Viktor Orban

Honeyball’s Weekly Round-Up

Labour Party

The week saw the alarming news that Hungary has been warned that it could be the first country in the EU to have its democracy placed under international scrutiny.

An influential committee of the Council of Europe, the Strasbourg-based human rights watchdog (not part of the EU), proposed that Hungary be subject to a “monitoring procedure” that would place the country’s democratic rights and liberties under international monitoring, something that has never happened in any of the EU’s 27 countries.

The final decision to push ahead with the scrutiny needs to be taken by the council’s parliamentary assembly which brings together lawmakers from the organisation’s 47 member states. Ten countries outside the EU but members of the council, including Russia and Turkey, are being monitored.

The “opinion” delivered by the council’s monitoring committee accused Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orbán of seeking to take control of independent institutions in Hungary, of using the constitutional rewriting to cement the power of his own political party, Fidesz, and of ignoring the country’s supreme court.

Budapest and Brussels have been at odds for months over curbs on freedom in Hungary, including restrictions on media expression, pressure on judges and control of the central bank. Orbán has consistently and robustly rejected the charges, with his government and diplomats mounting a loud and detailed campaign aimed at disproving the criticism,

A little closer to home, Nigel Farage was criticised this week for his reaction to the news that a UKIP candidate owns a strip club.

In an interview on Wednesday with BBC Radio 5 Live’s breakfast show, Farage, said it was nonsense that he had frequented and enjoyed lap-dancing clubs in the past but admitted going to one once unintentionally.

“I was taken once unwittingly and I did say that I wasn’t appalled by it,” he said. “I did quite like it. What you want me to say? I hated it?”

Asked whether his comment confirmed some assertions recently that he is anti women, he attempted to laugh it off. “That’s really rather silly,” he said. “I have to tell you, if I’d been anti-women, then the whole of my adult life would have been just that much simpler.”

These statements have been called in to question though, as Farage, in a 2009 interview with the Guardian said he had been to “lap-dancing clubs”, boasting that other leaders would not admit to it because “they’re living in this PC world and nobody must admit to being human”.

 

Rupert Murdoch owns too many newspapers

Labour Party

Rupert Murdoch owns too many newspapers. This was the uncompromising message from the Shadow Culture Secretary Harriet Harman at the Westminster Media Forum yesterday as reported in the Guardian.

It’s not solely a British problem. Here in the European Parliament we have debated media pluralism, or plurality as we call it in the UK, on many occasions. One of the first debates after the 2009 European elections was about Silvio Berlusconi’s vast and often unedifying media empire. The vote on the resolution went narrowly against the appalling Berlusconi to the surprise of many on the centre right who wrongly foresaw an easy victory for their side.

The media pluralism question raised its head again during the Hungarian EU Presidency. Prime Minister Viktor Orban of the right wing Fidesz Party sought to change the country’s constitution in a number of ways, including curtailing the freedom of the country’s press and media outlets.

Control of the media, specifically media plurality, is a polarised issue in the European Parliament. Given that much of the business here is conducted on the basis of consensus and the rough and tumble of robust debate so strong in Britain is largely lacking in the European Parliament, this is an unusual phenomenon. The only conclusion I can draw from the way parties of the right and centre-right in the European Parliament have rallied round to defend mass ownership of the media is that they benefit from such an arrangement. Berlusconi as Prime Minister of Italy and media magnate was very much to the right as are most owners of newspapers and television.

Harriet Harman is right when she says, “Murdoch owns too many newspapers and had it not been for the phone-hacking scandal the government would have waved through his bid to take control of the whole of BskyB. Both Ofcom and Leveson are looking at ownership . It is clear that there needs to be change.”

This is very welcome news and I for one will be following the progress of the forthcoming Communications Act closely. As Harriet said yesterday, it will be “an opportunity to take action to deal with difficult, historical problems which have been unaddressed to too long.”

Meanwhile the debate on media pluralism continues in the European Parliament. Control of the media is now more than a national issue. Media spans borders and what happens in one European country affects another. I do not wish to see the mauling received by the Labour Party before the 1992 general election happen anywhere else. Neil Kinnock was vilified by the Murdoch press because he bravely committed Labour to tackling media ownership were it to form a government. Tony Blair later felt he needed to make it up to Murdoch prior to the 1997 election.

This is not the way the UK should be conducting its relations with the media. Political parties should never feel they have to be nice to an all-powerful media baron and they should never feel any pressure to compromise their principles and beliefs to get support from such a quarter. The UK and Europe as a whole needs a free and fair press and media. It’s one of the best ways of securing our democracy.

The EU must object to the lack of women in Hungarian politics under Orban

Labour Party

In Hungary, politics is a harsh world in which women don’t have the capacity or talent to enter the “boxing ring” and instead stand back and let the men do the fighting.

Or this is what one would think from reading an interview with Viktor Orban, populist and increasingly dictatorial leader of Hungary, in German Tabloid Bild last week.

Below is a rough translation of the section of the interview relating to women in Hungarian politics.

“Bild: This [nothing has changed] attitude also seems to be true for your opinion on women. It is only a short time since your government gained a female minister, responsible for development

Orban: … and 7 state secretaries!

Bild: That’s still not much!

Orban: I hardly think about women in terms of too much or too little. To me it’s about capacity and talent.Hungary’s politics is a harsh world, politics in general is. The fights in the political arena take up very few women. I’m happy about any who do enter politics. For example, the head of the statistical bureau, the judicial authority or the equality body. These things are done by women. But, most of them stay outside the boxing ring and rather let the men do the fight.”

Given the ever growing list of criticisms towards his Fidesz Government’s record on human rights, hearing his attitude towards gender equality and women’s rights is hardly surprising.

It is even less surprising when I recall Orban’s defence of Hungary’s new regressive constitution, brought in by his government at the start of the year, during his visit to the European Parliament last week.

The behaviour of Orban and his Fidesz government has led to the unusual step of the European Commission launching infringement proceedings against them.  The situation in Hungary is alarming to put it mildly.  This is the first time that there has been a genuine concern that a member state is going the way of authoritarian rule.  These comments in Bild show just how reactionary Orban is and they are very troubling coming from the mouth of a European leader. 

At a time when the Hungarian economy is in melt down and their currency is tanking at an alarming rate the government will be looking to the EU for help and support.  That support will be difficult to give if the Fidesz government continues with these constitutional reforms.  I will be watching with interest to hear what decisions have been reached following Orban’s visit to Brussels today.

For those of you who can read German, the enlightening interview can be read in full here.

Hungarian Premier Orban Polarises the European Parliament

Labour Party

The European Parliament has just wrapped up a debate on the political situation in Hungary following the European Commission’s commencement of infringement proceedings a few days ago against Hungary’s right-wing Fidesz government. 

The Commission is taking action against three specific violations by Viktor Orban’s administration:

  • Risking the independence of the Hungarian Central Bank
  • Lowering the age at which judges and prosecutors retire
  • Undermining the independence of the data protection ombudsman in Hungary

This action by the European Commission could ultimately lead to loss of Hungary’s voting rights in the EU under Article 7 of EU treaty law. According to the Daily Telegraph, Lars Christensen from Danske Bank has said: “The EU is not bluffing. It will let Hungary go over the edge to make the point the EU countries must play by the rules.”

This is not, however, quite how Mr Orban sees it. Having been invited to speak in the European Parliament debate today – an unusual step which I think demonstrates a high level of fairness on the part of the Parliament – Orban was typically gung ho. An ardent anti-communist, he made sure we all knew that Hungary was the last iron-curtain country to get rid of its Stalinist constitution. The point being that it was Orban who did the deed.

Orban further maintained that the repressive measures brought in by his government were needed to sort out the economic mess he inherited, while claiming the country had also been on the verge of social collapse.

Following Orban, the European Parliament split on Party lines. The Socialist and Democrat, Liberal and Green Groups were passionately against Orban, seeing his government as anti-democratic, restricting fundamental freedoms. It was even suggested that the Parliament send a delegation to Hungary to find out why the homeless, the poor and vulnerable, and those in need of social care, not to mention intellectuals and free thinkers, were so afraid of Orban and his government.

The other side of the House, the European People’s Party (EPP), the European Conservatives and Reformists (the Tories’ group) and the ultra-right Europe for Freedom and Democracy took a diametrically opposite view. The EPP Leader Joseph Daul could hardly have more pro-Orban.

Such a very real political division is rare in the European Parliament. The Parties generally seek consensus, while EU matters quite often raise little controversy. A strong political debate therefore came as a breath of fresh air, one which should happen more often. A Parliament is a political institution and must have the oxygen of political disagreement and debate to be credible and effective.

Hungarian Premier Orban seeks to out-Putin Putin

Labour Party

The European Parliament Socialist and Democrat Group earlier today expressed extreme concern at the antics of the right-wing Fidesz governing Party in Hungary led by the populist and dictatorial Viktor Orban.

On 1 January a new prescriptive constitution entered into force in Hungary which will slash the powers of the judiciary, the central bank and the media. Orban has also gerrymandered parliamentary constituencies to keep his party in power and cemented loyalists in key positions for nine years.

You may be forgiven for wondering what this new constitution and governmental set-up offers that differs in practice from the Stalinist era one imposed in 1949 which it aims to replace.  It would appear that Orban is intent on out-Putining Putin, despite his impeccable credentials as a dissident hero in the 1989 revolution. The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union activist, Szabolcs Hegi, is right when he says, “The constitution is an undemocratic law that came from an undemocratic legislative process.” And it gets worse, if that’s possible. Not content with decimating Hungary’s legal system, gagging its media and turning its government into a virtual dictatorship, Orban has also introduced a flat rate personal income tax.

He may have got away with this utterly regressive financial measure but for Hungary’s dire economic situation. As its economy falters, Hungary needs assistance from the International Monetary Fund in the form of its second bailout in four years. However, Christine Lagarde, the strong and determined head of the IMF, is not minded to grant such help while Hungary maintains the flat rate tax on income. She told CNN on Friday, “We’re not complacent. We don’t compromise.”

Meanwhile, last Monday 30,000 Hungarians protested against Orban and his government on the streets of Budapest and the incoming Danish presidency of the EU is facing pressure from its MPs at home to do something about Hungary. The European Commission is meeting in Copenhagen today and will discuss Hungary in some depth, although the Commission is not expected to come to a conclusion for a while yet.

It is, however, clear that the EU will not put up with a member state defying the acquis communautaire, the criteria required for a country to be admitted into the EU in the first place. Whatever its faults, the European Union is a bastion of democracy and the rule of law, and those of us elected to the European Parliament in the Socialist and Democrat Group will make sure the core values of the EU are consistently upheld by all member states.

The Socialist and Democrat Group is ahead of the Pack on Control of the Media

Labour Party

First we had Silvio Berlusconi and now there’s Viktor Orban and the right-wing Fidesz government in Hungary. Control of the media, who owns it, who works for it and who distributes it – media pluralism in the jargon – is a subject which bubbles away under the surface much of the time in Brussels. However, the Hungarian new media legislation has put the issue very much on the current agenda.

This would perhaps not be such a big story if it wasn’t for the fact that the Hungarian government have just assumed the presidency of the Council of Ministers and are in the process of telling us their priorities for the  next six months.  Many of these seem to me to be very constructive and forward thinking, but unfortunately, they are being obscured by the furore surrounding these highly questionable new media laws.

Today though, the Socialists and Democrats had the pleasure of hearing what the European Commission have been doing to help tackle the issue of media pluralism.  In 2007 the Commission came up with a three stage plan for media pluralism.  The first stage was a working paper that looked at what efforts were being made already to promote media pluralism.  Then they commissioned an independent study to establish the parameters for judging whether a media is diverse and diffuse enough.   The final stage is to be a Commission Communication addressing the issue, but since stage two has only just been completed, this is still to come.

In the meeting we first heard from Mr. Adam Watson-Brown, who is the Head of Unit from the Commission’s task force on media pluralism.  He pointed out that ownership of media providers was only one indication of the plurality of a countries media and not always the most conclusive element since you had to take in to account media licensing and public service broadcasters.  Mr. Watson-Brown also pointed out that new technology was adding further difficulty to the discussion of media pluralism as large and established content providers could expand much faster in to new areas and begin to dominate nascent markets.  This isn’t necessarily sinister, we just need a period of adjustment.

The second speaker was Dr. Peggy Valcke from the Catholic University in Leuven, who was the project leader for the Commissions report on media pluralism.  She spoke extensively about the exhaustive methods used to establish a set of criteria for judging the media plurality of a country.  It was very interesting indeed and far too complex to go into here, but if you fancy an interesting and very technical explanation, you can read the report in full here.

So we wait now for the Communication from the Commission.  Media pluralism is one of the most important aspects of modern democracy.  We need a diverse media providing contrasting views to ensure that citizens can access all the information and form their own opinions.  I hope the Commission can provide some constructive solutions for this difficult problem.

Orban makes his debut in the European Parliament

Labour Party

As I blogged on Tuesday, the Hungarian Presidency of the EU is already creating quite a stir.

Hard on the heels of the European Union disquiet on the media laws recently passed in Hungary, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban yesterday presented the Hungarian Presidency priorities for the next six months. 

Standing confidently and defiantly in the Chamber, Mr Orban opened his country’s first presidency of the Council of Ministers by referring to the 1956 uprising and subsequent Communist repression, underlining the “historic justice” in Hungary, the European country which had “given the most blood for freedom” in  Europe since World War II, now presiding the Council of the EU.

Such rhetoric coupled with Mr Orban’s commanding presence easily saw off the rantings of one-time student revolutionary Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who now leads the Green Group.

Interest, of course, centred around the media controversy with Socialist and Democrat Leader Martin Schulz stressing that the media law was not in line with European rule of law: ” In democracy it’s the media that scrutinises power. What you are doing is that the power is scrutinizing the media”. He said he didn’t want the topic to dominate the Hungarian Presidency saying “withdraw your act and come back with better new balanced one”.

 Orban says he is willing to amend the legislation. Since he has a two-thirds majority in the Hungarian Parliament I think we need to wait and see on this.

 And finally….it could only happen in the EU- the country holding the rotating six month presidency becoming embroiled in a serious controversy at the beginning of its term of office. Would that life were more straightforward.