Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-21-Speech-1-073"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-10-21"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021021.6.1-073"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-21-Speech-1-0742
lpv:speaker	lp:José Ribeiro E Castro2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; UEN (1999-11-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partido Popular (1999-11-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our Parliament would be doing a great service to democracy if it told the truth. And this is, in fact, another excellent opportunity to reflect on this key issue: the truth about European integration. The rapporteur, for example, proposes the following: ‘The Charter does not attribute competence to the Union. On the contrary, it has the effect of limiting the exercise of power by the EU institutions because of their obligation to respect the Charter’ (end of quotation). And he adds: ‘The Charter does not limit the competences of Member States under the Treaties. It is not a substitute for the fundamental rights regimes of Member States, but a complement to them’ (end of quotation). This should indeed be the case, for two reasons: firstly, because the Charter has not yet been given legal power by the only body competent in this matter, the Intergovernmental Conference; and secondly, Article 51 of the Charter itself states, as has already been mentioned, the positions upheld in the current Charter are aimed at Union’s bodies and institutions and the Member States only when they apply Community law. Unfortunately, however, this is not true. There are many facts proving that attempts are being made to make the Charter an instrument for imposing unity on the Member States and for maintaining supraconstitutional tutelage over them. We will shortly have, for example, the Swiebel Report proving this clear shift in the form and the methodology used to study the situation of human rights and to assess Member States. We also had, last year, the Cornillet Report in the same field. In short, if the rule of law is still the rule of law we can only state that the Charter is unfortunately already leading to reactions against the normal rule of law. This is something we should condemn. This is not, however, the recommendation of the rapporteur who, on the contrary, appears to welcome and applaud the reactions, steps and guidelines of the Commission, the Council, Parliament, the Ombudsman and even the European Courts, which heap scorn on the competences of the Intergovernmental Conference and seek to act as if the Charter were already law. This is not the case. The rule of law is not ‘as if’; the ‘law’ either exists or does not. I am, therefore, afraid that there is a desire to subvert the rule of law and that this is precisely what we are doing as a result of this ambiguity. This report must, therefore, be supported enthusiastically by those who … ( )"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"The President cut the speaker off"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph