Hungary’s place in the sun in the EU

After having a short overview about the controversial political developments in Hungary 2010-2013, the questions emerge: shall Europe be really ready for confrontations with Hungary? Did the country really put basic European values and fundamental EU principles to the test? And what added-value can a non-aligned Hungarian qualified lawyer, former Hungarian EU-presidency member add to this?

Hungarians recently demonstrated their maturity to the EU membership by completing a “Schumann-price” winning EU presidency called ‘Strong Europe’ in 2011, which resulted – among others – the adoption of the EU Roma Strategy which marked a new stepstone in the EU Roma policy and the conclusion of the EU-Croatia accession negotiations. Nevertheless, in spite of those remarkable improvements, the country’s political decisions has been under permanent scrutiny by the EU since 2010, the adoption of the controversial media law.

(On the cover photo the Castle of Buda, part of the UNESCO World heritage since 1987 © ORFK / H. Szabó Sándor)

European countries like EL, CY, PT, ES, IT, IE, SI, SK, BG, RO are in deep crisis – Hungary(HU) is the next in the row

Several EU eurozone member states – most notably Greece(EL), Cyprus(CY), Portugal(PT), Spain(ES), Italy(IT), Ireland(IE) - witnessed either economic and political turmoils recently. Rumours are growing about the future bailout of Slovenia(SI) and Slovakia(SK). The recent collapse of the Bulgarian(BG) government and the antidemocratic tendencies in Romania(RO) shew that the crisis went farther to the borders of the monetary union. Hungary (HU) was put to the European dunce’s sear after the adoption of the the new Constitution in the middle of its EU presidency in 2011.

The European Parliament and Hungary

This is not the first case that Hungary is on the menu of the European Parliament. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán had to face critics in respect of the Constitution in January 2012. Following that debate, the European Parliament put political pressure on the country when it adopted its resolution B7-0095/2012 by a thin majority (+315/-263) on 16 February 2012.

In the first part of the most recent debate on 17 April 2013, the rotating Irish EU Presidency took its usual stand: without having a clear mandate, it took a neutral position.

Viviane Reding, vice-president of the European Commission responsible for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship (on the photo) listed the past and possible future breaches of EU law by Hungary.

In the second part of the debate, the discussion shew the usual distinction between the different political groups. The European People’s Party (EPP) – the Hungarian rulinging party Fidesz is affiliated with – maintained its political support in spite of the expressend concerns.

What was the main political message of the debate: a yellow light.

This debate was pre-mature in the sense that the expected detailed reports of the involved European bodies (European Commission and the European Parliament from the EU and the Venice Commission from the Council of Europe) were not ready, yet: they are expected to be ready only in June 2013. But the fact that this debate still happened marked the political importance of the case. Taking note of this, my contribution would be to cover two essential elements of the delicate situation: the need for facts and arguments (1) and the dangers of the Article 7 procedure (2).

(1) “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes politics.”

In her recent publicistic, Enikő Győri – the Hungarian state minister for European Affairs, who played a flagship role in the Hungarian EU presidency – argued for the need for a constructive debate where arguments should be based on facts. I can subscribe to her opinion: political decisions are too often based on emotions, instead of facts and detailed arguments.

Also in his recent post, Ferenc Kumin – Deputy State Secretary for International Communication – gave a feedback about the European Parliament debate on 17 April 2013 and most improtantly, he published some arguments in respect of the factual basis of the Constitutional debate. This is a piece worth for reading even for those who do not share all of his findings.

Having said that, to remain fair and firm on principles, I may not hide my serious concerns in respect of some amendments to the Constitution. Let’s take three examples of them:

“Students are forced to remain in Hungary”
If a student went abroad at the end of her/his studies, she or he should re-pay the sum of a 5 year scholarship. Since the state cannot guarantee a payed job in Hungary, and we live in the European Union, this is a clear financial barrier which might hinder the free movement within the EU so it might breach EU law (free movement)

“Political advertising will be banned”
Democracy is expensive. And the price of the system cannot be a right argument if the fairness of the campaign would be questioned since public media is only a small part of the Hungarian media market (free and fair elections)

“Homelessness will be criminalized”
I welcome the codification of the “obligation” of the Hungarian state of providing decent housing to all. But I am afraid, this is not an enforceable right. This is the state’s (right) political programme: it cannot hinder local authorities from prohibitons and these decision cannot be challenged based on this political programme in a judicial procedure. Moreover, prohibition of homeless will just hide the problem and will tackle the symptom, not the real cause: homelessness is a social problem. Homeless people need social help and not punishment. (Human dignity)

(2) About the dangers of the ’atomic bomb’ article 7.

What is article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) is all about? What is the basis of such a procedure: the values referred to TEU Article 2.

TEU Article 2
“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.”

(It is worth to mention here: the reference to minorities - withouth having the word ‘national’ in the article – was the success of the hard work done by the Hungarian delegation in 2003-2004 during the European Convention and the Intergovernmental conference about the new EU Constitution – which turned into the treaty of Lisbon)

Thus, in case of the existence of a serious and persistent breach of these values, article 7 contains the detailed procedure to be applied. Individual Member States, the European Parliament and the European Commission either may launch such a procedure.

TEU Article 7
“1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure.

2. The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2, after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.

3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons.”

We should be very cautious when considering the use of this ’ultimate weapon’ within the hand of the EU.

Firstly, it never happened in the history of the Union and I am not convinced that this would be the best opportunity to use it: it could send the wrong message to the world.

Secondly, for such a harsh and firm reaction, the EU should be 110% sure about what it is doing. And although I consider some parts of the 4th amendment of the Hungarian Constitution controversial, I do not think that this punishment would be the most appropriate answer. In other words: Hungary is still a democracy.

Last, but not least: its serious impacts would reach far beyond even of the desired aims. The suspension of voting rights may insolate even more Hungary and it could turn the entire Hungarian population against the whole European project.

Freezing structural funds and financial support from the EU to a country being in deep social and ecobomic crisis can have catastrophic social and economic implications and could punish those who suffered the more so far: the Hungarian population – especially the poor – who are not directly responsible for the daily decisions of the government.

Who is on the side of European Hungarians?

There will be a short calm before an upcoming storm and clouds are surrounding above the EU-Hungary battlefield. People might ask the author before the start of this legal battle: who is right or wrong? The European Insitutions or the Government of Hungary? My answer would be quite simple: I am a European Hungarian. Who is on my side?

(Ajánlott Magyar nyelvű blogbejegyzés e témában: Pro Patria et Libertate – Magyar Közéleti Blog
14. Magyarország az EU szamárpadján? Jogosan? Vita az európai parlamentben emberi jogi szempontból)

I remain at your disposal.

the compressed URL of this blog-entry ► http://bit.ly/14GkyTc

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK

► EU Hemicycle: facebook updates on EU affairs

► Follow @EU_Hemicycle on Twitter

► Join the ongoing EU Hemicycle discussions on LinkedIn

(source of the photos © European Parliament)

Welcome to the EU blogoshphere!
This time last year, I made a substantive decision, which completely changed my professional career, my mindset and even more: on 14 April 2012 I've created my very first EU blog. What can motivate an EU professional to start blogging? What are the benefits/dangers of joining the EU blogoshpere? Do EU bloggers bring an added value to the European decision making? The short story of the first year my EU blog may partially answer these questions.

How did I land in Brussels in 2011?
After completing the successful (“Schumann-price winning”) Hungarian EU Presidency in 2011, I’ve made a difficult professional decision: I voluntarily resigned my position in the Ministry of Health of Hungary and I came to Brussels to follow my professional EU career here – although I could have been stayed in Budapest, as experienced and well-respected former EU-presidency team member.

How to make noise in Brussels: start a blog!
Put yourself into my position: having throghout understanding how the EU works in practice, having in-depth knowledge mainly in the environment, social security and public health EU policies, speaking English, French, German and Hungarian fluently, what could I have done? Time has come to share my knowledge in a constructive way with the general public: I started to share my own views about EU affairs by setting up my very first EU blog .

The firs three months of the “Blog of Zoltán Massay-Kosubek”

The first article published on 14 April 2012 simply contained my career in EN, FR, DE and HU. Quite a modest start. The following day, I summed up a short presentation about my professional pathway. Not bad. But only the third entry contained the first substantive nutshell analysis about 1. National Minorities and the Long Term Future of the European Integration. In the following days, weeks and months I mainly covered issues I had some knowledge or I considered being important:

- issues relevant for the future of the EU integration (2. Thoughts on the possible future accession of Iceland to the EU),

- public Health EU policy developments (10. How Healthy is Our Way of Thinking about Healthcare Cost Cuts?),

- updates relating to the minority rights (15. European Youth Capital – the Example of Cluj, the Treasure City, Kolozsvár, a Kincses Város, Klausenburg, die Schatzstadt),

- environment developments, with special regards to dangerous chemicals (17. Thought Starter about the Role of the REACH Regulation(EC/1907/2006) as regards Chemicals and Dangerous Substances),

- EU foreig policy subjects, including the Eastern partnership (20. The Tymosenko Case and the European-Ukrainian Relations in the Light of the 2012 European Football Championship), and

- social security policies (22. Social Security Systems and the Financial Crisis).

Finally, I decided to re-activate myself in the active policy-making: after attending the 6 June 2012 Annual conference of the public health NGO European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) (23. Restructuring Health Systems: How to Promote Health in time of Austerity), I decided to join EPHA and use my knowledge to strengthen the voice of the European civil society.

From “Blog of Zoltán-Massay Kosubek” to the “EU-Hemicycle”
The Cyprus presidency gave a new impetus to my blogging activity: on the 1st August it organised a meeting dedicated to EU Bloggers (34. The Cyprus Presidency meets the European Bloggers: 10 key-messages of the Brussels Bubble’s Blogoshpere). After making contacts with other, similar EU-minded bloggers, I’ve decided to join the ‘Blogactiv’ bloggers community, and I moved my blog under this new system.

In a transitional periode, my posts appeared both on my old and my new blog: the first “dual” blog was the 36. Unprecedented International Legal Mistake from an EU Member State: Hungary Delivered the Axe Murderer to Azerbaijan : c’est plus qu’un crime, c’est une faute – old and new version published on 2 September 2012.

After reaching the 50th entry (50. The true Legacy of the EU Nobel Peace Price: the EU Shall never Force Democracy), the blog has been completely became a single blogactiv blog. Later on, all earlier blog entries have been transferred technically to the new system, and by publishing the first analysis in 2 January 2013 (51. The 3 Hidden Messages of the 2014-2020 EU Budget), the blog has been re-named from “Blog of Zoltán Massay-Kosubek” to “EU Hemicycle: updates on EU news ★ personal opinions about EU affairs & the future of the European Integration”. The very last blog entry in the first year of this blog has been created recently on 6 April 2013 (63. Minority Rights, Solidarity and Inequalities: question marks on Croatia’s EU Membership).

The balance of the first year

Once I’ve heard an African proverb saying: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to get further, go together”. The lesson I’ve learned that by blogging, one cannot only express his or her own opinion but also find like-minded other EU professionals with whom new ideas and projects can be developed.

That is why the EU hemicycle is not only a blog which provides the opportunity to make comments under each blog entry using the comment function, but also a Twitter news-source (@EU_Hemicycle), a facebook page with daily updates, it generates the online newspaper ‘The EU Hemicycle Daily’, and last but not least, it brings together an online community with fantastic and open-minded people from different countries within and outside the EU in the EU Hemicylce LinkedIn networking group.

The first year is over, the next has been started. “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to get further, go together”. Do you want to go on this journey with me?

I remain at your disposal.

the compressed URL of this blog-entry ► http://bit.ly/11c3bV8

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK

► EU Hemicycle: facebook updates on EU affairs

► Follow @EU_Hemicycle on Twitter

► Join the ongoing EU Hemicycle discussions on LinkedIn

(cover photo © alamodestuff)

Some critics argue that Croatia is not ready for an EU accession because of its national conflicts, its economic and political weakness. Minority Rights, Solidarity and inequalities are the key issues worth to examine in this regard.

(Source of the Phtoto © the Council of the European Union)

Historical heritage of Croatia as part of the Hungarian Kingdom, the Habsburg Empire and Yugoslavia

Croatia with its 4.000.000 population is the door to the Western Balkan, and since the beginning of its European history, the country was always part of a bigger economic integration. Following a royal family contract, the Hungarian kings inherited the Croat throne so Hungary and Croatia formed a common state from 1091-1918 which shaped their mindset and despite of some conflicts in the past (e.g. in 1848), the two states remained strong allies and responsible for each other. Croatia became later part of the Habsburg empire and the former Yugoslavia, so Croats are “mentally ready” to accept living within a greater economic integration.

It is important to note that the “Schumann-price” winning Hungarian EU presidency secured the Croatian EU accession at the very last day of the Hungarian EU presidency on 30 June 2011 .

1. Minorities: EU membership as a tool to overcome national conflicts and respect of minorities’ Rights

Europe witnessed several wars. As the EU was the cure for the post WWII Europe, it can be the same for a post war ex-Yugoslavia. Former members of Yugoslavia survived several wars in the 90s. Shame on Europe that it let it happen. Now, this is another reason why the sooner these countries become EU members the better.

The EU is far from being perfect. Sometimes, member States may use their voting rights in an abusive manner. (e.g. In respect of the single seat initiative for the European Parliament, France can always veto the debate since it is written in the Treaties that the headquarter of the EP is in Strasbourg and the Treaties cannot be modified unless every Member States agree). Cyprus can also block Turkey’s EU Membership and the same applies to Greece (and Bulgaria) who block Macedonia’s hopes.

But the EU also provides a regulated framework to overcome national conflicts in a peaceful manner. Slovenia is a positive example. The Slovenian Parliament ratified unanimously the Croatian accession Treaty in spite of a border dispute which is a very positive thing, I think.

The EU can also help to acknowledge the rights of people belonging to minorities. The Turkish minority in Bulgaria might be a good example for this in the future. Despite of the economic difficulties, this crisis can reopen the accession negotiations between the Greek and Turkish part of Cyprus, which would pave the way in a longer term for the respect of Turkish minorities in Bulgaria and even for the Turkish accession. Thus, the respect of the collective rights of Serb, Slovene, Italian, Hungarian, Roma and other minorities in Croatia is crucial.

2. Solidarity – Is Croatia economically ready for an EU memberhsip?

Some say that Croatia’s post-war economy is not competitive within the EU. It can be truth. Maybe Croatia will have difficulties when facing the economic competition within the EU, but that is why there are solidarity mechanism within the EU: to reduce existing inequalities. And Croats can benefit from the EU budget in a direct/indirect way which may help them to make reforms, reduce state dept and boost their economy.

There is a distinction between EU membership and the eurozone which is a closer economic integration. I think that only well prepared states should be part of a closer economic integration such as the eurozone but this does not apply on EU membership. However, the larger EU is a bit differet since it is not only an economic but also a political integration with common values. Countries without the eurozone (Romania, Hungary) applied for IMF help in the past without the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). Briefly, as long as Croatia do not use the euro, it cannot be the next Greece.

Croatia will be provided with on opportunity to overcome its weaknesses within the EU with a greater chance than out of the EU. This is a clear advantage: even if it was not ready for an EU Membership, it could develop better than outside of the EU. An EU membership may give an economic impetus for the country with additional direct and indirect workplaces (the EU institutions will employ a considerable number of Croatians and the other Croatian linked lobby groups will offer another group of jobs, I guess).

3. Inequalities: will Croatia be the next Bulgaria and Romania?

Croatia’s accession was a political decision as it was the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 although they might not have fulfilled all the criteria in that time. These countries face similar challenges. Economic and social problems which are typical for candidate countries such as corruption or ruined industry are everywhere in the EU, mainly in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) countries. But this is not a reason to give up. The example of Finland can motivate countries belonging to the semi-periphery that overcoming difficulties is possible. My point is that countries deserve some respect and help. European decision makers realised by granting Croatia a EU membership that being within the EU is a more effective way to reduce inequalities.

Conclusion: EU membership is the answer

Yes, there are serious problems within the EU. The challenges Croatia faces (defending national minorities or reducing state dept) are not Eastern Europe specific. Therefore, both the Western and Easter side of the old continent should work together – hopefully within the framework of the EU – to tackle them successfully.

There are huge inequalities within the EU. The fact that Croatia was out of the European Integration is due to historical circumstances. And tackling these inequalities is in the best interest of the EU’s richer Member States, as well. Therefore: Croatia’s EU accession serves the EU’s interests.

I remain at your disposal.

the compressed URL of this blog-entry ► http://bit.ly/14VHiOt

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK

► EU Hemicycle: facebook updates on EU affairs

► Follow @EU_Hemicycle on Twitter

► Join the ongoing EU Hemicycle discussions on LinkedIn

What is common in Cyprus, Hungary and Syria? They were all on the agenda of the recent 15 March 2013 EU summit, and they represent for the time being the three main waives of the multiple crises Europa faces nowadays. Cyprus and its bailout marks the new level of the economic/social crisis, Hungary provoked harsh critics by modifying its Constitution in a very controversial way, but we should not forget Syria which perfectly shows not only the complete failure of the lack of a common EU foreign policy, but also describes the weaknesses of the EU in the global politics.

Humanitarian, political and military catastrophe called ‘Syria’
The Arab Spring turned upside down the status quo in the Middle East. The fall of dictatorships in Egypt, Tunisia and Lybia gave us hope that the new wind of change of the XXIth century will touch upon Syria, as well.

It did not.

The regime of Bashar Al-Assad survived even the fall of Kadhafi. It is a shame to take note that the freedom fight has started already in March 2011 and although Syria is in the backdoor of the EU, the EU could not prevent the death of approximately 20,000 people since then. The Syrian state collapsed and open war is a daily reality. We must declare: neither the EU Foriegn Policy nor the EU Defence and Security Policy was able to resolve this problem. The EU shew a blind eye to the s.o.s. messages of Syrian refugees (such as those in front of EU aid Warehouse in Zaatari refugee camp in Mafraq, Jordan on the photo) Source of the Photo: © European Union – 2013 European Parliament audiovisual unit

The two pillars of the EU’s external actions: Common Foreign Policy and Common Security & Defense Policy

The Syrian situation is a good indicator of the weaknesses of the EU, as a global power. The failure is twofold, it concerns both pillars of the EU’s external actions.

1. EU foreign policy – does not exist at all
The EU has not entered into the phase of a political Union, yet. Nevertheless, only a full political Union (such as the United States) has a unique foreign policy. The current ‘common’ foreign policy is nothing else that a beauty-spot on the harmonisation of sovereign foreign policies of regional European powers such as the United Kingdom, France or Germany. My earlier question is still valid: Does Europe Really Need to Speak Always in One Voice and therefore to Have a Truly Common Foreign Policy?

2. EU military staff – limited capacities and lack of coordination

As the European Parliament TV recently reported, the EU has only limited military capacities but still huge ambitions. The EU Military Staff is more-or-less operational since 2003 but it is acting only when the NATO (with 21 EU Member States) is not willing to act. The EU has been involved in 30 military operations (including Afganisthan, Bosnia Hercegovina, Kosovo, Somalia and Iraq) in 19 countries and on 3 continents. However, although there are some capacities, the military forces of the EU regional powers have been used mainly without real and effective coordination (see the UK unilateral military action in Iraq in 2003, the German troops fighting in Afganisthan and against Somalian pirates or the most recent French invasion in Mali). This latter case proved that the EU is only a ‘soft world power’. France cooked and the EU washed the dishes: after France won the war, an EU team had been building capacity of the Malian army.

Although there are other considerable atteimpts to make the EU’s military actions more effective (ex. the idea of Visegrág countries to form joint military force) there is no real solution at EU level, yet.

The test-case of Syria after the 15 March 2013 EU Summit

On the previous meeting of the EU foreign ministers Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN’s envoy to Syria expressed its concerns that the situation in Syria may became “similar or worse in Somalia”. On the EU Summit, each European powers behaviored in their usual ways: France and UK (as ‘hawks’) pushed for the lift up of the Embargo. French President Francois Hollande went even further and he gave a deadline for shifting arms embargo by mid May 2013. Laurent Fabius French foreign minister argumented that EU should end its arms embargo very soon because imbalance in weaponry between the Syrian regime and rebels was leading “to the slaughter of the population”. However, Germany followed a more prudent way (as a ‘pigeon’) and it is against any kind of intervention as it did during the Lybia war.

Other factors preventing the EU from any actions: Iran, Turkey and Russia

Although the fall of the Assad regime is only a question of time, and every single day may costs valuable lives, there are other factors which prevent the EU from an affective action.

As during his recent visit in Europe, nuclear programme Israeli President Shimon Peres highlighted the risks resulting from the behaviour of Iran which he considered as the greatest danger to the international peace. Iran is in the middle of serious international conflicts and it is supporting the current Syrian regime.

Russia is another powerful ally of Bashar Al-Assad since it successfully blocked any kind of action in the UN Security Council so far. Moreover, Russia is closely involved in the ongoing negotiations about a Cyprus bail-out programme which makes the situation even more complicated.

Finally, the EU has to count with Turkey which is a neighbouring country to Syria. Turkey is involved in many ways in that conflict but particularly because of the Kurdish minorities Turkey has 2 millions. Turkey is also involved in the extension policy of the EU and as I recently underlined, it can play a key-role in the future of Europe (Amoeba integration).

Conclusion – in the middle of the crisis: the EU is not able to act and it sends the wrong message

And what is the main message the EU was able to provide the Syrian refugees with? They decided to make a proclamation that Catherine Ashton, the EU’s High Representatives leaves her office at the end of the expiry of her mandate. In a time when the Syrian crisis needs urgent and effective responses, Syrian people would need strong messages and support not such kind of defensive communication.

Thus, In the light of the above mentioned circumstances, I am really afraid that due to the existing weaknesses of the EU and the complexity of the situation, the civil war will still prevail for a while…

the compressed URL of this blog-entry ► http://bit.ly/13pGfq5

I remain at your disposal.

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK

► EU Hemicycle: facebook updates on EU affairs

► Follow @EU_Hemicycle on Twitter

► Join the ongoing EU Hemicycle discussions on LinkedIn

Hungary is one of the most mysterious country in Europe. Our Asian origin is as strange for most of the Europeans as our almost inexplicable Finno-Ugric language. Is Hungary on the right track? Why is the country in the centre of international and European critics? Which is more important: Europe or Hungary?
The right answer – at least for the last question – is a ‘both’. Being a Hungarian citizen living in EU capital Brussels, I am proud both of my Hungarian origins and my European values. And this duality goes along with all of the governments actions from 2010 until recently.

(on the photo: the magnificient Hungarian Parliament in Budapest © Zoltán Massay-Kosubek)

Hungarian historical traumas and glories

They who would like to better understand the Hungarian point of view, should start absolutely with our history: a long road has been led from the Hungarian invasion ( „A sagittis Hungarorum libera nos, Domine!”) until the foundation of a Christian state in the middle of Europe. Hungary suffered from Mongol and Turkish invadors, finished 2 world wars on the losing side, lost 2/3 of its territory and was occupied by the communist Red army. However, the country did not give up: in 1956, it witnessed its love of Freedom during the Hungarian Revolution and its border opening in 1989 paved the way to the fall of the iron curtain and the re-unification of Germany.

2010 – Landslide electoral victory and new Media law

The very first reason of all international and European critics is the simple existance of a ‘supermajority’ of the ruling EPP-affiliated Fidesz party in the Hungarian Parliament (see my picture taken from the middle of the Danube above). Fidesz was provided with a 2/3 majority in April 2010 after a lanslide electoral victory, which is enough to either modify any times the constitution or write a new one. We remember well, that in 2010, after the rule of 8 years previous socialist governments, the crisis hit country was close to financial collapse and Hungary urgently needed in depth reforms. Nobody could have had doubts in that time that the Prime Minister Viktor Orbán would choose the latter option.

Nonetheless, before doing so, the first Hungarian law which caused international tensions was the Media law, which allowed the ruling Fidesz party to nominate its own candidates at the top of the Hungarian media authority. Do you still remember the harsh speech of MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit in the European Parliament? As a result, with the votes of the left-majority, the European Parliament condamned Hungary with its resolution of 26 February 2012.

2011 – ‘Schumann-price’ winning Hungarian EU Presidency and new Constitution

At the first half of 2011, as member of the Hungarian EU Presidency team, I witnessed how could a small but well-prepared team proof for Europe the high professional qualities. Hungarians are not only famous for their Nobel-price winner scientists but also for their high performance. While I was in Geneva and tried to co-ordinate the EU Member States actions within the WHO in April and May 2011, our presidency made adopted the European Roma Strategy and finished the Croatian accession negotiations at the very last day (30 June). As a recognition of our achievments, some European diplomats proposed a ‘Schumann-price’ for the country.

On the other hand, the Hungarian Parliament elaborated and adopted a new controversial Constitution. I can honestly tell you that although there were fundamental changes in specific areas (ex. preambule or the inclusion of the European Charter of Human Rights into the text) the constitutional framework basically remained the same. However, according to the new changes, (early retirement of judges, extra-long mandate for some appointed leaders, restriction of the role of the Constitutional rules) the protection of the Human Rights was questioned again by international players. This time, the government took seriously the international critics, and PM Orbán personally went to Strassbourg to defend the new Constitution against the critics.

2012 – IMF bailout talks and further restriction of Human Rights

As the country’s economic situation worsened due to the euro crisis, the government wanted to start negotiations with the IMF. However, this time was already open ‘economic freedom war’ between Hungary and Europe: the European Commission had been blocked the start of the Hungarian-IMF negotiations due to its concerns of breaching European law for a long while. The Prime Minister came again to Brussels and this time, I could personally follow his presentaton in Brussels about the reasons behind the Hungarian ‘unorthodox’ economic policy.

Meanwhile, an international legal mistake (delivering an axe-murderer to Azerbaijan) and further restriction of Human Rights (criminalisation of homeless people) marked 2012 which again opened the possibility for international critics.

2013 – Further Constitutional changes and restrictions

Due to the above mentioned developments, the international perception of the country remained very negative (Wrong way on the Danube). And this year, more specifically this week, the Hungarian Parliament passed the Rubicon by voting further restrictions on Human Rights into the Constitution: not only the Council of Europe shared its concerns but also the United States: “The United States shares the concerns expressed by the Council of Europe about proposed amendments to the Hungarian constitution.”

One Hungarian NGO explained the adopted changes as follows:

“- criminalizing homelessness
- the possibility of university contract that mandates state-funded students to work in Hungary after graduation;
- the elimination of universities’ financial management autonomy;
- the exclusion of life partners without children and same-sex couples from the definition of family;
- the possibility of limitations on the freedom of speech;
- a limitation on fair elections;
- the further limitation on judicial independence;
- the regulation that damages separation of Church and State, and discrimination among religions;
- the nullification of 22 years of decisions handed down by the Constitutional Court;
- additionally, the idea that the government majority can write whatever it wishes into the Fundament Law because future amendments cannot be reviewed by the Constitutional Court from a substantive viewpoint.” Source: A város Mindenkié – The City is for All!

This can explain what happened this week in the European Parliament: Guy Verhofstadt, former Belgian Prime Minister, and leader of the Liberals in the European Parliament openly called upon for the suspension of the country’s voting rights in the Council by using the procedure described in the famous TEU article 7 in his recent speech in Strasbourg:

Revocation of the right to vote in the Council

2. The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2, after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.

3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons. (Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union)

Quo Vadis, Hungary?

We are in the middle of a process so it is far too early to make final conclusions. However, by highlighting some important elements of the past, we would be in a better position to make our positive/negative judgments. But one thing is sure: European and Hungarian identities go hand in hand. And I am sure that due to some sound worries, everybody will understand that in some cases the Constitutional changes went too far this time and in due time, there will be a correction. I am sure

Ajánlott magyar nyelvű blogbejegyzés ► Tiszta vizet a pohárba: magyar, európai és jogász szemmel az alkotmányódosításról a nemzetközi kritikák fényében

I remain at your disposal.

the compressed URL of this blog entry ► http://bit.ly/WdES9I

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK

► EU Hemicycle: facebook updates on EU affairs

► Follow @EU_Hemicycle on Twitter

► Join the ongoing EU Hemicycle discussions on LinkedIn

The kick off momentum of the process which resulted this ad-hoc alliance has very likely started at the end of January with the controversial vote of the AGRI Committee of the European Parliament which unfortunately watered down all the promising elements of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform put forward by the Commission. The Council probably came to the same conclusion or took even a worst position under the pressure of the short-term interests. However, we cannot be sure since the Member States are very reluctant to open the doors and show the discussions to the public, as the Parliament does.

(source of the photo © thegreenpages )

And then, the citizens and farmers stood up and went M.A.D.!

In the light of the vote, we could not speak even about a ‘reform’ anymore, so not surprisingly, the general public was not happy at all with the outcomes. Thus, people get angry, cried out that ‘The CAP is being reformed right now!‘ and they launched the campaign ‘go and Meet A Deputy’ (Go M.A.D.) Not surprisingly, the Green MEPs – among others José Bové or Daniel Cohn-Bendit – were at the top of that movement . This was the first sign that not only the majority of the population but farmers themselves are not happy with the backwards of the ‘reform’.

How could be simply demonstrated that the AGRI vote went against the greening?

Although the EU legislation provides a unique and legally binding framework (acquis communautaire) and member states are obliged to implement EU pieces of legislations such as the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC or the Directive 2009/128/EC about the sustainable use of pesticides, the AGRI committe simply deleted them as requirement for farmers to get financial support under the CAP. (see amendments 142 and 143 to the regulation on financing, management and monitoring of the CAP) Why? I have no idea since this sends the completely wrong message saying that farmers could get benefits without complying with the EU law. From a legal point of view, I still do not understand it so please do not hesitate to contact me and explain the logic behind this.

Following this, the European Policy Centre (EPC) organised an overall discussion about the CAP reform with the participation of the civil society and farmer representatives. During that debate, both the WWF (on behalf of the civil society) and the COPA-COGECA (on behalf of the farmers) representatives expressed their concerns concerning the bad outcome of the AGRI vote.

Can a piece of legislation lead to a healthy agriculture when it subsidise chronic diseases such as cancer in form of tobacco production?

Another aspect of the mentioned AGRI vote saw the daylight when the British journal ‘The Telegraph’ reported about that ‘MEPs plan tobacco subsidies as Brussels fights smoking’ . In a very hidden and clever way, MEPs voted in favour of a seemingly technical amendment (Amendment 72 for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy) which would make possible re-introduce the tobacco subsidies which were phased out in 2010. Meanwhile, the new health Commissioner Tonio Borg fulfilled his promise and launched the revision of the current Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC).

Then, the second partial common understanding has been reached at the end of February, when the Representation of the free state of Bavaria organised a second round of discussion where the COPA-COGECA Secretary General, Pekka Pesonen highlighted at least 3 times that farmers were never against the greening of the CAP. They always accepted it – and it was a pleasure to hear that statement

The civil society unified

I have not seen too often a cause which could assembly so swift so many organisations. But due to the AGRI vote, this time it happened: more than 250 NGOs representing very various patterns and interested unified and expressed their wish for a greener and fairer CAP in their recently published open letter

On the road to the plenary vote

Every day we can see that the pressure coming from the ordinary citizens – who provided MEPs with the legitimacy through direct and general elections in 2009 – is becoming stronger and the wish for a sustainable and green CAP is rising. As you may know, there is an ongoing on-line public discussion (and vote) about the CAP reform with the participations of the civil society and farmers and the partial result at the time of the writing of this sentence clearly shows that the desire for a green CAP is evident (94,3%). I am convinced that this is because the farmers themselves have completely understood that a green CAP is in their best interest and they also voted for this.

The best examples for this approach are the organic farmers who are already ready to build a sustainable agriculture even without the financial support of CAP. We can be pretty sure that their market will grow when European citizens realises the benefits of eating healthy food.

And the final demonstration of the solidarity between farmers will be clearly visible on the week of the CAP vote, on the ‘Decision day’ when participants will openly cook a ‘Good CAP Soup’ wishing Farms instead of factories

We can see that ironically, the wrong direction taken by the AGRI committee facilitated a never seen alliance between farmers and the civil society. The civil and the majority of the private sector (farmers) have understood the importance of building a greener, more sustainable CAP. Now, the time has come for the decision makers to receive the message coming from the society. It is never too late to do the right thing. Legally, only the plenary vote can be considered as the official EP position. Is the EP ready to vote in favour of a greener and more sustainable CAP?

I remain at your disposal.

the compressed URL of this blog entry ► http://bit.ly/XXFexs

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK

► EU Hemicycle: facebook updates on EU affairs

► Follow @EU_Hemicycle on Twitter

► Join the ongoing EU Hemicycle discussions on LinkedIn

Last week, the European Commission has published a long waited package of targeted tools called Social Investment Package (SIP) . According to the rhetoric: “Social investment means enhancing people’s capacities and supporting their participation in society and the labour market. “ But will it turn into real action? Is this the appropriate tool to fight poverty?

(source of the photo © The Guide “Living in dignity in the XXIst Century: Poverty and Inequalities, paradoxes in Societies of Rights and Democracy?” )

To truly understand the magnitude of the problem, why did we need such huge political commitment from the Social Commissioner, we have to understand that poverty is violation of human rights. As Jean Jacques Rousseau once said “L’homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.” Poverty hinder individuals to live in dignity, to develop their own capacities, to live a happy life and – in the middle of the financial crisis – to pay taxes.

Poverty means legal, economic and democratic exclusion from society.

Legal poverty – Although both the international law (UN Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention of Human Rights, European Social Charter) and the European law (Charter of Fundamental Rights) recognise the right to have a full life without poverty, in spite of all the available case law, this approach still remains fragmented. The right to a minimum wealth as an indeniable condition of human dignity is not recognised as a human right, as such. The national Consitutions consider the eradication of poverty as a political programme and not as binding human right. Thus, we are afraid that there is no clear, enforceable legal obligation which would oblige decision makers.

Economic poverty – Furthermore, poverty is an economic category in the sense that it is a result of unemployment, lack of revenues. As a basic economic basis, no output is possible without inputs. If one cannot earn how could we expect him to come out of poverty by buying elementary needs as food or clothes? Unemployment people sinking in poverty cannot contribute to the society level production, they cannot pay taxes. Unfortunately, they are not considered as inclusive members of our society. They are in fact dependent on social measures which suffers mainly the cuts implied by austerity measures. As long as there is no agreement among member states that a minimum revenue which would allow people to survive is a must, poor people will rely on the society’s help.

Democratic poverty – Our political decisions are based on democratic participation, on votes. Governments and politicians hardly care about anything else but the votes half a year before the elections. In these periods and on the day of the vote the dependence turns round for a momentum: politicians will depend on ordinary people for one day. And they are aware of it: they do their best to collect as many votes as possible. And once again: those who do not vote can hardly expect anything from them. And people living in poverty is very unlikely to be interested in politics if they survival is put into question. Can Europe afford the marginalisation of such a huge part of the society: the poor? How can they expect anything from politicians if poverty hinder them to make their voice to be heard?

Who makes the real political decisions in the social sector?
I can give the example of my policy field: Health Ministers are often criticised that they are not the real decision makers concerning the major directions of national health policies in the sense that the budget and the economic framework mainly determine the financial possibilities of any kind of health policy and those are set by either the financial minister or by the prime minister herself/himself. Thus, they who want changes in the health sector shall convince the later mentioned decision makers. Does the same apply to the social ministers? Are they master of their own budget?

Now, it is up to the social sector to convince the national decision makers about the urgent need of investing in people. The European Commission put on the table at least a promise that it was able to offer financial support from the European Social Fund to Member States if they would be ready to re-consider their earlier crisis-management strategy.

The challenge is enormous: some member states shall accept that they rigidly focused on the economic sector, they concentrated on the macronumbers by austerity measures and in the meantime they forgotten the most vulnerable: the poor, the true victims of the crisis.

What should be done?
There is a need for a refreshed mindset: we have to re-discover the human face of the crisis:

- We have to invest money in people and not into faceless financial institutions;
- we must pull out families from poverty instead of recapitalizing the bank sector;
- we shall reduce the debt of poor households instead of reducing the huge amount of state debt by 0,000000001%.

Then, only then will turn the promising rhetoric into action.

I remain at your disposal.

the compressed URL of this blog entry ► http://bit.ly/102tNsk

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK

► EU Hemicycle: facebook updates on EU affairs

► Follow @EU_Hemicycle on Twitter

► Join the ongoing EU Hemicycle discussions on LinkedIn

(Author of the photo © Chris Freeland)

We have enough problems within Europe, haven’t we? The financial markets and the euro is in trouble and the deep dept crisis together with political division between key EU countries threatens the EU in a time when euroscepticism started to triumph again. Why do need we then another ‘new’ problem? Why should we take Non communicable diseases (NCDs) seriously?

Because NCDs are the silent killers: they are not visible, they are not in the news on TV but I do not exaggerate when I say that NCDs put a higher burden on Europe than the aforementioned ‘problems’ alltogether.

What are NCDs? Non-communicable disease, or NCD, is a medical condition or disease which by definition is non-infectious and non-transmissible among people. NCDs may be chronic diseases of long duration and slow progression, or they may result in more rapid death such as some types of sudden stroke. They include autoimmune diseases, heart disease, stroke, many cancers, asthma, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, cataracts, and more.

NCDs are the leading global cause of death worldwide, accounting for 60% of global deaths. Of these, 80% occur in developing countries. [WHO (2010) Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. Geneva: WHO]

Why are NCDs unjustified and simply not fair?
Because a large proportion of NCDs are preventable through tackling the risk factors leading to NCDs. Which are they? We can identify 5 key risk factors, as follows:
- tobacco,
- alcohol,
- ultra-processed high fat,
- salt
- sugar food.

The tobacco is the only one where a strong and legally binding international treaty exists to help the legislators, and this is the the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)

It is important to point out that this instrument is legally binding and widely accepted by 176 signing parties. The FCTC provides a multi-sectoral and comprehensive global strategy based on evidences; there is a strong focus on preventive measures and on population wide impacts. It is useless to say that either the EU or all Member States are signing parties to that treaty.

How can we fight against NCDs in an effective way?
By tackling the above mentioned risk factors.

Take the example of food to present some counter arguments and to explain why is it difficult to tackle food products as risk factors of NCDs.

We often hear the arguments that food is essential, food is not problem, and only the diet is a problem since in a certain quantity everything is harmful to the health. Well, the truth is that these arguments are valid for real food but not for food/drink products. Unfortunately, the formulation of these product makes very unlikely the low quantity of their consumption. Nowadays, the human body is simply not able to deal with so much calories these products contain.

In addition to that, we should always bear in mind that food/drink products are highly profitable products and cheap instead of healthy vegetables and fruits which are not profitable and expensive. As long as we can not reverse this tendency, the burden of NCDs remains on the European society.

How can we decide upon which are the effective measures against NCDs and which are the not effective ones?

Countries would have never reduced smoking prevalence through voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry and self regulation.

The answer is quite simple: we have to examine the arguments put forward by the industry representatives: they prefer put accent on individual behaviour, the importance of physical activity, the value of voluntary agreements, the efficiency of self regulation and public-private programs.

What can we say from a public health perspective? We agree, they are useful tools but they are simple not enough.

However, if legislators raise the usefulness of tax policies, regulating advertising and promotion restriction, control on labelling policies (traffic light and others) they immediately face strong opposition – which is a good sign.

We therefore identified with these the truly effective measures to fight NCDs.

NCDs make poor and rich countries equal in Europe in a way that they are estimated to cost the world economy $47 trillion over the next 20 years, representing 75% of global GDP and surpassing the cost of the global financial crisis.

Conclusion

I firmly believe that people are good. They could and would make the right, the healthy choice – if they were provided with the opportunity to do so. Thus, changing the environment concerning the aforementioned risk factors of NCDs is the most effective way (ex. taxation, reducing the harmful effect of advertising) to allow people to make the right, the healthy choices.

I remain at your disposal.

the compressed URL of this blog entry ► http://bit.ly/15fEgp0

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK

► EU Hemicycle: facebook updates on EU affairs

► Follow @EU_Hemicycle on Twitter

► Join the ongoing EU Hemicycle discussions on LinkedIn

(on the photo Zoltán Massay-Kosubek in Luxembourg as a lawyer-linguist at the European Court of Justice in 2007 © Zoltán Massay-Kosubek)

Why is the Single Market a disaster for consumer protection?

The EU common market became a threat and a real danger for consumers. With harmonised legislation and without border control the 4 basic freedoms brought not only economic prosperity but also permanent threat to all EU citizens. With the free movement of capital, humans, services and goods, the common market bears extremely dangerous threats.

Organised crime has reached a never seen level which evoked – among others – the creation of the new CRIME Committee in the European Parliament. Years to years, epidemics such as H1N1 and flu sweep over the EU, and according to virus experts the break out of the next epidemic is only a question of time. Speculative transactions are threatening the financial stability of the euro and the financial markets of EU states being in trouble such as Greece, Spain or Italy. And finally, due to the lack of border control mislabelled dangerous products such as ‘beef’ containing 100% horsemeat circulate freely within the EU.

Thus, we can say that the EU has been creating an enormous risk factor to its citizens every day by deepening further and further the economic integration.

What is the solution for the weaknesses of the single market? Shall we abandon the integration and go back to national market protection measures?

The right answer is obviously negative. Although there is a contradiction within the EU integration since it created both economic prosperity and weakened security, we do not have to and should not abandon the EU integration since it is vital for the survive of Europe in the globalised XXI century.

The single market is created by EU law and the EU as such is based on international law: legally binding Treaties have created the whole EU framework and those treaties are limiting the Member States possibilities.

Let’s fight fire with fire: we have to analyse the legal conditions and how to protect our consumers by EU law.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is mainly responsible for all positive and negative impacts of the Single Market. However, the TFEU – as the vast majority of EU law – is full with contradictions. On the one hand, it creates a common economic market free of any kind of restrictions and protective measures (see article 34/35 TFEU) and provides appropriate legal protection justified on grounds of public morality, public policy, public security or public health (see article 36 TFEU).

Article 34/35

Quantitative restrictions on imports/exports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States.

Article 36

The provisions of Articles 34 and 35 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property.
Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.

We can see that there might be a potential conflict between article 34/35 TFEU and article 36 TFEU. Which text is stronger? I am afraid that there is no clear legal answer to this. As in all legal disputes, there is only one EU Institution which can decide on final resort on it and which can shape and influence the future direction of the European integration by its case law and this Institution is the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Why is the ECJ better situated than others?

With its legal power, the ECJ has a very strong influence on the future of the Integration. The ECJ is an EU institution full with highly qualified and experienced legal masterminds; it has a certain level of serenity and maturity and its decisions are based on pure and distilled EU law which makes the ECJ able to follow long term goals in spite of other political EU institutions which are doomed to concentrate on short term political survival.

How can EU judges decide upon the European integration?

The judges are – fortunately – independent of the daily compromises of Brussels. They are invoked only if somebody brings a case towards the Court. Nevertheless, we can see it every day that all important cases soon or later end up in Luxembourg. Political and industrial stakeholders are not afraid to defend their interest with legal arguments. Consequently, the ECJ often has to decide upon political debates masked behind legal clothes in the court-room.

What does the ECJ prefer: economic interests or consumer protection?

It is difficult to say. Although the ECJ follows a tendency to protect the EU consumers against purely economic interests (see most recently the Case C‑544/10 Deutsches Weintor or C-456/10 ANETT), its decisions vary largely in different individual cases and there is no settled case law according to which article 36 TFEU would have always a predominance to article 34 TFEU.

In that regard, the Court has already recognised on several occasions that measures restricting the advertising of alcoholic beverages in order to combat alcohol abuse reflect public health concerns and that the protection of public health constitutes, as follows also from Article 9 TFEU, an objective of general interest justifying, where appropriate, a restriction of a fundamental freedom (see, to that effect, Case 152/78 Commission v France [1980] ECR 2299, paragraph 17; Joined Cases C‑1/90 and C‑176/90 Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivía [1991] ECR I‑4151, paragraph 15; Case C‑262/02 Commission v France [2004] ECR I‑6569, paragraph 30; and Case C‑429/02 Bacardi France [2004] ECR I‑6613, paragraph 37).

Conlusion

The ECJ is bound by treaties. It cannot resolve the contradictions of the primary law of the EU by pure interpretation. Thus, the primary law, the EU Treaties must be changed in facour of consumer protection so that similar ‘horsemeat cases’ could never happen again. So, the responsibility lies with the respected Member States and other EU Institutions: the ECJ will not do their job.

I remain at your disposal.

the compressed URL of this blog entry ► http://bit.ly/1277QXX

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK

► EU Hemicycle: facebook updates on EU affairs

► Follow @EU_Hemicycle on Twitter

► Join the ongoing EU Hemicycle discussions on LinkedIn

(Source of the photo © European Parliament)

The European Council composed of the 27 respected head of state and government has been finally adopted the new multiannual EU budget for 2014-2020. This agreement has been often called in the media as “the final deal”. However, may I kindly point out that the budget negotiation has not been reached their end at all. I am afraid that they will start just now by the negotiations between the Council and the other co-legislator: the European Parliament.

What implications does the Lisbon Treaty have in relation to the EU budget?

To answer this question we have to go back shortly to the years 2007-2009, when the European Constitution has failed. After its rejection by several referendums (NL, FR) its slightly modified version has been pushed through in all EU Member States, in spite of some attempts to block it (referendum of IE, veto of Václav Klaus, CZ president). European Foreign Ministers have been often criticised that they made all their efforts to adopt this new Treaty without carefully reading it through.

Firstly, the Lisbon Treaty was meant to resolve the several institutional crises of the EU by clarifying the clear areas of EU competences. However, instead of simplifying the procedures, the Lisbon Treaty made the EU decision making procedures even more complicated. For example, it set up a new President for the European Council, but it did not lay down the clear share of power between the new president and the rotating EU presidency. What is the result? In practice, the European Council has no real president but only a well respected chair.

Secondly, the Lisbon Treaty wanted to create a truly unified European Foreign Policy by creating a new ‘EU foreign minister. Nevertheless, EU member states, especially the three big ones (DE, FR, UK) did not want at all to delegate their national foreign policy to the EU. What happened, then? They established the “EU High Representatives for Foreign Affairs” without real administrative, financial and military power who should act as if she represented the common EU foreign policy which does not exist at all.

Thirdly, the Lisbon treaty meant to bring more legal clarity by simplifying the primary law of the Union. Nonetheless, the legal clarity has been lost too when the Member States have adopted twoe treaties (TEU, TFEU) having the same legal value. What if one treaty would contradic to the other? Well, since they are legally equal, there is no clear legal answer to resolve these conflicts which may open the door for permanent internal legal disputes. Obvioussly, each institution refers in the daily practice to the treaty which is formulated in its favour. Never-ending legal discussions have started about who should represent the EU: the Commission, the new EEAS, or the rotating EU presidencies. In some cases, the EU could be considered as ridiculous: it happened that having no agreement, the person reading the statement on behalf of the EU/its member states simply said to the international community: ‘We’.

Finally, the Lisbon Treaty aimed at bringing the EU closer to its citizens by – among others – reinforcing the role of the European Parliament. While we consider this as a step to the right direction, the European Parliament – the only European institution directly elected by the European citizens – has not been fully recognised as an equal power to the Council, yet.

However, an important new implication of the Lisbon Treaty was that the European Parliament was provided with important powers not only in the usual legislation but also in the adoption of the EU budget. In other words, without the agreement of the European Parliament, there will be no agreed EU budget possible in the future.

However, either the Member States or the respected journalists have not discovered this important change, yet. What did we see on the recent February European Council meeting in Brussels (apart from the annoying fact that the Schuman district was blocked, as usual)? All news and media attention focused on the European Council (which followed the usual practice and negotiated during the night) and after the ‘final deal’ everybody was busy to making statements. All interested parties tried to position themselves as the ‘winners’ and for the unfavourable details, they blamed the ‘evil Brussels’, as usual.

All who acted in this way, completely lost the point. The European Parliament – representing European citizens – made clear at the very beginning of the European Council that no new post-crisis Europe can be built upon with less money. The EP did not forget to point out that it will reject the cuts proposed by the Member States. So, it is too early to consider the budget, as adopted.

In the light of the legal facts, without the approval of the EP, no budget can be considered as the final one. Thus, we should bear in mind this, and concerned decision makers may start to think about how can they secure the EP’s approval. For example, by proposing a budget which has a pro-European approach with more money for Europe. For us. For everybody.

I remain at your disposal.

the compressed URL of this blog entry ► http://bit.ly/ZHtUdy

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK

► EU Hemicycle: facebook updates on EU affairs

► Follow @EU_Hemicycle on Twitter

► Join the ongoing EU Hemicycle discussions on LinkedIn