European Parliamentary elections have been characterized by low voter turnout and a lack of real, European-level issues that could drive political campaigns and transform the quinquennial vote into something more than a Europe-wide public opinion poll on domestic politics and the performance of national governments. But this time, it’s different: there is a topic that will have far-reaching impact on Europe’s future.
And that topic is migration.
“Will Europe remain European or will we give way to the masses coming from other cultures,” the PM asked in his EP campaign kick-off speech in April , adding that “we will decide whether we protect our Christian European culture or give way to multiculturalism.”
Although Brussels-based liberal Eurocrats strive to convince the European electorate that it’s a non-issue, migration has, in fact, dramatically altered Europe’s political landscape. The traditional left-right division has become obsolete, as the prime minister has said, and is increasingly replaced by a division shaped by different positions on immigration. There are those who oppose migration and want to stop it, while others are interested in promoting the influx of foreigners, proposing instead to “manage” immigration.
According to Prime Minister Orbán, since Hungary’s accession to the European Union in 2004, Hungarians have voted in three EP elections where the only real question was whether the president of the European Commission will come from the left or the right side of the political spectrum. But now, “Europe will choose its future,” the prime minister said, deciding on whether “there will be EU leaders from the pro-immigration parties or from those that oppose immigration.”
While the risks of mass immigration loom large, on the other side we see political forces who have a fundamentally different vision for the future of Europe and are doing everything they can to keep migration off the agenda in these elections. They oppose nation states and national sovereignty and hold in contempt the will of the voters.
Here’s Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, for example, in an interview run on CNN on Wednesday: "These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries," referring to patriotic governments that stand up for the interests of their people and insist on national sovereignty. Those terrible populists “in love with their own countries”!
Last year, billionaire financier George Soros openly admitted that his “plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.” Meanwhile, liberal ALDE leader Guy Verhofstadt believes that “the world isn’t headed in the direction of nation states, but empires,” therefore the goal should be to build a mega-state, a United States of Europe.
And it’s more than these well-known figures – there’s a lot more going on in the background. POLITICO recently revealed some of the behind-closed-doors machinations among Brussels bureaucrats and forces of globalization aimed at keeping the European debate “on track”. Note that “on track” in their thinking means avoiding critical issues, like migration, and not allowing them to derail their bigger agenda. According to the reporter, “the Commission had joined forces with one of Europe’s most powerful foundations,” the Bertelsmann Stiftung, and the lines between the two are sometimes quite blurry.
The list goes on, but all these actors have two things in common: they take a pro-migration stance and work towards weakening nation states for the sake of a United States of Europe.
Should they take the lead at Europe’s helm, our Christian European culture will come under attack and we will have to fight against a determined pro-immigration agenda. As Prime Minister Orbán said “we must decide whether we protect our Christian Europe or surrender to multiculti.”
The outcome of these elections will have decisive, far reaching consequences.