On March 30, 2011 submitted with Sonia Alfano and colleagues ALDA, a parliamentary question to the European Commission and the Council of Ministers on the revision of the constitution presented to parliament by the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. In particular, we asked the two bodies if they consider the text of the paper should be regarded as having a decided contrast to the Treaty on European Union.
The new constitution, adopted yesterday by a majority of two thirds of the classroom (and lack of respect, support the opposition - the left one was controversially removed from the classroom itself -, the consultation procedures), brings "a ' idea of national unity of Hungary, founded on the values of Christianity and the role of the latter in fact preserve the Hungarian nationality, severely limits the powers of the Constitutional Court and amending the mandate of its members (as well as President of the Court of Auditors and the central bank governor), strengthening government control over the media and the judiciary, reduces the concept of family in such a way as to exclude any reference to parent families, cohabiting couples and same-sex, prohibits discrimination, but not for grounds of sexual orientation, age and genetics, calls "the life of the fetus is protected from conception, extending voting rights to children or their mothers, as well as to Hungarians living abroad (which obviously worries their neighbors).
"God, Country and Family" correctly summarize the mainstream press. A chilling episode of what seemed, until recently, as the history of the European Union almost ended, now reduced to chasing targets too many years ago, as always traveled by internal divisions, however, seem more and more difficult to neutralize, still a victim of divergent national interests in foreign policy, and the now obvious subordination against emerging powers (the U.S.) and emerging (China, Bric, etc.)..
Curiously, however, the Hungarian restores the current episode (too easily failed) Asor of observations about the Italian case. As noted in some newspapers (La Repubblica, for example), Europe intervened at the time of decision Haider (whose crime was simply that of being elected), but is expected to slow to do so today with Hungary.
Difficult to intervene, in general, when a democracy decide, (more or less) democratically, to restrict democracy itself. Even more difficult is it when the supranational European institution is weak, and this shows in the eyes of citizens to which the European dream says far too little.
Above all, what concerns us is that the Hungarian case foreshadows, mutatis mutandis, the future (which, however, is already among us) of the Italian case. It is useful to remember that our prime minister was a member of P2, as the leader in the House (the unmentionable Cicchitto) of his party, and that the Plan of democratic rebirth of Licio Gelli (see the lucid analysis performed by Marco Travaglio progress in implementing the plan by the various governments of B since 1994, which contains clear indications of the Italian political will of the executive).
Note also the similarity between the new requirements of the Hungarian Constitution and the pillars of the Plan, and the convergence between the values underpinning the paper of Budapest and the new slogan intrusiveness B., who wants to steal the young professors to the left to restore the family values.
If a time Europe was the future of the former communist countries in Europe, today they could be the future of many European countries (Finland, remember), where democracy rebels in itself but in the name of the elusive support voters, not surprisingly heralded by the Italian scheme every time you criticize.
When will the establishment of a new ministry for the implementation of the Plan instead of the Program? In the meantime, study well the newly established Hungarian might as well prepare. And most importantly, you begin to think seriously about what to do: after all, pace of the many who have demolished to Asor is not an attempt to rethink the antibodies (now more than ever the metaphor is apt) that democracy should own against its own degeneration. 
The new constitution, adopted yesterday by a majority of two thirds of the classroom (and lack of respect, support the opposition - the left one was controversially removed from the classroom itself -, the consultation procedures), brings "a ' idea of national unity of Hungary, founded on the values of Christianity and the role of the latter in fact preserve the Hungarian nationality, severely limits the powers of the Constitutional Court and amending the mandate of its members (as well as President of the Court of Auditors and the central bank governor), strengthening government control over the media and the judiciary, reduces the concept of family in such a way as to exclude any reference to parent families, cohabiting couples and same-sex, prohibits discrimination, but not for grounds of sexual orientation, age and genetics, calls "the life of the fetus is protected from conception, extending voting rights to children or their mothers, as well as to Hungarians living abroad (which obviously worries their neighbors).
"God, Country and Family" correctly summarize the mainstream press. A chilling episode of what seemed, until recently, as the history of the European Union almost ended, now reduced to chasing targets too many years ago, as always traveled by internal divisions, however, seem more and more difficult to neutralize, still a victim of divergent national interests in foreign policy, and the now obvious subordination against emerging powers (the U.S.) and emerging (China, Bric, etc.)..
Curiously, however, the Hungarian restores the current episode (too easily failed) Asor of observations about the Italian case. As noted in some newspapers (La Repubblica, for example), Europe intervened at the time of decision Haider (whose crime was simply that of being elected), but is expected to slow to do so today with Hungary.
Difficult to intervene, in general, when a democracy decide, (more or less) democratically, to restrict democracy itself. Even more difficult is it when the supranational European institution is weak, and this shows in the eyes of citizens to which the European dream says far too little.
Above all, what concerns us is that the Hungarian case foreshadows, mutatis mutandis, the future (which, however, is already among us) of the Italian case. It is useful to remember that our prime minister was a member of P2, as the leader in the House (the unmentionable Cicchitto) of his party, and that the Plan of democratic rebirth of Licio Gelli (see the lucid analysis performed by Marco Travaglio progress in implementing the plan by the various governments of B since 1994, which contains clear indications of the Italian political will of the executive).
Note also the similarity between the new requirements of the Hungarian Constitution and the pillars of the Plan, and the convergence between the values underpinning the paper of Budapest and the new slogan intrusiveness B., who wants to steal the young professors to the left to restore the family values.
If a time Europe was the future of the former communist countries in Europe, today they could be the future of many European countries (Finland, remember), where democracy rebels in itself but in the name of the elusive support voters, not surprisingly heralded by the Italian scheme every time you criticize.
When will the establishment of a new ministry for the implementation of the Plan instead of the Program? In the meantime, study well the newly established Hungarian might as well prepare. And most importantly, you begin to think seriously about what to do: after all, pace of the many who have demolished to Asor is not an attempt to rethink the antibodies (now more than ever the metaphor is apt) that democracy should own against its own degeneration.
No comments:
Post a Comment