Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.8.2-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, the only really fundamental thing about the idea of a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the Union is an attempt, under the guise of appearing to be generous, to take a step towards the so-called constitutionalisation of the Treaties, or even more directly, towards a European constitution for a European State. For this reason, we are against it.
We are not questioning the content of such a charter. We come from a country whose constitution contains one of the most extensive enumerations of fundamental rights anywhere. We also belong to a party that was forged in the struggle for democracy, and one of whose greatest concerns has always been the steadfast promotion of human rights. We oppose the charter, however, because in the idea behind it, we detect a kind of Trojan horse for federalism, a political trap which would entail other serious political and legal consequences for the Member States and peoples of Europe. We do not think that it would be correct, and certainly not appropriate, to impair and disturb the balance of the Treaties at present. On the contrary, the times and challenges we are currently facing mean that it is more important than ever to promote the Treaties and follow the precise, secure routes mapped out by the founding fathers which have brought us this far. There is a very simple reason why the European Union does not need a Charter of Fundamental Rights: it does not have a fundamental rights problem. The Europe to which we belong is even, to a certain extent, the cradle of the culture of fundamental rights. As there is no problem, the charter is not a solution and as the charter will solve nothing, it is therefore a problem in itself. Firstly, because it would divide us in a cause in which we should be united. Secondly, because it would give rise to an overlapping and potentially disruptive conflict with the protection afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights, under the tried and tested institutional framework of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights. This is not a plus, but a minus.
The appropriate setting in which to enshrine fundamental rights is the constitutional law of each nation state. The appropriate setting for achieving international legal harmonisation and solid advances in the international protection of human rights is the agreements and conventions ratified by the Member States in as wide a geographical area as possible. In other words, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, in Europe, the European Convention.
We need to work within these extensive international frameworks if we are really to make the protection of rights already recognised by Member States more effective internationally, instead of following a route that will restrict us because it runs counter to the main feature of the culture of fundamental rights: its universality.
If the EU really does want to take symbolic steps in this field, it needs to go down a different path. That would involve including all human rights agreements and conventions already ratified by the 15 Member States in the list of international texts referred to in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. This would ensure that they were clearly incorporated into the
. That would be a real step forward. This charter is the wrong answer to a problem that does not even exist and is therefore an additional problem which we feel we can do without."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples