News
BackInterference in the freedom of the media, threatening the independence of justice and the National Bank, and worrying developments concerning the minority rights in Hungary are only some of the issues that triggered an unusually heated discussion in the European Parliament this week. Whilst Social Democrats, Liberals, the Greens and the Left levelled harsh criticism at the new Hungarian constitution, Orbán’s party colleagues from the People’s Party, the nationally-oriented fraction “Europe of Freedom and Democracy” and some independent right-wing MEPs showed understanding and in part also supported Orbán’s political approach. Meanwhile, the European Commission blew its top and has now initiated three infringement procedures against Hungary.
That the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Conservative party Fidesz, who won the Hungarian election with a 2/3 majority, have been given a very large political scope for manoeuvre is beyond doubt. However, the issue whether the Hungarian Government with its new constitution has not clearly overstepped the mark, was the subject of the debate in the European Parliament.
Unusually critical words of the EU Commission
The Danish Presidency and the European Commission started the discussion by asserting: all Member States had to comply with the EU Treaty. However, the EU Commission sees, following the change of the Hungarian constitution, infringements in respect of a number of important principles of the EU Treaty. The Commission had sent letters to the Hungarian Government before initiating the procedures commented Commission President Manuel Barroso and Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding; Commissioner Neelie Kroes had sent the most recent letter to Hungary only on Tuesday, voicing her concerns regarding the Hungarian Freedom of the media. In concrete terms, the Commission has now initiated three infringement procedures against Hungary. It sees an infringement against EU law in respect of the independence justice, the control of the Central Bank and data protection.
Minister President Orbán: we have implemented many reforms
Hungary had made many improvements, which had been urgently required. At the beginning, his country had still been on the verge of economic collapse. Now the current account balance was positive, the budget stable and the administration reformed. Education, taxes and pensions had also undergone changes and minorities were better protected, said Hungarian Minister President
Representatives of the European People’s Party showed restraint in their criticism
The leader of the European People’s Party (EPP) in the European Parliament Joseph Daul emphasised that the Hungarian voters had given Orbán a clear mandate. He and other MEPs of the EPP underlined that a new constitution had been urgently required as the old constitution still originated from the Stalinist period in the 1940ies. The German MEP Bernd Posselt made an emotional comment saying that the Hungarian Constitution would now have the best minority rights legislation.
A barrage of criticism from other fractions
The leader of the Social Democrats Hannes Swoboda commented that the independence of several public institutions had been put into question. He was disappointed by the statement of Daul – he had the muscle to tell his party colleague what is right and what is wrong. One should take Havel as an example, who had fought against Communism but for freedom. The Leader of the Liberals Guy Verhofstadt listed a number of infringements of Hungarian law against the EU Treaty, such as data protection, media, National Bank, Ecclesiastical Law, etc. The list had by no means been drawn up by non-governmental organisations, but by official authorities such as the IMF, the Council of Europe or the Commission. The Green MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit launched a sharp attack against Orbán: the Hungarian Constitution would be authoritarian. Jews and intellectuals had reason to worry. Even the European Conservatives harshly criticised Orbán: MEP Lajos Bokros informed the house that there were more worrying legislative changes, for example in respect of the ombudsman, the media, etc. The old constitution had been change ten times and seized to be Stalinist for a long time. The aim of the new constitution was to tie the hands of future governments, believes Bokros. Investors had lost confidence.
MEP’s Szájer’s wife alone decides on the appointment of judges
In reaction to MEP Cohn-Bendit, the Hungarian MEP József Szájer of the Fidesz Party pointed out that Holocaust Memorial Days had been introduced; Jews could feel safe in Hungary. He would reject the accusation of anti-Semitism as made by Cohn-Bendit. When he was a young jurist, he had stood against a Communist, dictatorial regime and today Hungary was a constitutional democracy. Of course, Hungary would be open to discussion should the Commission see any problems. Accusations from the media were not true. Orbán had not weakened but strengthened the democracy.
MEP Renate Weber reacted fiercely to Szájer’s comments: Szájer’s wife would now be the Head of the National Judicial Office and could, based on the new legal situation, alone decide who would be appointed judge. Apart from that, she had been appointed for nine years and a future successor could only be appointed with a 2/3 majority. Is this what he understood under democracy? asked Weber. Szájer replied that his wife had been appointed on the basis of her many years of legal experience.
The MEPs listed further points: whilst in Hungary the pensionable age was 70, for judges it had been reduced to 62; the separation of Church and State had been put into question. The rights of homosexuals and Roma had been curtailed. The media had reported that due to the new legal situation radio frequencies had been terminated to silence critical stations. Critical journalists had already lost their jobs. MEP Alexander Graf Lambsdorff of the Liberals expressed his shock that the Flat Tax had been raised to constitutional rank. He was a supporter of a Flat Tax, but one could not deprive future governments of any scope for decision-making. The Liberal MEP Louis Michel even referred to a tyranny of the majority, which was developing in Hungary and which would mean the death of democracy.
Commissioner Reding: independence of justice indispensable for exercising union rights
Commissioner Viviane Reding underlined at the end of the debate that independence would be indispensable for exercising union rights. Many issues had to be clarified in respect of freedom of the press and the media. The three infringement procedures would now be rushed through.
Orbán commented at the end of the debate that any issues, which did not comply with the EU Treaty, could be easily and rapidly corrected. However, he had a “Christian conviction”. Schuman had said – “Democracy will be Christian or seize to exit”. The old constitution had ruined the country, minorities and citizens had not been protected. The Hungarian Government now has three weeks to comment on the three infringement procedures. Then the ball is back in the corner of the Commission.
Unusually critical words of the EU Commission
The Danish Presidency and the European Commission started the discussion by asserting: all Member States had to comply with the EU Treaty. However, the EU Commission sees, following the change of the Hungarian constitution, infringements in respect of a number of important principles of the EU Treaty. The Commission had sent letters to the Hungarian Government before initiating the procedures commented Commission President Manuel Barroso and Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding; Commissioner Neelie Kroes had sent the most recent letter to Hungary only on Tuesday, voicing her concerns regarding the Hungarian Freedom of the media. In concrete terms, the Commission has now initiated three infringement procedures against Hungary. It sees an infringement against EU law in respect of the independence justice, the control of the Central Bank and data protection.
Minister President Orbán: we have implemented many reforms
Hungary had made many improvements, which had been urgently required. At the beginning, his country had still been on the verge of economic collapse. Now the current account balance was positive, the budget stable and the administration reformed. Education, taxes and pensions had also undergone changes and minorities were better protected, said Hungarian Minister President
Representatives of the European People’s Party showed restraint in their criticism
The leader of the European People’s Party (EPP) in the European Parliament Joseph Daul emphasised that the Hungarian voters had given Orbán a clear mandate. He and other MEPs of the EPP underlined that a new constitution had been urgently required as the old constitution still originated from the Stalinist period in the 1940ies. The German MEP Bernd Posselt made an emotional comment saying that the Hungarian Constitution would now have the best minority rights legislation.
A barrage of criticism from other fractions
The leader of the Social Democrats Hannes Swoboda commented that the independence of several public institutions had been put into question. He was disappointed by the statement of Daul – he had the muscle to tell his party colleague what is right and what is wrong. One should take Havel as an example, who had fought against Communism but for freedom. The Leader of the Liberals Guy Verhofstadt listed a number of infringements of Hungarian law against the EU Treaty, such as data protection, media, National Bank, Ecclesiastical Law, etc. The list had by no means been drawn up by non-governmental organisations, but by official authorities such as the IMF, the Council of Europe or the Commission. The Green MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit launched a sharp attack against Orbán: the Hungarian Constitution would be authoritarian. Jews and intellectuals had reason to worry. Even the European Conservatives harshly criticised Orbán: MEP Lajos Bokros informed the house that there were more worrying legislative changes, for example in respect of the ombudsman, the media, etc. The old constitution had been change ten times and seized to be Stalinist for a long time. The aim of the new constitution was to tie the hands of future governments, believes Bokros. Investors had lost confidence.
MEP’s Szájer’s wife alone decides on the appointment of judges
In reaction to MEP Cohn-Bendit, the Hungarian MEP József Szájer of the Fidesz Party pointed out that Holocaust Memorial Days had been introduced; Jews could feel safe in Hungary. He would reject the accusation of anti-Semitism as made by Cohn-Bendit. When he was a young jurist, he had stood against a Communist, dictatorial regime and today Hungary was a constitutional democracy. Of course, Hungary would be open to discussion should the Commission see any problems. Accusations from the media were not true. Orbán had not weakened but strengthened the democracy.
MEP Renate Weber reacted fiercely to Szájer’s comments: Szájer’s wife would now be the Head of the National Judicial Office and could, based on the new legal situation, alone decide who would be appointed judge. Apart from that, she had been appointed for nine years and a future successor could only be appointed with a 2/3 majority. Is this what he understood under democracy? asked Weber. Szájer replied that his wife had been appointed on the basis of her many years of legal experience.
The MEPs listed further points: whilst in Hungary the pensionable age was 70, for judges it had been reduced to 62; the separation of Church and State had been put into question. The rights of homosexuals and Roma had been curtailed. The media had reported that due to the new legal situation radio frequencies had been terminated to silence critical stations. Critical journalists had already lost their jobs. MEP Alexander Graf Lambsdorff of the Liberals expressed his shock that the Flat Tax had been raised to constitutional rank. He was a supporter of a Flat Tax, but one could not deprive future governments of any scope for decision-making. The Liberal MEP Louis Michel even referred to a tyranny of the majority, which was developing in Hungary and which would mean the death of democracy.
Commissioner Reding: independence of justice indispensable for exercising union rights
Commissioner Viviane Reding underlined at the end of the debate that independence would be indispensable for exercising union rights. Many issues had to be clarified in respect of freedom of the press and the media. The three infringement procedures would now be rushed through.
Orbán commented at the end of the debate that any issues, which did not comply with the EU Treaty, could be easily and rapidly corrected. However, he had a “Christian conviction”. Schuman had said – “Democracy will be Christian or seize to exit”. The old constitution had ruined the country, minorities and citizens had not been protected. The Hungarian Government now has three weeks to comment on the three infringement procedures. Then the ball is back in the corner of the Commission.