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

Remove all ads!

You are wrongly informed. Independent media outlets exist, just like before. 90% of media and online press is anti-government (yes, due to their owner structure, but that is another matter)

Moreover:
(1) Ipsos is just one poll company. Others measure other values. Furthermore, I also heard of this poll, and the exact question also included a part about who is responsible for it. IIRC a very significant part of the 84% did not find the current government (fully or partially) responsible for the wrong direction.
(2) Dictatorial measures -- it's a bit strong word, isn't it. But yes, fine, let's consider it strictly then, black and white. But then USA is applying dictatoric actions when slays its own citizens abroad. Yes, pointing to USA, because I find such an approach acceptable: defeating dangerous terrorists is priority, every person knows this who lost anyone in a terror attack. Similarly, as a voter, I allow certain non-violent tools to be used when getting rid of communists/socialists. Many of these people held positions in 1989, were responsible for torturing people etc., but they got away with it. Unlike in Romania, the change in Hungary in 1989 was bloodless, read about it. Then read how Ceausescu finished his career.

The Western media (with a few exceptions) was totally biased in this matter, it was disgusting. The "massive protests" usually included a few thousand people at most, while on 21st January, a pro-government silent march (the Peace march) included hundreds of thousands of people (even the meager estimations agree that it was over 100 thousand people in the streets.)

Most of the Western media somehow "forgot" to report it as a major event, and even lied about the order of magnitute of participants (see this Daily Mail article for more information). But I show you better -- let's check it on the internet:

Type this to google: hungary demonstration at the opera
Then type this: hungary peace march

The first one is usually presented by the foreign media as a really huge ("massive") anti-government demonstration, against the new Hungarian Constitution. You get NY Times, Spiegel, Telegraph, Guardian, France24, BBC, Economist matches on the first 3 google result pages.

The second one returns mostly youtube videos and unknown Hungarian & European sources on the first 3 pages. The only known names are Al Jazeera (!), and at the bottom of third page, BBC. Where is NY Times, Spiegel, Telegraph, Guardian, the Economist ?!

This is not an accident. The Peace march had 10 times more participants, a really significant and gigantic event. Yet, reports either "underestimate" the number of participants, or simply do not put to headlines, unlike they do so with "massive protests" you hear.

Yes, your media is trying to manipulate you by selectively presenting very important events (important in terms of Hungary). That is why you think that massive protests exist. Protests exist: just like in France, Germany, Greece and so on. But the number of people who participate is small compared to the peace march.

Apart from the Daily Mail article I presented above, this is also an interesting article in this respect:
http://hungariandigest.wordpress.co...-for-hungary-rally-the-role-of-foreign-press/

It deals with the tons of factual errors that the foreign press reports contain about Hungary. The article also offers an insight to who are the main criticizers of Orbán from the foreign press and/or USA:

Yes, as you can see, he writes about Brussels and Washington pressure. Is that democratic? That the democratically elected prime minister will need to leave due to external political pressure?!

 

The salient question you need to ask yourself, but are apparently intellectually incapable of asking honestly, is not so much whether Saint Orban will not abuse the powers his new constitution has allotted, but whether future governments will abuse these powers - think of the dreaded Socialists, coming to power again having the powers Orbán has. Oh, let me guess: Since real Hungarians don't vote for them, this ain't gonna happen?

Except for being seriously constrained fiscally by the straitjacket laws enacted by Orbán, every future government will have to, for the entire legislative period, deal with his stay behinds in appointed office as a result of their long terms. The media council is able to use their power to silence opposing points of view. Fisecz has gerrymandered districts so that voting districts are now reliably favourable to Fidecz voter demographics. All these measures reliably hobble political competition. Any future prime minister (yes, even a Commie) still would have the unchecked power vested into the office of the prime minister and the executive branch. And what about his successor? You find all that desirable? Why? Another 'the left-liberal-socialist-international-big-money menace' jeremiad will not suffice, so try harder.

The pervasive appointment of Fisesz apparatchiks indicates pervasive nepotism; pervasive nepotism leads to pervasive corruption. The EU has mourned a decline of quality in Hungary's performance during their EU presidency. They pointed to the fact that Orbán had replaced career experts with party hacks; Expertise or experience in European law, or knowledge of a language other than Hungarian, was optional (most people working there speak at the very least one of the primary languages, English or French, usually both, and often more than that). To the extent that 'Orbán's EU presidency' went smoothly, we probably have to thank the preceding and succeeding countries (Belgium and Poland) for that (predecessor and successor always cooperate with the country holding the EU presidency, in order to ensure continuity).

That said, the point that Orbán can abuse his powers easily, without checks, remains a valid criticism. All we have as a guarantee that it won't happen is your fervent faith in him and Fisesz being utterly awesome. Constitutions in democracies are precisely not built on faith or trust in men (or parties for that matter) being utterly awesome, quite the opposite. They use procedure and checks because that is more reliable than men, survives men and can be held to an objective standard. In contrast, Saint Orbán's or Fisesz utter awesomeness are obviously in the eye of the beholder. How trust in Saint Orbán's or Fisesz utter awesomeness is any different than putting faith in the collective wisdom of the working class is beyond me. In the end, Lord Acton's dictum remains as valid today as it was then.

In conclusion I can say this: What exactly does democracy mean to you? That you find the changes that Orbán made desirable, suggests you don't care about much more than screwing "them", them left-liberal-socialists-international-big-money subversives. And, oh yes, the extraordinary circumstances justify it! Hungary must take the risk! The measures are so risky because the enemy is so very wicked! Seriously? Do you romantically throw a cape around your shoulder saying that and turn on your heel, as they do in Austrian operettas? And just for completeness, you boldly re-define the Hungarian people to mean anything but the socialists? They don't count because they are not 'real Hungarians', but left-liberal-socialist-international-big-money subversives? That's another problem by itself. What your preferences are about is simply partisanship and resentment. Resentment poorly informs constitutional law. The increasingly clear picture that I get is that you want democracy only to the extent that it benefits your tribe, not more.

That's a lot of sweeping assertions and generalisations in a very small space. And then there is the recurring, perhaps magic, number of "99%". What dark place did you pull that number from? Or is it symbolic, surrogating for 'a lot', like St. Ursula's 11.000 virgins, or Islam's 72? These "99%" of the criticisms from the EU are simply all the criticisms you choose to ignore. And talk in Europe isn't open? Because, let me guess, they Euros hide their left-liberal-socialist-international-big-money motives behind, like, words? And the US are less bureaucratic than the EU? Of course, ever and always! Ever seen a US immigration questionnaire?

---------- Added 0 hours, 4 minutes and 20 seconds later... ----------

You are able to differentiate between foreign policy and domestic policy? States exerting pressure in pursuit of their respective interests is normal. Whether or not that is democratic doesn't matter in the slightest, it is completely beside the point. In that matter two governments interact, and apply their respective leverage. In case you didn't notice it, that has happened for millennia, and it is continuing to happen. It's just that Hungary currently has a very short lever and you can't have that.

Betraying your stunningly superficial understanding, you decry it as not being very democratic, in a rather obvious attempt to construct yet another double standard where none exists - after all, the Euros have called Hungary undemocratic, and they themselves are acting ... there you go. Gah. So silly ... you're almost giving me a migraine.

 

Thanks for the thorough analysis of my post.

The notion there are some significant changes in Hungarian law system that anyone can abuse (Orbán's government, or some future governments) is only in the head of bigoted lawyers such as Ragusa.

 

Of course.

 

No you don't. You must. Because your government party/parties have no 2/3 majority.

We also don't have any "press council". It's called media council, which is strongly affiliated with the media authority. The Parliament, which was democratically elected by people, elects its members -- this can't be more democratic. The Parliament has Fidesz, Socialist, Liberal, etc. members. All can vote, equally.

Regarding the press and press regulation, a little foretaste to damedog that balances and checks still "work" in Hungary:

Ragusa probably won't be able to explain you how is it possible that Orbán's undemocratic regime couldn't prevent this from happening. Checks and balances perhaps still apply

Perhaps not a federal government organ, but state governments do have it. Nice try.

I suppose post #82 demanded a tad bit more than 5 minutes.

 

What about 'because the law says so,' which incidentally is the case? Ponder that novel, alien concept.

We will see whether they'll just change the constitution again.

Awesome. So you can copy-paste, perhaps even google? That's the easy part. Now you only need to learn to understand what you find. The mandate of the Medienanstalten is:

They are able to fine when broadcasters call for crimes or violations of the law. In particular, they focus on the protection of minors from violent and pornographic content. What they do not is to regulate content and address balance. Balance is a subject left to voluntary self governance. That means that the scope of the Hungarian council's authority is significantly wider. As a result, the comparison you make falls short. Since there is no equivalence, there also is no double standard.

You obviously copy-pasted that text, and, without understanding it fully, used it out of context. Maybe you should have read the relevant Staatsverträge. They are on-line on their web site, in English, just like the relevant EU directive. Never mind, you probably didn't get it there. How did you put it, stupidity is a disadvantage? You didn't need to provide compelling proof that quickly.

This is from the neo-cons at Freedom House who make a point highly relevant in this context:

The odds are overwhelmingly that you just pulled that crap talking point from a Fidesz or government website. And you know what? I'm sick of wasting my time with you. Go eff yourself.

In closing - here is by the way the neo-conservative take on Hungary: Press Freedom a Loser in Viktor Orbán’s Winner-Take-All Hungary

They have a point.

 

I like Germany in business respect too, it appreciates and supports honest work, and doesn't want only to claim the market (unlike several French companies, for example). Hereby, thanks to Audi, Bosch, Mercedes, Opel, and Knorr-Bremse for investing billions of EUR in Hungary, preferring it to Slovakia and other CE countries.

 

I'm tired of you. Cut the shmoozing.

 

(source)
Even the Czech Prime minister warns about it: equal judgement is required. Czech Republic and Poland are going to be great Hungarian allies, just like in the Kingdom times

---------- Added 2 hours, 30 minutes and 32 seconds later... ----------

 

This is what you have been saying all along, is it not? I'm all for having stricter control on financial institutions, and I actually sympathize with the argument that this could be a possible ulterior motive for the U.S especially since financial interests have more power than the citizens in a lot of ways, and yet it does nothing to invalidate the criticisms against the constitutional changes and growing authoritarian structures. It seems to me like this is an attempt to deflect valid criticisms by subscribing an ulterior motive. While it is possible that the motive could be true in part, that doesn't mean that the criticisms aren't valid. I didn't know about the financial institutions part when I heard about the constitutional changes, and I still thought that it was a dangerous path that could lead to tyranny.

 

The problem is, there are no "growing authoritarian structures", it's only a hype. If there are, then they allegedly won't fit into EU law, and thus the European Court will make a decision at the end.

And yes, Orbán's government touched the untouchable: banks and huge multinational companies. The truly dangerous for them in this is that it may prove to be a precedent in Europe: other countries may also follow this instead of further taxing the "simple" citizens.

And as we all know (except Ragusa), media is controlled by the powerful lobby groups and political parties everywhere in the world.

The result: Hungary became a dictature, but strangely, noone can point at any actual paragraphs in our laws that violate international treaties or EU laws. The biggest problem of EU is the retirement age of judges (which is part of a normalization process where every citizen, including judges, in the state sector gets the same retirement age). So there are small issues only with EU, and there are hundreds of such issues for each country (e.g. France is also a subject of a few hundred of infringement procedures with the EU).

The truth is, you can read a lot of things in the media about the unconstitutional changes in Hungary and how it's becoming a dictature, yet the only questionable part is some limiting of the financial decision rights of the Constitutional Court. Which is not against the EU law or against any international treaties.

If there is so huge dictatoric regime building here, how come none of our basic laws (freedom rights, etc.) is against the EU law?

Yes, it's all about avoiding a dangerous precedent: Hungary, which dared to touch the untouchable financial sector.

 

If you were interested you could of course read and take into account the respective EU press releases rather than just make your assertions. It isn't as if the EU is making a secret out of the points of contention with Hungary. They are quite straightforward about the points they are unhappy with:

The stuff isn't exactly difficult to find.

To sum their points up:

• First, the Commission contends that European law has instituted an independent national central bank, but Hungary's new law allows its Minister to participate in Monetary Council meetings, thus offering a possibility of political influence.
• Second, the Commission argues that EU law provides an independent judiciary and prohibits workplace discrimination based on age, but Hungary will proscribe a mandatory retirement age for judges, prosecutors and public notaries at 62 years.
• Third, the Commission asserts that EU law recognizes the independence of data protection supervisors, but Hungary will allow for premature termination of the Data Protection Commissioner currently in office.
• The Commission also contends that this law creates the possibility that the Hungarian prime minister and president could dismiss the new supervisor on arbitrary grounds.

And that's just the part that concerns the European common market.

 

First of all, we were talking about fundamental democracy. None of these cases are relevant. Let me remind everyone that there are lots of infringements procedures in the EU at the moment; e.g. there are hundreds against France or Germany.

Moreover, most of these points against Hungary are forced, they are nitpicking and/or bull****, arbitrarily forged due to the pressure on European Commission from those whose interests were violated by Orbán's measures against financial institutions.

1) First of all, the accusation that Hungary's new bank law may violate the independence of the national bank is a fantastic bull**** and double standard. Why? Because recently, the Dutch Prime Minister simply blocked the appointment of the new president of their national bank (!!!). So yes, this is a scale of double standard that could never-ever happen in the USA, just inside the EU (among "democratic" countries/areas). What would the EU do if Orbán did something similar in Hungary? Is the Dutch national bank "independent" then, if the government's head, the Prime Minister, can simply do the above? And the EU stays quiet, but it has problems because Hungary wants its NATIONAL government's financial minister to be a PASSIVE OBSERVER in the meetings of the NATIONAL bank's Monetary Council?!

Second:
The Minister's participation does not allow ANY influence to be made; he would be merely an observer. The common sense: if that's the NATIONAL bank of the country, the country's democratically elected government perhaps should be able to OBSERVE its happenings. (On a side note, in the USA, the Congress has a very direct influence on Fed, as far as I know.) But OK, this is the EU, and let's say it's explicitly against the EU law (which is not necessilary true; the EU law doesn't mention it anywhere that a minister can't be present; it just says that the national bank must be independent -- therefore, how an observing minister is going to violate the independence?!). But Orbán's government didn't consider this a prestige point, so they made a compromise with the EU, and now only 2 of the 3 infringement procedures were elevated to a higher level.

On a side note, regarding the national bank, the EU had other outrageous issues too, e.g. that the president of the national bank must take an oath to the Hungarian Constitution (just like the leaders of ALL other national organizations).

First of all, the problem of EU here is also bull**** according to the international law, because the general treaties of EU clearly state that when there is a conflict between an EU law and a national law in the EU (e.g. in ECB), then EU law must get priority.

Second, it's called NATIONAL bank, so it's just natural that its president takes an oath to the NATIONAL constitution.

So, to sum up, what can be the reason that the Dutch government is free to block the appointment of the president of the Dutch national bank, but Hungary can't allow its financial minister to be present as an observer in the Monetary Council meetings?
Money. Of course, money. The current president of the Hungarian National Bank was appointed by the Socialists, and proved to be a great puppet, who still is sitting on foreign currency reserves without allowing any of it to be put to boost the Hungarian economy. Before anyone here would think that we've little currency reserves (and thus should not be touched and should be used to protect the national currency on crisis/default situations), here is something for you: by 2012, the foreign currency reserves of Hungary reached cca. $49 billion (!!) -- just for a comparison, Australia has $49.7 bn, and United Arab Emirates has $55 bn; and what we have is more than what Kuwait, New Zealand and Slovakia have altogether (!). (For another comparison: when our mad Socialist president, Ferenc Gyurcsany was in office in 2008, the foreign exchange reserves were less than 17bn EUR.) It is a common practice that national banks boost the economy in various situations when the foreign reserves are big enough. But the current president does not want to do that, he is "sitting" on the cca. 50 billion dollars. He is a socialist puppet who is not interested in the success of the Hungarian economy; instead, he exclusively represents the socialist and European Central Bank interests.


2) Again a politically motivated bull**** from EU; the retirement age will become totally universal for all public servants (and thus it can't be discriminatory):

3) That's truly no comment. A new authority was founded to replace the old one, and that time the current ombudsman said that he wouldn't like to lead it or participate in it. And now when he noticed the "heat", he started complaining to the EU. Nonetheless, let's assume that this law is problematic; in that case, however, let me remind everyone here that the position of data protection ombusman is not even mandatory in the EU; some European Union countries simply do not have it!


What I say is that EU is truly in a moral crisis. I just heard somewhere (please disprove me!) that in one of the European countries, tale books for children cannot deal with 'Christmas', as it would violate the religious freedom... And then let's talk about the Dutch persona, Neelie Kroes, member of the EU Commission who deals with the Hungarian Media Law too... she used to base her decisions after consulting with fortune tellers and astrologists... no comment.

(Sources (all in English): EUobserver, politics.hu, wikipedia, National Bank of Hungary)

 

Well, as we have just demonstrated, apparently they can, they did and they do. But considering that you don't care what they say, it is perfectly consequent for you to not look up what they say in the first place.

You avoid dealing with what they say by summarily dismissing everything they put out as lies and allege that they hide their asserted ulterior motives behind pretexts like criticising the media law and the problems the EU lists. Proof for that you don't need, and you couldn't provide it anyway, so why bother.

From a legal point of view the concerns they list are perfectly justified criticisms. In sum they constitute a serious problem. You just don't want to hear that. As a result it's all "lies" - the REAL problem lies elsewhere, and it's with double-talking, villainous EU bureaucrats, the Left-Liberal-Socialists, for good measure the Communists and Bolsheviks as well, the big money and the banks and their pernicious world wide influence, and they're all united in their common hatred against everything that is good and pure - which is of course Fidecz and Victor Orbàn. Enemies, enemies everywhere. What an intriguing narrative, and what an odd coalition. I'm only missing the Jews.

 

I see you're still good at ignoring points (e.g. as with Livia Jaroka recently) while you accuse me of the same.

Your reply is in a time shift (reacting to an older post of mine and ignoring the newer one).

I think you're the only one who thinks that the problems with Hungary's legislation/laws are bigger than with Germany, France or Holland.

(Some key points you were never able to answer, so you simply ignored them:
(1) how is it possible that Livia Jaroka, the only Roma MEP in the world, told the opposite about the Roma situation in Hungary than what German newspapers and you state?
(2) If your answer to question (1) is that "she is a Fidesz partisan, and actually lies about the situation", then how is it possible she was elected by Roma people (!) multiple times? How is it possible that Roma people voted for her despite of the fact she lied about their terrible situation?
(3) how is it possible that the EU accuses Hungary of undermining the independence of the national bank by planning to give an observer position to the financial minister, while in Holland, the Prime Minister simply blocked the official appointment of the national bank's president, with arguments such as "politically not a good partner" ?
(4) how is it possible that Hungary has cca. 50 billion* USD foreign exchange reserves in the national bank (and therefore a little part is definitely suitable for boosting the economy that Socialists ruined), and the president of the national bank (appointed by Socialists) does not support any economy boost, and at the same time, EU is suddenly "worrying" about the independence of the national bank? (using an outrageous double standard, see point (3)))

*Again, as a comparison (for those who missed my previous post), Australia or United Arab Emirates have a similar amount (cca. $50bn, and cca. $55bn). In Central Europe, noone has as high foreign exchange reserves (e.g. Austria has $25bn, Slovakia has $2.5bn, and Czech Republic and Romania also have smaller reserves).

 

How is it, how is it ... oh noooo ... can it be ....

Spoiler

​

 

"Fail".

That much about the quality standards of your communication and argumentation abilities. They stop to exist when your arguments are easily disproved by facts of life.

 

Baronius, you made the post above yesterday, and obviously bumped it by posting again within the 24 hour timeframe, thus causing the 2 back-to-back posts to be merged, and then edited the post to get rid of everything after the first one. I can think of no other reason why you would do so other than you really enjoy a bickerfest.