Wall Street Journal on EU: double standard for applying rules on Hungary

Remove all ads!

Who is "us"? You and your majority? On a side note, everyone can spare himself or herself by avoiding my threads in this topic. I intend to inform people who hear nonsense from their local press. I don't care much about the reactions (except some good points rarely, e.g. by LKD).

It's a 'crusade' because it overemphasizes and twists many things, occassionally combined with provokings (such as the one with the fake 'evacuation' of Roma people). Criticism should address concrete points (just like your latest post -- it wasn't a bad one), but what the international attacks do is not concrete: a general attack, a "crusade", where concrete points are mixed with half-truth, lies and hype. Not just the media (which is, of course, more inclined to make hype), but a much wider range of participants is taking part in this negative anti-campaign and crusade.

It is not me who says or implies it's a leftliberal crusade -- National Review, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, etc. also wrote about it. The 'crusade' is too just too general, touches too many isolated points, therefore it is not merely a criticism of the legal changes (what e.g. you described in your latest post).

The real truth behind all these things, is that Orbán opposed huge investors groups and companies (e.g. by putting a high bank tax, taking back the food ticket system, the water supply system and other resources etc. -- legally, of course). So, now these groups are making the hype. A hype, because it's much larger and of different (general) nature than what the alleged legal issues would reason.

Indeed, some legal points are questionable (Ragusa makes some points), but whatever Orbán does is needed now, and only Hungarian people can understand this. Yes, this may sound a partisan view, but just because Orbán's party is preferring it and doing it AND I agree with it. It is like a revolution, and while you foreigners (not in bad meaning) think this is just a partisan and populist trick of Orbán ('revolution'), we Hungarian people know that it isn't. Socialists (not the thinking itself, but the concrete people and interest groups who hide behind it) must be defeated -- this is not merely a partisan view, this is the LIFE EXPERIENCE of oppressed Hungarian people. If temporary changes in law are needed for this, so be it.

You don't need to believe me, but let's talk after 10 years -- and Hungary will still be a democracy (a republic, to be more precise), just a much richer and (regionally) influential country.

Quoting you again:

Yes, a dangerous path, but this risk must be taken. As I wrote in another thread too, this is the only way of Hungary getting back its regional position and the true freedom of people inside of its border. Of course, one (such as Ragusa) can laugh on this and/or call this nationalistic: yes, in a certain sense, it's nationalism, a positive one. And still much smaller nationalism than what Americans, French etc. have. Just they don't notice it, because it's so natural to them. For a country, however, that lost most its area, and then it was occupied by USSR (and then after 1990 until now, many people who held high-ranking positions in the USSR era became billionaires and still have positions in the Socialist Party), it is the only chance. Yes, just like it happened before, one can laugh on this in a condenscending way (yes, that's a really unintelligent, foolish, uneducated reaction -- but it happened before in this forum), because it's easy not to be empathic when your homeland is fine and wasn't scattered. It is like the taste of banana: if you never tasted it, you won't know what it means: "it's like the taste of banana". You can't know. Can't learn from books.

And just to bring up Slovakia again, now with a relevant question: let's assume that it's true that Hungary has now constitutional/legal issues; but Slovakia has much worse laws -- why is the double standard? Why are foreign countries silent about it, while they are loud regarding Hungary?
Perhaps Slovakia has "OK" laws in paper (which is not true: Benes decrees, Language Law, but let's disregard them now), but as Ragusa mentioned, the PROCEDURE is a crucial thing. I know it from millions of sources (including personal experiences) that legal procedure is bull**** is Slovakia: influential people get more exceptions than anywhere else in the EU. Law only applies to simple, poor citizens to Slovakia, not to the chosen ones.

Yes, my view may be greatly partisan, and yes I'm often like Minsc (Chaotic Good), but this partisan view has the biggest support now in Hungary for a good reason: it's working, it has little disadvantages, and it's the ONLY way Hungary can regain its glory what it deserves. I admit I'm patriot (i.e. a "nationalist" a positive way): as long as we don't hurt anyone else, we should do all the best to make our nation rise again.

And unlike the foreign criticism and Ragusa implies/says, democracy is not in danger in Hungary.
There are issues, indeed, which can be debated about. But democracy is not a in a danger at all. But we'll see, let's talk after 10 years.


--


Finally, a very important comment that summarizes all my views in these topics:

I don't want to hurt anyone here who disagrees with me, but in a certain sense, there is a huge credulity, naiveness and found delusion here:

When the 'world' seems to worry TOO MUCH about a certain country, it's almost always sure that it's about resources/money/interests. Resources. Resources are power.

When the 'world' seems to worry TOO MUCH, it's almost always never about law and democracy. Law and democracy are just great pretexts for worrying.

CONCLUSION:
I find it possible that some minor points of the current government can be legally problematic (and it doesn't matter now if I support these or reject these), BUT the 95% of the attacks and pressure put on Hungary is because of RESOURCES and INTERESTS. (E.g. think of the actions and policies of USA or Russia -- are they about world freedom, or control over resources?)

Hungary is apparently not a big deal regarding resources, but this is just the surface. It's still a 10-million country, with great natural and economic potential (side note: the bank system was one of the most stable in Europe when the stress tests were made a few months ago). Now Orbán has made several attempts to take back certain resources to national control.

99% of those who support these 'worries' and 'criticism' on Hungary absolutely DO NOT CARE about anything about the legal system, constitution etc. It's about money, nothing else. Everybody is naive who thinks the world isn't working in this way.

 

Why? What would be so hard about dis-empowering them through democratic means? The way I see it, if you can't do it through democracy than the people don't want them gone. The inherent danger in taking away people's rights constitute enough risk for it to not be done under any means. The solution to a monster is not to make another monster of the government. How exactly can the "true freedom" of the people be insured by taking AWAY their freedoms? It just doesn't make much sense.

As for the thing about Slovakia, whether or not they are worse than Hungary isn't very relevant. No one is making threads about Slovakia so that's probably why they're not being talked about. Also, are those bad things you are claiming about them recent? The media usually picks up on recent events, "Nothing has changed in North Korea" isn't very much of a headline.

 

Swaggering nonsense. Constitution building isn't some hysterical operetta where drama and pathos are a substitute for proper procedure and thinking lawmaking.

If it is a dangerous path - because the possibility for abuse of powers exists, and is even seen as desirable - then the constitution is bad.

B's narrative goes "in these dire circumstances we must take this dangerous path, lest the left liberal socialists - and the big money - destroy Hungary as we know it - only a strong leader like Orbán can turn the tide of battle and save the country - and to be able to do that he must not be encumbered by constraints like rule of law or judicial oversight... Oh, and if you voice concerns, you're pretexting because 99% is about money, and when it isn't about money, you're a left liberal socialist.

Excuse me? That narrative is so silly it isn't even funny any more. It's a very poor explanation for the fundamental legal changes that Orbán made. It is however an excellent rationalisation for the credulous and gullible, with the uplifting 'stick with us and we will save the country' - i.e. it is propaganda, for domestic consumption. I don't think that I go out on a limb when I say that nobody really is buying it here.

 

You know jack about interests and money, you live in your fond delusion about law and order.

Practice is regulated by law, but law will not make you successful. Two major customers, a Russian one and a Western European one. You completed their order (manufacturing turbines for ships), and waiting for the money. Do you know what happens? Of course you don't. Why would you. You wait weeks until the Western European one sends you the sum, finally, via bank transfer. You wait one day and the Russian brings you a suitcase, € 20 million, cash. That's how practice works. Law is needed, but not sufficient.

The people want them gone -- but people are too weak to do anything. Heck, even Orbán is having a hard time removing them -- but it's done slowly and surely.

Was there a way to remove Saddam Hussein other than a military operation?

Sometimes it's the trap of 22, a circle of devil.

Socialists took all important positions, they are sitting in many executive and supervisory boards as well. Fortunately, at least the second biggest Eastern European company (our MOL Group), is not under their influence.

So, it's just natural that foreigners consider this an unacceptable risk, while Hungarian people don't.

 

Sorry for a little question, but can you explain that reference? I have heard of "Catch 22" from the book of the same name. What is the trap of 22?

 

Sorry for the confusion -- and thanks for the correction.

In Hungary, that title was translated to what I used. Thx to you, now I know the correct English term -- Catch 22.

 

I read that book ages ago. Don't remember much about it, except there was a thing about stealing jarred plum tomatoes. And Nately. And of course his *****. EDIT: stupid word censor. That was actually the name that they referred to her in the book. It was Nately's W----.

 

I kind of like "trap of 22." Has a nice ring to it.

 

If this statement is true, there are many ways in which you could depose them without suspending democracy. Have a national referendum on whether they should be allowed to operate politically within the country anymore. If interests are your problem, ban corporate money in politics and revolving doors, don't take away judicial oversight and the people's voice with it. If they actually want their rights taken away, have a national referendum on that too. That would take away much of the criticism of Orban and make the changes seem a lot more legitimate.

I have no idea how Saddam Hussein relates to this. They didn't have a democracy with him in the first place, you do have a democracy and thus can act in a way the citizens under his rule could not.

 

Nately's Whore, yes. I didn't read the book or saw the film. In Hungarian, we use the expression in the same meaning as the "devil circle". I.e. something that you can't quit, a trap situation. Something where your apparent choice that lets you quit will re-generate the actual problem (so it's an endless loop).

 

It's commonly referred to as a "no-win situation". The term as it was applied in the book was because the main characters were bomber pilots. The only way you could get out of the dangerous bombing missions was to prove you were insane. However, by making the very rational and reasoned argument that you were insane in fact proved you were sane, because only someone who was crazy would argue that they wanted to fly the missions, and therefore you had to fly the missions. So proving your insanity could only be accomplished if you weren't insane.

 

Ah, yeah, no-win situation, it sounds familiar (probably I knew it once).

Thanks for the clarification. And it's pretty on-topic. Orbán needed and needs to be a bit insane to do what he does! (There is a saying, probably my English wording won't be perfect: the genius and the mad is only distinguished by success.)


---

Actually, I also support certain well-defined exceptions from law or the spirit of law (i.e. it's also related with the interpretation of law). Because law is not perfect, and this is what some people (such as Ragusa) doesn't notice, and blindly think that everything is black & white.
Talking about problem of checks & balances in Hungary?! What about the USA which allows US citizens to be murdered without judicial permission?

(more here)
The terrorist case is an exception indeed, and there are debates over it. Debates whether it's constitutional. It's natural. Point is, MURDER is done, despite of the debates. Orbán must also go on his way, no matter what the international pressure (+ the lies and hype) tries to do to prevent it.

And I don't eat the stupid text "don't point at Slovakia" or "don't point at USA" when "the topic is about Hungary". Double standard is double standard. I also don't eat the nonsense that "the topic is active internationally because it's news". Only the blind can't see the double standard (which was noticed even by The National Review).

And I don't mind that there is no international hype about USA's issues whether these murders are constitutional or not; they have their reasoning, so it's the internal affair of USA. But then attackers of Hungary should also shut up, and let us decide our own laws. But leftliberals can't accept they lost their power. For a very very very long time.

You can't be serious. Please try to return to reality, or learn more about Eastern/Central Europe.

The practice is always about power structures (law is just the surface, a way of communication), and Orbán is trying to improve the situation of Hungary by taking back some national resources. In short term, these may look harmful to Hungary, but on the long run, they will be beneficial.

 

Actually, it's the frothing at the mouth that makes the difference. You may be familiar with that.

The proclaimed right of the US president to order the extra-judicial killing of US citizens is bad news all right, but you notice you're changing the subject, again, seeking to distract, again, by trying to construct yet another false equivalence? Don't look at Hungary, because there is ... whatever? Oh yes, a ... double standard? You still try to pull that one off?

Oh indeed? Interesting. We were talking about stacking the deck. Now, what when the Hungarians decide to vote out that genius, Orbán?

 

There is very serious criticism and opposition here against that policy.

Oh really? Return to reality, you say? Considering the things you are defending and the methods in which you are trying to defend them, I would love to know what constitutes reality in your mind. As I tried to point out in my previous post: Even if national referendum's aren't part of the history in that part of Europe, in light of the giant socalist/leftliberal/big buisness conspiracy against Orban, an expression of popular will to his policies would make him a lot more legitimate in the eyes of the outside spectators. If that is unrealistic to you, as compared to revoking legitimate checks and balances in favor of more centralized power and expecting that to not lead to harsh consequences, I question which one of us truly needs a reality check.

 

@Ragusa: Then they vote him out, and he will deserve it. And the foolish idiots who are "worrying" now about the Fidesz power concentration will see that Fidesz can be removed just like anyone else.

But the criticized methods exist and were used, and how come half the world isn't shouting that USA democracy is in infernal danger? I merely wanted to point out that if criticizers showed more RESPECT to the democratically elected government of Hungary, and refrained from hype and focused on making factual criticism ONLY, then Hungarian people wouldn't start to be fed up and wouldn't believe that it's a leftliberal crusade instead (which your US newspaper, National Review, noticed too).

What matters is that he is considered legitimate in the eyes of Hungarian people. The people. If spectators do not have a thorough knowledge, they should go to Hungary (or use more credible sources), or simply shut up. I don't understand this occassional strange notion from Western European / American "spectators" that Hungary needs to prove anything to them or convince them. Our prime minister, primarily and most importantly, is accountable to the Hungarian people.

... such things aren't openly told anywhere in the world (power structure), because it's hard to prove them explicitly, but everyone knows they exist. Similarly, EU can't prove legally 99% of the things it criticized related to Hungarian laws / Constitution, so instead it abuses financial things to put pressure on the country.

In the USA, open talk is more typical, but in Europe, unfortunately, it isn't. In Hungary neither, and it's not a positive thing, but in such a hipocritical and half-dictatoric Europe, there is no other way to fight for interests than doing the same as they do (in these things). USA is much more democratic and less bureaucratic than the European Union.

 

The structural changes Fidesz made cast that in doubt

You may recall the unusual long terms for appointments that were introduced under Orban - iirc 8 years - well beyond what is usual in other countries, and that were filled with party loyalists, and so forth.

 

No, it's not that untypical in other countries (there are examples). Regarding "party loyalists", this is what most criticizers can't "understand": the democratically elected Parliament votes for the members* of these bodies, requiring a special majority. The fact Fidesz won 2/3 majority in the Parliament is the sad truth to leftliberals, but that is EXACTLY how democracy works: if people wanted such a HUGE change, they expect actions, and if the democratic majority for a decision is available, Fidesz will do whatever everybody else would do: vote for his own candidates. The socialists would do exactly same, liberals also etc. Just it hurts to leftliberals in Europe that a government got such an immensely huge legitimation (2/3) from the people and thus has a great power.

*unlike e.g. in Germany, where, IIRC, your chancellor simply tells who will be the head of a council, e.g. the head of your body that operates as a media council/authority.

 

Some people actually are saying that. I also believe that U.S democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be in a lot of ways, but again, this isn't about the U.S or Slovakia or anywhere else, you made a thread about Hungary and so we talked about Hungary. If you made a thread about the danger U.S democracy faces I wouldn't start railing against Hungary because I believe it is in worse shape, it just isn't helpful.

84% of Hungarians, according to an Ipsos poll, believe the country is going in the wrong direction, and only 6% approve of where it is going. In fact, in another poll, the socialists were supported by 26% of the population. That doesn't sound like dictatorial measures are necessary to depose them since, well, a fourth of the country prefers them to the other parties. And what about the massive protests against these new measures? Is there not only a scant few independent media outlets in Hungary now?

 

Fail.

(a) We don't have a government organ named press council in Germany, nor do we have a functional equivalent. We have a voluntary self control organ, in which the press elects its own representatives that arbitrate conflicts over reporting. It does not have the power to impose fines, let alone inflict a chilling effect by being able to impose ruinous ones.

(b) In independent government bodies, we take care that the seats in independent government councils represent roughly the proportions in the parliament. We do not staff them exclusively from one party. That is to say, we do quite the opposite of what Orbán does - for good reason - we do not want 'winner takes all' politics, precisely because they are divisive.

(c) Also, appointment terms in Germany are usually for four years, not eight, as in Hungary after Orbán's changes.

Damn. Another false equivalence goes, down the drain. And gone are five more minutes of my time that I am never going to get back.

PS: Tal please consider relocating the "thanks" button. On a slow loading browser it is only too easy to click the wrong button when you actually want to quite and there are certain posts that I don't even accidentally want to thank the post generator for.