Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-04-Speech-4-156"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030904.5.4-156"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The tone of my speech in yesterday’s plenary did not leave much room for doubt that I would vote against this report today. Indeed, apart from anything else, the ideological slant of the Sylla report makes it unbalanced and partial in terms of fundamental rights. Notwithstanding, there was one important argument which I could not put forward yesterday due to the scant speaking time available to me. It relates to the fact that the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which the rapporteur claimed was the central principle of his report, is aimed at the institutions and agencies of the Union, with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity, and also at the Member States. The charter only applies to the latter however, when they are implementing Union law, as Article 51 makes clear.
We would therefore have liked – though this was not the approach favoured by the rapporteur – to see this report aimed directly and primarily at the institutions and agencies of the Union. In other words, we wanted an appraisal of those actions of the Council, the Commission and Parliament itself which had an impact on fundamental rights in the EU, and which decided or implemented policies affecting those rights.
As we have seen, that was not what transpired."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples