be trusted, that is a lot less and the person who largely deviates from ourselves is a shady figure. Let alone that fundamental rights are still granted to them. There is nothing more humane today than going through life in this way and the denial of this discrepancy can be regarded as mainstream. However, given that they are ideas that we have mastered, we can also unlearn them. The fact that the barrel seems more filled does not mean that it is so. What if this is the result of a long-standing homemade culture and there is no question of increased polarization? A large part of the population in Holland grew up in a ‘yes-no culture’. What your parents said was true and in certain cases it was made clear to you, if needed, with harshness and / or mentally that a reply, however diplomatically proclaimed, was unauthorized. This also happened at school and in public life. Ca. 50 years ago we supposedly had respect for the teacher, policeman, director. Was it respect? If you rule with repression, you probably get little resistance, but that has little to do with respect. You can only receive real respect if you give it yourself first without attaching any conditions. Quite a difficult goal to achieve in a society that is held together by sowing fear and applying punishments. Only when you were born in the 70s of the last century and you were lucky enough to live in a family where there was room for other ideas did you have more opportunities to use your brains critically, to share your self-invented brain and learning and experiencing what is real respect. A privilege that even in Holland even today is not self-evident for some. In addition, you see in today’s society that a lot of people become uncomfortable and feel ‘personally’ hurt when confronted with other ideas, no matter how tactical and weighted. A different opinion will soon be classified under the heading ‘extreme’ and experienced as shocking. The person with a different opinion (at least on the subject discussed at that time) is therefore categorized as antisocial, rude or inappropriate by the content of his message alone. And as a different-minded (public) figure, you are called a populist, fascist, racist, mass murderer, extreme or incapacitated in (left) general opinion. In addition, two measures are also measured. Because when the left is extreme, it is covered with the cloak of love! Even in the case of criminal offenses there is a strong tendency to stick to hypocritical arbitrariness. The establishment in Holland of a hotline for inventory of possible indoctrination in education is being used by media and politicians on social media, among other things, to put FvD in a bad light. According to the other established parties, it would be a ‘click line’ that calls for the filming of left-wing teachers. Whoever wants to check this soon comes to the conclusion that this is not correct. If, in addition, it appears that nobody, e.g. seems to worry about the ‘Report Islamophobia’ reporting point, this raises questions. Under what conditions is a hotline categorized as a click line? And on what grounds do specific hotlines supposedly contribute to the creation of populist totalitarian regimes? Critics of the FvD hotline would e.g. be able to ask the question that if there is indoctrination or if there is also willfulness involved? Possibly it was previously asleep, learned unitary sausage. A person, and therefore also a society, only becomes aware of his blind spot when someone puts his finger on the sore spot. In that sense, we should therefore cherish this initiative and start with good intentions. If it later emerges that intentions are malicious, our democracy still leaves room for correct intervention.
    That in the light that no one has the right to fling statements (and public square) at someone’s head in an attempt to ruin someone personally, simply because an initiative, an opinion, is inconsistent with the general line of thought of which a certain groups believe they have the right to impose it on everyone. What is totalitarian again? Do we have so little faith in our democratic system? Talking about so-called increasing polarization, this would be good to make room for extreme views in society without directly saying that the person it brings is crazy and not good. On the other hand, no-one seems to be shocked about statements that the FvD wished to die 65+ voters on social media in the light of the next parliamentary elections. If you act against this, you will receive little or no support. Is Holland just the monkey country, you wonder! The protection of fundamental rights does not start with addressing each other on statements that violate these rights? By definition, fundamental rights do not make a distinction between left, right or anyone else? Or do certain groups have more privileges? In fact, these grounds were already part of the original text under the name or for whatever reason. Should we, on the basis of a reading, state that anyone who is confronted with discrimination on grounds that do not fall under the grounds of religion, belief, political affiliation, race, gender, disability and sexual orientation, thereby forfeits their right to equal treatment? That therefore explains why politics in Holland does not do anything about the discrimination of primary school children with an average IQ that is denied free appropriate education. This selective privilege is also added to the conclusion of the reading: Our constitution provides for the greatest possible form of individual freedom and that is embedded in the unity of the whole. You could see it as a balance between liberals, liberal people and democrats on the one hand and community thinkers such as conservatives and socialists on the other. You will only be counted as part of another group, then you are the pinch!
