Given that the same corporate media's almost favourable stance on the EU's regime changes in Italy and Greece, their hounding of DSK and Berlusconi and in general, their terrible record for reporting the truth, I'm inclined to be sceptical about their reportage of the status quo in Hungary.
Indeed, yesterday, Andrea Hossó* told us that he did not recognise the Hungary so described and was fairly gobsmacked at the EU's stance:
"What a stupefying experience it is to see the democratic West lamenting the replacement of a patched-up Stalinist "constitution" that was forced upon Hungary in 1949 by the infamous totalitarian communist government that was put in power by, and in the shadow of, the occupying Soviet army. Would the free and democratic countries of the West prefer the patched-up Stalinist diktat of a "constitution" to one written and passed by a freely and democratically elected parliament after conducting a nationwide survey of the citizenry about its constitutional preference?"Today, Dan Hannan seems to think that Hungary has been a little bit naughty, while conceding that the EU takes more liberties.
So what is the truth? Perhaps the EU doesn't like Hungary's new stance, whereby:
"The life of a fetus is protected from the moment of conception [...] Same-sex couples may legally register their partnerships but marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. [...] The country's name is changed from "Hungarian Republic" to "Hungary", and although the country remains a republic, the preamble contains references to the Holy Crown, as well as to God, Christianity, the fatherland and traditional family values."Or perhaps it doesn't like Hungary's central bank, which rejects the globalist preference for private money interests controlling national monetary policies.
Watch that space.
Related:
- The EU ignored years of expert warnings on cruise ship safety - Christopher Booker, Telegraph





1 comments:
I think Hungary's constitution is none of our business, or the EU's come to that.
Post a Comment