Strasbourg, 18/01/2012 (Agence Europe) - The procedure was unusual but, on Wednesday 18 January, the European Parliament agreed to hear out the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orban, who wanted to set things straight and justify his government's position regarding the controversial laws on the central bank and the judiciary (see EUROPE 10530). The debate on constitutional changes in Hungary was therefore held in the presence of and with the participation of Hungary's head of government. The debate was heated, confirming that the assembly was divided but without giving Orban the satisfaction for which he had hoped. Many MEPs, including those who criticise Orban's policy, underlined their solidarity with the Hungarian people, saying the debate was not against Hungary.
Speaking on behalf of the Council, the Danish minister for European affairs, Nicolas Wammen, confirmed comments made by the Danish prime minister after the debate on presentation of the Danish Presidency's programme, when many MEPs brought up the “Hungarian problem”. The rotating presidency is aware of the concern that a number of aspects of the new Hungarian constitution cause, saying that all member states must respect the rules of the Treaty. If there are doubts regarding the legislation in any one country, then the Commission must analyse the situation very carefully, and that is what it has done. Concerns deserve serious examination. Then it is up to the Commission to carry out a legal assessment of the Hungarian legislation and, after doing so, it has come up with a number of specific problems. The Presidency supports the Commission, which acts in full respect of EU law and therefore according to the basis on which the Union is founded. Wammen said he hoped a solution would be found to this “very serious situation”.
Barroso announced in Parliament that the European Commission had, on Tuesday 17 January, decided to open triple infringement proceedings against Hungary (see EUROPE 10533). The Commission allows Hungary one month in which to give its response. If Hungary's explanations are not found to be reasonable then the Commission will not hesitate to “take further action”. Among other things, the Commission has clearly said that, on the question of the central bank's independence, there must be a response before the IMF can take a decision on providing financial aid. This very day, Viktor Orban wrote to Barroso informing him of his intention to amend the incriminated legislation in order to comply with EU legislation. The Council of Europe, Barroso pointed out, is also examining certain aspects of Hungarian legislation. In addition to the legal aspects, the debate relates to the quality of democracy and relations between the state and civil society, he noted. The Commission will continue to insist that the Hungarian government act in the interest of its citizens. The message that he intends to send to Hungarian citizens is that the debate is not against Hungary but for Hungary, as they want Hungary to remain a respected member of the Union.
“Parliament is the heart of democracy” and, for that reason, Prime Minister Viktor Orban states he is pleased to be able to inform the EP on the “process of renewal” taking place in his country, a process that he calls “zealous and urgent”. “We were on the eve of economic collapse, but we now have a budget in line with European principles, we have banned paramilitary organisations, and we protect national minorities”, he said. Structural reforms on government, health, pensions and social benefits have been launched. This has not pleased everyone, especially some lobbies, Orban said. Hungary is the last eastern European country to renew its constitution, a constitution that is based on the Union's fundamental documents. A meeting with the Commission next week should allow problems to be discussed and to “rapidly and easily resolve” them, he said, going on to conclude that “we are transforming our country, and ask you to support our effort”.
EPP leader Joseph Daul said that Orban had taken on the reins of a country that still had the constitution that it had under Stalin. He said there were doubts as to the compatibility of certain changes with the rules of the Union, and that the European Commission has taken position. Daul went on to say: “We are speaking of serious matters, of democracy, of rule of law (…) and I am sure that Mr Orban subscribes to these principles”.
The leader of the S&D Group, Johannes Swoboda, is not as indulgent as Daul. In his opinion, doubt is cast not only on measures taken by the Hungarian government but on the spirit in which those measures are implemented. Speaking for the ALDE Group, Guy Verhofstadt spoke of a document that sets out 30 violations of liberty in Hungary. He said he had not established the list but that it was a summary of complaints from international organisations, including the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the ECB, the IMF, the secretary of state of the United States, not to mention Amnesty International and other civil society organisations. President Barroso spoke of technical issues but there is also the matter of the constitution being in line with the fundamental values set out in Article 2 of the Treaty. Verhofstadt considers that the EP's committee on liberties should report on the matter. He recognises that Viktor Orban is doing a “great job” for his country but considers he is now on the wrong course. In an open letter, the former dissident colleagues of Viktor Orban affirm that Hungary is an example of what can happen if there is an authoritarian concentration of power.
“I think I must be dreaming”, said the co-leader of the Greens/EFA Group, Daniel Cohn-Bendit: the Hungarian prime minister claims that he is defending his country from the aggression of the Left: do Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel and Alain Juppé represent the Left? You tell us that you have done all you can to change a Stalinist constitution: does this mean that we let in a country with a Stalinist constitution? If so, shame on us… And, quoting examples of citizens who feel under threat, he spoke out in the strongest possible terms against “a constitution of fear”, with the minorities particularly afraid. Renewal is all well and good, unless it is moving towards dictatorship.
This speech gave rise to strong reactions from representatives of Fidesz, who protested at what they see as a “repression of Hungary's sovereign decisions by the Commission and the multinationals it represents”. Others envy your majority, whereas you are bravely trying to rebuild your country, others added. Not all Hungarians agreed: on behalf of the ECR Group, Lajos Bokros spoke of “destructive attacks” on the Hungarian institutions, notably by the Court of Justice and the Ombudsman. Orban plainly stated that he intends to tie the hands of the next 10 governments… In the meantime, the confidence of investors has been destroyed, the population is suffering and anybody who can is putting their savings into Austria, said Bokros.
This slightly non-standard debate could be a good thing, said France's Marie-Christine Vergiat, who was speaking on behalf of the GUE/NGL, but the Hungarian government will use it to its own ends. Above and beyond the three infringement procedures opened by the Commission, she referred to other problems: calling into question of the separation of church and state and freedom of the media, a very narrow conception of family.
The debate continued for nearly 3 hours, with interruptions, personal comments, out-and-out criticism (against a '”fatal policy”, as Belgium's Louis Michel, of the ALDE Group, put it), questions on the need to change the constitution (“you already had a two-thirds majority, or is it really necessary?”, asked Dutch Green Judith Sargentini), congratulations for Orban (“come to Padania”, said Mario Borghezio, of the Lega Nord, “you will be given a hero's welcome”) and calls for moderation and reason. If it is possible to draw any conclusions from this, it is that most of the MEPs can see beyond an infringement of legal principles and most of all wish to reaffirm respect for the fundamental values of the Union. (LG/transl.fl)