Complaining about double standards is the Swiss army knife of those who do not observe standards. Judit Varga, Minister of Justice of Hungary complains in the title and the last sentence of her article on Politico about double standards in judging the emergency bill recently voted by the Hungarian Parliament. The article itself, however, just wants to explain that the critics did not read (or at least misunderstood) the bill.
As Politico did not react to this although it also sheds bad light on their coverage - they did not accept my reaction, I react to it here.
There are several misrepresentations in the article: first, double standards mean mainly judging equals by different measures. The measure the critics use, is, however not different: it is whether the action is necessary and proportional in a democratic society. If it is not necessary, proportionality is not a question any more. The government already took the main measures before the bill was voted and the Act CLIV of 1997 on Health and the Government Decree 521/2013. (XII. 30.) about Health Emergency Situations enable taking all necessary measures without emergency state. The bill is also not about prolonging the effect of the emergency decrees of the government but gives the right to take measures in the future. By the way, FIDESz was able several times to pass laws within a couple of days so nothing would prevent them from enacting the measures in law. An example: the Academy of Sciences had 45 minutes (!) to comment on a draft bill taking all research institutes away from them.
Parliamentary (and constitutional) control is the weak point of arguments on the other side, too. FIDESz has two thirds which was only not enough to approve the bill immediately, the two-thirds were sufficient to vote it in urgency. The Constitutional Court consist also only of partisans of the ruling party. Therefore too much cannot be expected from them – so why insists the opposition on it? Simply because debates in Parliament and cases before the Constitutional Court get more publicity while government decrees can be kept secret.
The proposed amendment of the Criminal Code has to be read in conjunction with the present rules on sanctioning spreading of scaring rumours. The difference is only that the prison sentence can be two years longer and the formulation of presenting true facts in a false light is wider, giving more marge of manoeuvre to the authorities (two procedures have already started, both against mayors of the opposition for warning that the virus is already in their community).
Another test can be to see what others do. Just one example: in the interview with German TV, Wolfgang Schäuble found the most important to mention that the emergency situation is limited in time and its prolongation has to be approved by Parliament every time.
Finally, avoiding double standards also means judging those who differ with a different measure. Ms Varga would deny it with all her force but there are a lot of examples where the Hungarian government abuses its powers. Although hardly any refugees arrive to the Hungarian boarder (and even less can then pass) the emergency due to refugees is still in force in Hungary. Ms Varga warns from fighting against imaginary enemies when there is a real one. Hungary's government spent the last ten years fighting against imaginary enemies (Soros, the CEU, migrants - they are real but no enemy, etc.) and now, facing a real enemy, wants to use the very same methods. One morning the prime minister announces that there is no need to close schools, the same evening orders to close them. One day the chief physician announces that masks are useless, two days later the prime minister says they are not compulsory only as there is not enough and he himself made one at home - this after the 27th February the Minister for Human Resources (also responsible for health - maybe the name reflects that they run the country as if it were their own enterprise) and then several times the prime minister announced that there is enough material available. And they refused to re-group money from propaganda to health care (propaganda, as opposed to health, has an own ministry).
Articles written by ministers will scare supporters away, but not the virus.

How to deal with "illiberal" corruption?

Two issues keep the debate around the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) going: one is about how to find a mechanism to react to governments which do not comply with the Copenhagen Criteria, i.e. infringe democratic and/or rule of law principles (the infringement of democratic principles is more indirect as the sheer outcome of elections favours the governments of Hungary and Poland - although in Poland the tide may turn - but the circumstances under which these governments win the votes are at least dubious) without resorting to the famous (or rather notorious) Article 7, which is rightly called the "nuclear option" as it is very strong and virtually impossible to implement. It has to be noted also that this "nuclear option" is not directly so nuclear as it strips a country from its voting rights but leaves all other right untouched - of course after this the other member states can vote other sanctions if they are in line with general law.
The other question is also raised in the context of the projects in Hungary where the government is distributing EU funds with an extreme speed - leading to suboptimal decisions in itself - and favours its cronies in this distribution.
As it seems that - at least in Hungary - these two negative phenomena go hand in hand - and the concentration of power and hollowing out of all checks and balances really ensures that cronyism and corruption cannot be brought to court or hindered any other way, including wide publicity, the two questions are mixed together.
Proposals are tabled which would make EU funds conditional on rule of law criteria. In terms of proper use and avoidance of fraud, joining the European Prosecutor's Office is favoured. On the other hand, soon a new Financial Regulation will be voted which will simplify the disbursement of EU funds.
EU structural funds are an important source of economic development, a positive factor in the image of the EU and also help cohesion between the countries (also by enabling that their economic development approaches them to each-other - they are also called cohesion funds). I totally agree with Markko Markkula, president of the (European) Committee of the Regions, who emphasised the importance of these funds in an interview already serving as a preparation to the fight around the new MFF, arguing that the cohesion funds should not be cut. A recent article (and one of a leading Hungarian commentator who can also not be suspected of being on the side of the present Hungarian government, arguing that austerity will not break the government of Orbán) warns that the cut of funds can be counterproductive.
So what?
My proposition is that the decisions (including acceptance of projects and procurement) should be more centralised and also more controls should be applied, covering the cost of these from the funds made available to the country in question. These controls should also depend on whether the coutry joins the European Prosecutors' Office.
This would of course require additional resources which is always difficult to achieve but even more difficult now when EU sources are decreasing due to the Brexit. Therefore the structural funds should be used for this purpose. This would not be such a sensitive cut as what is proposed in the framework of the new "conditionality" proposals. Also, joining the European Prosecutor's Office should be the precondition of applying the simplifications in the new Financial Regulation.

New Eurobarometer survey reveals euroskeptic government propaganda may not influence the attitude of Hungarians to the EU

„Two years before the next European elections” a newEurobarometer survey marks interesting trends and also interesting data about Hungary.

In the same proportion as the average in Europe, 73% of Hungarians think that the instability in the Muslim world can be handled better on a European than on national level – in spite of the nationalist rhetoric of the Hungarian government trying to convince them that they protect the country. On the other hand, only 65% think the same when it comes to countering the growing activity and influence of Russia – compared to the 71% European average. Concerning the other similar questions, the difference between the Hungarian and the European average is 3% or less.

Aother topic: only 48% of Hungarians consider the EU as a good thin (as opposed to 57% of Europeans but 63% of them is attached to the EU (while in Europe this proportion is 56%). A little larger proportion of Hungarians than the European average think that those who are not yet ready for co-operation in a given domain, should not be waited for, but those who are ready, should start. From the Hungarians, 32% thinks that their word counts in the EU, 44% that it counts in Hungary. The 12% difference between these two values is interesting as on the average in Europe, this differ3enc is bigger (the national influencing power is 20% more). There are only seven countries where the proportion of those who think their word counts in their country, is lower. Nine countries have lower values concerning their influence in Europe.

What happened to CETA?

Now that the CETA free trade deal is signed between the EU and Canada, one can investigate without the dramatic overtones what happened.
First, the European Commission promised - in a reaction to protests, some of which also saw CETA as a trojan horse to the TTIP - that CETA will be submitted to national parliaments for approval. Voices were heard already before that one way of giving legitimacy to the European political process could be to submit European decisions - mainly legislation - to national parliaments. It has to be known that the Lisbon treaty already foresees a right of protestation for national parliaments (see for example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271649945_After_Lisbon_National_Parliaments_in_the_European_Union or

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/the-secretary-general/resource/static/files/Documents%20section/SPforEP/Consultation_with_national_parliaments.pdf)

Draft legislative acts sent to the European Parliament and to the Council shall be forwarded to national Parliaments (each parliament has two votes, if they are bicameral, each chamber holds one vote and it is up to the national Parliaments to consult the regional Parliaments - this is a duty by Belgian law). They may send a reasoned opinion the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission why they consider that the draft in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity Where these opinions represent at least one third (in the area of the area of freedom, security and justice, one quarter) of all national Parliaments the draft must be reviewed. If half of the national parliaments  protests, the Commission has to justify why it does not change the proposal. These opinions will be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council.
(Article 12 and Protocols 1 and 2 to the Treaty on the European Union.)

The EU has an exclusive right to sign trade agreements with third countries. If, however, an agreement is covering topics other than trade, this prerogative can be questioned. An analysis can be found here: A guide to EU procedures for the conclusion of intl. trade agreements.pdf
Thus, the Commission decided that the CETA will be submitted to national Parliaments for approval (it contains among others a mechanism for settling investment disputes. This system was subject to heated debates (although independent investment dispute resolution mechanisms already exist, like the MIGA associated to the World Bank. Left-wing groups, however,  were weary of the perspective that their state could be sued in front of a private court. The mechanism (both in CETA and in the future TTIP) has been improved but this was not enough for the protesters.

And so came that one regional Parliament of Belgium, that of socialist Wallonia, rejected the CETA. One small region (in a country having maybe the most complex political system in Europe, where the Flemish part would greatly profit from free trade while the French-speaking Wallon part's economy is ailing) almost torpedoed the deal of whole Europe - this caused a brouhaha abroad and frustrated the Canadian trade minister Chrystia Freeland (she was even said to be choking back tears - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37735409).

The background is more in Belgium's internal politics: "The reason why the Walloon Region is trying to block or at least delay the CETA is political only. The Belgian federal government is run by the right wing whereas the Walloon Region is dominated by the socialists. The problem for the Walloon socialists is that there are losing ground to the extreme left. Hence, it is critical for them to show that they are fighting the CETA whose benefits would only to large multinational corporations. All this fuss about the CETA has thus to be seen in the context of Belgian politics. Belgium has an extremely open economy and exports much more than it imports. We are net beneficiaries of free trade." says Damien Geradine, Founding Partner of EDGE | Legal Thinking, a Brussels-based boutique law firm specialized in EU competition law and intellectual property law and Professor of Competition Law & Economics at Tilburg University (the Netherlands) and at George Mason University School of Law (Washington, DC).

Anybody who followed the ups and downs while Belgium tried to form a government after recent elections (not just one but the last two anyway), can understand this.

The Commission finally succeeded to convince the Wallons to approve the deal. This is not the first time that  a vote first hindering EU actions is repeated  - it happened to Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty. The Dutch and French no to the Constitutional treaty of the EU was accepted, but the project restarted and resulted in the (somewhat weaker and legally more complex but less strong) Lisbon treaty. It was, however, not just repeating the votes, the situation or the arguments have also changed, as explained in http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/10/19/asking-the-public-twice-why-do-voters-change-their-minds-in-second-referendums-on-eu-treaties/
There are two questions lingering: Will the Brexit vote also be repeated? What will happen to the TTIP? The latter question may be irrelevant, given that the TTIP faces much more resistance and that enthusiasm for it may fade in the U.S., too, if not already faded - and neither of the two presidential candidates is eager on it. No question that with Trump, we may bury it entirely but Clinton also treads carefully on it. 

Why does the EU finance the Orban regime?

I hear this question more and more often. The Hungarian government plans to use all EU funds available for the 2014-2020 programming cycle till 2019 (mainly before the 2018 parliamentary elections and the 2019 municipal elections. This may mean 6 billion euros every year or even more
These amounts help to keep the system running. They amount to about 4% of GDP at the moment, may be as much as 6% according to the ambition plans, thus they are the source of the 2-3% growth (and may increase it to 4-5% per year in the future) with which the goverment boosts.
Apart from the legal problems which hinder the decrease or withdrawal of these funds, the workings and the logic of the EU does not enable to withdraw them.
I do not agree, by the way, that these funds should be withdrawn. These are used for good purposes, beyond some publicity actions like fancy pavements on the main squares of villages, fountains and other, well publicised useless projects. They make it possible to revamp the university clinics in Budapest, a lot of seqage and other utilities reconstruction in the slums and in rural cities, technology and building improvements for schools, transport reconstruction and renewal (all these are concrete projects taking place). And without the EU, the "small circles of liberty" we still have, would not excist or be much more limited. The Orbán (FIDESZ) government retreated on the media law, on forced premature retirement of judges, publicity taxes killing the biggest independent TV-station and much more.
It is still worth understanding, how the EU works. It is not a superstate (it is supranational, true, but neither a state, nor super), it is rather a co-operation framework. The Commission is more a regulatory agency then a government, inparticular not in the sense of the executive branch of most European parliamentary democracies (where the party or coalition giving the executive is also in majority in the Parliament and thus, as the goverment implements the party programme in theory, it is able to gain every vote in the parliament.
I do not think the basics need explanation here: the European Parliament has no governing party or coalition, all decisions require approval from the Council, which consists of the heads of state or government (the head of the executive according to the legal system of each country) of the member states, Commission implementing decisions (very limited and only possible when the directive or regulation voted by the Parliament and the Council foresees it) are reached through consultation with committees of experts of the member states and are subject to validation by the legislative (although ex post).
In my view the EU has three, relatively distinct coordination domains (not identical to the pre-Lisbon three pillars, though not unrelated):
First the common market - this requires a lot of harmonisation concerning product standards, like quality and security requirements. I would classify the land-based and porduction agricultural support and agricultural market regulation measures here. Trade and competition issues also belong here.
Secondly political co-operation which is first of all a way to increase the weight of Europe in the world compared to tis individual member states. Of course for this we have to talk with one voice- therefore a harmonisation of opinions is necessary, sometimes some countries have to accept that their opinions are not represented - of course this only works if there are common goals. This is the practical reason why this only works when there are shared values (of course all political co-operation requires common values an the values of Europe are noble and on the long term they ensure a lot of benefits, but let's stay on a practical ground.
Thirdly, the interest of good co-operation and the common values also lead to the recognition that too big deviations in the level of development are unfavourable and thus it is in the interest of the richer countries to help the poorer ones to develop, to approach them in living standards, technical and social level. The structural funds are the means for that. Let us not go into the debate how much of thesse funds are used in the donor countries as goods and services are provided in exchange and similarly an argument could be brought up that the awarding and managing authorities both also have an interest to favour local suppliers. Formally speaking there is no possibility to promote neither donor country nor local suppliers, but if one of these is possible, the other is also.
This interest of leveling is independent whether a country "behaves well" in the political arena. Legally it is clearly separated, but it is also not practical - a higher level of economic development and integration can also foster sharing of values but not the other way: cutting funds leads to resentment and even lower sharing of values.
We do not like the practice of the government in Hungary that economic support depends on whether someone agrees with the politics of the government - why do we expect that from the EU? We have to solve our problems ourselves, not rely on blackmail by outsiders to do it for us.

Why does the refugee crisis boost the popularity of the Hungarian government?

It is commonplace that the inability of the European Union and its governments to manage the refugee crisis and even to explain the complexities which prevent them to find the solution ("For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" - H.L.Mencke) helps extremist to increase their popularity. But the Hungarian government is not an extremist (it just uses extreme statements to lure voters from the far right), was not able to manage the crisis within its own country correctly and there is no "mainstream" (real) force which could be blamed for being soft.
The explanation can be found in the attitudes and communication messages.
It is clear that people are worried, there are real and imaginary reasons behind that. And we know, that people are looking for messages that reinforce their attitudes, not which contradict them (as we know from Klapper). And this they find in media which are either promoting the government's or Jobbik's (the extreme right party) point of view. hey just exaggerate a little, and by that reinforce the fears, add food by transmitting seemingly true information about an even bigger danger (spreading diseases, being terrorists, refugees being financed by obscure forces, be it the Islamic State to conquer Europe or the Jews or Americans wanting to bring down Europe - not being disturbed by the contradiction between these two messages, throwing away food, etc. etc.). As soon as the danger is perceived, all actions are justified to keep these people far, to incarcerate, humiliate them, send them anywhere but not here. And the effectivity of these measures is not questioned. It is also useless that after two days, all of these menaces prove to be untrue, based on falsified evidence or certified by "experts" who have no expertise and were eventually agents of the communist system. The message is there and all previous wrongdoing is excused, news about continuing or new scandals ignored.
However, the increase in popularity does not compensate for the total loss suffered since the tentative to introduce and Internet tax. And the Hungarians are still in favour of an European solution, as surveys show.

3 years of the European Citizens' Initiative

Article 11(4) of the Lisbon Treaty created the European Citizens’ Initiative, as a new tool for citizens to influence the politics of the European Union. A Regulation was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 16 February 2011 which defined the detailed rules. National authorities were designated to certifying the online support collection system and to verify the statements of support and delivering the relevant certificate as for an initiative to be successful, it has to be backed by at least one million EU citizens, coming from at least 7 out of the 28 member states. A minimum number of signatories is required in each of those 7 member states. The proposal must be in an area where the Commission has the power to propose legislation, for example environment, agriculture, transport or public health. If an initiative receives the necessary number of signatures, the Commission has to take action within 3 months after receiving the initiative.
The organisers get the opportunity to explain in detail the issues raised in their initiative to the Commission and at a public hearing in the European Parliament
The Commission is not obliged to propose legislation as a result of an initiative but has to publish a formal response – published in all 24 EU official languages - spelling out what action it will propose in response to the citizens' initiative, if any, and the reasons for doing or not doing so.. If the Commission decides to put forward a legislative proposal, the normal legislative procedure kicks off: the Commission proposal is submitted to the legislator and, if adopted, it becomes law.
The process can be found here in detail , so I will not talk about it more.

The Commission recently summarised the experience with the initiatives and published a report about it.
Since April 2012 till the date of the report, end March 2015, the Commission has received 51 requests for registration of proposed citizens’ initiatives. 31 of them were registered (16 registrations in 2012, nine in 2013, five in 2014 and one in 2015). 20 proposed initiatives did not fulfil the registration criteria and therefore could not be registered. The most frequently cited reason for refusal was that the subject of the initiative was outside the legislative powers of the EU and thus did not qualify for being a European Citizens’ Initiative.
18 initiatives have reached the end of their collection period (10 others were withdrawn before the end of their collection period). Among those 18, three initiatives have reached the required number of statements of support and were submitted to the Commission. Two of them have already received a formal response from the Commission: 'Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity!' ('Right2Water') and 'One of us'.
The first one calls for: 1. The EU institutions and Member States be obliged to ensure that all inhabitants enjoy the right to water and sanitation. 2. Water supply and management of water resources not be subject to ‘internal market rules’ and that water services are excluded from liberalisation. 3. The EU increases its efforts to achieve universal access to water and sanitation.
After the organisers met the Commission and a public hearing took place in the European Parliament, the topic was taken up in the course of actions concerning the Drinking Water Directive. The evaluation of the directive is ongoing. The roadmap will be published shortly The EP Rapporteur presented the first draft of the Environment Committee Report on the Right2Water initiative. The vote in the Committee is provisionally scheduled for 26/05/2015 and the vote in the EP Plenary is provisionally foreseen for 08/06/2015
. The second one calls for a ban and end the financing of activities which presuppose the destruction of human embryos, in particular in the areas of research, development aid and public health.
There was a meeting with the organisers and a public hearing in the European Parliament. As a result, the Commission has decided not to submit a legislative proposal as the policy of the EU is clear and rigorous rules are in place. 156.7 million euros were spent on stem cell research out of a total of 6 billion between 2007 and 2013 and Embryonic stem cells are unique and offer the potential for life-saving treatments, with clinical trials already underway. The Commission will continue to apply the strict ethical rules and restrictions in place for EU-funded research, including not funding the destruction of embryos.
The third one ('Stop vivisection') is under examination by the Commission and will receive an answer by 3 June 2015.
Looking at the aborted and refused initiatives, there are three main areas where most of the initiatives fall into: Social questions (of course the proposal for an unconditional basic income is one of them) like protection of minorities, cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and sustainability of the regional cultures and a new European poverty criterion or the one to stop legal prositution, animal welfare, like “Dairy Cow Welfare” “Ethics for Animals (and Kids)” and political – some of them outrightly provocative like “Stop TTIP”, the one calling for a self-abolition of the European Parliament and its structures or the one entitled: “Should the current failing form of EG be replaced by one without democratic deficit?”.
A handful of initiatives dealt with environmental questions, among them the one of the three hitherto successful ones.
Still are open , one of them calling for an online collection plpatform for support of citizens’ initiatives, one to stop the climate initiatives except energy efficiency unless other big emitters also agree. A software tool for online data collection enables citizens to support a given initiative and organizers to manage its operations.
Further information can be found here.