Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-16-Speech-4-122"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000316.3.4-122"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I did not vote for the resolution, despite the fact that I am in favour of a charter of fundamental rights, because it contains demands which overshoot the mark and risk causing considerable confusion by formulating the same rights differently and, more importantly, jeopardising the universality of human rights.
I do not take the view that this charter should contain enforceable economic and social rights. These are subject to the employment law of the Member States and the autonomy of the social partners.
Those who want to overload the cart, for example, with new basic rights in the information, bio-technology and environmental protection areas, are doing little to promote the endearing concept of a Union charter containing subjectively enforceable basic rights.
I would much rather see the European Union and, of course, all the Member States, quickly accede to the 1950 Human Rights Convention as opposed to the inevitable dispute regarding the new wording of the fundamental rights of Union citizens.
In order to safeguard uniform case law and prevent differing interpretations, case law should continue to be the preserve of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg which, thanks to the quality of its case law on the 1950 Convention over the past 40 years, has provided a dynamic instrument which takes full account of the social, economic and ethical developments within our society.
The discrepancies or inconsistencies which might result from various ideologically informed views can be seen in the position of the Committee on Women’s Rights which is calling, for example, for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to contain a clause banning discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation but maintains that family rights as such do not exist.
We need to be wary of perhaps well-meant, generous proposals if we want to prevent decision processes in the EU being crippled by a plethora of recourse proceedings which would mean more than doubling the number of judges at the European Court of Justice, and nobody would know where to enforce their basic rights any more or how long they must wait for a judgement."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples