National sovereignty must not be trampled

I was a child when my mother first took me to see the wonderful ballet “Swan Lake”. In one scene a swan is dying in the middle of the lake. The other swans are dancing around her, perhaps to show their regret, but no swan dances into the middle of the lake to save her. As a child I did not understand why they did not do anything, why they did not solve the problem which seemed to be solvable to me. I felt exactly the same way when I read the report about the umpteenth meeting of the European heads of state and prime ministers regarding the problems of illegal migration. Because these jamborees, which could also be called impotence summits, did not bring us closer to the solution of the biggest problem of this era.

Europe’s invasion probably started with an innocent study accessible to anyone. The demographic summary examined 50 countries and it contained mathematically provable conclusions based on demographic trends. The most important findings were regarding the adult working population in the coming 10 years. The study’s conclusion was that, based on the current trends, the United States would have sufficient number of workers but China and Germany would face huge labour shortages.
In the case of Germany the prognosis forecasts 1 million employees to be imported to the country if Germany wants to maintain the higher level of living standard compared to other European countries, including Hungary, in the next few decades.
There is an alternative, of course, which could even gain the favour of the German population’s majority, but the financial elite of the German economy would not support it. The alternative would be an economic co-operation with Russia and the liberated countries of Eastern Europe that would share the fruits of growth with them and significantly raise the quality of life in these countries.
At the same time this would result in a smaller increase in the living standards of German citizens and slower-growing profits for German companies. We still have to wait for a correct explanation and analysis of the problem. So it is extremely difficult for people to understand the seemingly illogical German position.
Those who represent the future of Europe’s interests know that the influx of refugees invading Europe at the call of the now completely discredited German Chancellor is the problem and not the solution.
A recent event concerning the influx was the Turkish-EU summit. The meeting was an admission that 1. the EU is not able to defend the Schengen borders, 2. it doesn’t want the member states to defend their borders, 3. some EU member states are willing to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty at the altar of political correctness, 4. they put Turkey in a blackmailing position; millions of Moslem immigrants will flood Europe, this time legally from Turkey, 5. Germany still doesn’t want to admit: its immigration policy was totally mistaken during the entire period.
Leading countries of the EU accepted that the price of “solving” the problem is the limitation of their countries’ sovereignty. It seems that they demand the same from other member states as well.
Part of this process is the extension of alleged EU rights without the approval of all of the member states. If the EU uses political force against the governments of the member states successfully and achieves the forced distribution of refugees so much coveted by Germany, the whole system of the alliance is called into question.
Part of the definition of national sovereignty accepted by everyone, is that a sovereign state has the right to defend its borders, to define the conditions of citizenship and to decide who can enter the country. These principles are just as fundamental and internationally accepted, as that the concepts of freedom of speech, religion, and press are parts of democracy. These principles cannot be overridden by “European solidarity”, “burden-sharing”, “Europism” or any other empty, tired, burst phrases.
The European edition of Politico, an internationally renowned American political magazine, named Prime Minister Viktor Orbán as the “Person of the year for 2015”. The magazine, which cannot be accused of Orbán sympathy, pointed out the greatest lesson of the current refugee crisis: Europe’s leading politicians, well closeted in their ivory towers, did not only completely lose touch with reality, but also with their own electorate.
There is no European country where in case of a referendum voters would approve the EU’s current refugee policy. Not in Germany, not in Sweden, not in Norway, not in Spain. Nowhere. In one of the recent months, 14 refugee reception buildings were burned down in Sweden. There are conflicts between the local population and migrants on a daily basis in Germany.
Due to the reckless European policy, racist, shamefully primitive attacks on migrants are increasing in Western Europe. These were supposed to be present only in the newly joined EU states until now.
The refugee flood and the European Union’s management of the process give a great opportunity to revise how Europe is organised in the future. First of all, it should be laid down very clearly when, why and to what extent the EU has the right to intervene in EU member states’ lives.
To what extent may a member country’s independence be limited? Is it possible to eliminate the fundamental rights, e.g. sovereignty, of a member state by majority vote, or to terminate the exercising of its rights? Should we let Europe be a multicultural society, like the United States, or should we leave the nation-states to decide with whom and how they want to share their countries?
It is generally accepted that EU member states in most of the countries send their unwanted, useless, retired or weary politicians to the European Parliament. Nice job, good salary, but with a few exceptions those representatives are not among the countries’ best.
This unfortunate fact greatly affects the functioning of the EU. In this way the European Commission, whose members were really not elected by anybody, can secure the acceptance of its silliest decisions, or are able to defend them in front of these representatives in the European Parliament.
It is in the basic interest of the members of the European Parliament to become a real parliament of Europe sooner or later. This is the revenge of the useless. The European Commission is eager to be the fully powered government with all the privileges for a United Europe. They wish to take away more and more power and privilege from national governments without having a mandate to exercise these privileges.
The refugee crisis showed the impotence and incapacity of these bodies at the European level. At the same time these European organisations do everything within their power to prevent the national solutions from working. So at some point the European states, deprived of their power, would have to turn to the EU to find solutions.
Advocates of the nation-states do not love Europe less than proponents of a federative Europe. But they love their own nation even more than they love Europe. Therefore, they prefer defending Europe while protecting their own country. Because this method has always proved to be the most effective.

George F. Hemingway
US businessman, attorney