Not only Hungarians, but 53 percent of European citizens also have an unfavorable opinion of Ursula von der Leyen.
Only 30 percent view her positively.
In other words, if people could decide who should lead the European Commission, she would never be elected.
This comes as no surprise. Because of the disastrous green transition, the collapse of the European economy, sky-high energy prices, and the hundreds of billions of euros poured into Ukraine, Europeans have had enough of Brussels.
That is why the party family of Fidesz, the Patriots, submitted another motion of no confidence, which was voted on today in the European Parliament.
Not surprisingly, the party families of the Tisza Party and the Democratic Coalition rescued Ursula.
As a point of interest, a public opinion survey was conducted among European citizens, asking what they think of Ursula von der Leyen.
53 percent expressed a clearly negative opinion, while only 30 percent stood by her.
This means that if people could decide whether Ursula von der Leyen should be Europe’s leader, she would never receive their support.
There are many reasons for this: what has happened in recent years in European energy policy, the state of the European economy, developments in migration, and the enormous sums of money poured into Ukraine—with plans to continue doing so. Public anger and distrust toward Ms. von der Leyen are therefore fully understandable.
So what happened at today’s vote of no confidence?
We already know that the representatives of Fidesz, who initiated this motion as patriots, voted to remove Ursula von der Leyen.
But what did the Tisza representatives do? They did not say what they wanted, because that could have political consequences—so they did not even dare to show up and vote.
The Fidesz representatives voted for Ursula von der Leyen’s removal.
The Tisza representatives did not even attend.
From this, one thing is clear:
for us, the interests of Hungarians come first; for them, the interests of their Brussels bosses do.
Fidesz is the safe choice.
🎭 Speaker and Role
Szentkirályi Alexandra
→ pro-government political communicator
→ task: emotional mobilization + enemy construction + loyalty testing, not factual information
🎯 Core Function (Real Purpose)
The text is not about public opinion research, not about the professional performance of Ursula von der Leyen, and not about the legal functioning of the European Parliament. Instead, it is about:
- delegitimizing Brussels and Ursula von der Leyen
- constructing the false dichotomy of a “Hungarian path” vs. a “Brussels path”
- portraying TISZA and DK as traitors
- justifying Fidesz as the exclusive representative of national interests
👉 The conclusion is fixed from the very beginning: the text does not ask questions — it passes judgment.
🧩 Main Propaganda Techniques
1️⃣ Opinion Poll Numbers as “the Will of the People”
“53% unfavorable, 30% favorable”
🔹 Technique: numerical authority framing
🔹 What it does:
- The source and methodology of the numbers do not matter
- The number itself becomes the ultimate truth
- Political judgment is elevated to “the will of the people”
👉 This is not a debate, but a moral closure
2️⃣ Cause Stacking (Blame List Technique)
Green transition → economic collapse → energy prices → Ukraine → migration
🔹 Technique: threat stacking + causal overload
🔹 Effect:
- Every problem is attached to a single person
- Complex processes are radically simplified
- Anger is given a clear, personal target
3️⃣ “Brussels” as an Abstract Enemy
“People are fed up with Brussels,” “Brussels bosses”
🔹 Technique: dehumanized external enemy
🔹 Result:
- No accountable decision-making, only a foreign force
- The EU is framed as an occupying power
- Domestic political debate is transformed into a sovereignty struggle
4️⃣ Cowardice and Betrayal Narrative
“They didn’t dare to show up,” “they saved Ursula”
🔹 Technique: cowardice framing + loyalty test
🔹 Effect:
- What matters is not how someone votes, but where they stand
- Absence equals betrayal
- The political opponent is morally destroyed
5️⃣ False Binary Choice
“Hungarian path” vs. “Brussels path”
🔹 Technique: false dilemma
🔹 Consequence:
- No nuance, no middle ground
- Whoever is not with us is against us
- The political space turns into a moral battlefield
🧠 Psychological Impact
- Appropriation of frustration
- Redirecting anger outward
- Uncertainty → simple answers
Identity framing:
- we = Hungarians
- they = Brussels + TISZA + DK
🔚 Pre-Closed Final Conclusion
“Fidesz is the safe choice!”
This is not a statement, but a verdict.
It does not argue — it shuts down thinking.
⚠️ One-Sentence Summary
This text is classic mobilizing propaganda that
legitimizes itself through numbers,
manufactures enemies,
and demands loyalty —
while leaving no space for genuine political choice.