Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-08-Speech-3-539-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110608.24.3-539-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, in this debate on the Hungarian constitution, we have, in fact, been having two debates. One is on the debate on the content of the constitution, and the other is a debate about the debate; in other words, on knowing whether it is legitimate or not to make pronouncements on the content of the Hungarian constitution in this Parliament or in any other institution outside of Hungary itself.
Regarding the debate on the content, we know that there are many parts that are of concern to us in Parliament, to the specific committees that have debated this document, or to the Venice Commission, for example. The issue of non-discrimination ... Mr Szájer tells us that it is not true that discrimination against, for example, gender or sexual minorities is not provided for, because there is a reference to all types of discrimination. As far as I am concerned, that reference is too vague and leaves too much room for subsequent court judgments contradicting it. It should be stipulated in the constitution, as is the norm in European countries, and as is the norm in the most advanced and progressive democracies.
The same goes for the foetus, the protection of the foetus, or, for example, for the Hungarian Republic’s checks and balances. However, we then have the debate about the debate, and the debate about the legitimacy of this issue being pronounced on in Parliament must also be fought very clearly. This is because, firstly, constitutions are not watertight. It needs to be said that wherever there are violations of fundamental rights, the 500 million citizens expect the European institutions to make pronouncements. Whether that violation is made by a law, by a constitution, or by a regulation, is irrelevant: wherever there is a violation of fundamental rights, it is not permitted under the Treaties.
Secondly, the explanation that, due to cultural differences, a constitution may be, let us say, free from criticism, is pure constitutional relativism. That cannot be the case. The fact of a constitution violating the spirit and letter of the Treaties, if that were the case, means it would be violating the sovereignty of the other 26 countries that have agreed to be in a European Union with the country that was able to violate the Treaties. It is therefore an issue for the sovereignty of all.
I would like to take this opportunity to just say one thing. The two-thirds majority – very often invoked here, and which, in fact, comes from 50% rather than two thirds of the votes cast by Hungarian citizens, since they make up two thirds of the Members of the Hungarian Parliament, but only 50% of the votes – serves for one thing everywhere: to confer a broad social consensus on the constitution. Those in power in Hungary have just used the two-thirds majority for exactly the opposite purpose: to exclude the opposition, ensuring that the constitution is extremely controversial in their society. It may be following the letter of the two-thirds rule, but it is violating its spirit."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples