Hungarian conservatives – emerging again?

 New Hungarian conservative parties will be needed once Orbán has disappeared from power but some think they also have a role to play in ousting him. Hungarians are indeed prone to conservativism but like being cared for by the state. The governing party, FIDESz is closest to their general attitude – except its social policies. Its grip on the economy and communications means that it can be defeated only by mobilising the undecided voters. These parties target them and disappointed FIDESz-voters. They sense that the gap which Orbán and his party occupied with success in 1998 and holds since, is opening again.

After FIDESz moved to the right, it won four elections. The traditional left and liberals were fragmented and their bad governance – the country was hard hit by the 2007-2009 crisis as bad management made it vulnerable – also harmed their credibility. Surveys show that undecided voters are more conservative.

This makes it plausible that the force able to replace FIDESz needs the rightwing. Most of these movements and parties cannot yet gain a lot of publicity, the press only rarely reports about them positively. Exceptions are, however, accumulating.

In 2015 Zoltán Kész, an ex-member of FIDESz won the 2015 by-elections in Veszprém, vacated by a local strongman of FIDESz. Next, another disappointed FIDESz-member, Péter Márki-Zay won a mayoral by-election in 2018, in Hódmezővásárhely, another fiefdom of FIDESz. When Márki-Zay founded first a movement, then a party named “Hungary of all”, Mr Kész joined the board. Other members of the board are also known and valued both by the voters of the opposition and the right-wing.

The founder of Új kezdet, (“New start”) is a well known conservative but he resigned to lead his municipality. The president is MP of LMP, a leftist-green party, whose faction is called the joint faction of LMP and of “New Start”. A vice president is independent, another one was member of the leadership of the liberal SzDSz during its eclipse.

The “New world popular party -2022” of a past FIDESZ minister and president of the Academy of Sciences, József Pálinkás started with a professional image (the movement itself was also called “Responsible Professionals”). They appear sometimes in the press – signalling also Pálinkás’ ability to break the wall of silence mentioned. The health expert of the party, who really managed a hospital, is also often invited in the context of the pandemic to independent media. Their team features two prominent foreign policy experts and runs a blog with expert contributors.

Peter Márki-Zay and József Pálinkás are candidates of the primaries in preparation of the 2022 national elections for prime minister. Whether they win or lose, their parties and “New Start” may re-create European conservativism in Hungary. A look at their programmes shows what we can expect from them.

Two of these parties (“Hungary of all” and “New start”) formulate their vision in twelve points (the young revolutionaries of the emblematic 1848 revolution and war of independence also formulated their demands in 12 points). All three aim to correct the distortions of the FIDESz rule – rule of law, fair and equitable laws, reinstallation of democratic institutions, the “New world” even outlined a short term crisis management programme separately from the long term vision. Each wants to stop corruption and join the European Prosecutor’s Office. “New world” and “Hungary of all” expressly mention joining the Eurozone.

Supporting Hungarian minorities in their endeavour to gain their rights within their country is prominent for “New start” and “New world” while “Hungary of all” wants them to be proud of a successful Hungary. “New world” also wants the EU to protect minorities. All three want to make it worth for Hungarians working abroad to come home.

In terms of law and political structures, “New start” emphasises the freedom of civil society and religious communities, “Hungary of all” the freedom of the press while “New world” argues for autonomous institutions and a smaller state. Publishing the files of secret agents of the communist regime is part of the programme of “Hungary of all”.

Economically, while promising fair competition, “New world” wants more EU funds for SMEs, as in their view, large companies are advantaged more than their added value would justify. “Hungary of all” sets on a strong competition authority and calculable environment. “New start” would reform the system of communal work for the jobless and would introduce basic revenue for social integration and social contributions based on needs (including social housing), while “New world” would prolong jobless support, which is extremely short now. Thus, all envisage some state role – even the least “dirigiste” “New world”.

“New start” is the only one to mention abolishing the single key tax system (a controversial topic).

Development of the countryside (including providing schools with local produces) is important for “New world” while “New start” emphasises the importance of local authorities. Sustainability takes an important place in the programmes of “New world” and “New start”.

Education and health are prominent in all programmes with a significant role of the state. “New world” strives for digitisation and spending comparable to leading countries.

As European conservatives have to clarify their attitude to Hungary, they should not forget the real conservatives there. Many of Hungarian voters are waiting for it.

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.

What does the Hungarian minister of the national economy (including finance) know and understand?

According to a press article,the minister of the national economy, Mihály Varga (this superministry integrated or rather melted into itself the finance ministry, ministry of economy, labour and the different sectoral ministries - foreign trade, commerce, industry etc.) declared that the Hungarian government will not follow the recommendation of the European Council (it is prepared by the Commission but descussed in the Council and signed by the president of the Council) to cut tax benefits to poor people. Apart from the fact that low earners in Hungary have no special tax benefits (they were abolished by the FIDESZ government to cover partially the costs of the flat personal income tax), the article states that Varga confused the tax wedge with the tax benefits as the coutry-specific recommendation to Hungary proposed to decrease the tax wedge for low earners (see point 3 on page 7). Actually the document complains in an earlier paragraph (number 12 on page 5) that the" tax wedge on single low-income earners is one of the highest in the EU". Probably Mr Varga should have read the Hungarian version. There, the translator (who knows why, certainly not fearing misunderstanding by an economist and economy minister) translated the tax wedge to "tax burden" (pages 5 and 8 as the Hungarian text is somewhat lengthier).
The recommendations are denouncing the sectoral extra taxes (with the following justification: "The application of different tax rates across sectors is an obstacle to the effective allocation of resources
and thus negatively affects growth" and recommend a more equitable tax system. This is no surprise. No surprise either but very instructive are, however, some other statements about the situation of the economy and about economic policy: "Notwithstanding the Central Bank's subsidised 'Funding for Growth' scheme for small and medium-sized enterprises, normal lending to the economy has not picked up in a sustainable manner." (see also in Hungarian: Why the "funding for growth" programme did not help?)
"The regulatory burden on the financial sector has been
further increased, thus limiting the capacity for capital accumulation. Measures like
the increase of the financial transaction duty have contributed to a pick-up in the cash
usage of the economy. The household portfolio has further deteriorated and the high
proportion of non-performing loans currently represents one of the biggest
challenges for the financial sector. Portfolio cleaning is hindered by the weak
efficiency of resolution proceedings."
Also interesting: "The youth unemployment rate has decreased in 2013, while the rate of young people who are not in employment, education or training has increased." -  hints to the phenomenon often discussed in the Hungarian economic press that employment figures may hide more than reveal the real processes. "The Public Work Scheme attracts the bulk of budgetary resources available for employment measures, but in 2013 less than 10% of its participants were able to return to the open
labour market after exiting the scheme."
"The business environment in Hungary is characterised by frequent changes in the
regulatory framework and limited competition in an increasing number of sectors.
New barriers have been introduced in the services sector and existing ones have not
been removed (e.g. pharmacies, waste management, mobile payment, retail tobacco
and textbooks)."
"Overall investment has declined particularly strongly in those sectors
where sector-specific surtaxes have been imposed in recent years. Between 2010 and
2013, nominal investment declined by 44 % in energy, 28 % in finance and 18 % in
the communication sectors, while increasing by 3.4 % overall."

And so on, and so on. So if after this, the minister of national economy says that Brussels does not require adjustment any more, obviously concentrating on the budget balance (in fact this is also a little false as the recommendations state: "Reinforce the budgetary measures for 2014 in the light of the emerging gap of 0.9% of GDP relative to the Stability and Growth Pact requirements, namely the debt reduction rule, based on the Commission 2014 spring forecast. In 2015, and thereafter, significantly strengthen the budgetary strategy to ensure reaching the medium-term objective and compliance with the debt reduction requirements in order to keep the general government debt ratio on a sustained downward path."), he forgets his role beyond being the minister of finance, to be very polite. For the uninitiated: a lot of criticism and recommendations target the governments pet measures, denounced also in Hungary even by economists who supported FIDESZ before.

There are problems also in the social area (another superministry is the Ministry of Humnan Resources): "The proportion of early school leavers is on the rise and the adoption of an early
school leaving prevention strategy has been repeatedly delayed." - and this in the context when compulsory upper schooling age has been decreased.

A final quote: "Review the impact of energy price regulation on incentives to invest and on competition in the electricity and gas markets. Take further steps to ensure the autonomy of the national regulator in establishing network tariffs and conditions. Take measures to increase energy efficiency in particular in the residential sector." - Another pet project, the "decreasing utility charges" is under attack. If we look what was written above about the investment scenario, we see why. The criticism of the public procurement system is very diplomatic, but sstill, recommends improvement. THis would, however, stop the government from distributing public work contracts to its cronies. No surprise but very sad that the minister shows himself deaf.

Let's carry on - on the EU budget

Everybody likes to get money. But not too many like to give. The masters of the EU (who are, contrary to common belief, still the member states) gave the Union a moderate financial framework (this is how the long term budget is called in EUspeak) and 2014 budget. The negotiations were relatively successful for Hungary - it remains the second-third most supported country in terms of net balance per capita or by share of GDP. So now the Hungarians should be happy, shouldn't they? Well, the EU funds are well "earmarked", at least the area where they could be spent, is defined.You cannot spend European Social Fund money for economic development or infrastructure, only if there is a social benefit, and cohesion funds also have certain goals to be adhered to and also limitations. Rules of spending, documentation and accounting are not so simple. Partly this is due to the conditionality, adherence to which has to be checked. There is, however space for simplification. Increasing the flexibility in using the funds both concerning eligibility criteria and administrative requirements in beneficial but this should be done in a way that the possibility of fraud should be avoided. On the other hand, in spite of the short-term temptations, the real interest of the country is to prevent that EU funds should be used to distort competition as on the long term this means loss to Hungarian competitiveness to richer countries. Hungary is interested in simplification and also in decoupling the EU budget from conjunctural changes and spirit fluctuations between member states, thus also in giving the EU genuine own sources, for example from a future financial transaction tax or energy tax. This has nothing to do with the extraordinary taxes introduced in Hungary and probably would require their abolition which would actually help the Hungarian economy. Work is in progress and finally sme member state control and also mechanisms to equalise temporary fluctuations can be expected. The condition of agreement of the European Parliament to a decreased budget was more flexibility in reassigning funds and also a review to see if increases are necessary. Hungary should carefully follow this review and support an increase in the budget - improvement of economic conditions can be expected and thus more could be made available - benefiting the recipient countries, Hungary among them. Inevitably there will be a question, what the additional funds should be used for. Part of the funds was made available already to the youth employment programme - if more Hungarian regions could benefit from increasing its amount and lowering the threshold where it can be used, it would address a burning problem.

Minimum wages in Europe

The Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut of the Hans Böckler Foundation published its 2013 report on minimum wages. 21 of the 28 member states of the EU have them set by law (in Germany no general minimum wage exists, it is set only in some professions). The report compares the hourly minimum wages of EU and also third countries. Of course an average would not make sense (even when the number of people earning minimum wage would be known and used for weighting. Comparison and developments are worth looking at, however. 12 EU member states increased the minimum wage the 1st January 2013 (and two others late 2012) while Greece cut it by 23 percent. Portugal, Ireland, Romania and the Czech Republic froze their minimum wage. In Western Europe is the hourly minimum wage between 8.65 and 10.83 Euro, while in the Mediterranean countries between 3 and 4.06 Euro. Eastern European countries are the only ones paying below 2 Euro, while Slovenia is higher than the Mediterranean bunch, with 4.53. The lowest is the minimum earning in the two countries joining in 2007 (the newest member, Croatia has no minimum wage set) and in the three Baltic countries. Hungary precedes Slovakia and the Czech republic, just below 2 EUR (1.95 in Hungary, 1.94 in Slovakia and 1.91 in the Czech Republic. Of course the comparison has to be adjusted to purchasing power parity. Hungary's price level is 61.9 percent of the EU in 2012 (compared to 74.6 of the Czech Republic and 71.6 of Slovakia (see: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00120). This will give 3.15 EUR in PPP for Hungary, while 2.60 for Slovakia and 2.67 for the Czech Republic, i.e. the Hungarian real minimum wage is higher. It is said by many economists and apparently data show that they are right, that increasing it in Hungary is not a good idea. In other cases, the order did not change by using purchasing power parities. It is worth mentioning Greece: 3.60 EUR compared to 3,36 in Portugal. but lower than Spain (4.09). So despite the strong cut in Greece, and that it fell behind Malta and Spain with this cut, it is still within the range of similar countries. The foundation also keeps a Database of minimum wages. Another interesting page summarising information and opinions about the minimum wage.

A strategy for the Hungarian opposition?

First of all a fast summary of what happened recently on the opposition landscape: - Talks are slowly starting between MSzP and Együtt 2014 - Mesterházy, president of the MSzP was more diplomatic concerning his candidacy for prime minister in an interview - The hassle around the name of the Party of Bajnai, Együtt-2014 continues - New attacks were launched against Bajnai - LMP received the right to keep its faction in the Parliament. Some main events in Hungarian politics and the economy: - The tobacconist saga continues with new leaks about who from friends and relations (in the Hungarian translation of "Winnie the Pooh": "Friends, relations and business partners") - well, not of Rabbit but of the FIDESZ notabilities won tobacconist concessions - The new land law has been voted and Ángyán, one of the main agricultural eminences in FIDESZ, who became outrightly critical to the land policy and the distribution of rental rights on state-owned land to "friends, relations and business partners" who have nothing to do with agriculture, left FIDESZ in response - The merger of the National Bank and the Financial Supervision is progressing and the head of the latter -who is set to lose his job or at least his power even when he was the most faithful executioner during the first FIDESZ government of foreign banks who helped companies in transactions the government didn't like - wrote an open letter to the president of the Supreme Court (recently renamed to Kuria to be able to get rid of the previous president) calling the attention of the judges to the danger to the economy if the loan contracts tied to foreign currency would be declared "en masse" invalid. It is a little strange that the basis of this invalidation would be the laws on financial services he helped to forge. - The minister of the national economy (also fulfilling the tasks of the finance minister) announced a new round of austerity measures (forgetting to announce one of them) in spite that the EU liberated Hungary from the excessive deficit procedure under which it was since it joined the EU. Debates started immediately whether this is to enable the government to relax spending and start "bribing" voters with spending - some bribes were already distributed in the form of cutting utility prices but the extent is small till now - or just to cover the losses to the budget coming from bad planing and delay of some revenues (like e-toll for trucks and the tax revenue expected from connecting the cash tellers of all shops electronically to the computers of the Tax Office). What is the context? About the actors: Everybody knows probably that FIDESZ is the governing party (having and utilising, one may say abusing 2/3 majority in the Hungarian Parliament). - MSzP is the main opposition party if we look at the number of members of Parliament or at the results of surveys. It is also the party which was in government for the 8 years before the 2010 elections, in coalition with the liberals, whose SzDSz party practically disappeared and no measurable successor has appeared yet on the stage. - Együtt 2014 is a new formation, which was intended to be an NGO as an umbrella organisation for the alliance of opposition parties who want to defeat FIDESZ in the 2014 elections. They have foreseen to nominate the unique opposition candidate in the "first past the post" individual constituencies while the parties could go independently for the votes in the proportional part of the elections (as all voters have two votes, an individual for a candidate of their constituency and one for party lists - there are some other details which I will ignore for the moment). Immediately the election law was changed to exclude the possibility of NGOs nominating candidates. The organisation is lead by Gordon Bajnai, short-time prime minister of Hungary for about a year before the 2010 elections, who took over without long-term ambitions, i.e. he was not going to be a candidate in the elections 2010. He put the budget and the economy back on track after the combined devastating effect of the 2008 crisis and the spending spree between 2002 and 2006 and the aborted attempts by Gyurcsány for austerity and reform at the same time from 2006. These attempts triggered an unprecedented series of demonstrations which peaked in the months-long occupation of Kossuth square, the square in front of the Parliament which was also scene of emblematic demonstrations during the 1956 revolution. Another climax was when the 23rd of October, the anniversary of the 1956 revolution, police had to dissipate forceful demonstrations, which (it is debated, by whose fault) mingled with the masses of the anniversary celebration of FIDESZ (set in a place which had no relationship to the revolution at all but was dangerously close to the place where the forceful demonstrators were stopped in order not to be able to get to the Parliament). As a consequence, participants of the FIDESZ-organised event were also attacked and hurt by police. - LMP, a grassroots green - left - liberal party, which surprisingly won seats in the Parliament in 2010 (their name is the abbreviation of the slogan: Politics can be different), split along the line whether to co-operate with Együtt 2014. Those who favoured co-operation, left the party and were denied the right to form a faction in Parliament (just like the faction who left MSzP with Gyurcsány at their helm) while those who wanted to go alone into the elections 2014 kept the name LMP. Why all this? The election law modified by FIDESZ (and introducing a smaller Parliament which was already a promise by Gyurcsány but he couldn't assemble a 2/3 majority behind his propositions) foresees a higher proportion of individual constituency seats but even in the previous system, individual constituencies were the key to success. Before, however, if no candidate attained absolute majority, the candidates with the most votes had to face each-other in a second round, and also here, an absolute majority was needed. If less than 50% of the voters voted in a constituency, the round was invalid. Now, there is no such limit, and the candidate with a relative majority wins the seat, there is no second round. Before, votes cast in a constituency for the losing candidates were counted towards a compensating list, thus they had, if only a lower, value. Now, this system has been complemented with one where the votes cast for the winning candidate in a constituency, also count toward this compensation which also increases the importance of individual constituencies. Given that according to surveys, most of the voters have no party preferences, or do not intend to vote, in case of a low turnout and several opposition candidates, FIDESZ (who amalgamated all parties on the "right" (at least for: MDF, KDMP, FKGP, MDNP - no importance who they WERE - except the extreme right Jobbik) can win a huge parliamentary majority even with a low proportion of the votes (if there are three opposition parties including Jobbik, with 25%), not to talk about the proportion to voters overall. Therefore unity of opposition is crucial. OK, if this is trivial for everybody, why no opposition unity? In my opinion, there are two main reasons (apart from personal controversies), one of principle and one of tactics. As Orbán put his party practically outside the normal political spectrum, the opposition covers all political streams. Classical right wing (i.e. pro-market, libertarian which build on individual incentive and the responsibility of the individual) have no great popularity in Hungary. But still, the co-operation of parties from the most various ideologies and social models is necessary. And a close co operation, meaning even possibly (see the second reason below) uniting in one party. And they have to formulate a programme in common. A programme which is reasonable, coherent, acceptable for the opinion leaders and experts and at the same time one with which they can win elections against a populist propaganda - and deeds - of the governing party, in a media space which is outright unfavourable for them (I will return to that in another post soon - talking about the Tavares-report and Viviane Reding). On the other hand, FIDESZ has the possibility to change any law it wants, within days (and has done so, if necessary, see above). So if the way the opposition wants to shape its co-operation gets known, this way of co-operation will immediately forbidden or strongly disadvantaged. AS parties who have joint candidates in individual constituencies already are in distribution of the "compensation" votes (explained above). I mentioned personal controversies. It is taken for granted, that the opposition has to have one candidate for prime minister (who would believe in co-operation if they had more? I think even more sophisticated voters than the Hungarians would not be able to follow this - even I was stuck now when I tried to spell out this solution although I just raised it) and of course both the president of MSzP as Bajnai announced their ambition (what would an opposition leader without a PM ambition be like?). So that's why the flexibility shown by Mesterházy is important. Although no one precisely knows how the voters think (there is talk about this or that politician or party causing voters of another one in alliance with him/her/it not to vote for the common candidates), and there are undoubtedly risks in naming a candidate, the politically conscious population on the Internet (Facebook and commenters on blogs) mostly trust Bajnai most. His movement organises meetings al over the country, has a Facebook presence and is (just like MSzP, of course) an unavoidable component of the opposition co-operation. So it is not easy, but if opposition politicians and voters will look for what joins them, and not what separates, they may be able to get to a solution.

End of the excessive deficit procedure and publicity tax

The European Commission is proposing to the Council to release Hungary from the excessive deficit procedure. This is good news as the procedure has already lasted so long that remaining in it would mean loss of cohesion funds for the country. Given that 95% of public investments are financed partially from EU funds, this would have meant a grave blow to the Hungarian economy and also food for further “liberty fight” demagogy against the EU. On the other hand, it is a triumph for the Orbán government and some fear that by that the EU is losing leverage in constraining the Hungarian government in its economic and political actions which are harming the country and going against European democratic principles. The dilemma is not easy to resolve, almost impossible, like most of the dilemmas which are caused by - the contradiction that whenever the government is sanctioned, it is the people who pay the price and - the communication tricks which make the EU a scapegoat if it is acting and a weakling if not. Whoever followed the developments can, however, see through these tricks. As if to help this, the European Commission reiterated again the need – in the form of concrete measures proposed – for a more sustainable public finance. Nevertheless, it could not deny that with the latest measures (actually with the latest but one package of measures – let’s return to that below) the deficit will be under 3% of GDP for the rest of the term of this government. And this is what counts when deciding about the procedure. The latest measures are already the second tranche since the new Minister of the Economy, old-time FIDESZ economic heavyweight Mihály Varga took over – saying in his inauguration address that no further measures are necessary. But a third tranche was also in preparation. This included a tax on publicity revenues of media. Varga said yesterday that it will be introduced only when measures announced before are not sufficient. Today András Giró-Szász, the government spokesman announced that “in the interest of common burden-sharing” it will still be introduced. The statement of Varga – taken into account that the European Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against the sectorial extra taxes already – could be seen as a clever blackmail: if the Commission does not release Hungary, they can be blamed for that tax, if they do, they gave in to save the multinationals from this tax and by threatening them, the government cleverly got out the country from the excessive deficit procedure. The tax will in fact cut further into the profits of the two commercial television channels, one of which, already making losses, is under negotiation to be purchased by the strongest company group which wins almost all public procurements in Hungary and whose owner is the main financial expert around FIDESZ – more exactly, he was treasurer of the party and is expert in party and campaign financing and also owns most of the poster sites in town – which may not be without link to the fact that election publicity is enabled on these posters while prohibited in a number of other commercial media, including commercial tv. No further comment is needed, I assume.

Youth guarantees

There are two European countries, Austria and Finland which guarantee, that if a young person is unemployed for four months, he/she should get a job, traineeship or re-training offer. This is basically different from the public work which is now the favourite job-creating tool of the Hungarian government. On proposal of László Andor , the commissioner for employment, social affairs and inclusion, the new Multiannual Financial Framework will contain a new youth employment initiative (this was the only addition to the proposal of the Commission on the European Council meeting which approved the Council position on the MFF the 8th February (see criticism about the deal and its enthusiastic reception in a Hungarian article ). And these 6 bn euros can also be used to establish this guarantee as the Council agreed the 28th February (see here . It will be used in the regions where youth unemployment is the highest. The youth guarantee initiative also has a Twitter stream. According to estimates by Andor, the programme would cost 20 billion Euros in Europe. This would mean proportionally 50 billion HUF in Hungary. Thus roughly the amount which has been just taken from the universities or less than half of the interest difference between market financing and an IMF loan (by the most conservative estimates). Further information about the Council negotiations on the MFF is available here while the European Parliaments position can be followed here . A third-party report about the presentation of Mr Van Rompuy and the responses to it shows the main controversies.

Incredible

The Monetary Council of the Hungarian National Bank cut the interest rates again. This is no surprise. It can be debated whether the National Bank should only follow the inflation target (the prevailing view in the developed world, at least in Europe) and whether the cut is justified. It is a little bizarre that always the external members (nominated by the government) vote for the cut and the internals for a hold. Last time the National Bank analyst team submitted a study which argued strongly against a cut but it was ignored. It is also becoming commonplace that as long as the president of the National Bank is the person nominated by the previous government which was that of another party, they want to keep interest rates high. The communiqué of the Monetary Council explaining the latest cut, however, is really absurd: The economic and financial portal Portfolio.hu (disclosure: this blog is a "Portfolio" blog - this means that if the editors of portfolio.hu decide, they put a link to a post on their main page and the title page of the blog runs the Portfolio logo and a running news strip) simply published the communiqué just commenting that there is no guidance in the communiqué whether the cuts will continue but it seems that it will. The previous one contained a hint that it will under certain circumstances, i.e. when "data arriving in the next months support the durability of the favourable financial developments and confirm that medium term inflationary outlook is coherent to the target of 3%". OK, so what did the Monetary Council say this time. I only quote the most striking parts: "Medium term inflationary trends can be moderated by the long-term continuing improvement of the risk assessment." This immediately after downgrading and with the perspective of further downgrading. "The consumer price index is basically driven by the increase of food prices, tax increases and other administrative measures." Tax increases - the government propaganda says that they decreased taxes. The extraordinary taxes on financial institutions, telecoms etc. were declared to stay. Administrative measures increasing prices - I do not know what they are but this is not a praise of government either and in particular does not support the statement which follows: "Inflation will significantly exceed the target this year and next year" (this statement just does not explain the rate cut) "but with the running out (a typical saynothing Hungarian term meaning just the expiry of the impact) of the shocks which increased the price level, more and more the slight desinflationary effect of weak demand will have an impact." Apart from the gloomy perspective - which will come up in the next sentence again - painted by this statement, the factors outlined being here to stay, I do not see a justification for optimism. So continuation: "It is paramount that the increase next year of the salaries and within that of the minimum wages (don't ask me why the plural, there is only one set minimum wage) should be in line with the increase in productivity." This is a laudable objective but does spell havoc for the employees. OK, if they had said that the real wages, I could maybe agree. What follows, may be true but spells trouble both for the economy and for inflation:"The measures announced support the commitment of the government for a low budget deficit. Significant uncertainty accompanies the expected macroeconomic impact of the measures: they do not influence significantly the short term outlook of the real economy and inflation, but could cause a cost side inflationary pressure on the middle term (here you have the mid term favourable outlook justifying the cut) and through decrease of the capital attraction capability of the banking system (I would rather say the propensity to lend, not to attract capital - this latter is decreased by the decrease of the interest rates) and the limitation of lending (OK, here we are) can moderate the growth potential of the economy." In a final paragraph, they again emphasise that an oversupply will limit inflation. To me, the many doomsaying passages in the communiqué serve as a proof that it was the improvement of the economic outlook which was the mean objective of the cut and they tried to hide it behind inflationary arguments. Apparently also some parts of a professional analysis were taken over, which cause a significant incoherence in the message given.

Hungarian cases at the European Cout of Justice part 1 - some taxes

I collected some cases of the European Court of Justice in the area of consumer protection and taxes where Hungary was affected. I start with taxes, the second part will deal with consumer protection cases. Let’s start with a tax case where Hungary won against the Commission. The Court ruled in its judgement in the case C 253/09 about the deduction from the base of the personal income tax payable on the sale of property and about the deduction of the transfer tax paid on the purchase of property of the transfer tax paid on property sold by the same person (although it is paid by the buyer) that it is not discriminatory if only amounts paid for properties purchased can be deducted from the tax base of property sold where the property purchased is in Hungary. This sounds logical, as it was also established by the Court, saying that “there is a direct link between the tax advantage granted and the initial levy. First, that advantage and the tax levy are applied to one and the same person and, second, they both relate to the same tax” and “that the objective of the legislation at issue is to avoid – upon the purchase of a second principal residence in Hungary – the double taxation of the capital invested in the purchase of the previous residence that has been sold”. However, the Court looked a little further. Firstly it established that these rules constitute a discrimination but recognised that in light of the above arguments this discrimination is justified by pursuing and objective in public interest (i.e. to preserve the coherence of the tax system and also: "If taxpayers not having paid the tax at issue previously were able, under the tax regime at issue, to benefit from the tax advantage concerned, they would take unfair advantage of taxation that was not applicable to their previous purchase outside Hungary.") Interestingly, no specific arguments are found in the judgement about the transfer tax but the same logic would apply here, except that the tax in not paid by the same person (but was paid at the time of purchase by the seller, although on a value at that time).
The COurt made an interesting statement, by also giving its opinion about tax harmonisation: “While the property transactions carried out in other Member States might also have been subject to similar or even identical taxes to that at issue, it must be noted, however, that in the current stage of the development of EU law, the Member States enjoy a certain autonomy in the area of taxation provided they comply with EU law, and are not obliged therefore to adapt their own tax systems to the different systems of tax of the other Member States in order, inter alia, to eliminate the double taxation.” So, according to the Court, one way of further integration can be a harmonization of these taxes also and a mutual recognition of taxes paid in another member state.

This harmonization has relevance to a problem now widely discussed, the importance of which is secondary but some way emblematic. The issue is the registration tax and the amendment of the law about road transport, which introduced draconian fines for Hungarians who avoid the – very high though recently decreased – registration tax on passenger cars by registering their car in a neighbouring country where this tax does not exist or is lower. There is a European Directive on the harmonisation of car taxes, mainly targeted at the tax continuously paid in different countries on vehicles registered in that country. The annex to this directive lists a number of specific taxes in different countries but the registration tax in Hungary is not listed. There is also a draft directive, which wants to harmonise further the conditions of the obligation to re-register cars moved from one member state to another. In both the directive and the draft, there is a precise definition of the residence which defines where a car has to be registered and pay taxes. In contrast to this definition, the Hungarian law does not define residence but takes the registration in the residence register as a formal condition. There are two lists of conditions, one for the driver, which acknowledges the situation of those who are abroad temporarily (for work, for example) but the formulation of the conditions for the owner (operator) of the vehicle are chaotic. Driving a car rented abroad or registered on a foreign company – for which the driver may work – is, however, only authorised for one day for someone who does not have a temporary residence abroad. This is also causing problems. For those, however, who stay abroad but do not want to give up their permanent residence in Hungary (or have a temporary residence in Hungary) to go to Hungary in a car registered on their name can mean a fine of up to 3200 Euro and losing their car. This is clearly offending the freedom of establishment and of move within the EU and also the spirit of the mentioned directive, and the re-registration directive is still far away and has only partial impact. Recently a judgement of the Court in the joined cases C 578/10 to C 580/10, can mean some hope that at least when their case comes to the European Court of Justice, the Hungarian regulation may be declared contravening European Law. The judgement namely concerns the Dutch registration tax, and says: “that Article 56 EC must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which requires residents who have borrowed a vehicle registered in another Member State from a resident of that State to pay, on first use of that vehicle on the national road network, the full amount of a tax normally due on registration of a vehicle in the first Member State, without taking account of the duration of the use of that vehicle on that road network and without that person being able to invoke a right to exemption or reimbursement where that vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis nor, in fact, used in that way.”, which means that not only the tax paid regularly, but also the tax paid on registration cannot be levied on a vehicle which is not used “essentially in the” country “on a permanent basis”. By the way, the Hungarian registration tax was once subject to proceedings at the European Court of Justice (joined cases C-290/05 and C-333/05), when the question was again about proportionality (also referred to in the judgement in question), i.e. that the registration tax on used vehicles has to take into account the depreciation of the vehicle, i.e. can be levied only on basis of its real value and not on its purchase value.

The Commission will soon publish its ‘strategy for e-procurement'. Public procurement should be enabled to use the internet.
Public procurement tender notices of all public authorities in the EEA are already published on the Internet and the submission of these documents is also continuously being streamlined. Notices can be submitted through a web-based for after registration or sent through computer-to-computer connections using the so-called e-sender network. The Commission's informatics directorate general is already doing some e-procurement. E-tendering is being phased in, first documents can be submitted, later the whole process will be possible on the net.

Meanwhile two commissioners, Michel Barnier, the commissioner for the internal market and services, and Karel De Gucht, the commissioner for trade are planning a regulation which would enable municipal authorities to reject bids from companies from countries where EU firms cannot bid in public procurement.

This is part of the EU's fight against discrimination in trade.

The EC proposes to suspend structural funds to Hungary

Without precedent - why does the EU punish us? is the title of a (surprisingly objective if we look at the article but not at all surprising if we look at the author) article in the Hungarian financial and economic portal portfolio.hu. The author, István Madár, in my opinion one of the best macro-economists in Hungary (he taught my son but as he graduated already more than five years ago, there is no conflict of interest) who never associated himself to any party and was always realistic and politically neutral in his opinions. He did not publish much in political newspapers but slowly seems to appear more. He explains why Hungary is the first to suffer the freezing of part of the cohesion funds (the part of structural funds to be managed by the central government) due to its excessive deficit and why the Commission had no other choice. This is the logical next step - not to be postponed - in the excessive deficit proceedings under existing legislation and also under the new fiscal rules which were brought to almost-finalisation by the Hungarian presidency and of which the Hungarian prime minister is so proud.
It has to be noted that this is only a proposition which gives nine months to the Hungarian government to react and rectify the problems indicated.
In spite of the nice numbers about the primary budget balance, the structural balance is far from the required 0.5% and the outlook is bleak. And even the nice numbers are due to one-off drastic measures - confiscation of private pension funds, crippling taxes on foreign enterprises.
It makes thus no sense to speculate how much the conflicts on political issues have influenced the decisions - as there was no choice. Hungary is the country with the longest history of excessive deficit procedure. It is a little paradox that György Szapáry, who was the deputy president of the National Bank, and went to denounce the Gyurcsány-government at the EU when it wanted to avoid the excessive deficit procedure by transferring the motorway-building loans into a company, is so much in favour with FIDESZ that a law was amended to enable him to take the position of the Hungarian ambassador to Washington.
What is more important, though, is that the government should take measures to remedy the situation instead of waving the primary deficit numbers as the only defence.
Another paradox must be discussed here: A lot of people expect the EU to put pressure on the Hungarian government to preserve democracy and follow a reasonable and just economic policy. The measures taken will, according to some opinions, increase anti-EU sentiment in Hungary, however. I think that Hungarians should solve their own problems but again, the EU has no other choice than to speak up, and take measures, in defence of its common values.

What happened to MALÉV? - updated with the restructuring plan

The European Commission ordered Hungary to have MALÉV, the Hungarian national airlines, to pay back about 350-400 million Euros in illegal state aid. Here is the press release. The Hungarian economic weekly HVG (the original article is only available for subscribers but here you can browse articles about the events)stated that Hungary has do calculate the amount to be repaid (which duty is explicitly in the decision) and to define how the state aid has to be paid back. This aspect will be important later. Also it has to be remarked that if the company is wound up and its assets are transferred or sold at market value.
The decision is dated 9th January 2012 and must be implemented within four months. The 3rd February MALÉV ceased operations, leaving passengers stranded on airports all over the world as not just the flights were cancelled but code-sharing partners also did not take MALÉV passengers and no tickets for other airlines issued by MALÉV were accepted any more. Further information on the last days and implications can be found on the Wikipedia page of MALÉV
Some interesting developments preceded this collapse: the company was declared the company an “organization of strategic importance” which means that a state body has to manage liquidation and the rights of the creditors are substantially limited. MALÉV asked for bankruptcy protection and these two events led the creditors to stop financing (including the lessor of most of its aircraft requesting their blocking, in some cases on airports abroad).
The decision was preceded by a letter to Hungary . This gave the possibility to the Hungarian government to justify the state subsidies by showing how and when MALÉV was a company in difficulties (which would have justified a one-off aid only) and present a restructuring plan (this latter could have saved the situation).
The decision can be attacked in court ( in the case of the Budapest Power Plant , Hungary won such a case).
The Hungarian government was defying the European Commission in several cases (about media law, the new Constitution and its accompanying acts, the pay of the president of the Hungarian National Bank) but did not even hint on trying this now (remember the interpretation of HVG that Hungary can define the way and timing of repayment).
But was or is there any chance?

To start with, MALÉV had a business model, whether good or not, part of which it pursued since the seventies: it enabled travel from the West to the Middle East by having passengers change in Budapest. The schedule of its flights to the Middle East was adapted to this (start from Budapest after the flights from the West arrived). Of course in the times of cold war, an “eastern” airline had a better position in the eyes of Soviet-friendly or “non-aligned” Arab countries, but the model also worked with Cyprus, strictly committed to Western-Europe already then. It was a member of an alliance and had code-sharing agreements and for a while enabled even good connections to the Americas. It employed a significant number of Hungarian sub-contractors and gave about 50% of the traffic on Budapest Airport (see the Wikipedia article referred to above).

Its profitability was, however, shaky, due to its strong links to the Hungarian state – it was not run really as a business. This is why state subsidies were needed to keep it afloat.

In 2003, the new socialist government sacked Mr Váradi its former CEO who established Wizzair , a cheap airline, using a lot of MALÉV staff. MALÉV since tried to compete with cheap airlines, in some cases its prices were lower that Wizzair’s to a more remote airport in the same city. Wizzair was one of those companies who called the attention of the European Commission to the state aid to MALÉV (there was at least one other company and of course this state aid would not have remained hidden anyway).

Another surprising fact:
The company which directly caused MALÉV’s demise (by initiating the liquidation proceedings) is not a supplier of MALÉV but has bought debts of the company and is linked to the organisation which is the receiver of MALÉV now. (If creditors do not agree to the protection – “chapter 11” by American terminology -, then the proceedings are transformed into liquidation.)

Beyond the state aid, MALÉV was first privatised and then re-nationalised. The reason for re-nationalisation was that the Russian owner, who seemed to be an appropriate professional investor familiar with the airline industry, did not prove to be useful professionally and its share was acquired by an also Russian bank. Any further re-structuring was hindered by this ownership as this bank also was a huge creditor of the company. So the credits had to be repaid and/or securities given and the bank’s share re-purchased. This happened in 2010, in the last months of the outgoing socialist government of Gordon Bajnai . The government secured the agreement of FIDESZ, due to win the next elections in April 2010. They also prepared a restructuring plan but FIDESZ refused to co-operate further in formulating this plan and without them neither further details could be fixed, nor negotiations with prospective partners could be started as it was clear that this government will have no say any more when the actions will really materialise.
Nothing was done even since and now it seems to be too late – the leased aircraft is away, new players occupied the best landing slots in the airports etc.

Some speculation: what could have been the solution? The easiest (followed by Alitalia and Olympic Airways ) could have been to have a new company take over the assets, slots and contracts of MALÉV (see above: at market value – maybe that was the problem as this would not have enabled a cheap takeover by a “friendly” investor) and leave the old company with its debts, including the repayment of state aid. The restructuring of the company by re-scheduling debt and streamlining it would have been a more difficult option and only if the EC had accepted that in this case state aid was not illegal. What is however quite clear: considering and publicising that the government will take an option - at least delaying repayment of state aid - could have enabled a soft landing, without leaving “the people” (the favourite term of the governing party) sitting on airports, sub-contractors and the airport suddenly without revenue. Companies under normal liquidation normally operate and this enables a much better sale of their assets and saving also their name. This is due to the fact that in liquidation, the first priority is to pay so-called “liquidation costs” which include the operating expenses accrued during liquidation and thus the company is able to get supplies for its daily operation. This was the case in much more difficult cases, like steel mills, dairy companies etc. before.

The government commissioner responsible for exploring and prosecuting “the previous government’s sins” declared publicly, that the state also has an obligation amounting to billions of forints to the owner of Budapest Airport (to whom the state sold it). He mentioned a strange term which raised suspicion immediately (but not in him): senior and also junior debtors have to be paid. These latter terms are namely used in bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings. After the privatisation contracts have been published recently, it turned out that it is true what the previous minister of finance, Péter Oszkó already hinted: This has to be done only when the airport itself goes bankrupt due to loss of traffic from MALÉV. And as other airlines (among them Ryanair, an arch-rival of Wizzair, but this is another story) crowd in to occupy slots, this seems to be improbable.

Péter Oszkó had a lot of things to explain and most if his communication about the re-nationalisation and the restructuring plans occurred through sms-es so no proofs. He is now member of the board of the holding company of Wizzair. This latter position he gained about a year after he ceased to deal with MALÉV.

The responsible minister for national development recently answered to a question of MALÉV in Parliament: “I am only in office since the 23rd December, I cannot take responsibility for this affair”.