Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.2.2-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the President of the Commission has just told us that in matters of democracy there is no room for subsidiarity. Well I would like to say that there is no room for subsidiarity in matters of human rights either. Until yesterday, the Union was somewhat deprived in this respect. For, before the value of human rights, which is a European Union value, could be ours, we needed a text, a Charter, to establish its characteristics.
What does this Treaty, as it stands, actually say? Article 6 lays down the principles on which the Union is established. It refers back to our constitutional traditions and to the European Convention on Human Rights. Can we accept, pending the incorporation of the Charter into the Treaty, a Treaty which only refers to the European Convention on Human Rights, when all the European Union institutions agreed to work together to draw up this Charter, which is a fine Charter which no legal expert could afford not to be aware of?
This Charter is primarily a charter for the inhabitants of the European Union, and I believe that it is also a charter for all those who want to join that Union. It is an extremely powerful political message, the importance of which must be emphasised, for when we talk about the Copenhagen criteria, these can sometimes prove a little limited when it comes to the rights of the individual. I believe that a solution has now been found to this problem. This Charter should form part of the
.
We have been told that things are not going well in Europe. Yet how can we answer the question of what we wish to achieve together if we do not have, as the very least, a Charter of this quality? I believe that we are at an important juncture. The fact that 62 people, from different and sometimes conflicting backgrounds, have managed to reach a consensus and draw up a single document in the space of nine months, under the unrelenting gaze of civil society, would in fact seem to be a sign of the political health of our Union, and something that we cannot but welcome.
The mandate given at Cologne was, as has been said, a limited mandate. The Heads of State and Government did not make our task any easier. It was a mandate under which we were unable to create new rights or develop any of the Union's responsibilities, and which some parties sought to interpret as a straightforward licence to transcribe certain articles from the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe that, as faithful servants of this Parliament, we used the mandate, all the mandate but not just the mandate, and I cannot but welcome this. The Charter is now accessible to everyone, it is easy to interpret and it is clear. I also feel, however, that it includes some major advances, and that also means in relation to current texts. We cannot but welcome this text, and take pride in speaking in favour of it today.
Concerning the content, and while I am aware that we will have a chance to return to this matter during our debate in November, I would immediately like to highlight certain points. This is the first international-level document to recognise the indivisibility of rights. We now have proof that this is possible, and this is taking place at European level. I believe, once again, that we can be proud of this. Moreover, for the first time, we have a gender-neutral text. This gives me, as a French speaking woman, great cause for satisfaction, although I am sure that this satisfaction will not solely be felt by French speakers.
As I have just said, this Charter recognises new rights. From this point of view it is a modern text, which acknowledges rights in the fields of biotechnology, data protection, the environment and good administration. Furthermore, I believe that the very structure of our text, as you yourself have stressed, Mr Moscovici, is an original one. The rights of the individual will never again be discussed in the same light, because now the prime right, the founding right, is the right to dignity. Then comes a flowing sequence of other rights of which I am also proud: dignity, liberty, equality, solidarity, citizenship, justice.
Economic and social rights take up their rightful place, but not only in the chapter on solidarity. They are also to be found throughout the text. They appear in the chapter on liberty, and in the chapter on equality, and quite rightly so, because this is a good way of promoting these economic and social rights. Then there is the right to proper administration. I believe, Mr President of the Commission, that you ought to be particularly alive to this right, which is one that we included in the chapter on citizenship. It is not aimed only at the citizen, it is aimed at all people. We have in a way extended and developed the notion of citizenship that was laid down in the Treaties, and which until now had no tangible form. It seems to me that drafting this Charter constitutes a major step forward which we must support and capitalise upon.
A word on the method. As many people have already said, it is one that presupposes that the draft Charter currently on the table will remain intact, or that the Convention will be asked to rework it. It nevertheless seems to me that only the Convention should be able to amend certain points in the Charter, if by any chance this should be deemed essential, before the Charter is proclaimed. Let me remind you that we have not attempted to launch such an original process since the Assizes in Rome. But the difference is that this time around, in my opinion, the method has worked perfectly. It has not prevented the Heads of States and Government from giving their own instructions, and from having their representatives work together, but they have been doing so in a transparent manner, under the watchful eye of all the partners who, beginning with Parliament, have shown the extent to which they are able, in a process of this type, to perform their duties with a will to working towards and bringing about a result that is of value to everyone.
Lastly, a word on incorporating the Charter. Much has already been said about this and, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have just described the extent to which the Intergovernmental Conference has been involved in amending Article 7. There would seem to be no alternative but to open up this debate and address the status of the Charter. It would be paradoxical to turn it into an entity unclassified in legal terms, at a time when, on a daily basis, we perceive the need to validate a founding process based on our values. It would be paradoxical if you were, at Nice, to convene a new Intergovernmental Conference with a view to simplifying the Treaties, to possibly developing a constitutive process and to incorporating this Charter into the Treaties at some point in the future, but for us to remain where we are now, with the Treaty, pending the outcome of this hypothetical IGC."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples