Istanbul and the Migration Pact

By admin
2 Min Read

Péter Szijjártó described the UN migration pact as “a threat to the country’s security interests” and withdrew Hungarian participation in further talks. At the end of October, Austria, currently presiding over the European Union, has withdrawn very loudly. Sebastian Kurz confirmed that the pact was “outwardly charming, but very tough inside”.

The Polish Prime Minister has also announced a press conference with Angela Merkel and said that his country is unlikely to sign the pact. Then Croatia, Slovenia, Switzerland and, of course, the Czech Republic followed the others. Only Slovakia remains a little bit silent from the Visegrad countries, but there are already excited discussions in Parliament.

Supporters of a signature use the same non-moral arguments. The signature is defended by the fact that the pact is non-binding, implicitly saying: We will sign it and then we will not have to keep it. We will not be the reactionaries, the peasants! Apart from the exceptions, they do not mention the contents of the Pact and its benefits, they probably believe that the voters are not able to read it, and they might still be wondering why the words “commit” and “commitment” appear more than eighty times.

The advantage probably is that the government of Andrej Babiš lives only by probing a mood. The Istanbul Treaty is a harder nut. If the purpose of the apocalyptic preaching of Petr Piťha was to halt the public debate and to prevent the silent reception of the document, it was fulfilled. 

The Istanbul Treaty might appear an innocent piece of paper which is against violence, but ‘Homo brusselicus’ cannot do anything without “obligatory” adherents, which make the message unreasonable. Generally speaking, there are gender issues, LGBT marriages, reproductive rights and abortions, paid from the state budget.

Share This Article