Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-16-Speech-4-280"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000316.10.4-280"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The Ludford report on countering racism and xenophobia, like the Haarder report on human rights in the European Union that is also before us, seem inspired by some malevolent spirit that is prompting them to go beyond the legitimate protection of the rights linked to human dignity and to methodically destroy, one by one, all the bastions of citizenship, regardless indeed of whether it is national or even European.
Both reports give the impression of aiming to defend the rights of an indiscriminate individual, who could be living anywhere at all on this planet, rather than the rights of individuals situated in time and space, who have inherited certain traditions, who uphold their own values, i.e. precisely the citizens of our respective countries, who have sent us here to protect them, and for no other purpose. I think the approach taken in these reports is a kind of violation of our terms of reference.
For instance, the Ludford report proclaims equality between European citizens and third country nationals and goes so far as to propose that non-nationals can be employed as European officials in the same way as Member State nationals, or that they enjoy the same rights of unchecked freedom of movement and family reunification as EU nationals. The differences are being ironed out at every level, for the Haarder report also supports equal rights for same-sex couples and the traditional family.
The two reports also join forces in calling for the right of immigrants to vote and stand for election in local and European elections. I think that second category is highly significant. For even if supposedly practical reasons could sometimes be trumped up for calling for their participation in local elections, the significance of their participation in European elections is purely ideological. Its aim is to show that the future Europe must not be a super-nation (even if there is a super-state) but, on the contrary, an open field, a crossing point where the rights taken away from the nations would be redistributed all over the world.
Another revealing point common to both reports is that they call for the proposed new ‘rights’ to be enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of EU citizens, now being drafted, on which I gave my views the day before yesterday during the debate on the DuffVoggenhuber report. And, of course, they insist that, in future, this document must be legally binding on the Member States. That is another aspect that shows that this Charter, if it really was adopted in the form called for by the European Parliament – but which we will oppose absolutely – would have the effect of a mechanism for reducing the powers of the nations.
Here as ever we see that the European level is the point of least resistance in face of pressure groups, of extraneous minorities, even of foreign interests. And once again we draw the same lesson: the citizens must keep a close guard on their powers and only delegate them where necessary to transparent institutions, devoted to their defence and over which they have full control."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples