“The rebellious Hungarians were constantly fighting against ‘Viennese rule’ but had no intention of breaking away from the empire; it was worth staying in. It says a lot about them that they are now doing the same”, writes Dutch journalist Caroline de Gruyter in her recently published book ‘It will not be better: Travels in the Habsburg Empire and the European Union’, published by Európa Könyvkiadó in Hungarian. The book, which has been a great success across Europe, is not just a frothy Habsburg nostalgia: it is an investigation into the parallels between the long-gone dualist state and the EU, the virtues and drawbacks of benevolent empires, their architecture, gastronomy and literature. Caroline de Gruyter was first interviewed in the Hungarian press by Válasz Online about her adventures in Central Europe.

Az interjú eredetileg magyar nyelven jelent meg

-The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was a state with a unified army and civil service, headed by an Emperor-King who ruled by the grace of God. What does it have to do with the European Union, a voluntary association of nation states?

–There are indeed important differences, but there are also remarkable similarities. In the EU, very different nations live together in a geographically delimited space and are always at loggerheads, especially in times of crisis. Their leaders are therefore constantly forced to compromise. This is exactly how the Habsburg Empire worked. Count Eduard Taaffe, Prime Minister of the Austrian half of the Monarchy from 1879 to 1893, was once asked what the essence of his job was. He replied: ‘fortwursteln’ – i.e. pottering around without a clear purpose or plan. Jean-Claude Juncker, former President of the European Commission could also have said these very words. The leaders of empires with many conflicting national, regional, economic and ethnic interests spend a great deal of their time making compromises. They work to ensure that everyone remains on board with the project.