‘Precise Detail’ By Ferenc Kumin, Deputy State Secretary For International Communications In Hungary
- 7 Mar 2013 8:00 AM
On Tuesday evening, the Financial Times posted an unsigned editorial entitled, “Orban’s Threat to Democratic Values,” which argues that “Europe should warn Hungary that its voting rights are at risk” if the parliament goes ahead with an amendment to the constitution that, according to the FT, will “revive curbs that violate European values.” The author of the editorial writes:
Brussels will have to set out in precise detail where the amendment violates Hungary’s membership of the EU. But once that is established, it should warn Mr. Orbán that it is prepared to use the most powerful weapons in its armoury to defend European values.”
I have a request for the FT:
Would you mind setting out in precise detail where the proposed amendment violates Hungary’s membership of the EU?
Presumably, to write and publish such a piece raising the alarm about a “threat to democratic values,” you must have read the text of the draft amendment and must have specific points in mind. But unfortunately, I couldn’t find any specifics in your editorial. The FT reader, I suppose, would be interested in some examples of why, as you propose, Hungary’s EU voting rights and structural subsidies should be withdrawn. As it stands, the editorial fails to cite any specific points from the draft amendment.
Could you share those specific points with us?
The article that the FT ran March 4 on the same subject, “Hungary Revisits Controversial Constitution Plan,” relies heavily on the NYT blog post authored by Kim Lane Scheppele. The piece by Dr. Scheppele suffered from serious problems – factual errors and misreadings – as I discussed in a previous blog post, “Facts Matter.” The FT reporters provide proper attribution to Scheppele in that article, but if the FT is going to get behind the argument on its own editorial page, one would hope that their position is based on specifics, well-grounded in the facts.
I’d encourage readers to take a peak at my other post, “A Look at the Constitutional Amendment,” which offers a brief rundown of what it’s all about. And as you’ll see, it’s a lot of legalese and procedure. As I mentioned, the EU Commission has already said it would review the amendment. Mind you, we’re still talking about a draft text here, but I’m guessing the Commission is not going to find any “threat to democratic values.”
In any case, we’re open to having that dialogue and, just as in the past, ready to make changes when there’s good reason.
LATEST NEWS IN current affairs