Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-14-Speech-2-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001114.2.2-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to join the European Parliament in expressing the Presidency’s sympathies on the occasion of the accident which occurred near Salzburg in Austria, and say that we fully share in the sorrow of the families of the victims of this most serious accident.
I am convinced, however, that the Charter will make its mark most especially by the strength of its content. Firstly, it precisely restates the fundamental rights laid down, in the main, in the European Convention on Human Rights. In this respect, the authors of the Charter were careful throughout, as was also stipulated in the specification, to avoid any risk of conflict between the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, responsible for ensuring compliance with the Convention, and that of the European Court of Justice, in particular by adopting the wording used by the Council of Europe Convention when this seemed sufficiently finalised. Similarly, in the general provisions, Article 52(3) stipulates that, insofar as the Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, “the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention.”
It is my sincere opinion that in so doing, the authors of the text have with great precision minimalised as far as possible the risk of having conflicting case law in the two courts in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Moreover, at a time when we have just celebrated the 50th anniversary of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, I think we can safely leave it to the judges of both institutions to fuel and continue the dialogue they already maintain, which is undoubtedly adequate guarantee against any risk of the two-speed Europe of human rights that some people have mentioned.
Quite obviously, the Charter does not confine itself to merely restating pre-existing rights, with a little updating. This would have been somewhat disappointing. It also enshrines many new rights which are not included in the Convention and which are necessitated by developments in our societies, be it in terms of technological development, the emergence of new dependencies, or even the increasing complexity of our state and administrative systems. It is particularly important that European citizens should know, for example, that the European Union prohibits all human cloning for reproductive purposes or that it guarantees its citizens protection of their personal data.
I am of course pleased to see, finally, the importance the text attaches to economic and social rights. France argued forcefully for this section to be a substantial one, but it was also the will of many other Member States, the European Parliament and a good many Members of the national parliaments, which can only be gratifying to the Council Presidency. At stake were the Charter’s innovatory strength and driving force as well as consolidation of the European social model, which we value so highly.
First of all, I must stress the importance of including a chapter entitled “Solidarity”. Let me, once again, congratulate President Herzog in person, who, I believe, was behind this. This value, this solidarity, is indeed what best sums up the European social model, which is consubstantial with the construction of the European Community. This is the solidarity which the Charter guarantees through the right to free education, the right of workers to be informed and consulted, the right to collective bargaining and action, including the right to strike, even if it was not easy to get it included in the text, but also through the right to protection against unjustified dismissal, the right to social protection and the ban on children working.
I shall also stress Article 23, which is particularly clear in stipulating equality between men and women, and stating that this must be ensured in all areas, and that the principle of equality shall not prevent the adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.
Overall, I should say that this text unquestionably marks the greatest collective advance in terms of affirming social rights, both because of the importance of the rights enshrined and also because these rights are included for the first time in the same text as civic and political rights, thereby officially signposting the indivisible nature of all fundamental rights.
It is true, nonetheless, that it has been possible to make a number of criticisms regarding the content of the Charter. There are some, for example, who denounce the text as reflecting the political choices of those advocating a liberal Europe and criticise the obligation for consensus as the method adopted within the Convention for adopting the Charter. These are criticisms put forward in a recently launched appeal from some Members of Parliament, especially Members of the European Parliament, calling for the Charter to be revised. As to the method, let me remind you that the Convention itself determined its own rules of procedure, without any external pressure, and that the rule of consensus seemed to be a particularly constructive option in a body as diverse as the Convention. I am sure the Convention members that are to speak here will be able to confirm that. I feel that this decision has most certainly contributed towards producing a text which I believe to be well-balanced and ambitious.
The European Trade Union Confederation, for its part, saw fit to complain about what it considers to be some omissions, such as the lack of any reference to the right to a minimum income, for example. I should therefore like to make a few things clear once again. The purpose of the Charter was to collate the fundamental rights, not, at this stage, to form a social treaty – regrettable as that may be, and it may be something that will come in time – and the Convention’s mandate, as stipulated in the initial specification, did not entitle it to create completely new social rights out of nothing. I am certain there will be further stages along this road.
Moreover, the Charter is not the only initiative launched by the French Presidency in the social field, quite the contrary. Indeed, the French Presidency has set the promotion of a more mutually supportive Europe at the top of its priorities. So, as you know, the Presidency, on the basis of the conclusions of the Lisbon Council, has launched the initiative of a social agenda, intended to determine what action the European Union will undertake in the next few years in order to take existing needs in to account, providing, in particular, a qualitative and quantitative improvement in employment, as well as greater social cohesion.
I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity to address the House as part of an in-depth debate on this fine project to establish a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union before Parliament adopts its final position on this text. Admittedly, we have already exchanged views on this matter on two occasions, firstly on 3 October, following an oral question from the Chairman of your Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Giorgio Napolitano, and then on 24 October, when I came to Parliament to present the results of the informal European Council in Biarritz on 13 and 14 October, where, indeed, the Charter was one of the major items on the agenda.
I feel that these two approaches, the Charter and the social agenda, complement each other and properly reflect our determination to place social matters at the heart of the construction of Europe.
I should, moreover, also like to point out some grounds for satisfaction for the Presidency, and I believe for other institutions too, in the overall position adopted by the European Trade Union Confederation, which stresses the connection between the Charter and the social agenda and which concludes that the Convention’s proposed Charter, adopted by the Heads of State and Government, “represents an important step towards the construction of a social and a citizens’ Europe”. I feel this is a significant statement – one that I welcome.
The Heads of State and Government were alive to this determination when they, if not adopted – that is still to come in Nice – at least approved the text of the Charter. The balance arrived at by the authors has met with general approval, and the Presidency has no desire to reopen the debate, no more than, I believe, your rapporteurs do.
Let me now, in conclusion, turn to the matter of the legal status of the Charter, which has already been mentioned. I clearly heard your rapporteurs once again expressing the desire to see the Charter form the preamble to a constitutional treaty and you know that I, personally, am in favour of this, but I should like to point out, because we are bound to be extremely precise regarding what is happening today, that the European Council in Biarritz was forced to note that the majority of Member States were not willing to discuss the matter of incorporating this Charter into the Treaties, at least for the time being. I can assure you, then, since it will not be possible to pose this question officially until after Nice, that the French Presidency fully intends to strive to include this perspective in the conclusions of the Nice European Council.
The fact remains that several individuals, Members of the European Parliament in particular, have suggested that explicit reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights be included in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, which already refers to the European Convention on Human Rights. They have thus pointed out what is really a paradoxical situation, whereby the Treaty on European Union would not mention a new text actually belonging to the European Union even though it already refers to an existing text belonging to the Council of Europe.
You know that, in a personal capacity, I have shown my openness to this proposal, and even my support for it, and I would reiterate that here. However, once again on the basis of its bilateral contacts, the Presidency is forced to acknowledge that several Member States do not wish to see this. I should, moreover, like to inform the European Parliament that, on the initiative of the Presidency, a debate was held yesterday within the Preparatory Group for this issue. They inform me that the discussion was not entirely conclusive, perhaps signifying that some of the governments might be inspired by a clear statement of views from the European Parliament as a whole.
I am convinced then, that this Charter, by virtue of its clarity, its coherence and its content, will come to the fore as the benchmark text which the European Union so badly needed. I can only, therefore, on behalf of the Council Presidency, urge you once again to adopt the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a view to its joint official proclamation in Nice. I am convinced that this will be one of the highlights of this European Council bringing the French Presidency to an end.
For all that, however, today’s debate, in my opinion, is a far cry from being needless repetition. It is, on the contrary, particularly important as today Parliament is to decide if, as is urged by the conclusions of the Cologne Council, it is going to proclaim this text, jointly with the Council and the Commission, at the European Council meeting in Nice, which is less than a month away now. This is quite clearly a major political decision and a fresh opportunity to show the citizens of Europe the whole scope of this initiative.
I understand that the position advocated by your Committee on Constitutional Affairs – and let me congratulate the Committee’s rapporteurs, Mr Duff and Mr Voggenhuber, who have just spoken – urges you to adopt the text of the Charter as it stands and, therefore, to mandate your President to proclaim the Charter on behalf of Parliament in Nice, alongside the Presidents of the Council and of the Commission. As you know, this position is in line with that adopted by the Heads of State and Government at the Biarritz European Council who unanimously and unreservedly approved the Charter, and I can only urge you, therefore, on behalf of the Council, to follow suit, perhaps giving you a few reasons to do so.
The Council Presidency sees this Charter as symbolising a twofold success. A success, in the first place, in terms of the method adopted: that of a body, the Convention, made up of Members of the European Parliament, national parliaments, the European Commission – and let me take this opportunity to greet Mr Vitorino, who brought all his competence to bear – and of personal representatives of the Heads of State and Government, the whole body subject to the enlightened chairmanship of Mr Roman Herzog, the former President of both the Karlsruhe Court and the Federal Republic of Germany.
I feel that the diversity and the quality of the appointed Members represented an unquestionable asset. I find similarly extraordinary the twofold concern which the Convention had – to work with the utmost transparency and interaction with the public, particularly through the Internet. So, with a concern for openness which paid off in the end, in the course of its work the Convention heard from the major European non-governmental organisations, both sides of industry in Europe and, importantly, too, for the future, the candidate countries. This transparency and openness actively contributed to the gradual improvement of the various versions of the draft Charter and enabled the final version to be the right one.
I know that the Convention experiment already clearly appears to be one of the avenues – one, but not the only avenue – which Europe could follow up in future in order to be more transparent and in touch with the opinions of European citizens. Members of the European Parliament, particularly in our previous debate, have already expressed the wish to repeat the experiment. I, personally, have no doubt that such an opportunity will present itself.
The second and main success, is the result which the Convention achieved. The Charter is primarily – and this is rare enough to be worthy of note, as I have seen particularly in the preparations for the IGC – a clear and well-organised document. Combining around fifty articles, which, in fact, makes for a short text, subdivided into six chapters with titles that ring true, and could perhaps be a new motto for Europe: dignity, freedoms, equality, solidarity, citizens’ rights, justice, it unquestionably answers the requirements for concision and clarity and thus, also, the concerns and expectations of our fellow citizens.
So, the Charter is a perfectly consistent text. The authors of the text managed to fulfil a twofold requirement that was not easy to satisfy: firstly, to avoid creating law out of nothing and, secondly, to give us a precise snapshot of the scope of fundamental rights in force within the European Union, while also giving us a dynamic picture with potential for further development."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples