Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-14-Speech-2-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001114.2.2-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I could not possibly improve upon Antonio Vitorino’s speech, so I shall briefly speak to stress the quality of the debate in this House, which has no parallel except for the debate held within the Convention, and I should like to congratulate those Members of the European Parliament who participated in it, especially Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mrs Pervenche Berès. Listening to this debate, I am pleased to see what appears to be a clear majority in Parliament in favour of this text, even if there a number of you still have to be won over. Some find the text excessively binding, even too advanced in relation to a number of reforms which it would be liable to dismantle, while others find it devoid of content or not sufficiently binding. I deduce from this that, perhaps, the text is an accurate reflection of this Europe of ours, which progresses by means of compromises between diverse concepts, diverse nations, diverse traditions, and here I think Galileo’s expression might be used, “
” (and still it moves).
Finally, the Charter adopts the founding principles of the European Union, highlighting the fundamental freedoms of the Community whilst emphasising the value of European citizenship. Here too, in specifying a right to good administration, the Charter means to be ambitious.
In the course of this debate, I have heard a number of telling phrases: the Charter has been described as a bone thrown to keep the dog that is the European Parliament quiet, or indeed as a flimsy attempt to conceal the fights relinquished by a French Presidency that is on its last legs, seen especially in of the way in which it conducted the IGC. I shall not take the trouble to answer these harsh assessments, which I do not necessarily share and which, indeed, I hope to see proved wrong when we adopt the Nice Treaty.
The point I wanted to make in mentioning all this is that Nice is a vital stage. In particular I think we need to tie in Article 6, and also Article 7, and I am hopeful that we shall arrive at reforms on both these points. Nice is a vital stage, but it is not a finish line. It is, instead, a phase in the construction of Europe, and I believe that the Charter will be one of the major components of this phase, and I am delighted to see Parliament’s options on this score taking shape.
I shall refer only to some of the salient points of this debate. Firstly, Mr Dupuis, quite frankly I do not believe that this is an empty text. I believe, on the contrary, as Mr Vitorino has said, that it reflects a shared vision of our European Union, giving it, as Mr Barón Crespo said, fundamental legitimacy and, personally, I am convinced that it is a major contribution towards meeting the expectations of our fellow citizens. They need meaning, they need values, and they need recognition of their rights. With all its imperfections and limitations, this text meets these needs. This is also true of the candidate countries, whose citizens are also hungry for rights and values. The Charter therefore, I am convinced, properly belongs to the political
.
You naturally raised the subject of the legal status of the Charter in the course of the debate. Let me assure you, as President-in-Office of the Council, that I have clearly receive your message, especially the message expressed very forcefully by Mr Barón Crespo. Let me repeat, however, that if we had from the outset insisted that the Charter must be binding, then the text would have been disappointing. It was a clear-cut choice between either a substantial text which was liable not to be binding in the short term or a text which perhaps had some chance of being binding in the short term but which would have lost any content. I further note that there appears to be no clear majority within the European Council in favour of granting it a binding status.
We are building a major political edifice, and every brick in the wall counts. I therefore believe that a reasonable approach would be to consolidate the foundation we have in this Charter and then to make ready for the next level. I have no doubt that it will come about in due course.
The Commissioner has just mentioned the spirit in which the Charter was drawn up, with a view to its being made, one day, a binding text. Just like him, I am convinced, firstly, that it will have singular effects in the immediate short term and, secondly, that it will shortly become binding.
As to the method adopted, my feeling is that compromise has not served to lessen the power of the text and that it has, on the contrary, made it possible to bring out a certain unity and even unanimity regarding the values and rights we share.
I think the criticism that the citizens of Europe were not sufficiently involved in the process to be unfair in part. Never in the history of European construction has the principle of transparency been applied with such determination and with such success. Let me remind you that ETUC, for example, representing 60 million employees in Europe, was consulted, that several hundred NGOs were consulted, that citizens had the opportunity to simply submit their contributions and that some of their proposals were adopted by the Convention.
In conclusion I turn to the main aspect, the content of the Charter, in order to say that, in my view, the Charter’s content is truly significant – i.e. meaningful for the citizens – and ambitious. The Convention chose to include fundamental rights inspired by various texts of the Council of Europe, the Treaties and Member State constitutions. The human rights included in the Charter are powerful ones. I am thinking, for example, of the inviolability of human dignity, the right to life with the prohibition of the death penalty. These are modern propositions. The ethical issues and freedom-related issues connected to the new technologies and science are dealt with. I am thinking, for example, of the right to the integrity of the person, the protection of personal data, and, as Mrs Berès pointed out, it is my conviction that social rights must not be denigrated.
The Charter affirms the social values of European construction. It guarantees that the European Union respects and shall respect the implementation of these values within States. That will help to increase citizens’ confidence in the European Union. The Charter, furthermore, pays special attention to some of the more vulnerable categories of the population, such as the disabled, children or the aged. It also most forcefully affirms the equality of men and women in all areas, as well as the principle of non-discrimination. These rights are, I feel, expressed with unusual strength, and this is something on which the European Union can pride itself."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples