Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-01-Speech-3-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090401.14.3-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"In a few minutes I will have to attend the negotiation proceedings over the Working Time Directive, and you will surely agree that that is one topic which cannot be avoided.
In my opinion there is nothing more significant for the European Union than the concept of non-discrimination. Although I am a supporter of the internal market and although I am a supporter of many other areas of European policy, I believe that the concept of equal opportunities and non-discrimination is the deepest bedrock of all.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have listened to the debate on the report and I have to say that I listened with some emotion, because it expresses the essential elements and the enormous depth of this problem. The basic question is what does this directive defend? This directive defends human dignity. We cannot believe that it is any less of an affront to human dignity to be discriminated against on grounds of disability, for example, than on grounds of age. We are talking about human dignity and it is the same for everyone.
I have to say that this directive, as it has been submitted to the Commission, is one which came into being organically, out of a profound debate in Parliament and countless debates at Commission level and therefore it is a directive which is well thought-out and which expresses a firm and clear approach to values.
It was also said in the debate that non-discrimination is based on values which we applied and which we became aware of after the Second World War. Whether or not it is true that we developed a deeper awareness of the significance and constitutive weight of certain values after the Second World War, these values have very deep historical roots. In antiquity there was no fundamental concept of human equality – the concept was first formulated in the Christian religion. I well remember one encyclical or perhaps a papal bull from the 9
century called
which clearly stated, ‘is it not true that the sun shines in just the same way on everyone?’ From that moment this concept has echoed through the whole of history.
Of course, the debate included many questions of a technical nature or of a seemingly lower order than the questions we have been talking about just now. I would like to touch on them. The first question was about the creation of senseless additional bureaucracy. I think that this can be rejected for one simple reason. The directive does not require new structures or new bureaucratic bodies. The directive only extends the application of that which already exists, so it does not in any way involve more bureaucracy.
There was also the open question of subsidiarity. This question was examined with exceptional care because it is a fundamental question. Article 13 of the Treaty is clear. It provides a firm legal basis and a directive which rests on this legal basis does not conflict with the principle of subsidiarity.
Another fundamental principle of this directive is the question of, for example, transference of the burden of proof. This question has already been resolved in previous directives, so there is no new discovery in this case either. However, I would like to say something about the burden of proof. The aim of this directive is to strengthen the ability of individuals to defend themselves – that is the fundamental aim. This would not be possible without transferring the burden of proof. Irrespective of the fact that in many legal systems the burden of proof is already transferred for far less important reasons or for reasons of comparable importance. A classic example of transferring the burden of proof is the so-called assumption of paternity and there are many more examples.
It was also said in the debate that some of the terms were too open. Ladies and gentlemen, most constitutional terms are open and require interpretation in a given set of circumstances. For example, I remember in the German Constitution there is the formulation ‘possession obliges’. This is a typically open formulation which is redefined of course in different specific cases.
Ladies and gentlemen, there was some exaggerated talk of potentially heavy costs, especially in relation to the physically disabled. I can state that the directive does not propose any fixed or concrete matters but speaks about reasonable conformity and I can state again that that if reasonable conformity is applied from the outset there will not for the most part be any excessively high costs. I must say that if we regard potentially higher costs as acceptable in relation to health and safety at work, where we are protecting human life, then in my opinion any higher costs that are involved in protecting human dignity – although I do not believe that they will be substantially higher – also exist in proportion to the interest that is being protected, because equality and human dignity, ladies and gentlemen, are interests that have been woven into the Treaty and they are interests that we must defend with all our might."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Oriente ian sole"1
"th"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples