Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-16-Speech-4-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000316.3.4-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The European Parliament’s report on the Charter is characterised by one pervasive idea: the desire for EU citizenship in a supranational State, whether one likes that term or not. This way of thinking is fundamentally different from our own vision of a European Community. The Union is, and should remain, a union of States. It must therefore be ensured that the Charter does not in any way interfere with the Member States’ national constitutions or equivalent arrangements for establishing fundamental rights. This is not to support the view that those in power can do as they like within a given country’s borders, but an expression of the view that human rights are nothing less than universal and require universal tools by way of protection. Moreover, we do not wish to see two sets of rights on the European continent – one for citizens of EU countries and another for citizens of non-EU countries. It is therefore crucial for any EU Charter not to affect existing international conventions and declarations of rights, but merely to require that EU countries sign these.
Growing problems arise when the EU acquires more and more powers as a State but cannot be bound in relation to, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights. We do not, however, see it as a solution for the EU to accede to the Convention on Human Rights as a juristic “person”, since we do not share the view that the EU is, or should be, identified as having the status of a separate politico-governmental body. Nor do we support the constitutional process of which the adoption of a Charter is an integral part. We prefer the Treaty to state that the EU’s authorities respect the competence and decisions of the Court of Human Rights. Legal practice of this kind makes it possible to condemn an aspect of Community law which is open to criticism and which has arisen through a Member State’s use of that law. The European Court of Justice should not have jurisdiction over areas already covered by the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg or by other international bodies. If the existing conventions are found to be inadequate, for example, because bio-technological developments give rise to new problems, then this is an international problem to which international solutions should be sought. It is not solely a concern of the EU, and we must seek international and global consensus in international forums. We are therefore voting against the whole report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples