Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.3.2-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(FR) We did not vote against this resolution because we did not want our votes to be confused with those of the extreme right, which objects to a number of fundamental rights even being affirmed or opposable to the sovereignty of States. We have absolutely no intention, however, of endorsing the Charter itself, as it is still vague on such basic human rights as the right to employment, a decent wage or accommodation, rights which affect the majority of the population, and is also vague regarding the social protection and freedom of movement and residence of third country nationals. It is quite specific, on the other hand, regarding the right to property and freedom to conduct a business, affecting primarily the capital-owning minority, the right to exercise this and to abuse it.
The recognition of freedoms and human rights is nothing more than a recommendation of principle without being legally binding, i.e. without being made obligatory for the Member States. The European institutions are, however, quite capable of making binding decisions, such as, for example, the authorisation of night working for women, when such decisions are harmful or when they lead to pointless hassle. This is not, however, the case for basic rights such as the right of all employees to strike or join unions. The Charter will, consequently, be used more to enshrine the current practices, including the reactionary practices, of the national States than to represent genuine progress."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples