Proposition 53K2001

Proposition de résolution relative à la Constitution hongroise révisée.

General information ¶

Authors

LE Georges Dallemagne
MR François-Xavier de Donnea
Open Vld Herman De Croo, Patrick Dewael
PS | SP Philippe Blanchart, Guy Coëme, Patrick Moriau, Christiane Vienne
Vooruit Bruno Tuybens, Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

Jan. 17, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Union Hungary constitutional revision resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V ∉ LDD VB

Abstained from voting

N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 26, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The speaker is Mr. Bishop Bishop and for now Mr. by Deseyn, Mr. Blanchart, Mrs. Brems and Mr. De Croo are included in the list of speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I could make it easy for me by referring to the written report. Since there is no written report, I cannot refer to it. Nor can I refer to the oral report, since I still have to give it.

I will have to give my report partly based on the data on my iPad. There is no paper version.

This is modernity.

This is modernity, indeed.

I received a draft of the report from the services of the Chamber half an hour ago, which may provide some supplementation.

Mr. Speaker, the MEPs you just mentioned, led by Mr. Blachart, have submitted a resolution referring to the adoption in Hungary of measures which, according to the applicants, challenge the rule of law and European values. They do so more specifically and in spite of repeated warnings from the European Commission, by restricting the powers of the Constitutional Court and restricting the freedom of the press. In Budapest, several thousand people had already demonstrated against the new constitution at the time of the submission. The criticism of the European Union, which states that the reform is not in line with European law, has left the Hungarian government unanswered for a while.

According to the authors of the resolution, the new constitution affects private life by limiting the powers of the Constitutional Court. It is also concerned for the maintenance of the separation of powers. In addition to these restrictive laws, the freedom of the press was also severely restricted.

In the light of those violations of the separation of powers and of the values of the European Union, the applicants consider that the Hungarian government should be prosecuted, respecting national sovereignty, but without overlooking the bond that binds all the Member States of the European Union.

There has also been a discussion on this issue in the European Parliament. Nevertheless, the applicants wish to submit a resolution to the vote, calling on the government to strongly condemn the revision of the Hungarian Constitution through the European Union institutions.

It is of course free for the speakers to provide the discussion of further arguments during this plenary session.

Following the introduction of the main speaker, Mr. Blanchart, many members of the Chamber Committee on Foreign Relations have expressed their views.

On behalf of the N-VA group, Ms Dumery regretted that she was not involved in the initiative, the draft resolution. She announced that the N-VA group would abstain because the current situation has captured the resolution. She referred, among other things, to a certain form of hypocrisy in the resolution concerning the independence of the National Bank of Belgium from the politics in that country, in comparison with our country, and also formulated other elements of criticism. The N-VA would therefore abstain in the vote.

Mr Deseyn, on behalf of the CD&V Group, indicated that he would reject the present proposal for a resolution because that debate belongs to the European Parliament. He joins, on behalf of his group, the statement of Mr. Barroso and the conclusions of the European Parliament.

Mr De Croo stated that he considered the resolution important. If you are a member of a particular club, you must follow the rules of that club. He says that European Union directives are important on a budgetary and socio-economic level, especially when it comes to ethical or moral issues.

Mr Dallemagne stated on behalf of cdH that he also found it useful to discuss this issue at the level of the Member States, so that decisions cannot be taken only at European level. Freedoms are put in place in Hungary with these measures and legislative changes. He also indicated that everything has an irreversible character, since the laws can only be amended by a two-thirds majority.

On behalf of the Flemish Interest Group, Mr. Veys indicated that he would vote against because, I quote, “Belgian politicians are poorly placed to give lessons, because even here in Belgium the opposition is bound and because Europe is not an example of democracy.”

Boulet and Brems, on behalf of the Ecolo/Green Group, indicated that they would support the motion for a resolution. They regret that the group was not involved in the initiative. They also submitted a number of substantive amendments. They also refer to the voice already heard by the Green Group in the European Parliament. In addition, they advocate the strict observance of European values.

Finally, Mr Maingain spoke on behalf of the FDF group. He stated that it is not only a principle issue, but also a political issue and that the Belgian State must vigorously defend this position. He referred, among other things, to the opinion of the Venice Commission in the European Council of June 2011.

The Minister’s representative also took the floor. He said that Mr Reynders had had a meeting in The Hague, within the framework of the Benelux, with the Hungarian minister. The Minister shares the concerns of the majority members of the Chamber Committee on Foreign Relations. The Minister also requested that this issue be put on the agenda of the Council of 27 January. This is a rather exceptional procedure.

Finally, Mr de Donnea, on behalf of the MR group, indicated why he wishes to support this resolution. The member states must interfere with what is happening in other member states because the EU is a confederation. Especially when fundamental rights are compromised, it is our duty to do so.

Mr. Speaker, before I speak of the amendments, I have to refer to the letter that the Hungarian ambassador sent you on 19 January. He says in it, I quote:

“For my part, I would like to express to you my conviction that much of the concerns expressed regarding constitutional changes in Hungary are unfounded; they are based on the misunderstanding and/or misunderstanding of legal details as well as on the simplifications and exaggerations propagated by the press.”

Signed by Zoltán Hernyes, Ambassador of Hungary.

Finally, a number of amendments to the resolution were submitted, one of which was withdrawn and one was not accepted by the Chamber Committee on Foreign Relations. The other six, if I can count correctly, are accepted. These include both text amendments and supplements on factual matters.

All these amendments and the draft resolution were adopted by a majority of 10 votes. Opposition votes came from the CD&V- and VB-fractions. Resistance came from the representatives of the N-VA. Here is my report from the House Committee, which took place yesterday.

They are registered MM. Deseyn and Blanchart, Mrs. Brems, Mr. Croo and Maingain and Mrs. Dumery. I would like to give the floor to Mr. by Blanchart.

Mr. Speaker, I can only welcome the constructive approach of the Committee on Foreign Relations meeting yesterday, which has made it possible for us to reach a proposal for a resolution that will be debated and, I hope, adopted today. Since a European Council meeting will be held on Monday, this could be a strong signal from our country.

Mr. Speaker, together with many colleagues, we have severely denounced the anti-democratic attitude of the Hungarian government, in particular with the entry into force of this new Constitution on 1 January. This government has taken, for several months, completely antidemocratic measures that question the foundations, the basic values of our European Community.

These basic values, we demand from countries that knock at our door. So, what a paradox to have today in our midst a country that abuses them! The choices made today are hardly reversible. In fact, as you know, once the Constitution is adopted, it is a two-thirds majority that can change it, which means that the next Hungarian majority will hardly be able to step back.

Our concerns are multiplied and the facts are serious: restriction of the freedom of the press and the media, massive dismissals of journalists, prohibition and closure of a free radio that represented the opposition, infringement of the independence of the Constitutional Court and the courts, questioning of the independence of the Hungarian Central Bank, discrimination against ethnic, religious, sexual minorities, against single-parent families, women, etc.

It is not the light explanation of the Hungarian prime minister in front of the European Parliament that will change anything, nor even the will of one of the PPE leaders who imagines that Mr. Trump will change anything. Orbán will follow the EPP in his recommendations!

In Budapest, people went down the streets. Several tens of thousands of people demonstrated against this new text and its antidemocratic character. The Commission’s legal analysis is without appeal; Hungarian legislation is contrary to EU law in that it challenges the independence of the central bank and national data protection authorities and contains measures affecting the judicial system.

Several European Parliament groups have called for the application of Article 7 of the EU Treaty to suspend Hungary’s right to vote in the Council. Article 7 establishes a mechanism of prevention in the event of a risk of serious violation of the common values of Europe by one of its Member States.

These sanctions may consist of either the referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the imposition of financial penalties, or the suspension of the voting right of the Member State during the meetings of European ministers.

Depending on the Commission’s findings, these sanctions will have to be applied in a concerted manner, as was the case for Austria in 2000, when the far-right came to power. What seems essential to emphasize here is that once the extreme right came to power in Austria, these arrangements were taken a priori. In this case, the provisions are already taken.

That is why, dear colleagues, we submitted this resolution. Our text calls on the Government to strongly condemn, through the national institutions and through the European institutions, the revision of the Hungarian Constitution, as a violation of the founding and common values of the European Union. It is about ensuring that our fundamental values are respected within the European Union and all its Member States, whether they are members or knock on its door.

Our Assembly must be able to quickly send a clear and strong signal to the European institutions, because what is being threatened today is the Union as a whole, in the name of human rights, in the name of the freedoms that unite our peoples beyond borders and legislation.

Colleagues, in fact, we have, of course, already had a serious advance in this debate at the initiative of the Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, it is also in this matter that I would like to address you. If I understand it correctly, you have already written a letter to the Ambassador of Hungary. We have seen the replica of the ambassador, but we have not seen your original writing.

Of course, I cannot prevent or contest that you write letters as a House member and that you use your title as a chairman, but of course it has a different load if an ambassador receives a letter from a chairman of a parliamentary assembly. It might seem that this is the result of a parliamentary debate.

You knew that yesterday in the Committee on Foreign Relations a debate on this resolution was on the agenda. Therefore, I ask you to clarify this initiative. What was the spirit of your writing to the Ambassador of Hungary?

Mr. Deseyn, I responded to the wishes sent to me by the President of the Hungarian Assembly. It is still my freedom to say what I think and no one will take it from me in this assembly!

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I have said that it is your right to write letters, but I do not think it is so choose, because this is an advance reduction and because it could testify to less respect for the work in the competent Chamber Committee.

Everyone is free to act according to his own insights, but I wanted to express this concern this afternoon and ⁇ get access to the document on the subject.

The message from CD&V yesterday was also that these recent developments in Hungary are disturbing. We share the concerns about the new constitution, but we had some problems with the approach to it.

We didn’t want to get into an ideologically polarized debate. Hungary, after all, has its past and it also deserves support that there is now an alternative to the historical, communist constitution.

In the motivation of the resolution all sorts of matters are taken which are not the actual factual disputes. In fact, the factual disputes concern three cases: the High Court, the Data Protection Authority and the independence of the central bank.

I demonstrated yesterday with some striking examples that we can also demonstrate some modesty when it comes to constitutionality and the arrangement of electoral circles and an electoral law.

I have said that we will not conduct that debate against Hungary, nor will we take the flight forward to pronounce in it itself a condemnation, whether it is a moral condemnation or in the form of a cautious warning. We will allow the European Commission to play its full role, in full accordance with its capacity under treaty law.

We also found yesterday that most FDF amendments were approved with the support of the signatories. That is an interesting fact in itself, but we are satisfied that the text now explicitly refers to the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, which in a June 2011 report also bowed over this new Hungarian constitution.

This text is recommended. I think yesterday in the committee was quite selectively quoted from this text. Certainly the passage on the Hungarian minorities in the neighboring countries of Hungary is worth reading, given the fear of the Venice Commission for such transnational initiatives, which also shows little respect for borders and sovereignty.

In any case, we support the report of the Council of Europe, which states that the current Hungarian constitutional reform should be welcomed as a good step, but also that it should only be seen as the beginning of a long process to amend, update and correct this constitution.

With regard to our full support for the Commission, we pointed out two weeks ago the importance of European cooperation and the role of the Commission. In these, our position has not changed.

Mr. Speaker, that the situation in Hungary is very serious is ⁇ not denied by our group. It is right to ask questions about the developments taking place in Hungary. Hungary as a member state of the EU is obliged to respect the fundamental rights that apply to each of us: independence of the press, independence of the court, independence of the central bank. These foundations are very fundamental and should not be put on the slope.

It is therefore also logical that the European Commission, as the guardian of the European treaties, has used its investigative powers and initiated an infringement procedure. The current situation has caught up with this resolution. The revised Hungarian constitution has already been examined by the European Commission. Possible sanctions will follow. We therefore believe that it is better to wait for these sanctions, follow up on the work of the European Commission and see if this goes well before drafting this resolution.

However, there are some notable points in the text of this resolution. I would like to draw attention to point J. It states clearly and clearly that the Hungarian Constitution was adopted by a two-thirds majority, although formed by the parliamentarians of the government parties, and that therefore there would be no political or social consensus. Strange though, I think. I look forward to the debate here in the plenary session on our constitutional revision, that a two-thirds majority will be formed and that the parliamentarians of the government parties will approve it. With the same assessment as stated here, I will ask myself whether or not there is a political and social consensus on that constitutional revision.

Finally, when we look at this resolution, I think we should exercise some caution when it comes to the necessary international interventions, weighing the national sovereignty of states. We must also ask ourselves whether we should judge the voter there, whether what that voter has chosen is right or not. Is it democratically correct – I don’t think it – to simply shift the Hungarian two-thirds majority aside and tolerate external interference? I think it is better to let the European Commission do its work and let it evaluate. My group will therefore abstain from this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, our group will support this motion. Patrick Dewael and other colleagues have also submitted them. During the debate – thanks to our Commission President, François-Xavier de Donnea – there have been remarkable improvements that we also support.

The former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tip O’Neill, once said, “All politics is local.”

I have listened carefully to Mrs Dumery, but it is not because a two-thirds majority approves an amendment to the constitution of a state that this amendment can weigh on the fundamental values of our Union. It would be too easy. Even if the Hungarian parliament unanimously amends the constitution, or passes laws that are contrary to the spirit of what we aim for in Europe, Europe is still right about the vote. It would be too easy.

If the Belgian or French parliament, with a large majority, sought the legitimacy to destroy the fundamental values we adhere to and support in Europe, it could not. The number – two-thirds majority or more – has little or no importance for me.

The attitude of Hungary is not innocent. If we allow such an irrigation of our values in one after another country of the 27 – soon 28 – member states of the Union, we are doing the wrong thing. Europe is a project that, in terms of its democracy, its human rights, its values, is based on what happened in two terrible wars, which we want to avoid by honouring these values.

I understand that other groups have a different approach, for technical or other reasons. I respect that, but I tell you very clearly: the day Europe loses its soul, Europe is dead!

The preamble to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union reads as follows: "The peoples of Europe, by establishing an ever closer alliance with each other, have decided to share a peaceful future based on common values."Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union sets its foundation on the indivisible and universal values of human dignity and of freedom, equality and solidarity. It is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

I am here to join colleague De Croo. The European Union is more than a single market and a monetary union. The European Union has always been seen as a community of values. The developments in Hungary described in the present resolution are, in my opinion, viewed by a majority in Parliament, or at least by very many, as developments that undermine those common values.

It is not a single disturbing new provision in a constitution, but a whole program. It is about the independence of the judiciary, to checks and balances in the democratic system. It is about freedom of expression, about freedom of religion, about privacy, about the rights of persons with disabilities, about the holy rights.

A petition against the new fundamental rights was signed by hundreds of academic constitutional experts, a category of people I know fairly well and most of whom really do not tend to constantly stand on the barricades. They do so because after the transition, after communism, Hungary was developing a beautiful constitutional tradition, actually a model of post-transition, especially because of the role of the Constitutional Court, whose role is now severely limited. The Venice Commission also expressed its concerns. This has already been mentioned.

Thomas Hammarberg, the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, wrote another letter to the Hungarian government earlier this month to express his concern about the independence of the judiciary, the freedom of the press and the freedom of religion, now that a new law deprives a large number of religious groups of their status as recognized worship services. Amnesty International also campaigns on the Hungarian Constitution and media legislation and urges the European Commission to thoroughly evaluate the whole picture.

Benjamin Ward of Human Rights Watch said that with these constitutional and legal changes Hungary today would not meet the conditions for membership of the European Union. I think he is right; with regard to candidate Member States, the European Union is, rightly, very critical, but when it comes to Member States that are already part of the club, it often shows less of its teeth. This is all the more striking because these reforms were partly implemented during a period in which Hungary held the Presidency of the European Council. It could be expected that such a situation would create a huge pressure, both internally and from the other Member States, to embody the community of values that the Union is. Apparently, that implicit and soft peer pressure did not work.

Therefore, it is good that the European Commission goes one step further with three infringement proceedings. Colleagues, these procedures of the European Commission focus on some very specific aspects. It is about the retirement age of judges, only one aspect of the threat to the independence of the judiciary in Hungary. It also concerns the independence of the Privacy Commission and the independence of the central bank. These are important elements, but there is more going on in Hungary.

The resolution on which we vote today is therefore rightly wider. She demands that the new constitution in its entirety, together with other laws and measures of the Hungarian government, be checked to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to the letter and spirit of the treaties. If, after a thorough investigation in consultation with Hungary, it appears that there is a violation of the letter and spirit of the treaties, the resolution calls on our government to urge the application of the sanctions contained in Article 7 of the EU Treaty.

Colleagues, we hope that the European Union still has so much impact and influence in its own Member States that it does not have to go so far and that the Hungarian government realizes that major changes are needed. The European Parliament has already played a very important role in this, but our government is responsible to this Parliament. What we aim to ⁇ with this resolution is to provide our government with a clear guidance to keep putting this matter on the agenda and to continue to insist on a thorough investigation for as long as necessary. In this resolution, we also ask that the government keep Parliament informed of its initiatives, which also means that the Parliament is committed to continuing to follow up.

Finally, my colleagues, I regret that we were unable to reach a majority or consensus on this resolution. The fact that the Flemish Importance colleagues voted against me was not surprising. That the colleagues of the N-VA abstained is a flight into the community, an opposition reflex. But that the colleagues of CD&V voted against in the committee, that really goes beyond my mouth.

I understand it, colleagues, because in the EPP group you are together with the Fidesz Party. I also understand that they are both Christian parties, but in addition to the C there is still a D in your name, the "d" of democratic.

The Ecolo-Green Group agrees with great enthusiasm. The need for an alternate majority to protect the democratic values in Europe is surprising. I sincerely regret it.

Europe has a new bohemian, especially Hungary. We heard it yesterday with so many words and today it is repeated by a number of colleagues. Since Viktor Orbán has been at the wheel of this country, it is apparently suddenly the ugly child of the class. The power of the Constitutional Court is undermined. The opposition complains about the government’s interference with the media. It is strange that no problems arose when other parties, coincidentally leftist parties, distributed the leaves in parliament and the media had in their hands. Murder and fire are screaming. Suddenly, democracy is threatened and we must again overtake a resolution to hit hard on the table.

Is there a problem? A number of judges have been sent to early retirement. This should happen in Belgium. The European Parliament even called for criminal sanctions. No one less than Guy Verhofstadt, who many may still know here, wore the crown as a great defender of democracy and fundamental rights. The same Guy Verhofstadt has, as prime minister, restricted a number of rights and freedoms of opposition parties, such as the then Flemish Bloc. Colleague Tuybens, when I referred to that yesterday, you suddenly became very tired. Considering the achievements of then Prime Minister Verhofstadt, he is very poorly placed to teach Hungary.

Colleagues, anyone who knows a little about the questionable reputation of Guy Verhofstadt can only laugh at this or tastefully laugh. We all remember that it was Guy Verhofstadt who himself gave orders to call journalists who apparently did not write in blurred prose about him and to make up for the dirt of the street or who even pressured newspaper editors to take measures against certain journalists. Guy Verhofstadt is now going to Hungary the lesson games.

Apparently we need to learn the lesson again here, for example when we talk about the facts that happened in Hungary. Because it is obviously a great disaster, ladies and gentlemen. But what are the plans right now? This includes the right to life from the moment of conception. This is a very drastic wording in the new constitution. The right to life would apparently be threatened by the fact that this would now apply from conception.

Ladies and gentlemen, in Belgium, and even in other countries, many people would be happy if this was stated in our own Constitution. When we look at the current abortion law and how far-reaching it is: the right to life is sacred, but apparently not in Belgium. Maybe we’d better learn something more from Hungary rather than pointing with the finger.

Another issue is that so-called power strike that one would do on the judiciary, it is about the politically appointed judges. There are still some old crocodiles in this plenary room. Not so long ago here judges were nominated politically. Not so long ago, a clear distribution was made, each political family was assigned its burden to judges.

Therefore, one should not be so angry and say that the judiciary in Hungary is threatened. No, colleagues, very rightly, one tries to close a chapter there too, because not so long ago Hungary also fell under the communist dictatorship. It is very good that it is done, that there is clarity, and it is ⁇ not Belgium that has lessons to teach there.

Apparently, the legislation would indicate that Hungary is no longer a democracy. However, Viktor Orbán is still democratically elected and if the people do not like his policies, then you can perfectly vote him out in a next election. As far as I know, the elections were not cancelled. This was done at the time in a number of communist states, which were visited by, among other things, socialist parties present here. As far as I know, there are still free elections in Hungary and there is still the possibility of establishing a political party. Therefore, we should not worry about this.

We may have to worry about the fact that in Belgium laws have been amended, even the Constitution has been amended, to outlaw a political party like the Flemish Interest. Apparently, this was not achieved through the voters. Through various amendments to laws and even to the Constitution, attempts have been made to outlaw and, among other things, condemn the then Flemish Bloc.

Colleagues, I think we are very poorly positioned to give lessons to Hungary. I also think that Guy Verhofstadt, the man who said that one could measure his success by the decline of the Flemish Interest, in turn is also very poorly placed to give lessons. He actually applied what he now blames on Hungary. Per ⁇ we better address this resolution to Guy Verhofstadt, making it clear to him that he would rather look in the mirror.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am going around. We discussed this in the committee yesterday. Mr. Orbán is, by the way, in the European Parliament in the same group as the colleagues of CD&V, so such an inhuman will not be. I think there are others in the European Parliament. When we look at his party, his views and his decisions, we can only see that democracy was not abolished. Therefore, we will not approve this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long, because my colleague Mrs. Brems has already intervened to express the main message that we wanted to transmit. I would like to again insist on the fact that, when European values are undermined, we really need to react, be united to react and make a block to defend strong values, which are the stabilizing ferment of our Union of 27.

Today, Hungary has failed to respect the Copenhagen Treaty, which it has undertaken to respect when it joined, which guarantees stable institutions, guarantees a rule of law, a democratic state, respects human rights, respects minorities and protects them.

We, as the Belgian Parliament, had to react. This call must come from everywhere. We must join our voices with those of Hungarian citizens who disagree and tell them that they are not alone in this demonstration.

The Greens did not wait for this resolution to be heard. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the leader of the Greens group in the European Parliament, has denounced the climate for fear that this reform will generate.

In the budget debate and in the general policy notes, my colleague Brems and I had already denounced this situation by asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs to speak on behalf of Belgium at the upcoming European meetings.

Then, my colleagues at the Wallonia-Bruxelles Federation did not hesitate to denounce this situation, because Hungary is part of the Association of French-speaking countries and so that we can effectively unite our voices and refuse this questioning of European values by Hungary, so that Hungary does not remain unpunished.

In conclusion, we support this resolution even though, unfortunately, we have not been associated with its drafting. I regret, however, that CD&V is not associated with it, while noting that it may be consistent with the EPP President, Mr. Wilfried Martens, since he had also minimized the situation by saying that, in the end, “it wasn’t so serious.”

Mr. Speaker, the debate on the constitutional revision, more precisely on the adoption of a new constitution by Hungary, is not just about the compatibility of a constitutional text with Community law, or ⁇ even about the insufficient respect for a number of values.

The debate on the Hungarian question had its extension in this assembly because it had a mirror effect. This debate clearly poses the question of the future of Europe and our conception of European construction beyond nationalist retreat. In short, what Hungary is trying to do, and it is not for nothing that those in this assembly have tried to minimize the debate, are those who are the most sensitive to nationalist theses, what Hungary is trying to do is to reduce the community acquis to the smallest common denominator.

This is the opposite of what we want for the construction of Europe. It must be acknowledged that so far, the European Union has not yet had a response to the extent of the challenge. On January 17, the European Commission launched an infringement procedure against Hungary. Fortunately, there have been strong voices in the European Parliament, and in this I welcome the work of Guy Verhofstadt, Cohn-Bendit, and other members, in demanding that the European Union show more firmness and more commitment to question how Hungary tries to weaken European construction through its constitutional revision.

I said yesterday in a committee that for those who want to read the preamble of the new Constitution, it begins with these words: "We, members of the Hungarian nation." With a contempt for minorities, with the ignorance of those who are citizens living in Hungary, who are legally established there, who are citizens of the European Union, in short, with an indifference to the democratic conception of European citizenship that underlies the ambition of Europe.

It is therefore true that the reaction must come not only from the European institutions, but also from the Member States and, a fortiori, from a state such as ours, founder of the European Union, to remind what is the true ambition of Europe.

I also expect the government – I know that a debate was held on this topic yesterday, in a commission – that it dares to interpell directly Hungary, as has just done Alain Juppé, Minister of Foreign Affairs of France; today, it has not hesitated, in a face-to-face with its Hungarian counterpart, to interpell the Hungarian government. This is not only the responsibility of the Commission, of the Council, of the European Parliament, but also the responsibility of each Member State, a fortiori, of the Member States that are most attached to the federalist conception of Europe.

Therefore, after the amendments we have been able to submit in the committee, we fully agree with the scope of this resolution. In short, this debate on Hungary announces other debates, including internal debates with Belgium, regarding our conception of relations and respect for the citizenship of each member of this country.

I have just submitted the report. The position of our group has also become clear here, but I would like to briefly respond to what Ms. Dumery said at the end of her speech.

Mrs Dumery, you stated what your colleague Deseyn also mentioned yesterday in the committee. I’ll shake a little of the words that you consider the attack on the separation of powers, the attack on the independence of the national bank, the attack on the protection of privacy and the attack on the freedom of the press in Hungary as domestic affairs.

We must be very careful with this. As EU citizens, we have the absolute right and even the duty to continue to defend these values and to ensure that no country in the confederation, which is the European Union, would commit such attacks. It is our moral duty to intervene, just as it is our duty to respond as a world citizen to China, which, for example, says that the capture of Ai Weiwei should also be seen as a purely domestic affair.

We must not be selective in our indignation. Therefore, I hope that pressure can be developed. The representative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs also said yesterday that the Hungarian issue with a very exceptional procedure comes on the agenda of the European summit of heads of government and heads of state, which will take place from tomorrow.

It is thanks, among other things, to the pressure from the Belgian Parliament that these issues are on the agenda. Therefore, I find it important that our House adopts this proposal for a resolution with a strong majority.

Mr. Speaker, I have another request to you. Is it possible to forward the text of the resolution to the government at the end of the meeting, so that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs can go to the European summit with the text and the outcome of the vote on the resolution?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the points on the I. This has absolutely nothing to do with selective outrage. We share our concerns about fundamental freedoms. We say that one should give a chance to the ongoing procedure with the contradictory debate that is now being conducted. Now, don’t hang the image of member states shooting at each other. Europe is already having it hard enough.

What you request in the motion for a resolution is already being implemented by the Commission.

Mr Tuybens, I will be the first to advocate and support further initiatives if the outcome is not satisfactory.

Mr Deseyn, you just talked about Burundi. What Mr Tuybens says about selective indignation ⁇ applies if you cannot condemn a situation in Hungary with the same enthusiasm.

You were also present in the committee when the government representative said that the initiative is welcomed from Parliament, that it is a clear support of what has already been initiated from the European Commission, because it strengthens and expands that initiative.

You act as if there is a contradiction. It is not there at all. Europe works in such a way that we can direct our government from our national parliament, as Mr Tuybens says. With this adopted resolution in hand, the government can then go to the European summit.

We are very pleased that Mr. Reynders has already taken an initiative to schedule the issue at the meeting of the coming weekend. We want to give him another push in the back.

Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely not a good way to make intention processes of political parties here. We know, for example, that yesterday in the Senate the sp.a. group did not want to approve the draft resolution on the problem in Western Sahara. Should I then say in every file that she does not want to or that she is selectively outraged? Everyone makes demarches at their own discretion and everyone has their own insight into the strategy to be followed.

Mrs Brems, we absolutely agree with the importance of respect for fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms. We also supported Minister Reynders when he said he would ensure that the European Commission monitors not only the Maastricht standards but also the Copenhagen criteria on political rights. We sign ourselves into that policy.

Therefore, you should absolutely not make intention processes about the value that we give or not give to a file.

I give the floor directly to Mr. Louis and then Mr. In order to conclude the discussion intelligently.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be smart and use words that are not too stupid, given your comment! It is always pleasant, isn’t it?

It is never too late to start!

It is kind!

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, my party will vote against this resolution for a very simple reason: Europe is not sufficiently successful today so that we can grant ourselves the right to interfere in Hungarian politics. In order for this to be possible, it would be necessary to opt for a more united Europe, which is not, as today, an addition of states but a single and same entity.

As I have said before this Parliament, I advocate for the creation of the United States of Europe. In such a scheme, logically, we could oppose what is happening in Hungary. But, today, we are very far from this concept!

Should we also remember that the Hungarian government was democratically elected? The population has voted massively for this party; it enjoys full and full legitimacy. In addition, this revision of the Constitution is supported by a two-thirds majority. I therefore do not see why today we could grant ourselves the right to influence Hungarian politics.

The principle of non-interference, which is dear to the MLD, prohibits me from supporting this proposal and I especially invite the Belgian political parties – who do not listen to me but who should! To look first and foremost at their plate before judging other countries or parties. I sincerely believe that we have no lessons to teach anyone! Look at the situation at home. The same parties have ruled this country for decades without real opposition!

All the parties here, even those in the opposition, are in power at any level of the state. Worse, the parties plebiscited by the population often find themselves in the opposition because the policy of little friends is practiced.

The losers find themselves in the government, as by chance. So, before we judge the democracy of other countries, if they were European, it would be appropriate to implement in our country a real democracy and to get out of the current partition. I totally agree with Mrs. Dumery.

You won’t bother me to finish by finding it astonishing that our country wants to condemn the policy of the government of Viktor Orbán, a totally legitimate government, even when our country shamefully supports Kabila’s power in the Congo, where today even President Tshisekedi was attempted to assassinate and where, every day, Congolese and Congolese women are starving, killed, raped. This two weight, two measurement is unacceptable, and you will understand that I cannot accept it.

In all sincerity, when we see the situation in our country, where the press – we have talked a lot about freedom of the press – is in the hands of traditional political parties, whether this press likes to ignore the opposition or certain parties, I believe that it is necessary to advocate for intervention also in Belgium. It would be time to do a big cleaning in this country. Then we can give lessons to others. But, today, we should play low profile and leave sovereignty to the Hungarian people.

The word is for mr. Donnea, whom I would like first of all to thank for having diligently dealt with this resolution, since the Assembly had requested that it be examined urgently this week. There was a need for a diplomat in the Foreign Relations Committee!

Dear colleagues, the MR Group will support this resolution proposal with conviction, because – like all the parties that have supported it in committee – we believe that the European Union is not only an economic and monetary union; it is also a confederation in the legal sense of the term, a union based on values, on its own conception of democracy and the defense of human rights. It is therefore perfectly logical that the members of this confederation, of this union, are concerned about what happens in certain partners when they plan a risk of infringement on the values underlying the European Union.

Some talk about the right of interference. They would like to refuse members of the Union from asking questions about respect for fundamental values by another member, but they also find it normal to be interested in the fiscal policy of another state that could influence monetary stability. It seems to me as important, or even more important, to question whether the other members respect the fundamental values of the Union than to ask whether Greece or Belgium pursues a monetary and fiscal policy that weakens the euro! (The applause)

When Mr. Di Rupo will explain to the Netherlands or Germany that our budget complies with European rules, it implicitly responds to an interference of our partners, just as we interfere in the fiscal policy of countries that are less Orthodox than us in this matter.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is nuanced.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. De Donnea, I fully follow your reasoning. However, if I am well informed – my information comes from the press, so they are not 100% certain – the message brought by Mr. Di Rupo in Germany is as follows: we stand for the same goal, but please do not interfere with the way we run the matter internally in Belgium.

What you explain here is exactly the opposite. I see a contradiction in your words. Mr Di Rupo expressly requested in Germany that the country should not interfere with the internal affairs of the Belgian household. His message is the opposite of what you tell here.

In Europe, it is normal for us to explain to our partners that our policies are consistent with values or good policy practices. Such a message is exactly the same.

In a confederation, it is fatal to see interference from one another. It is not like completely independent states, where one can ask whether, yes or not, it is appropriate to interfere with their affairs.

That said, I repeat that the resolution is nuanced. Why Why ? Because we say that it is necessary to strongly condemn what is accused of Hungary, if these attacks are confirmed. And the EU institutions are asked to check whether these attacks are what one can fear. Then, of course, we will have to ask the European institutions to take the necessary measures.

Some have claimed that we voted as one man for all the FDF amendments. Personally, I do not always agree with the FDF and I did not vote, like others elsewhere, for the amendment that wanted us to react bilaterally.

In this case, Mr. Juppé does what he wants; I am not yet at his orders – it is smarter to act through the European institutions than to act directly bilaterally as long as, in any case, the violations are not clearly and duly confirmed. This is why I did not vote like other colleagues for this amendment of the FDF.

However, when Mr. Maingain proposes amendments that complement the expected and asks for reference to an opinion of the Venice Commission, why would we vote against this proposal of Mr. Maingain. by Maingain? Certainly, I know that many of you do not like Mr. We are not going, but we are not going, because Mr. Maingain says that the sun shines, vote a motion that says it rains! So let’s be reasonable in relation to the proposals of the FDF that I don’t always endorse! But in all objectivity, whatever the author of a proposal, when he expresses objective things, one must have the mind beyond the parties and be able to vote for them.

by Mr. Bacquelaine, who attended the Council of Europe yesterday, tells me that, contrary to what we request in point 5 of the resolution, the Council of Europe has refused to include the Hungarian issue on its agenda. Nevertheless, one can ask why the Council of Europe, which is sometimes so tactile, so orthodox in human rights matters, has not considered it appropriate to include this issue on its agenda, even if only to evacuate it after a debate, but that at least there has been a debate. There too, we must put pressure on the Council of Europe, especially since the Venice Commission, which depends on it, has already issued an opinion for it to look at this issue.

Finally, I think we are doing well to vote on this resolution today because Mr. Reynders, Minister of Foreign Affairs and current President of the Benelux, requested that this issue be registered tomorrow at a Council of European Ministers. It is therefore good that we give them our support. Furthermore, I am surprised that only the Benelux wanted to put the matter on the agenda of this Council of Ministers.

To vote on this resolution is therefore useful not only to support Mr. Reynders, but also to give a strong signal both to the European institutions and to the Council of Europe.

Mr. President, Mr. Jambon, we have already developed this in the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday.

If we, as the Belgian Parliament, would speak about the fact that Hungary has a very associal flat tax of 16%, as is the case, you are right. We do not have to interfere with this, but in this case we are talking about higher values, as set out in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes fundamental rights. Colleague Brems also mentioned this.

What is at stake here now is something completely different from the way that country gets its tax revenues. I think there is a huge difference in this hierarchy between the two.