Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-14-Speech-2-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001114.2.2-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is a key stage in the construction of Europe, has given rise to much discussion. Some think it a success and others now think it a thwarted ambition. Many people thought that Europe at long last had the opportunity to emerge from the single free-trade area and the liberal rut in order to establish the foundation of a People’s Europe.
Everything conspired to strengthen this hope: the formation of the Convention which established a new precedent in relation to the usual intergovernmental method, the public debates and the full set of texts available on an Internet site that was accessible to everyone, as well as the fact that the opinion of civil society was consulted. Transparency was no substitute, however, for the democratic deficit, as the NGOs were only given five minutes to speak and their points were only rarely taken into consideration.
So, yes, some progress was made, but not enough to compensate for the omissions. It took many weeks of battling to incorporate the right to strike into the Charter. The right to employment was transformed into the right to work. The right to health, social security, accommodation or a minimum income either do not feature, or are expressed only as a token of social cohesion. Freedom of the press is no longer ‘guaranteed’, only ‘respected’. Minority rights are the minimum possible. Discrimination between European and third country residents is ratified, as is the freedom of movement laid down in the Treaty of Amsterdam, or the right to live as a family, even though this is recognised in international law. A great many rights, including political rights, become subject to a European preference in place of national preference.
So what has become of our sacrosanct principle that the law shall be universal, indivisible and unique? What has become of European citizenship, the heart of this Europe of equality for all citizens? We are left with a feeling of bitterness. This Charter is the extension of a liberal Europe which is opposed to the social Europe of the citizens. What attitude can we possibly adopt now with regard to this text which is no better than nothing since it falls short of existing rights?
The Charter as it stands is in no position to become ‘meaningful’ for the citizens of Europe. All it brings is an added value; it does not remotely meet their expectations or their requirements. As regards fundamental rights, is it possible to accept a minimal common denominator at a time when Europe wishes to set itself up as a role model for human rights? We must refuse to be satisfied with this minimalist Charter to which the Social Democrats of Europe appear to have resigned themselves. The Charter cannot serve as a smokescreen for the French Presidency in order to conceal an IGC that is on its last legs.
At the European Summit in Nice, in December, civil society resolved to mobilise in order to make itself heard and to forcefully express its desire for a charter offering the citizens of Europe genuine guarantees. We must support these actions and, rather than accepting a shaky text, we must call upon the Convention to continue working after Nice, involving new procedures and extensive public debate. It is not just our rights and our freedoms but our democracy which is at stake here."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples