Tagged: EU Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • admin 00:35 on 2013.07.12 Permalink |
    Tags: , , EU, , , , , ,   

    JELENTÉS az alapvető jogok helyzetéről: Magyarországi normák és gyakorlatok 

    Letöltés (pdf): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FNONSGML%2BREPORT%2BA7-2013-0229%2B0%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0%2F%2FHU
    Html: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=HU&reference=P7-TA-2013-315

    Vö.: http://www.atv.hu/belfold/20130705-scheppele-elsopro-vadirat-a-fidesz-alkotmanyos-forradalma-ellen

    Download (pdf): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FNONSGML%2BREPORT%2BA7-2013-0229%2B0%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0%2F%2FEN
    Html: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-315

    Cf.: http://hungarianspectrum.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/kim-lane-scheppele-in-praise-of-the-tavares-report/

  • Mázsa Péter 01:34 on 2013.05.11 Permalink |
    Tags: , , EU, ,   

    JELENTÉSTERVEZET az alapvető jogok helyzetéről Magyarországon / DRAFT REPORT on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary 

    Magyarul: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FNONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-508.211%2B02%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0%2F%2FHU

    Angolul: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FNONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-508.211%2B02%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0%2F%2FEN

    Franciául: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FNONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-508.211%2B02%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0%2F%2FFR

  • Mázsa Péter 19:18 on 2013.04.30 Permalink |
    Tags: EU, , ,   

    Tisztelt Uniós Képviselet, 

    from: Mázsa Péter
    to: COMM-REP-BUD-MEDIA@ec.europa.eu
    30 April 2013 19:15
    subject: Mercedes buszok

    Tisztelt Uniós Képviselet,

    Orbán Magyarországi miniszterelnök mai beszédében

    a Mercedes buszokat a kormány és a főpolgármester juttatásaként
    mutatta be a Budapestieknek, az Európai Uniót egy szóval sem említve.

    Tudna arról adatokat szolgáltatni olvasóinknak, ha ugyan az adatok nem
    titkosak, hogy az Uniós adófizetők hozzájárultak-e a Budapesti
    buszokhoz, vagy azokat kizárólag a kormány tagjai és a Főpolgármester

    Mázsa Péter
    uniós polgár

    • admin 19:48 on 2013.04.30 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Hajnal Zoltán http://cink.hu/orban-a-kamerak-elott-egzeciroztatta-tarlost-486019030
      lassú ez is. jobb is, ha nem eus. meg van portugál dolog is …
      11 minutes ago · Like

      Mázsa Péter jobb v nem: szeretném tudni
      A few seconds ago · Like

      • admin 19:58 on 2013.04.30 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Hajnal Zoltán és ez a mai törvény szerint nem minősül visszaélésszerű kíváncsiságnak?
        8 minutes ago · Like · 1

        Mázsa Péter na ez az: félek is ettől, ezért is írtam bele azt a mellékmondatot
        7 minutes ago · Like

  • Mázsa Péter 09:51 on 2013.04.29 Permalink |
    Tags: , EU, ,   

    EurActiv: Győri Enikő EUállamtitkár cikke nyomán vitatkozom Sceptic közszolgával 

    Győri Enikő EU-államtitkár ( http://www.kormany.hu/hu/kulugyminiszterium/eu-ugyekert-felelos-allamtitkarsag/az-allamtitkar/gyori-eniko-eletrajza ):
    Hungary’s critics should check their facts http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/verhofstadt-gets-papers-analysis-519203


    Sorry state minister Győri but you try to trick EU, cf. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/guest-post-hungary-the-public-relations-offensive/

    “[…] Because of strong international criticism, Fidesz officials’ public relations blitz routinely includes a defense of what they have done to Hungary’s churches, since hundreds of churches lost their official status through a law that went into effect on 1 January 2012. Now every church that seeks official recognition has to be approved from scratch by a special two-thirds vote of the Parliament. If a church can’t get that, it is confined to the legal category of a civil association without tax exempt status, assuming that the church can make it through the onerous re-registration process. The Constitutional Court struck this system of church registration twice – once on procedural grounds in December 2011 (in Decision 164/2011 (XII. 20)) and again on substantive grounds in February 2013 (in Decision 6/2013 (III. 1)). But the Fourth Amendment inserts the same unconstitutional system back into the constitution again.
    Fidesz defends church registration by claiming that many of those now-deregistered churches were fraudulent. But Mr. Martonyi proclaimed to the European foreign ministers that “the exercise of religion and confession of faith is [sic] not restricted by law.”
    David Baer of Texas Lutheran University has studied in detail what happened to these legally demoted churches, and his results strongly challenge Mr. Martonyi’s statement. The Catholic Church may have abolished limbo for its faithful, but the Hungarian government restored it in the form of a legal insecurity that has gripped many legitimate churches for nearly 16 months. The legal changes have forced a number of them into moving, closing or agreeing to requirements that violate their faith by making them adopt specific internal structures of governance that are contrary to their beliefs.
    Mr. Martonyi, however, assured his fellow European foreign ministers that the Fourth Amendment adds procedural guarantees to the church registration process, explaining that “an individual review of such decision can be sought before the Constitutional Court.” But a closer look reveals that this review is actually a trick.
    How does this trick work? The Fourth Amendment provides (in Article 4) that “The provisions of cardinal Acts concerning the recognition of Churches may be the subject of a constitutional complaint.” Translated from legal language to ordinary language, that means that only laws can be challenged before the Constitutional Court only by those parties who are directly affected, who are the only ones who can bring a constitutional complaint.
    But when a church applies to be recognized by the Parliament, the law is only modified if a church wins recognition. In such cases, the law is amended to add the name of the church to the list of recognized churches, which are all explicitly named. But if a church is rejected by the Parliament, the rejection comes in the form of a parliamentary “order” (határozat) and not an amendment to the “law” (törvény). And orders of the Parliament cannot be challenged before the Constitutional Court. So if a church is successfully added to the list of official churches, it has a remedy at the Constitutional Court when it doesn’t need one. But if a church is turned down and would benefit from judicial review, the appeal to the Court is barred. It’s a trick that makes it appear that the government has provided an avenue of legal redress to a church that has lost official recognition. But it doesn’t.
    As a result, the Fourth Amendment perpetuates an unconstitutional situation because the Parliament can determine the fate of any church with no rules, evidentiary standards, or appeal when there is a rejection. The amendment simply overrules the Constitutional Court’s decision of a few weeks ago because it does not provide a real remedy to the problem identified by the Court — that there were no meaningful standards of procedural fairness in the church registration process.
    Mr. Gulyás and Mr. Martonyi defend other aspects of the new Fourth Amendment as part of a common chorus of responses from other Fidesz loyalists. Mr. Gulyás claims that the Hungarian Constitutional Court “specifically mandated” that the Parliament pass this the Fourth Amendment to fix an unconstitutional situation. Mr. Martonyi says that the Fourth Amendment’s very purpose is “to implement” a decision of the Constitutional Court.
    It is true that the Court annulled on purely formal grounds a number of purported constitutional amendments in its decision on the Transitional Provisions in December 2012 (45/2012 (XII.28)) because permanent changes were made not in the constitution itself but only to a constitutional annex. But the Court did not ask that the constitution be amended again to include the same provisions that were struck.
    Mr. Gulyás asserts that failing to reenact the unconstitutional constitutional amendments would have been a problem because “Parliament had a constitutional responsibility to re-regulate these matters, otherwise an ex lex situation would have created complete legal uncertainty.”
    It’s a touching concern. But again misleading. Mr. Gulyás fails to mention that almost all of the unconstitutional provisions struck down in the Transitional Provisions were duplicated in existing cardinal laws, so the nullification of the constitutional amendments changed very little on the ground and certainly did not cause legal insecurity. If the Parliament were deeply worried about legal uncertainty, perhaps it should not have annulled overnight more than 20 years of constitutional case law through the Fourth Amendment, something that really does create legal uncertainty.
    Since the new constitution went into effect, Constitutional Court did declare a number of other laws unconstitutional as substantively inconsistent with the principles of the new constitution, including two of the now-nullified former constitutional amendments. But, far from implementing these Constitutional Court decisions, the Fourth Amendment simply overrode them by inserting the unconstitutional laws directly into the constitution without attempting to fix them. It’s true, as Mr. Martonyi says, that the government refrained from reintroducing into the constitution a requirement that each voter register anew before each election, after that requirement was declared unconstitutional. He fails to mention to the foreign ministers of Europe, however, that the Fourth Amendment did override most of other the important Constitutional Court decisions that went against the government in the last 16 months, a fact which gives a very different impression.
    Here are the substantive Constitutional Court decisions that were explicitly overruled in the Fourth Amendment:

    • A Constitutional Court decision declared unconstitutional the law that defined the family as consisting of a heterosexual couple and its descendants (Decision 43/2012 (XII. 20.)). But that decision is now overruled through Art. 1 of the Fourth Amendment.
    • A Constitutional Court decision declared unconstitutional the procedure through which the Parliament votes on the official status of each church (Decision 6/2013 (III. 1).). But that decision is now overruled through Art. 4(1) of the Fourth Amendment.
    • A Constitutional Court decision declared unconstitutional on free speech grounds the restriction of political advertising during election campaigns (Decision 1/2013 (I.7.)). But that decision is now overruled by Art. 5(1) of the Fourth Amendment.
    • A Constitutional Court decision declared unconstitutional on grounds of freedom of movement the requirement that students be forced to seek employment only in Hungary after their university degrees have been paid for by the state (Decision 32/2012 (VII. 4.)). But that decision is now overruled by Art. 7 of the Fourth Amendment.
    • A Constitutional Court decision declared unconstitutional the law that creates a system of administrative fines for homelessness because it violates the human dignity of the very poor (Decision 38/2012 (XI. 14.)). But that decision is now overruled through Art. 8 of the Fourth Amendment.

    (In case you want to check this, the official English translation of the Fourth Amendment is here, but it can only be fully understood by cross-referencing the constitution here. Unfortunately, the Court decisions are only in Hungarian.)
    And, of course, the Fourth Amendment indiscriminately nullifies ALL of the decisions that the Constitutional Court made between 1990 and 2011.
    Fidesz officials say that critics have exaggerated the significance of the nullification of all of the previous Constitutional Court case law because, as Mr. Martonyi notes, the prior decisions’ “legal effect would remain intact.” But one needs to understand the meaning of “legal effect” to see how limited a claim this is. When the Hungarian Constitutional Court declares a law unconstitutional, the law is nullified. That is the legal effect: the law disappears from the law books. Mr. Martonyi’s assurance only means that once-nullified laws don’t automatically return when the decision that nullified the law is itself nullified. But everything else that gave Hungarian constitutional law its stability through reasoned Court judgments – the guarantees of checked powers, the elaboration of rights, and the relationship between Hungarian constitutional law and European human rights law, for example – has disappeared through the government’s nullification of the case law. And that is what critics are objecting to.
    As Mr. Martonyi explains, the legal disappearance of all prior case law “strengthen[s] the freedom and autonomy of the Court” because “[t]he Constitutional Court would hence be free to choose between taking its own previous decisions into consideration, referring to them, or simply ignoring them.” Exactly. But this is odd to claim as a benefit.
    I ask my readers who live under a Supreme Court or a Constitutional Court outside of Hungary: How would you feel if your high court were “liberated” in this way – by having all of its prior case law indiscriminately cancelled overnight? As Janis Joplin famously sang in the song “Me and Bobby McGee,” “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” When the United States adopted its constitution, most of the rights of American citizens were guaranteed in the common law, which was carried over – intact – from the period of colonial rule. In fact, that is typical of constitutional reform around the world: everything else stays the same except those relatively few things that have been explicitly changed. Not so, now, in Hungary.
    Critics say that the Fourth Amendment restricts the power of the Constitutional Court, but the government now insists that the Fourth Amendment expands the Court’s power because, for the first time, the constitution permits what the Court has already done – which is to declare constitutional amendments unconstitutional if they are not passed in the appropriate way. Perhaps the government thinks that giving the Constitutional Court a capability it has already used is an expansion of its power, but that is not the usual meaning of the word “expand.” The government cannot deny that it is taking away a power that some judges of the Constitutional Court also claimed (in Decision 45/2012 (XII. 28)) – which was to review constitutional amendments for their substantive conflicts with constitutional principles. The Court had not yet used that power, but it was clear that support was gathering within the Court to do so. Removing from the Court the ability to review the content of constitutional amendments simply means that there is no barrier to the government inserting completely contradictory provisions into the text or overruling any Court decision the government doesn’t like, both of which the government has already done with the Fourth Amendment.
    The idea of an unconstitutional constitutional amendment may sound odd. In countries like the US and others where the constitutional amendment process is long and arduous with many checks along the way, there may not be a need for a high court to be able to review amendments. But when the constitution is amended nearly every week and the government is routinely using its supermajority to put controversial laws beyond any check, some power should examine what the government does or else the government simply bursts the bounds of the rule of law. If the Court is not given this power, there must be some other check somewhere in the system – for example, an upper chamber of the Parliament, or an independently elected president, or parliamentary procedure that guarantees that the majority must address minority concerns, or a popular ratification of constitutional amendments. But, in Hungary, none of these options are present. Hungary has a unicameral parliamentary system with no other powerful checks. That is why the Court should have that power or else the constitutional system would – and now has – become a farce.
    Mr. Gulyás claims that the Constitutional Court asked to have its power limited in a crucial way, by removing its “actio popularis” jurisdiction that allowed anyone to challenge a law before the Court. True, but misleading. Since the 1990s, constitutional judges have been complaining about the thousands of vague and misdirected complaints they receive through actio popularis petitions. But the Court’s judges (before those added by this government) would never have agreed to have most of their jurisdiction gutted, which has been the overall effect of the new system. (For more detail, see my Helsinki testimony. ) While the open petition system was not the only way that the Court could have been empowered to review important laws, eliminating it without a good substitution has created holes in the Court’s oversight of the constitutional order.
    But we should all be careful what we wish for. This month, the ninth judge elected with the Fidesz two-thirds supermajority is joining the 15-member Constitutional Court. (He is one of the few judges to get a multi-party vote since the far-right Jobbik party supported him, too.) The eighth joined last month. Now that the government is practically guaranteed a friendly majority, perhaps Fidesz will offer to restore some of the Court’s powers as a way of showing how flexible they are. A Court that has nine judges who owe their careers to one party and who have been elected for 12-year terms can make it difficult for any non-Fidesz government to govern, even if a new government could be elected against the background of an ever-changing landscape of new electoral barriers that the opposition has to hurdle. Yes, the long terms for constitutional judges mean that the Fidesz judges could (and should) be independent but so far only one of the Fidesz judges has shown serious independence from Fidesz party positions.
    Mr. Gulyás tells me I can’t have it both ways – since he claims that I have argued both that no institution can check the powers of this government and also that a future government will be stymied by the ability of these very same institutions to thwart a future government. But that is not what I claim. Fidesz has seized control of all institutions in the Hungarian government through a two-pronged strategy. It has tried to cut the power of institutions it could not yet control – like the Constitutional Court and the central bank. It has beefed up the power of institutions that were in reliable hands – like the National Judicial Office, the Media Board, the Prosecutor’s Office, the State Audit Office and the Budget Council.
    As a result, after Fidesz gains control over the personnel of an institution it has previously weakened, then it often “compromises” with critics and strengthens the powers that institution again. The same is true for institutions it needed to capture only for a brief time to accomplish a specific purpose (like replacing 10% of the judiciary at once, including much of the ordinary court leadership). Then it agrees to disperse centralized power. Fidesz can then be very cooperative with its international partners by agreeing either to limit the powers of an office that it no longer needs to control or to strengthen the apparent independence of an institution that is now safely in its hands. But otherwise, strong powers in reliable hands are just what the government has accomplished. And as long as strong-enough powers are in reliable-enough hands, the Fidesz supermajority can rein in any future opposition government that deviates from the Fidesz path. So the very same institutions that have been domesticated by Fidesz can turn fierce when a party other than Fidesz is in charge. To understand what this government is doing, one must always look both at the party background of the occupants of the offices and at the powers of those offices. Am I the one having it both ways – or it is Fidesz?
    […] Fidesz tries to turn all of its critics into agents for the “other side.” But that is a public relations trick. When a party brings all institutions of government under its control and attacks the independent judiciary, we are no longer in the world of normal party politics. Instead, we are in the world where Hungary’s very existence as a state under the rule of law is in question. That is why I have gotten involved. Once Hungarians regain their ability to live in a fully democratic society with depoliticized courts, I plan to go back to the quiet world of scholarship from which I came.”

    By : Peter Mazsa – Posted on : 18/04/2013

    Sorry Peter Mazsa, your rhetoric falls flat. This article asks intelligent and thoughtful people who care for the truth to read all of the relevant documents before jumping to a conclusion. It argues what you will find when you do. You, on the other hand, cast up assertions that you say contradict the position of the government but there is no authority you can demonstrate. For instance, more than one amendment to a Constitution might be wrong in some circumstances but it also can be right if the purpose is to take account of criticism and Court opinions, which is what is happening in this case.
    By : Brian – Posted on : 18/04/2013

    Sorry Brian, you appeal to a logical fallacy:) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_verecundiam#Appeal_to_no_authority AND there is an authority I can demonstrate anyway: http://lapa.princeton.edu/peopledetail.php?ID=432 + http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?s=Scheppele
    By : Peter Mazsa – Posted on : 18/04/2013

    Here is the “sound evidence” not newspaper articles, the EU relies on this.
    Amicus Brief on the Fourth Amendment
    And more documents here:
    By : haemet – Posted on : 18/04/2013

    @haemet: thank you. FYI: http://amexrap.org/fal/amicus-velencei-bizottsagnak-az-alaptorveny-negyedik-modositasarol
    By : Peter Mazsa – Posted on : 18/04/2013

    Dear Haemet and Peter Mazsa:
    The opinions you refer to in the Amicus Briefs can be looked at for what they are worth. The same is true of the original documents. Your analysis does not cite any of these documents and does not refer to how the wording of the legislation operaties in the was mentioned. You argued that it was obvious that a number of amendments within a short time was obviously bad. How is this true of necessity? It is not me who is demonstrating logical inconsistency. The article appeals to people to look at original sources and decide for themselves who is correct. You cite only secondary sources and opinions. These should be considered for what they are in light of what is contained in the main documents, including the Court decisions. The arguments and opinions often misrepresent or misinterpret the wording and the meaning of each. I suggest you and others are not referring to the actual wording and meaning of what is written because those direct quotes demonstrate that what you are saying is incorrect or fatally misleadinig.
    By : Brian – Posted on : 18/04/2013

    I can fully symphatize with what Brian is saying for 2 reasons:
    1. Secondary sources are important, but more often than not they wil be biased – that’s just human nature. Now there is a degree of tolerable bias and then there is intolerable bias. But wholesale reference to this group’s or that group’s opinion, especially without reading the original text and pondering it, is intelectual slot and emotionally loaded argumentation.
    On the other hand, in the EU there is only one institution acting within a carefully balanced “motivational framework” that can be relied on to deliver an impartial assesment cognizant of all possible implications and that is the Commission. Even there you will find some bias, but again, that’s human nature, but one can have a reasonable hope that the final assessment will not be intolerably biased
    2. If I have to read all this legal stuff, you shouldn’t be spared either 🙂
    As for the biases creeping in – I make clear my bias in the disclamer. The same is not true of many scholars, legal professionals, judges but also journalists and businesses etc whose interests or even egos have been hurt in one way or another by the current government. It is a natural response for them to see then at every possible juncture the worst motivations behind an act, whereas in the absence of the bias, one might conclude in a more neutral way. (Politicans like Verhofstadt are a completely different matter, their motivations should be clear for any reasonable individual who is not biased beyond redemption against Orban.)
    Finally, this is not to say that this government is free of errors. It may not even be completely free of some of the intentions it is accused of. But it is certainly a far cry from the overall emerging picture of a ruthless autocracy in which freedoms are curtailed and abuses are inflicted upon a poor, passive population. Verhofstadt and co. are playing with fire when they cry wolf in the presence of a noisy and perhaps sometimes clumsy dog
    disclaimer: I am a civil servant working for the Hungarian government
    By : Sceptic – Posted on : 18/04/2013

    In the spirit of Sceptic, I should reveal my disclaimer as well. I am from North America, where I received rigorous training as a lawyer and in economics. In my legal practice I specialised in company law, constitutional law, government administration, corporate finance and international trade. I have worked as an advisor to governments in more than eight countries and as a legal advisor and Deputy Chairman of a public company active in North America. I am not a member of any political party in any country and currently do not work for any government, news organisation, NGO or academic organisation. I am fascinated by the ructions happening within the E.U.
    By : Brian – Posted on : 18/04/2013

    Dear Brian,
    you wrote: “You argued that it was obvious that a number of amendments within a short time was obviously bad. How is this true of necessity? It is not me who is demonstrating logical inconsistency.”
    I don’t think so that a number of amendments within a short time would be bad: I think it is one of the main signs of a sub-optimally designed constitution. I like the fact that the communitarian http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/ constitution of Orban is very poorly designed because it reduces its life expectancy to 9 years, cf.

    http://amexrap.org/fal/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Untitled-1.jpg and http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521515505
    Dear Sceptic,
    you wrote: “it is certainly a far cry from the overall emerging picture of a ruthless autocracy in which freedoms are curtailed and abuses are inflicted upon a poor, passive population”
    I’m sure you read Huxley as well: http://www.highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-vs-orwell/ The relevant situation is this:

    “This paper compares electoral outcomes of the 1999 parliamentary elections in Russia among geographical areas with differential access to the only independent from the government national TV channel. It was available to three-quarters of Russia’s population and its signal availability was idiosyncratic conditional on observables. Independent TV decreased aggregate vote for the government party by 8.9 percentage points, increased the combined vote for major opposition parties by 6.3 percentage points, and decreased turnout by 3.8 percentage points. The probability of voting for opposition parties increased for individuals who watched independent TV even controlling for voting intentions measured one month before elections.”

    and this:

    “The problem does not derive from the abuses group persons [e.g. states] actually commit. It comes from the fact that even if they do not practice any abuse, they retain relatively unconstrained powers of inference, which are not always subject to effective measures of prevention or deterrence.
    When one agent has an asymmetrical power of interfering with force, coercion, or manipulation in another’s choices, […] the regime of respect is compromised. And this is so even if that power is not actually exercised. Respect is possible between persons only if neither has an influence on the other that undermines the other’s can-do assumptions in suitable choices, rendering them untrue or unthinkable. The existence of asymmetrical powers of inference, even unexercised ones, can undermine such assumptions.
    Suppose an agent thinks he or she has a choice between options x, y, and z but another has a power of interfering with this choice. Then the first agent’s choice is really between the options: x-if-the-other-allows-it, y-if-the-other-allows-it, and z-if-the-other-allows-it. When choosing, the agent chooses by the others grace: cum permissu, as the old complaint put it. The very presence of the other means that the options are different from what they would be otherwise.
    This problem is exacerbated if the agent becomes aware of the other’s power to interfere […]: the agent knowingly faces not the simple option x, y, and z but only their modified counterparts.”

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0199591563 pp. 182-3.
    By : Peter Mazsa – Posted on : 18/04/2013

    FYI: http://mazsa.com
    By : Peter Mazsa – Posted on : 18/04/2013

    Dear Sceptic and Brian,
    If you read the amicus brief, you will see that it refers directly to the wording of the Constitution on each point. Moreover, even if you choose to read only the Constitution, you will immediately see how the document, and especially the 4th Amendment, is in great violation of the basic principles of the rule of law. Without any interpretation, you can see that the 4th Amendment gives the Speaker of the Parliament control sole control of a private army of 350 guards, as well as the sole power to remove deputies from the chamber by force. It is written, in plain language, that the 20 years’ worth of legal precedent is erased. Things that the top court in the land– which should determine the law of the land– ruled unconstitutional are incorporated into the 4th amendment. I could go on, but you can read it yourselves.
    This is not a matter of personalities or motivations. Every single person who wrote the amicus brief speaks Hungarian and is a top expert on Hungarian law. This is about the future of Hungarian democracy, and if talented and well-intentioned individuals such as Ms. Gyori fail to realized that we are really in a lot of trouble.
    By : Skeptic, in a different way – Posted on : 18/04/2013

    Source: http://www.kormany.hu, the official website of the Hungarian government. The official translation of the Fundamental Laws (new Hungarian Constitution – 4th Amendment included)
    Let me quote word by word :

    “(9)31 The security of Parliament shall be provided by a Parliamentary Guard. The Parliamentary Guard shall operate under the authority of the Speaker of Parliament.”
    “(3) In order to protect public policy, public security, public health and cultural values, an Act or a local government decree may, with respect to a specific part of public space, provide that staying in public space as a habitual dwelling shall be illegal.”
    “(3)20 An Act may provide that financial support of higher education studies shall be subject to participation for a definite period in employment or to exercising for a definite period of entrepreneurial activities, regulated by Hungarian law.”
    “(3)15 For the appropriate dissemination of information necessary for the formation of democratic public opinion and to ensure the equality of opportunity, political advertisements may only be published in media services free of charge. In the campaign period prior to the election of Members of Parliament and of Members of the European Parliament, political advertisements published by and in the interest of nominating organisations setting up country-wide candidacy lists for the general election of Members of Parliament or candidacy lists for the election of Members of the European Parliament may only be published by way of public media services and under equal conditions, as provided for by a cardinal Act.”

    By : haemet – Posted on : 18/04/2013

    Dear Mazsa,
    while I thoroughly enjoyed the “infographic” (?) on the link you provided (and will make an attempt to take up the whole site in my regular reading), and your quotes are thought provoking, I fail to see their relevance to the situation at hand:

    • Orban’s Hungary is not being accused of creating a Huxleyan distopia, but an Orwellian one (which totally contradicts my everyday experience)
    • if anything, Hungary may be becoming more like a Huxleyan distopia, but, at trisk of repeating myself, that is not what the Verhoftsadts and Redings etc. of this world are claiming, and perhaps more importantly, it is not Orban’s fault and it didnt start in 2010 and it is not happening only in Hungary. We are talking about a systemic problem and risk there of the whole western civilization, which is a great discussion topic but I’d hate it if Hungary were singled out somehow in that debate.
    • the specific study you refer to about Russia seems to be irrelevant because Russia is so different from Hungary due to its size, its poor infrastructure, its cultural variety, etc. The situation that the study actually seems to exploit to conduct a real life experiment (comparing voting behaviour in areas with and without access to independent media) couldnt even be recreated in Hungary with its abundance of free, independent media
    • furthermore, one of the main criticism against Hungary nowadays is about limiting political advertisments to the public media, so the availability of private media is not even a question there. The question will be whether and how the public media will fulfill its mandate of providing free of charge airtime for political ads on an equal footing to all national parties. But it is simply too early to cry wolf now and claim the whole system is antidemocratic, as the Verhoftsdas etc are doing
    • your final quote from ‘group agency’ describes a generic situation that’s inherent in mankind’s societies. I am not saying thoughtful people should ponder this and try ways to change it, all I am saying is that it is not relevant. If you think Hungary has somehow become worse in this respect, that’s fine, but let’s not lose perspective – it is not Orban’s making, and I cant see a pre-Orban wonderland and a post-Orban wasteland in this respect.

    By : Sceptic – Posted on : 19/04/2013

    Dear other Scpetic and Haemet,
    you need to do a bit more of explaining because I dont see your arguments.

    • On guards and all, it would be interesting to see a comparison of the practice of other Parliaments. In itself the legal provision seem to me to make sense – security must be provided, and the security services should be ultimately controlled by an authority that is somehow responsible to the group on whose behalf it is provided. I dont know how it used to be, and again I dont know how it is done in other parliaments. Yet even if this would be unique practice, you need to explain why it is a problem.
    • The remark about “Things that the top court in the land– which should determine the law of the land– ruled unconstitutional are incorporated into the 4th amendment” bleeds from many wounds:

    A. If you are Hungarian, or read Hungarian, you know very well that most of these stipulations were ruled unconstitutional on technical grounds. Some that were ruled unconstituional on substance were not taken back (e.g. electoral registration.) And some were taken back to make them constitutional. You see, something being “unconstitutional” is not the equivalent of being “forbidden by God”. The HU parliament is the constitutional power and has the right to change the constitution. You may not like the changes they make, but that in itself doesnt make them anti democratic or violating human rights.
    B. This brings me to my next point: you are completely mistaken, wandering in legal cloud-cuckoo land if you think that the top court “should determine the law of the land”! The HUngarian people are the source of all sovereignity and they exercise their sovereignity through the Parliament. The top court is important, but it should be no means determine the law of the land. To give you an example of the probelms when it does, just check out Roe vs. Wade in the US and the chaos and partisan bickering in its wake. And just to shock you: if there was the required majority in the US Congress and the states (just like Orban’s party DOES have it in HU), Roe vs Wade could simply be overturned by inserting a clause in the US Const. to the effect that abortions are illegal. That’s it. Now it wont happen because there is no majority for it. But everything that happened in HU had a proper constituiona majority for it – even if it wasnt to your liking.
    The question arises: could then Orban’s party make torture, the death penalty, the “Droit du seigneur” and other assorted vices constitutional? Yes they could. But did they do it? NOOO! And that’s the point.

    • Precedent: the legal effect is not erased, and the court is free to come to the same conclusion, it is only forced by this to come to the conclusion on the basis of the new text. Perhaps understandable, if there is a new text, use that, that is THE LAW OF THE LAND. Teh Court is not making the law, it is upholding it. Again, you might not like it, but is it antidemocratic?

    By : Sceptic – Posted on : 19/04/2013

    One more thing on the above: did the majority pass a lot of stuff not to the liking of the socialist and liberal elite and their supporters? Absolutely, big time.
    However, given their abysmal performance up until and including in the free and fair elections in 2010 that gave Fidesz the 2/3s majority, there is only one thing I can suggest to them: “learn to live with it, thank yourself for it and always be reminded of your shame by it.”
    And if I want to be a bit more cosntructive: “shed your zombies, build a proper party/coalition by 2018, win the elections with 2/3s and change it back, or change it “forward” in whatever way you think is right.”
    By : Sceptic – Posted on : 19/04/2013

    I may be very conservative, or very liberal, but that does not change my perspective on the Constitution and the 4th Amendment. If you think that winning a two thirds majority permits the government to do whatever it likes, you really do need to check the definition of “democracy” in the dictionary. And of course the top court should determine the law of the land– any democratic society needs an independent body to act as a check on the government. Yes, Constitutional amendments are sometimes needed as societies evolve, but Constitutions which take power away from independent institutions and annul years of human rights case law are simply not acceptable. This will be my last post here, but I do want to leave you with some words of advice: first, please read the Constitution. And second, as a civil servant, please take your responsibility to the Hungarian people seriously. It may be your job to comment here, or perhaps you are just interested, but either way you still have the power to look beyond government propaganda.
    By : Skeptic, in a different way – Posted on : 19/04/2013

    Dear Sceptic,
    you wrote: “The situation that the [Russian] study actually seems to exploit to conduct a real life experiment (comparing voting behaviour in areas with and without access to independent media) couldnt even be recreated in Hungary with its abundance of free, independent media”
    :))) Orban tries his best to recreate the situation above: “in Hungary, with its abundance of free independent media” he has a de facto monopoly in news. E.g. in february 2013, based on official (government) data: Government+LocalNazis = 8025sec (93%), OtherParties = 593sec (7%). Or: AllWhoIsOrban=7408sec (84%), AllWhoIsNotOrban: 1210sec (16%)

    (original, in Hungarian: index.hu/kultur/media/2013/03/27/mintha_csak_orban_beszelne_a_hirmusorokban )
    With regards to your other arguments: Orban is completely democratic (in a sense like Hitler was in 1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933 ) but perfectly antirepublican at the same time. This is not a contradiction, cf. e.g.

    E.g. this is how he defines his System of National Cooperation:

    By : Peter Mazsa – Posted on : 19/04/2013

    Other Scpetic
    do I think that “winning a two thirds majority permits the government to do whatever it likes” – NO, hence my example of torture, “right of the first night”, etc. If the Parliament (not the govt!) passed sg like that, it would be undemocratic and trampling human rights by contemporary standards. But thats exactly the core of the debate: it can be established that the process of the “overhaul” of the country was not antidemocratic. The question then is the outcome, the product – is there anything antidemocratic, anti human rights etc there, as many would have you believe. I believe that it is OK. Btw, the Venice Commission in 2011 said the same about the new constituional order: while they did formulate a number of criticisms (what is perfect, after all) they clearly stated that the new HU constituition corresponds to the requirements of democracy and the rule of law.

    • “And of course the top court should determine the law of the land– any democratic society needs an independent body to act as a check on the government” Now I must ask you to check the definition of democracy. Is it the “power of the judges” or the “power of the people”. If you disagree, you disagree with Hungary’s pre-2010 constitution and with the decisions of the pre-2010 constittuional court. Ask someone more knowledgeable around you, I am not going to write down again how that works.
    • “Constitutional amendments are sometimes needed as societies evolve” Orban and Fidesz made the political choice that we need one now because we evolved since 1989. You and I may disagree, but you and I didnt manage to get the absolute, overwhelming majority of voters behind us. He did. Again, every democratic country’s constituion says that the final source of power is the people, and they exercise this power in the majority of cases through elected representatives.
    • “Constitutions which take power away from independent institutions and annul years of human rights case law are simply not acceptable ” you need to prove this, as I already asked but you dont seem to care. The pre-2010 CC. laid out clearly, in several decisions, that it does not have the power to overrule the constitution and the acts of the constitutive power (e.g. Parliament). Thats because they, as opposed to you, knew what democracy is.
    • I strongly believe that a fact based debate and fair criticism (there is so much to criticise!) would do a whole lot good to the Hungarian public. Alas, it is not happening, and to a large degree the critics (and there bombastiuc but shallow arguments) are to blame.

    By : Sceptic – Posted on : 19/04/2013

    Dear Peter,
    to be honest, if your last picture is not a joke then I think you should see a doctor.
    Now, to look at your data: it is a well known fact (and shortcoming) of modern democracies, with complex and all encompassing governments, that simply by virtue of the media focusing on “acts”, on “change”, on “effect on the people”, at any given time the ruling party (being the motor behind many of the government’s acts) will enjoy a publicity bonus. Now, I think it shouldnt surprise anyone that a hyperactive supermajority that is basically overhauling the country (thus profoundly affecting the lives of basically everyone) gets a huuuge publicity bonus. For proof of how that is “normal” to a large degree, look no further than the ATV figures – if even they cannot help featuring Orban and Co. more than 50% of the time, then it seems unavoidable.
    Add to that the the opposition (quite sadly) is a bunch of lame ducks, seemingly unable to formulate positions and create “stories” that would be relevant for the people, and Fidesz has a dominance in airtime because they supply the news… Now I wouldnt contest that the public media is rather subservilent to the government, but let’s stop for a moment – is there anything qualitatively new there? Nope, it has been like tthat for much of the past 20 years. But with a thriving media landscape, public media certainly dont have a monopoly on what kind of info reaches the people.
    Regarding your distinction b/w democracy and republicanism – Orban is guilty there. He is indeed just as democratic as Hitler in 1933, or Hollande in 2012, or Obama in 2012 and as much anti republican as the latter two. But not as Hitler. And thats my point all through – he is being accused of being sg he is not. He is another shade of our imperfect, corporatist, wishy washy governments of today’s West. I admit he may even be further to the statist, anti republican end of this democracy than many others. But he is still playing in this field, and not in the field of the history’s Chavezes, Putins or Hitlers.
    So if your problem with him – as I seem to understand it – comes from a sort of libertarian persuasion, I grant you that you are right. But then be even handed – you should (and I know you do :)) have a problem with any western democracy…
    By : Sceptic – Posted on : 19/04/2013

    Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit:)
    No, I’m not a libertarian – but definitely not a communitarian like Orban either. Ok, I think we both discussed what we wanted: have a good life.
    By : Peter Mazsa – Posted on : 19/04/2013

  • Mázsa Péter 13:49 on 2013.04.18 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , EU, ,   

    Amicus brief a Velencei Bizottságnak az Alaptörvény negyedik módosításáról 

    (egyelőre csak angolul, magyar fordítása a Fundamentum http://www.indok.hu 2013/2. számában jelenik meg)

    Halmai Gábor egyetemi tanár Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, Princeton University
    Kim Lane Scheppele egyetemi tanár, Princeton University
    Bánkuti Miklós, Dombos Tamás, Halmai Gábor, Hanák András, Körtvélyesi Zsolt, Majtényi Balázs, Pap András László, Polgári Eszter, Salát Orsolya, Kim Lane Scheppele, Sólyom Péter, Uitz Renáta

    Honlap: https://sites.google.com/site/amicusbriefhungary/

    Forrás: haemet http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/verhofstadt-gets-papers-analysis-519203#comment-12543

  • Mázsa Péter 20:31 on 2013.04.12 Permalink |
    Tags: , , EU,   

    Orbán megijedt és időt húzna: “I certainly pay full attention to the points you raised and I have already initiated the necessary legislative steps to follow them up” 


    José Manuel Barroso
    President of the European Commission


    Budapest 12th April 2013

    Dear Mr. President,

    I refer to your letter dated 11.04.2013. I thank you for the attention devoted by the
    Commission and you personally to the full conformity of the Hungarian legislation
    with the European law. I certainly pay full attention to the points you raised and I
    should like to inform you that I have already initiated the necessary legislative steps
    to follow them up.

    I take this opportunity to reiterate the commitment of the Hungarian Government
    and the Hungarian Parliament to the European norms and values and to ensure the
    full cooperation of my Government in addressing the concerns you raised.

    Yours sincerely,
    ORBAN Viktor


  • Mázsa Péter 02:48 on 2013.04.12 Permalink |
    Tags: , , EU, ,   

    “The less flexible European economies will lose at least 15% of their GDPs” 

    In sum, the less flexible European economies will lose at least 15% of their gdps, due to trade and technology.

    There is then the question of what the path downwards will look like and feel like. Being in the eurozone makes adjustment much harder, and brings the doom more quickly, for reasons which are by now well-discussed.

    The initial path looks like this. […]


  • Mázsa Péter 09:34 on 2013.03.22 Permalink |
    Tags: EU, , ,   

    Észlények vitája 5pontban: Orbán-Ponta: Kinek szagosabb a lába? Kövér: minden román politikus kurva 

    Események időrendben:
    1. Vélehetően a német külügyminiszter megbízásából 2013 február 13-án elkészül egy mesterterv Orbán és Ponta kezelésére:

    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.


    2. Németország, Hollandia, Finnország, Dánia március 8-án levelet ír Barrosonak, hogy politikai mechanizmus kell az Európai alapértékek biztosítására. Bár a levél nem említi Orbánt, pl. a Bloomberg egyértelműen úgy látja, hogy a sztori róla szól:

    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.


    3. Szerda: Ponta szerint nem az ő lába büdös, hanem Orbáné:

    Victor Ponta román miniszterelnök elutasítja, hogy Romániát egy kalap alá vegyék Magyarországgal, és őt személy szerint Orbán Viktorhoz hasonlítsák – derült ki abból az interjúból, amelyet az Adevarul.ro portál készített kedden a román kormányfővel.

    […] Pontát a német, finn, dán és holland külügyminiszter leveléről kérdezték, akik egy erősebb számonkérési mechanizmus bevezetését sürgették az unióban, az európai alapértékek védelmében. Az Európai Bizottság elnökének címzett levél egyes bukaresti sajtókommentárok szerint kimondatlanul is Romániát és Magyarországot vette célba.

    Victor Ponta kijelentette: az ő olvasatában csak Magyarországnak szólt a figyelmeztetés. “Romániában egy vesszőt sem változtattunk az alkotmányban, míg Magyarország állandóan módosítja az alaptörvényt. Romániában sajtószabadság van, és a jegybank valóban független, tehát semmiben sem hasonlít a helyzetünk Magyarországhoz, úgyhogy nem akarom, hogy egy kalap alá vegyenek” – mondta Ponta.

    A román miniszterelnök szerint ugyanakkor elképzelhető, hogy a politikai egyensúlyozás kedvéért mutogassanak Romániára is. “Ha nem vigyázunk, ez politikai alapon fog menni: egy tőlük, egy tőlünk. Vagyis ha Orbán úr néppárti politikus, akkor legyen mellette valaki a szocialistáktól, Romániából” – fejtegette Victor Ponta. A román miniszterelnök azt mondta: támogatná egy erősebb számonkérési mechanizmus kidolgozását, amelyre szerinte most Magyarország miatt van szükség.

    “Joggal írta rólam egy publicista, hogy semmi sem idegesít jobban, mint amikor Orbán Viktorhoz hasonlítanak. Ez nem személyes ügy, de ami Romániában történik, egyáltalán nem hasonlít a magyarországi eseményekhez, úgyhogy nem fogadom el ezt a párhuzamot. Tudom persze, hogy sok zenész összekeveri Budapestet Bukaresttel, de szeretném, ha a politikusok és a sajtó nem követnék el ezt a tévedést” – mondta Victor Ponta.


    4. Tegnap: Orbán megsértődik, hogy kimondták a nevét:

    Budapest, 2013. március 21., csütörtök (OS) – Győri Enikő, a Külügyminisztérium államtitkára 2013. március 21-én sürgősséggel hivatalába kérette Alexandru Victor Micula Budapestre akkreditált román nagykövetet. Az államtitkár neheztelését fejezte ki Victor Ponta román kormányfő 2013. március 19-i Adevarul nevű román újságnak adott interjúja miatt, és a román fél magyarázatát kérte. […] Rámutatott, hogy a román fél a miniszterelnöki nyilatkozattal csatlakozott a Magyarországot megalapozatlanul bírálók táborához. Az államtitkár kiemelte továbbá, hogy Románia nyíltan lépett fel Magyarország ellen, s ez a megnyilvánulás ellentétes az európai együttműködés szellemiségével és a magyar–román stratégiai partnerség gyakorlatával. […] Győri Enikő nyomatékkal kérte, hogy ne kerüljön sor a magyar–román kétoldalú kapcsolatokat terhelő, és a magyar közvéleményre negatív hatást gyakorló nyilatkozatokra, mert ezek kárt okoznak.

    http://os.mti.hu/hirek/84266/a_kulugyminiszterium_kozlemenye-1_resz http://os.mti.hu/hirek/84267/a_kulugyminiszterium_kozlemenye-2_resz

    5. Erre ma a román külügyminisztérium azt sérelmezi, hogy Kövér korábban nyilvánosan kijelentette, hogy nem csak Orbán büdös, hanem Ponta is, csak ezt Európa nem teszi szóvá a románoknak, mert minden román politikus kurva:

    A román fél ugyanakkor Kövér László házelnöknek egy televíziós nyilatkozatát nehezményezte, amely Bukarest szerint sértő Romániára és a román politikustársadalomra nézve.

    A házelnök a köztévé A Lényeg című műsorában azt mondta: Románia nem kap olyan negatív megítélést az EU-ban, mint Magyarország, pedig ott “lenne mit keresni és találni”. Kövér László megfogalmazása szerint utóbbira azért nem kerül sor, mert a román politikusok pártállástól függetlenül vezényszóra nyúzzák le saját állampolgáraik bőrét a multik és a külföldi pénzügyi csoportok érdekében. […]

    “A román külügyminisztérium azt várta volna, hogy a magyar fél az Országgyűlés elnökének elfogadhatatlan nyilatkozatára reagáljon aggodalommal” – olvasható a bukaresti kommünikében.


    Na itt tartunk az észlények vitájában.

    [Illusztráció: Kurva Kövér, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3489688/Obese-man-who-weighs-38-stone-poses-naked-for-calendar.html ]

  • Mázsa Péter 17:51 on 2013.03.21 Permalink |
    Tags: , , EU, , ,   

    Amexrap-köszönet a Külügyminisztériumnak: “Piros lap Magyarországnak” egy német gyerekcsatornán 

    A Külügy segítsége nélkül elkerülte volna a figyelmünket ez a kedves videó:

    A Külügyminisztérium elítéli, hogy a német közszolgálati televíziók (ARD, ZDF) tulajdonában álló KIKA gyermekcsatorna ismeretterjesztő műsorán Magyarországot valótlanul bemutató, a tényeket figyelmen kívül hagyó animációt vetítettek, immár a második alkalommal.

    A közelmúltban elfogadott 4. alkotmánymódosítás kapcsán az alkotmánybíróság hatáskörének csökkenéséről, valamint a hazai médiahelyzetről szóló állításokat a magyar kormány már többször cáfolta. A Külügyminisztérium különösen aggályosnak tartja, ha téves információkkal már a gyerekeket is félre vezetik.

    Prőhle Gergely helyettes államtitkár 2013. március 21-én erről személyesen tájékoztatta Dr. Matei I. Hoffmann német nagykövetet.


    • admin 20:03 on 2013.03.21 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Beáta Hevesi én is ma reggel hallottam a rádióban, Kumin Ferenc nyilatkozott ezzel kapcsolatban, azt gondoltam újra készitettek ilyet, de ez még a régi, sajnálom hogy hozzájuk ilyen sokára jutott el, pedig Kumin éppen arról beszélt, hogy más stratégiát választottak, és ezután mindenre azonnal reagálnak, és sok emberük van erre a feladatra
      2 hours ago · Unlike · 1

      AMEXRAP Az Amexrap nem hallgat rádiót (csak ha repül, Tilosat), nem néz tv-t (csak ha az Én Kis Pónim megy): ezért kullogunk a csiga Külügy után.
      about an hour ago · Like · 1

      Beáta Hevesi
      about an hour ago · Like

      Beáta Hevesi több mint egy éves a videó is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axfeQfuG5_I
      about an hour ago · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

      AMEXRAP Hú ez jó fogás, köszi!
      about a minute ago · Like

    • admin 08:27 on 2013.03.29 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Hisztiző Orbán a német köztévében http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv_Y5pS_slQ

  • Mázsa Péter 16:42 on 2013.03.16 Permalink |
    Tags: , Ciprus, EU, ,   

    Egy lehetséges forgatókönyv: a bankbetétek 10%-ának államosítása 

    Cipruson legalábbis ez történt, az Unióban először: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/16/cyprus-eurozone-bailout-anger

    (Orbánnak nehogy szóljatok: http://amexrap.org/fal/ha-en-elnok-lennek :-))

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

    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 21:48 on 2013.03.08 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , EU, , ,   

    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 23:43 on 2013.02.24 Permalink |
    Tags: , EU, , ,   

    A magyarok Magyarországi hiányáról 

    […] For years people complained about the absence of labour mobility in the EU. Now we have it, the flaw in the institutional infrastructure is obvious.

    Young people are moving from the weak economies on the periphery to the comparatively stronger ones in the core, or out of an ever older EU altogether. This has the simple consequence that the deficit issues in the core are reduced, while those on the periphery only get worse as health and pension systems become ever less affordable. Meanwhile, more and more young people follow the lead of Gerard Depardieu and look for somewhere where there isn’t such a high fiscal burden, preferably where the elderly dependency ratio isn’t shooting up so fast. […]

    via http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/02/very-good-sentences-about-bulgaria-the-eu-and-the-ddr.html

    • admin 09:00 on 2013.02.25 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Onemore Freeman but it’s not a flaw, it’s a feature!

      stop/lower the coercive exploitation of the young, and the problem is solved.

      effective taxes are 70% in hungary, and then you need to pay for the highway. WTF are they expecting?
      about an hour ago · Unlike · 1

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

    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

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

    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 15:00 on 2013.01.14 Permalink |
    Tags: , EU,   

    Among the EU27 Member States, the highest proportions of enterprises with innovation activity were recorded in Germany (79% of enterprises), Luxembourg (68%), Belgium (61%), Portugal, Sweden and Ireland (all 60%), and the lowest in Bulgaria (27%), Poland (28%), Latvia (30%), Romania and Hungary (both 31%). […] Among enterprises with product and process innovation activities in the EU27, 27% co-operated with other enterprises, universities or public research institutes in 2008-2010, while the remaining 73% innovated using only internal resources. The highest proportions of innovation co-operation were found in Cyprus (62% of all product and process innovative enterprises), Austria (51%), Slovenia (45%), Lithuania and Hungary (both 43%), and the lowest in Italy (12%), Malta (18%), Portugal (20%), Spain and Bulgaria (both 22%).

    Eurostat [pdf]
  • Mázsa Péter 11:10 on 2012.11.30 Permalink |
    Tags: , , EU, , ,   

    “A blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union: Launching a European Debate” 

    Over the next 5 years, the EU would move further in coordinating tax and employment policies. A common budget for eurozone countries would be available to help those whose economies are under pressure.

    This budget could be backed by a ‘redemption’ fund to help countries reduce large public debts to sustainable levels. Countries using the funds would have to follow strict rules. The eurozone could also collectively issue eurobills – bonds to raise funds on the capital markets.

    After 5 years, the EU could take the next steps to full banking, budgetary and economic union, followed by political union. These later steps would require modifications to EU treaties and increased democratic accountability.


  • Mázsa Péter 11:11 on 2012.11.27 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , EU, , ,   

    Magyarország, amely a Fegyverszüneti Egyezmény értelmében intézkedett magyar területen minden fasiszta jellegű politikai, katonai vagy katonai színezetű szervezetnek, valamint minden olyan szervezetnek feloszlatása iránt, amely az Egyesült Nemzetekkel szemben ellenséges propagandát, ideértve a revizionista propagandát fejt ki, a jövőben nem engedi meg olyan effajta szervezeteknek fennállását és működését, amelyeknek célja az, hogy megfossza a népet demokratikus jogaitól.

    1947. évi XVIII. TÖRVÉNY a Párizsban 1947. évi február hó 10. napján kelt békeszerződés becikkelyezése tárgyában, 4. Cikk
  • Mázsa Péter 08:59 on 2012.11.23 Permalink |
    Tags: , EU,   

    Orbán Viktor gyenge ember, mert csak a kétharmados többségével áterőltetett törvényekkel tud erős pozíciót elérni. Csak a gyenge emberek választják a tekintélyelvűség útját, az erős emberek demokratikus utat választanak. Az igazi probléma Orbán úr tevékenységében éppen az, hogy megsérti a magyar forradalom örökségét. Ugyanúgy a szabadság és a véleménynyilvánítás sérthetetlensége ellen támad, mint anno a szovjet diktatúra.

    Hannes Swoboda, az Európai Parlament Szocialista frakciójának vezetője
  • Mázsa Péter 14:46 on 2012.10.01 Permalink |
    Tags: Ausztria, , EU, ,   

    Nemzeti álmok – Magyarország búcsúja Európától 

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