    I understand very well that, rushing through life, it can feel like a challenge to stand up for your fellow man. Yet I wonder if freedom is so important to everyone, but it is also everyone’s duty to respectfully inform people of the effects of certain statements. Or do we think that our pursuit of failed efficiency guarantees our prosperity more than reminding each other of our common fundamental rights and therefore also our duties? Would thinking-minded people nowadays often wonder if they still want to be part of a country in which such an attitude seems to have become mainstream? The so-called equality thinking resulting in inequality à volonté in practice is hypocrisy at its best. Who is still insured of: ‘practice what you preach’? A large group of these falls over the statement that black people would have a lower IQ than white people. Where politicians fall over the above absurd opinion, they engage at least not to be busy about the call on social media of dissenters to introduce an entrance exam at the next parliamentary elections, which you must pass before you can vote. Because according to a survey, which in fact only says something about the group that participated on its own initiative (and therefore cannot be regarded as representative of all voters), most voters who voted for FvD would be 65+ men who were largely at most secondary educated to be. Why true and not stigmatizing? Anyway, these rioters should get their way, so that they can come to the conclusion that the FvD voter turns out to be miraculously better informed than the young yup who is already going to jump at the word ‘green’ with the question: Where can I color a ball for GreenLeft? (The old Dutch communist party). Quite worrying that such voting behavior prevails among certain voters.
    Other examples where hypocrisy prevails are, for example, the multicultural society. This is fully advocated by the left, but as soon as someone of immigrant origin walks into an office as a new colleague, the person behind his / her back is thrown over all prejudices in which left-oriented colleagues are only too happy to participate: is his IQ high enough, must they do not wear a headscarf, he is sufficiently trained. On the other hand, a white immigrant who is familiar with Dutch is confronted with denial of his / her origin under the guise: You are one of us! In the light of human rights, a stricter migration policy could indeed be implemented in which the human rights of both the real refugee and the people living in the Netherlands are better protected. A refugee needs more from an efficient and humane short procedure than from a (child) pardon after endless waiting. Nor do people in Holland have to live on the street because there is a housing shortage and refugees are given priority. Just as well that the left has the mouth full of equal opportunities but then participates just as hard in the discrimination against women and other groups in high positions. People who criticize the transformation of all public toilets (hot item in Holland!) into ‘gender-neutral’ ones are also fully abused by certain types. Instead of having a ‘gender-neutral’ toilet, we suddenly have to pee massively gender-neutral and raise our children gender-neutral while the majority still feel male or female and most children still feel boy or girl, without that culturally is imposed. It seems irrelevant that many women (also in Holland) still have the feeling that it is dangerous to them to walk at night. Women now have to sit down en masse about their feeling of insecurity on the toilet and men about their desire for privacy when urinating because a minority wants to have a gender-neutral symbol on the door.
    Another hyper-sensitive topic is Europe. If you state that Europe, due to its unilaterally acquired powers, still does not take specific unique situations in EU countries into account, you are immediately put in the mouth that you are advocating a Nexit. The nuance is simply completely lost. And do not criticize the climate in any sense, because then by definition you will be thrown at a lot of deniers who in fact hardly exist. The fact that a significant group of people in society will no longer be involved if the current climate policy is continued is not open to ‘green’ opinion. That is why we are here calling for your opinion to be heard, even if it differs. Maybe correct if it is different. Do you express yourself passionately, such as Orbán Viktor, perhaps with some sharp edges? A different opinion is soon sharper. As long as you do not become personal (Verhofstadt), is it right that you let yourself feel guilty? If the other has difficulty with it? There is a good chance that he will be confronted with his own reflection. And if you witness that someone else is being attacked personally for free speech, talk to someone about it and support each other there too. Standing up for each other could be done much more often. To those who literally put others away as ‘vinegar pissers’: Could it be that your perception of the other is seriously lacking and that the other simply has a legitimate different opinion in certain areas that is at least as valuable as yours? If we want a balanced society, we need different opinions and visions, otherwise we will remain unbalanced. We must continue to share these with each other, since a balance is always in motion. 2019 seems to me to be a suitable year to shake off this tight coat of hypocrisy and to limit ourselves to sowing only what we want to harvest.
    A last remark: People in Holland are forced to change from gas to electricity to warm their houses. Gas will not be delivered anymore after 2030. This is a painful decision made by the Government and their friends on the left side. The transfer will cost the Dutch about € 1.000 billion and the result is equals zero!

  2. I simply say that the Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban is the duly elected leader to make the correct decision as to what benefits or otherwise the Hungarian nation that derives by the proposals of the “career bureaucrats of Brussels” or indeed Berlin !!
    Respect for the sovereignty of the independent nation is simply the issue !!

    John H.Morton.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.