Tagged: English Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Mázsa Péter 15:55 on 2013.03.12 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , English, , , , , ,   

    A német-holland-finn-dán mesterterv Orbán kezelésére 

    Executive Summary

    Recent illiberal turns in Hungary and Romania have prompted the question what, if anything, the EU could and should do to protect liberal democracy within member states. This paper discusses four principled concerns about democracy-saving EU interventions in member states: that an institution that is itself largely undemocratic cannot credibly protect democracy; that there are in fact no common European standards that could be used to determine whether a member state is departing from a shared European understanding of democracy; that interventions are per se illiberal; and, finally, that only small states will be subject to intervention, a form of EU hypocrisy that delegitimizes Brussels both in the states concerned and possibly across the EU as a whole. This paper counters all these concerns and argues that, ultimately, the problem with intervention is not to be found on a theoretical normative level, but on a practical plane. As of now, the EU lacks a tool-kit to intervene effectively in member states; whatever it has recently used by way of sticks and carrots can seem arbitrary or opportunistic. This paper concludes by making a number of modest proposals as to how this situation might be remedied. In particular, it suggests the creation of an expert body, tentatively called the “Copenhagen Commission,” which continuously assesses democracy and the rule of law within member states. Such an institution ought to be authorized to conduct its own investigations, to raise the alarm about turns to illiberalism — and to impose a very limited range of sanctions. The existing mechanisms should stay in place, but ideally would be complemented with the possibility of entirely excluding a state from the EU.

    Link a teljes szöveghez: Jan-Werner Müller: “Safeguarding democracy inside the EU” http://www.transatlanticacademy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Muller_SafeguardingDemocracy_Feb13_web.pdf

    Ki a pasi?: http://www.princeton.edu/~jmueller/ http://www.all-souls.ox.ac.uk/people.php?personid=224

    Ki és mit javasolt a fenti mesterterv alapján:
    “Németország, Hollandia, Finnország, Dánia: Politikai mechanizmus kell az Európai alapértékek biztosítására” http://amexrap.org/fal/politikai-mechanizmus-kell-az-europai-alapertekek-biztositasara

  • Mázsa Péter 16:58 on 2013.03.11 Permalink |
    Tags: English,   

    Élet nyomai egy meteoritban: A pánspermia elmélet igaznak tűnik 

    Eredeti: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1845

  • Mázsa Péter 15:32 on 2013.03.11 Permalink |
    Tags: , , English, ,   

    Barroso to Orban: Copy of the letter 

    (Via Eörsi Mátyás)

  • Mázsa Péter 21:48 on 2013.03.08 Permalink |
    Tags: , , English, , , ,   

    Németország, Hollandia, Finnország, Dánia: Politikai mechanizmus kell az Európai alapértékek biztosítására 

    The European Union said four EU nations are urging the establishment of a mechanism to protect “fundamental values” that unite the bloc.

    In a letter to European Commission President Jose Barroso, the foreign ministers of Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark said the EU “must be able to react swiftly and effectively to ensure compliance” among its 27 member states with the bloc’s basic values.

    While the letter didn’t mention any specific EU member, Hungary has been criticized by Germany and other countries for violating rights such as the independence of the judiciary that are seen as fundamental to the bloc’s cohesion. Barroso has received the letter, spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde-Hansen told reporters today in Brussels.

    “There are limits to our institutional arrangements when it comes to ensuring compliance,” the four countries said in the letter. “Neither the procedures enshrined in the treaties nor the EU fundamental rights charter provide for sufficiently targeted instruments.”

    They said the commission, the EU executive, “should have a stronger role” in safeguarding fundamental values. The proposed mechanism “should be swift and independent of political expediency,” they said.


  • Mázsa Péter 09:34 on 2013.03.06 Permalink |
    Tags: , English, , , , , ,   

    Lorenzo Bini Smaghi: Reform denial poses bigger threat to democracy than austerity 

    […] structural reforms are politically difficult to implement, in advanced economies, not only in Europe. They require measures that are generally opposed by lobbies, which defend the interests of insiders, in the labour, capital or goods and service markets. Such lobbies are strongly represented in parliament or in government. Structural reforms thus tend to be delayed as long as possible, at least until the financial markets continue to finance imbalances at sustainable rates.

    When markets turn around, and start losing confidence, pressure mounts on the policy makers to implement measures aimed at reducing the excessive budget deficit so as to maintain market access. The longer governments wait, the tougher are the measures required to restore investors’ confidence. […]

    There are several problems with this strategy. The first is that when market confidence is at stake, quick decisions are needed to restore stability. Under these circumstances, it’s politically easier to adopt fiscal measures, in particular on the revenue side. Selective expenditure cuts are more difficult to agree upon. Structural reforms are left for a second stage, as they require more time to be designed and negotiated with the social partners. […]

    The second problem is that if the fiscal measures are successful in calming the markets, there is less pressure to implement the second leg of the programme. Structural reforms tend to be further delayed. The opposition of interest groups strengthens. The proposals for changes in the labour and goods markets are diluted.

    The result of this strategy is that the adjustment takes place largely through restrictive budgetary measures, whose impact on growth is much more recessionary than expected. […]

    No wonder citizens voted against this policy. But this policy is the result of their unwillingness – and that of their elected politicians – to implement a timely and more balanced adjustment package, either independently or through a programme negotiated with international institutions.

    Austerity is the result of countries’ democratic decisions to wait until the last minute before acting, under the pressure of the markets, mainly by raising taxes rather than implementing long-waited reforms. Denying this, by claiming that austerity has been imposed on countries – rather than self-inflicted – and looking for scapegoats, is the biggest threat to democracies going forward.


  • Mázsa Péter 14:19 on 2013.02.21 Permalink |
    Tags: , , English, ,   

    Let all of Europe have a referendum on the EU http://falkvinge.net/2013/02/21/let-all-of-europe-have-a-referendum-on-the-eu

  • Mázsa Péter 23:24 on 2013.02.14 Permalink |
    Tags: English   

    Possible Girls 

    Abstract: I argue that if David Lewis’ modal realism is true, modal realists from different possible worlds can fall in love with each other. I offer a method for uniquely picking out possible people who are in love with us and not with our counterparts. Impossible lovers and trans-world love letters are considered. Anticipating objections, I argue that we can stand in the right kinds of relations to merely possible people to be in love with them and that ending a transworld relationship to start a relationship with an actual person isn’t cruel to one’s otherworldly lover.

    Cf. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/14/everyone-has-a-date-this-valentines-day-just-maybe-not-in-this-world/

    Illustration: http://ravinwood.deviantart.com

  • Mázsa Péter 20:56 on 2013.02.05 Permalink |
    Tags: , , English, , , ,   

    The fragmented official opposition, mainly comprised of colourless liberals and social democrats, finds itself dancing a death tango with the combined, increasingly powerful forces of the right, and each year sees the couple move closer to the brink of an as-yet unknown abyss.

    Carl Rowlands, Guardian: “Hungary’s rabid right is taking the country to a political abyss – The left has found no response to the right’s attacks on Gypsies, its virulent antisemitism and its xenophobic Christian nationalism”
  • Mázsa Péter 17:24 on 2013.02.05 Permalink |
    Tags: , English, ,   

    How Dictators Come to Power in a Democracy 

    […] Lessons for us today:

    • Bad economic policies and foreign policies can cause crises that have dangerous political consequences.
    • Politicians commonly demand arbitrary power to deal with a national emergency and restore order, even though underlying problems are commonly caused by bad government policies.
    • In hard times, many people are often willing to go along with and support terrible things that would be unthinkable in good times.
    • Those who dismiss the possibility of a dictatorial regime in America need to consider possible developments that could make our circumstances worse and politically more volatile than they are now — like runaway government spending, soaring taxes, more wars, inflation and economic collapse.
    • Aspiring dictators sometimes give away their intentions by their evident desire to destroy opponents.
    • There’s no reliable way to prevent bad or incompetent people from gaining power.
    • A political system with a separation of powers and checks & balances — like the U.S. Constitution — does make it more difficult for one branch of government to dominate the others.
    • Ultimately, liberty can be protected only if people care enough to fight for it, because everywhere governments push for more power, and they never give it up willingly.


  • Mázsa Péter 06:40 on 2013.02.01 Permalink |
    Tags: , English, , ,   

    Infografika: A Nemzeti Együttműködés Rendszere 

    A Szabad Művészek felkértek, hogy mondjak véleményt javaslataikról, amelyeket a kormány központosító törekvései ellenében publikáltak. Első körben csak a helyzetről, és Szabad Művészek javaslatainak e helyzetben való státuszáról szóló diagnózist foglaltam össze egy mondatban és egy magyar+angol nyelvű ábrában. Fogyasszátok egészséggel!

    A Szabad Művészek javaslatának státusza: a nemzet testén élősködő férgek vonaglanak.

    Olvasd el az infografika szöveges kifejtését is: A menyasszonyon esett erőszak és a Szabad Művészek http://amexrap.org/fal/menyasszonyon-esett-eroszak

    • admin 09:18 on 2013.02.01 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Balázs Lazlo Karafiáth There are no Hungarian genes only Hungarian memes. According to Hungarian memes there are Hungarian genes and they are superior than the trinity of jews/gypsies/gay + whoever asks really. In reality Hungarian genes are long gone, however these Hungarian memes survived for more than 1000 yrs. This begs the question about the evolutionary fitness of your the table above, QP.
      about an hour ago · Edited · Like

      Mázsa Péter Balázs: Igaznak tűnik, hogy ha vannak is magyar gének, akkor sem sokan: “A Magyarországi lakosok több mint 95%-a nem magyar eredetű, sem apai, sem anyai ágon” http://amexrap.org/fal/a-magyarorszagi-lakosok-nemigen-magyarok
      7 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview

      Mázsa Péter Az állam olyan intézmény, amely megtámogatja az evolúciós fitness-séget: http://amexrap.org/fal/nagy-trianon-vita Kérdés, hogy ez elég lesz-e a törés http://mazsa.com/nemzeti-minimum elkerülésére. Igazad van abban, h ez korántsem biztos.

    • admin 13:31 on 2013.02.01 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Tamás Csákány Az infografika alapján csak a nem-nemzettagok vándorolhatnak ki, a nemzetbõl nem lehet távozni.
      Vagy aki kivándorol, az elöbb belföldi nemmagyar lesz?
      about an hour ago · Like · 1

      Mázsa Péter A kivándorlók az államot (a nagy kört, és nem az állam mínusz nemzetet) hagyják el, de egyben a küldetést is cserben hagyják, így a nemzetből is távoznak. Ez nem az ’56-os (a nemzeti diaszpórába való) kivándorlás, hanem a NER itthagyása.
      about an hour ago · Like

      Mázsa Péter és igen, így a kivándorló korábbi státusza ex post: belföldi nemmagyar. Aki kivándorolt, nem lehet magyar.
      about an hour ago · Like · 1

  • petfold 18:17 on 2013.01.23 Permalink |
    Tags: , English,   

    Népszavazás 2017 végéig: David Cameron Európa-beszéde (videó és teljes szöveg) 

    Seventy years ago, Europe was being torn apart by its second catastrophic conflict in a generation. A war which saw the streets of European cities strewn with rubble. The skies of London lit by flames night after night. And millions dead across the world in the battle for peace and liberty.

    As we remember their sacrifice, so we should also remember how the shift in Europe from war to sustained peace came about. It did not happen like a change in the weather. It happened because of determined work over generations. A commitment to friendship and a resolve never to re-visit that dark past – a commitment epitomised by the Elysee Treaty signed 50 years ago this week.

    After the Berlin Wall came down I visited that city and I will never forget it.

    The abandoned checkpoints. The sense of excitement about the future. The knowledge that a great continent was coming together. Healing those wounds of our history is the central story of the European Union.
    What Churchill described as the twin marauders of war and tyranny have been almost entirely banished from our continent. Today, hundreds of millions dwell in freedom, from the Baltic to the Adriatic, from the Western Approaches to the Aegean.

    And while we must never take this for granted, the first purpose of the European Union – to secure peace – has been achieved and we should pay tribute to all those in the EU, alongside NATO, who made that happen.
    But today the main, over-riding purpose of the European Union is different: not to win peace, but to secure prosperity.

    The challenges come not from within this continent but outside it. From the surging economies in the East and South. Of course a growing world economy benefits us all, but we should be in no doubt that a new global race of nations is underway today.

    A race for the wealth and jobs of the future.

    The map of global influence is changing before our eyes. And these changes are already being felt by the entrepreneur in the Netherlands, the worker in Germany, the family in Britain.

    So I want to speak to you today with urgency and frankness about the European Union and how it must change – both to deliver prosperity and to retain the support of its peoples.

    But first, I want to set out the spirit in which I approach these issues.

    I know that the United Kingdom is sometimes seen as an argumentative and rather strong-minded member of the family of European nations.

    And it’s true that our geography has shaped our psychology.

    We have the character of an island nation – independent, forthright, passionate in defence of our sovereignty.

    We can no more change this British sensibility than we can drain the English Channel.
    And because of this sensibility, we come to the European Union with a frame of mind that is more practical than emotional.

    For us, the European Union is a means to an end – prosperity, stability, the anchor of freedom and democracy both within Europe and beyond her shores – not an end in itself.

    We insistently ask: How? Why? To what end?

    But all this doesn’t make us somehow un-European. The fact is that ours is not just an island story – it is also a continental story.

    For all our connections to the rest of the world – of which we are rightly proud – we have always been a European power – and we always will be.

    From Caesar’s legions to the Napoleonic Wars. From the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution to the defeat of Nazism. We have helped to write European history, and Europe has helped write ours.

    Over the years, Britain has made her own, unique contribution to Europe. We have provided a haven to those fleeing tyranny and persecution. And in Europe’s darkest hour, we helped keep the flame of liberty alight. Across the continent, in silent cemeteries, lie the hundreds of thousands of British servicemen who gave their lives for Europe’s freedom.

    In more recent decades, we have played our part in tearing down the Iron Curtain and championing the entry into the EU of those countries that lost so many years to Communism. And contained in this history is the crucial point about Britain, our national character, our attitude to Europe.

    Britain is characterised not just by its independence but, above all, by its openness.

    We have always been a country that reaches out. That turns its face to the world…That leads the charge in the fight for global trade and against protectionism.

    This is Britain today, as it’s always been:Independent, yes – but open, too.

    I never want us to pull up the drawbridge and retreat from the world.

    I am not a British isolationist.

    I don’t just want a better deal for Britain. I want a better deal for Europe too.

    So I speak as British Prime Minister with a positive vision for the future of the European Union. A future in which Britain wants, and should want, to play a committed and active part.

    Some might then ask: why raise fundamental questions about the future of Europe when Europe is already in the midst of a deep crisis?

    Why raise questions about Britain’s role when support in Britain is already so thin.

    There are always voices saying “don’t ask the difficult questions.”

    But it’s essential for Europe – and for Britain – that we do because there are three major challenges confronting us today.

    First, the problems in the Eurozone are driving fundamental change in Europe.

    Second, there is a crisis of European competitiveness, as other nations across the world soar ahead. And third, there is a gap between the EU and its citizens which has grown dramatically in recent years. And which represents a lack of democratic accountability and consent that is – yes – felt particularly acutely in Britain.

    If we don’t address these challenges, the danger is that Europe will fail and the British people will drift towards the exit.

    I do not want that to happen. I want the European Union to be a success. And I want a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in it.

    That is why I am here today: To acknowledge the nature of the challenges we face. To set out how I believe the European Union should respond to them. And to explain what I want to achieve for Britain and its place within the European Union.

    Let me start with the nature of the challenges we face.

    First, the Eurozone.

    The future shape of Europe is being forged. There are some serious questions that will define the future of the European Union – and the future of every country within it.

    The Union is changing to help fix the currency – and that has profound implications for all of us, whether we are in the single currency or not.

    Britain is not in the single currency, and we’re not going to be. But we all need the Eurozone to have the right governance and structures to secure a successful currency for the long term.

    And those of us outside the Eurozone also need certain safeguards to ensure, for example, that our access to the Single Market is not in any way compromised.

    And it’s right we begin to address these issues now.

    Second, while there are some countries within the EU which are doing pretty well. Taken as a whole, Europe’s share of world output is projected to fall by almost a third in the next two decades. This is the competitiveness challenge – and much of our weakness in meeting it is self-inflicted.

    Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that’s been visited on our businesses.

    These problems have been around too long. And the progress in dealing with them, far too slow.
    As Chancellor Merkel has said – if Europe today accounts for just over 7 per cent of the world’s population, produces around 25 per cent of global GDP and has to finance 50 per cent of global social spending, then it’s obvious that it will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity and way of life.

    Third, there is a growing frustration that the EU is seen as something that is done to people rather than acting on their behalf. And this is being intensified by the very solutions required to resolve the economic problems.

    People are increasingly frustrated that decisions taken further and further away from them mean their living standards are slashed through enforced austerity or their taxes are used to bail out governments on the other side of the continent.

    We are starting to see this in the demonstrations on the streets of Athens, Madrid and Rome. We are seeing it in the parliaments of Berlin, Helsinki and the Hague.

    And yes, of course, we are seeing this frustration with the EU very dramatically in Britain. Europe’s leaders have a duty to hear these concerns. Indeed, we have a duty to act on them. And not just to fix the problems in the Eurozone.

    For just as in any emergency you should plan for the aftermath as well as dealing with the present crisis so too in the midst of the present challenges we should plan for the future, and what the world will look like when the difficulties in the Eurozone have been overcome.

    The biggest danger to the European Union comes not from those who advocate change, but from those who denounce new thinking as heresy. In its long history Europe has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point.

    And my point is this. More of the same will not secure a long-term future for the Eurozone. More of the same will not see the European Union keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. More of the same will not bring the European Union any closer to its citizens. More of the same will just produce more of the same – less competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs.

    And that will make our countries weaker not stronger. That is why we need fundamental, far-reaching change.

    So let me set out my vision for a new European Union, fit for the 21st Century.

    It is built on five principles.

    The first: competitiveness. At the core of the European Union must be, as it is now, the single market. Britain is at the heart of that Single Market, and must remain so.

    But when the Single Market remains incomplete in services, energy and digital – the very sectors that are the engines of a modern economy – it is only half the success it could be.

    It is nonsense that people shopping online in some parts of Europe are unable to access the best deals because of where they live. I want completing the single market to be our driving mission.

    I want us to be at the forefront of transformative trade deals with the US, Japan and India as part of the drive towards global free trade. And I want us to be pushing to exempt Europe’s smallest entrepreneurial companies from more EU Directives.

    These should be the tasks that get European officials up in the morning – and keep them working late into the night. And so we urgently need to address the sclerotic, ineffective decision making that is holding us back.

    That means creating a leaner, less bureaucratic Union, relentlessly focused on helping its member countries to compete.

    In a global race, can we really justify the huge number of expensive peripheral European institutions?

    Can we justify a Commission that gets ever larger?

    Can we carry on with an organisation that has a multi-billion pound budget but not enough focus on controlling spending and shutting down programmes that haven’t worked?

    And I would ask: when the competitiveness of the Single Market is so important, why is there an environment council, a transport council, an education council but not a single market council?

    The second principle should be flexibility.

    We need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of its members – North, South, East, West, large, small, old and new. Some of whom are contemplating much closer economic and political integration. And many others, including Britain, who would never embrace that goal.

    I accept, of course, that for the single market to function we need a common set of rules and a way of enforcing them. But we also need to be able to respond quickly to the latest developments and trends.
    Competitiveness demands flexibility, choice and openness – or Europe will fetch up in a no-man’s land between the rising economies of Asia and market-driven North America.

    The EU must be able to act with the speed and flexibility of a network, not the cumbersome rigidity of a bloc.

    We must not be weighed down by an insistence on a one size fits all approach which implies that all countries want the same level of integration. The fact is that they don’t and we shouldn’t assert that they do.

    Some will claim that this offends a central tenet of the EU’s founding philosophy. I say it merely reflects the reality of the European Union today. 17 members are part of the Eurozone. 10 are not.

    26 European countries are members of Schengen – including four outside the European Union – Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. 2 EU countries – Britain and Ireland – have retained their border controls.

    Some members, like Britain and France, are ready, willing and able to take action in Libya or Mali. Others are uncomfortable with the use of military force.

    Let’s welcome that diversity, instead of trying to snuff it out.

    Let’s stop all this talk of two-speed Europe, of fast lanes and slow lanes, of countries missing trains and buses, and consign the whole weary caravan of metaphors to a permanent siding.

    Instead, let’s start from this proposition: we are a family of democratic nations, all members of one European Union, whose essential foundation is the single market rather than the single currency. Those of us outside the euro recognise that those in it are likely to need to make some big institutional changes.
    By the same token, the members of the Eurozone should accept that we, and indeed all Member States, will have changes that we need to safeguard our interests and strengthen democratic legitimacy. And we should be able to make these changes too.

    Some say this will unravel the principle of the EU – and that you can’t pick and choose on the basis of what your nation needs.

    But far from unravelling the EU, this will in fact bind its Members more closely because such flexible, willing cooperation is a much stronger glue than compulsion from the centre.

    Let me make a further heretical proposition.

    The European Treaty commits the Member States to “lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”.

    This has been consistently interpreted as applying not to the peoples but rather to the states and institutions compounded by a European Court of Justice that has consistently supported greater centralisation.

    We understand and respect the right of others to maintain their commitment to this goal. But for Britain – and perhaps for others – it is not the objective.

    And we would be much more comfortable if the Treaty specifically said so freeing those who want to go further, faster, to do so, without being held back by the others.

    So to those who say we have no vision for Europe.

    I say we have.

    We believe in a flexible union of free member states who share treaties and institutions and pursue together the ideal of co-operation. To represent and promote the values of European civilisation in the world. To advance our shared interests by using our collective power to open markets. And to build a strong economic base across the whole of Europe.

    And we believe in our nations working together to protect the security and diversity of our energy supplies. To tackle climate change and global poverty. To work together against terrorism and organised crime. And to continue to welcome new countries into the EU.

    This vision of flexibility and co-operation is not the same as those who want to build an ever closer political union – but it is just as valid.

    My third principle is that power must be able to flow back to Member States, not just away from them. This was promised by European Leaders at Laeken a decade ago.

    It was put in the Treaty. But the promise has never really been fulfilled. We need to implement this principle properly.

    So let us use this moment, as the Dutch Prime Minister has recently suggested, to examine thoroughly what the EU as a whole should do and should stop doing.

    In Britain we have already launched our balance of competences review – to give us an informed and objective analysis of where the EU helps and where it hampers.

    Let us not be misled by the fallacy that a deep and workable single market requires everything to be harmonised, to hanker after some unattainable and infinitely level playing field.

    Countries are different. They make different choices. We cannot harmonise everything. For example, it is neither right nor necessary to claim that the integrity of the single market, or full membership of the European Union requires the working hours of British hospital doctors to be set in Brussels irrespective of the views of British parliamentarians and practitioners.

    In the same way we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime.

    Nothing should be off the table.

    My fourth principle is democratic accountability: we need to have a bigger and more significant role for national parliaments.

    There is not, in my view, a single European demos.

    It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.

    It is to the Bundestag that Angela Merkel has to answer. It is through the Greek Parliament that Antonis Samaras has to pass his Government’s austerity measures.

    It is to the British Parliament that I must account on the EU budget negotiations, or on the safeguarding of our place in the single market.

    Those are the Parliaments which instil proper respect – even fear – into national leaders.

    We need to recognise that in the way the EU does business.

    My fifth principle is fairness: whatever new arrangements are enacted for the Eurozone, they must work fairly for those inside it and out.

    That will be of particular importance to Britain. As I have said, we will not join the single currency. But there is no overwhelming economic reason why the single currency and the single market should share the same boundary, any more than the single market and Schengen.

    Our participation in the single market, and our ability to help set its rules is the principal reason for our membership of the EU.

    So it is a vital interest for us to protect the integrity and fairness of the single market for all its members.

    And that is why Britain has been so concerned to promote and defend the single market as the Eurozone crisis rewrites the rules on fiscal coordination and banking union.

    These five principles provide what, I believe, is the right approach for the European Union.

    So now let me turn to what this means for Britain.

    Today, public disillusionment with the EU is at an all time high. There are several reasons for this.

    People feel that the EU is heading in a direction that they never signed up to. They resent the interference in our national life by what they see as unnecessary rules and regulation. And they wonder what the point of it all is.

    Put simply, many ask “why can’t we just have what we voted to join – a common market?”

    They are angered by some legal judgements made in Europe that impact on life in Britain. Some of this antipathy about Europe in general really relates of course to the European Court of Human Rights, rather than the EU. And Britain is leading European efforts to address this.

    There is, indeed, much more that needs to be done on this front. But people also feel that the EU is now heading for a level of political integration that is far outside Britain’s comfort zone.

    They see Treaty after Treaty changing the balance between Member States and the EU. And note they were never given a say.

    They’ve had referendums promised – but not delivered. They see what has happened to the Euro. And they note that many of our political and business leaders urged Britain to join at the time.

    And they haven’t noticed many expressions of contrition.

    And they look at the steps the Eurozone is taking and wonder what deeper integration for the Eurozone will mean for a country which is not going to join the Euro.

    The result is that democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer thin.

    Some people say that to point this out is irresponsible, creates uncertainty for business and puts a question mark over Britain’s place in the European Union.

    But the question mark is already there and ignoring it won’t make it go away.

    In fact, quite the reverse. Those who refuse to contemplate consulting the British people, would in my view make more likely our eventual exit.

    Simply asking the British people to carry on accepting a European settlement over which they have had little choice is a path to ensuring that when the question is finally put – and at some stage it will have to be – it is much more likely that the British people will reject the EU.

    That is why I am in favour of a referendum. I believe in confronting this issue – shaping it, leading the debate. Not simply hoping a difficult situation will go away.

    Some argue that the solution is therefore to hold a straight in-out referendum now.

    I understand the impatience of wanting to make that choice immediately.

    But I don’t believe that to make a decision at this moment is the right way forward, either for Britain or for Europe as a whole.

    A vote today between the status quo and leaving would be an entirely false choice.

    Now – while the EU is in flux, and when we don’t know what the future holds and what sort of EU will emerge from this crisis is not the right time to make such a momentous decision about the future of our country.

    It is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right.
    How can we sensibly answer the question ‘in or out’ without being able to answer the most basic question: ‘what is it exactly that we are choosing to be in or out of?’

    The European Union that emerges from the Eurozone crisis is going to be a very different body. It will be transformed perhaps beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the Eurozone.

    We need to allow some time for that to happen – and help to shape the future of the European Union, so that when the choice comes it will be a real one.

    A real choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which Britain shapes and respects the rules of the single market but is protected by fair safeguards, and free of the spurious regulation which damages Europe’s competitiveness.

    A choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which Britain is at the forefront of collective action on issues like foreign policy and trade and where we leave the door firmly open to new members.

    A new settlement subject to the democratic legitimacy and accountability of national parliaments where Member States combine in flexible cooperation, respecting national differences not always trying to eliminate them and in which we have proved that some powers can in fact be returned to Member States.
    In other words, a settlement which would be entirely in keeping with the mission for an updated European Union I have described today. More flexible, more adaptable, more open – fit for the challenges of the modern age.

    And to those who say a new settlement can’t be negotiated, I would say listen to the views of other parties in other European countries arguing for powers to flow back to European states.

    And look too at what we have achieved already. Ending Britain’s obligation to bail-out Eurozone members. Keeping Britain out of the fiscal compact. Launching a process to return some existing justice and home affairs powers. Securing protections on Banking Union. And reforming fisheries policy.

    So we are starting to shape the reforms we need now. Some will not require Treaty change.

    But I agree too with what President Barroso and others have said. At some stage in the next few years the EU will need to agree on Treaty change to make the changes needed for the long term future of the Euro and to entrench the diverse, competitive, democratically accountable Europe that we seek.

    I believe the best way to do this will be in a new Treaty so I add my voice to those who are already calling for this.

    My strong preference is to enact these changes for the entire EU, not just for Britain.

    But if there is no appetite for a new Treaty for us all then of course Britain should be ready to address the changes we need in a negotiation with our European partners.

    The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative Government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.

    It will be a relationship with the Single Market at its heart.

    And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether.

    It will be an in-out referendum.

    Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative Government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.

    It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics.

    I say to the British people: this will be your decision.

    And when that choice comes, you will have an important choice to make about our country’s destiny.

    I understand the appeal of going it alone, of charting our own course. But it will be a decision we will have to take with cool heads. Proponents of both sides of the argument will need to avoid exaggerating their claims.

    Of course Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the EU, if we chose to do so. So could any other Member State.

    But the question we will have to ask ourselves is this: is that the very best future for our country?
    We will have to weigh carefully where our true national interest lies.

    Alone, we would be free to take our own decisions, just as we would be freed of our solemn obligation to defend our allies if we left NATO. But we don’t leave NATO because it is in our national interest to stay and benefit from its collective defence guarantee.

    We have more power and influence – whether implementing sanctions against Iran or Syria, or promoting democracy in Burma – if we can act together.

    If we leave the EU, we cannot of course leave Europe. It will remain for many years our biggest market, and forever our geographical neighbourhood. We are tied by a complex web of legal commitments.
    Hundreds of thousands of British people now take for granted their right to work, live or retire in any other EU country.

    Even if we pulled out completely, decisions made in the EU would continue to have a profound effect on our country. But we would have lost all our remaining vetoes and our voice in those decisions.

    We would need to weigh up very carefully the consequences of no longer being inside the EU and its single market, as a full member.

    Continued access to the Single Market is vital for British businesses and British jobs. Since 2004, Britain has been the destination for one in five of all inward investments into Europe.

    And being part of the Single Market has been key to that success.

    There will be plenty of time to test all the arguments thoroughly, in favour and against the arrangement we negotiate. But let me just deal with one point we hear a lot about.

    There are some who suggest we could turn ourselves into Norway or Switzerland – with access to the single market but outside the EU. But would that really be in our best interests?

    I admire those countries and they are friends of ours – but they are very different from us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund of over 500 billion euros. And while Norway is part of the single market – and pays for the principle – it has no say at all in setting its rules: it just has to implement its directives.

    The Swiss have to negotiate access to the Single Market sector by sector. Accepting EU rules – over which they have no say – or else not getting full access to the Single Market, including in key sectors like financial services.

    The fact is that if you join an organisation like the European Union, there are rules.

    You will not always get what you want. But that does not mean we should leave – not if the benefits of staying and working together are greater.

    We would have to think carefully too about the impact on our influence at the top table of international affairs. There is no doubt that we are more powerful in Washington, in Beijing, in Delhi because we are a powerful player in the European Union.

    That matters for British jobs and British security.

    It matters to our ability to get things done in the world. It matters to the United States and other friends around the world, which is why many tell us very clearly that they want Britain to remain in the EU.

    We should think very carefully before giving that position up.

    If we left the European Union, it would be a one-way ticket, not a return.

    So we will have time for a proper, reasoned debate.

    At the end of that debate you, the British people, will decide.

    And I say to our European partners, frustrated as some of them no doubt are by Britain’s attitude: work with us on this.

    Consider the extraordinary steps which the Eurozone members are taking to keep the Euro together, steps which a year ago would have seemed impossible.

    It does not seem to me that the steps which would be needed to make Britain – and others – more comfortable in their relationship in the European Union are inherently so outlandish or unreasonable.

    And just as I believe that Britain should want to remain in the EU so the EU should want us to stay.
    For an EU without Britain, without one of Europe’s strongest powers, a country which in many ways invented the single market, and which brings real heft to Europe’s influence on the world stage which plays by the rules and which is a force for liberal economic reform would be a very different kind of European Union.
    And it is hard to argue that the EU would not be greatly diminished by Britain’s departure.

    Let me finish today by saying this.

    I have no illusions about the scale of the task ahead.

    I know there will be those who say the vision I have outlined will be impossible to achieve. That there is no way our partners will co-operate. That the British people have set themselves on a path to inevitable exit. And that if we aren’t comfortable being in the EU after 40 years, we never will be.

    But I refuse to take such a defeatist attitude – either for Britain or for Europe.

    Because with courage and conviction I believe we can deliver a more flexible, adaptable and open European Union in which the interests and ambitions of all its members can be met.
    With courage and conviction I believe we can achieve a new settlement in which Britain can be comfortable and all our countries can thrive.

    And when the referendum comes let me say now that if we can negotiate such an arrangement, I will campaign for it with all my heart and soul.

    Because I believe something very deeply. That Britain’s national interest is best served in a flexible, adaptable and open European Union and that such a European Union is best with Britain in it.

    Over the coming weeks, months and years, I will not rest until this debate is won. For the future of my country. For the success of the European Union. And for the prosperity of our peoples for generations to come.

    Original: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/uk-politics-video/9820375/David-Camerons-Europe-speech-in-full.html

  • Mázsa Péter 10:31 on 2013.01.19 Permalink |
    Tags: English   

    2013: What *should* we be worried about? (Edge.org Q&A) http://www.edge.org/responses/q2013

  • Mázsa Péter 19:10 on 2013.01.18 Permalink |
    Tags: , English   

    ‘Survival of the wrongest’ 

    How personal-health journalism ignores the fundamental pitfalls baked into all scientific research and serves up a daily diet of unreliable information


  • Mázsa Péter 13:10 on 2013.01.17 Permalink |
    Tags: English,   


  • Mázsa Péter 09:44 on 2013.01.16 Permalink |
    Tags: English,   


  • admin 19:51 on 2013.01.14 Permalink |
    Tags: , , English, , , , ,   

    Amexrap: Gratulálunk a Berzsenyiseknek és az Amerikai követségnek 

    Remarks by Ambassador Eleni Tsakopoulos Kounalakis at the Berzsenyi High School Active Citizenship Award Ceremony

    […] Your school has a long history of promoting tolerance and human rights. For example, I heard that in 1944, when Jews in Hungary were forced to wear a yellow Star of David, your school made sure that the children were able to remove the star once they crossed the school gate. This small, symbolic act was, at the time, an act of defiance and tremendous courage – an example of what ordinary citizens can and should do to stand up for the rights of their fellow citizens. […]

    On many occasions, Thomas Melia, our Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, has emphasized that majority rule must always protect minority rights. It is one of the most fundamental values of the United States and a fundamental principle of democracy itself.

    A few weeks ago, I saw firsthand Hungarians speaking out to protect minority rights in this country. I had the opportunity to attend the demonstration in Kossuth Square on December 2, where politicians from different parties and people from all walks of life gathered to condemn the anti-Semitic remarks of an extremist parliamentarian. It was inspiring to see so many people gather together on a cold Sunday to condemn intolerance and raise a unified voice to demand that all people be respected and their rights guaranteed.

    So I actually knew Tom Lantos, we had met many times in San Francisco. And I can almost hear his words: “The veneer of civilization is paper-thin and we are all its guardians”. The December 2nd rally represented Hungarian civil society at work. Secretary Clinton regularly recognizes civil society as one of the frontiers of human rights and has called it “the underpinning of a free and functioning country”.

    This is why a year ago our Embassy decided to establish an Active Citizenship Award to honor those individuals and organizations, which make positive contributions to their communities. Their work is inextricably linked to a greater issue – that of improving people’s lives and protecting human rights, which, in turn, is essential to U.S. foreign policy, our national security and to international stability.

    Active citizenship is vital for democracy; however, it is even more important to nurture a sense of civic responsibility. I believe this is exactly what Berzsenyi High School has been doing for decades. From your Tolerance Weeks to discussions and roundtables on different issues to art projects published in your Phoenix albums – Berzsenyi fosters open mindedness, tolerance and creativity.

    Your school is an example for others to follow and I encourage the students to build upon your experiences here and take them with you to universities, future communities and families. And now I would like to present Berzsenyi High School and its students the Award for Active Citizenship.



    Fotó: https://www.facebook.com/hungary.usembassy

  • Mázsa Péter 08:49 on 2013.01.12 Permalink |
    Tags: , , English   

    Official White House response to petition: Begin construction of a Death Star by 2016 

    The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn’t on the horizon. Here are a few reasons:

    • The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We’re working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.
    • The Administration does not support blowing up planets.
    • Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship? […]

    Cf. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5046178

    • admin 09:17 on 2013.01.12 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Gábor Nagymajtényi elbukott
      8 minutes ago · Like

      Mázsa Péter Viktor keresztülvinné
      7 minutes ago · Like

      Gábor Nagymajtényi adjuk be itt. amúgy is jól állunk, a gazdaság átrendezve, legalább nekünk lesz az első európában
      6 minutes ago · Like · 1

      Mázsa Péter mondasz valamit. A racionalitás úgysem határfeltétel
      4 minutes ago · Like

      Ferenc Szalai Mikor kapnal ilyen valaszt magyar koztisztivselotol, mondjuk a Palinkastol?
      4 minutes ago · Like · 1

      Gábor Nagymajtényi sőt! az egész nemzetgazdaságot fellendíthetné. ha már nincs tengerünk, csak egy kis egünk. lehetne rögtön kikötőt is építeni neki.
      3 minutes ago · Like · 1

      Mázsa Péter Ferenc Szalai: hát fényévekre:)
      2 minutes ago · Like

      Mázsa Péter És igen, éppen ez az érdekes benne: mennyire benne van a racionalitás igénye ezekben az emberekben, hogy ilyen választ írnak
      A few seconds ago · Like

      • admin 10:15 on 2013.01.12 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Gábor Nagymajtényi az első indok nem helyes, hiszen nem azt mondja, nincs forrás, hanem hogy nem akarja növelni a költségvetési hiányt, ami viszont légbőlkapott, hisz a ROI-t nem vizsgálta a második indok az már helytállóbb, hogy egy-emberes űrhajó ellen se elég védett, ez csak annyit jelent, hogy javítani kéne a védelmét szóval én nem látom annyira alátámasztottnak az elutasítás indokait
        43 minutes ago · Like · 1

        Mázsa Péter hiány: lehet, h nemnulla valószínűséget tulajdonít az összeomlásnak: az adóztatás költségeit (pl. holtteherveszteség) is tartalmazó, meggyőző roi esetén is érdemes rangsorolni a projekteket. Védelem: vannak projektek, amik eleve el vannak b.va: az elején mély gödörbe esel, és csak határértékben sikerül kimászni belőle: sokkal jobb, ha nem esel bele
        A few seconds ago · Like

        • admin 10:30 on 2013.01.12 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Gábor Nagymajtényi ezt a kockázatot lehet menedzselni ezt se láttuk indokként
          12 minutes ago · Like

          Mázsa Péter melyiket? az összeomlást, ezermilliárdos érme verésével?:) vagy a nehezen védhető szárazföldi területek helyett egy nehezen védhető kisbolygó építését?
          A few seconds ago · Like

          • admin 12:53 on 2013.01.12 Permalink | Log in to Reply

            Gábor Nagymajtényi mivel ők mondják jelenleg meg, mi mennyit ér, akár egy cseresznye mag is lehet ezermilliárdos… tiszta izland
            20 minutes ago · Like · 1

    • admin 17:28 on 2013.01.13 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Bognár Attila Soha nem értettem, miért nevezik “csillag”-nak?
      (szvsz helyváltoztatásra képes műhold:)
      8 minutes ago · Like

  • Mázsa Péter 16:29 on 2013.01.04 Permalink |
    Tags: , , English, , ,   

    Ezeket a cuccokat adja ki rólad a Facebook, amikor az állam kéri 


    Röviden: mindent.

    És, a Google-lal ellentétben http://amexrap.org/fal/google-pinter-368-0 , az ilyesmiről semmit sem hoz nyilvánosságra.

    Így írj a falra.

  • Mázsa Péter 19:59 on 2013.01.01 Permalink |
    Tags: English,   


  • anon 17:57 on 2012.12.30 Permalink |
    Tags: , English, ,   

    Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy. New documents prove what was once dismissed as paranoid fantasy: totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Get Adobe Flash player