Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-14-Speech-2-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001114.2.2-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this vote which Parliament is about to declare in order to enable you, Madam President, to proclaim this Charter on behalf of this House, is a significant one. Now that we have had the single market, it is now time for a Europe of rights The concept of citizenship within the European Union is a relatively new one.
Let us remember that this was originally an initiative from Felipe Gonzales, who proposed this fine idea. Since then, it has been expanded upon and brought to life. Until now, it existed only in the form of an anthem, a passport, but now, I feel that with this Charter, it also will have some substance, the definition of rights as they are stated in this fine text. It is a fine text because it is readable, clear, precise and framed with an eye to the future – well, we shall see, but in the meantime, as of right now, it is possible to read it as if it were a legal text, and that is what we sought to achieve. For women, too, it is a text that represents some progress since it is couched in gender-neutral terms.
It is also, however, a text whose content we can be proud of, as it is well balanced. The first right it stipulates is the right to dignity. How can we fail to recognise that in the twenty-first century, once the concept of dignity has been set forth, the key thing is the indivisibility of the whole package of rights? So individual rights and citizens’ rights are included, but also social rights.
I am well aware of how difficult the Cologne mandate was. Some say it was a balanced mandate, others that it was inadequate, but it was a mandate whose dynamic force we used to the full, and even almost exceeded. Some Members of this House, including in my own political family, in the widest sense, will deplore the lack of reference to a minimum income, the right to accommodation or the lack of any explicit reference to the European Social Charter and the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights in the general provisions of the text. I would, however, urge them to read the text carefully. Going on the speeches that I have heard this morning, I am not sure that everyone has read this text properly and grasped its full scope.
Let me briefly discuss the scope of the text. I would urge those that are of the opinion that the text does not go far enough as regards social rights to consider the legal status of the texts we currently have available to us on social rights at the European level. The Charter has actually been drawn up as if it were a text which might become binding. It goes well beyond the texts with which we identify in political terms but which, from the viewpoint of the legal instrument implementing them, even if they, of course, are based on common policies, do not, however, in legal terms define any real rights which might, eventually, be recognised by a judge.
You have to realise that this is a text which must be brought to life. To adopt an expression used by Catherine Lalumière, I would say that we have to “put it into orbit”. In order to do so, we all need to work hand in hand, on the basis of, I hope, the largest possible vote by this House. This means that we must all get involved, Members of the European Parliament, members of the national parliaments, the Council, of course, the national government, but also that same civil society which supported us in the process of drawing up the text.
If I might briefly turn to the legal status of the text, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you referred to the work of the IGC last night. My impression was that, even though several governments did not want it, there might still be a clear majority in favour of a reference in Article 6. That is not the be all and end all for this Charter’s status. It will ultimately have to have its rightful place as the preamble to a constitution, but that is a matter for our long-term institutional development. In the short term, we remain committed to its being referred to in Article 6. This is the mandate we have given our representatives. As far as Parliament is concerned, the phase we are about to enter is the outcome of a long struggle, one we undertook as early as 1975 and which has been continually highlighted through our resolutions, our Spinelli draft treaties, our draft European constitutions. When we come to vote, I would hope that we shall be able to have the maximum number of Members in the House in order to give you the maximum support, Madam President, when you proclaim the Charter."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples