Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-08-Speech-3-567-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-06-08"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Revised Hungarian constitution (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"hu"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110608.24.3-567-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-06-08-Speech-3-568-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Kinga Gál2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with India (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; AFET (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Fidesz-Magyar Polgári Szövetség-Keresztény Demokrata Néppárt (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; DROI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation for relations with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I would like to reassure my fellow Members and Mr Alvaro that Hungary is a state where the rule of law still prevails. I would like to reassure Mrs in ’t Veld, Mrs Göncz and Mrs Benova that Hungary still respects fundamental rights, human rights and the values of the Union. Hungarian laws and the constitution adopted in April comply with the laws and basic values of the European Union. Hungary is maintaining all her international legal obligations and commitments and, in fact, this is clearly stated in the text of the constitution, and if it were not the case, then the Commission would take it to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg to challenge it in a formal procedure; but we all know in this Chamber that this is not the case. Fellow Members, the question of what is included in the constitution of a country and what is dealt with at a different legislative level by a certain Member State is something that is quite clearly a matter of national sovereignty. In a democracy based on popular representation, it is up to the MPs elected in free elections to decide which areas should be dealt with at a constitutional level, and which areas should be dealt with at a general legislative level. What I do not understand about this debate is that up until now, we have been taught that laws that can be modified by a two-thirds majority are there to provide a guarantee that they cannot be abused. We need a two-thirds majority constitution because this is a rule that provides guarantees. Now we hear that many raise objections against the very two-thirds majority that they had previously seen as a guarantee. I personally feel that you are incapable of accepting the rules of the game of democracy. In addition, as my colleagues have already pointed out, the new Hungarian constitution refers to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is a new constitutional element, and considers the minorities of Hungary as an integral part of the Hungarian political community. The Hungarian Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations said that it elevates environmental protection and responsibility for future generations to an outstanding level. The way we speak about this constitution, we could be talking about any other European constitution. You always talk about difference, and emphasise that if something reflects a different value, it does not mean that it is better or worse. It is simply different, and as a Hungarian, I would be grateful if you could respect this in the spirit of unity in diversity."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph