Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-16-Speech-4-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990916.6.4-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The resolution on which the European Parliament has just voted, on drafting a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the Union illustrates perfectly the abuses that, as I said in my intervention yesterday during the main debate, we would be risking.
In almost every paragraph of its resolution, the European Parliament broadens the interpretation of the decision of the Cologne Council in order to boost its own sense of importance, to marginalise national Parliaments and to prepare for the transformation of the Charter into a European Constitution.
In paragraph 2, the European Parliament claims that responsibility for the preparation of the Charter will fall jointly to the Council and to itself, whereas all the evidence shows that fundamental rights are protected today by national constitutions, and that any activity relating to them should largely, if not exclusively, involve national parliaments.
In paragraph 3, the European Parliament calls for an
which clearly demonstrates the desire for it to be more than just a collection of existing laws, as the Council wanted it to be.
In paragraph 4(1) and 4(2), Parliament requests that the number of its representatives in the “
” who have the task of drafting the Charter, should be equal to the number of representatives of Member States; that is to say, at least fifteen. At the same time, it is doing away with the need for national parliaments by suggesting that all that is required is “
”.
In paragraph 4(3), 4(4) and 4(6), Parliament requests that the future forum should itself determine the competences of its office as well as the organisation of its working parties and secretariat, which would give it a very large degree of independence and which would enable it to take the process in the direction it sees fit.
In paragraph 4(5), Parliament insists that there be “
”. We know what that means: the entry into the debate of people or organisations who have no democratic legitimacy, chosen according to obscure criteria and often heavily subsidised by the European Commission. This will guarantee a mess from which, bearing previous occurrences in mind, the only people likely to benefit are the Federalists.
This is a perfect example of the start of one of these exercises in manipulating public opinion, which the Federalists have always been so fond of. The most astonishing aspect of this manipulation is the attitude of the Council: throughout the negotiations on the Treaty of Amsterdam, it had staunchly resisted the grouping together of all the citizens rights scattered throughout the text in any form distinct from the Treaty itself. It won the argument at that time. Of its own accord, and without consulting anyone, it has suddenly accepted something much worse; the setting in motion of a much broader process of dispossessing national Constitutions. We shall staunchly oppose this anti-democratic manoeuvre."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"contributions from NGOs and from the citizens"1
"forum"1
"the appropriate consultation of the leaders of those Parliaments"1
"“open and innovative approach to the Charter’s character, the type of rights it should contain as well as its role and status in the development of the Union’s constitution”"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples