The heated clash between Orban and von der Leyen in the European Parliament

Rarely have we witnessed such a heated debate in the hemicycle of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The occasion was the presentation of the priorities of the rotating Hungarian presidency of the EU by the prime minister Viktor Orban. But the Ursula majority and Ursula von der Leyen herself were waiting for him at the gate. The Hungarian leader, the face of European patriots, had presented himself with good intentions overall. The message was essentially: “In order not to die, as Emmanuel Macron and Mario Draghi said, Europe must change and the Hungarian presidency wants to be the voice and catalyst for this change”. So far, so good. However, in listing the problems of this European Union, Orban put irregular immigration first and foremost, which has fueled “violence against women, anti-Semitism and homophobia”, sparking applause and boos in the chamber. For Orban the solution can only be “external hotspots to decide who enters”. Because “once inside European borders it is impossible to send them away”.

In the chapter on productivity, he indicated the green transition as one of the evils “which solves nothing without industrial planning”. Speaking of enlargement, he focused on the Balkans without mentioning Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. The first to reply – and attack – was the President of the Commission, von der Leyen, (Orban was the only one in the European Council to vote against his second mandate, while Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni abstained). The German leader focused precisely on Ukraine. “The world has witnessed the atrocities of war in Russia. Yet, there are still some who blame this war not on the invader but on the invaders. Not on Putin’s lust for power, but on Ukraine’s thirst for freedom.”

On productivity: “The Hungarian Government penalizes European companies and distances itself from the Single Market”. On migration: “Free the smugglers and offload the problem onto neighboring countries. Selfishness instead of solidarity.” While on Russian citizens: “It allows them to enter without additional checks, putting the security of Hungary and the entire Union at risk.” With his speech, von der Leyen opened the floodgates of ferocious criticism against the Hungarian prime minister, the face of anti-European sovereignism in the Brussels bubble. Manfred Weber (Ppe) said he was “shocked” that he didn’t mention Ukraine in his speech; for the S&D socialists he is a “liar and traitor who betrayed Hungary and the Hungarians”. Valerie Hayer (Renew) asked to use Article 7 to exclude Budapest from the right to vote in the Council. There co-president of the Greens, Terry Reintke told him “you are not welcome in this courtroom.”

Italian MEP from Avs (Left), Ilaria Salis recalled his fifteen months of preventive prison in Budapest, defining Hungary as “an illiberal and oligarchic regime”. Orban himself was forced to change tone in his reply. “I came here to talk about the priorities of the Hungarian presidency but you want to organize a political intifada where you repeat the lies and propaganda of the Hungarian left,” he attacked. Obviously von der Leyen ended up in the sights first and foremost. “It has abandoned the neutral role of the Treaty Defense Commission, turning it into a political weapon in the hands of the left,” he said. On Ukraine he clarified: “To win you have to recognize that you are about to lose. The strategy adopted by the EU so far is a losing one and must be changed to win.” On the entry of the Russians: “We have granted 7 thousand work permits; Germany 300 thousand, Spain 100 thousand, France 60 thousand”. Then he replied to Salis: “Isn’t it absurd that someone who went through the streets of Budapest to hit innocent people with a bar is talking to us here about the rule of law?”.

Defending the Hungarian prime minister was his group, the Patriots for Europe which has over eighty members. “It was an ambush that ended badly, Orban asphalted them,” he commented at the press conference the head of the League delegation, Paolo Borchia. From the ECR they made it known that they agree with various points of the program presented but not the geopolitical vision.