Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-120"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.8.2-120"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, my speech is going to be rather different to that of the previous speakers, since I should like to demonstrate that the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the Citizens of the European Union, as outlined in the European Parliament report by Duff and Voggenhuber, would in fact be a charter that restricted fundamental rights even more. This report in fact proposes including the citizens’ rights which have until now been determined at national level in a standard, detailed and binding European charter, whose application would be monitored and hence interpreted by the European Court of Justice.
I should point out, before going on, that I am not sure that all the other participants representing the Heads of State or Government and the national parliaments within the body established by the Cologne Council to prepare a preliminary draft charter are in fact in agreement with this position of the European Parliament. So, for the time being, what I am about to say applies only to the Duff/Voggenhuber report.
Obviously, as far as those who promote the charter are concerned, defending fundamental rights which are already adequately protected in Europe at present, whatever they may say, is nothing but a pretext to conceal another, purely ideological, objective, which is to establish the beginnings of a European constitution, the crowning achievement of a superstate, even though the majority of the peoples of Europe do not want either of these. And how right they are, for this detailed, mandatory charter, which would give standardised definitions of citizens’ rights for the whole of Europe, would impose a rigid legal framework enclosing each nation in regulations which were not entirely its own.
There are three reasons for our claiming that the charter, as envisaged, would curtail the rights of citizens. Firstly, on the pretext of defending citizens better, it would distance them from the place where their rights are defined. It would weaken the control that they currently have over it. It would end in a situation where a nation could no longer amend the rights of its own citizens without obtaining the agreement of fourteen other nations, a suffocating formula, ill-suited to the nature and the interests of Europe, as I explained in the minority opinion appended to the report.
Next, the charter would provide a new pretext for the frenzied standardisation of citizens’ rights in Europe. Indeed I am astounded that governments are prepared to allow this to happen. Have they not learnt the lessons of the past? Do they really wish, taking the example of the French Government, to have to face twenty problems such as the case of the hunters all at the same time?
Finally, this charter would tend to circumvent the rights of communities, primarily the national community, which are rights that are extremely dear to the citizens, since it is within this circle that the most realistic and most legitimate democracy is expressed. Here we are at the heart of what we have called the process of reducing rights. This process would, moreover, go much farther than one might think, for a whole series of beggars and minorities have started to come out of the woodwork, clearly understanding that if the charter is standardised and binding, as well as adopted under the dubious conditions of so-called European democracy, it may in years to come represent the weak link in the chain of democracy.
The Union for a Europe of Nations Group therefore considers that the charter, if it must exist, should be extremely brief and should present only the essential values, the fundamental principles of the countries of Europe, in the form of a political declaration. It is perfectly feasible to imagine, as of the end of the year, candidate countries signing up to this charter in order to demonstrate their inclusion in the circle of European values. If so, adhesion to the charter could be shared by both existing members and future members.
One thing is certain, Madam President, at all costs we must avoid foisting a standardised and binding text on the nations of Europe, lest we create the post-national society which Mr Duff has just been hoping and praying for. This would be perceived as an attack on national democracies’ freedom of choice. Every country must continue to be able to choose its regulations freely in accordance with its own culture and development. We would like the Intergovernmental Conference, which is just starting, to keep the essential principle of respect for national democracies continually in mind."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples