Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-13-Speech-1-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030113.6.1-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mrs Swiebel’s report contains a couple of interesting points. I endorse what Mrs Banotti has just said about children’s rights. Examining this in detail in a parliamentary report is an excellent idea. I would like to add something to Mrs Swiebel’s wish to see such reports play a role in criticising and possibly punishing Member States who fail in their duties when it comes to enforcing the constitutional state and democracy. Since the Treaty of Amsterdam, then the Treaty of Nice and possibly as part of the Convention, we do in fact have more opportunities to give Member States a good ticking off if they make mistakes, and even to kick them out of the Community. It would be excellent if Parliament had a role to play in this.
Her suggestion that the European Social Charter be compared with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is also a very good one. I think that the Charter of Human Rights should be given priority, but it is a good idea to measure everything we do against both of these charters. That must be an absolutely basic requirement. The European Parliament would then win the confidence of the Council, for example, with a view to communitisation. The Council, the people, the Member States and the parliaments of the Member States must know that we are using our powers in the proper manner. In the event of a procedural opportunity – in other words if we were to play a role in criticising Member States – I would be in favour of personally coming clean if we make a mistake.
The report does, however, fall short when it comes to the severity of the treatment, and could thus become a millstone in the struggle for the communitisation of the third pillar. There is, after all, no real consistency in the application of the Charter of Human Rights. You could much rather regard Mrs Swiebel’s ideology and views as a guide for assessing Member States. A country can easily be respectable even if it is criticised by Mrs Swiebel. Certainly if I read paragraph 133. If you tell the public that a climate of immunity from punishment is developing in Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom, they will laugh their heads off. That really is too ridiculous for words. Nevertheless, you also cannot say – to give you yet another example of sloppiness – that unmarried couples should have the same rights as married couples. That is idiotic; it will not make you popular with unmarried couples. The fact is they do not want all these rights. I am very much in favour of promoting gay rights, but not by saying that you will also get the rights you do not want. The report is thus riddled with all sorts of examples that are also impossible from a legal point of view."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples