Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-145"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.8.2-145"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current presidency of the European Union believes that the plan to establish a Charter of Fundamental Rights is an extremely important step in creating a Community of values which will act as a focus for taking the process of political union further. Many people are wondering how far we can go in this process of establishing a standard set of values and principles in this way, which would guarantee every citizen within the Union a set of rights that would strengthen their sense of belonging to an area with a shared civilisation. A question that has already been asked here today is what makes us want to join together and to transcend our enormous diversity by creating an entity which will unite us all. This is the key question as regards European identity, and it goes to the very root of why we are also joined together here, in this great home – the European Union.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, things have moved on and we cannot ignore this. This presidency believes that this clearly justifies the in-depth work that is needed on a Charter of Fundamental Rights. What I mean, of course, is that with the Treaty of Amsterdam we launched an ambitious project to establish a greater European area of freedom, security and justice. At the Tampere Special European Council, the European Commission and the Member States initiated a process of improving the structures for internal security, in order to provide stability in the daily lives of the general public, by guaranteeing to effectively combat organised crime and drug trafficking and to address other public order issues. As part of this European effort, it is becoming essential to ensure that all of this action, that is any future action that we may take in this area, relates to a very clear body of principles, capable of providing the public with clear and transparent legal protection. This is also why we feel – and we said so in Cologne when the idea of a Charter of Fundamental Rights was approved at the European Council – that this Charter is a vital element, central to the Union’s future. Unless our principles are reinforced in this way, unless the Union provides itself with an ethical pillar which gives it credibility in the eyes of the general public – a pillar which, in fact can also serve as a model and a point of reference for its external relations – we run the risk of being derailed as a result of extending our policies and watering down our values.
On this subject, I should like to mention the issue of the Intergovernmental Conference. It is obvious that the issue of incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a crucial factor for the whole credibility of the ICG. From the outset, the Portuguese Presidency has made its attitude quite clear: it is important to ensure that the agenda of the IGC should not simply be a kind of discussion of the division and management of power in an enlarged Union. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is, in this context, and this is how we shall view it until the end of our Presidency, a vital element in producing a more balanced result at this conference, which will in fact also cover other issues, notably the issue of defence and security. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is for all of these reasons that the Council is taking a special interest in the resolution that this Parliament has just adopted on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and will continue to attach the greatest importance to this resolution.
Over the decades, and having survived all kinds of traumas and crises, we have established a way of life based on the values of liberty, democracy and respect for the rule of law. For many years, a potential model based on the culture of freedom that we enjoyed in some countries in Europe was held up to those who lived in other parts of Europe. This culture is in fact part of a tradition of tolerance which has been cultivated in this continent and which now, in turn, is at the heart of the European project itself. The ascendancy of these ideas and the end of the totalitarian era which marked certain European societies has created a new situation to which we must respond. In our opinion, this is a question of responsibility and also of consistency.
The enlargement of the European Union to cover new countries, which is an ethical imperative and an essential strategy for stability and peace in our continent, will unite us with states which have very diverse political cultures and which, in many cases, have young and untried institutions and structures. Both for these states and for those among them that are fighting for fundamental principles that will structure their contemporary societies, it is becoming important for these principles to be incorporated into a body of Community legislation to which they will remain linked after accession. Do not think, however, that this idea of a charter or a body of principles is merely a type of safeguard mechanism in the face of new Member States, that is to say a kind of defence against other countries. This is not the case, and that is not the purpose of all this.
Recent events have demonstrated that what we hold to be stable and permanent within our own countries, within the Community of Fifteen, may, in certain circumstances, turn out to be much less helpful than we might hope in terms of addressing problems that are often quite simple, but in other cases revive old ghosts.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights is nevertheless not intended to act as a substitute for the constitutional guarantees that we all enjoy in our own countries. We must dispose of this myth – which has been regularly used as a weapon to attack the Charter of Fundamental Rights – so that we can stop it being used as an excuse by those who seek refuge in subsidiarity in order not to shoulder their responsibilities as European citizens. No, we intend to provide something which will bring added value, a kind of additional guarantee, which would function as an instrument of the new European citizenship. Here, Mr President, we must overcome certain problems which the debate within the Convention is beginning to run into and which I think it will face even more frequently in the future. I would like to emphasise that in making these comments, I am speaking on behalf of the Council and not necessarily on behalf of my own country, which has adopted a rather, shall we say, ambitious position on this matter.
The first issue regards jurisdiction. It concerns the need to guarantee complete compatibility between the two relevant legal systems, which could find themselves in conflict with one another in this process. This is a real problem and one of which we should all be aware. We cannot run the risk that when this charter comes into force a new area of legal uncertainty will be created. We are embarking upon an exercise designed to make our citizens’ rights more transparent – not to ensnare them in a web of legal contradictions that could prove to be a source of confusion. This also brings us to the issue, which has surfaced once again following Amsterdam, of the Union possibly signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The second issue is how we define the people this Charter is designed to protect, in other words, are we talking about those citizens who have a Community nationality, or are we aiming at those people who happen to be living in the Community area? This is a fundamental question. We will have to accept the consequences whichever answer we opt for, and all the more so given that many of us genuinely feel that the institutions and the institutions alone are the real object of this new Charter.
The third question, and a crucial one, is the body of rights. How far do we intend to go? Are we to be content with a body of basic principles, a kind of lowest common denominator in academic European terms, or should reach out to more ambitious territory, and deal with the modern aspects of today’s European Union? It seems that today’s public is capable of calling for an area enshrined within the Union, and covering not just their economic and social rights but also the new rights that have been presented as part of modern citizenship. How far is the Union prepared to go?
Lastly, my fourth question, which is perhaps the most important one. This is a debate in which some people are clearly advocating a text which is merely a declaration of intent, a piece of political rhetoric. But unless it is binding, will any Charter of Fundamental Rights be anything more than a mere statement of principles, without any real value? If we create a Charter of Fundamental Rights which is merely a declaration of intent, will we not simply be taking refuge behind an issue which may be politically correct, but which does not reflect to the essence of the European Union as it is today?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples