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

Remove all ads!

Summary: what I stated here long ago, and 99.9% of reactions were against me, was now proved in practice. And WSJ says the same: EU applies double standards and hipocricy against Hungary.

[Edit: I accidently posted this in AoDA. It was meant to be in AoLS, pardon.]

[Disclaimer (based on my past experiences): I do know some of the members here do not care about Hungary, prefer sleeping to reading threads such as this one, etc. So feel free to avoid this thread. But if you decide to state in a reply that you don't really care -- as some people did in the past -- it's fine for me, but don't expect me to believe you ]

Fact:

As I've pointed out in the past several times (e.g. here), double standard and hipocrisy is often applied on Hungary. Generally, it's often applied when a small country doesn't follow the dictations of greater powers and international companies in Central Europe. I remember that when I tried to point this out, I was practically flooded with disagreements and accusations of making up conspiracy theories etc. This was reaction type #1 that I received in those days.

Reaction type #2 was that hipocrisy is actually totally normal, implying I shouldn't be surprised when I encounter it:

E.g. this one (source):

And this one (source):

LKD's reaction (from that time), on the other hand, pretty much summarizes the current situation as well:

LKD was the only one that time whose reaction wasn't against my point.

99% of answers either had reaction type #1 or type #2. Well, based on the recent events, type #1 is clearly disproved (i.e. that there is no negative -- even politically unacceptable, overly -- bias against Hungary); e.g. not only WSJ, but also Der Standard (Germany), Lidové Noviny (Czech Republic), Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (Poland) criticized the decision of EU. Reaction type #2 is also easily disproved: if this type of political hipocricy was so much normal and natural, WSJ wouldn't dedicate an article for it for sure.

This is the complete WSJ article in question:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203918304577239203638389674.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Some gems from the article:

 

It seems like the EU is a horrible organisation which Hungary ought to leave as soon as possible.

 

No, instead Hungary (with its ally Poland) will try to spread its conservative values in EU. That is what some countries are afraid of (and this is one of the two reasons why EU tries to put pressure on Hungary in these days, despite of the fact there are much greater problems than the small-sized Hungary).

 

Just out of curiosity Baronius, what kind of conservative values should Hungary be promoting in the EU?

 

http://www.szon.hu/dispute-on-hunga...cts-european-debate-on-values-says-pm/1888573

 

So a certain outlook on abortion are the conservative values you want to bring to the EU? I thought this was an economic thing.

 

The EU is not a United states of Europe, it remains a relatively loose coalition where individual member states tend to put their own interest first. In the world of real politik might makes right and hypocrisy is widespread. The new fiscal treay which is being pushed by Germany is a slight beefier version of the old Stability and Growth pact. That one was ignored as the first country to break it was Germany (well Greece probably did but we didn't know as they were lying about the figures). Given that adherence to the old treaty seems to bear no relationship to which countries are now in trouble its worth is highly questionable. But it well play well at home in German domestic politics.

The fact that the EU is imperfect does not, however, automatically invalidate all criticisms it has made of Hungary. Some of the recent changes (or proposed changes) remove important checks and balances on the government.

Bloomberg aren't quite as positive on Hungary's financial situation. And as Orban is looking for an EU/IMF bailout we must assume he thinks Hungary is in trouble as well. A debt ratio of 80% to GDP doesn't sound too bad but more than 40% of it is in foreign currencies and the Hungarian forint is under pressure so this could push up the debt dramatically even without further deficits. Moody's has downgraded Hungarian debt to junk status.

 

As a small country that particularly depends on European and international financial situation, Hungary needs a protection option (the EU/IMF is a good option for this). Unlike other countries, it will not use up any of the money (it will be just a safety option, to protect the Hungarian currency from international speculative attacks).

Moody's downgraded practically every European country (not to junk, but by several levels compared to each country's level by then). Moreover, there are debates about the independence of these companies such as Moody's, some (international, non-Hungarian) experts say that they clearly represent interests of certain groups and use their influence for manipulation. No wonder, they have owners too (mostly American ones).

On a minor side note, Moody's was still keeping Lehman Brothers in its best level even one day before Lehman Brothers went bankrupt... That much about the reliability of these companies.

Finally, some criticisms have a point about Hungary (a very small percent of "criticism", as most of them are only politically or ideologically motivated attacks), and Hungary is open to change them (in fact, it changed some of them already). When we think we're right, however, then we're ready to protect it in the European Court as well.

 

I'm not really interested in Hungary's "conservative values," since values are a nebulous thing in regards to political partisans [on both sides]. But there is something that intrigues me - that some admit that they are trying to "spread" their own particular set of values on others, and seem rather cool with that. At the same time they complain about push-back regarding their atttmpts at their "spreading." I suspect that if it was the EU attemping to spread evil, liberal, values on poor, poor, tiny, conservative Hungary, there would be maddening outrage. Go figure....

 

Since I am a part of one of the countries who actually contributes money to the EU to distribute to the leech countries like Hungary I get a bit miffed when those who get start making demands and call the givers hypocrites and such. Seeing as all that Hungary is known for is prostitutes, lynching gypsies and now to some extent being the first EU country slipping into a dictatorship I think you should be very very happy that you are even allowed to be a part of the EU. That there are people who value European solidarity more highly than strict money.

This is the kind of reply you really deserve Baronius and I wrote it for you. It isnt really my own views as I am really one of the people that think that we need to knit Europe together at any cost and that to help poor countries like Hungary is in the long run helping myself but put yourself in the shoes of a German or a Swede, one of the people paying, don't you think it is up to those who give to decide whom to give it to?

 

Of course. Very small percent. Politically and ideologically motivated. You forgot petty and mischievous

But the "most of" part is intriguing. So what is truly worth of criticism in Hungary? The Machiavellian machinations of the minority opposition, in collusion with international capital?

 

Careful, that is a very dangerous statement. It almost makes you seem like a Republican.

 

Well, I dont nescessarily belive that but seeing as Baronios loudly declares his conservatism and his dislike for socialism one would think it would at least be something he believes in.

 

You don't know the situation at all. That's exactly what Europe and the European Parliament tried to do -- confusing political/ideological issues into financial and other questions (using finance as a way to put pressure).

Noone complaints about push-back at all. I just pointed out that eventually, the situation turns and will have the opposite direction (even now the process has started) and others will continue the example of Hungary (e.g. Poland and Lithuania were acting as true allies in the past months, and recently the Czech prime minister already expressed his support in certain cases). Liberals and left parties are losing positions in whole Europe constantly, and a centre-right government with 2/3 majority (Hungary) is the worst precedent they could ever imagine.

So what Hungary complains about is that others try to say what it can put to its Constitution and so on. Dictature? Bull****. Noone ever mentioned any LEGAL argument. Paragraphs, what Hungary violates in any EU treates. Go read. Go find anything like that. As far as the usual infringement procedures are concerned that EU has initiated against Hungary: hundreds of such procedures are in progress against all members of the EU, and they are about economic, financial or environmental issues mostly. They have nothing to do with "dictature".

So the direction is the opposite (and maybe I wasn't clear about that in my initial post): others trying to dictate to Hungary, because they don't like the conservative values, and consider them as a danger. The whole "dictature" thing is a hype made by leftliberals.

But if you had read the WSJ article, you would see that I'm not the only one who states that EU (ab)uses financial things to put pressure on Hungary regarding its Christian ideology. (It's not a secret that many of the influential EU leaders in the Commission represent their own parties, which they mustn't in such positions by definition; e.g. Neelie Kroes is from a liberal party, and lately she got big criticism about that.) E.g.:

OK, if anyone thinks there are violations of any EU or other international law in the Hungarian Constitution or in any other Hungarian law, show which paragraphs. Noone ever said that. Just general things, political statements, all the time. Isn't it suspicious?!

First of all, it seems you are a typical citizen totally brainwashed by his local press. In fact, based on the type of truly intelligent statements about an entire nation (that it is known for prostitutes & gypsies etc.), you seem to be the victim of an image of an enemy. Exactly what Hitler made of the Jews for people.

But two points, to those non-EU readers who don't know how EU works:
1. "leech country". The EU, to its member states, was always a deal, not a charitative organization. You give something, you get something. Hungary and many other countries opened their markets, ceased customs to other member countries, etc. etc. etc. This is a loss to budget, just like many other things. So most experts agree that it's not such an easy question to define whether a country is a payer or a leecher. Just because it gets more money from the EU than what it pays is a really limited approach. It doesn't take into account the other free ways of money flow from the country into other countries of the EU. (Just think of the tons of German, French and other huge companies that operate in Hungary and realize extraprofits that are taken out from the country.)

2. But even if we say Hungary is a "leech" country, insulting it (and thus an entire nation) in the way you did only reflects a narrow-minded, unintelligent, somewhat Hitler approach. If that is what you see in Sweden about Hungary, then Sweden is much more dictatoric than Hungary ever was. Because, for some reason, we Hungarians do not have such a Hitler-ish opinion about any other nation. Nonetheless, yours was the most "intelligent" reply I ever got here. If I wanted to go down onto your level, I would answer something like "but even our ugliest prostitute is a champion of beauty compared to the most beautiful Swedish woman", but fortunately, I don't intend to sink to such depths, because I disagree with any type of generalization, foolish stereotypes and collective enemy images. That's the way of Hitler. If you valued "European solidarity" as you say, then you would know what respect means when talking about another nation.

It's soooo funny that when several of the most influential newspapers in the world admit that the EU is using a double standard with Hungary (even WSJ, which can't be characterized as a Hungary supporter ), the replies here try to defend the undefendable.

 

But Baronius,
the point is that Hungary pays in significantly less than it gets from the EU in return. It profits from the EU. That is indisputable. There is nothing Hitlerian about pointing out that obvious fact.

And in closing, who says double standards are necessarily hypocritical? I say they are absolutely called for. I treat a child different than an adult, and I treat you different than an adult - for good reason.

 

The Wall Street Journal perhaps.

The Hitlerian was addressed to the comment about the nation of lynching gypsies* and prostitutes. About paying: no, it is not necessarily true, if we consider other directions of money flow regarding the country. Go read more about it, if you are unfamiliar with this topic.

*On a side note, this "lynching gypsies" comment is another great example of European hipocrisy. Gypsies live in Hungary (too) and their integration means a huge problem here too, just like in other countries where their numbers are high. The hipocrisy: when the topic is about gypsies living in Hungary, we're accused by Western media and people such as joacqin of "discriminating the Gypsy minorities" etc. But when these Gypsies move to their countries, suddenly Gypsies become "lynching Gypsies" and are considered as a mistake of Hungary. Disgusting hipocrisy.


Nowadays, it seems it's such an era of double standards in the EU. It's a pity there are really few politicans nowadays who see the truth such as Edmund Stoiber.

Some people choose not to be blind in order to serve short-term interests, yes.

And, thinking on a bigger time scale, considering some of the historical deeds of the Hungarian Kingdom, if they hadn't happened then perhaps joacqin and Sweden wouldn't even exist now in Europe.

 

Enter Goodwin's law.

 

It's hard to share thoughts when a good part of people who give self-confident answers actually have very poor knowledge on the topic.

On a side note, Ragusa's "child" (who deserves a double standard), Hungary, was the Eastern Bloc country who allowed East Germans to escape to the "adult" West Germany through Austria. All this before the Fall of Communism. The gypsy and prostitute country that leeches money from EU. But I'm not here to teach history.

 

B,
you quote Stoiber, the former king elect of Bavaria? The most brilliant orator who ever walked the halls of the Bundestag? Then let me quote him, too:

Clearly a man of deep competence.

And as for the reunification, I have not forgotten that it was Hungary that first opened the borders for East German citizens who wanted to travel to the West. That is not Mr. Orbán's merit, but some vile Communist's (who, obviously inexplicably, had a not-so-vile moment), and it also doesn't mean Hungary has somehow earned, like an entitlement, getting money from Germany, let alone the EU, forever.

And the Joa's (overtly) tongue-in-cheek-ish remark about lynching gypsies clearly refers to incident's like this one, which are rare in countries other than, say, Hungary, Slovakia or Bulgaria.

 

Barry, you missed the part of my post when I wrote that what I wrote is pretty much what I would have written if I was a Swedish version of you (and for which I can still be both warned and banned as what I wrote is clearly against the board rules). Basically, it was a post on your level and the equivalent of you around have that kind of image of Hungary except for the dictator part. You should keep posting though as it is rather funny and it was a while since we had someone like you around.

Now, if we wanted to discuss this topic properly I would have liked some Greek people as they are the people really being singled out by the EU and basically have to serve as an example for the rest of the union.