Why punish Hungary?

If dependent on Slovak MEPs, the Sargentini report would not be approved. Three members of the European Parliament were voting for the report while five voted against and a further five abstained.

Anna Záborská (KDH) claimed that while she has certain reservations to a few steps of the Hugarian government she couldn’t support Sangertini’s report and voted against. The document is biased and not objective, it includes issues which were solved in the past and other criticized measures are in effect in other European countries as well. Záborská believes that the report was presented in the parliament because the European Commission was not able to gather enough objective arguments to act as in the case of Poland. “Instead of facts there is ideology and political gestures, which I reject," emphasized the Christian conservative MEP.

Branislav Škripek (OĽaNO) believes that the states of Central Europe have a right to formulate a vision of the European project. “The Hungarian government is far from being a similar danger to the European Union as the deformed democracy of left-wing liberalism," added Škripek who thinks the real danger to democracy is killing journalists, like in the case of Slovakia and Malta, and the Hungarian process resembles a witch hunt.

Richard Sulík (SaS) was one of the MEPs who opted to abstain as well as Jana Žitňanská (Nova). She claimed that escalating the conflicts will only help those politicians who are trying to enforce their own goals in the European Union. “The further radicalization is not in the interests of the EU neither in Slovakia. The report also contains a few errors and in many places exceeds the purpose of evaluation,” added Žitňanská.

Continue Reading

Defending Duda's claim that the EU is an "imaginary community"

Mysterious change

Civic Platform's u-turn on ACTA2