The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission has expressed concern over several aspects of Hungary’s new constitution in a draft report quoted by online news portal hvg.hu on Thursday.
At the same time, the Commission welcomed the fact that some of its proposals made when the constitution was in the phase of preparation have been incorporated in the final version and that the text is based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
According to hvg.hu, the Venice Commission report said it is regrettable that the constitution drafting process lacked transparency, there was deficiency in the dialogue between the ruling parties and the opposition, the conditions for dialogue with social players were not adequately provided, and a shortage of time characterised the entire drafting process.
The Commission criticised the fact that the constitution fails to regulate in detail several areas. Additionally, it classifies several regulations as cardinal laws requiring two-thirds majority whereas in most constitutions these are part of daily political legislation that require a simple majority.
Limiting the scope of authority of the Constitutional Court on tax and financial matters, and granting a the Budget Council an excessive role in approving the budget are further concerns raised by the Commission’s draft report, hvg.hu said. The wording of the new Constitution is too generic when it comes to such key areas as framework regulations for courts and other areas.
Further concerns were raised in connection with the decision to give real life sentences without chance forparole and on the rights of ethnic Hungarians beyond the borders included in the preamble.
The Venice Commission report expressed hope that the interpretation and implementation of the constitution in the future will give Hungary the chance to act in accordance with international agreements, hvg.hu said.
Representatives of the Venice Commission visited Hungary on May 17 to assess the new constitution approved on April 18 and to come into effect on January 1, 2012.
The European Commission for Democracy through Law, better known as the Venice Commission was set up in 1990. Its task is to encourage European standards in the adoption of constitutions.
Doesn’t sound very nice – but of course Fidesz doesn’t care for the opinion of htese “bloody unwelcomed foreigners” …
Iceland has a totally different way of approaching this wth creating a new Constitution:
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/09/iceland-crowdsourcing-constitution-facebook
-
Iceland also wants to replace an old Constitution that was just ‘imported and quickly converted’ when they got their freedom
But, in difference to Hungary and its Supreme Rulers, the Icelandic MPs actually take out the discussion to the people using a social media *and* they will have a referendum…
Your attempt to compare Iceland to Hungary when it comes to writing a new constitution is ridiculous. A few examples:
1. The population of Iceland is 320 000; The population of Hungary is 10 000 000
2. Internet access by households in Iceland 90%, in Hungary 14% (Eurostat 2005)
3. Iceland gained its independence and became a new country, hence its constitution could have a fresh start, a ‘card blanche’ beginning. Hungary’s constitution has to represent 1000 years of history and tradition.
4. In Iceland you don’t have a political opposition whose only goal is to bring down the current government, has very little concern for the common good of the country, and is unwilling to be a ‘loyal opposition’, which is an opposition party should be in a democracy.
5. Furthermore, in Iceland you don’t have an opposition party which demonstratively refuses to participate in the drafting of the new constitution by absenting itself from parliamentary proceedings discussing the new constitution.
Despite all this, the government did send out a questionnaire to every household asking for input into the drafting of the constitution.
The attacks on the new constitution by the Venice Commission and by the Hungarian opposition parties are politically motivated and have very little to do with considering the common good of the Hungarian people and of Hungary as a sovereign country.
Oh, the Venice Commission has concerns. The EU law is clear: The EU has no right to meddle with member countries’ constitutions. So what will it be? Will the EU live by its own laws, or act like a rogue totalitarian regime, and order, demand that member states to behave as the current leadership’s partisan/political interests desire?
The EU is getting increasingly disgusting in how it deals with member states!
I love the EU no more than you do. But do remember that the Venice Commission is a body of the Council of Europe, not of the EU. Also, the EU Commissioner, Vivien (?) Reding, has said quite unequivocally that all EU member states are free to devise their own constitutions. So we have no reason to expect EU interference here. And we can simply thumb the usual suspects who are posturing inanely in the Venice Commission .
Elle,
Your Hungarian Consitution sucks. It is for losers.
If you can’t take criticism, get out of the kitchen.
Rubbish,
The accession treaty requires Hungary’s constitiont to conform to EU requirements.
Hungary just needs to return all the billions of Euros it has received from EU and it can leave the EU and settle into abject poverty.
One doesn’t have to be with the “Venice Commission”; I’ve had similar concerns as well.
After I’ve given the “Media Council” a bit of a going over on another thread, I am leery of “Councils” named in capital letters. In this case, I see a “Budget Council” ruling on budgetary matters, which are properly the purview of the legislative body. Let Parliament, it’s committees and it’s members rule on fiscal issues and outlays. Removing these questions to an extra-legislative body is a potential dodge and evasion of responsibility. Most countries do have a “budget office”, which keep economic statistics and information, but are not empowered to tell the other branches of govt what to do or not to do, or how to spend.
Members of Parliament would be advised to start acting like a true parliament. How could a low level spokeswoman announce last week that January’s media law now suddenly applies to web-pages? That’s not exactly what parliament voted for 6 months ago; they voted to regulate large commercial media. Applying the law to web-pages should require a seperate vote and ratification by the legislature, as it’s effects are so far reaching. The issue goes to the most fundamental one- that of seperation of power and authority over how laws are made and amended. “Fiat by spokeswoman” is the ultimate constitutional issue.
‘After I’ve given the “Media Council” a bit of a going over on another thread …’ And I pointed out to you, on the same thread, that you are quite shockingly misinformed in this matter.
‘How could a low level spokeswoman announce last week that January’s media law now suddenly applies to web-pages?’ No-one, high or low level, made any such announcement. The Media Law does not apply to web pages. Web pages do not come under the purview of the Media Law. What you do not understand is that the NMHH, of which the Media Council is a body, has provided a hotline that takes reports from the public of illegal content (‘illegal’ in terms of general and criminal law, not in terms of the Media Law itself) of all publications, not only of those that come under the purview of the Media Law. The hotline has nothing to do with the Media Law.
‘Applying the law to web-pages should require a seperate vote and ratification by the legislature.’ Do try to understand: the Media Law is not being applied to web pages. General criminal law is (was and will be) so applicable. So there is no conceivable scope for any ‘seperate’ (nor even ‘separate’) ‘vote by the legislature’. You see, not even the legislature can decide that what is illegal pursuant to general and criminal law is not illegal on web pages. There is no legislative scope here. Web sites were capable of containing illegal content before the advent of the hotline. Any member of the public was always free to report such content to law enforcers.
‘ “Fiat by spokeswoman” is the ultimate constitutional issue.’ Don’t be impossibly silly. The spokeswoman to whom you refer simply announced that the NMHH is providing a hotline on which the public can report illegal (pursuant to general and criminal law) content on all publications. NB: This hotline has nothing to do with the Media Law. The Media Law has not been amended. It cannot be amended by a hotline. (Sigh.) Your talk of fiat is inane.
Elle,
Must of your comments are innane. After all, you support nationalist charade …
Your comments are rubbish.
1. Differences in population or Internet access are irrelevant to the issue.
3. Iceland has well over a thousand years of history and tradition.
4. Most opposition parties are trying to bring about the downfall of the reigning party.
A constitution is for all the people. It should not be implicitly endorsing Christianity.
In contrast, the vastly superior (but still imperfect) American Constitution established a strict seperation between religion and the State.
László is correct. Certain institutions should be independent of the party in power (Central Bank, etc.). But if democracy is to be meaningful, the legislative branch must be responsible for the budget.
And I agree that the government has no business changing laws by executive decree.