Good morning to you all. It is an honour to be here again, and to be able speak to you today, alongside Bishop Tőkés. To break the ice, I’ll immediately quote one of his wry comments. Following on from what Zsolt Semjén said about László Tőkés being our compass, Laszlo said to me, “Just don’t lose your compass.” And how true that is politically.
Every year I ask my friend Zsolt Németh what he thinks I should talk about. I won’t repeat all the various ideas now, but he told me to remember that whatever wider context I speak about, we are after all at an Open University event, and so I should try to make broader comments also relevant to Székely Land, Transylvania and the Hungarian nation. I mention this at the outset because later I will embark on all kinds of digressions; but I’ll try to speak about world affairs from a perspective which is, can and will be relevant to Hungary. After all, we are all – today’s audience included, I believe – interested in the same question: what will happen in the twelve months leading up to our next Open University gathering; what will happen between now and July 2019. I suggest that, assessing the prospects, our opportunities and our strength, we start by looking at what has happened since we last met here: what has happened over the past year. Here the important aspect is not a list of events from the past year, but the meaning of what has happened. It is a platitude, but time has accelerated; and in one year more has happened – much more – than in previous years. So it is no wonder that it is hard to believe everything that has happened, let alone envisage what will happen – and what I will soon talk about.
Unification of the nation
The most important event in the past year has been that the Hungarians of the Carpathian Basin have broken through another psychological barrier: we have been able to welcome the one millionth person confirmed as a new Hungarian citizen. This has been the most important development of the past year. If that was all that had been achieved, it would still be worth celebrating. But we’ve done more than that: I can express what we’ve done as transforming the process of unifying the nation into a process of nation building. The dress rehearsal for this was held in April this year. The results demonstrate that Hungarian nation building is succeeding. In the election on 8 April we demonstrated that we Hungarians are able to understand our situation – which is an extremely complicated and complex one – and, if necessary, we can decide our own destiny with one will, and move as one nation. From here in Székely land, I can say that Hungarians outside Hungary have stood by Hungarians in the mother country. Every vote cast here was a declaration of commitment to Hungary. I thank you very much for that commitment and support, and with a grateful heart I express thanks on behalf of the mother country. We combined our forces to win a gruelling battle.
From a system to an era
What has happened in Hungary? We have completed our third term in government. For the benefit of the younger people in the audience, I would like to conjure up the mist-shrouded memory of our term in government between 1998 and 2002. So it is not a slip of the tongue when I say that we have completed our third term in government, and have started on our fourth term. Looking back to the birth of Hungarian democracy in 1990, we can say that we have been sixteen years in opposition and twelve years in government. If God allows it and we are still alive, by the end of the coming four years we can say that the balance has been restored. In my most recent prime ministerial inauguration speech, I also said that the Government consists of sportsmen, and we are not satisfied with a draw. If I only think back over the past eight years , then I can say that after eight straight years in office, we have been given the opportunity to work for another four years. This is what I’m talking about when I echo the words of a young Hungarian political analyst, who has said that we have been mandated to build a new era. I interpret the two-thirds victory we won in 2010 as our being mandated to bring to an end two chaotic decades of transition and to build a new system. In the economy this is embodied in a Hungarian model, and in politics it is embodied in a new constitutional order – a new constitutional order based on national and Christian foundations. Our two-thirds victory in 2014 mandated us to consolidate this system. It was then that the system of national cooperation – much mocked by our opponents – was created. Its title is not particularly inspiring, but it represents an honourable goal when one considers that what we have had throughout Hungarian history has been more a system of national compliance. And our two-thirds victory in 2018 is nothing short of a mandate to build a new era. It is important to remind ourselves, however, that an era is always more than a political system. An era is a special and characteristic cultural reality. An era is a spiritual order, a kind of prevailing mood, perhaps even taste – a form of attitude. A political system is usually determined by rules and political decisions. An era, however, is more than this. An era is determined by cultural trends, collective beliefs and social customs. This is now the task we are faced with: we must embed the political system in a cultural era. This is why it is logical – and in no way surprising – that it is precisely in the field of cultural policy that we have seen the explosion of what is currently the most intense debate. This occurred almost immediately after the election; anyone who follows political debate in Hungary will understand what I’m talking about. I think that this is understandable and in order, because after the third two-thirds victory we really need to adopt a spiritual and cultural approach; and there is no denying that from September major changes lie ahead of us.
Looking back over the past year, I can tell you that we have seen the successful stabilisation of a political system based on national and Christian foundations. The foundations seem to be solid and durable, so it is not unreasonable for us to designate the task for the coming four years as the building of an era. I’ll just give you a lightning review of some facts that illustrate the stability of the political and economic system built after 2010. Looking at economic growth, in 2009 Hungary produced a rate of minus 6 per cent, while in 2017 the figure was plus 4 per cent. Now I’m going to quote some big numbers, but perhaps the comparisons of magnitude will be understandable. In 2010 the value that Hungary was able to produce in a year was 27,224 billion forints, while now it is 38,183 billion forints. Every year since 2010 we have produced 11,000 thousand billion forints more than we did earlier. Everyone knows that we have restored order to our finances, we have repaid the loans taken out as a result of the 2008 crisis, the IMF has been sent home, the deficit is being kept under control, and government debt has been cut from 85 per cent of GDP to 71 per cent. We can also see that the volume of exports has risen from 19,690 billion forints to HUF 31,102 billion forints. This is the highest level in Hungary’s history. The number of people in work between the ages of 15 and 64 has risen from 55 per cent in 2010 to 69 per cent today, which means that 756,000 more people are in work in Hungary today than were in work before 2010. Wages are now 60 per cent higher than they were in 2010. In terms of demographics, the fertility rate has increased from 1.25 to 1.5. And we can also see stability in indicators such as the number of doctors practicing, with 3,665 more doctors today than there were in 2010. Crime has fallen by 50 per cent. Broadband internet access has increased from 51 per cent to 82 per cent. And, touching on other data, in Hungary the number of theatre visits has increased by 3,160,000, with 7,601,000 being recorded in 2017. So when I talk about stability, I’m talking about stability across the whole spectrum of Hungarian life, from the economy to the cultural consumption habits of the middle class and a decline in those living in poverty.
This is a stability which means that what I now want to say is neither self-aggrandising nor delusional. In such a situation what is to be done? In such a situation, backed up by electoral support representing a two-thirds majority, a national government cannot commit itself to anything less than setting itself great aims: great aims of a kind that were previously unimaginable; the kind of great aims that will give meaning to the work of the years to come. We have defined these goals, and – without going into details – to answering the question of what will happen here, I will now mention the most important of these. With a time horizon of 2030 in mind, we want Hungary to become one of the European Union’s five best countries in which to live and work. By 2030 we want to be among the EU’s five most competitive countries. By 2030 we should halt our demographic decline. By 2030 we should physically link Hungary within its present-day borders with the other areas: motorways and dual carriageways should extend as far as the state borders. By 2030 let Hungary become independent in terms of its energy supply, which has become an important dimension of security. Let us complete the Paks nuclear power development, and start using new energy sources. We should suppress widespread illnesses, build the new Hungarian Defence Force, and set about building up the economic structure of Central Europe.
The Carpathian Basin
This is the perspective from which everything I’m about to say will make sense. From our viewpoint here, the most important element is our plan to rebuild the entire Carpathian Basin. In a historical sense, I believe that Hungary’s one hundred years of solitude is at an end. Once more we are strong, we are determined, we are brave, and we have our vigour, money and resources. And over the past few years we have proved to our neighbours that whoever cooperates with the Hungarians will prosper. Now is the time to rebuild the Carpathian Basin. We have a proposal for our neighbours. Our proposal can be summed up by saying that at last we should connect our countries together – once and for all, and with serious intent. Let us connect our major cities with high-speed rail and road links. It is shameful that there is no such link between Debrecen and Nagyvárad [Oradea], between Kassa [Košice] and Miskolc, between Nyíregyháza and Szatmárnémeti [Satu Mare], between Eszék [Osijek] and Pécs, or between Kolozsvár [Cluj-Napoca] and Budapest. We also propose the linking of our energy networks. It is shameful that this is not yet a reality. We propose that we coordinate our defence policies, and also our military developments. And finally we propose that we invest in one another’s areas; for our part, we have already started doing so. I will not talk about business now, but, as a result of the talks we had yesterday with Hungarian leaders from beyond the borders, I can tell you that we have started the refurbishment and construction of some one thousand nursery schools across the Carpathian Basin. These are all Hungarian-language nursery schools. So we have a proposal for our neighbours: let’s build the Carpathian Basin together. This, of course, will demand that we stand on the foundations of mutual respect, and our proposal can only be based on that spirit. And mutual respect requires frank and open dialogue.
Romanians and Hungarians
Immediately we see a great opportunity, in connection with the centenary. One hundred years ago Romania entered its modern era. We understand why they think that this is cause for celebration, but we ask them to understand that from our viewpoint there is nothing to celebrate. We also ask them to face up to the fact that for one hundred years modern Romania has been unable to deal with the natural fact that more than one and a half million Hungarians live here. We know that in Bucharest they even say that Székely Land doesn’t exist. I agree with the anniversary slogan devised for this by the RMDSZ [the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania], which expresses the fact that Transylvania existed before modern Romania came into being. And, as I look around here, and knowing the local people here, I can confidently say that Székely Land will still exist when the whole of Europe has already submitted to Islam – of that we can be sure. So our proposal is to all our neighbours, including our Romanian friends: instead of denying reality – which is not a reasonable attitude – we should see this situation as a source of strength, and we should look upon Transylvania as a resource. Let us want a strengthening Székely Land and let us want a strengthening Hungarian community; because, as Károly Kós said, this will also greatly strengthen Romania. We can set out on this path – all it takes is the will to do so.
Central European tenets
When we have completed the building up of the Carpathian Basin – or perhaps in parallel with it – we will also be faced with the task of building up Central Europe, which is wider and more extensive than the Carpathian Basin. We now have the opportunity to, in the coming years, build up Europe’s large, strong and secure political and economic region: Central Europe. Let us declare that, in addition to its economic growth and all its specificities, Central Europe is a region which also has a special culture. It is different from Western Europe. Let us build it up, and gain recognition for it. In order that Central Europe can occupy the place in Europe that it deserves, it is worth clarifying a few tenets. I have formulated five tenets for the project of building up Central Europe. The first is that every European country has the right to defend its Christian culture, and the right to reject the ideology of multiculturalism. Our second tenet is that every country has the right to defend the traditional family model, and is entitled to assert that every child has the right to a mother and a father. The third Central European tenet is that every Central European country has the right to defend the nationally strategic economic sectors and markets which are of crucial importance to it. The fourth tenet is that every country has the right to defend its borders, and it has the right to reject immigration. And the fifth tenet is that every European country has the right to insist on the principle of one nation, one vote on the most important issues, and that this right must not be denied in the European Union. In other words, we Central Europeans claim that there is life beyond globalism, which is not the only path. Central Europe’s path is the path of an alliance of free nations. This is the task, the mission extending beyond the Carpathian Basin which lies ahead of us.
Donald J. Trump
So these were the calmer waters. Now let’s sail out of Lake Balaton, so to say, and out onto the open seas. Let us look at what has happened in the world around us over the past year. First of all, the US president has made good on his promises. You may remember how the European elite dismissed the US president’s goal to transform the multilateral world order – the world order based on multilateral agreements – into a system based on bilateral agreements. Let us acknowledge that he started this in the past year, is making systematic progress with the precision of an engineer, and a new world political and economic order based on bilateral agreements is unfolding before our eyes. In the past year the other major development in the world around us has been the continuing march and growth of China.
The third important circumstance that we must take into consideration is that the Russians have also delivered on their promise – one which, of course, was dismissed by representatives of the European liberal elite, just as they had dismissed the Americans’ promise. And the Russians have taken action: they are close to resolving the supply of gas to Europe, while bypassing Ukraine. The Nord Stream II pipeline will soon be complete, and the plans for the TurkStream project are already on the table.
Europe’s shift to the right
The fourth important thing that has happened in the past year is that Europe’s shift to the right has continued: it has become clear that this is not just a Central European process. Let us think back to the results of the German federal election – or the Austrian and Italian elections, for that matter. We can see that a shift to the right is a general trend across the whole of Europe. I mention these developments because for us – a country of ten million people and a nation of fifteen million – it is absolutely crucial to understand what is happening around us. We must face up to the fact that for a country of our nature and size, the risks and consequences of making mistakes are much greater than they are for heftier countries.
It is therefore important for us to look at the world around us and seek to understand who wants what: to understand what will happen over the coming year in the international political arena surrounding us. The Americans will continue their attempts to preserve their leading role in the world, and to successfully compete with China. Let’s not forget that demographically China has a four-fold advantage, internal stability, and a technologically advanced and modern economy; this means that time and tide are moving in its direction. The Americans don’t want to resign themselves to this, and have realised that if things continue as they did under their previous presidents, there will be a predictable final outcome. They have just one chance: they want to change the international rules of the game. No one can yet know whether they will succeed – particularly whether they will succeed in doing so without armed conflict; but we can be sure that this is a firm and determined intention that will shape world politics. Therefore, as part of the effort to change the rules of the game, they will try to eliminate the trade surplus that currently exists in Europe’s favour. This is the essence of the clashes pointing to a trade war between the European Union and the United States. They will come to an agreement with the Russians on arms control: there will be a Russian-American agreement. And, in China-US relations, they will also develop trade positions – with sanctions, if necessary.
What will the Russians do in the coming year, Ladies and Gentlemen? In order to understand this, we have to be aware that Russia sees itself as a country that is not safe unless it is surrounded by buffer zones. Therefore Russia will continue to strive to create buffer zones around itself, just as it has done up to now. Ukraine is one of the victims of this. The Ukrainians have decided to put an end to the situation in which equal influence is exerted on them by the West and Russia: they want to join the Western world, and they therefore want to detach themselves from the Russian sphere of interest. They want to move closer to NATO and the European Union – and will perhaps even join them – and build a modern Ukraine. I don’t envisage their membership of NATO, and the prospects for their EU membership are virtually zero. So at this point in time, instead of a new Ukrainian state, I see a Ukrainian economy increasingly drifting towards debt slavery. The Russians’ goal to tip Ukraine back to its former situation does not seem unrealistic.
Relations between the European Union and Russia
In this context, we must consider relations between the European Union and Russia. Allow me to say in general terms – but after thorough consideration – that today the European Union is pursuing a crude policy on Russia: a policy of sanctions, a policy which cites security threats. The EU is unable to act selectively; this is what is needed, because there are European Union countries which do indeed have every reason to feel threatened, which do indeed have every reason to feel that they’re living every day of their lives under constant threat to their security. These countries are the Baltic states and Poland. This feeling is justified – both by geography and history. At the same time, it is completely clear that Hungary does not perceive such a threat, that Slovakia does not perceive such a threat, that the Czechs do not perceive such a threat, and neither does Western Europe. And we also have good reason to feel this way. Clearly there is no single policy which is good for everyone. Therefore it would be better if NATO and the European Union provided extra, heightened security guarantees to Poland and the Baltic countries, and if at the same time the rest of Europe was finally allowed to trade, to build economic cooperation, and to incorporate raw materials, energy and prospects for trade into its set of opportunities for economic development. Instead of a crude policy on Russia, the European Union needs a policy that is multi-faceted and adaptive.
The Middle East
I need to say a few words about one other group of countries, which always escapes our attention. This group comprises Turkey, Israel and Egypt. I don’t want to talk about them at length now. It’s enough for you to be aware, here also in Tusnádfürdő and Székely Land, that today the security of Hungary, of Székely Land, of the Carpathian Basin and of the whole of Europe depends on whether Turkey, Israel and Egypt are stable enough to curb and halt the Muslim influx coming into Europe from that region. If any one of these three countries loses its stability, there will be serious security consequences for the whole of Europe. Just think back to all the consequences we saw when Egypt briefly lost its stability as a result of the Arab Spring. But this is also true of Turkey. Whether or not you like its president, whether or not you sympathise with his political regime, one thing is certain: we need a stable Turkey protecting us against the uncontrolled rising tide of migrant masses. We can say the same of Israel: without Israel a geographical area of radical Islam would develop, which Europe could only see as a threat. So it is in our interest for these countries to remain stable, and to have stable political regimes and leaders.
European armed forces
For Europe a single conclusion follows from this. In such a complex and volatile international situation we cannot continue to live as we have done up to now. It is absurd for Europe to be unable to create the forces necessary for its own defence. We cannot continuously live off the Americans’ money, and under their security umbrella. It’s good if they’re here, we need them and we need NATO; but Europe must have its own independent defence capability, and so we will need a European army. We have the necessary funds, we have the technological foundations; all that is lacking is the political will. In the period ahead we must create that will.
The decline of European civilisation
And finally I’d like to say a few words about Europe. This will be the roughest ride, so please fasten your seatbelts. Regarding the coming year, Ladies and Gentlemen, I can tell you that if we take a look at Europe, we can see that it was once a great civilisation. Europe was once a power centre that shaped the world. This was so because it dared to think, it dared to act, it was brave, and it embarked upon great endeavours. If we look at one civilisation or another from a spiritual perspective – and there is a branch of literature devoted to this – we can conclude that civilisations are comprised of four things. Civilisations are entities of a spiritual nature. They are formed from the spirit of religion, the spirit of creative arts, the spirit of research and the spirit of business enterprise. These are the spirits that can form a civilisation. If now we look at our Europe, in terms of the spirit of religion we see that it has rejected its Christian foundations. In terms of the spirit of creative arts we see that there is censorship, and political correctness is forced upon us. In terms of the spirit of research, we can say that the US has overtaken our Europe, and soon China will also have done so. And as regards the spirit of business in Europe, we can say that instead of the spirit of business, today Brussels and economic regulations are ruled by the spirit of bureaucracy. These processes, Ladies and Gentlemen, started long ago, but they only became sharply defined against the background of the 2008 crisis.
The failure of the European elite
The gravity of the situation – the gravity of the situation of European civilisation – has been revealed by the migrant crisis. Let me take a complex thought and simplify it: we must face up to the fact that Europe’s leaders are inadequate, and that they’ve been unable to defend Europe against immigration. The European elite has failed, and the European Commission is the symbol of that failure. This is the bad news. The good news is that the European Commission’s days are numbered. And I have counted them: it has some three hundred days left before its mandate expires. The Commission is an important body in the European Union, and its decisions have serious consequences for the Member States – including Hungary. The fact is that, according to the founding treaties, the Commission is the guardian of the treaties: the treaties establishing the European Union. It must therefore be impartial and unbiased, and it must guarantee the four freedoms. Instead of this, today the European Commission is partisan, because it sides with the liberals. It is biased, because it is working against Central Europe. And is not a friend of freedom, because, instead of freedoms, it is working towards building a European socialism. We should be happy that its days are numbered. Now we should ask ourselves why the European elite – which today is exclusively a liberal elite – has failed.
The answer to this question – or at least this is where I look for the answer – is that first of all it has rejected its roots, and instead of a Europe resting on Christian foundations, it is building a Europe of “the open society”. In Christian Europe there was honour in work, man had dignity, men and women were equal, the family was the basis of the nation, the nation was the basis of Europe, and states guaranteed security. In today’s open-society Europe there are no borders; European people can be readily replaced with immigrants; the family has been transformed into an optional, fluid form of cohabitation; the nation, national identity and national pride are seen as negative and obsolete notions; and the state no longer guarantees security in Europe. In fact, in liberal Europe being European means nothing at all: it has no direction, and it is simply form devoid of content. Furthermore, Ladies and Gentlemen, liberal democracy has undergone a transformation. I will now respond to the provocative demand from László Tőkés for me to say something about illiberalism: furthermore, liberal democracy has been transformed into liberal non-democracy. The situation in the West is that there is liberalism, but there is no democracy.
Censorship in the West
The argument we can provide to support our assertion that there is an absence of democracy is that in Western Europe censorship and restrictions on freedom of speech have become general phenomena. Working together, political leaders and technology giants filter news items that are uncomfortable for the liberal elite. If you don’t believe this, just visit these websites, visit social media sites, and you’ll see the ingenious and cunning means by which they restrict access to negative news reports on migrants, immigrants and related topics, and how they prevent European citizens from facing reality. The liberal concept of freedom of opinion has gone so far that liberals see diversity of opinion as important up until the point that they realise, to their shock, that there are opinions which are different from theirs. Liberals’ vision of press freedom reminds us of the old Soviet joke: “However I try to assemble parts from the bicycle factory, I end up with a machine gun.” However I try to assemble the parts of this liberal press freedom, the result is censorship and political correctness.
The 2019 European Parliament elections
This is the diagnosis I can offer you. Let’s look at what we can hope for now, what we have to do, and what we can do. I suggest to all of us, Dear Friends, that we concentrate all our efforts on the 2019 European Parliament elections. No doubt many of you here remember that the European elections held every five years are generally dismissed with a wave of the hand. We don’t really appreciate that they have any decisive significance. Here I should also mention that European elites regularly complain that it is a shame that every European Parliament election is in reality focused on individual nations’ affairs, and that there isn’t a single Europe-wide issue which European citizens can decide on together. I can say that this is no longer true: there is indeed a Europe-wide issue on which there has been no consultation anywhere – with the exception of Hungary. We had a referendum on immigration. The time has indeed come for the European elections to be about a great, important, common European issue: the issue of immigration, and the future related to it. Therefore I suggest that in the coming year we concentrate all our strength on these important and decisive elections. If Europe decides on immigration, it will naturally also decide on whether or not what we call “the European elite” has handled immigration well. The European elite is visibly nervous. It is nervous because a result in the upcoming European elections which is to our liking could derail the plan for the comprehensive transformation of Europe: the Soros Plan. In the European Parliament election, the great goal of transforming Europe and moving it towards a post-Christian and post-national era could be blocked, Ladies and Gentlemen. And it is in our fundamental interest to block it.
The shackling of Christian majority politics
Our opponents are very close to succeeding – we don’t even sense how close they are. And neither do we appreciate the significance of this fact. Without lengthy explanation, I’d merely like to provide you with a brief overview. If you think back over the past one hundred years or so of European democracy, you can detect a pattern in which matters in Europe have effectively been decided by competition between two camps: on one side, communities based on the continuing foundations of Christian tradition – let us call them Christian democratic parties; and, on the other side, the organisations of communities which question and reject tradition – let us call them left-wing liberal parties. Europe moved forward with these two forces competing with each other; sometimes one was dominant, while sometimes the other was. This competition even had beneficial effects: it released energy and intellectual power. In fact this competition guaranteed Europe’s development, being both political and spiritual in nature. Up until now this has been Europe, this has been European politics, and this is how the allocation of power in Europe has been decided. But, Dear Friends, a situation can arise in one country or another whereby ten per cent or more of the total population is Muslim. We can be sure that they will never vote for a Christian party. And when we add to this Muslim population those of European origin who are abandoning their Christian traditions, then it will no longer be possible to win elections on the basis of Christian foundations. Those groups preserving Christian traditions will be forced out of politics, and decisions about the future of Europe will be made without them. This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the situation, this is the goal, and this is how close we are to seeing it happen.
The upcoming elections are therefore of the utmost importance. In these elections we must demonstrate that there is an alternative to liberal democracy: it is called Christian democracy. And we must show that the liberal elite can be replaced with a Christian democratic elite. Of course in Central Europe there are many misconceptions related to Christianity and politics, and so here I must make an incidental observation. Christian democracy is not about defending religious articles of faith – in this case Christian religious articles of faith. Neither states nor governments have competence on questions of damnation or salvation. Christian democratic politics means that the ways of life springing from Christian culture must be protected. Our duty is not to defend the articles of faith, but the forms of being that have grown from them. These include human dignity, the family and the nation – because Christianity does not seek to attain universality through the abolition of nations, but through the preservation of nations. Other forms which must be protected and strengthened include our faith communities. This – and not the protection of religious articles of faith – is the duty of Christian democracy.
Having got to this point, there is just one trap – a single intellectual trap – which we must avoid. It is part of human nature to be reluctant to step outside one’s comfort zone and engage in disputes; and so we are willing to make concessions to our opponents. But on intellectual issues this does more harm than good. The bait for this trap is hanging right in front of our noses: it is the claim that Christian democracy can also, in fact, be liberal. I suggest we stay calm and avoid being caught on that hook, because if we accept this argument, then the battle, the struggle we have fought so far will lose its meaning, and we will have toiled in vain. Let us confidently declare that Christian democracy is not liberal. Liberal democracy is liberal, while Christian democracy is, by definition, not liberal: it is, if you like, illiberal. And we can specifically say this in connection with a few important issues – say, three great issues. Liberal democracy is in favour of multiculturalism, while Christian democracy gives priority to Christian culture; this is an illiberal concept. Liberal democracy is pro-immigration, while Christian democracy is anti-immigration; this is again a genuinely illiberal concept. And liberal democracy sides with adaptable family models, while Christian democracy rests on the foundations of the Christian family model; once more, this is an illiberal concept.
The elite of ’68
Let us brace ourselves, let us launch ourselves into this intellectual debate, and so let us steel ourselves for the European Parliament elections. We are on the threshold of a great moment, and we’ll see whether or not it comes to fulfilment. The opportunity is here. Next May we can wave goodbye not only to liberal democracy and the liberal non-democratic system that has been built on its foundations, but also to the entire elite of ’68.
The generation of the ’90s
If the elite of ’68 leaves the field, there is only one question to be answered: who will arrive to replace them? And the modest answer we must give to this is that we are on our way. Calmly, and with restraint and composure, we must say that the generation of the ’90s is arriving to replace the generation of ’68. In European politics it is the turn of the anti-communist generation, which has Christian convictions and commitment to the nation. Thirty years ago we thought that Europe was our future. Today we believe that we are Europe’s future. Go for it!
Thank you for your attention.