Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-098"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.3.2-098"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Scarcely has the ‘body’ entrusted by the Cologne Council with the task of drafting the Charter of Fundamental Rights completed its work than all the federalists, particularly in this House, go into collective raptures about the results. The content of this document, they say, represents a fundamental step forward for the protection of citizens’ rights in Europe, to the extent that the matter should be referred to the Intergovernmental Conference and the Nice Council should decide to enshrine it in the Treaties.
The Convention was thus a muddled system, generating irresponsibility, and not particularly favourable to well-ordered democracy. The final adoption of the draft Charter intended for submission to the Council, on 2 October this year, represented a monumental work of ambiguity, since apparently a number of members agreed on condition that it was a political declaration, whereas others agreed on condition that it was a binding text, and they skirted around this critical divergence in the same way that they skirted around the existence of an opposition to which I myself belonged.
The federalists so successfully took advantage of this confusion that it is not surprising to hear the European Parliament today requesting that, after Nice, another identical body be set up to draw up a European Constitution. My Group is opposed to the idea of a European Constitution, intended to override national sovereignty, but it is also opposed to setting up a system of negotiating as badly organised as that of the Convention on this subject or any other.
As to the form of the procedure, the same parties find extraordinary virtues in the working methods of the body, which included representatives of the European Parliament, the national governments, the national parliaments and the Commission, to the extent that they request the same set-up be used, after Nice, to draft a future European Constitution.
As a member of the European Parliament delegation to this body, having worked, together with my fellow members, on the matter for eight months, I must say that the Charter of Fundamental Rights could well, in fact, have represented an added value for Europe but that, as things stand at present, we can derive no satisfaction from either its content or the working methods which governed its drafting.
As I stated in the proposal I submitted to the Praesidium of the body, from the start of the work, peoples’ rights are already adequately protected in Europe, both by the national legal systems and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is an extension of these. We have no need of an extra instrument, intended primarily to strengthen the supranational authority of the Community institutions. What I would suggest we do need is a Charter of the Rights of Nations reminding us of the citizens’ primordial allegiance to the democratic will expressed in the national context and affirming that the European Union is an association of nations. A text of this type would be extremely useful, not just in re-establishing the true meaning of democracy, but also in making the institutions ready for the future enlarged Europe. This is not, however, remotely the route that the Convention took.
There has been a fundamental contradiction in the draft since work commenced, a contradiction which it has never been possible to eliminate. On the one hand it affirms that its provisions “are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union”, but on the other hand many articles mention purely national competencies which have nothing to do with those of the European Union. The real scope of application does not tally with the declared intentions, fostering some formidable ambiguity regarding the nature of the Charter.
This text may initially seem benign, since it basically reiterates existing rights, but if it were to be incorporated into the treaty and to be made binding, as the European Parliament is urging, it would automatically tend to standardise national legal systems in Europe; it would give the Court of Justice disproportionate power; it would promote increased centralisation around the European institutions; it would restrict every nation’s margin for autonomous decision making. It would thus impel us towards a standardised Europe, the like of which most political leaders claim they reject.
Even on the hypothesis that this draft gives rise to nothing more than a simple political declaration, we cannot accept it as it stands. We cannot conceive of a political declaration at the European level which does not make any mention of the key role of the national democracies, the rights they enshrine, nor of the implications for European institutions.
This questionable draft, deliberately biased in favour of federalism, is the product of a poor working method which promoted confusion at every level.
There is no doubt but that the body entrusted with drafting the Charter was made up in an original manner, but, from a legal standpoint it did not represent anything more than a Council working group. Yet, from the outset, it dubbed itself the “Convention”, in spite of my protests, and subsequently continued to act as if it were a sovereign body, ranking higher than the institutions which had appointed it, and even nations. It went on to operate according to a so-called ‘consensus’ method, i.e. without ever voting, even by way of indication, without ever being able to ascertain exactly who was for or against a particular provision, and without it being clear who, in the event, had decided to adopt, reject or amend it. Finally, the hearings that were conducted were determined in an arbitrary fashion according to the candidates that were present (or invited to attend?), and it would be impossible to claim that they provided a true and accurate reflection of the societies of the Member States."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples