Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 1000
Copyright (C) HIX
1997-05-17
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: Letter to Laszlo Solyom (mind)  24 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: Who's Left in Hungary? (mind)  41 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: The New York Times (mind)  34 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: Review: Eotvos, _The Dominant Ideas of the Nineteen (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Review: Eotvos, _The Dominant Ideas of the Nineteen (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Who's Left in Hungary? (mind)  67 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Vaclav Havel in the New York Times (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Who's Left in Hungary? (mind)  53 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Letter to Laszlo Solyom (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Havel on NATO (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: Review: Eotvos, _The Dominant Ideas of the Nineteen (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: Who's Left in Hungary? (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: Havel on NATO (mind)  11 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: Who's Left in Hungary? (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
15 Letter to Laszlo Solyom, (mind)  161 sor     (cikkei)
16 Letter to President of Hungarian Constitutional Court, (mind)  64 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: Who's Left in Hungary? (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: Letter to Laszlo Solyom (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> Tegnap egy kerest postaztam a Kepviselohaz tagjainak a Duna dolgaban
> (Melleklet) es a cimlista gepelese kozben vettem eszre, hogy Magyarorszagon a
> miniszterek egyben kepviselok is. Ez nekem alapvetoen helytelennek tunik es
> ezert kerni szeretnem, hogy foglalkozzatok ezzel a kerdessel, ha kiterjed
> erre az Alkotmanybirosag hataskore.

Is this a joke, or what?  The separation of legislative and executive
powers is a French invention (originally proposed by Montesquieu) which
became a cornerstone of the American constitution, but has never found
universal acceptance.  The Founding Fathers embraced it enthusiastically,
but most European countries ended up with a parliamentary system where
Parliament is sovereign, and executive power is formally subordinated
to it.

Hungary has a parliamentary system -- like Britain, Italy, France, or
Germany.  In each of these countries members of government are (and in
some cases are constitutionally required to be) members of parliament.
The next thing to do is to write to the highest judicial authorities
in France, Germany, Italy, and Britain, to demand that they convert their
system forthwith to bring it in compliance with American constitutional
standards, or else.

-----
Gabor Fencsik
+ - Re: Who's Left in Hungary? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Joe Szalai writes:

> To get back to my original question of, "Who's left in Hungary?", it seems
> there are no left formations.  To say that the Munkaspart is on the
> political left is, perhaps, to misunderstand what 'left' means.  For me,
> the political left must have a very strong progressive element, unsoiled by
> historical realpolitics.  What's progressive about the Munkaspart?  Have
> they embraced Green politics, minority rights, and democracy?

The Munkaspart is mostly a bunch of nostalgic old fogies, ex-members
of the Workers' Militia, ex-party functionaries, and the like.  They
get together to sing the old songs and reminesce about the good old times.
Actually, they mostly get together at funerals.  They are quite irrelevant,
but it is hard to describe them as anything but "Left".  Perhaps the
"Stalinist Left" is better, so "progressive leftists" don't take offense.

As for what you call the "progressive" left, such a thing does exist
in Hungary but it is weak and disorganized.  The governing Socialists
are really a Big Tent type of a party combining many ideological factions,
although they are currently being dominated by an ideology-free pragmatic
wing.  There is a social democratic faction led by Ivan Vitanyi that
professes views similar to the left wing of the German Socialists.  The
FIDESZ used to be strong on Green politics and minority rights, but they
mostly purged themselves of such tendencies in their hurry to stake out
a "Center Right" position.

Finally, the Free Democrats flirted, at their founding, with the idea
that they should adopt a Social Democratic platform.  That idea lost
out, and they gravitated toward a classical liberal position.  But the
tendency never completely died away.  Ferenc Koszeg, a Free Democrat MP,
and head of the Human Rights committee in Parliament, has always taken
a strong interest in minority rights, and runs a network of advocacy
centers that handle discrimination issues, the treatment of immigrants
and refugees, and exposing police brutality cases.  Another strong
pro-minority human rights faction was active under the leadership of
Ottilia Solt, also a Free Democratic MP, who has been active in various
anti-poverty causes ever since the early eighties, and was harassed by
the Kadarist police for it.

-----
Gabor Fencsik
+ - Re: The New York Times (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Amos J. Danube wrote:
>
> Miklos,
>
>    The NYT on the Internet is free in the States.

BTW, this answers ESB4s comment in another mail.

  Being a subscriber
> means
> to have access to the NYT. This is the reason that I could send the
> article
> to George Antony without any problem.
>    But George was right to complain - we should remember that some folks
> do
> not have easy access to things.The article should have been included at
> the
> mentioning of it.

As I already said, I do agree.

>    And I agree, it is one of the finest papers.George had possibly not
> been
> exposed to it long enough to judge it fairly.  Other uninformed people
> are,
> on the other hand, just venting  their anti-Americanism.  But they  do
> this
> regardless of the topic.
>                            Amos
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Miklos K. Hoffmann wrote:
> >
> > So, you are a paying subscriber?
> > MKH
+ - Re: Review: Eotvos, _The Dominant Ideas of the Nineteen (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hugh Agnew kindly provided a review of the Eotvos book from the Habsburg
list, for which I am grateful. This reminded me of a puzzle I have been
wondering for a long time. Why some history monographs have such a long
list of information in the area where the publishers is identified. For
example, the Eotvos book is identified as follows:

Boulder, Co.: Social Science Monographs;
Highland Lakes, NJ: Atlantic Research and Publications, Inc.;
New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1996.
Atlantic Studies on Society in Change, No. 87;
East European Monographs, No. 463.

There are even longer ones. Why is this complicated description? Is this
all important, or can this book properly identified by only one publisher and
one series? Which is the most significant?

Barna Bozoki
+ - Re: Review: Eotvos, _The Dominant Ideas of the Nineteen (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Sat, 17 May 1997, Peter I. Hidas wrote:

> The East European Monographs are published by S. Fischer-Galati in Denver.
> For over three decades the professor publishes essays on East-Central
> Europe. The Atlantic group is Bela Kiraly's publishing house run with Prof.
> Peter Pastor (University of Montclair) specializing in Hungarian topics.
> The distribution is carried out by the well known Columbia UP.

Thank you for helping to understand who is publishing the historical
monographs, but I am still not clear why several publishers are involved.
Is this to share the cost or to increase the status of the publication? Is
Professor S. Fisher-Galati financing or selecting and approving subjects for
the East European Monographs. Is the reference to Boulder, Co.: Social
Science Monograph indicate a third publishing house's involvement? It is
not shown in the review who holds the copyright to the Eotvos book, may be
it would give a clue as to who put up the money to publish it.

I first started to think about these questions when I looked at a few
monographs referred to as Bela Kiraly's books, and saw in them references
to various series with large serial numbers. I become curious about the
connection between an individual book and its series.

Barna Bozoki
+ - Re: Who's Left in Hungary? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 01:18 PM 5/16/97 -0700, Gabor Fencsik wrote:

<snip>
>As for the question whether six parties are too many, and whether
>a shake-out is inevitable -- I think the answer lies in the Hungarian
>electoral system.  It is an amazingly complicated beast that mixes
>elements of first-past-the-post and proportional representation,
>with some MPs elected in single-member districts, and others picked
>from party lists according to a complicated formula based on the
>nationwide and regional distribution of votes.  The picture is further
>clouded by a first and second round of voting held a few weeks apart.
>The system was designed in 1989 essentially by two people (Tolgyessy
>and Antall), both of whom had remarkably byzantine tastes.  Like many other
>electoral systems, it has some non-linear properties that are difficult
>to analyze.  The upshot is that a single party with 20 percent of the
>vote will end up with a lot more seats than two parties with 10 percent
>each.  This creates a clear incentive for small parties to merge --
>assuming they behave like rational actors.

The Hungarian system is unnecessarily convoluted and I don't even try to
understand it.  I just wait for the final tally.  Still, I don't think it's
as bad as those that aren't based on proportional representation.  In our
system (British, Canadian, Australian, etc.), whether there are two
political parties or six, it's possible that the majority don't govern.
It's even possible that the majority of voters are represented by only one
seat in parliament.  And that's no representation, really.  And that's bad
for democracy.  Imagine the majority being represented by one person.  Our
system allows such a situation to happen, the Hungarian system does not.
So, let's not talk about byzantine tastes until we're free from it.

<snip>
>I don't see why not.  A plumber spends a considerable amount of time
>up to his armpits in excrement, and gets paid handsomely for it.  Lawyers
>also do a great many unspeakable things, and get fat fees in return.
>What do politicians do?  They spend their days dealing with stuff most
>of us don't want to be bothered with: tax-loss carryforwards, mosquito
>abatement districts, zoning variances, grazing fees, and other dreadfully
>boring stuff.  Then for recreation they get to eat rubber chicken at the
>paving contractors' convention.  I say anyone who wants a life like that
>is suspect, and deserves to be watched very closely.

I think you've lived in the United States too long.  A lot of that
dreadfully boring stuff is done by bureaucrats, civil servants, and
municipal politicians.  And sure, there's little room for ideology in those
areas.  In national politics it's different, and ideology plays an
important role whether you like it or not.  Saying it's not ideological, or
downplaying it's importance, doesn't make it so.  It just shows your
political leaning - pro corporatist and anti-democratic.  But take heart,
you're just reflecting the American political situation and getting paid
handsomely for it.  However, and I'm sure you know this, America is not the
world.

To get back to my original question of, "Who's left in Hungary?", it seems
there are no left formations.  To say that the Munkaspart is on the
political left is, perhaps, to misunderstand what 'left' means.  For me,
the political left must have a very strong progressive element, unsoiled by
historical realpolitics.  What's progressive about the Munkaspart?  Have
they embraced Green politics, minority rights, and democracy?

Joe Szalai

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are
right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly
understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who
believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are
usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
         -- John Maynard Keynes
+ - Re: Vaclav Havel in the New York Times (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Barnabas Bozoki wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 May 1997, A.J.Vadasz wrote:
>
> > >>> The New York Times is available on the internet. That's how I read the
> > >> Vaclav article.   Andy
> > >So, you are a paying subscriber?
> > >MKH
> > No, there is no charge. I had to register to get access. No problem.  Andy.
> >
> Only if you have a USA address, from me they wanted a credit card number.
>
> Barna Bozoki
Indeed! Non-gringos must pay! Maybe, we should be grateful, that it is
not classified for us?
Miklos Hoffmann
+ - Re: Who's Left in Hungary? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> At 01:18 PM 5/16/97 -0700, Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> The Hungarian system is unnecessarily convoluted and I don't even try to
> understand it.  <snip>    ??????           Still, I don't think it's
> as bad as those that aren't based on proportional representation.   one
> seat in parliament.  And that's no representation, really.  And that's bad
> for democracy.  Imagine the majority being represented by one person.

Could you give a hint, how often this happans in reality?

 Our
> system allows such a situation to happen, the Hungarian system does not.
> So, let's not talk about byzantine tastes until we're free from it.
>
Sounds good. Does it make sense?

> <snip>


> areas.  In national politics it's different, and ideology plays an
> important role whether you like it or not.  Saying it's not ideological, or
> downplaying it's importance, doesn't make it so.  It just shows your
> political leaning - pro corporatist and anti-democratic.  But take heart,
> you're just reflecting the American political situation and getting paid
> handsomely for it.

You must know Gabor well. Else, again, somebody out there is seeing
clearly what other people are moved by...

> However, and I'm sure you know this, America is not the
> world.
>
Was that said by anybody? I must have missed it.

> To get back to my original question of, "Who's left in Hungary?", it seems
> there are no left formations.  To say that the Munkaspart is on the
> political left is, perhaps, to misunderstand what 'left' means.  For me,
> the political left must have a very strong progressive element, unsoiled by
                       you mean unspoiled?
> historical realpolitics.

you mean progressive must be not realistic?
Tell us, what you mean by progressive, if you use the word in this
context!

 What's progressive about the Munkaspart?  Have
> they embraced Green politics, minority rights, and democracy?
>
MKH
+ - Re: Letter to Laszlo Solyom (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>
> > Tegnap egy kerest postaztam a Kepviselohaz tagjainak a Duna dolgaban
> > (Melleklet) es a cimlista gepelese kozben vettem eszre, hogy Magyarorszagon
 a
> > miniszterek egyben kepviselok is. Ez nekem alapvetoen helytelennek tunik es
> > ezert kerni szeretnem, hogy foglalkozzatok ezzel a kerdessel, ha kiterjed
> > erre az Alkotmanybirosag hataskore.
>
> Is this a joke, or what?  The separation of legislative and executive
> powers is a French invention (originally proposed by Montesquieu) which
> became a cornerstone of the American constitution, but has never found
> universal acceptance.  The Founding Fathers embraced it enthusiastically,
> but most European countries ended up with a parliamentary system where
> Parliament is sovereign, and executive power is formally subordinated
> to it.
>
> Hungary has a parliamentary system -- like Britain, Italy, France, or
> Germany.  In each of these countries members of government are (and in
> some cases are constitutionally required to be) members of parliament.
> The next thing to do is to write to the highest judicial authorities
> in France, Germany, Italy, and Britain, to demand that they convert their
> system forthwith to bring it in compliance with American constitutional
> standards, or else.
>
> -----
> Gabor Fencsik
I do agree with this. My even more serious concern is that such a
correspondence can be misused from interested side to compromise the
Court of Constitution. I think, as a judge I would hate receiving mail
like this.
They ARE under siege and - just as one example - the coalition is
considering to change constitution to the effect, that norm control
requests would be only admitted with the consent of the majority, i.e.
- at least in most cases - the government.
MKH
+ - Re: Havel on NATO (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

S or G Farkas wrote:
>
> At 10:36 PM 5/15/97 +0200, Miklos Hoffman wrote:
>
> >1) I did support your first remark and would have prefered Bela
> >linking    a copy of the article to the note. I am a subscriber of the
> >NYT and    know, that else you do not get the article.
>
> The NYT on the web is available for free to US residents and for a fee to
> others (as far as I know). Linking copies of the articles to postings could
> get one in trouble, considering the copyright laws and the NYT's strength.
>
> Gabor D. Farkas
Well, this could be true...
MKH
+ - Re: Review: Eotvos, _The Dominant Ideas of the Nineteen (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:01 PM -0400 5/16/97, Barnabas Bozoki wrote:
>Hugh Agnew kindly provided a review of the Eotvos book from the Habsburg
>list, for which I am grateful. This reminded me of a puzzle I have been
>wondering for a long time. Why some history monographs have such a long
>list of information in the area where the publishers is identified. For
>example, the Eotvos book is identified as follows:
>
>Boulder, Co.: Social Science Monographs;
>Highland Lakes, NJ: Atlantic Research and Publications, Inc.;
>New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1996.
>Atlantic Studies on Society in Change, No. 87;
>East European Monographs, No. 463.
>
>There are even longer ones. Why is this complicated description? Is this
>all important, or can this book properly identified by only one publisher and
>one series? Which is the most significant?
>
>Barna Bozoki

The East European Monographs are published by S. Fischer-Galati in Denver.
For over three decades the professor publishes essays on East-Central
Europe. The Atlantic group is Bela Kiraly's publishing house run with Prof.
Peter Pastor (University of Montclair) specializing in Hungarian topics.
The distribution is carried out by the well known Columbia UP.

Peter I.Hidas
Montreal
+ - Re: Who's Left in Hungary? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> >The pattern is the same in Hungary.  I haven't even heard the MP
> >to say stuff like "renationalisation under full democratic control"
>
> Thank God...
>
>
> Vamossy Karcsi
>

Actually, I had a look at their homepage. If this is left, I do
wonder what the middle is, and I don't want to know what "right"
is...  They do not have any non-capitalist aims. I couldn't find the
word socialism, that is still pronounced every few months even by
New Labour!

They want the
national bank and public utilities stay nationalised, which is not
unheard of in Western Europe. They want the hungarian arm industry
to be developed for export capability!!!
They don't want Nato - but there are "mature democracies" in Europe
outside Nato.
 I didn't find anything about new democratic
structures.  (the text found there is a shortened version of their
program, perhaps I missed the best bits - but I doubt it.)

This doesn't mean there won't be a left revival - this sorry looking
"boom" in the West will see into that.

+ - Re: Havel on NATO (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:36 PM 5/15/97 +0200, Miklos Hoffman wrote:

>1) I did support your first remark and would have prefered Bela
>linking    a copy of the article to the note. I am a subscriber of the
>NYT and    know, that else you do not get the article.

The NYT on the web is available for free to US residents and for a fee to
others (as far as I know). Linking copies of the articles to postings could
get one in trouble, considering the copyright laws and the NYT's strength.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: Who's Left in Hungary? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:02 AM 5/17/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>To get back to my original question of, "Who's left in Hungary?", it seems
>there are no left formations.  To say that the Munkaspart is on the
>political left is, perhaps, to misunderstand what 'left' means.  For me,
>the political left must have a very strong progressive element, unsoiled by
>historical realpolitics.  What's progressive about the Munkaspart?  Have
>they embraced Green politics, minority rights, and democracy?

See, the problem is that the words LEFT, RIGHT and CENTER are so relative;
depending on where an individual stands, s/he is in the center, and
everybody else is on his/her left or right. I suggest that instead of
debating who's left or right, let's debate who stands for what and what we
think about it.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Letter to Laszlo Solyom, (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Colleagues,

Please find attached a letter, which I sent to the President of the
Constitutional Court of Hungary. It contains three(3) requests:

1) To separate the legistlative and executive branches of Government by
stopping  the practice of Ministers being allowed to also hold seats as
members of Parliament.

2) Open the III/II files of the AVH.

3) State that acceptance of the C-Variant would be unconstitutional.

If you want to support any of these positions, you might refer to the
attached letter, was mailed today.

Best regards: Bela Liptak

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Prof. Dr. Laszlo Solyom
President of the Constitutional Court of Hungary
H-1015 Budapest, Donati ut 35-45, Hungary
(Fax: 011-361-212-1270, E-mail: )

Tisztelt Elnok Ur, Kedves Laszlo!

Tegnap egy kerest postaztam a Kepviselohaz tagjainak a Duna dolgaban
(Melleklet) es a cimlista gepelese kozben vettem eszre, hogy Magyarorszagon a
miniszterek egyben kepviselok is. Ez nekem alapvetoen helytelennek tunik es
ezert kerni szeretnem, hogy foglalkozzatok ezzel a kerdessel, ha kiterjed
erre az Alkotmanybirosag hataskore.

Ugy gondolom, hogy helyes kulonvalasztani az allamgepezet torvenyhozo es
vegrehajto reszlegeit es ezert az is fontos, hogy a torvenyeket hozo
kepviseloknek csak egy  erdeke legyen: az hogy az oket megvalaszto
allampolgarok elegedettek legyenek munkajukkal.  Az USA-ban nem csak
"mellekallasa" nem lehet a torvenyhozonak, de vagyonanak kezeleset is egy
gondnok kezebe kell adnia, mert csak igy erheto el, hogy ne is tudja, melyik
vallalatnak reszvenyese es igy meg veletlenul sem jatszhasson szerepet az o
vallalatanak az erdeke a torvenyhozasban. Azert is helytelenitem az ilyen
allashalmozast, mert ha egy kepviselo vagy miniszter tenyleg elvegzi a
kotelesseget, akkor nem maradhat ideje, energiaja egy ilyen fontos masik
feladatkor becsuletes ellatasara. Ezert abban csak rossz munkat vegezhet!

A fenti keresen kivul szeretnem megismetelni ket mar korabban felvetett
kerdesunket: Az elso a III/II-es aktakra, a masodik a Dunara vonatkozik:

1996 junius 21-en, Petrovay Szabolcs, Szteitz Angras es en, az AVH III/II-es
megfigyeltjei neveben es Pacolai Peter tanacsa alapjan, hivatkoztunk az
Alkotmany 70/A bekezdesere (mely alkotmanyellenesnek nyilvanitja az
allampolgarok megkulonbozteteset) es kertuk, hogy az allamhatarokon kivul elo
magyarok kartotekjait (III/II csoport) hozzak nyilvanossagra. Mivel erre a
keresre a mai napig nem kaptunk valaszt, kerni szeretnem, hogy a Birosag
foglalkozzon keresunkkel.

Vegul a Duna dolgaban a kovetkezo kerdesem lenne: Helyesen ertelmezem-e a
Magyar Alkotmanyt, ha azt allitom, hogy: Mivel az Alkotmany kotelezi a
mindenkori Kormanyt az orszag integritasanak megvedesere es mivel az
orszagnak ugyanugy reszet jelenti hatarfolyojanak vize, mint a hatarara eso
szanto vagy legelo, ezert alkotmanyellenes barmely olyan szerzodes, mely az
orszagot reszben vagy teljesen megfosztja hatarfolyojanak vizetol. Ebbol
kovetkezik, hogy az is alkotmanyellenes lenne, ha a Kormany vagy a
Kepviselohaz valamilyen megegyezes kereteben elfigadna a C-varians
veglegesiteset es igy nem kovetelne a Duna teljes visszatereleset
Dunacsunnal.

Oszinte tisztelettel es szeretettel koszont: Liptak Bela

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
MELLEKLET
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

KÉRÉS A MAGYAR ORSZÁGGYÜLÉS TAGJAIHOZ

Ahhoz, hogy a Hágai Bíróság, illetve a világ közvéleménye támogathassa a Duna
kérdésében a magyar álláspontot, ahhoz világosan meg kell fogalmazni azt!
Sajnos ez a per folyamán nem történt meg, illetve ennek éppen az ellenkezöje
történt, mert a magyar delegáció részéröl elhangzó különbözö álláspontok
szöges ellentétben álltak úgy egymással, mint az Országgyülés korábbi, (ma is
érvényben lévö!) határozataival.
           A magyar delegáció kijelentéseinek skálája a "mindent le kell
bontani" állásponttól, "a Duna elterelése (a C-variáns) véglegesitése is
szóba jöhet" álláspontig, mindent magábanfoglalt és ezzel  bizonyitotta, hogy
nem létezik egy átgondolt összmagyar álláspont, csak a világos szó
felelösségét vállalni nem merö, a biróság háta megé elbújni kivánó olyan
politikusok léteznek, akik nem merik nyíltan elvetni a fenti két extrém
álláspontot és Hágától várják azt a döntést, amit önmaguk nem akarnak vagy
nem tudnak meghozni. 

Ezért kérni szeretném, hogy most, amikor a 15 bíró még csak konzultál
kormányaival, még csak mérlegeli a közvélemény elvárásait, de véleményt még
nem formált, most szavazzon meg a Magyar Parlament egy olyan "összmagyar"
álláspontot,  melyet a teljes Képviselöház és annak minden pártja támogat. Az
ország integritásának, Europa egyetlen belföldi tenger-deltájának, a
Szigetköznek megvédését nem szabad pártérdekeknek alárendelni. Nincs
konzervativ vagy liberális Duna, nincs kormánypárti vagy ellenzéki Szigetköz,
 e kérdésben nem lehet más mint egyetlen magyar álláspont. Joggal várja el
Önöktöl a magyar nép, hogy a Duna védelmében képesek legyenek egyet érteni,
hogy az "összmagyar" álláspontot idöben, (tehát még most, a birósági
konzultációk ideje alatt) képesek legyenek megfogalmazni.

A Képviselöház határozatának nem kell kitérnie a részletekre. Az
Országgyülésnek nem a szivattyúk kiválasztása a dolga, de az alapelveket
igenis Önöknek kell lefektetniük: E határozatnak le kell szögeznie, hogy a
Duna visszaterelése, a C- variáns lebontása nem legyet alku tárgya. A Duna
100%-os visszaterelésének elérésére minden eszközt, beleértve az ENSZ
Biztonsági Tanácsának összehivását is, igénybe kell venni. A C-variáns
felszámolása nem egy nagy létesitmény lebontása, az csak párezer betontömb
kiemelése a dunacsúni mederböl. A C- variáns bármilyen formában való
elfogadására utalni nem a bírósági "táncrend" szokásos záróeleme, nem a
kompromisszumkészség jele, hanem a Nemzetgyülés érvénybenlévö határozatának
és a Magyar Alkotmánynak a semmibevétele.

Ugyanakkor azt is ki kell mondania a Nemzetgyülés határozatának, hogy
elfogadja a nemzetközi NGOk álláspontját, támogatja a Kiegyezési Tervet,
tehát: hajlandó Dunakilitit beinditani, ott áramot termelni, (ha Bös kisvíz
idején csak mint állóvizü, hajózási oldalcsatorna müködik) és hajlandó
sarkantyús mederszükítéssel és eróziógátló matracokkal visszaállítani a
Szigetköz századfordulói állapotát, hogy így kialakulhasson ott, nem csak
Európa legnagyobb ekoturisztikai központja, de egy három-nemzeti Európai
Szabad Zóna is, mely az ausztriai Hainburgtól Gönyüig terjed és példája lesz
a térségben a megbékélésnek, együttmüködésnek.

Ha a Magyar Képviselöház az elkövetkezö hetekben elfogad egy ilyen
határozatot, ha az Országgyülés megtámogatja az NGOk kidolgozta Kiegyezési
Tervet, vagy valami hasonlót, akkor a Hágai Bíróság, a világ közvélemenye és
az ENSZ Duna Rehabilitációs Alapja (anyagilag is) támogatni fogja azt, akkor
2:0-ra gyözünk  Hágában és akkor lezárul ez (a részben magunk széthúzása,
határozatlansága által létrehozott) szerencsétlen helyzet.

Ha a Magyar Képviselöház nem hajlandó vagy nem képes egy ilyen pártok
feletti, össznemzeti álláspont megfogalmazsára, úgy a birósági döntés 1:1
lesz, és akkor, (most már a mi hibánkból!), tovább folytatódik majd, ez a
jelenlegi áldatlan állapot. Kérem ezért a Magyar Országgyülés minden tagját,
de személy szerint Önt is, hogy vállalják történelmi felelösségüket, ne
várják, hogy más fogja kikaparni ki a  mi gesztenyénket, meghozni a mi
döntésünket, hozzák végre világosan a világ tudomására a Dunaperrel
kapcsolatos összmagyar állaspontot.

Ha Önök erre képesek, ha képesek a pártérdekek helyett most csak a nemzet és
az emberiség érdekeit nézni, akkor a Hágai Biróság támogatni fogja a
Kiegyezési Tervet (mint már tette az e heti Business Week, s tenni fogja jövö
héten a Christian Science Monitor) és a világ vezetöi kikényszerítik majd
annak végrehajtását. Kérem álljanak hivatásuk magaslatán és tegyék ezt
lehetövé.

És ha erre képtelenek lennének, akkor legalább erösítsék meg (a jelenleg is
érvényben lévö) korábbi határozatukat, mely kizárja, hogy a C-variánst Magyar
Parlament elfogadhassa és ezzel átadja szlovák kézbe a Duna csapját.


Öszinte Tisztelettel: Lipták Béla 








Dr. Solyom Laszlo, elnok
+ - Letter to President of Hungarian Constitutional Court, (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Colleagues,

In the attached  letter I ask the president of the Hungarian Constitutional
Court to look into three legal topics:

1) The possible conflict between the legistlative and executive branches of
government, when the ministers are also members of the Parliament.

2) The opening of the secret files of the AVH Section III/II.

3) The conflict between acceptance of the diversion of the Danube and the
Constitution.

If you agree with any of these, you too might want to write.

Best regards: Bela Liptak

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Attachment
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Prof. Dr. Solyom Laszlo
A Magyar Alkotmanybirosag elnoke
H-1015 Budapest
Donati ut 35-45
Fax: 011-361-212-1270
E-mail: 

Tisztelt Elnok Ur, Kedves Laszlo!

Tegnap egy levelet irtam a Kepviselohaz tagjainak a Duna dolgaban es a
cimlista gepelesekor vettem eszre, hogy a magyar miniszterk tobbsege egyben
kepviselo is.

En ugy gondolom, hogy az allamgepezet torvenyhozo es vegrehajto agazatai
kozott nem szabad atfedesnek lennie. Szerintem fontos, hogy a kepviselonek ne
legyen mas erdeke, mint a valasztoi megelegedettsegenek az elerese. Nalunk az
USA-ban a kepviselonek nem csak "mellekallasa" nem lehet, de meg az
ertekpapirjait is gondnok kezebe kell adnia, mert ha tudna, hogy melyik
vallalat reszvenyeinek a birtokosa, az esetleg befolyasolhatna donteseit. A
masik ok, mely miatt helytelenitem az ilyenten "allashalmozast" az, hogy ha
egy miniszter vagy kepviselo tenyleg elvegzi a dolgat, akkor neki nem marad
ideje es energiaja a masik feladatkor betoltesere. Ezert abban csak rossz
munkat vegezhet.

A fenti kerdes mellett szeretnek meg ket, korabban mar feltett kerdest
elismetelni. Az elso a III/II-es aktakra, a masodik a Dunara vonatkozik:

1996 junius 21-en Petrovay Szabolcs, Szteitz Andras es jomagam, az AVH
III/II-es osztalyanak megfigyeltjei neveben, (Dr. Pacolai Peter tanacsara es
hivatkozva az Alkotmany 70/A bekezdesere, mely alkotmanyellenesnek
nyilvanitja az allampolgarok megkulonbozteteset), kertuk, hogy az
allamhatarokon kivul elo magyarok kartotekjait is hozzak nyilvanossagra.
Mivel erre a megkeresesre a mai napig valaszt nem kaptunk, kejuk, hogy a
Birosag foglalkozzon az uggyel.

Vegul a Duna dolgaban a kovetkezo kerdesem lenne: Mivel a Magyar Alkotmany
kotelezi a mindenkori magyar kormanyt az orszag integritasanak a megvedesere
es mivel az orszagnak ugyanugy resze a hatarfolyojanak vize, mint a hatar
talaja, ezert alkotmanyellenes-e minden olyan szerzodes, mely az orszagot
reszben vagy teljesen megfosztja hatarfolyojanak vizetol? Masszoval,
alkotmanyellenes lenne-e az, ha a Kormany vagy a Kepviselohaz olyan
megegyezest fogadna el, mely nem bontja le hanem veglegesiti a C-Varianst?

Oszinte tisztelettel es szeretettel koszont: Liptak Bela
+ - Re: Who's Left in Hungary? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Gabor Fencsik
> writes:

>What do politicians do?  They spend their days dealing with stuff most
>of us don't want to be bothered with: tax-loss carryforwards, mosquito
>abatement districts, zoning variances, grazing fees, and other dreadfully
>boring stuff.  Then for recreation they get to eat rubber chicken at the
>paving contractors' convention.  I say anyone who wants a life like that
>is suspect, and deserves to be watched very closely.
>
>

You should try having to attend said deliberations and render a coherent,
accurate written account of them to the teeming masses. Bismark knew
whereof he spoke.
Sam Stowe

"That boy, Frank -- he lives inside
his own heart. That's an awful big
place to live in..."
-- Karl Childers

AGYKONTROLL ALLAT AUTO AZSIA BUDAPEST CODER DOSZ FELVIDEK FILM FILOZOFIA FORUM GURU HANG HIPHOP HIRDETES HIRMONDO HIXDVD HUDOM HUNGARY JATEK KEP KONYHA KONYV KORNYESZ KUKKER KULTURA LINUX MAGELLAN MAHAL MOBIL MOKA MOZAIK NARANCS NARANCS1 NY NYELV OTTHON OTTHONKA PARA RANDI REJTVENY SCM SPORT SZABAD SZALON TANC TIPP TUDOMANY UK UTAZAS UTLEVEL VITA WEBMESTER WINDOWS