Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-12-Speech-4-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061012.3.4-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to extend my group’s thanks to the rapporteurs, Mrs Kovács and Mrs Gál, and I do not do so as a formality, but because both rapporteurs have had a very laborious task to perform and have set out, on this House’s behalf, a strong and convincing position, one that is backed by a large majority and will, it is to be hoped, also impress the Council.
This House has always seen itself as an advocate for fundamental rights, and that is, indeed, what it is supposed to be. Being an advocate of fundamental rights comes naturally to a body elected directly by the people to represent them, and I find it regrettable that the Council took no account of this when considering the codecision issue and thereby rendered the whole debate defective.
If you want to see whether politicians really want to accomplish something and what goals they most deeply want to achieve, then take a look at the instruments with which they equip themselves in order to get their way. Mr Pirker has just been reminding us of the bureaucracy at the European level. The instruments for monetary policy, the single market, and the stability pact are hard-edged laws, with money in abundance, sanctions, binding deadlines, monitoring bodies and much, much more. I have never yet heard Mr Pirker sounding off about the means available for enforcing financial and budgetary policy, about its monitoring and control instruments, the full disclosure of national data, its sanctions machinery, the powers given to the law courts – everything that one might wish for in order for that policy’s definite objectives to be achieved.
When it comes to democracy, though, when it comes to fundamental human rights, we have to make do with soft agreements and arrangements, with a bundle of affirmations lacking in any sanction, guarantee or monitoring mechanism. That is one of the causes of the crisis of confidence in Europe. The economic objectives are pursued with the utmost rigour, while the interests of people are a fit subject for pious utterances or, again, of affirmations.
All this is happening against the backdrop of a grave situation. Even though many years have passed, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has still not yet entered into force or become legally binding. The issues surrounding the CIA’s prisons, the transfer of data, the slow pace of investigations and the governments’ foot-dragging cooperation have dealt public confidence a blow from which it will take a long time to recover.
In our attempts at combating terrorism we are becoming less and less able to balance freedom and security, and the public can feel this. One consequence of the temporary failure of the European Constitution has been that intergovernmental cooperation has remained what it was before, namely the black hole of European democracy.
The government of one Member State – I refer to Poland – is openly considering the introduction of the death penalty. The British Home Secretary stood at the lectern in this House and called for a more lenient approach to the ban on torture when terrorists are involved. Even today, there is no early warning system attached to Articles 6 and 7. On the contrary, Mr Pirker, it is an unfortunate fact that the instruments for enforcing and guaranteeing fundamental rights are not equal in status to the instruments that are in place to get economic and monetary policy implemented.
We have a vitally important task to perform here, and, as we see it, one reason why it is important is that fundamental rights are indivisible. At the heart of this House’s demands, of course, is that governments should cooperate with each other on this. The second, and, in particular, the third pillar, must be fully within the Agency’s remit, for if they are not, it will become clear to the people that, where fundamental rights – the most vulnerable area of policy – are concerned, the governments are not taking citizens’ rights as seriously as they ought to."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples