The debate was pushed by Guy Verhofstadt, as the leader of the ALDE Group, and its allies in the European Parliament because the Liberals have been driving the point that the Fundamental Law and its amendments breach European values. Article 7 procedures – which could lead to suspension of Hungary’s voting rights and EU funds – should be taken up against Hungary, they say.

Here are some take-aways from my vantage point.

The European Commission, which was represented not by President Barroso but by Vice-President Reding, had nowhere to go on the topic but to say that, beyond standard infringement procedures, the EU bodies should wait for the formal reports of the EU Commission and the Venice Commission. In an exchange of letters last week, the Commission expressed its concerns and Prime Minister Orbán reiterated the Government of Hungary’s commitment to addressing those concerns. What’s more, the Government of Hungary had already requested the Venice Commission’s review of the Fourth Amendment, so to some, this was all a little redundant.

Contrary to some previous statements and widely held speculation about a division between Reding and Barroso, Commissioner Reding followed a line that conformed closely to the Barroso message, detailing some of the specific concerns of the Commission but emphasizing at one point that procedures against Hungary must not use double standards and should be based on facts.

The Irish hold the presidency, so they spoke on behalf of the Council. The Council has not even discussed the issue, so the Council, not surprisingly, had nothing to add except to say that it had nothing to say.

The MEPs then fell in according to partisan lines. Members from the European People’s Party encouraged the Commission to carry out its work but insisted that Hungary must be treated fairly and suggested that some of the criticism may be partisan in nature. The Belgian Verhofstadt was able to take the floor to call for Article 7. Even he admitted, though, that a “breach” of European values may be an exaggeration but the language of Article 7 speaks of a “threat of a breach.” It was astonishing to hear him, once again, display his basic confusion about the facts of the Fundamental Law on, for example, freedom of religion.

In a particularly strange moment of the debate, Socialist MEP Hannes Swoboda of Austria began talking off-topic about anti-Semitic incidents at a Hungarian university, somehow associating them with the Orbán Government. Fidesz MEP József Szájer could not let this comment go unanswered and reminded Mr. Swoboda of the actions the Hungarian government has been taking recently to protect people from anti-Semitism.

Concluding the debate, Commissioner Reding said that Article 7 is such an extreme measure that it must be considered twice or even “three times” before using. Instead, the Commission, after carefully reviewing the Fundamental Law and its amendments, would draft an opinion in June, which will be discussed with the Government of Hungary and taken to the European Court if necessary.

That is exactly what the Orbán Government has invited – informed discussion. And contrary to reports like this one by the Associated Press, which quote only one side of today’s debate, that is exactly the same place where we were weeks ago when the Hungarian Parliament passed the Fourth Amendment. Let’s hope that after today’s debate, the international discussion about Hungary will be less hysterical and more fact based. Signs are promising.

Source: A Blog About Hungary by Ferenc Kumin