Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-21-Speech-1-080"

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	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021021.6.1-080"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-21-Speech-1-0812
lpv:speaker	lp:The Earl Of Stockton2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, you will not be surprised that, as a British Conservative, I am going to sound a slightly discordant note in these otherwise harmonious proceedings. I agree that it is right that all the institutions of the EU should observe the same standard norms, but I am still less convinced that such legal constraints need to be included in the Convention. I also feel that they should not be enforceable by the EU on Member States beyond the present commitment represented by their signatures on the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. They should not apply to private companies, individuals or organisations, nor should they cover matters of social affairs, employment or cultural policy. We are being presented with a vehicle filled with good intentions. However, I fear we are also opening up a nightmare of duality in the appeal, on the one hand, the European Court of Human Rights and, on the other, the European Court of Justice. We have cases changing from one to the other, profiting only the lawyers. I am sorry for those of my colleagues who are distinguished lawyers, I do not wish them any diminution in their profits, but this is not something we should encourage. Recital V shows that this is already happening. The prospect of conflicting authorities being announced in the two courts is bureaucratically intolerable and a judicial nightmare. Paragraph 2 also concerns me. The Charter must bind the Commission, the Council, Parliament and the Committee of the Regions, but should it be a 'central reference point for the European Court of Justice and national courts'? No, it should not be a central reference point of national courts. This is another indication of the potential for confusion. This confusion must be sorted out before this report is adopted. I urge Parliament to reject this report and allow the committee to resolve it."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-30--2004-07-19)3 member; PETI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Stockton (PPE-DE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph