Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-14-Speech-2-101"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001114.4.2-101"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The procedure adopted for framing and adopting the Charter of Fundamental Rights really only leaves the European Parliament with a simple choice: to either accept or reject the current Charter. Given that only have two options, my decision is unequivocally to vote in favour of the step forward which this Charter represents, however small that step forward may be in terms of the content and scope of the text.
First of all we should take another look at the approach adopted. While the Convention method is a valuable one, and productive in terms of drawing up a basic text that is seeking a broad compromise, all the same nothing can justify depriving the European Parliament, the physical representatives of the peoples of Europe, of the opportunity to amend and enrich the text.
Yet when a historian looks into the way in which the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen or other similar international declarations were drawn up, he perceives the extent to which parliamentary debate and the amendment process were able to lend inspiration, significance and also ambition to these fundamental texts which are still powerful today.
At this time when debate in the institutions of Europe is being undertaken concomitantly with the Charter being adopted, all those men and women who, like myself, would like a European constitution and consider that this Charter may serve as the bare bones for the preamble to such a constitution should demand that the European Parliament be enabled to vote on the content, as part of its normal parliamentary business, which is basically deliberative.
In connection with this institutional debate, it is essential to incorporate the Charter into the Treaties of the European Union so that the rights that have been declared can be guaranteed for all and the state policies required to implement them can be developed either by the Member States or by the European Union itself, without conflicting with the existing legal texts. It must be acknowledged that the law of free competition and the single market too often prevails over all other requirements and effectively flouts social rights and fundamental rights. We have seen too many declarations that were not followed up in practice. This is therefore the first priority: we must give this Charter real legal force.
Next, the actual content of the Charter is ambiguous and inadequate on some counts. In the first place, there are discrepancies between the German and French versions which raise major questions about the references to “religious” or “spiritual” values. Personally, I am convinced that secularism is a liberating factor for the modern world. I deplore the ambiguity of these terms and also the lack of a clearer reference to secularity.
Secondly, the right to work is not directly stated. Anyone can see that a provision stating that “every person has the right to work” is really not that ambitious. The difference between not prohibiting access to work and taking action to make it possible to work is more than just a shade of meaning. The Charter should have clearly stated the right to work, and indeed the right to housing, which was also expressed in a roundabout way, affording little protection.
The Charter must be improved, and the European Parliament must propose a strategy enabling it to be updated and enriched."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples