Quote
'Hungary Is a Disgrace for Europe'
The ruling Fidesz party of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban used its two-thirds majority to whip a new constitution through parliament on Monday, and critics across Europe are in uproar. The move, they fear, will convert the party's conservative, nationalist ideology into a state doctrine, cement its power well beyond the end of its term and upset the democratic system of checks and balances.
German Deputy Foreign Minister Werner Hoyer said the constitution was even more worrying than the controversial curbs on the media that came into force in Hungary at the start of the year. "The media law testifies to a view of basic rights that is hard to reconcile with the values of the European Union," Hoyer said in a statement on Monday. "Our fears in relation to the media laws have been heightened rather than allayed by the constitution and by the way it came into being."
Critics say Fidesz should have consulted far more widely when rewriting Hungary's basic law. The Venice Commission, the EU's constitutional law advisory body, has questioned the transparency of the process.
Worrying the Neighbors
The new constitution curbs the powers of the top court in budget and tax matters. Analysts say a major problem is that it would allow Fidesz appointees to control key public institutions -- such as the budget supervisory Fiscal Council -- well beyond its government term, which ends in 2014.
Over the weekend and on Monday, thousands of people protested in the capital, Budapest, against the new basic law. But Fidesz has said that with its big parliament majority, it has the authority to enact changes.
The law is also worrying neighboring governments because it claims Hungary is responsible for Hungarians living in countries bordering Hungary. A quarter of all ethnic Hungarians live in neighboring countries, mainly in Slovakia, Romania and Serbia.
Several German commentators are fiercely critical of the new constitution.
German public television network ARD commentated on its late-night news program Tagesthemen on Monday night:
"It's strange, the more some countries profit from the European Union, the more prone they are to anti-European sentiments. The constitutional state has largely been abolished, future elections are efrfectively meaningless, the media are being whipped into line, as are theaters and museums and everything else that could shape the nation's culture."
"Barely a trace remains of pluralism, of variety, of the basic features of a free society. If you talk to people in Hungary about politics these days, you're confronted with fear, like in the days of East Germany. In this state, Hungary no longer belongs in the EU. It is a disgrace for Europe. But Europe is saying nothing."
Left-wing Berliner Zeitung writes:
"The good Hungarian as the right-wing ruling party of Viktor Orban sees him is a strangely anachronous being: Christian to a fault, awed by his nation's heroic past, more sympathetic to monarchism than republicanism. The good Hungarian sees his place between God -- the first word in the constitution -- and the mythical holy crown. He must be heterosexual and family-oriented in order to live up to the constitution."
"The Orban government wrote, debated and whipped this new Hungarian constitution with its florid, ideology-soaked preamble through parliament on its own. All it needs is the signature of the president who -- how else could it be -- was guided into office by Orban. He has succeeded where the Kaczynski brothers failed in Poland -- to elevate national-conservative ideology to a doctrine of state."
"But the constitution doesn't just postulate an intolerant ideology. The government has also rid itself of central elements of the separation of powers, by weakening the powers of the constitutional court, for example. Around Europe, many people were appalled by the Hungarian media law. The Orban constitution is a much greater scandal."
Center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"The constitution enshrines a spirit of ideological, ethnic intolerance, both externally and domestically. Some are being reminded of the fascist rhetoric in Europe between the world wars. Neighboring countries are getting unpleasant memories of the cultural arrogance and power of the Hungary of old, whose Magyarization programs they were subjected to. The new constitution claims that the state of Hungary represents all other Magyars, meaning the three million living in neighboring countries."
Conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has no problem with the new constitution:
"The preamble may seem antiquated to Western observers. But for the big majority of Hungarians in the country and for the Hungarian minorities abroad, the references to a 'national statement of faith' and a holy crown' are values as worthy of the constitution as are references to God and Christendom and the emphasis on marriage and family as foundations of society and state. There is no evidence in the text that the amendments are not in line with basic European values, as Orban's opponents are claiming."
TL:DR Hungary sucks for some reason or another.
:(
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2011, 01:12:27 PM
:(
Can you give an insider's version?
Is Fidesz worse than Hitler/Hórthy?
Quote from: Norgy on April 19, 2011, 01:19:05 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2011, 01:12:27 PM
:(
Can you give an insider's version?
Is Fidesz worse than Hitler/Hórthy?
They push every authoritan shit as far as they can, or recon they can. I think we would be even worse off if Europe did not throw that tantrum over the media law.
Their populism is totally fucked up and it puzzles me how a lot of people still can follow them blindly.
For example, this "constitution" is sported as a final break from the communist era (the previous one was a (very severly) altered version of the 1949 one), yet one of the leading members of the commitee preparing it is Imre Pozsgai, an ancient communist, who was a functionary of the communist party prior to '56, was very loud in demonizing the heroes of the '56 revolution, then was the fucking first of the commie leadership to sainthood them 33 years later.
And not just stuff like that, but the way they attempt to and succeed in selling the bluntest improvizations as deeplry rooted long term ideological plans.
Like the whole economic-plan rollercoaster. Since the 2006 riots they had been proclaiming that they were ready to take over the next day. When they finally did, their cluelesness as to what there is to be done became evident very quickly. Well, they knew full well how to monopolize power in the country, but I am speaking in terms of actual policies, especially regarding the budget and the economy.
By almost a year of hindsight, it is fair to assume that their original plan was to stall until the local election during the autumn, then speedily bully the EU into accepting a 7-8% budget deficit (we have been under a 3.8% limit), so they can do whatever they want with the budget, and delay the actual budget cuts.
Needless to say, that spending 8 years among his zombie followers made Orban gravely misjudge Europe.
His trip of bullying saw him come home with a bleeding nose.
It was after this, that they discovered they need to channel private pension payments to the state budget for a year.
Wether this was an ad hoc idea and they thought it would be enough to survive 2011, or just a probing of the public, I am not sure.
But the probing part succeeded magnificently. No significant mass voiced any concern. "private property" and "self-reliance" are shaky and unthrustworthy concepts in our culture, still.
So, near the end of the year, came the bomb: nationalization of the private pension funds. Well, not really, because those who wanted to gamble that FIDESZ would not stay forever could stay, and lose the right fo the state pension coming for 2/3rd of their total pension payments (that 2/3rd made by their employer), while still having to pay it to the state.
I am one of those hundred thousand people BTW (out of 3 million).
That gave them supposedly enough money to avoid budget cuts until the next elections.
Except that apparently it did not. They still havent received the money, but they soon will, and they had plans to spend about 6th of it this year alone.
But the thing is, by the end of February, the budget was in the red as much as they planned to be only by the end of the year.
So now they are announcing some cuts, with which I mostly agree because I know that sometime in our near history they will have to be done.
But either these will be insignificant, but then why are they angering the people, or they will make the pension nationalizing needless, but then why did they do it?
See, thats the problem with this government, apart from being authocratic assholes: they are just totally unpredictable.
As long as the Hungarian people thinks that the government is the beet's knees (which they apparently do) then what's the problem?
I suppose the problem is the same as with Peronist Argentina, Venezuela or other places where authoritarianism and new, improved constitutions and censorship pop up: Brain drain, clientilism (with pay days) and international isolation.
The people who voted for you eventually will want something significant in return. Either you give them what they want and break your financial back or go more authoritarian with an eroded public support with all that entails of investment in repressive measures.
It might be a little trickier to go Chavez style though, as a member of the EU?
Wouldn't the conservatives in Hungary be the communists? That's what going back to the past means, right?
Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2011, 02:11:04 PM
It might be a little trickier to go Chavez style though, as a member of the EU?
Hopefully.
But would a nationalist, somewhat anti-EU government care about being thrown out?
Quote from: Norgy on April 19, 2011, 02:33:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2011, 02:11:04 PM
It might be a little trickier to go Chavez style though, as a member of the EU?
Hopefully.
But would a nationalist, somewhat anti-EU government care about being thrown out?
The PM's public ars poetica regarding the EU is "we do not believe in the EU. we believe in Hungary. We are with the EU because it is in Hungary's interest". Which is fair enough I guess, but stating this as the president of the EU still sounds strange.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 19, 2011, 02:11:22 PM
Wouldn't the conservatives in Hungary be the communists? That's what going back to the past means, right?
oh thats real messy.
basically, everyone but market liberals (who are maybe 2% of the population) are real liberals in the classic sense. All other political ideologies consist a measure of socialism in terms of belief in state regulation of the markets, and heavy reliance on welfare and general government intervention. The only difference is magnitude of that, and the ideology to justify robbing the middle class blind.
But, it is the right (FIDESZ) who is more for state control and turning toward the East in foreign policy, and it is the left (socialists, the former communist party) who are for less market regulations, and a firm stance with the West.
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2011, 01:56:09 PM
See, thats the problem with this government, apart from being authocratic assholes: they are just totally unpredictable.
Yeah, that was the worst thing about the (brief) rule of Kaczynskis - you dreaded to open the news each day, because you never knew what they would think up next.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 19, 2011, 02:11:22 PM
Wouldn't the conservatives in Hungary be the communists? That's what going back to the past means, right?
The problem with Hungary (and pretty much all of ex-communist Europe) is this: the people in power now went through their formative years when it was "hip to be square", or in other words, you went through the "youth rebellion" by allying with radically conservative, religious forces against the communist state. It is natural for people to grow more conservative as they grow older, but that's all fine and good when you start from a position of socialism, and then grow older moving to move moderate/conservative positions. If you start from being a religious right winger, you end up being a nazi when you are in your 50s.
Turns out Bismarck was right: "who had not been a socialist in their youth, will be a swine in the old age".
Quote from: Norgy on April 19, 2011, 02:06:16 PM
I suppose the problem is the same as with Peronist Argentina, Venezuela or other places where authoritarianism and new, improved constitutions and censorship pop up: Brain drain, clientilism (with pay days) and international isolation.
The people who voted for you eventually will want something significant in return. Either you give them what they want and break your financial back or go more authoritarian with an eroded public support with all that entails of investment in repressive measures.
Concur. People don't know what is best for them and need to be regulated. It is clear that the EU needs to step in when the wrong choices are made in popular elections. Anything else would be undemocratic.
Quote from: Slargos on April 19, 2011, 04:16:55 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 19, 2011, 02:06:16 PM
I suppose the problem is the same as with Peronist Argentina, Venezuela or other places where authoritarianism and new, improved constitutions and censorship pop up: Brain drain, clientilism (with pay days) and international isolation.
The people who voted for you eventually will want something significant in return. Either you give them what they want and break your financial back or go more authoritarian with an eroded public support with all that entails of investment in repressive measures.
Concur. People don't know what is best for them and need to be regulated. It is clear that the EU needs to step in when the wrong choices are made in popular elections. Anything else would be undemocratic.
If you finished some decent school (I assume you didn't - you don't become a kitchenette salesman with decent education) and read Toqueville you would know democracy without safeguards against the tyranny of majority is worthless.
I guess that's a real problem with democracy, to be honest - lowlifes like you get the same vote as everyone else.
Sounds awful.
What can be done?
Quote from: Tyr on April 19, 2011, 04:22:32 PM
Sounds awful.
What can be done?
Wait. Countries like Hungary (or Poland) need a generational change. Fortunately, thanks to the much-maligned EU, this is not as bad as it sounds.
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2011, 01:55:14 PMBy almost a year of hindsight, it is fair to assume that their original plan was to stall until the local election during the autumn, then speedily bully the EU into accepting a 7-8% budget deficit (we have been under a 3.8% limit), so they can do whatever they want with the budget, and delay the actual budget cuts.
Yeah right. They can try asking for that. The EU might not be able to intervene directly against Fidesz' authoritarian policies, but they will definitely use money and the terms of the 2008 (?) bailout as a lever to try to influence this Hungarian government. Orban should better look how Ireland, Greece and now Portugal ended up and they had governments that weren't considered a disgrace before asking for a bailout. If he wants just one more euro, he should better vacate a room next to his office for the grey eminences of ECB and European Commission.
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2011, 04:19:36 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 19, 2011, 04:16:55 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 19, 2011, 02:06:16 PM
I suppose the problem is the same as with Peronist Argentina, Venezuela or other places where authoritarianism and new, improved constitutions and censorship pop up: Brain drain, clientilism (with pay days) and international isolation.
The people who voted for you eventually will want something significant in return. Either you give them what they want and break your financial back or go more authoritarian with an eroded public support with all that entails of investment in repressive measures.
Concur. People don't know what is best for them and need to be regulated. It is clear that the EU needs to step in when the wrong choices are made in popular elections. Anything else would be undemocratic.
If you finished some decent school (I assume you didn't - you don't become a kitchenette salesman with decent education) and read Toqueville you would know democracy without safeguards against the tyranny of majority is worthless.
I guess that's a real problem with democracy, to be honest - lowlifes like you get the same vote as everyone else.
:huh:
As when the subject is Law, on this you have only a very rudimentary idea.
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2011, 04:24:38 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 19, 2011, 04:22:32 PM
Sounds awful.
What can be done?
Wait. Countries like Hungary (or Poland) need a generational change. Fortunately, thanks to the much-maligned EU, this is not as bad as it sounds.
Yeah, wait, pretty much. Too bad we will turn into a Greece soon at this speed.
The only positive aspect of this, which I hope will keep growing, is that the removal of freedoms and checks and balances actually make the population more aware of them, and the liberals has a rallying cause.
Quote from: Slargos on April 19, 2011, 04:16:55 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 19, 2011, 02:06:16 PM
I suppose the problem is the same as with Peronist Argentina, Venezuela or other places where authoritarianism and new, improved constitutions and censorship pop up: Brain drain, clientilism (with pay days) and international isolation.
The people who voted for you eventually will want something significant in return. Either you give them what they want and break your financial back or go more authoritarian with an eroded public support with all that entails of investment in repressive measures.
Concur. People don't know what is best for them and need to be regulated. It is clear that the EU needs to step in when the wrong choices are made in popular elections. Anything else would be undemocratic.
Actually, it is quite unclear what you concur with, and your conclusion is somewhat moronic.
Have you become significantly dumber the past few years or just twenty times more obtuse?
Quote from: Norgy on April 20, 2011, 12:36:32 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 19, 2011, 04:16:55 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 19, 2011, 02:06:16 PM
I suppose the problem is the same as with Peronist Argentina, Venezuela or other places where authoritarianism and new, improved constitutions and censorship pop up: Brain drain, clientilism (with pay days) and international isolation.
The people who voted for you eventually will want something significant in return. Either you give them what they want and break your financial back or go more authoritarian with an eroded public support with all that entails of investment in repressive measures.
Concur. People don't know what is best for them and need to be regulated. It is clear that the EU needs to step in when the wrong choices are made in popular elections. Anything else would be undemocratic.
Actually, it is quite unclear what you concur with, and your conclusion is somewhat moronic.
Have you become significantly dumber the past few years or just twenty times more obtuse?
I was being sarcastic.
I think that the EU should get the fuck out of local elections and the notion that we should somehow enforce a continental will on national elections makes me furiously angry.
I don't give a flying fuck what Martinus (or you) ((or Toqueville)) has to say on the matter.
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2011, 04:11:04 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2011, 01:56:09 PM
See, thats the problem with this government, apart from being authocratic assholes: they are just totally unpredictable.
Yeah, that was the worst thing about the (brief) rule of Kaczynskis - you dreaded to open the news each day, because you never knew what they would think up next.
:lmfao:
They were just barking at everyone, which was more entertaining than dangerous :rolleyes: maybe that hurt your ears, if anything.
In fact they didn't do anything worse than current goverment, which is just trying to grab pension funds the same way their Hungarian counterparts do <_< not to mention VAT increase and tax cuts removed, clear signs they need money badly and budget is on the edge.
I wonder when Poland defaults. :nelson:
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2011, 04:15:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 19, 2011, 02:11:22 PM
Wouldn't the conservatives in Hungary be the communists? That's what going back to the past means, right?
The problem with Hungary (and pretty much all of ex-communist Europe) is this: the people in power now went through their formative years when it was "hip to be square", or in other words, you went through the "youth rebellion" by allying with radically conservative, religious forces against the communist state. It is natural for people to grow more conservative as they grow older, but that's all fine and good when you start from a position of socialism, and then grow older moving to move moderate/conservative positions. If you start from being a religious right winger, you end up being a nazi when you are in your 50s.
Turns out Bismarck was right: "who had not been a socialist in their youth, will be a swine in the old age".
Oddly enough, I've found myself going the other way...well, sort of.
It seems odd to me that a small country like Hungary even has a constitution. It's a lot easier to change one of those in a small country then a big one, almost to the point where a constitution isn't much of a defense.
Quote from: Berkut on April 20, 2011, 02:50:13 PM
Oddly enough, I've found myself going the other way...well, sort of.
Me too, although in my case it was more a matter of broadening my horizons.
Quote from: Berkut on April 20, 2011, 02:50:13 PM
Oddly enough, I've found myself going the other way...well, sort of.
Yeah lots of people start right and move left as they get older, especially in this country.
I dunno - I've found that while my own brand of conservatism has chanegd over the years (I was once much more libertarian, less realistic), I can't say I've become any less right wing than I was before.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2011, 03:04:52 PM
It seems odd to me that a small country like Hungary even has a constitution. It's a lot easier to change one of those in a small country then a big one, almost to the point where a constitution isn't much of a defense.
:hmm:
What are you on about?
The size of the country determines the need for an institutional and legal framework? :huh:
How is it easier to change it in a small country? Because it's made of cheese? Or written with crayons?
We have ink. And even laser printers. And you still need 2/3 and 3/4 majorities to amend the constitution in Norway. Which I suppose is "small".
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2011, 03:26:31 PM
I dunno - I've found that while my own brand of conservatism has chanegd over the years (I was once much more libertarian, less realistic), I can't say I've become any less right wing than I was before.
Well I wasn't referring to you specifically :P
Quote from: Norgy on April 20, 2011, 03:28:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2011, 03:04:52 PM
It seems odd to me that a small country like Hungary even has a constitution. It's a lot easier to change one of those in a small country then a big one, almost to the point where a constitution isn't much of a defense.
:hmm:
What are you on about?
The size of the country determines the need for an institutional and legal framework? :huh:
How is it easier to change it in a small country? Because it's made of cheese? Or written with crayons?
We have ink. And even laser printers. And you still need 2/3 and 3/4 majorities to amend the constitution in Norway. Which I suppose is "small".
In a small country (especially with a fairly homogeneous population), getting a 2/3s majority is easier then in say a large country like the US. In the US, each state has it's own constitution. In the state I am in, changes to the constitution are fairly frequent. At least when compared to the changes in the US constitution.
I think the German federal constitution changes more often than the state constitutions. It's amended/changed every other year or so, usually some miniscule change, but sometimes it's something big too. Our federal system needs a two thirds majority in both houses, but no ratification process like in the US.
The EU "constitution", i.e. the treaty framework that defines the EU, changes faster than the US constitution too, but that's certainly not because the process in the EU is simpler, just witness the agonizing Lisbon Treaty process that took much of the 2000s. It's just a different legal tradition.
You always hear the "big country is harder to change" argument from Americans, but I don't think that size is really the main factor here. I think it's down to other features of the US system, including its tradition of not changing the constitution often.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2011, 04:02:09 PM
In a small country (especially with a fairly homogeneous population), getting a 2/3s majority is easier then in say a large country like the US. In the US, each state has it's own constitution. In the state I am in, changes to the constitution are fairly frequent. At least when compared to the changes in the US constitution.
Tell that to the Belgians, or even the Dutch.
Hungary's population is, as far as I know, not entirely ethnically homogenous, but linguistic and ethnic homogenity aside, social and religious difference may make constitutional guarantees just as important. May I point to: Ireland, or more specifically the province of Ulster.
And that's really my point. Constitutions serve not just to protect your right to buy assault rifles and worship a Living Doll, but also to guarantee minority rights. I am not sure if you have heard of the area, but in Europe we have this linguistic and ethnic patchwork called "The Balkans". It's around the Roman provinces of Illyrium, Dacia and Pannonia and thereabouts. Much of the trouble there stems from a lack of good constitutions and especially a lack of enforcing them.
I'd also like to point to much smaller countries than the US that practise, or did practise, federalism, namely Yugoslavia. So does Germany. And Russia. Which is big. :sleep:
Size and the need for constitutional guarantees or indeed constitutions do not correlate. At all.
Quote from: Norgy on April 21, 2011, 01:42:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2011, 04:02:09 PM
In a small country (especially with a fairly homogeneous population), getting a 2/3s majority is easier then in say a large country like the US. In the US, each state has it's own constitution. In the state I am in, changes to the constitution are fairly frequent. At least when compared to the changes in the US constitution.
Tell that to the Belgians, or even the Dutch.
Hungary's population is, as far as I know, not entirely ethnically homogenous, but linguistic and ethnic homogenity aside, social and religious difference may make constitutional guarantees just as important. May I point to: Ireland, or more specifically the province of Ulster.
And that's really my point. Constitutions serve not just to protect your right to buy assault rifles and worship a Living Doll, but also to guarantee minority rights. I am not sure if you have heard of the area, but in Europe we have this linguistic and ethnic patchwork called "The Balkans". It's around the Roman provinces of Illyrium, Dacia and Pannonia and thereabouts. Much of the trouble there stems from a lack of good constitutions and especially a lack of enforcing them.
I'd also like to point to much smaller countries than the US that practise, or did practise, federalism, namely Yugoslavia. So does Germany. And Russia. Which is big. :sleep:
Size and the need for constitutional guarantees or indeed constitutions do not correlate. At all.
:lol:
I see what you did there. :hug:
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 20, 2011, 04:10:20 PM
You always hear the "big country is harder to change" argument from Americans, but I don't think that size is really the main factor here. I think it's down to other features of the US system, including its tradition of not changing the constitution often.
I've never heard the "big country is harder to change" argument from Americans or anyone else, though that is just anecdotal evidence. The key feature of the US system is that the Constitution is actually very small, and leaves most details to legislation. It therefor needs to be changed only very infrequently. Most of the changes to a typical Euro constitution are simply changes in Federal statute law in the US.
Quote from: Norgy on April 21, 2011, 01:42:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2011, 04:02:09 PM
In a small country (especially with a fairly homogeneous population), getting a 2/3s majority is easier then in say a large country like the US. In the US, each state has it's own constitution. In the state I am in, changes to the constitution are fairly frequent. At least when compared to the changes in the US constitution.
Tell that to the Belgians, or even the Dutch.
Hungary's population is, as far as I know, not entirely ethnically homogenous, but linguistic and ethnic homogenity aside, social and religious difference may make constitutional guarantees just as important. May I point to: Ireland, or more specifically the province of Ulster.
And that's really my point. Constitutions serve not just to protect your right to buy assault rifles and worship a Living Doll, but also to guarantee minority rights. I am not sure if you have heard of the area, but in Europe we have this linguistic and ethnic patchwork called "The Balkans". It's around the Roman provinces of Illyrium, Dacia and Pannonia and thereabouts. Much of the trouble there stems from a lack of good constitutions and especially a lack of enforcing them.
I'd also like to point to much smaller countries than the US that practise, or did practise, federalism, namely Yugoslavia. So does Germany. And Russia. Which is big. :sleep:
Size and the need for constitutional guarantees or indeed constitutions do not correlate. At all.
What ever you say doc. :rolleyes:
In short, if you have three Europeans, two of them will probably find a reason to do a pogrom of the third one.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2011, 04:38:39 PM
In short, if you have three Europeans, two of them will probably find a reason to do a pogrom of the third one.
My list of reasons for pogroms against the Polack race contain the word "Martinus" in the first 57 items.