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

Remove all ads!

Oh, so he talked about gypsies getting lynched, and not gypsies lynching other people (because the latter one is more typical, and they often say "Death to the Hungarian!". Yes, they are rare, considering that these countries have the highest Roma population, while you -- Western countries -- do not. When some Roma people move to your country, for some reason, somehow, you do not welcome them either. Sarkozy, if I remember correctly (and I do), decided to crack down the illegally built camps of Roma people... if the same thing happened in Hungary (how many Rome houses and camps are legal, guess!), Hungary would be called the new country of Hitler, I assume...

Hardly. If you knew history, you would know that only a central Party was allowed to function in those times, so others didn't get any chance... Therefore, this Party included people who weren't the blind servants of the Communist ideology. And yes, I know you meant irony with "vile Communist's", implying I consider every Communist/socialist the same. But it's not true: differences and nuances are needed, but that is beyond the scope of this topic.

Moreover, indeed it's not Orbán's merit, but talking about the Fall of Communism and Orbán, I hope I don't need to list Orbán's deeds from those times...........

 

Nonsense. The man who opened the border was Miklós Németh, Prime Minister of Hungary, and one of the leaders of the Socialist Workers' Party - Hungary's Communist party - the very people that you routinely demonise for having wrecked Hungary, but for whose decision to open the border for German travellers/refugees during the fall of the Iron Curtain you generously have the country take the credit for.

Reading you one can't help getting the impression that communists weren't involved in that matter at all. What a joke.

 

... and who later quit the presidency board of MSZP (the socialist party), and also was the vice president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

[Edit: since you edited your post in the meantime, adding the following part:]

You never heard me demonizing pre-2002 socialists of Hungary. You never heard me saying a negative word on Gyula Horn or Miklós Németh. The 2002-2010 Socialist Party, however, became a servant of international investor. Sure, as an investor, I would also be happy if a group of politicians helped me. But a party in Hungary should serve the Hungarian people (or at least its voters), and not the investors exclusively. This is why they horribly lost the 2010 elections.

 

The irony here is that your sainted Victor Orbán had the good sense to say, roughly translated: »I am glad, that Miklós Németh then didn't demand anything (for opening the border). In this world Hungarians are often ascribed virtues. That includes chivalry and generosity. Miklós Németh gave a good example for both.« Well, unlike you. By quoting that clown Stoiber as you do, you implicitly do the opposite - and suggest a debt of gratitude for Németh's decision to open the border.

 

[Since you added an edit in the meantime to your last-but-one post, I added my reaction to your edit, too.] To be brief, you never heard me demonizing the socialist party that existed in the 1990's. Parties change, people change.

Orbán also had "the good sense" to praise the "clown" Stoiber as well, in case you didn't know.

---

It's a pity history notices Hungarian merits only with a great delay, if it does at all.
- Miklós Németh opened the borders when other countries were afraid to do anything similar (=> a tactically, diplomatically and risk-wise illogical decision)
- József Antall suggested in Moscow to cease the Warsaw Pact when other countries (e.g. Czechoslovakia) didn't openly support it and only decided to support it IF the Russians would not react in a hostile way to the Hungarian initiative (=> again a risky decision, and thus diplomatically-politically dangerous)
- Viktor Orbán's brave steps since 2010* (=> again, tactically illogical decisions, with the risk of diplomatic isolation etc.): all presented as antidemocratc, freedom-killing etc. in most of the mainstream Western press. But things are slowly starting to consolidate, and misled people are starting to wake up.

Starting with a bank tax, which was critized greatly. A "terrible assassination" against the bank system, against the economy etc. And what can we see now? European countries are starting to follow it, the EU is suggesting something very similar, etc.

Yes, I'm sure the reactions to the above statements will be that "Orbán's steps can't be compared to those other ones", "they are far from each other" etc. But this is what happens always, when the world is under the influence of "opinion maker", interest-driven media. Later, everyone will experience the truth.

On a side note, Orbán is often criticized that his "crazy" actions isolate Hungary, result in very poor diplomatic positions etc. Yeah, perhaps France is angry that Hungary doesn't let their Suez Environement S.A. and others to avoid the Hungarian law, and thus diplomatic relations are not so good with France. But this is only one side of the coin. The other side is different. For example, Hungary was an invited guest (and got a word during the talks) in the latest G20 (!) meeting in Saudi Arabia. How come Czech Republic, Poland, Austria, Slovakia weren't invited guests... That much about "isolated diplomacy"...

 

So what? All it shows is that he is inconsistent in his judgement.

 

Or perhaps you're...

 

Well, maybe not "maddening" outrage; just plain outrage.

 

Yes, the EU doesn't always apply quite the same standards to everyone - it is sad, but a fact of life. We are talking, after all, about an organization of 27 independent countries that, effectively, try to pursue their own goals in a more or less organized fashion. At present, most believe that it is within their interests in a way that involves (among other things) customs union and a common market. The inflation limit is part of that mechanism, and there is a mechanism to "sanction" countries that go above it. In theory, it should apply to all countries. In practice, it applies to some more than others. In general, the EU avoids seriously pissing off Germany and to a lesser degree (imo) France, Italy and the UK: they are big and have a lot of pull on several levels, including due to being the major contributors to the budget. As the saying goes, if you pay the bill, you order the music. It is simply politics - and politics doesn't necessarily become any nicer on the international level.

Now, as far as I can remember from my classes, the 3% limit on inflation isn't rock solid either - it allows some time for response and circumstances are usually taken into effect (such as, oh, financial crises and the following adjustments). Considering that many EU countries have inflation around 3%, and some have higher, it falls to Hungary's diplomats and experts to make the case that the rules should be adjusted due to the extraordinary circumstances, namely economic malaise gripping most of the EU, etc, etc. That is why you have diplomats - and what they get their wages for. Shouting that the EU is unfair may work well domestically (god knows our own PM has pulled that one a few times) but internationally, things get done around a table. Especially when people are giving you money, which, as per the last information I could find (http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000273546.pdf has it for 2009) is what the situation is for Hungary.

Considering the situation I'd be quite surprised if Hungary gets direct sanctions for its inflation. It can, though, be used to grill it over due to other subjects - although I think that the pressure will be limited to words and creating anxiety and won't actually impact Hungary's finance. My expectation is that even with some EU displeasure over Orban's internal policies, Hungary's reps should have to really mess up to get their country hit financially.

Edit: I may have been mistaken - the 3% barrier the Stability and Growth Pact fixes is for deficit, and yes, it is habitually breached. Generally, a country has to be in clear violation for a prolonged period to start getting serious flak. For inflation, I think the rule of thumb was "close but not higher than 2%", but again, in the current circumstances it's pretty much presumed that there will be fluctuations.

 

Spain has declared it's lowering its deficit target from 4.4% to 5.8%. I don't see a lot of difference between this and what Hungary is doing. I won't hold my breath for their structural funds to be withheld though.

 

The truly funny is, Hungary's deficit will be below 3% in 2012 (EU agrees with this too), and for 2013, EU expects 3.25% and Hungary expects below 3%. So EU is suggesting sanctions based on a future event that is assumed. When Hungary was informed about it, it added further financial actions to the plan, decreasing the expected deficit by another 0.4%, but EU didn't care about this, and suggested the sanctions.

It's power demonstration of the EU, nothing else.

I'm also sure no actual money will be withdrawn (and our government is sure, too).

 

If that's true than the deficit clearly isn't the problem then. From the article you posted:

Could the part in bold be the reason the EU is singling out Hungary?

 

(No, EU is harassing Hungary to protect the interests of huge investor groups and companies; to make sure that the past 1.5 years never repeat, when our government put special crisis taxes on certain sectors such as telecom and banks. Instead of putting even bigger burden on people when the country was already in ruins after an 8-year socialist "governing". You may call it a populist act, but it worked. The budget has been consolidated, and now Hungary has the 8th smallest budget deficit from the 27 EU countries...)


Two points:

1. If EU thinks the Constitution threatens democracy, it should show which parts of the Constitution do so. Then it should prove it legally. They should show which parts of the EU treaties are violated by the Constitution.

2. "Threaten democracy" is a 'rubber' expression, i.e. cow patties, so to say. It has been known for a long time that when it comes to Eastern Europe, then democracy is what Western Europe declares as democracy, and democracy is threatened when Western Europe thinks so. Moreover, for historical reasons, the Western part of the world always considers everything very suspiciously that happens in Eastern Europe, while it chooses not to apply the same standards on its own countries (e.g. neonazism, racism and similar extremism is often much worse in Holland and other Western countries than in Hungary and Eastern Europe, yet when the Western media deals with these countries, it often magnifies the actual situation and presents half-truth).

 

Naturally. They're out to get you. There is, after all, according to you, only a very small percent of criticism about Orban that is not politically and ideologically motivated, and not petty and mischievous. Come to think of it the only thing not to like about Orbán is the colour of his tie every third week or so (though legend has it that he only does that to appear more mortal). Except for that he is AWESOMMMMMMME!

B, darling, they did that, not once but repeatedly, and all it yielded was a 'they, like, lie' response from you - after all only a very small percent of criticism about Orbán is not politically and ideologically motivated. The point is that you don't care what they say anyway.

Rubber expression? Rubbish. And the bull**** is all yours. Abolishing judicial oversight for instance is threatening democracy all right, because it makes possible abuse of power without a possibility for those harmed to seek recourse. That's a bad result from all angles no matter how you spin it. It's as accurate a criticism as a car technicians opinion that your car isn't safe to drive when the brakes and the air bag are not functioning. Judicial oversight of executive action and over the constitutionality of laws is to rights what brakes and air bags are to safe driving - indispensable for everyone but reckless thrill seekers.

If you exert yourself you may recall that Orbán did abolish judicial oversight for tax laws. Then there was that latent censorship with that exclusively apparatchik led media council. That's just the low hanging fruit of examples, and already a very precise and concrete criticism. They only thing you have to counter it is to say that dear leader Orbán will not abuse that power. You're not going to persuade anyone but yourself in that regard.

 

Behave yourself, guys .

 

Moreover, it's also an important fact that media/press/politicians in Western Europe form confident opinions without actually knowing what they talk about (EU Parliament is a great example to this). Indeed, there are many lies and exaggerated half-truths (hype) spreading. These confident opinions are often based on false press reports, which are easily believed by simple citizens.

For example, the fact that Ragusa/joacqin was easily misled is reflected by what they wrote about the situation of Roma (Gypsies) in Hungary. Because the European media (except in Eastern Europe) presents a false image about it (sometimes due to leftliberal connections, indeed). There were some isolated events in Hungary, true, but the general conclusions Western media is drawing are very far from truth. Just a few facts to enlighten those who are still open to hear the truth:

- It's possible that the Roma murders that happened in Hungary a few years ago were politically ordered; the Socialist Party needed a pretext to demonize the extreme-right party Jobbik (which is known for its extremism and anti-Roma rhetorics); yes, this would be no more than a conspiracy theory unless a retired police officer (István Sándor, also known as the "Papa") wouldn't also say that he thinks that the murders happened as a fulfillment of a political order. He is a retired officer, never had any affiliation or relation with any party. He is the person who faced the infamous and immensely powerful oil mafia of Hungary in 1990's (the Hungarian "Cattani").

- The other bullshit that often appears when criticizing Orbán and the new Hungarian Constitution is that Hungary doesn't protect minorities anymore, including the Gypsies. Such statements could be heard in the European Parliament as well. The truth, on the other hand:
1. The only (!) Roma MEP in entire European Parliament, Lívia Jaróka, was delegated by (surprise!) Orbán's party, Fidesz. The only Roma person in the world that ever made it to the European Parliament.
2. After hearing all the EU lies about the situation of Roma in Hungary, she published the following (source):

Of course, one could say that she just represents a partisan view, but in that case, a journalist who writes nonsense about the Roma situation in Hungary could also be called a servant of left-liberal groups. What truly matters is the FACTUAL ACCURACY. The above-quoted text of Lívia Jaróka is based on facts, not opinions and assumptions. Moreover, a MEP has a true responsibility: for her voters. And Roma people voted for her. If she wrote lies in the above-quoted text -- misrepresenting the situation of Roma people -- would the Roma people vote for her? Yes, only one thing remains: she is writing the truth.

Finally, a little gem from Slovakia (which -- unlike Hungary -- wasn't criticized by tons of leftliberals in the European Parliament for its Roma politics):






The text reads: "until how long shall we lose money on Roma? Let's change on this!". A poster of SNS, an extremist national party in Slovakia (which was even in government until 2010!). The courts do not care about it, yet this type of thing covers several types of criminal offense. Yet, the EU leading bodies don't seem to be worrying about the state of judicial system in Slovakia. Instead, they "worry" about and put pressure on Hungary, because interests of certain groups demand so.

This reminds me again to Ragusa's comments about the Hungarian extreme-right party Jobbik (which can be read in the European press as well, i.e. as if this Jobbik would be much more dangerous than any of the European/Eastern European extreme-right parties etc.). Again, the leftliberal hype about Hungary.

If Jobbik put such an illegal, racist, anti-Roma poster in Hungary, the posters would be removed immediately, and it would end up in a trial for sure.

So, those dear citizens who worry about Gypsies in Hungary, should better concentrate their worrying energies on Slovakia. If anywhere, Romas will be in bigger trouble there if this party (SNS) wins the elections that will be held next week (10th March 2012)

 

So do I get you right? You are saying that since Slovakia is a total cesspool, Hungary being a mere sh*thole spells comparative glory?

 

As always, Ragusa is selectively reacting to certain parts of a post (which wouldn't be a problem in itself), implying that his reaction is valid on the entire post that he reacts to.

1. The first point of my post (Jaroka's statements) has nothing to do with Slovakia. Jaroka's statement (as the statement of the only Roma European MEP) in-itself disproves the disgusting lies regarding the Hungarian Roma situation. The proof can be read in my previous post.

2. Regarding Ragusa's latest post:

I never ever tried to imply that. Every healthy person notices, however, that when there are supposed (and insignificant) issues with entity A, while entity B has truly (and factually provable) issues in the same respect, then focusing on entity A (and totally ignoring entity B) is more than double standard and disgusting hipocrisy.

 

The situation for Romani is deplorable in all of Europe, Sweden included but there are layers in hell. It is a topic that has fascinated me for the last two years or so. Basically everybody hates them as a group, heck they even seem to hate themselves. They are a closed society within European society welcome nowhere and with little to no contact with the "host" societies they live in. In Eastern Europe the situation is close to genocidal but the same basic problems faces Romani in the west. They do not finish school, they do not work, they are extremely suspicious of outsiders, outsiders are extremely suspicious of them. I have worked with many and it is appalling how many live up to the most negative, horrible stereotypes and prejudice you can imagine. How can this be? How can a group be so left out, so exclusive? Compared to the Romani the Jews have been welcomed with open arms and been welcoming people with open arms wherever they have lived. Even the splinter groups, there is a group that came to Sweden centuries ago, adopted Swedish names over the years and they are still stuck at the bottom. How can one displaced Indian army change so little and fit in so poorly?