Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-14-Speech-2-310"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001114.4.2-310"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I abstained in the vote on the Charter of Fundamental Rights because I felt that, before this was adopted or rejected, it was crucial to know what fate it would meet at the Nice European Council. In future, will its clauses have a merely symbolic value or will they become binding for Community institutions and, consequently, for the European public?
We are very familiar with the position held by the majority in this Parliament. In this catalogue of rights, the devotees of European federalism see the embryo of a future European Constitution, which the Member States’ national constitutions will have to accommodate. We understand their position when they try to give a qualitatively diverse political meaning to a text on fundamental rights, which is not only vague and all-encompassing, but is also going to be of arguable usefulness in an EU that has no serious shortcomings, either in the legal status of its rights or in the way in which these rights are defended and implemented.
Fortunately the prevailing tendency of national governments seems to indicate the sensible path to take, which is to see the Charter as having power that is merely political rather than binding. The great political debate on the Charter will therefore take place firstly between national governments and then, eventually, when this Parliament is confronted with their decision. Meanwhile, as I said at the beginning of this explanation of vote, the only approach I could adopt was to abstain from voting."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples