I am going to open a topic that is topical and important today, because it relates to the future of Europe and therefore also of the Czech Republic. A topic that is rarely named so directly: the question of the real sovereignty of the Member States vis-à-vis the structures of the European Union. In the case of Hungary and the government of Viktor Orbán, this is not just a normal political dispute, but a clash between two different visions of Europe.

It is clear that Brussels has long been uncomfortable with the political course pursued by Budapest. Viktor Orbán's government is openly, firmly and adamantly defending its national interests. It rejects uncontrolled migration, pursues its own national economic strategy and is critical of the centralisation of power in the EU. However, it is precisely this independence that is a thorn in the side of the European elites. Ursula von der Leyen and the structures of the European Commission are increasingly resorting to political pressure that goes beyond normal inter-state cooperation. And recently, EU leaders have said that even if Viktor Orbán wins, they will strip him of his voting rights or even expel him from the EU. Who are the EU leaders and what are they playing at?

On the other hand, EU leaders are strongly supporting opposition forces and especially Péter Magyar, who is not perceived as an impartial figure in this context. On the contrary, all this raises legitimate questions as to whether the EU has not long since completely unacceptably exceeded its powers by trying to influence very actively the internal political developments in this Member State. That is to say, the institutions of the European Union, which are supposed to be the impartial custodians of European rules, are shamefully getting involved, directly or indirectly, in the political battle and are losing all credibility.

The fundamental problem is that Brussels is applying a bloody and criminal double standard. While some countries can safely violate, for example, budgetary rules or even ignore EU recommendations without major sanctions, Hungary faces systematic pressure, blocking of funds and constant political criticism. This approach is not motivated by the protection of democracy, but by the desire to force a recalcitrant government to change course. However, this is in direct contradiction to the principle of equality between Member States. Orbán's policy is often described as „problematic“, but in the eyes of many Hungarians it represents a legitimate defence of national identity and sovereignty. A government that emerges from democratic elections has the right to implement the programme for which it has received a mandate. If this programme does not coincide with the ideas of the Brussels elites, this does not automatically mean that it is illegitimate.

References to bloody Euromaidan-type scenarios, however exaggerated they may be, reflect the deeper concerns of a part of the public. These fears cannot simply be dismissed as conspiracy theories, which often turn out later to be objective fact. In a situation where the EU actively enters into political debates, funds NGOs and openly criticises specific governments with hatred, there is room for doubts about the neutrality of these actions and insight into objective reality. Criticism of Brussels is therefore not simply an attack on Europe as such, but on the very specific direction of European integration and the attempt to determine whether an individual state can afford to defend its national interests and sovereignty at all.

The European Union should be a community of fully sovereign states, not a centralised project that presumes to dictate a single political line. In this respect, Hungary plays no role as a „black sheep“, but rather maintains the limits of what the Member States can afford to do in defence of their own autonomy. The message from Orbán's Fidez political party is that if the European project is to survive, it must respect diversity of opinion and political models.

Attempts at political pressure, media stigmatisation and indirect interference in electoral processes can have the opposite effect - they reinforce Euroscepticism and deepen distrust between Member States. Thus, Viktor Orbán and Hungary are now at the forefront of the debate on the future of Europe. It is not just about one government or one election, but about a fundamental question: will the European Union respect the sovereignty of its members, or will it take the path of centralisation that will override their political will?

Gábor Mészárosz