Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-15-Speech-3-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000315.2.3-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I am obliged to destroy the good humour of this House, for 25 years’ experience of intense discussion and analysis of human rights shows that good intentions combined with massive ignorance of the reality involved produce some terrible results or, to put it in ordinary plain language, “Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it”. It is not so much a question of what is said, and the more talk there is of human rights, the worse are the abuses. I want to make three small points. First of all, I completely agree with my fellow countryman and rapporteur for the report, Mr Haarder, when he says that, where the protection of minorities is concerned, we should make the same demands upon ourselves as we make upon the candidate States. This is something which the EU’s institutions should have thought about in 1991-1992 when, in contravention of the rules applicable to the protection of minorities, they recognised firstly Slovenia and subsequently Croatia and, in the process, added fuel to the flames of what subsequently became the Balkans disaster. The second point is an extension of yesterday’s debate. To insist on incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights into the EU’s constitution – or, rather, into the EU Treaty – would not merely entail a number of huge and insuperable constitutional problems, especially in a country like Denmark, but it would also make the EU Treaty into a genuine constitution incorporating fundamental rights. It is said that the more rights we have, the better, but rights are part and parcel of a complicated interplay of systems. The result of an EU Charter would be an endlessly complicated morass of legal and constitutional problems. Which is the decision-making authority? Are the rights guaranteed under the Convention on Human Rights better than those guaranteed under the EU’s Charter? Is the latter, again, better than the national constitutions? That is a question which has no meaning. Finally, my third remark is a compliment to the rapporteur, Mr Haarder. It is with satisfaction and much interest that I see that paragraph 61 emphasises the collective right to trade union membership. However, Mr Haarder’s old hobbyhorse about the individual’s right not to join a union is not included as a recommendation. I want to congratulate Mr Haarder on the new political insight on his part which is evidenced here."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples