Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.2.2-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I am convinced, for my part, that the Convention experiment clearly shows us, if not the way, then at least one of the paths that Europe can now follow with a view to being more transparent and more receptive to the opinions of its citizens.
I am thus tempted to answer your question with one of my own: should one take the risk of this text – which as I have said is set to become a milestone – being rejected at Biarritz, or should one trust in the potency of this Charter, which I am sure will establish itself as a reference for values in the European Union and a source of inspiration to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg?
One must give these things time. Discussions on the future of the Charter are, to my mind, closely akin to discussions on the future of Europe. In the same way, there are those who have outlined the need to equip the European Union with a European Constitution. Personally speaking, that would seem like a good, if not an excellent idea, provided that prior agreement is reached on its content, which is to say on a possible clarification of competencies, on the role of each institution within the Union, and on the balance between them. One could then imagine, and I at any rate would support this entirely, the Charter taking its place in a type of ‘Constitutional Treaty’, in the form of a preamble. However, there is still a lot of work to be done before embarking on this new phase. It would seem to be premature to want to outline a timetable for this at the present juncture, and this could also have adverse effects on the negotiations of the IGC. We must wait until Nice, when we have the results of the IGC, before spelling out what we can reasonably look forward to seeing at a later date.
Any discussions on the ‘post-Nice’ scenario will therefore cover a range of themes, some of which are presented in a simplified manner. First of all there is the question of improving institutional administration in a Union which has 30 Member States. We are already addressing this issue in the context of the current Intergovernmental Conference, but we are also clearly aware that we will have to go further, a good deal further, in adapting the Community method if we are to preserve its essential features. I touched on this in connection with closer cooperation. This would appear to constitute the prime tool for promoting the pragmatic development of a Community Europe which will in the future – and I stress this – extend much further and be far more diverse. I need say no more.
Next there is the question of translating the Treaties into a constitution, to respond to the twin requirement of clarifying the texts, which we must render more cogent and more accessible to our fellow citizens, and of interlinking competencies more smoothly. These are not new issues and, above all, we are well aware of how difficult they are.
Then there is a third focus for discussion which we should not lose sight of, and which concerns improving the administration of the European Union. By this I am alluding to reform of the operation of the institutions, independently even of the reform of the Treaties, in response to a need, which public opinion senses quite strongly, for Europe to have a clearer direction, for measures to be handled more expertly, in brief for there to be a firmer hand on the rudder. This presupposes our being able to raise the profile of each of the institutions, in political terms, and consequently enhance the balance between them.
In this respect the proposals that Mr Prodi is preparing for next year will be of great practical value, and I feel, for that matter, that it is time for me to give him the floor. I am sure he, as the president of that pivotal institution, will share the Commission’s initial thoughts on the matter with us. However, I repeat, and I will end on this note for now, and allow the President-in-Office to speak, let us concentrate on the tasks allocated to us, let us strive to see them through together and if, at Biarritz, headway is being made both on the Intergovernmental Conference and on the Charter, then we will be able to prepare a successful Nice European Council and, of course, a better situation ‘post-Nice’.
The second major success, without which the first success would, it must be said, have had little meaning, is of course the result achieved by the Convention. From this point of view, the Charter is firstly, and this is a sufficiently rare thing in our texts for it to warrant a mention, a clear and well-structured document. It contains around fifty articles – which is not a vast amount – spread over six chapters with forceful headings – dignity, liberty, equality, solidarity, citizenship and justice – and undeniably meets our requirements for conciseness and clarity and thus, at the same time, I feel, lives up to the expectations of our fellow citizens.
The Charter is also cogent. The people responsible for drafting it have managed to respond to the twin requirement of not creating a text automatically and
but of taking a precise and yet fluid snapshot of the gamut of fundamental rights that are in force or evolving within the Union.
But it is primarily as a result of the potency of its content that I believe the Charter will become a milestone. First and foremost, it unambiguously reaffirms the fundamental civil rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and, on this account, those who drafted the Charter took great care to avoid any possibility of a regrettable divergence in judicial practice between the European Court of Human Rights, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Convention, and the Court of Justice of the European Communities, particularly by incorporating the wording of the Council of Europe’s Convention every time that this appeared to be the most well-rounded and pertinent option.
As we know, of course, the Charter does not stop at reaffirming existing rights. It enshrines many new rights that correspond to the necessary development in our societies, be they the development of technologies, the appearance of new dependencies, or the complexity of our administrative systems.
Lastly, I am sure you will understand my delight at the importance that this text accorded to economic and social rights. Putting on my second, my national, hat, I would say that France has argued strongly for this section to be a substantial one, but I have seen that many other Member States desired the same thing, which this Presidency can only welcome. The same applies to the innovative and driving force of the Charter and the consolidation of the European Social Model, which everyone here, I am sure, values highly. The Charter guarantees the right to a free education, the right of workers to be informed and consulted, and the right to collective bargaining and action, including the right to strike, the right of protection against any form of unjustified dismissal, the right to social protection, and the ban on child employment.
It is my overall conviction that the Charter constitutes the greatest collective advance in affirming social rights since European integration began and, as a result, is worthy of praise.
You will therefore ask me, and I fully expect to be questioned on this, why such success should not be crowned by incorporating the Charter into the Treaties. First of all, and in direct response to the question raised by Mr Napolitano, I must remind you of the actual text of the conclusions of the Cologne European Council, which launched the process, “The European Council will propose to the European Parliament and the Commission that, together with the Council, they should solemnly proclaim a European Charter of Fundamental Rights.” The Council itself must also come to a political agreement on the draft Charter, as I hope and believe it will do, informally, at the Biarritz European Council, and then allow the other institutions, the Commission, Parliament and, why not, certain national parliaments, time to reach a conclusion on the substance, which is to say on the contents of this document. It is therefore clear, as concerns timescales, that it will not be possible to make the proclamation, which will be the first step towards something bigger, until the Nice European Council.
Furthermore, the conclusions of the Cologne Council consistently specified that the issue of incorporation into the Treaties could only be examined after the Charter had been proclaimed, which is to say at Nice. Moreover, the Council is yet to address this matter. I must nevertheless confirm – at least this is my feeling – that a large majority, if not a very large majority, of Member States would still seem to oppose its prompt incorporation, which is, of course, a factor that this Presidency has to take into account."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples