2 July 2013

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I would like to say to all those, who miss the detailed responses to the Tavares-report from my contribution, that we have handed over a memorandum to the President, which was prepared by the Hungarian Government, and this document was distributed to you electronically during my speech. This document discusses everything in detail.

I would like to say to Mr Swoboda that investments in Hungary have been continuously increasing. Including Austrian investments and German investments. Only since our government has been in office, we have opened 18 major new German factories.  What you are talking about is different. What you are talking about that there are some people who do not like Hungarian economic policy. They are bankers and public utilities who enjoy a monopoly status, and we have issues with them. We tax banks, we use state means to reduce utility costs and are introducing an equitable sharing of public burdens. We think this is the right thing to do. Even if you and the business groups you represent do not like this. Hungary will continue to tax banks and we will continue to reduce utility costs – gas and electricity – in Hungary during the autumn period through state and administrative means, even if banks and major international companies are not happy about this.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

With respect to lecturing me about democracy, I would only like to remind you that after 1990, I and the community that I lead both won and lost elections, and so allow me to tell you on behalf of our political community that we are not in need of any lectures about the character of democracy. Concerning the remark about the Jewish congregation, dear Mr. President, I would like to call your attention to an important circumstance. I am at the centre of attacks coming from anti-Semitic groups and radical anti-Semitic groups in Hungary. I am in the focus of their attacks as the protector of the Jewish community, and accordingly I am always the first to be attacked on every website, every blog and every anti-Semitic forum, and our Jewish compatriots only come second. This is an important circumstance that I wanted to call your attention to.

With respect to curtailing freedom, distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, I see that there are some, who do not understand quite clearly the Hungarian nation and the character of Hungarian people. Even the Soviets failed to curtail freedom in Hungary, not even the Communists succeeded. We sent them packing at the first possible moment. Therefore to say that someone would be capable of curtailing the freedom of the Hungarian people is a sign of misconceptions regarding the Hungarian nation.

There was a contribution, which if I understood correctly talked about LGBT groups, and which if I understood correctly concerned the rights of homosexuals. I would like to make it very clear. We have very clear constitutional provisions in Hungary. Marriage and a family mean a man and a woman, and one of each. One man and one woman. This is not directed against anybody. The fact is that we are protecting a four thousand year old tradition. We can argue about whether this tradition should be maintained, but I would ask that you accept one thing. This is a 4000 year old tradition. 2000 years in the Jewish culture and 2000 years in Christianity. We would simply like to preserve this tradition, and therefore I do not understand why any MEP should think that our right to this tradition in Hungary could possibly be restricted. The Hungarian constitution is not against anybody, but also speaks clearly. 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Many have quoted the report of the Venice Commission. I would like to remind you that the Venice Commission is the expert body of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe has adopted several resolutions. Let me quote from the resolution of the Council of Europe on Hungary. It says “As a result of the 2010 election, a party alliance gained a more than two-thirds majority in the Hungarian Parliament which represents, according to common European standards, sufficient legitimacy for amending the constitution”.  Let me quote another resolution from among the decisions of the Council of Europe. It goes like this. “The new Hungarian Parliament, for the first time in the history of free and democratic Hungary, amended the former one-party constitution into a new and modern Fundamental Law through a democratic procedure, after intensive debates in Parliament and with contributions from Hungarian civil society”.  Finally I would like to quote a sentence from the Venice Commission itself: “The Act revising the rules on the election of members of parliament of Hungary as from 2014 is a good basis for conducting genuine and democratic parliamentary elections”.  Therefore, distinguished Hungarian members, opposition members, I consider it unworthy that a debate between the parties of the political left and right in Hungary should be continued here in the European Parliament. This is unworthy of our country, and I would therefore ask Hungarian opposition MEPs to refrain from doing so. I would like to remind you that our forces were tested against each other at the 2010 elections and I would like to believe that our government won a two-thirds majority in 2010. because our virtues were so outstanding. But I have a feeling think this is not the case. Our victory was also rooted in the mistakes that you committed. Why are you bringing up this question once again, when the Hungarian voters have already settled this issue?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There was an interesting debate here about the connection between the European Parliament and the Soviet Union. This is an interesting issue, the comparison between Brussels and Moscow. There is no doubt that I would not have had the opportunity to put forward my opinion in Moscow during the Soviet era. Even if by a stroke of luck I would have been allowed to do so, I am not sure that I would have been allowed to return home. Accordingly, one can assume that the two entities are not same. There is something however that I would like to mention in a more subtle manner. We remember well when the decisions on Hungarian freedom and the fate of Hungary were not left to the Hungarians. We also know full well that – just as you are doing now – other people in another place wanted to protect us from ourselves. Hungarians do not need to be protected from themselves. Hungarians are freedom loving and democratic people, who are capable of deciding about their own destiny, as long as they are allowed to do so!

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In summary, I must say that the report, which you are debating, is seriously unfair and insulting towards my country. Its author and all those who will approve it are abusing their power, are applying double standards against my country, and therefore I naturally do not see any reason to change the opinion I articulated at the opening of this debate. Naturally, when a Parliament adopts a resolution, it will do so on a party political basis, thus in a legitimate manner. I am not in a position, nor do I have the right to question the legitimacy of the Parliament resolution to be made here tomorrow, but it goes with the character of every parliamentary political resolution that it will be political in nature. This is going to be a resolution which will be strongly biased to the left and as is the case with parliamentary resolutions, the prosecutor and the judge will be one and the same. Those accusing us will vote in majority to adopt a resolution condemning us, therefore I am not in a position to accept such a resolution on behalf of Hungary. Many say that they are our friends, but they will be voting against us. They say that friends are there to share their criticism with their other friends and, Mr. President, there is a lot of truth in this. I would be grateful if you told us your criticisms, but you do not share your criticism with us, but instead, in this report, you are proposing to put Hungary under political guardianship and I can never accept you wanting to put my country under political guardianship. Hungary is a free country, and therefore we do not accept this report.

Thank you for your kind attention.

(Prime Minister’s Office)